+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wrena View Post
    Wow that "Watts Up With That" site is something else! Love the graph showing all these developed nations with their negative carbon emissions. You couldn't make this sh#t up....Oh that's right, that's exactly what they do. Off to find a graph which proves unequivocally that the earth is flat. I'm sure I can find one on the internet. Wouldn't want all that peer reviewed science giving us the wrong idea
    You might want to see have a look at where this graph came from then.
    As I said - from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

    The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Thomas A. Boden, Director), which includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, has served as the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 1982.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

    So I guess your beef is with the US Government.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wrena View Post
    Wouldn't want all that peer reviewed science giving us the wrong idea
    I guess you missed the Climategate emails that shows how corrupt the peer-review process has now become. The bits where 'they' try to get editors sacked and PhDs removed if someone says a scientific bad word against their "theory".

  3. #23
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    It's not negative carbon emissions. it is merely a change to the level of emissions for that year. No country has negative emissions.

    China and India are in an upward cycle and are going through a period of intense industrialisation, so their levels look more like the levels produced by Western countries when they went through the same thing. And China is massive.

    Indonesia is in the top three who have increased their levels as they are chopping down all their rain forests and burning the left overs to make way for palm oil plantations.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/pe...estimates.html

    Much of the 5.9% global increase from 2009 to 2010 is due to increased emissions from the world's largest fossil-fuel emitter, the People's Republic of China, where emissions rose 10% to 2.247 Tg-C.
    10% increase in 1 year!

    Again. From the US Department of Energy. And no, they are not funded by 'big oil'.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    663
    Thanks
    797
    Thanked
    339
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I don't think that anyone is questioning that China is a major and ever growing source of carbon pollution. My concern is how it can be morally justifiable to ignore per capita emissions and say that others should accept a lower standard of living because as a nation they are the highest emitters while justifying our own lack of action because we have a small population despite being one of the worst polluters on a per person basis. I meant a shown decrease in overall emissions shown for developed nations in the graph (not negative emissions). My understanding is that for Australia and the States CO2 emissions are increasing every year, hence my incredulity with the graph. I'll have to chase up the source you listed, Father, before I'll believe what it has to say. After looking into the misrepresentations "Lord" Monckton has made of the research, I view all climate "skeptic" data with some mistrust. Many of my friends work in frontline climate research and I can assure you that they are not being hushed up or told to deny the "truth"

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to wrena For This Useful Post:

    kw123  (08-12-2011)

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wrena View Post
    After looking into the misrepresentations "Lord" Monckton has made of the research, I view all climate "skeptic" data with some mistrust. Many of my friends work in frontline climate research and I can assure you that they are not being hushed up or told to deny the "truth"
    That is quite a call. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions. Can you also then provide these 'misrepresentations' from Lord Monckton? I would like to see what information of his you think he is misrepresenting. I'm sure your many friends from the frontline can help you out with providing this information for me.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    663
    Thanks
    797
    Thanked
    339
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Hi Father, great that you have an open mind. I don't have time to track down all the journal articles he misrepresents to but this ABC Background Briefing gives a good overview. Hope that helps. This is an issue close to my heart and one that deeply concerns me. I can understand that as a skeptic it must be very frustrating seeing public policy treating it as a serious issue. There is so much misinformation and conspiracy theory on the internet and it's crucial to go back to the actual research to get credible information. Google scholar is a great way to get access to scholarly article abstracts and in some cases they have full text available without a subscription

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wrena View Post
    Hi Father, great that you have an open mind. I don't have time to track down all the journal articles he misrepresents to but this ABC Background Briefing gives a good overview. Hope that helps. This is an issue close to my heart and one that deeply concerns me. I can understand that as a skeptic it must be very frustrating seeing public policy treating it as a serious issue. There is so much misinformation and conspiracy theory on the internet and it's crucial to go back to the actual research to get credible information. Google scholar is a great way to get access to scholarly article abstracts and in some cases they have full text available without a subscription
    Well. That was frustrating. I just did a very big reply, but when I clicked submit, it didn't go through. Aaaahg.

    I'll do my best to re-create what I just wrote.

    Yes, I do have an open mind wrena. I understand that it does take a great deal of time to properly study climate science. I have spent a great deal of my personal time over the last 12 months researching the 'science' behind climate change.
    It is definately a good subject to go into with an open mind. Unfortunately, it seems that the media, especically the ABC, haven't quite got the same open mind in this field. And the article that you linked to is a good example of that.
    You are correct in me finding it frustrating that the government (and the coalition for that fact) are treating this as a serious issue. The science, as it stands, does not support this position. I will happily talk about the science if you would like to do so. In the meantime, I will address your accusation of Lord Monckton 'misrepresenting'.

    Onto your link.

    Wendy Carlise's "Background Briefing" in my opinion is not the best source of evidence if you are trying to prove that Lord Monkton 'misrepresents'.

    I'll go through the article in chronological order.

    She starts with the best defense that those without an argument will start with. Straight into the ad hominem attacks.

    Questioning Lord Monckon's peerage is not in any way relevant to the science behind climate change. It just so happens, that recently Hugh O'Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer, answered the question of whether or not he is in fact a "Lord". The response:
    Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”
    I can provide you will an 11 page document with O'Donoghue's full response if you feel that this is an important point that you would like to pursue.

    Let's move onto some science shall we.

    Al Gore's famous Polar bear deaths. Monckton was referring to the Monnett and Gleason paper, 2006. The relevant quote from that paper: “Our observation suggest that polar bears swimming in open waters near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions… No other deleterious environmental conditions were present…” The Justice of the UK High Court has also backed up Monckton on this too. So who is misrepresenting who here? Monckton's comments were factually accurate.

    In regard to polar bear population increasing with an increase in temperature. He is again correct. Just as Greenpeace said. Wendy is talking about loss of sea ice whilst he is talking about temperature. SHE is the one misrepresenting what HE said.

    The Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets - Wendy Carlise has not listened to what he said. He specifically named the 2 x ice sheets (the same ones Al Gore used). She is now talking about the IPCCs predicted sea level rises from ALL CAUSES. They are two completely different things. Again, SHE is misrepresenting.

    Not sure why she is so critical of the 'mysterious' Galileo Movement. I don't see why they are mysterious. All the info about them is on the website. I can understand them not wanting to provide details of their donors. They are volunteers, doing this in their own time. They are not after money for themselves - they just want to raise awareness about a poor scientific method that the media refuse to report on. Would you expect Getup to provide all the details of their donors for all to see?

    Ha. The old funded by 'big oil' scam. 'Big oil' has also given funding to the climate change religion. What does this mean? There is substantially more funding given to scientists and organisations who 'sell' the governments' and the IPCCs story. Money does not change the science or the facts - despite the IPCCs best attempts.

    It's funny that you mention conspiracy theories, but then provide the link that you did, where Wendy Carlise's main focus is on the motive behind these individuals opinion of the science. She is so focussed on this 'conspiracy', that she herself ignores some vital points. Her quote: "Professor Timothy Ball has never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal on the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming" is very misleading. He has published 22 peer reviewed papers on climate science! What was she getting at here? Out of interest. How many peer reviewed papers has Ross Garnaut written?... = 0. But you would not doubt a word from his mouth I'm sure.

    Still Professor Ball. Her ad hominem attack about whether or not he was a professor in the department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. What was this about? He is an archived link of that university that clearly shows that there was a department climatology. The department no longer exists though. http://web.archive.org/web/19990209145331/http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~geograph/Courses/geog2.htm

    Another notch on Wendy Carlise's 'misrepresenation belt'.

    Now onto the ad hominem attack on Fred Singer. She states: "he was one of those scientists to basically cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer?" His research was regarding passive smoking. There is a big difference - of which I would not be surprised if you were unaware. Fred Singer's research was scientifically correct. Put another notch on her belt.

    Time to talk about some climate science yet????

    I guess not. This was all the Wendy Carlise felt was relevant. Is he a Lord? Did he work in that department? Does he like smoking? Who paid him? They are 'mysterious'. Nothing about science with the exception of the polar bears and ice sheets. Why would she steer so far from the science? Do you think that if the science was so clear and 'settled', and that they are crazy skeptics putting out falsehoods because they were paid by an oil company that she could have attacked them for their poor science? Not once did she do this. That to me says alot. Do you agree?

    I would hope after reading this that you would concede that Lord Monckton has not misrepresented anything. If you still think this is the case, I would like to see some evidence of this.

    On the other hand, I will happily, and without hesitation, say the Tim Flannery (the Climate Commisioner) has indeed misrepresented. Not only that, but he has been sprouting some very extreme and over the top predictions. Most of which have already passed and been shown to be wrong! But despite this, the government are paying him $180,000 a year to work 3 days a week to continue his campaign of fear.

    I can provide some details of this for you to attempt to refute if you would like.

    All the best. Please let me know if you would like to talk about the science.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kw123 View Post
    Actually my DH works in the "green" industry and assures me that China is doing a lot more than other places.
    They are definately doing some good stuff with the science.

    Below is a link to the Chinese Science Bulletin. Article 2986 "Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau" is quite interesting. If you can't be bothered reading it, it at least has some great graphs. A picture says a thousand words. Figure 5 is particularly interesting.
    http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/E...mn_6268.shtml#

  11. #30
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Well, I'm done. I think the science is sound, the peer review process is sound and generally everyday people seem to have zero understanding of how it all works and the anti-science brigade has done an excellent job in making that happen.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ana Gram For This Useful Post:

    wrena  (09-12-2011)


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Pyjamas.com.au
With so many gorgeous brands and styles for every season, our pyjamas, nighties, robes, sleepsuits and sleeping bags are lovely for lights out and perfect for lazy days. Get 10% off first order using code bubhub. Be quick offer ends 31/12/16.
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
Softmats
Softmats specialises in safe, non-toxic, and durable play mats. The international Premium Dwinguler™ Play Mats and Premium Bubba Mat™ range of floor spaces are the best quality in the world.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!