the real truth is not something that diehard Liberal or Labor supporters, PR SPIN MASTERS or Politicians, have any remote interest in!  

Quote:
by Perceptions Now


Quote:
Stryders response


How does a leftie find himself or herself BELIEVEING IN ALL THAT CRAP THATS BEING SHOVED AT US IN A VERY ORWELLIAN WAY. ???

Quote:


THIS IS FUNNY, OH FORGET ABOUT WHO IS CORRECT OR NOT,

JUST BELIEVE IN MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, JUST ACCEPT WHAT BIG BROTHER SAYS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CARBON TAX JUST DONT QUESTION IT

Perceptions Now, you dont make a compelling case AT ALL,

Funny, given that your chance of winning such a major prize is so small, relative to the chance of you and your descendants experiencing the volaility and dangers of climate change...

What if what if. What are the costs to our children.

Quote:


You see the Climate Change nazis CANT WIN THE CARBON TAX DEBATE BECAUSE AFTER MONTHS OF PROPAGANDA USING DUBIOUS AND VAGUE SCIENCE, THE MAJORITY OF THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE STILL DONT WANT THE CARBON TAX

So what do they do, use the last resort and scaremonger people into submission which looks like it will never work,

THANK GOD, PEOPLE ARE MORE INTELIGIENT THAN THESE CLIMATE CHANGE NAZIS.

1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) IF
b) IF
2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) IF
b) IF

And, that invitation goes to anybody who THINKS they have an answer or two.

Too many IF's

Put simply, the crucial questions are very straight forward -
1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

a) The world would be better placed to provide sustainable energy supplies and would have moved to alternative fuels!!!

b) The world would be better placed to provide sustainable energy supplies and would have moved to alternative fuels!!!

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

a) The world would be struggling to provide sustainable energy supplies where alternative fuels would be expensive and hard to resource....Our planet would be in real trouble!!!

b) The world would be struggling to provide sustainable energy supplies where alternative fuels would be expensive and hard to resource....Our planet would be in real trouble!!!


It makes no difference weather climate change is real or not.....fossil fuels are dwindling fast.....when supply becomes even more erratic the price will sky rocket.....We cannot afford to wait and hope cheap fuel will last forever!!!

It amazes me that in Australia climate change is seen as a left vs right argument.  How did it ever get that way ?

The UK's conservative government just set very tight co2 targets.
NZ's conservative government recently introduced an ETS.
Fair few conservative governments in Europe brought in the ETS.

We had consensus with Howard, Turnbull, but Tony Abbott is just being a d1ckhead.

AGW is real and we do
something - cost is equal to the cost of what we are doing. Whether it is effective is unknown as the effects of AGW are unknown.
nothing - cost is equal to the effects of AGW (unknown).



AGW is not real and we do  
Something  - cost is equal to the cost of whatever we are doing but it is all pointless waste as far as the climate is concerned
nothing - no cost.



A sober assessment indicates that it is better to wait and see what happoens and spend the money on coping with any change that may eventuate than to start spending in advance on a change that we do not fully understand either in scope or whether it is going to happen at all.

It is certainly much more prudent to explore ways of capturing and storing CO2 than to cripple industry and global development.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:23pm:

What if humanity depended on us using all the fossil fuels to invent ways of suriving major disasters. What then.

I give you crack pot idea against your crack pot idea of AGW and having to do something.

For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-400k_yrs.gif


This is the alarming graph. Suddenly it looks as though co2 has gone off the radar.  What will hurt the ecosystem is the rate of change. No plant or animal will be able to evolve in time for the change.

Worldwide temperature data is showing a clear warming.  There is no peer researched data which is not falling into line with the global warming theory.

Skeptics seem to be focussed on fudging data to show that we can beltch out a few billion tonnes of c02 every year and it will have no effect.

Even the simpliest of minds, must wonder what is happening to that co2. Where is it going, and what is it doing.

It must be impossible to believe that we can continue to beltch out that much, exponentially increasing, ad infinitum, and not cause any changes ?

Even if you can convince yourself the world is not warming ( it is) but is the sea not getting more carbonic ?  Is sealife producing smaller shells ?, impacting the food chain. ?  Are the hundreds of other consequences not concerning you ?

Skeptics seem to be focussed on fudging data to show that we can beltch out a few billion tonnes of c02 every year and it will have no effect.

Even the simpliest of minds, must wonder what is happening to that co2. Where is it going, and what is it doing.

It must be impossible to believe that we can continue to beltch out that much, exponentially increasing, ad infinitum, and not cause any changes ?

Even if you can convince yourself the world is not warming ( it is) but is the sea not getting more carbonic ?  Is sealife producing smaller shells ?, impacting the food chain. ?  Are the hundreds of other consequences not concerning you ?

Meanwhile the gullible gerties agree with the proved fudged figures from the scaremongering global warmists.
Like the famous Hockey stick which the global warmists lied and created the data to fool the gerties.
Oh and the hockey stick was the worst that the scaremongerers could conjure up, yet it is nothing to worry about when compared to our earlier history!





You know, when you are trying to convince the world of 'something' it is not a good idea not to lie about the data like the global warmist Michael Mann did.
If you're right about something then there's no need to fudge or conjure up the data or straight out lie like Michael Mann did.
And now that Michael Mann has been exposed for lieing about scientific data then whatever credibility he once had is now all gone.

blah blah blah!


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

No comment from the Conservative "think" tankers - Maqqa, Cods, LW & associates.

I'll take that as confirmation that the Conservative/Liberal Economic managers myth, is dead & buried!!!

You will also find that the global warmists will claim that the Arctic is melting due to global warming.
What the global warmists won't tell you is that the global warmists initially claimed that the Arctic was getting bigger due to global warming. They even had a model to prove it, but then the global warmists discovered that teh ARctic was actually melting, so the global warmists changed their model and viola that now proves that global warming is causing the Arctic to melt.

So let's apply that revised global warming model to the Antartic!

Also the global warmists won't tell you that the Antartic growing. And the Antartic is 2-3 times the size of the Arctic.
So the Arctic is shrinking but the Antartic is growing - both must be due to global warming!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:47pm:


I love how proxy temperatures are fine when they think it supports their case but unreliable when it doesn't!

But, the argument is bunk anyway:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif
Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles.jpg
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

Quote:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 6:50pm:


No comment from the Conservative "think" tankers - Maqqa, Cods, LW & associates.

I'll take that as confirmation that the Conservative/Liberal Economic managers myth, is dead & buried!!!

The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.

Tells us PERCEPTIONS ARE YOU GROUNDED IN REALITY OR SCENARIOS, ??????  

That might give you an answer why nobody gives a **** to answer your IFS, IFS and MAYBES crap you keep posting..

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 9:18pm:


Still no comment from the CONservative "masters of Economics 101".

Their mythical kingdom is dead, long live the new king?

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

Just because you start the spam with "I post this here, because it is relevant!" on numerous threads doesn't make it so.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:


Why?

Because you SPAM us with this crap and when I answer it, you then move the goal posts to the government. YOU have unwittingly correlated your answer with mine. What you said is crap. How did you do it. By moving the goal posts from business (your big SPAM) to government.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:




Well it is a trolling spam bot, so what else would you expect.
No one reads the spam anyway, why would they.
It's like the spam you get in your e-mails or the junk mail in your letterbox.
It's crap.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:45am:



It's a Leninist debate, innit: the Left can talk, everybody else can STFU.

Bewdiful.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

What does Hewson want the world to reduce the man made greenhouse effect to. Can we get some numbers. While he is at it, what would he like Australias reduction to be. As manmade greenhouse effect (through CO2) is 0.117% of all greenhouse gases .What would he like to reduce that to and how much of that will Australias reduction be represented as?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:


Do not show this graph! It has the same effect on warming cultists as telling a muslim that allah doesn't exist. Expect a warming fatwah to be declared on you at any moment!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:


My position is (and thanks for asking since you are the first to post actuall yonthe topic) is that I believe humans affect climate but NOT catastrophically.
I do not beleive that we affect - or have the capacity to affect - climate in any significant manner.
the earths biosphere is a self-repairing one and one that responds well to challenges made to it.
I do not believe that we are altering climate outside its normal range.
Thais does not mean I dont think we should be cleaner and less pollutting.
but CO2 is NOT a pollutant whereas black carbon is and is 1000 times as dangerous to glaciers than CO2.