Australian Politics Forum - Jones lies about climate

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Jones lies about climate
Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:27am

Quote:

As the media watchdog prepares to investigate talkback host Alan Jones over his climate change coverage, Bob Beale says Jones's numbers just don't add up.
We knew Sydney radio host Alan Jones was influential, but who would have guessed he could pull off a miracle?

Not by turning water into wine, but he has managed to transform something into nothing. That something is carbon dioxide. You know? It's the gas in the bubbles in your beer.

Jones wants us to believe that what is true for a glass of grog applies equally to our entire planet - carbon dioxide is just a harmless bit of fizz that enlivens the brew then, poof! It's gone and of no further consequence.

No wonder he has agreed to be the founding patron of Australia's newest and arguably most extreme climate-science denier organisation - the paradoxically titled Galileo Movement.

This group's leaders aren't merely sceptical about mainstream climate science - they outright deny that the world is warming (the thermometers are in the wrong place). They scoff at the idea that human activity can cause warming (carbon dioxide is just plant food); and they even reject that global warming could be harmful (relax, do nothing - it's natural).

Instead, they fervently believe that it's all part of a secret ideological conspiracy by corrupt scientists using fake data to collude with greenies, socialists, libertarians and the United Nations to falsely alarm the gullible and enrich themselves by stealing our money and sovereignty. Fair dinkum.

As for carbon trading, well, if you can't credit the idea that a teensy-weensy bit of carbon dioxide can have a really, really big impact on climate, it seems preposterous to spend good money on cutting that small amount of human emissions.

They're entitled to their opinions but it's disappointing that Jones is using his position to bamboozle his listeners and bash science. He's adopted his denier group's arcane arithmetic and is frothing with zeros to hammer home his point.
Here's how he belittles the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that humans pumped into the air last century and the extra 30 billion tonnes we're all now adding each year.

First, he rightly notes that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is roughly 0.04 per cent.

Next, he claims that out of all the carbon dioxide emitted annually into the air, 97 per cent comes from natural sources. Therefore that leaves humans responsible for only 3 per cent, and Australians for a mere 1.5 per cent of that.

So, let's see: that's 1.5 per cent times 3 per cent times 0.04 per cent - voila!

Australians are responsible for an incredibly tiny 0.000018 per cent of global carbon dioxide. And if we cut our own emissions by 5 per cent, as Canberra has pledged, that's a reduction of 0.0000009 per cent.

"I mean, what are we talking about?" a belligerent Jones demanded to know from a bemused climate scientist on his program the other day. "These are zero amounts. Can you explain to our listeners how cutting our output by 5 per cent of 1.5 per cent of 3 per cent of 0.04 per cent will affect climate? Zero point zero zero zero zero one eight per cent.

"No one out there could seriously say that you could get closer to zero contribution than that?"

And that's the miracle right there. Australia's role in global warming is suddenly rendered so infinitesimally small as to be zero, zip, nothing. It's pitiful! Why bother? Case closed. Thanks Alan.

The real pity is not just that his much-ado-about-nothing arithmetic is wrong, that his logic is phoney or that he apparently thinks our carbon emissions carry little Aussie flags to distinguish them from all the others.

No, the whole premise of his argument is a crock.

Admittedly, his reasoning would let us conveniently shrug off doing anything about many other vexatious global problems - and there's a long list.

After all, we could argue that we only produce 0.000018 per cent of the world's terrorists, of hungry and poor people, of malaria and cholera cases, and so on. Hey, and why tax Australians to help foreigners combat such distant scourges?

But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter.

Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent.

Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide.

For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-ab...

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #1 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:28am

Quote:

But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter.
Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent.
Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide.
For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous.
Roughly 99 per cent of the atmosphere is not greenhouse gas - the piddling little 1 per cent somehow traps enough heat to make the surface of earth more than 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.
The silly sums are time-wasting distractions that hinder debate on a complex issue. The real concern about carbon dioxide is not of quantity but quality: its potent heat-absorbing capacity is what counts. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not about trying to cool the planet a tiny bit, it's about trying to stop it getting a whole lot warmer and more unstable.
Another problem with Jones's arithmetical spin is that it grossly distorts reality. The alleged 97 per cent of carbon dioxide emitted each year from natural sources is recycled by plants and absorbed by the ocean. There's an equilibrium that makes the net effect on atmospheric concentrations effectively - you guessed it - zero. In fact, it's presently less than zero because the biosphere and oceans are soaking up about half of human emissions.
Think of it like a bathtub with a dripping tap and a leaky plug: if the same amount leaks out as drips in, the water level in the bath stays the same.
That's why for the past 6000 years the global carbon dioxide level was essentially constant at about 280 parts per million.
But this recycling system hasn't been able to respond fast enough to deal with all the extra carbon we've been suddenly adding to the air. What we've done is crank up the drip rate and the bath is filling: that is, carbon dioxide is steadily building up in the atmosphere.
Since the start of the industrial revolution the level has risen sharply from 280 parts per million to 390ppm - the highest it has been for a million years. That's not surprising when you consider that last century alone, fossil fuel burning and cement production emitted more than 1.1 trillion tonnes (that's a one followed by 12 zeros) of it.
Do the sums correctly and it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere and the rate of increase in its concentration is doubling about every 30 years.
Australians are directly responsible for at least 1.5 per cent of all that. Our tally is probably twice as much if we include all the coal and natural gas we sell other countries to burn. Indeed, we're punching well above our weight.
For all their droning zeros and harmless flag-waving carbon molecules, Jones and his fellow deniers are headed down the same road as the rest of us, speeding inexorably towards 500 ppm - and by then we'll all be well over the limit.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-about-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O49knhJep

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #2 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:44am

so the TAX will make a large contribution to lowering the Carbon around the world as well as lowering out footprint.

probably leaving countries Like China... being able to put off using all the coal we are selling them for a few years untill they come up with something cheaper...

hey thats great news..... we can keep on selling this carbon creating stuff. without a guilty concience...yehhhhhhhhhh

I am sure Jones has a huge influence on the public every one knows he is a scientists..lol..having long come to the conclusion common sense has nothing to do with science.

but jokes aside.. I am sure gillard reads the age.. so she will be very happy with this news..keep on selling Juliar...just keep on selling.

our bit of fizz is still making a big difference and thats all that matters.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #3 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:48am I dont see where he is wrong.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dsmithy70 Gold Member Offline ire futuis vobismetipsis Posts: 13147 Newy Gender:	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #4 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:51am progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:48am: I dont see where he is wrong. Totally agree Bob's shot the old queen's fantasy right in the arse.
Back to top	REBELLION is not what most people think it is. REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself. Gavin Nascimento IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #5 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:54am I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong.
Back to top	IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #6 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:17am progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:54am: I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong. Of course you don't, you would need a functioning brain for that to occur.
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #7 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:21am

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:54am:

I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong.

Of course you don't, you would need a functioning brain for that to occur.

I would have to be a functional sheep a mushroom perhaps. The dynamic 97% is the factor, not the statistical insignificant 3%, let alone the even more insignificant cuts that the extreme environmentalists have got you mushrooming about.

Back to top

IP Logged

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14213
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #8 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:27am

Quote:

The Galileo Movement is the initiative of two retirees - Case Smit and John Smeed - strongly supported by their wives Corrie and Suzanne.

Case Smit:
Case was founder and owner of Environmental Health Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, an organisation that monitored and advised on the effects of their environment on people's health. Science degree, BSc (chemistry & metallurgy), Certified Industrial Hygienist, Chartered (Environmental) Professional; He's a grandad.

John Smeed:
John is a retired, national engineering excellence award winning professional engineer - www.johnsmeed.com.au. He founded and built a successful Sydney based Australia-wide operational, design-construct air conditioning company with 140 staff including 14 professional engineers. He maintains control of an environmentally excellent Australian combustion technology company and still undertakes occasional international engineering consulting briefs for unusually challenging air-conditioning projects

http://www.galileomovement.com.au

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #9 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:16am

At a superficial level, the small percentage argument being put forward by the Galileo Movement, and being promoted and spread by Alan Jones, will impress those who already wish to deny the validity of the scientific community's agreed opinion that CO2 emissions are creating a dangerous shift in our Global Climate.

The mixing of motives, and outcomes, relating the statistical importance of Australia's contribution to the growing CO2 emissions Globally, can be discounted as negligible, if looked at in isolation, and not considered as being of importance outside of it's political, and ethical image, to other nations.

The main reason for Australia to be seen to be acting responsibly in transitioning to a low Carbon Economy, is not only because it is the correct, and responsible course to take, it is critical in not providing an excuse for other Nations to excuse themselves from taking action.

As the highest per capita Carbon emitting country on Earth, and also a relatively wealthy, and developed economy, to have Australia abrogate it's responsibility to reduce it's share of Carbon Emissions would provide just excuses from other Nations to follow suit, and refuse to accept responsibility for their share of Carbon emissions too.

Even though we are 18th on the list of Carbon polluting Nations on the planet, the fact that we are number one, on the per capita emissions list, leaves us open to fair criticism, if we fail to address that shameful statistic, by claiming that we are statistically negligible.
If we take that road, then what we are really showing the world is that we are unwilling to act as part of the Global Community, and the real negligence is failing to accept that fact.

Global Warming is an issue that requires we do not hide behind selfish national interests, and that we do engage with other nations, and that means we must take responsibility for our own emissions, and not hide behind statistical chicanery, but be willing to take that responsibility, and turn it into the sort of action which shows the world that we are willing and able, to do the right thing.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:43am by mozzaok »

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #10 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:37am

astro_surf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:28am:

Quote:

But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter.
Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent.
Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide.
For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous.
Roughly 99 per cent of the atmosphere is not greenhouse gas - the piddling little 1 per cent somehow traps enough heat to make the surface of earth more than 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.
The silly sums are time-wasting distractions that hinder debate on a complex issue. The real concern about carbon dioxide is not of quantity but quality: its potent heat-absorbing capacity is what counts. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not about trying to cool the planet a tiny bit, it's about trying to stop it getting a whole lot warmer and more unstable.
Another problem with Jones's arithmetical spin is that it grossly distorts reality. The alleged 97 per cent of carbon dioxide emitted each year from natural sources is recycled by plants and absorbed by the ocean. There's an equilibrium that makes the net effect on atmospheric concentrations effectively - you guessed it - zero. In fact, it's presently less than zero because the biosphere and oceans are soaking up about half of human emissions.
Think of it like a bathtub with a dripping tap and a leaky plug: if the same amount leaks out as drips in, the water level in the bath stays the same.
That's why for the past 6000 years the global carbon dioxide level was essentially constant at about 280 parts per million.
But this recycling system hasn't been able to respond fast enough to deal with all the extra carbon we've been suddenly adding to the air. What we've done is crank up the drip rate and the bath is filling: that is, carbon dioxide is steadily building up in the atmosphere.
Since the start of the industrial revolution the level has risen sharply from 280 parts per million to 390ppm - the highest it has been for a million years. That's not surprising when you consider that last century alone, fossil fuel burning and cement production emitted more than 1.1 trillion tonnes (that's a one followed by 12 zeros) of it.
Do the sums correctly and it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere and the rate of increase in its concentration is doubling about every 30 years.
Australians are directly responsible for at least 1.5 per cent of all that. Our tally is probably twice as much if we include all the coal and natural gas we sell other countries to burn. Indeed, we're punching well above our weight.
For all their droning zeros and harmless flag-waving carbon molecules, Jones and his fellow deniers are headed down the same road as the rest of us, speeding inexorably towards 500 ppm - and by then we'll all be well over the limit.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-about-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O49knhJep

I do not see where Jones's figures have been shown (as distinct to be declared) wrong. Please point it out for us

There are a load of analogies about bath tubs and beer but no maths. It is utter nonsense to say that "it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere ". This is just complete crap. ABsolutely stupid and insane.

.

Back to top

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7090 Townsville NQ Gender:	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #11 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:49am Those 'silly sums' just get in the way of a good tale don't they.
Back to top	"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government" Julia Gillard Shadow Health Minister 2003. IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #12 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:55am I vote we increase the drinking limit to 0.07. After all, what's an extra 0.02 to our blood stream? It's a statistical error.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:02pm by sir prince duke alevine » Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of. IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Jones lies about climate
Reply #13 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:58am

The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them.
The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Jones lies about climate Reply #14 - Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:38pm sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:55am: I vote we increase the drinking limit to 0.07. After all, what's an extra 0.02 to our blood stream? It's a statistical error. You come up with some pretty dumb examples. Where is the 97% of alcohol coming from if the person isnt drinking that much.
Back to top	IP Logged