Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 143941	2017-05-19 05:02:00	An Aussie Tells it....	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1435513	2017-05-22 22:06:00	xkcd.com There is a great reply on reddit to this video: This is a very old video so here's my very old response. Malcolm Roberts FAICD, ASQ(USA), MAusIMM, MAIM, SME(USA), MIMM(UK), AME(USA). Note that he is now a (much maligned) Senator under a hard right wing party. Roberts: "makes you think we may be being misled" Certainly it appears that Roberts (the narrator) is attempting to mislead you. Unfortunately, most of the dross that he is spouting isn't even supported by the more respected of the AGW deniers. Note that Roberts does not cite science. At one point his sole argument is "No it's not". A statement of negation without any evidence, no matter how emphatically the presenter spoke it, is not science, is not a basis for valid opinion. What Roberts is attempting is a specious argument based on out of context factoids, purposely stripped of relevant and critical meaning to present an idea that he hopes you will take on faith. Which fits with the ironically named "Galileo movement", where Galileo had science and was up against people who were faith based and refused to accept the science. Much like AGW deniers. "CO2, 0.04% of atmosphere, 3% of CO2 caused by humans. 85800 : 32 : 1 = Atmosphere : natural CO2 : human caused CO2. One grain of CO2 causing catastrophic global warming. No it's not." Stating ratios is pointless. We are after the effect. Just because Roberts can't imagine a small increase having a large effect on climate does not mean that it does not happen. In fact the evidence shows Roberts wrong, which is why he doesn't state anything but the premise. Additionally he includes "catastrophic" which is known as the straw man logical fallacy, although the IPCC AR4 WG2 chapter 1 "Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems" does use the word "catastrophic" as a measure of magnitude on observed weather events. How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? www.skepticalscience.com Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. www.skepticalscience.com "Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth. Crops, forest, food, humans, animals." Somewhat. Humans and animals do not require CO2, other than that error, this is a misdirection, which is what propaganda pieces usually incorporate, and an implied straw man logical fallacy: CO2 reduction is not removal. "4 or 5 years before being recycled" Roberts is being purposely deceptive there, giving you only a half truth. Items like this should be a warning flag. Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries. www.skepticalscience.com Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 show an increase, in line with estimates of human activity. www.esrl.noaa.gov "CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates among the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on timescales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere" Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide. 2009. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 37 pp117-134. CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns. www.skepticalscience.com "1.5% made by Australians 1:5,700,000" While it's true that any single country's CO2 emissions reductions will make little difference, only if every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions can we achieve significant cuts on a global scale. www.skepticalscience.com Or to put it more bluntly, let's all jump off that bridge because everyone else is // let's not do the right thing because nobody else will. If you understand what the "right thing" to do is, then Roberts argument fails from the get go, the premise is that the right thing to do is to reduce CO2. "Carbon dioxide tax to cost $72billion" You might want to understand it better www.carbontax.net.au/ http: Roberts is purposely misunderstanding of revenue neutral. This is also a tactic commonly used to sway conservative minds, who detest taxes / don't trust the government. The economic impacts of carbon pricing www.skepticalscience.com Nearly all economists back the carbon tax. www.carbontax.org Carbon tax the way forward: economists www.smh.com.au Further reading scholar.google.com.au "Temperature changes precede CO2 levels. Temperature determines CO2 levels, CO2 does not determine temperature." The first sentence may be correct but not for the right reasons and not always. Even if correct, this does not mean that CO2 does not cause heating. Second sentence is complete nonsense and is the spouting of an illogical mind. Additionally the latest research says at least on some occasions, and possibly on many, the CO2 preceded the temperature increases. "The team found that CO2 levels were more important than any of these factors in driving warming." How carbon dioxide melted the world www.nature.com Full article (you might need Nature subscription, if you want the full paper then let me know). www.nature.com "Variation alone in CO2 is estimated at 4 times the total of human production. Nature alone determines CO2 levels, not humans" Both statements completely false. I again refer you to actual measurements. www.esrl.noaa.gov Notice the variation, notice the trend. Roberts contradicts his first set of statements 32:1 with his second sentence - false by evidence, false by his own statements. How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? www.skepticalscience.com "The sole expert advisor on climate science to Will Steffen" Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University, member of the Australian Climate Commission, executive director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. PhD in 1975 with research interests on climate change and Earth system science issues, with a focus on sustainability and widely published in climate science. The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responses. climatecommission.gov.au "He's paid by the department of climate change" Appeal to paranoia along the lines of "The gub'mint gonna take ma land!" which is of the type that is most effective in propaganda used on conservative minds. "Misled the govt green committee" The source are contrivances from Alan Jones (convicted liar, cash for comments, right wing propaganda mouthpiece). The link below is to the interview where Alan distorts facts, purposely misunderstands the scientific process and writes in his own conclusions without logical basis. You are going to have to read this with the understanding that the document is NOT scientific and not logically sound, please use critical thinking and avoid confirmation bias. www.galileomovement.com.au ''Much of my stuff is opinion. I am a broadcaster, I don't pretend to be a journalist, I don't know what that means anyway - they've got a certificate or something.'' Alan Jones. Not a valid source of opinion. "The CO2 tax contradicts Science and Nature" Economics vs science + nature is a false equivalence, and makes no sense. I assume that Roberts is alleging his premise of no AGW as valid. Which has no basis in fact or science. "Based on misrepresentations, corruption, fraud, and lies" I suggest that Roberts is talking about his own video more than anything that Stephens has done. "The CO2 tax ignores the wishes of the people" Support for the Carbon tax is mixed. At its lowest it has been ~36% and highest ~70%. Polls are polls with their various measures of bias. The question could be asked "Do you want to live in a world with a more stable climate, economies, and less war?" Which are all validly attributable to the coming issues with climate change. And so who is Malcolm Roberts? He was a coal miner, manager, an energy and mining company director and lobbyist, but managed to worm his way onto a hard right wing party ticket for a half term in the Australian Senate. THIS is the person who you take a completely unsupported opinion from? REALLY?! No publications, no PhD, no research into climate science? Just check out what the letters after his name mean: Malcolm Roberts, Engineer (University of Queensland Australia), MBA (University of Chicago) $627/yr, Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors $138/yr, ASQ (USA) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR QUALITY: Must qualify (degree/experience): Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy $369/yr, Member of the Australian Institute of Management $142/yr, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration: Must qualify (degree/experience): Member of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (UK) Australian Mining & Energy: Marketing and lobbying firm for mining and energy industry Go to the science, not the clowns who claim science but don't actually do it.	Alex B (15479)
1435514	2017-05-23 00:33:00	Yep, we can pollute as much as we want, grow our population forever, use every square inch of the earths surface for human benefit, cause mass extinctions of other animals. None of it is important or could possible effect our children's futures. Carry on, those people trying to stop these things are just alarmists out for profit trying to stop you enjoying yourself.	dugimodo (138)
1435515	2017-05-23 09:30:00	It is quite possible to be in total agreement with the general principals of conservation and not poluting the environment without subscribing to the chicken little belief that the world is about to turn into a dessert. I don't know if the warmists or the skeptics are right or wrong but I am quite convinced that nobody else does either.	CliveM (6007)
1435516	2017-05-23 11:15:00	It is quite possible to be in total agreement with the general principals of conservation and not poluting the environment without subscribing to the chicken little belief that the world is about to turn into a dessert. I don't know if the warmists or the skeptics are right or wrong but I am quite convinced that nobody else does either. Well, to know that you don't know is perfectly OK and a good place to start. But why do you then conclude that nobody else knows, either? If the proposition that the world is turning to a dessert bothers you, would find it easier to accept that it's turning to custard?	Jayess64 (8703)
1435517	2017-05-23 21:20:00	His conclusion that no one else knows, stems from arrogance, unfortunately.	KarameaDave (15222)
1435518	2017-05-24 00:21:00	Be nice Dave :)	CliveM (6007)
1435519	2017-05-24 00:41:00	It is quite possible to be in total agreement with the general principals of conservation and not poluting the environment without subscribing to the chicken little belief that the world is about to turn into a dessert. I don't know if the warmists or the skeptics are right or wrong but I am quite convinced that nobody else does either. I guess the thing is, if chicken little had proven to be right it would have been a catastrophe. Same here, if the climate is fine no big deal and a few red faces. If disaster happens and we did nothing to try and prevent it despite many warnings that's worse than the alternative. When you are talking about the potential for global disaster it's worth erring on the side of caution, whatever damage that might do to the economy is really insignificant in comparison. My thought is that it's not so important who's right, the goal to reduce emissions and clean up our environmental impact is a worthy one regardless. Poorly implemented by politicians undoubtedly.	dugimodo (138)
1435520	2017-05-24 02:59:00	My thought is that it's not so important who's right, the goal to reduce emissions and clean up our environmental impact is a worthy one regardless. Poorly implemented by politicians undoubtedly. I'm in complete agreement with you on that Dugi	CliveM (6007)
1435521	2017-05-24 03:08:00	There is a great reply on reddit to this video: This is a very old video so here's my very old response . Well Alex you may see it as a great reply, but others will see it as simply another attack on the messenger . I note you also try to discredit the video by saying it is old . Well a lot of the Laws of Science are old, some very old . ;) The Greenies really must up their game if they expect to have any credibility . Let’s face it, take Climategate, the protagonists wouldn’t release their findings for peer review, fudged the figures when the computer proved them wrong, and changed the Dogs name from Global Warming to Climate Change thinking that would fix the problem . And could you Greenies please stop showing those photos of Coal Powered Power Stations belching water vapour from the cooling towers in the hope that people will think it’s smoke from chimneys? 8069 Oh, and the Polar Bear, oh dear, moving right along . 8070 Back to topic in hand . The writer of the article made an issue claiming “Humans and animals do not require CO2”! Really, good read HERE ( . advancedbuteyko . com/about-good-breathing-10-reasons-why-we-need-co2 . php" target="_blank">www . advancedbuteyko . com) and apart from that, if you kill the Vegetation, then Animals & Humans can’t survive now can they . Which leads us to the proposition that on one hand the Green Brigade are appalled at the felling of forests and on the other hand want to starve or suffocate them instead . THESE ( . omafra . gov . on . ca/english/crops/facts/00-077 . htm" target="_blank">www . omafra . gov . on . ca) people realise the importance of CO2 to plant life and some would argue they’re exploiting it . :) To summarise I have looked at the evidence without considering the politics of the author or whether the mailman is a "Raging Right Wing Recidivist" or a "Loony Left-Wing Looser" . So what have I concluded? 1: This saga has been going on for over 20 years and nothing has happened of any consequence . 2: Climategate and the revelation of the fudged calculations used to make a case, when the evidence proved otherwise, completely compromised the integrity of those involved . 3: The refusal to provide evidence calculations used to make the conclusion they arrived at for scrutiny by other Scientists is deplorable arrogance . 4: Changing the Dogs name from Global Warming to Climate Change was just an admission that the Global Warming argument wasn’t going to be sustainable . 5: Coming up with “The Pause” as an excuse as to why nothing was happening was pathetic . 6: Claiming “Taxes” would fix a non-existent problem was the last straw . Now where’s my flame-proof clothing . :D	B.M. (505)
1435522	2017-05-24 03:38:00	I guess the thing is, if chicken little had proven to be right it would have been a catastrophe. Same here, if the climate is fine no big deal and a few red faces. If disaster happens and we did nothing to try and prevent it despite many warnings that's worse than the alternative. When you are talking about the potential for global disaster it's worth erring on the side of caution, whatever damage that might do to the economy is really insignificant in comparison. My thought is that it's not so important who's right, the goal to reduce emissions and clean up our environmental impact is a worthy one regardless. Poorly implemented by politicians undoubtedly. And what happens when you try and fix something that isn't broken? Disaster, almost invariably. Co2 alone is the issue here. You will find most of those that disbelieve there is a Co2 issue are actually environmentalists in other ways. I know I have long argued that Councils should pay you to take rubbish to the dump or Transfer Station not use these facilities as a money grab. Last time I checked our council charges $15 for a small trailer when they should be encouraging the people to bring their rubbish to where it can be dealt with professionally.	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4