General

i just looked out the window and i am a little afraid as i think the climate just changed again....A TAX WILL STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.....

the Club of Rome were really onto it back in the 50's....love ya rockafella.....Tax us please so we can stop this horrible climate change....

its those bloody cows and humans doing the damage...

That big orange thing in the sky,forget about that,it's got nothing to do with it.....

wondering why they show the black soot coming out of the chimneys when that is no Co2,hmmm...
Polar bears dead yet?
Hmmm,i thought it was global warming....or dimming...oh no now its just climate change....

hows that ozone hole going anyway....?

Thats right friends.....Climate change is NEW....never before has it happened on the earth right,hmmm...

These mad owned scientists take models with a tiny bit of data and give us crazy projections.don't look at the BIG picture....

Its like taking a one day stock chart in minute increments and ignoring the weekly,monthly yearly pattens....

All Hail the Elites.......

An interesting thing to note is that two of the biggest pollutants created by man were invented by the same person - Thomas Midgley, jr. Chloroflourocarbons and leaded petrol were both his brainchilds.

One of his inventions eventually killed him. Not CFC's or lead, but a contraption he invented to help himself get out of bed strangled him accidentally at the age of 55.

He was a great marketer, though. Apparently he held a press conference to demonstrate the apparent safety of the lead that went into petrol. In this demonstration, he poured it over his hands, then breathed from a bottle of the chemical for sixty seconds. He then said that he could do this every day without any problems at all. He was careful later, to avoid mentioning to the press that he neede nearly a year to recover from the lead poisoning brought on by this demonstration.

Trade1,

see links...



http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-dunning-kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html

"...Unfortunately, this type of presumptive misunderstanding is seen all too often. Someone doesn't understand a certain aspect of climate science which is understandable considering the complexities of our climate. Rather than investigate further, they assume a flaw in the climate science or worse, an act of deception. This response is often more a reflection of the gap in their own understanding than any flaw in the climate science. For further demonstration, here are the two most common examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the climate debate.

The most common example is the argument, "why don't climate scientists look up and see that big, fiery ball in the sky - don't they realise the sun drives climate?" In actuality, climate scientists have noticed the big, fiery ball in the sky that provides almost all our climate's energy. Consequently, there are a multitude of peer-reviewed studies examining the sun's role in global warming. These studies have independently come to the conclusion the sun has not shown enough trend to have contributed significantly to recent global warming. More recent papers using the latest data have found the sun is actually moving in the opposite direction to climate. Eg - the sun has been cooling while the climate is warming.

The second most common example of the Dunning-Kruger effect is "don't climate scientists realise climate has changed naturally in the past?" If one peruses the peer-reviewed science, they'll find that yes, climate scientists do realise that climate has changed in the past. There is a whole field of science devoted to examining and understanding past climate change: paleoclimatology. And what scientists find in the Earth's past is that the planet is highly sensitive to changes in energy imbalance. When our climate loses or gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the temperature change. This is one (of many) lines of evidence that tell us our climate is sensitive to CO2 forcing...."



http://net.tutsplus.com/articles/do-you-suffer-from-the-dunning-kruger-effect/

yep a tax will save us.....

I fail to find anything in your post that is concrete. In fact most is grossly flawed to say the least. I have spent many years following the Global Warming & Climate Changing theories and I kept coming back to the same conclusions;

1; Planet Earth’s climate does change and in both directions. It’s not magic either.
2; All other planets with an atmosphere have changes too. So we are not alone.
3; As we, as inhabitants of this planet, continue to rip out, burn, gouge & rape the so very important rain forests and pollute our water ways of which both have and will continue to upset the balance of, all things great and small, all that we have become so use to in these modern times.
4; Air born particulate matter from emissions, fires and dust etc. rarely gets a mention. Just to add on this point I have noticed over 4 decades that when I peer out to sea towards the horizon I have definitely seen without any doubt in my mind the thin brownish line that used to hover just above the horizon change to become a much thicker black band and now I am seeing from time to time 2 bands, one above the other. Does this keep in heat or does it stop heat coming in, or vice versa?
5; Finally the big one, i.e. SOLAR FORCING & the effect(s) it has on cloud formation. Impossible to ignore if one understands how it actually works & plays a definite role in changes to climate. To mention, as you have, that the sun has been cooling while our climate is warming is laughable. Can you please supply the name of that courageous individual that flew out & into the suns interior & stuck a thermometer up its date? Fair dinkum rot!

The link I have provided is run & used by many that have an open mind and are willing to see through our political smoke screen where CO2 induced climate change is concerned.

To finish off here, have a think about these scenarios;

If the Earth was to move in towards the sun by just 20% of an average of orbit distance from the sun, would you agree it would bring about a cataclysmic climate change event. Or what if the earth was to move out from the sun by that same amount. What if the sun just disappeared altogether? Would those changes have an effect? Surely no need for me to answer. Guess what, IT IS OUR OWN SUN. Simply or not so simply all we can do is get used to it as best we can.

Trader1, you are so so right. A tax on carbon will not save us. It has been designed to create wealth for a minority (as per usual) & to lessen the wealth for the rest of us. Nothing more, nothing less.

SIXPACK,

1. I agree, yep no magic involved just physics

2. Have they? Got a link? Who was the indivdual who when out into space a stuck a thermometer up the other planets (lol jokes)
Do the other planets have humans produceing GHGs on them?

3. Too true, I would agree


4.'Rarely get a mention?' a mention where? Newspapers lol

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&gbv=2&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=15l3015l0l4452l12l8l0l0l0l0l421l1218l3-1.2l3l0&q=global%20dimming&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=is

5.
"Can you please supply the name of that courageous individual that flew out & into the suns interior & stuck a thermometer up its date? Fair dinkum rot!"

Another excellent example of the 'Dunning Kruger effect' Thanks

Solar activity
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=solar+radiation+measurement&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

So no thermometers are not used...

I also agree that a Tax will not help solve the pollution of the atmosphere problem.

"I have spent many years following the Global Warming & Climate Changing theories and I kept coming back to the same conclusions"

Dunning Kruger Effected Confermation Bias?

How do you 'follow' AGW and Climate Change science theories? Do you just read whatever fallacious crap newspapers print or what ever stupid thing that pops into shockjocks heads or do you 'follow' the peer-review literature...?

This Post has an attachment. You need to login or create an account to view post attachments.

i was very,VERY,angry then(1980-2000) but i can't believe i did all that by myself -- must have a twin somewhere !

I prefer not to follow. I prefer to at least try and decipher anything & everything possible. It can be challenging to say the least.

At the end of the day I attempt to apply good old common sense added to what I actually see happening to our global environment.

Trust me, it’s the sun that is the main culprit or dominant force. End of story.

If you have any ideas on how to best take advantage, financially, of the governments carbon tax, I’m all yours lol.

patent the idea then sell the usage rights globally you might say this silly ,but so is the tax !!

How about this;
It is often quoted, “The trend is your friend”. Well if this trend continues with another weak Solar Cycle, we are in deep doo doo on this planet, guaranteed.

Then I will have great pleasure in seeing J. Gullible and her so called experts behind the tax on carbon eat their own words. Only problem there is, a Solar Cycle takes approx. 12 years to complete. So, she will be looooong gone thank who ever. The financial loss to individuals will never be recovered. Litigation against these pelicans should be drawn up sooner than later.

since J & W are busy cutting ex-pollies pensions how about a "performance clause " for the current ones --- should we accept Visa or Master-card as well as cash ???

And this.

The trend is clear and dangerous for us all. Definitely not our friend as it sits.

The boss says I must movenmow. DOH!

Don't you just luv em.

"Trust me, it’s the sun that is the main culprit or dominant force. End of story."

Ummmm No thanks I place absolutely NO 'trust' in bare assertions. Data and reasoning please, leave requests of 'faith' to the Presuppositional mob (creationists). I prefer the data accumulated via measurements, not some random bloggers Dunning Kruger effected assertions. End of story.

I would suggest also, much like evolution you wouldn't be able to 'see' the effects of Climate Change because of the timescale involved.


On the lighter side, I came up with a funny analogy for why the proposed CO2 Tax is 'crap'.

Ok, lets say I am paid $1000 to everyday to take a **** on your bed. You don't like **** on your bed so to punish me for doing this I'm forced to pay a fine (tax) of $50 per ****.

So I will NOT stop s#!ting on your bed because I'm still getting $950 per **** and the **** is still on your bed.



AS for taking advantage of CO2 Tax. One of my main grips with this tax 'strategy' is that is offers NO incentive to reduce pollution. IMO incentives (tax cuts/breaks etc) for 'green' initiatives need to be looked into.
Humans shuffing money amounst ourselfs isn't going to stop pollution in the atmosphere.

those who spend years researching climate change and only find BS that they want to believe hardly deserve a response

but here goes



now, does global temperature REALLY follow the solar cycle???

Since the early 1990s, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

and for a slightly broader view than "the sun did it" try this from the same link i posted below



so yeh, the sun had an impact, but open both eyes noddy

maybe you should do some research into the origins of this tax.......

Club of Rome,documented......

It's a globalist scam....welcome to the 3rd world Australia....

yawn

maybe you should do a bit of reading about managing externalities in economics and finance

carbon tax, carbon price, direct action and subsidies, take your pick, you are just arguing the most efficient way to price in the major impacts on climate caused by some energy and transport technologies and hence to encourage those who don't impose those costs on society

but of course you're the sort of guy who would argue you shouldn't have to wear a seat belt and should be allowed to drive drunk if you like

conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories
yeh yeh, we all want as small a govt as possible; except the real conservatives in the US, who fund the most expensive army in the world through taxes and subsidise big oil with earmarks

mjp, Antn, no need to do me this favour but do it for yourself & any others that have questions that you need to ask. You will need to register http://www.solarham.com/ and then you may ask Dr. Isvalgarrd anything you wish. If you couldn’t be bothered with the registration simply go all the way back to the beginning of the “Solar Cycle Main Discussion” board http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1692 and I can assure you that every question you can come up with will have been asked and answered if at all possible.

Yaaaaaaaaaawn. Mowing my acre with a push mower is no life. Must get my ride-on back from the boy.Even for you mjp it is NOT that simple. That silly little graph you so kindly shared was from where, the Stanford Solar Centre, well stuff me! Brilliant! I see they have many more as well and a big fat ZERO to back them up. Here is another conjured up by the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg First observation I make here is the common denominator of, who is funding these guys, IPCC & SSC?


So much to learn I’m afraid. We know our governments are behind these findings in some way shape or form. We also know that our Governments globally are mostly full of it as they keep getting caught out with their lies & deception but yet most will follow blindly because they are in so called “CONTROL/POWER”. It’s so much more like totally out of control and we must surely know by now that is an actual fact!


We have blast furnaces here on OZ and many more globally with China still building them. 18-20 % of emissions are what? These things emit 24/7 for up to 20 years. So if it is CO2, will we see them shut down to prevent us all frying here on Earth? I doubt it. Ask Twiggy Forest or Nev Powers if that would be a good thing for their business lol.


Ostriches everywhere it seems.


Please do not discount this site, as bare assertions. Simply not the case. The guys there are very passionate with what they do and for no personal gain what so ever.

There have been times in the earths long history where Co2 levels have been higher than now who you going to blame for that huh...temperature has gone up on mars,guess thats anthropogenic also right?...there was a time when there was no oxygen on earth hmmm...yep climate change is new...yep a tax will stop it...people with a little common sence can see through this scam....so instead of crying that The sky is falling do some real research and look into who will benignity from this bs...

#benifit

Cheers SIXPAC, I'll have a look...

While I sure the Sun has it cycles etc, however when discussing AGW or Human Influenced Climate Change the sun isn't the be all and end all, as far as climate drivers. Of course the Sun is a major part of our climate, without it, well we don't exist.

However Humans ARE producing GHGs, as I'm sure you are aware GHGs allow more of the Suns energy to enter the climate cycle. So if the Sun increases it energy output (sun spots whatever) AND humans produce GHGs than this is a 'double Whammy' as far as energy in the climate cycle/s.

There are many 'groups' that have satellites measuring solar radiation, short wavelength entering (absorbed/transmitted) into atmosphere and long wavelength exiting. These measurements have prove that the Earth is increasing its energy budget, the cause GHGs.

I disagree that governments have any effect on results published in the science literature. Government IMO, like you say are after POWER/CONTROL and they are self serving. So a Government could cherry pick Climate science/s to push a certain agenda. However this doesn't make the science wrong.

My 'bare assertion' comment was specific to your assertion.

Anyway I have an interest in most things 'sciencey' so I'll have a visit of the site.

While we are talking Sun, are you going to be in FNQ in November for the Eclipse? My house in bang on the perfect position. I've got $100 on that it will be raining that day.

trade1,

Logical Fallacy after Logical Fallacy mate...
Dunning Kruger effect in full swing.
You need some 'Critical Thinking' classes me thinks...

"do some real research"

trade1, please give your definition of what 'real' research is?

Please don't tell me 'reading Andrew Bolt' is your anwser LOL

Antn, nice. Just on this comment, “So if the Sun increases it energy output (sun spots whatever)”
The suns output in either state or anything in between i.e. Solar Maximum v’s Solar Minimum is negligible. Very important to grasp this point.

Do you remember the cooling of the seventies? I do. I used to near freeze in the work shop during my apprenticeship. 44 gallon drums full of timber blazing away just to keep warm. Honestly can’t say I’ve experienced similar since.

Solar activity, sunspots, was subdued in that cycle 20. The sun fired up a little for cycles 21, 22, & 23 and by the end we start hearing talk of planet earth frying. Add lag and a picture starts to appear. First “OFFICIAL” Cycle 24 Sunspot was Jan 4 2008. Sunspot 981.

Current cycle 24 is turning out to be a bit of a fizzer & may be similar to cycle 20. I hope not but time will tell. If the next cycle, Solar Cycle 25, turns out to be a fizzer also, we will have some solid evidence to work with. Cold evidence but solid enough to have the co2 alarmists ducking for cover. If it does pan out this way the global population could be hit hard especially the northern hemisphere.

I think it was a year or two ago when some Chinese coal powered power plants couldn’t get coal delivered due to being snowed in. Many Chinese suffered. We are very vulnerable to small changes.

If a cooling is in fact on our doorstep nuclear fuel will be the hero as it can be delivered by helicopter if need be. Solar will suffer too due to increased global cloud cover and overall inclement weather conditions. Are these the “real” reasons behind the massive nuclear build in China land? Imagine if China saved its population from a cooling/freeze period & the rest of the world didn’t. Result- “PLANET CHINA”. Scary thought I know.

If there ends up being a cooling, our world governments will be asking us all to emit anything and everything possible to try and keep some heat in lol.

Please, just a quick read here. http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1106/15solar/

A quiescent (quiet) jet stream is mentioned. By all accounts this is key to said “Solar Forcing”. Try a bit of research regarding the Solar Jet Stream & cloud formation. If you manage to grasp this, you may end up messing your pants. Simple, try and imagine being out in space looking back at Earth. If the globe was covered in cloud (brought about by a quieter jet stream) it would be almost blinding to the eye i.e. reflection from the sun including heat is reflected/deflected. Not too different to those sun shades we use in our cars on the front windscreen reflecting heat & glare. Very effective if you’ve ever used one.

I have continually watched the amount of actual global cloud cover for over a decade (satellite observations) and it seems to be on the increase. From cloud we get what? Think about the amount of global precipitation & snow of late, both here and other parts of the world. (Nino & Nina, HA! ROT!) Sure we have hot periods and so we should in our summer months. That’s why we call it summer. Of course this is a very simple & basic explanation I have put forward. So much to learn.

Am I going to be in FNQ in November for the Eclipse? No. Not unless you are inviting me lol.

SIXPAC,

Have you ever heard that saying, 'the more you know the more you find out you don't know'?

After a quick par ooze of linked blog, I quickly was out of my depth. I really don't know jack about the Sun. I had to wiki about half a dozen terms and words just to get a graps of 1 post.

Very interesting much appreciated.

I still don't see anything 'debunking AGW' however it doesn't seem to be the topic. (where I was looking anyway)

Needless to say I hope our Sun stays stable. lol

“Have you ever heard that saying, 'the more you know the more you find out you don't know'?”

A dilemma of mine especially on this solar stuff too. Very very true.

“I still don't see anything 'debunking AGW' however it doesn't seem to be the topic. (where I was looking anyway)”

And you won’t in space weather section. One of their pet hates is to mix it up. Better to go to the Global Warming and Weather discussion. Try this;

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming

I personally try not to go into it too deeply. My past experiences with that section results in a soupy head.

Good luck.

critical thinking,lol.....how about some thinking mate.....

Climate change is not NEW....do you argue this point?

How about some research into the the origins of this tax....maybe you should read a few books buddy....

do a little research into the club of rome and read the documents from their 'thinktanks'....
climate change is not new my friend and neither is this tax......

'this tax has been planned since the mid 1950's....
A little research mate if you can handle some truth.....

it's all there in black and white........documented....

many essays by these unelected private think tanks that control these world governing bodys(i.e,The world bank,the international bank of settlements,the club of rome,the council on foreign relations,the WHO,the IMF just to name a few)....a little research mate instead of watching your tv....

why do you think manufacturing is moving from the western world to 3rd world countries that have no restrictions?

this is all engineered,planned to bring our countries into 3rd world status....

Yep the more you know the less you know....

a little research and logical thinking might be in order for you my friend.....

"Climate Change is not new"

No **** sherlock, What causes climate change? How about changes in GHGs concentrations? Do humans produce GHGs? I'll say again s l o w l y:-

C h a n g e s i n G r e e n h o u s e G a s
C o n c e n t r a t i o n s E f f e c t t h e C l i m a t e.


Wow and then straight into 'THE TAX'

Look I don't agree with the Co2 Tax, but that doens't mean your stupid dunning kruger effected logical fallacy about Climate Changes science has any validity...

I don't give a rats ass about 'club of rome' etc I won't be reading stupid conspirecy theories.

Your using Co2 Tax as a STRAWMAN to attack Climate Change science. It's a logical fallacy!

How about you research 'reptilians' they have been planning Global warming for Thousands of years....LOL see stupid isn't it?


Oh manufacturing has moved to the 3rd world because they work for comparitively nothing?
$30/hr here 1c/hr there...

How the F could a poxy little tax of highly profitable pollution industries possible turn Australia into a 3rd world country...

Stop scaring yourself, with paraniod delusions.

Are you going to tell us what you think is 'real' research is? or just rinse and repeat the same fallacies to Ad nauseum...

=============================
No **** sherlock, What causes climate change? How about changes in GHGs concentrations?
=============================

Only marginally. What causes the majority of climate change is variations in solar activity. There is reams of evidence for this.

The problem is that climate modellers purposely omit this fundamentally important variable and substitute CO₂ in its place. Which is the reason why, since solar activity has moderated over the past 10 years, temperatures have flattened regardless of what the minor, bit player (CO₂) has done.

You tell me that you like studies. Well, have some proof that the Sun's cycles are the true driver of climate. As just a very small sample from real scientists, see the following studies:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And finally, here

I could go on, and on, and on, and on...but you get the point. Consensus? Debate over? Hardly.

'Tag' over to you TheWord...lol

I'll read though your links and see if they actually back up you aggressive bare assertions and accusations...

"Consensus? Debate over? Hardly."

Please don't use stupid Novamocktonism fallacies on me.

cheers

Read this quote from Word for hilarity only lol

"Only marginally. What causes the majority of climate change is variations in solar activity. There is reams of evidence for this.

The problem is that climate modellers purposely omit this fundamentally important variable and substitute CO2 in its place."
----------------------------------------------

Word you are full of it.

climate research and the IPCC work fully accounts for solar activity. it's only climate bigots like yourself that hawk around the sort of BS that you keep coming up with

any-one interested, check the last link on my byline below

lol Word you are really scraping the barrel

your whole bunch of links that say that climate has been affected by sun activity in the past is hardly a revelation - the IPCC agrees, it's just in recent time the CO2 impact has been greater

jeeze even your second paper acknowledges that for the last 30 years the solar activity and climate have moved in opposite directions

give us something slightly more inteligent and less one eyed? (and stop clutching at straws lolololol)

from a recent scientific american article on climate change

spot the difference between natural warming in the past and human caused warming now ...

Dear climate dudes,
Please to consider:
Fractals, possibly the final frontier in math.
They lead to the earth and moon as 'hydra' equal
to a proton and an electron. So when you look out into far away galaxies and things resemble veils
and sombreros and you name it, that is exactly
what they are. Let me say there are countless
drivers of climate. I'll insert that when the dinosaurs ended suddenly it was almost certainly
coincident with the indescribable hit that lead
to the moon forming from an equal and opposite
ejection of earth mass- refer the five swinging
balls gadget. Honestly, life arrived after the earth cooled from complete molten elements.
Rather than worry about our tiny though sudden
affect on climate, think about the removal of
billions of tons of iron from one part of the
thin crust and how that causes sudden vertical
tectonic movements in sub sea plates and
resultant huge ARTIFICIAL tidal movements that
drown innocent people. We might have been
enemies once but we drive there cars of great
quality so perhaps some respect for their lives
is warranted. Not to say all countries deserve
any less. Yes the shell of an egg is many times
thicker than our crust, fractaly speaking.
Anyhow, (!) co2 is what trees and all photosynthetics breath in. After a massive tree
planting program why seek to starve them of air? Would you pay for goldfish but afford them no
food?
If you really want to address climate change,
go to the root of the problem and have a
sustainable population, like the aboriginals here learnt to do a long time ago.

Please, please, please tell me you are NOT serious. You again suggest the link to Stanford Solar Center. The last link on your by-line.

2006 dude. That is 6 years old now. What is their latest? And I ask again, Who is funding them?

And with your last chart. Not even funny, simply stupid. This bit in the chart gets me on the floor laughing & throwing up…. Where we are today…&….. Greenhouse gas release begins.

Begins? Errrrrrrrrm but excuse me, how old is this rock we only "just" survive on?

To further project forward 10,000 & 20,000 years from now is very brave of a recent scientific American article on climate change that you provide no link to.

Space Junk!...........Fair dinkum!