We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Monday, August 8, 2011

Idiots need gaoling; MPs need educating!

Australian mining reported that
"Environmental activists from Rising Tide broke onto a 15 metre high conveyor belt at Kooragang Island Coal Terminal in Newcastle.
The protestors scaled the conveyor belt and suspended a sign which read “we’re sorry Somalia. Coal = climate change and starvation”, according to the Newcastle Herald.
They were arrested by police. The activists reportedly wanted to highlight coal’s contribution to the famine in Somalia. They claimed scientists had made a link between climate change and the drought affecting people in the Horn of Africa."
Rising Tide? After recent peer-reviewed papers perhaps a name change is warranted.

They made a claim that  claimed scientists had made a link between climate change and the drought affecting people in the Horn of Africa. 

Some of that "science" is reported here.
A new study in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that these months (March to June) will be much drier in the future in Kenya, Ethiopia and other East African nations because of climate change. Some 17.5 million people in the Horn of Africa already face food insecurity in the region, with stagnating agricultural production, population growth and recent drought.
The study contradicts predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change would lead to more precipitation in the region.
So while the group upon whom Julia relies for "the science" says there would be MORE precipitations, another group says LESS. Hardly a consensus; hardly a firm reason  to illegally break and enter a business premise and halt production of a business even if they are directly or indirectly producing CO2 emissions.

Carbon Dioxide is a plant food. As CO2 emissions increase, the world's biomass increases. Satellite data show this to be so. So increased atmospheric CO2 means increase world food production.


As Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young sang - Teach the Children well. Unfortunately the children are now being taught voodoo science. How long will it take to re-educate the people?

At least these idiots were removed from the roof more quickly than the Christmas Island Protestors.



Also reported HERE by NBN News and HERE by the (Newcastle) Herald.

36 comments:

  1. Wrong link above, here is the Africa pdf,

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Unfortunately the children are now being taught voodoo science. How long will it take to re-educate the people?"

    I wonder if you could expand on what you believe "voodoo science" is?

    How does it differ from "no-voodoo" science?
    Could you provide some examples highlighting where the voodoo is and why it is voodoo?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mary, Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is essential to all life on this planet. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. This is beneficial. Horticulturalists have long known that increased CO2 means increased plant growth and the air in greenhouses. Satellite images have shown increase world biomass as atmospheric CO2 increases. Scientific studies have also been conducted which show that increased CO2 propels plant growth eg
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00899.x/abstract

    and

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6920/abs/nature01312.html

    and yet, Mary, children are being taught the lie that carbon (dioxide) is a pollutant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that photosynthesis is still taught in school science, Geoff.
    The term pollution is a subjective one. It means that something is where we who assign it the name pollution believe it should not, be it a oil slick, a chip packet or excess CO2. The earth is no stranger to greater than current CO2 levels, and has survived it quite nicely. however, the sea levels were considerably higher during these epochs.
    It is a problem for humanity, not the planet.
    also increasing average temps will have an impact on the spread of disease, as vectors expend their ranges.
    If it were not for the green house effect, earth would be considerably less inhabitable, but it is a fine balance for the comfort of humanity. No one wants to live on Venus, an extreme example.

    So is that "children are being told CO2 is a pollutant" your only example of Voodoo science?
    Increased CO2 means increased greenhouse, do you not agree?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you a teacher, Mary?

    Do you teach: "Increased CO2 means increased greenhouse?"
    Do you teach that increased CO2 will cause DANGEROUS global warming?
    Do you understand the logarihtmic warming effect of CO2?
    Have you read the latest science? Findings contradict CO2 caused dangerous global warming hypothesis - see International Climate Science Coalition - http://tiny.cc/p29x1

    You say: "...increasing average temps will have an impact on the spread of disease..." Penicillin had an effect on the spread of disease.

    Would you like to make a guest post on this blig, promoting your ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mary, you need to read the NZ newsletter above, temperatures have not been trending up,

    also you might to read the reference to Prof Salby that the rise in CO2 is due to the temperature rise and not humans

    ReplyDelete
  7. Geoff, you seem to have missed my question. Do you NOT agree that increased Co2 levels will cause an increase in the greenhouse effect? Further, do you dispute that CO2 is a green house gas? If so, why?

    Your questions in your last post assuming I am a teacher are irrelevant, as my employment status is not the subject of this discussion.

    What point are you trying to make with the penicillin analogy? This is a non sequitur.
    Any increased warming will have an impact on disease vectors such as mosquitoes. If you dispute this, then please tell me why this is wrong.

    Have you noticed, Geoff and F Whit(?) that I have not stated my opinion on AGW?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brown, anything can be a pollutant in the wrong quantities. Water is vital to life, yet you can literally drown (ie die) if you drink too much of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Temperatures are trending up. Every science research organisation on the planet agrees.

    And you think one presentation of unpublished opinions by one professor overturns 150 years and 1000's of other scientists work?

    Shouldn't you show a little scepticism and obtain expert opinion on Salby's opinions before making *your* inexpert conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mary, YOU seem to have missed my questions.

    What point are you trying to make with the penicillin analogy?

    Mary you said: "..increasing average temps will have an impact on the spread of disease.."
    I wrote that Penicillin had an impact on the spread of disease.

    More people die from cold, Mary than from heat. Google it, Warmth is better. Let's hope the planet is still warming. According to the IPCC, Climategate CRU the warming has stalled for the last decade.

    OK to YOUR questions:
    Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, a minor one compared with Water Vapour. Did you read the link I posted for you on the logarithmic effect of CO2?
    Here is another from Australian Scientist David Archibald. Look at the graph. The greatest amount of CO2's warming was in pre-industrial times.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    I also asked "Have you read the latest science? Findings contradict CO2 causes dangerous global warming hypothesis - see International Climate Science Coalition - http://tiny.cc/p29x1"

    Did you go to that link and the further links contained therein?

    "Your questions in your last post assuming I am a teacher are irrelevant..."
    I did not assume that you were a teacher, I asked if you were a teacher. Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geoff Brown,

    It appears that your understanding of climate and of plant biology is very limited.
    'Carbon Dioxide is a plant food.'

    'This is beneficial. Horticulturalists have long known that increased CO2 means increased plant growth and the air in greenhouses.'

    Growing plants in greenhouses isn't like growing them outside. Your exercise is to show what the differences are.

    Ever heard of Liebig's Law?

    Is there any widespread evidence that plants growing in the open suffer from CO2 starvation? If what you claim were true, why aren't the world's arid areas full of plants? The real killer of your half-baked logic is: When it does rain, why does the desert briefly bloom?

    There are numerous other reasons why more atmospheric CO2 isn't necessarily good for plants and it isn't good for the oceans either. And that ignores climate change which IS affecting NZ.

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/nz-temperature-record

    ReplyDelete
  12. kreamer, In the case of CO2 it is more than 7000 ppmv. We have a little way to go before that!

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Craig McD whom said: "Temperatures are trending up. Every science research organisation on the planet agrees." Trending, maybe, but they also agree that there was no warming for the last decade as I said.

    Also McD, where did I mention Murry Salby? I have avoided any comment on his paper until it is published.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Amoeba said; "There are numerous other reasons why more atmospheric CO2 isn't necessarily good for plants and it isn't good for the oceans either."

    I'll show you mine if you show me yours.....
    http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

    ReplyDelete
  15. Geoff says;
    "Mary, YOU seem to have missed my questions.

    What point are you trying to make with the penicillin analogy?

    Mary you said: "..increasing average temps will have an impact on the spread of disease.."
    I wrote that Penicillin had an impact on the spread of disease.

    More people die from cold, Mary than from heat. Google it, Warmth is better. Let's hope the planet is still warming. According to the IPCC, Climategate CRU the warming has stalled for the last decade." End of quote.

    In my last point, I made the disease link somewhat clearer. It is nothing to do with the increase in temperature directly, it is to do with the increased range of vectors due to previously cooler areas developing favourable temperature ranges. Specifically the strains of mosquito that carry virulent disease.
    Do you understand the term vector?

    Geoff continues;
    "OK to YOUR questions:
    Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, a minor one compared with Water Vapour. Did you read the link I posted for you on the logarithmic effect of CO2?"

    How is that relevant to my simple questions?
    Good that you understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. yes, water vapour is far more efficient at trapping heat. I am surprised that you didn't mention methane. Again, these two are not relevant to this discussion

    Geoff continues;
    "Here is another from Australian Scientist David Archibald. Look at the graph. The greatest amount of CO2's warming was in pre-industrial times.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    I also asked "Have you read the latest science? Findings contradict CO2 causes dangerous global warming hypothesis - see International Climate Science Coalition - http://tiny.cc/p29x1"

    Did you go to that link and the further links contained therein?"

    Again, irrelevant to my questions. Is there a chance you could keep to my question on CO2. What you are doing is called Gish galloping. here is the part as yet an addressed.
    Do you NOT agree that increased Co2 levels will cause an increase in the greenhouse effect?


    "Your questions in your last post assuming I am a teacher are irrelevant...
    I did not assume that you were a teacher, I asked if you were a teacher. Are you?"

    Then why ask questions starting with "Do You teach..?
    My original answer still stands.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dude: go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and educate yourself about AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Turboblocke go to http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/ and educate yourself about the non-science of that flawed skeptical science site.

    ReplyDelete
  18. After you re-educate yourself from the fake science consider this -
    One aspect of the dynamics of CO2 involves the monumental work of the late German scientist Ernst Georg Beck. He compiled the huge number of measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide that were obtained by chemical means prior to the modern era.

    These showed a peak of 450 ppmv about 1950 that was higher than today's value of 400 ppmv. What caused that peak and subsequent decline? Likely warmer ocean surface temperatures during the Dust Bowl of the 1930's gave way to colder ocean surface temperatures after 1945.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide just followed that cycle (with a roughly five year lag) despite increasing human emissions following World War Two. If this was a real phenomenon and not just an artifact of the data then we would expect a repeat to occur as we enter another cooler period.

    So far there are hints of Global Cooling and of a decline in the rate of increase of CO2 but nothing definitive yet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. F. Wit aka CooloolaFOOL,

    Why not use your real name instead of a description of yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Geoff, could you clarify this for me

    "These showed a peak of 450 ppmv about 1950 that was higher than today's value of 400 ppmv"


    Salby has a now higher temp than 1950 matched to current CO2 level of 390ppmv

    CO2 levels have risen 5% in the last 10 years,

    On JONOVA the comments are that the CO2 rise at present is a 800 yr lag from MWP,

    confused, Fran

    ReplyDelete
  21. F or CooloolaFool, As I noted above, I will not comment on Murry Salby until his paper is published.

    "These showed a peak of 450 ppmv about 1950 that was higher than today's value of 400 ppmv"

    When Beck died in September last year, fellow German Edgar L. Gärtner wrote as part of his orbituary (translated from German)

    Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.

    Because he knew that for a long time before the introduction of the costly spectroscopic and/or electro acoustical CO2-measures relatively simple, but reliable chemical methods of the CO2-measures were available. Thus, well-known chemists as for instance German chemistry Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg analysed also the composition of air in industry-free, rural regions. With his special meticulousness Beck collected and analysed thousands and thousands of older measurements of the CO2-content of the air and found out that such content has been sometimes higher than today in the first half of the 20th century and also partially in the 19th century. Obvious conclusion: The rise of the CO2-content since 1958 cannot have been caused alone by the burning of rising quantities of coal and oil in the post-war period. And there is also no straight-line connection between the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and the global temperature development.

    Ernst Georg Beck published this analysis three years ago in the British technical periodical “Energy & Environment” and sowed thereby already before “Climategate” in late autumn of 2009 serious doubts about the reliability of the statements of the IPCC. Climatologists who depend on financial funding from the German Government and the European Union and who are closely linked to the IPCC could not forgive him that publication.

    Beck's own data can be found - http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

    ReplyDelete
  22. Apologies, i thought that Salby's argument was thought to be convincing

    NZ Newsletter

    Then we have the Carbon Cycle Revolution launched by Murry Selby of Macquarie University at

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#more-4382

    with a podcast of his lecture at

    http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

    He presents very convincing arguments to show that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are unrelated to human emissions from fossil fuel combustion and extremely convincing evidencve that they are related to global temperature fluctuations. They are therefore predominantly natural, not man-made,
    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well Mary, CO2 as you know is a photoluminescent gas, but its emissivity is governed by Beers Law and therefore has a logarithmic decline in emissivity for incremental increases; that combined with the marked decrease in emissivity in the overlapping spetrums with H2O vapour means that increases in CO2 at the current rate are nothing for you to worry your pretty little head about.

    And just to put your busy mind at rest there has been no increase in the greenhouse effect over the last 60 years, as measured by variations in the optical depth, as Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak's 2004 paper showed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you cannot make a point without patronising sexist references, "Anonymous", then perhaps you shouldn't bother.

    Besides which, I was unaware that CO2 absorbs photons then re-emitted them. Is this a new discovery you have made? You might well be on the short list for the Nobel prise for physics for all I know. Do you have a paper on CO2 photoluminesence that we might view?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let me ask you then Mary, if CO2 does not absorb photons, or the energy photons have, how do you then explain the greenhouse effect.

    And since when is a compliment about a person's appearance sexist?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Since about 1960 anonymous

    http://gendersex.net/blog/archives/dont-worry-your-pretty-little-head/#comments


    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  27. For Mary - Desmog Blogger Chris mooney wants access to pollute young minds:
    http://dailybayonet.com/?p=8868

    DeSmogBlog is a fully-paid up member of the warmist propaganda machine, and Chris Mooney is a little miffed that skeptics are spoiling their party.

    Specifically, Mooney is upset that hippies (alarmists) no longer enjoy free access to young, impressionable minds before some pesky skeptic makes a fuss:

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous, you should probably stop now. You probably can't see out of the hole you are in.
    When you have a moment, see if you can learn the difference between the visible wavelengths and infrared.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm genuinely in shock that you said you hope that our climate warms, Geoff. Forget the argument over the human effect on climate. A rise in temp means a rise in sea levels. Rising sea levels is kinda bad

    ReplyDelete
  30. Have you considered, Ryan that the rise in sea levels is in small millimetres and the rate of rise is decreasing?

    See http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/08/study-climate-or-study-computer-screen.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. Interesting link. Generally links to ones own material or sites is not as useful or reliable as linking to primary material.
    could you do this?

    ReplyDelete
  32. G'day Christopher,

    Go to that link and there is a link to the primary material in the title. OK, mate?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not quite. That is a link to a newspaper article that itself makes no primary links.
    Do you have any primary links to data confirming the rise in sea levels is in small millimetres and the rate of rise is decreasing?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry Christopher. I has thought that the readers of this blog had a basic intelligence. If you did not see the link in that story, it mentions the author -Phil Watson and the Journal - journal of coastal research.

    If you put both these into google "phil watson journal of coastal research" the very firsty of the search results gives the link (given in my post anyway)
    http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=phil+watson+journal+of+coastal+research&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=A0NLTuPDDofSiALu1oiQAQ

    ReplyDelete
  35. Geoff, now that I am in front of a monitor and not using my iphone (which isn't adjusted to suit my particular colour blindness) I see the link in your original post. Apologies.
    As for my level of intelligence, well, it is high enough to not resort to personal insult.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!