Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[fish]

...a fervent group who are prepared to blindy defend their opinion to the point of attack of the opposing opinion.

BINGO you've just come up with the perfect description of the Climate Change deniers!

[Psyber]

...a fervent group who are prepared to blindy defend their opinion to the point of attack of the opposing opinion.

BINGO you've just come up with the perfect description of the Climate Change deniers!

And of the anthropogenic climate change faithful...
There at not many who actually argue about the idea the that climate is changing - the debate is about how much is caused by man and how much is due to the long term cycles you are resisting reading about...

[fish]

However Psyber as I've said before the climate change believers form their opinion based on the overwhelming scientific conclusions whereas the deniers form their opinion despite the overwhelming scientific conclusions.

[Jimmy_041]

A conclusion is a judgement or decision reached by reasoning, and some of those overwhelming scientific conclusions have been shown to be based upon flawed or fake data

I agree with Psyber - I do not deny climate change, but there are a lot of the next generation before me who say they have seen many of these climate events before and raise Y2K as the last scientific screw up that was completely based upon science and conclusion.

As I have said before, just fly around China to see what emissions are going into the atmosphere - one of my pilot mates calls it "entering the $hitosphere"

[Psyber]

However Psyber as I've said before the climate change believers form their opinion based on the overwhelming scientific conclusions whereas the deniers form their opinion despite the overwhelming scientific conclusions.

As I've said before scientific truth is not determinable by the numbers of adherents and their fights over it - that is how religion and politics works, not science.
There have been many cases where the majority were proved wrong in time - I cited a few examples in past posts.
You seem to be denying the existence of the long-term climate patterns evident in the ice core studies, as well as in historical record, and preferring to only accept opinion based on a mere 120 years of meteorological patterns.
[And of course anyone who has relied on a weather forecast knows the interpretation of Meteorology data is an exact science! ]

[redandblack]

Jimmy, the Y2K was not based on science at all, as you know.

As it also happens, I have flown a fair bit around China and I think what you see just adds to the likelihood that all that man-made pollution has an effect.

That's also not science, but it makes me more likely to accept the science that supports it.

[dedja]

Regardless of the science, anyone with half a brain should be able to realise that releasing so much shite into the atmosphere can't be good.

It also isn't rocket science that the world should be reducing this as much as possible.

The real difficulty is working out how to do it and by how much before the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

LOL, and Y2K had nothing to do with science!

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, the Y2K was not based on science at all, as you know.

As it also happens, I have flown a fair bit around China and I think what you see just adds to the likelihood that all that man-made pollution has an effect.

That's also not science, but it makes me more likely to accept the science that supports it.

A definition of Science: "For many, the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed."

Maybe a different type of science to the environmental sector, but a science anyway

I am not denying pollution has an effect. I just wont accept an argument because people want to ram it down my throat and any opposing or balancing view and proponent is ridiculed.

[Psyber]

Regardless of the science, anyone with half a brain should be able to realise that releasing so much shite into the atmosphere can't be good.
It also isn't rocket science that the world should be reducing this as much as possible.
The real difficulty is working out how to do it and by how much before the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

I agree entirely with these statements dedja.
As I've said before, even if our pollutants are not yet a major factor in the current global warming they could become one, and in any case there is a lot of other toxic stuff going into the environment we would be safer without...

My beef with the scheme Rudd put up was that it taxed pollution, and the end user would foot the bill, so it did not actively motivate, or support financially, changes in our technology towards less pollutant production. [I don't think solar energy will deliver enough energy for our needs by itself.]
In other words it was a token fix.

Y2k had some scientific base, to do with chip design, but it was hyped out of proportion by a wave of semi-religious fervor fed by those who just wanted to sell new computers.
In most cases the chips in most computers were already adequate for the task post 2000 - I only had one old machine and one old software package that succumbed..
[In some ways it parallels the current pattern of whipping up fervor in the pursuit of research grants that has been revealed in the "global warming" crisis.]

[redandblack]

If Rudd's scheme is criticised by you as a token fix, how would you describe Abbott's plan then?

[Psyber]

If Rudd's scheme is criticised by you as a token fix, how would you describe Abbott's plan then?

I'd say there is nothing there to describe yet, but I'll agitate a little once the SA election is over.
I don't expect either of our major parties to come up with a realistic plan, as one's reflex is the do nothing for now, and the other's is to make someone/anyone pay money for it, but not change anything else.
It might have had some impact if industry had had to absorb the tax until they cleaned up, rather than pass it on the the end user.
I'd look at the Greens if I didn't suspect their solution would involve sitting around a 10 watt globe in gloves, woolly hat, and a blanket, pedalling your bike if you want to watch TV...

I had Malcolm Turnbull interested in looking in more detail at the Indian Thorium Fission plans and the Germans rolling out Hydrogen refuelling systems.
We'd exchanged a few emails, and I'd sent him references which he'd emailed on to his shadow cabinet to look at before he got the chuck....
Oh well, back to the drawing board...

[redandblack]

You're right, there is nothing there in his 'policy'.

To describe Rudd's policy as token is laughable if you're ignoring the dishonesty and vacuum that is Abbott's policy.

[Psyber]

You're right, there is nothing there in his 'policy'.
To describe Rudd's policy as token is laughable if you're ignoring the dishonesty and vacuum that is Abbott's policy.

Rudd offering to do something basically ineffective wasn't much better than doing nothing - that's why I said "token".
I'd have respected his effort more if he hadn't caved into business friends of the party and let them pass the tax on to the end user.
Doing that took away any pressure to change their technology, but possibly saved their donations to party funds.

Now, if he'd said, "You absorb the pollution tax and we'll look at grants, funded by it, to assist in your changeover to clean technology when you come up with realistic plans." he would have had my respect.
Of course the power generators may have come up with something like Thorium Fission and that would have been uncomfortable for the PC Party.

[redandblack]

What's the PC party, Psyber?

[Gozu]

"Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate":

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lor ... bel-prize/

[fish]

Why does everyone want to belittle a balancing argument?

Agree with your sentiment Jimmy_041, but I can assure you that a lot of the belittling these days is from the deniers camp.

I have been a keen observer of the climate change debate for almost 20 years and have witnessed the phenomena undergo various name changes, from "greenhouse effect" in the early 1990's when the theory was first formulated, to "enhanced greenhouse effect" when the human-induced causes were understood and quantified, to "global warming" when the broad effects were understood and quantified, and to "climate change" now that we know that, whilst overall temperatures will increase as a result of human activities, there may be an increase in extreme hot and cold and wet and dry weather events.

You'll be pleased to know that the debate was reasonably civilised until the release of the 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report - the culmination of the best scientific research and analysis in the field. This report concluded unequivocally that: (1) The earth is warming; (2) The warming is forced by human activity, primarily due to carbon dioxide and methane emissions as well as land use change; (3) The warming will have serious environmental, social and economic consequences which will become considerably worse unless emissions are arrested.

As I see it, since that 2007 IPCC report the deniers, having comprehensively lost the scientific basis of their argument, have turned to attacking their opponents as part of their strategy. This includes sustained attacks on Al Gore, as alluded to by Jimmy (not you Jimmy_041 but the Sturt Jimmy) on this forum, as well as attacks on climate change believers in print and in on-line forums. Of course some retaliation from the believers camp has resulted.

Whilst attacks and name-calling are regrettable, perhaps the most alarming developments are the death threats to scientists and activists who contibute to or concur with the science of human-induced climate change.

Thankfully governments, policy makers, industry and communities are getting on with the job of formulating strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, although I think we'd all agree they still have a long way to go.

[Psyber]

What's the PC party, Psyber?

Where it doesn't mean "Personal Computer", PC usually stands for "Politically Correct", which is Labor's primary policy directive in my view.

[Psyber]

From the trend of any attempts at discussion here, it is obvious that the schism between the "Faithful" and the "Deniers" is irreconcilable, and we'll have to wait for divine revelation...

[redandblack]

What's the PC party, Psyber?

Where it doesn't mean "Personal Computer", PC usually stands for "Politically Correct", which is Labor's primary policy directive in my view.

For someone who rails against posters who label you and don't just stick to facts, the term people in glasshouses comes to mind

[fish]

we'll have to wait for divine revelation...

...wherupon the deniers will be cast for all eternity to burn in the flames of hell

And, Yeay, the righteous Believers will take their place in The Promised Land content in the knowledge that they were, indeed, Righteous!