Thread: Is the climate change debate realy over?

the problem with this topic, is that nearly all of it is opinion - facts are so rare its somewhat unbelieveable its called a science

What cods wallop. Have a look at www.realclimate.org. Lots of real science there.

BTW its not cherry picking - its called reporting on a paper - they havent misrepresented it,

Ok, why was the model used in this particular study taken as 'fact' and all of the other models on the subject considered wildly inaccurate? Is it that the author might have an agenda?

When someone actually wants some "facts" or at least some empirical forward testing of models they get none, and if they say I dont believ it then, they are labelled a "denier" with all its encumberances.

There is plenty of evidence.
Show me some real evidence that AGW isn't real.

Originally Posted by Barry_White

That is interesting. My brother-in-law hasn't supered his property for about 10 years but with a good season he decided to do something this year.

Rather than use super phosphate he was put onto a contractor here that has a contract to clean out the chicken sheds around the area. At one time there was a plant in the area that used to use all the droppings and turn it into Dynamic Lifter but due to complaints from the local residents they moved the operation right out of the area which created a problem for the chicken farmers of what to do with all the droppings from the sheds.

Hence this contractor bought a tipper with a dog trailer and stockpiles all the droppings. He also bought a front end loader and a huge spreader truck that throws it out about 15 metres each side of the truck. Although it was a bit slow getting going he is now going flat out spreading it on the properties around the district.

It now takes him about four weeks to get back to spread the droppings after delivering it.

It is now about four weeks since he first spread it and we have since had 33mm of rain and already you can see an improvement in the growth where he has spread it and he reckons it can take four years before you get the most benefit from it.

As they say one mans trash is another mans treasure so it's money for chicken s h i t.

That is excellent news, going back to spraying manure! Just hope it works on a scale to suit my brother- 10,000 acres of (mostly wheat) crop a year, in WA. Fertilizer plus diesel price increases start to squeeze margins a bit.

Grunt, that connection between Peak Oil and greenhouse emissions is a wake up call.

Cheers,

has it occurred to you that searching for people who have done a paper on smoking AND AGW would get the result the politicists want?

You should watch the doco. I for one, don't put a lot of credence in scientific papers written by people who as recently as the mid 90s were saying that smoking is good for you.

On fertiliser there was a small number of articles on a farmer in Tassie who had stopped using fertiliser and started using worms, all very organic. I seem to recall he had peaty soils because there is no way this would have worked in arid country. He would take a clump of worms from a heavy worm area and move them as a clump to an area deficient in worms and the action of the little devils was doing wonders for pasture growth. The old chap is probably dead now and it should be pointed out the pasture was grazing sheep which is very different to say dairy or cropping.

I believe fertilzer has only become common since the 1950's and really kicked in along with some pretty disgusting pesticides to really increase crop and pasture yields. We have come a long way from DDT but you have got to wonder what sort of yields we will get if fertiliser either prices itself out of reach or becomes unable to source.

Maybe we will have to start looking at our own droppings as an alternative to ancient bird poo. I like the idea of using the chook dung, chooks are not wonderful processors of food and there dung is high in a lot of good stuff for the soil, nutrient run off is a problem with all fertilisers but if you can minimise runoff and use an existing waste product it has got to be good news.

Couldn't we eat the fertilizer ourselves (manipulated) and save all the other outlay of farming and global warming problem.
Got to think to change the future.

Originally Posted by jow104

Couldn't we eat the fertilizer ourselves (manipulated) and save all the other outlay.

McDonalds have already beaten you to it.

Originally Posted by Grunt

What cods wallop. Have a look at www.realclimate.org. Lots of real science there.

There is plenty of evidence.
Show me some real evidence that AGW isn't real.

you perhaps dont undertand what a "FACT" is. A fact isnt open to interpretation, or disgagreement. A model is not a fact, a series of proxy data used to determine temperature is not fact - ice core temp reconstructs arent fact, albido assignments in models are not facts, water vapour as a forcer is not a fact - anything with a confidence interval is not a fact.

so its only codswallop to someone who doesnt understand.

"Prove to me that agw isnt real?"

this is step one of belief systems - you cannot prove a null, and cannot disprove a theorom that doesnt hang its shingle on anything at all. Its upto the proposer to prove something is true, not to apply statitistics and opinion and consensus to show its most likely. Further its upto the proposer to put forward a predictive model capable of been experimented with and capable of been shown wrong. what we have is a theorem.

We have 2 overarching facts - co2 in recent years is substantially higher.

The temp average has moved up 0.6 degree C as measured in the ground based weather stations we have.

It is a real problem for the climate skeptics that quite a bit that comes from people like Morano is using "facts" that are nothing resembling the truth. They are attributing comments to people that are so out of context as to portray a view that is the opposite of what was said. They are also using figures which can not be supported and have no factual basis whatever. You can argue until you are blue in the face as to what constitutes a theory over a theorem, or the definition of a model over a proven result, it isn't actually presenting anything that supports your case, in fact do you have a case.

It would be more to the point if you explained that a model is created as a why to test theory so that the results can be observed and learned from to get a better understanding. Or as a way to attempt to predict an outcome from the known drivers. Sadly most people reading this probably just dropped off to sleep.

The whole enviroment issue is a major one and it is evolutionary, since the dawn of the steam engine we have been working at gaining as much usable energy as we can out of the fuel available. London in the 1940's and 1950's had such awful smog and health issues from open coal and wod burning fires that it banned them to improve life expectancy and health. We have at times created awful polution problems and at others set about cleaning them up. Amazingly the cleaner technologies often use less resources to produce power and waste less material thus lowering the cost of production.

The very addressing of waste, diminishing resources, energy wastage and so on actually has the very real possibility of providing more to the world not less. It doesn't follow that reducing our carbon footprint means a lower standard of living. It does mean doing things differently and creating predictive models to attempt to estimate how positive changes can be managed to improve economic outcomes. Less energy use means lower costs, so do we sit in unheated homes, of course not it means better insulation and solar efficiency to get as much for less, and it will cost less leaving more cash for other things.

So Pharmaboy2 instead of the pedantic discussing of terms do you have anything factual you would like to put forward, or perhaps some form of predictive model, or empirical research on some of the models that either support the global warming models or not. If you are so fired up about analytical tools lets have some of them because so far I would have to say I have found your posts pretty disjointed and hard to follow.

You might like to start by explaining why ice core samples are not a fact, it is ice, it does lock up what is in the snow at the time, why do you dismiss the results obtained from the samples. It is pointless to dismiss a 2007 black Falcon sedan because its not black, with out mentioning it remains all the other things and the description is close. So are these ice core samples worthless or is the data obtained subject to interpretation. Don't assume that because a question is asked that I don't know the answer, lets see if you do.

In all seriousness Johnc you and other posters hear supporting AGW have not given any evidence what so ever that proves AGW.

We all know the temps have risen .7 deg in the last century. The problem is determining if this is a natural increase on un-natural increase. The Hockey Stick graph that was hailed as the proof that the rises were un-natural and that they were going to rapidly increase as more co2 was evident, has been debunked and fails every test for factual basis.

Now we are left with models and emperical evidence to support those models, that too has not been evidenced.

The problem is with people who are rusted on believers of AGW will not entertain for a second that there may be evidence that does not support AGW. Nothing I can say or show you will change your mind. Thats cool because I dont have to change your mind.

What is important is that the average joe blow out there can see that there is an under current of evidence out there that is building up and trickeling down through the blogs and web sites into the MSM that completely debunks the AGW theory. In time and with further lack of increased warming the tide will turn and those rusted on believers will no longer be relevent.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work supporting natural climate change every week. Scientist and Climatoligist have been threatened with the sack from their jobs and suffered villification to no end for having an opposing opinion. Its a bit like comming out for a gay guy! the more that come out the more that will.

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming. Even if this thread creates one more person to consider it possibe that the current warming is a mostly natural, then it has been worthwhile raising once again.

Time and the hurt in peoples pockets will be the only thing that will finally shake people out of their blind acceptance of AGW.

I heard a great comment, the debate on AGW is like "looking for a sober solution in a world of drunken hysteria".

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

In all seriousness Johnc you and other posters hear supporting AGW have not given any evidence what so ever that proves AGW.

I think the problem is really that by the time there is enough evidence to "prove" it, it may indeed be too late to do anything about it. To dismiss any contribution by mankind at this stage would be grossly premature. It is basically as simple as this: we don't know whether it is natural or a man made event. But we do know that it is possible to control that which is man made. So again, it is about risk management of the unknown.

If the world can afford to spend trillions of dollars gearing up to destroy the planet over political ideology, it can afford to spend trillions to ensure its survival.

At this stage, I would say that anyone from either side of the debate claiming to "know" the answer is just lying. They are all guessing.

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming.

I think that applies equally well to both sides of this debate...and nearly any other debate you care to pick

Just for a bit of a giggle this sums up a lot of the AGW following!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw"]YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition[/ame]

We all know the temps have risen .7 deg in the last century. The problem is determining if this is a natural increase on un-natural increase. The Hockey Stick graph that was hailed as the proof that the rises were un-natural and that they were going to rapidly increase as more co2 was evident, has been debunked and fails every test for factual basis.

No, your statement is quite false. There were a few inaccuracies in the original work and method but overall the study was correct and has been confirmed by many other studies.

Originally Posted by www.realclimate.org

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

You can read the whole thing here. Link

The problem is with people who are rusted on believers of AGW will not entertain for a second that there may be evidence that does not support AGW. Nothing I can say or show you will change your mind. Thats cool because I dont have to change your mind.

Show me some evidence. So far everything you have posted has been shown to be incorrect, selective quoting to misrepresent the actual intent or complete and utter propaganda.

What is important is that the average joe blow out there can see that there is an under current of evidence out there that is building up and trickeling down through the blogs and web sites into the MSM that completely debunks the AGW theory. In time and with further lack of increased warming the tide will turn and those rusted on believers will no longer be relevent.

All the blogs regurgitate the same old arguments that the deniers are peddling. Again, show me some evidence.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work supporting natural climate change every week. Scientist and Climatoligist have been threatened with the sack from their jobs and suffered villification to no end for having an opposing opinion. Its a bit like comming out for a gay guy! the more that come out the more that will.

What, like those from Heartland Institute shindig? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ientists-came/

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming. Even if this thread creates one more person to consider it possibe that the current warming is a mostly natural, then it has been worthwhile raising once again.

Please post something that actually debunks AGW. You have failed to do so.

About what I would expect Grunt.

I take it you didnt take the time to read the information in the links provided.

Like I said no convincing you and no need to either.

I dont profess to be an expert but I can read and make judgements about what I am reading. I can see beyond the hype and rationalise without an emotional attachment.

I have posted links that I believe support my view you have simply attacked the scource of the information without considering the content therein. Your view, its just rubbish and not to be believed simply because it is published on a particular site. I at least read every article posted on real climate and I have to say I just shake my head in dissbelief on most of it. They base all most of their posts on the premiss that AGW is fact and thats that. Most of their stuff is just hypertheticals given their total belief that Co2 is the main driver behind the .7 deg temperature increase.

I'm yet to read something on that site that I agree with.

BTW G9 there are many other more practical and meanigful ways of spending trillions of dollars to benefit mankind that a witch hunt on co2. Where at least there would be a measureable result.

No, I have read all the links that you posted. I didn't read all the link in them tho.

Are you sure you are not the one with the problem with blind spot?

Again, I have been able to debunk each of your debunking. Please post some evidence that actually debunks AGW. You have not done so.