Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 Next
Comments 116001 to 116050:
-
caerbannog at 06:29 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
TAMU professor Gerald North found himself on the receiving end of the Anthony Watts Yahoo Brigade -- This little item will tell you all you need to know about Watts' followers: (From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/17/an-aggie-joke/, emphasis added) “Please correct the false impression left on your website. The item in the Texas A&M student newspaper was based on short interviews by phone. While there was no error in fact, the impression left is false. In the interview with me, I was referring to the temperature changes of our planet over the last century (about 0.7 deg C). The author switched abruptly to an interview with Professor Andrew Dessler who was not talking about the temperature over the LAST century but instead the IPCC prediction for temperature over the NEXT century (averaging over models about 3 deg C). I would not have known about this error except that my email box has been unusually loaded with hate mail today. Gerald North” -
Joe Blog at 06:28 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I'll try these links again http://tinyurl.com/2cwhwg http://tinyurl.com/2btg22e -
Joe Blog at 06:23 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
robhon, and CBD, ill be the first to admit its totally counter intuitive, and its not a Q of it radiating in one direction, it still radiates in all directions... But in the stratosphere this is how it works. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/ This thread here is one of the better ones for getting it conceptually. And this paper may help with understanding stratospheric temps http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1979)036%3C1084:TROSOI%3E2.0.CO;2 Yah gotta remember the greenhouse works by increasing the optical path length for the LW spectrum, so it increases the energy capacity of the troposphere.... that dosnt mean LW is prevented from leaving the troposphere... there will still be for all intents and purposes LW going from the troposphere UP... Some of that will be absorbed higher up, no doubt, but the temperature profile in the stratosphere is reversed. with heat increasing with altitude... so from this we can probably safely conclude, that radiative heating from GHG in the troposphere isnt the cause of the temperature profile in the stratosphere( its self evident) -
Spencer Weart at 05:08 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Very very interesting paper and post, nice catch. It must also be borne in mind that the global cooling was mainly Northern Hemisphere, as would be expected since that's where most of the pollution was. Temps in the Southern Hemisphere were more or less level. Has anyone disentangled dimming/brightening in the two hemispheres? -
Phila at 04:00 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
By a remarkable coincidence Mizimi's remarks are the spitting image of talking points ultimately attributed to the coal industry, here in the United States anyway. Yeah, the tactics are pretty formulaic. If a country's planning to invest in alternative energy, claim it'll lead to an economic crisis. If the crisis doesn't materialize, claim that it's a feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing. If it does accomplish something, warn people about creeping socialism. Rinse and repeat as necessary. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 02:54 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Global dimming is covered at Wikipedia, of course, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Or, watch the Nova Video, "Dimming the Sun," from April18,2006, here. -
CBW at 02:38 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
John, You say, "They find a period of "global dimming" from 1958 to 1990 where surface radiation fell. Afterwards, the dimming levels off and transitions to slight brightening from 1985 to 2002." I think your 1990 should maybe be 1980? -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:38 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
22, 24, and 25: thanks for the responses. If I see a specific argument for the viability of alternatives in a thread in this forum, I will answer you there. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
CBDunkerson... Yeah, you know, I've heard that argument of "the heat reradiates out to space" quite a few times on various blogs. Joe Blog puts it fairly succinctly in saying "thus more co2= more heat radiated away." In particular I've seen this stated by people on the JoNova site. It makes no logical sense to me that CO2 would reradiate heat in only one direction. But being that this argument is getting spread around it probably warrants some more research. You know, once these things start to fester... -
Doug Bostrom at 02:00 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC is alarmist
The very best defense of the IPCC will be their next report. We've seen this movie before and we'll see it again; IPCC releases latest synthesis, doubters and impressionists pile on, no significant dent is made. The IPCC is undergoing a review of its processes with an eye to making its next report more useful and less susceptible to synthetic controversy. Learn about the review here at the InterAcademy Council website. -
citizenschallenge at 01:43 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC is alarmist
We need some source for information about the IPCC. The denialist community has succeeded in marginalizing its public moral authority way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. Something must be done to directly combat the denialist's lies concerning the who, what, where and how of the IPCC. Any thoughts or suggestions? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com -
NickD at 01:38 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (skeptic) at 01:28 AM on 3 July, 2010 "let's just agree that scientifically speaking (not politically), Germany's cuts have no effect." From what I've read in the OP and the comments, the reference to Germany cutting CO2 emissions was done in the context of demonstrating that such cuts will not, necessarily, cause the economy to collapse. You have reframed the debate to center on the issue of whether or not their cuts will have any impact on global CO2 emissions. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant, as you missed the point. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:36 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
You're not doing a good job, Eric(skeptic). Germany subtracts A and volcano adds B. It is fallacy to say that B-A=B unless A=0 which you've agreed it does not. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:30 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
By a remarkable coincidence Mizimi's remarks are the spitting image of talking points ultimately attributed to the coal industry, here in the United States anyway. Further to Luntz's memo, here's an example of Luntz in action, via a website operated by coal-fired electric utilities in the midwestern USA: Find a Balanced Solution As a fun little exercise, read the website, read Luntz's memorandum, spot the similarities. -
adelady at 01:28 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric, if I want to save $2000 for something, I *can* do it by putting aside $10 a week. That will take me a few years. If my husband puts in a few more dollars a week it will happen sooner. If my kids, my mum, my neighbours chip in a bit more, it will happen even more quickly. "Every little bit helps" is as true in carbon mitigation as it is in money matters. Someone has to start somewhere sometime. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:28 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy, not comparable since there were alternatives to lead. But rather than get into a tangential discussion about the viability of alternatives, let's just agree that scientifically speaking (not politically), Germany's cuts have no effect. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own but you've offered no factual evidence to back up the impression of the IPCC you're trying to convey. You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer. W/regard to Nepstad, I found it surprising that your seemingly exhaustive "fog" item at WUWT somehow failed to mention that the author behind the work in question w/regard to the Amazon endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, explaining exactly how the citation trail failed while emphasizing that the IPCC remarks on the Amazon were factually correct. Nepstad's words on the matter are easy to find. Omitting that key information degrades your credibility. If you're genuinely concerned with IPCC process you should compose some statistics and then show how the lessons of those statistics demonstrate some material effect on the IPCC work product by poor sourcing. If you're more concerned with impressionism then of course you should continue with selective narration and rhetorical artifices of the type including such statements as "When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda..." without bothering to lend any factual support to that claim. -
JMurphy at 01:08 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (Sceptic) wrote : "JMurphy, Marcus, Germany's cuts are not significant in that they have no (15Mt vs 29Gt) effect on CO2 emissions worldwide." No effect, except to reduce them, of course - no matter by how little. I'm glad you had no input into the phasing out of lead in petrol, because you would have said, no doubt : "Make all petrol lead-free tomorrow (no matter what the cost or how people or countries are going to cope) or carry on as normal. But definitely don't phase it in." ! -
Doug Bostrom at 00:49 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Jo Nova highlights money and taxation in her materials. It's helpful to remember, those things are not about science, not about the physical phenomena of climate change but are an appeal to fear. When talking of the science of climate behavior we should not let our natural fondness for our money interfere with our thinking about the physical world. Understand the science, and if understanding the science leads to some question of money remember, policy is a matter related to but not descriptive of the science. Personally I regard discussions of the validity of physical sciences which include talk of money and taxation with suspicion because I believe the tactic of introducing money into the conversation is an attempt at manipulation, a means of increasing my malleability via an emotional appeal. Such an tactic should not be necessary for a person presenting a strong argument about science. Once issues of science are understood, policy outcomes may be discussed and only then is the matter of money an appropriate matter for reference. For readers outside the USA, it may be interesting to know that this tactic of conflating money with science was explored and encouraged to be used by a high profile political consultant by the name of Luntz some years ago when he was commissioned by an American political party to help craft messaging on political matters related to the environment. Luntz recommended putting money matters into the backseat, using them as a tactic of argumentation but subordinating them to emphasizing uncertainty and other explicitly non-science related rhetoric, so in this regard Nova and some other doubters have their cart before the horse when they first highlight money and then speak of science. The relevant part of the Luntz memorandum contains a number of eerily familiar themes. View it here. (pdf) -
Mizimi at 00:47 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
One needs to carefully consider the lifetime implications of energy saving and renewable energy systems before fully embracing them in the name of "CO2 emissions" saving. In our desire to save the planet and its occupants from our profligate use of fossil fuel we erect wind generators that kill birds and disturb migratory patterns. Most are killed not by direct impact but by the downstream turbulence. Birds are fragile. We promote low energy lighting that contains a poison - mercury - with no apparent thought given as to how those millions of defunct lights will be safely disposed of. ( The commercial disposal of fluorescent tubes is covered by legislation) And the government advice is to open all doors and windows then vacate your home for 15 minutes if you happen to break one of them! Where can we get data about the carbon footprint of these new technologies? How much more CO2 is emitted in the manufacture of a low energy lamp compared to an incandescent lamp? From all sources - not just the making of, but the complete resourcing of materials, transport, manufacture and so on. Is it outweighed by the FF saving and over what period of time? What about those who suffer skin conditions which are exacerbated by UV light? What about the safety implications of the spectral response of the human eye and the actual spectrum of a fluorescent lamp? Because MFL's emit light in the 'wrong' part of the spectrum for our eyes they appear dimmer than the 'equivalent' incandescent lamp - and so people fit higher wattage bulbs to try and compensate...hence the appearance of 150w equivalents. Oh dear I am banging on again about people not thinking things through....probably my age or something.... -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:35 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy, Marcus, Germany's cuts are not significant in that they have no (15Mt vs 29Gt) effect on CO2 emissions worldwide. They are symbolic and political made with at least two intents: to push investment into alternatives and to persuade other countries to join in worldwide cuts. Worldwide cuts may make a difference, at some far future date. In the meantime: no effect. -
JMurphy at 00:34 AM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
The U.S. Global Change Research Program don't seem as relaxed or engaged in wishful thinking as some of the so-called skeptics : Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and lower levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields. Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses or deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth. Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land’s ability to supply adequate livestock feed. Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity. Now, either they are just a part of the big conspiracy or they don't know as much as some people posting on here. Or is it both ? -
KR at 00:30 AM on 3 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel - While it's possible that there are high frequency changes in temperature missed by a particular low-resolution sample set, it's really completely unreasonable to postulate that this indeed is the case based on that evidence. If I permit more degrees of freedom in my fitting than are supported by my data, I can draw whatever curve I like - including one that indicates the Earth cycled between absolute zero and plasma temperatures during a 30-day period between samples. I could also postulate that such temperature swings were driven by invisible pink unicorns, but I don't have samples that actually indicate that. In the universe of possible data fits, a randomly chosen fit is NOT as likely as the simplest one that fits the data. It's a rudimentary basis of data analysis that you don't over-fit your samples - that falls into the aspects of parsimony, or Occams razor. Given the samples present in the papers you have been referring to, it's reasonable to state that there's a linear historic trend passing through those data points, with a later steeper trend passing through the much denser data points of recent records. Are there excursions outside that linear trend that don't fall upon the sample points, that weren't sampled? Perhaps. That would take more data - the data presented doesn't support that hypothesis. If you take into account the multiple lines of evidence, the many data sets containing samples at different (and overlapping) timepoints along historic record, the hypothesis of a fairly linear trend for the 1400-1850 period, with a steepening incline after that, is still the most reasonable, parsimonious explanation that fits the data. And with no unicorns... -
Riccardo at 00:26 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Well said ProfMandia. I'd add that we all should keep challenging those people and leave scientists free to do their job. -
Ken Lambert at 00:24 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris #118 Just stick to the numbers Chris, and refrain from your own judgmental terms such as 'prejudices, unscientific, unsupported assertions etc etc' with regard to my arguments. I am simply pointing out that if you want to reduce the analysis to linear trend lines, then doing this for different satellites sliced together is quite consistent with that approach; and if you do that you get an offset. The offset disappears it the trends are not linearized. Why do these SLR charts have to be fitted to linear trend lines in any case? BP showed that the Colorado Chart here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=89&&n=150 Post #82 "I have calculated least square fit quadratic. It turns out sea level rise is actually decelerating in this 16 years long period. Acceleration term is -0.108 mm/y2." Prove to me that BP's quadratic approach is wrong! Let's have a look at steric rise - it does not seem to be linear with the OHC increase either. Dr Trenberth quotes a range of 0.4mm steric SLR equalling 20E20 Joules and 1.2mm equalling 95E20 Joules. This is 50E20 Joules/mm at the bottom and 79E20 Joules/mm at the top of the range. Nature tends to be rather non-linear. As you know CO2 forcing is logarithmic and radiative cooling by S-B is exponential (T^4). Claims that most of the SLR is steric are not supported in Dr Trenberth's paper viz. 2mm land ice melt and 2.5mm 'observed' - leaving only 0.5 mm steric. You have not addressed the point that you can't have a high ice melt component of SLR and a high steric component at the same time and meet the 'observed' SLR; and even worse - the global energy budget shortfall gets rapidly larger with an increasing ice melt portion because a 1mm of SLR from ice melt needs only about 1.5E20 Joules, and 1mm of steric rise needs 50-79E20 Joules. Please explain this problem; keeping in mind that the CO2GHG theory requires that the biosphere gain 145E20 Joules/year every year and increasing each year (bar the occasional volcano, or dimming sun or increased clouds - both the latter (sun and clouds)are reputedly well constrained and accurately known NOT to be offsetting CO2GHG warming). -
DarkSkywise at 00:21 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
#12, ProfMandia - Personally I expect public opinion to turn around completely and Demand Action Now when people will have to buy a third or fourth new air conditioner within two years because of yet another record heat wave, which will be in 2013 or 2014. (Just a wild guess, mind you.) Well, either this or a major Big Oil Operative who "couldn't stand the lies anymore and will speak up, no matter the consequences". Which could be as soon as, say, next week. ;) -
John Russell at 00:05 AM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
There's a very interesting ABC 'Catalyst' documentary about the effects of raised CO2 concentrations on plant growth viewable here. Quote: "As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere some of our food crops will respond by becoming less nutritious and produce more toxins." It includes comments from several scientists working close to this issue. Well worth watching. -
citizenschallenge at 00:02 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Oh, yea - I remember - learning isn't what the "skeptics" debate is about anyways. my bad. -
citizenschallenge at 00:01 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
What an astounding difference in tone between this write up and the one I read yesterday at jonova's site, reporting on the pamphleteers. My next thought - how does one expose the rabid nature of the denialist community. If you have science on your side you can afford to be civil and thoughtful - if you got nothing but hot air I guess ones options are limited to turning it up and morphing into a flame thrower. But, jonova, Carter, et al. is this how learning is supposed to work? -
ProfMandia at 23:44 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Watts, Nova, Carter, Monckton, etc. are quickly becoming irrelevant due to the efforts of John Cook and others that point out their mistakes and by nature which keeps showing us that warming is happening and it is primarily our fault. Although there may be a few die-hards in 2020, by 2020 the decade will have been so hot and had so many severe weather events that few will be in denial. Aguments against AGW will go the way of arguments that smoking is not linked to lung cancer. It is taking awhile but the overwhelming evidence will triumph. I just hope that our policymakers do not wait until 2020 to wise up. Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences Selden, NY Global Warming: Man or Myth? My Global Warming Blog Twitter: AGW_Prof "Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group -
johnd at 23:34 PM on 2 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Marcus at 12:20 PM, the scientists conducting the trial obviously felt it was about the only way to emulate drier conditions. In addition annual rainfall has been generally below average for the region in recent years. The area is also considered a low yielding region, so all these factors are working towards making the trial a realistic representation of forecast conditions. Whilst the grain protein level did fall, it has to be put into perspective. The higher grain yield meant that per unit area the amount of protein produced increased. Ask yourself which is better, producing 2.68t/ha @13.8% protein, or 3.23t/ha @13.25% protein? -
Marcus at 23:25 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
"There are some societies that value the wisdom of the older generations." There also those who recognize that those of the older generation can sometimes be conservative to the point of blind stubbornness. -
Marcus at 23:19 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Actually Eric, according to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions the CO2 emissions saved from grounded flights alone was *greater* than all the CO2 emissions from the Icelandic Volcano. So Germany's emissions cuts *do* still matter, no matter what the denialist cult members say. -
DarkSkywise at 23:15 PM on 2 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
*gives it a try, still keeping it simple* Imagine a stable situation where neither lower nor upper atmosphere warms up or cools down. Now scatter millions of tiny "heat mirrors" throughout the atmosphere, which scatter outgoing radiation in all directions, instead of straight up (from earth to space). Result: some of the heat won't reach the upper layers and stays in the lower layers. The lower layers warm up more than they shoud, the upper layers cool down. (Okay, maybe this was *too* simplistic.) ;) -
CBDunkerson at 23:13 PM on 2 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Joe Blog #31/34, actually every source I've ever seen explains the stratospheric cooling as John has here. Yes, there is ALSO cooling in the stratosphere due to ozone depletion... but that is a completely separate issue. You can find a basic overview of both at; http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html -
Bernard J. at 23:11 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
"There are some societies that value the wisdom of the older generations." There are also many societies that recognise the risk of dotage in older generations. -
JMurphy at 23:09 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (skeptic), you posted a similar comment on the Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans? thread, comparing the volcano then to Europe's cuts as a whole (174 ktons/day). As I wrote then, it's good that those cuts are being made, isn't it, because otherwise the increase in CO2 would have been even worse. Germany's cuts covered a quarter to a seventh of the volcano's output : a real difference in the real world. -
JMurphy at 22:48 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
thingadonta wrote : "Look into Plimers recent book" No thanks : I prefer fact to fiction, when it comes to science, data or evidence. thingadonta wrote : "Also, the source for my coal information in Germany is from a colleague who specialises in strategic assessments of coal resources for government." Could you please therefore ask your colleague for some sources. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:42 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
From 2007 to 2008, Germany cut its "verified emissions" from 487.145.916 to 472.599.758 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (verified means they only measure the sources under cap and trade, not the country as a whole). See http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/794 That works out to 41 ktons less emissions per day. In contrast the volcano in Iceland emitted 150-300 ktons per day while it erupted earlier this year. In short, Germany's cuts, even with conveniently measuring only certain sources, make no difference whatsoever in the real world. -
thingadonta at 22:20 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
Also, the source for my coal information in Germany is from a colleague who specialises in strategic assessments of coal resources for government. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:14 PM on 2 July 2010Hockey stick is broken
KR says: "I believe the Mann 'hockey stick' is composed of data from ~100 different temperature estimates, including some tree ring data." The Mann hockey stick in MBH98 was mostly created by incorrect standardization (normalization) that overweighted the Bristlecone proxies, a simple error. If you are referring to a newer version of "Mann 'hockey stick'" then please specify what version you are referring to. -
HumanityRules at 22:13 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
From Wikipedia here is Germany's energy mix. "Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2009, it consumed energy from the following sources: Oil 34.6% Bituminous coal 11.1% Lignite 11.4% Natural gas 21.7 Nuclear power 11.0% Hydro- and wind power 1.5% Others 9.0%" "they have used a variety of renewable energy sources including solar and wave to reduce carbon emissions by 28% whilst increasing GDP by 32% in real terms and creating more than 300,000 clean-energy jobs" You probably need to dig deeper into those numbers in order to find what they really mean. "The majority were middle-aged and elderly." There are some societies that value the wisdom of the older generations. -
thingadonta at 22:13 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
re #24: JMurphy Look into Plimers recent book. Even as AGW skeptic I have some major problems with some of his arguments, and overall writing style, but I still think it is a useful source of skeptical information. -
James Wight at 22:04 PM on 2 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
John, should this post be a response to “CO2 is plant food”?Response: I like the rebuttals to be more referenced with links to peer-reviewed sources. I'll get to that when I get the time. -
skywatcher at 22:03 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
thingadonta, it's entirely relevant, because we are all told repeatedly by deniers that to make the move to renewables will harm/ruin/ravage our economy. It's always painted as this economic disaster. Germany's got a third of the way there while at the same time substantially increasing its GDP. Well done Germany, an example we should all follow. -
ginckgo at 21:59 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
thingadonta: but the massive investment in renewable energy in Germany also didn't cause their economy to collapse, like some would like us to believe will happen. -
JMurphy at 21:32 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
In fact, thingadonta, do you have any sources for any of your assertions concerning Germany ? -
JMurphy at 20:58 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
thingadonta wrote : "Another poin to note is that the German Government commissioned a report by its own hiogh ranking scientists to look into whether humans were causing global warming about 10 years ago, which concluded that humans were not responsible for global warming. The then socialist government banned the book, ignored the conclusions of its own scientists, and went ahead with its ideological policies, and has done so more or less since." Firstly, you do realise that there hasn't been a 'Socialist' government in Germany for the last 5 years ? Secondly, where's your evidence ? Hopefully you have seen some ? If so, please provide it. -
thingadonta at 20:53 PM on 2 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
The increase in GDP in Germany in recent years has nothing to do with renewable energy. -
thingadonta at 20:46 PM on 2 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
Part of the reason that Germany has reduced its C02 emissions is that they are running out of coal. C02 emissions in Australia have increased partly because we have an abundance of coal. Most coal mines in Germany are now too deep to be economic, but are subsidised by the German government to look after the workers and industry infrastructure. Of course this cant go on forever, so they are gradually phasing it out. Now they are subsidising renewable energy. Another poin to note is that the German Government commissioned a report by its own hiogh ranking scientists to look into whether humans were causing global warming about 10 years ago, which concluded that humans were not responsible for global warming. The then socialist government banned the book, ignored the conclusions of its own scientists, and went ahead with its ideological policies, and has done so more or less since. The reason that GDP has increased in Germany has nothing to do with renewable energy, but basic supply of water and food resources and favourable trade and geographic position, which it has always possessed. Spain does not had this advantage, and look at the disaster that is happening with Spain's renewable energy policies.
Prev 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 Next
