I left the following comments at http://lindamciver.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/fiddling-while-we-drown/
I received a somewhat condescending reply which I returned with some reasonable logical facts and discussion.
This comment was spammed. Simply another case of a AGW maniac unable to handle facts that make him feel uncomfortable.
A third party also gave an opinion, which as I am spammed at Fiddling while we drown, I must answer here.
Have there been floods before in the history of Australia?
Have there been cyclones before in the history of Australia?
The answer to both of those questions is “YES”
Please think very hard before you attribute the current disaster to Global Warming.
Of course there have. And any single disaster stands alone and not as evidence. But when you stack up changing weather patterns, changing sea currents, and an overall global temperature increase at a rate that is faster than ever before, and look at the evidence of climate scientists who study this stuff for a living, as opposed to armchair theorists, the evidence is clear. The links you posted show that cyclones and floods have happened before. They say nothing about overall trends and the impact of climate change.
What evidence? All I have ever seen is a few rather dubious correlations between CO2 and temperatures.
Skeptical science although well written, adds nothing to the above.
If you want reasonable scientific proof, at least one of the following must be produced.
1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming?
2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2? In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.
3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?
If you don’t understand what these things are, which would be naturally the first step, why dont you ask one of your scientific buddies?
Then once you understand clearly the above, take a look for a paper which shows at least one proof of the above.
One out of three methods, shouldn’t be to hard right? And then start suspecting that Global warming is effecting Australia’s climate.
Oh and check the links I gave you.
It *is* still a tough debate, not “provable” no matter how many event stats are waved and *especially* not provable that there’s any human influence in any trend that might be emerging.
But it comes down to this: The cost of the potential impact VASTLY outweighs the cost of doing *everything* humanity can now. By a factor of hundreds. If there’s even 1% chance that man-made climate change is a genuine effect, the cost of that 1% risk is greater than the cost of doing something about it.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT: Lives lost, economic turmoil, vast populous regions becoming uninhabitable, the entire way of life for humanity turned on its head, suddenly discovering at some point we have to relocate hundreds of millions of people over a relatively short time frame ie only decades and relocate our agricultural bases to different continents, and much more)
People who say “prove it” really irritate me. I don’t have to prove it. “Reasonably possible, even a little bit” is enough to be really really scary.
The argument “against” is summarised nicely in a quote my “cimate skeptic” team member circulated, badly paraphrased: “You want me to believe that the same people who can’t forecast the weather tomorrow can tell me what the weather will be in 50 years!”
What they don’t realise is that while I may not be able to tell you what you’ll roll next on two dice, I can tell you that if you roll them every day next year you’ll average pretty darn close to 7.
In spite of all that… I oppose pressing people into *individual* action. This is a matter for government, and the “helping hand” that 30% of the population are lending to ease the burden on our infrastructure is unfair on them, and merely lets governments get away with being that little bit more complacent and delaying that little bit longer before eventually they will be forced to *properly* regulate full product lifecycle environmental impact, *properly* install water management systems in our cities, *properly* fund and engage renewable energy and so on.
I’ll tell anyone who wants to here “we” (society as a whole) should be doing more. The more is big enough that it needs to come from governmental management, not from idealistic individuals. eg banning incadescent light bulbs, imposing vehicle emissions targets and so on … simple but effective measures (within their own tiny little boxes). This is what government is *for* … to make members of society co-operate in ways that otherwise we couldn’t be bothered.
Joe is obviously under the impression that (if AGW is fact) we can save the world by changing our light bulbs and using our bicycle more often. He also shows some preference for socialism or perhaps a dictatorial government.
This is my answer to Joe:-
I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.
AGW is baloney anyway!
I observe that you have spammed my logical and relevant reply to your comment.
Now why would that be? Could it be that like most AGW supporters, you wish to distance yourself from any facts that might shake your “faith”?
Anyway I have published it for you. You will find it at my other blog
https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/fiddling-while-we-drown/ where my readers will evaluate your site, based on in part your refusal to face logical facts.
Of course you are welcome to visit and leave your own comment. I never spam comments unless they are obviously are spam and are selling blue pills and the like.