The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
Re: Re: Re: IPCC advocates 80% renewable energy by 2050 on 06/16/2011 18:41:34 MDT Print View



Here in the US, everything is subsidized (oil, alternatives, movies, businesses, ...) when you scratch the surface with the exception of alcohol, strip clubs, and that type of entertainment in general.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: IPCC advocates 80% renewable energy by 2050 on 06/16/2011 21:13:54 MDT Print View

Designing buildings to take advantage of solar radiation, heat exchangers, and co-generation opportunities are also ways to make use of largely non polluting energy sources. It is attracting increasing attention in Europe, not so much here in the US.

Edited for grammar.

Edited by ouzel on 06/18/2011 16:51:06 MDT.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 05:12:04 MDT Print View

"researchers at Newcastle University conclude that elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling basin were a combination of natural factors:

Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University's Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics."


Stewart Franks is not a meterologist or climate change scientist - but he is part of the Australian climate change denial establishment, is associated with Family First and the Murdoch Press and has in the past had research grants from Macquarie Energy, one of NSW's largest coal-fired power generators.

Not exactly a neutral voice. And he didn't do any research -so the "researchers" thing is a bit misleading, he just bagged the people who did do research.

By the way, there's been a lot of disquiet in Australia recently about the way the Murdoch press - which includes the Australian, which Rog often quotes from - have been blatantly pushing a denialist agenda. The bigger question is why Murdoch cares: an ETS or carbon tax won't affect his newspapers ...

Edited by Arapiles on 06/18/2011 05:16:08 MDT.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 06/18/2011 06:04:04 MDT Print View

"This columnist for a Sydney newspaper thinks we ought to tattoo the forearm of global warming deniers so everyone will know who they are.

It's intended to be provocative and a "joke", I guess."


Yes, well spotted: hyperbole as a comic tool. Pity that others on the intermesh aren't as sophisticated:

"After 25 years writing this column, I've had my first experience of an internet hate campaign. So far, more than 2400 people, nearly all American, have emailed me. More emails come every time I hit the send/receive button. About 5 per cent contain threats of violence. Even stranger, quite a few threaten me with sexual violence. They say, in various forms, that they want to rape me.

The only good news: quite a few don't seem to know the precise location of Sydney. Or Sidney, as some call it. ''You are so out of touch with America, I cannot believe you are published by an American paper,'' writes one emailer, having read the story on The Sydney Morning Herald website. Quite a few tell me I should be nervous if I ever try to leave Britain.

Here's how it started. Last week, in this spot, I wrote a piece about climate change. It was critical of both the left and the right and contained some comic hyperbole about both: that environmental zealots wanted us all to live in caves and that climate-change deniers should tattoo their beliefs on their bodies so they couldn't later deny their role in preventing action on climate change.

So far, so hum-hum. On Saturday and Sunday, the piece never made it to the Herald's list of ''most read'' opinion pieces. I had nine emails - four of them saying they agreed, five against, but all expressed pleasantly. No one thought the piece was offensive or even that remarkable. The comic hyperbole was seen as, well, comic hyperbole.

Then - sometime Sunday night - a link to the piece was put on a right-wing website in the US, offering me up as another communist trying to ruin the world through the ''hoax'' of climate change. The piece started multiplying in cyberspace, mainly on websites dedicated to exposing the leftist conspiracy about climate change.

Suddenly I was the toast of town: about 300,000 people read the piece on smh.com.au between Sunday night and Tuesday morning. I had more readers than anyone else in the Herald. Only problem was: many of them wanted to kill me.

I'm not going to argue that Americans don't understand irony; American comic writing can be as sophisticated and sarcastic and subtle as that of any country.

On the other hand, one of the dangers of the web is that writing with an English or Australian sensibility can be placed in front of an audience with a different tradition. When I write about tying a climate denier to a post off Manly so he can be consumed by the ever-rising waves, it was clear to an Australian readership that the image was meant to be comic and absurd. Indeed, in the original piece I explicitly call the notion ''not ideal''.

Clear? I thought so - but not clear enough.

The Americans believed I was seriously proposing they be tattooed against their will. Given what they thought I was saying, I guess their upset was understandable.

And, boy, were they upset. TTB, from Nevada, said he had ''a couple of 9mm hollowpoints with your name on them''. Jonathan, of Sag Harbor, NY, wanted to remove my test icles, while DB wanted to remove my pe nis. And M. Glasgow, in an email sunnily titled ''can't wait to meet you'', observed that: ''I will kill you so dead that your rotting body will do nothing but energise the worms and maggots that will do their part in saving the planet from morons like you.''

Actually helping nature through my own death is a theme that energises much of the correspondence. JH, for example, suggests that since I like nature so much, I should donate my ''otherwise worthless body to the study of marine life by serving as shark bait''.

Actually, that did make me laugh.

Many use that phrase ''you f---ing commie ba stard'', which seems charmingly retro. In others I'm a ''hardcore-Left ideologue and operative''. Stan, in Seattle, on the other hand, has me working for the British royal family: ''A wh ore working for the Queen's yellow green paper money''.

And a huge proportion mention Al Gore, who they believe is paying me. So, boss, I need to tell you: they hate you even more than they hate me.

Apparently Gore has bought a beach property (in some emails he's bought two, in others four), thus proving Gore doesn't believe his own lies. Quite a few accuse me (and him) of working for what they call ''the Jews'', and mention several big companies as having financed the hoax.

By quoting these strange theories, I'm not arguing that there are not debates to be had about global warming - particularly in terms of the best way to tackle it. From Monday onwards, another handful of emails came from Australians taking me to task - all expressed reasonably.

What wisdom have I drawn from the experience? Don't put an email address at the end of articles. Avoid travel in the near future to the American states of Arizona, Texas and Nevada.

And maybe, in a world of international publishing, learn to be clearer. The thing about tattoos was not meant to be taken as a serious suggestion. For those who took it as such, my apologies."

Interestingly, by way of rationalising the death threats that some climate researchers in Canberra have been receiving - as well as the independent MPs who currently have the balance of power in Australia's federal parliament - a denialist website in Australia cited this article as evidence of hatred against denialists - completely missing that it was intended to be comic, not serious. Whereas the idiots leaving death threats on the MPs' personal phones are being taken quite seriously by the Federal police.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 06:41:31 MDT Print View

Arapiles says:
Stewart Franks is not a meterologist or climate change scientist - but he is part of the Australian climate change denial establishment...And he didn't do any research -so the "researchers" thing is a bit misleading, he just bagged the people who did do research.


http://www.newcastle.edu.au/staff/research-profile/Stewart_Franks/

Highlighted Publications

Year Citation Nova
2006 Verdon-Kidd Danielle Cherie, Franks Stewart William, 'Long-term behaviour of ENSO: Interactions with the PDO over the past 400 years inferred from paleoclimate records', Geophysical Research Letters, 33 5 pages (2006) [C1]
2003 Kavetski Dmitri Nikolaevich, Franks Stewart William, Kuczera George Alfred, 'Confronting Input Uncertainty In Environmental Modelling', Calibration Of Watershed Models, AGU Books Board, Washington, DC, United States, 49-68 (2003) [B1]
2003 Kiem Anthony Stuart, Franks Stewart William, Kuczera George Alfred, 'Multi-Decadal Variability Of Flood Risk', Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 7.1-7-4 (2003) [C1]
2003 M Sivapalan, K Takeuchi, Franks Stewart William, V K Gupta, H Karambiri, V Lakshmi, X Liang, J J Mcdonnell, E M Mendiondo, P E O'Connell, T Oki, J W Pomeroy, D Schertzer, S Uhlenbrook, E Zehe, 'IAHS Decade On Predictions In Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003-2012: Shaping An Exciting Future For The Hydrological Sciences', Hydrological Sciences Journal, Vol. 48 857-880 (2003) [C1]
Publications

Books (3 outputs)
Edited (A3) (3 outputs)
Chapters In A Book (11 outputs)
Chapter in A1 Book (B1) (11 outputs)
Journal Articles (43 outputs)
Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal (C1) (40 outputs)
Non Refereed Article in a Professional Journal (C3) (3 outputs)
Conference Publication (74 outputs)
Full Written Paper - Refereed (E1) (47 outputs)
Full Written Paper - Non Refereed (E2) (9 outputs)
Extract of Paper (E3) (16 outputs)
Edited volume of Conference Proceedings (E4)

Talking cr@p again Arapiles?

and has in the past had research grants from Macquarie Energy, one of NSW's largest coal-fired power generators.

You do know the arch AGW establishment the Climate Research Unit at the university of East Anglia was set up with money from Royal Dutch Shell don't you Arapiles? Scientists opinions aren't as easily bought as those of,, some other professions as you should know.

By the way, there's been a lot of disquiet in Australia recently about the way the Murdoch press - which includes the Australian, which Rog often quotes from - have been blatantly pushing a denialist agenda.

I expect this disquiet has largely been expressed in those parts of the Australian press which have been blatantly pushing an alarmist agenda. ;-)

The bigger question is why Murdoch cares: an ETS or carbon tax won't affect his newspapers ...

Who knows. Maybe he sees his role as providing (shock, horror!) some balance to the rabid outpourings of the climate-bothering sensationalists and tax raisers. Could be he's only doing that so they'll have more wonga to spend on his entertainment products though.

Speculations on a postcard to the usual address.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/18/2011 07:03:17 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 06/18/2011 06:58:26 MDT Print View

"This columnist for a Sydney newspaper thinks we ought to tattoo the forearm of global warming deniers so everyone will know who they are.

It's intended to be provocative and a "joke", I guess."


Yes, well spotted: hyperbole as a comic tool. Pity that others on the intermesh aren't as sophisticated:

Yes, I agree that it was mischievous of the blogs which ran the story to fail to include the digs he put in about the alarmists. The overall direction of his piece was without a doubt pro AGW though, and so he successfully raised the blood pressure of the mouth frothers on the other side. Also, he's right that American sensibilities are very different to Aussie and Brit sensibilities when it comes to provocative, subtly ironic or risque humour.

Over on Wattsup, Brits have taken to adding a /sarc tag at the end of ironic comments to avoid misinterpretation by some of our more literally minded American friends.

Diplomatic Mike
(MikefaeDundee)

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 07:07:02 MDT Print View

As someone who isn't clever enought to understand all the data, i'm sick of being called a 'denier' because i lean to the side that Rog is on. Surely i'm not the only non-academic to have concerns about the demonisation of anyone who dares to argue the opposite view?
Can someone come up with a term to describe folk like myself? :)
Maybe i shouldn't have asked that last question!

I love this thread, even though i never contribute.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 07:20:32 MDT Print View

"Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University's Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics."

known principles of physics

my b.s. alarm bell is going off like crazy

"By the way, there's been a lot of disquiet in Australia recently about the way the Murdoch press - which includes the Australian, which Rog often quotes from - have been blatantly pushing a denialist agenda."

But, but, but,... I thought Murdoch was "fair and balanced"

And thanks a lot you Australians for unleashing him on us : )

I have heard he is getting old and his children are much more liberal. It will be interesting to see what happens when he phases out his control.

Arapiles, you seem to have ruffled a few feathers here also

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 07:36:24 MDT Print View

"But, but, but,... I thought Murdoch was "fair and balanced"

And thanks a lot you Australians for unleashing him on us : )"


Apologies. At least he's not one of us any more.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 07:52:59 MDT Print View

Rog

Mea culpa (partly) - he has published in hydrology and ENSO variability but isn't a climate scientist. That said, given the groups and individuals he associates with, it would be fair to wonder if he's approaching the debate with an open mind.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 08:28:18 MDT Print View

"Can someone come up with a term to describe folk like myself? :)"

Sceptic?

As I've said a few times, I don't have much time for some of the wilder claims being made by some climate change proponents - but, focussing locally, there's clearly something going on given the changes in rainfall patterns in parts of Australia.

Because of that I take the same view that The Economist does: even if there's doubt about the science, even if it all turns out to be wrong - given the costs of acting are low and the consequences of not acting are potentially catastrophic, the more logical thing to do is to try to reduce CO2 levels.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 09:11:44 MDT Print View

"given the costs of acting are low and the consequences of not acting are potentially catastrophic, the more logical thing to do is to try to reduce CO2 levels."

Reducing CO2 levels would require that we quit emitting any more CO2, which would require Draconian actions.

At least we should be taking all the low cost actions to minimize increasing CO2 levels.

A lot of actions would actually be better economically than the status quo.

In Europe, they don't subsidize energy as much as the U.S. so it's more expensive. Their houses and automobiles are more energy efficient, yet they seem to be living and driving just fine, and their economies are about the same as the U.S.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 12:05:35 MDT Print View

Arapiles says:

Mea culpa (partly) - he has published in hydrology and ENSO variability but isn't a climate scientist.


No Arapiles, he understands the physics of hydrology better than 99/100 climate scientists do.

That said, given the groups and individuals he associates with, it would be fair to wonder if he's approaching the debate with an open mind.

The same could be said of 99/100 climate scientists too.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 12:08:51 MDT Print View

Jerry says:
"Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University's Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics."

known principles of physics

my b.s. alarm bell is going off like crazy


Mine does that when someone tells me Arrhenius proved that co2 must warm the atmosphere too.

Still, Stewart Franks work is far more testable and falsifiable, so feel free to give it a go.

Diplomatic Mike
(MikefaeDundee)

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 12:13:27 MDT Print View

"The costs of acting are low"

The small area of 'wild land' left in Scotland is slowly getting smothered by wind power stations. From what i read, they are un-economic, and wouldn't exist without government subsidies.

The day is approaching when i won't be able to walk in Scotland without having a man-made structure in view. If any of you US members are thinking of visiting Scotland, do it soon before any sense of wilderness is gone forever.

The cost seems very high if this all turns out to be a bad joke.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 12:24:48 MDT Print View

Mike says:

As someone who isn't clever enought to understand all the data, i'm sick of being called a 'denier' because i lean to the side that Rog is on. Surely i'm not the only non-academic to have concerns about the demonisation of anyone who dares to argue the opposite view?
Can someone come up with a term to describe folk like myself? :)
Maybe i shouldn't have asked that last question!


Those committed to the AGW hypothesis seem to want to separate off 'sceptics' from 'deniers' by saying that true sceptics advance scientific arguments. This is a false dichotomy intended to intimidate and belittle ordinary folk who assess the argument in their own terms and reach their own conclusions on the balance of the evidence they see and understand. This is reasonable, rational, and legitimate, and don't let anyone say otherwise. If anyone was stupid enough to call me a 'denier' to my face they'd get a bunch of fives rather than an argument from me anyway. Why should I waste my time bandying words with people who can't speak civilly to others? I only put up with it on the net because they provide the foil for my written work. Even then, on a busy forum, I tend to ignore them.

I love this thread, even though I never contribute.

You just did, and thanks.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 12:34:16 MDT Print View

Mike says:

"The costs of acting are low"

The small area of 'wild land' left in Scotland is slowly getting smothered by wind power stations. From what i read, they are un-economic, and wouldn't exist without government subsidies.

The day is approaching when i won't be able to walk in Scotland without having a man-made structure in view. If any of you US members are thinking of visiting Scotland, do it soon before any sense of wilderness is gone forever.

The cost seems very high if this all turns out to be a bad joke.


Wind power in the UK is a bad joke, and benefits only those recieving the subsidy, like Camorons wife

The climate here is too cold to avoid iced up blades, and there is insufficient hydro capacity to store the energy when the wind does blow (20% of the time) but the power can't be used. The gris operators recently had to pay out some huge sum to the windmill owners to *NOT* pass power onto the grid when demand was low on a windy bnight. Meanwhile, the amount of green tax hidden in power bills is not disclosed to the person paying it.

It stinks of corruption, mismanagement, arbitrary use of planning powers, and sheer stupidity driven by unrealistic agendas.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 16:25:08 MDT Print View

Arapiles says:
focussing locally, there's clearly something going on given the changes in rainfall patterns in parts of Australia.


Yes Arapiles, it's called "Weather". Don't you remember berating me many pages ago on this thread when I mentioned some cooling events by telling me that anything less than a 30 year trend was "just weather"? And don't you remember me producing a map of Australia published by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology showing you that even before the deluge of the last year at the end of the drought (which I correctly predicted using my solar-planetary technique), rainfall in Australia was slightly up over the C20th? Which is exactly what you would expect in a slightly warmer world. Be thankful and keep you tanks full, it'll soon be going the other way.

Here's a graph of mid pacific US coastal rainfall over the C20th. See any drastic trends?

.precip us pacific coast

Because of that I take the same view that The Economist does: even if there's doubt about the science, even if it all turns out to be wrong - given the costs of acting are low and the consequences of not acting are potentially catastrophic, the more logical thing to do is to try to reduce CO2 levels.

Unless you provide a breakdown of the projected costs of shutting down Australia's coal and mineral based energy intensive economy, and some proof that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from 0.028% to 0.045% of the atmosphere is "potentially catastrophic", I'm going to treat this as the EMPTY RHETORIC it is.

Here are some estimated costs from our side:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/

Edited by tallbloke on 06/18/2011 16:55:51 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re : The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 16:49:49 MDT Print View

"Because of that I take the same view that The Economist does: even if there's doubt about the science, even if it all turns out to be wrong - given the costs of acting are low and the consequences of not acting are potentially catastrophic, the more logical thing to do is to try to reduce CO2 levels."

I think this describes the position of many of us.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 06/18/2011 16:53:07 MDT Print View

"No Arapiles, he understands the physics of hydrology better than 99/100 climate scientists do."

That would be a tough proposition to prove, Rog. Care to try?