Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
mko9 said:
kerplunk said:
Tax is a tool to change behaviour without using regulation. Should we have banned banned incandescent lightbulbs or just taxed them heavily? But I can see you aren't going to cross the theshold and accept any need for either so there's no point continuing.
Why did we need to do either? CFL were a really crap alternative to incandescent from both a lighting and environmental perspective, and free market forces have seen them relegated to the dustbin of history by LEDs. No banning or taxing required.I would still buy incandescents if they were still available (eg loft lights), less likely to if they were heavily taxed of course, but at least I would have the choice.
I agree, I would probably still buy incandescents for some purposes (assuming they were reasonably priced). But I would also be willing to pay the extra money to put an LED into a fixture that is really hard to get to, or into a fixture that is on all the time. My nightstand light doesn't need to be an LED, but that outside light that I need a ladder to get to does. Either way, I don't have any CFLs in my house, because they are garbage and an environmental nightmare, forced upon us by the climate change advocates.
How well do you think their other half-baked climate plans will come out? Everyone must drive an electric car within 10 years, despite the fact that the entire nations electrical infrastructure can't support it, every house in the land will need to install an expensive charging station, and many people don't have anywhere to park where they could install a charger. Oh, and we'll just throw away 10s of millions of perfectly serviceable vehicles, and buy new ones. Is the government going to install charging stations along the length of every road in every small town over the next 10 years? Actually pay attention the next time you are out driving around, look at where all the cars are parked, and think about how any of them are going to get charged.
robinessex said:
The merry two are jointly both desperately trying not to refute what they consider as rubbish CC theory. That speaks for itself really, says it all.
I've no idea what "trying not to refute what they consider as rubbish CC theory" is supposed to mean.You not going to answer then? That's understandable.
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
I only read as far as the first part purporting to be an analysis of max/min trends at Mildura PO and Midura airport.
The first thing I couldn't help noticing - there is no trend analysis.
Or at least he only appears interested in the peaks (35C plus). For the mean maximum obs that amounts to 12 datapoints out of an available 140.
If that wasn't bad enough 6 of those 12 datapoints are prior to 1909 and should probably be thrown out because there's an obvious discontinuity in the data, so his assessment of the last 110 years is based on just 6 datapoints.
Here's his assessment of the data for Mildura airport since 1946:
"In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree."
and here's the graphs of the data provides:
That's a real WTF!? isn't it! (well apart from for deeps and robinessex I mean obviously).
Even by eyeball there's clearly an increasing trend in mean maximum over the last 70 years at Mildura airport - the thing he sets out to disprove is happening, is right there in the graph plain to see!
After a bit head scratching I figured out what he did there - he's comparing the full period mean temperature at the two DIFFERENT locations Sigh.
Then as if to bolster his dubious methods we get this dubious claim:
"In the instance of Kalgoorlie, as for Mildura, we must have regard to records for locations that are just a few kilometers apart. However, bear in mind that due to the lack of vegetation, airports tend to be warmer than well watered regional towns with their long established and proudly maintained gardens, lawn and trees."
Well there's a way of checking that, but our 'excellent close observor of climate' hasn't spotted it. Obs at Mildura Post Office ceased in 1949 and the obs at Mildura airport began in 1946 so we have a 3 year overlap to compare the annual mean maximum temperature at both locations.
And once again, just by eyeballing the chuffin graphs he provides we can see the airport was COOLER than the PO in all 3 years!
FFS
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 27th February 18:41
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
I only read as far as the first part purporting to be an analysis of max/min trends at Mildura PO and Midura airport.
The first thing I couldn't help noticing - there is no trend analysis.
Or at least he only appears interested in the peaks (35C plus). For the mean maximum obs that amounts to 12 datapoints out of an available 140.
If that wasn't bad enough 6 of those 12 datapoints are prior to 1909 and should probably be thrown out because there's an obvious discontinuity in the data, so his assessment of the last 110 years is based on just 6 datapoints.
Here's his assessment of the data for Mildura airport since 1946:
"In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree."
and here's the graphs of the data provides:
That's a real WTF!? isn't it! (well apart from for deeps and robinessex I mean obviously).
Even by eyeball there's clearly an increasing trend in mean maximum over the last 70 years at Mildura airport - the thing he sets out to disprove is happening, is right there in the graph plain to see!
After a bit head scratching I figured out what he did there - he's comparing the full period mean temperature at the two DIFFERENT locations Sigh.
Then as if to bolster his dubious methods we get this dubious claim:
"In the instance of Kalgoorlie, as for Mildura, we must have regard to records for locations that are just a few kilometers apart. However, bear in mind that due to the lack of vegetation, airports tend to be warmer than well watered regional towns with their long established and proudly maintained gardens, lawn and trees."
Well there's a way of checking that, but our 'excellent close observor of climate' hasn't spotted it. Obs at Mildura Post Office ceased in 1949 and the obs at Mildura airport began in 1946 so we have a 3 year overlap to compare the annual mean maximum temperature at both locations.
And once again, just by eyeballing the chuffin graphs he provides we can see the airport was COOLER than the PO in all 3 years!
FFS
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 27th February 18:41
Not even a thank you for the heads up to save you a few quid whilst destroying the planet with incandescent - go on they're Edisons finest ..... or was it Volta
dickymint said:
Here we go with the science again tut tut
Not even a thank you for the heads up to save you a few quid whilst destroying the planet with incandescent - go on they're Edisons finest ..... or was it Volta
Great googling thanks but 23 dollars for 6 light bulbs doesn't turn me on, mr mint. Not even a thank you for the heads up to save you a few quid whilst destroying the planet with incandescent - go on they're Edisons finest ..... or was it Volta
Plus that wasn't really the point of course. It was a supposed to be about taxing vs regulating etc not chuffing lightbulbs. Y'know - politics
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 27th February 23:38
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
Here we go with the science again tut tut
Not even a thank you for the heads up to save you a few quid whilst destroying the planet with incandescent - go on they're Edisons finest ..... or was it Volta
Great googling thanks but 23 dollars for 6 light bulbs doesn't turn me on, mr mint. Not even a thank you for the heads up to save you a few quid whilst destroying the planet with incandescent - go on they're Edisons finest ..... or was it Volta
Plus that wasn't really the point of course. It was a supposed to be about taxing vs regulating etc not chuffing lightbulbs. Y'know - politics
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 27th February 23:38
kerplunk said:
So we have 'excellent' from deeps and 'sensible' from robinessex.
I only read as far as the first part purporting to be an analysis of max/min trends at Mildura PO and Midura airport.
The first thing I couldn't help noticing - there is no trend analysis.
Or at least he only appears interested in the peaks (35C plus). For the mean maximum obs that amounts to 12 datapoints out of an available 140.
If that wasn't bad enough 6 of those 12 datapoints are prior to 1909 and should probably be thrown out because there's an obvious discontinuity in the data, so his assessment of the last 110 years is based on just 6 datapoints.
Here's his assessment of the data for Mildura airport since 1946:
"In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree."
and here's the graphs of the data provides:
That's a real WTF!? isn't it! (well apart from for deeps and robinessex I mean obviously).
Even by eyeball there's clearly an increasing trend in mean maximum over the last 70 years at Mildura airport - the thing he sets out to disprove is happening, is right there in the graph plain to see!
After a bit head scratching I figured out what he did there - he's comparing the full period mean temperature at the two DIFFERENT locations Sigh.
Then as if to bolster his dubious methods we get this dubious claim:
"In the instance of Kalgoorlie, as for Mildura, we must have regard to records for locations that are just a few kilometers apart. However, bear in mind that due to the lack of vegetation, airports tend to be warmer than well watered regional towns with their long established and proudly maintained gardens, lawn and trees."
Well there's a way of checking that, but our 'excellent close observor of climate' hasn't spotted it. Obs at Mildura Post Office ceased in 1949 and the obs at Mildura airport began in 1946 so we have a 3 year overlap to compare the annual mean maximum temperature at both locations.
And once again, just by eyeballing the chuffin graphs he provides we can see the airport was COOLER than the PO in all 3 years!
FFS
You need to read the whole article. I feel you are misunderstanding it. I'm glad you at least have a questioning mind and are open to look at articles, which is more than can be said for those who will only bury their heads in the sand or request that the thread be closed to silence voices they don't agree with.I only read as far as the first part purporting to be an analysis of max/min trends at Mildura PO and Midura airport.
The first thing I couldn't help noticing - there is no trend analysis.
Or at least he only appears interested in the peaks (35C plus). For the mean maximum obs that amounts to 12 datapoints out of an available 140.
If that wasn't bad enough 6 of those 12 datapoints are prior to 1909 and should probably be thrown out because there's an obvious discontinuity in the data, so his assessment of the last 110 years is based on just 6 datapoints.
Here's his assessment of the data for Mildura airport since 1946:
"In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree."
and here's the graphs of the data provides:
That's a real WTF!? isn't it! (well apart from for deeps and robinessex I mean obviously).
Even by eyeball there's clearly an increasing trend in mean maximum over the last 70 years at Mildura airport - the thing he sets out to disprove is happening, is right there in the graph plain to see!
After a bit head scratching I figured out what he did there - he's comparing the full period mean temperature at the two DIFFERENT locations Sigh.
Then as if to bolster his dubious methods we get this dubious claim:
"In the instance of Kalgoorlie, as for Mildura, we must have regard to records for locations that are just a few kilometers apart. However, bear in mind that due to the lack of vegetation, airports tend to be warmer than well watered regional towns with their long established and proudly maintained gardens, lawn and trees."
Well there's a way of checking that, but our 'excellent close observor of climate' hasn't spotted it. Obs at Mildura Post Office ceased in 1949 and the obs at Mildura airport began in 1946 so we have a 3 year overlap to compare the annual mean maximum temperature at both locations.
And once again, just by eyeballing the chuffin graphs he provides we can see the airport was COOLER than the PO in all 3 years!
FFS
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 27th February 18:41
Article said:
The minimum, both prior to and after 1950, is close to 16.5C. No change. Contrary to expectations based on greenhouse theory, all the energy that is picked up during the day is dissipated overnight. There is no inhibition of the cooling process in the eight hours of darkness in mid-summer. Quick and complete. There is no ‘greenhouse effect’ in Mildura.
In the 70 years prior to 1950 the average maximum reached or exceeded 35C on ten occasions. In the seventy years post 1950 it reached 35C on two occasions and exceeded it once. In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree. If we rule out the data for the years prior to 1910, as being perhaps inflated due to the use of ‘non standard equipment’, no change.
The data for the airport runs from 1954. The situation in Kalgoorlie is like Mildura. The warmest years occur in the earliest decades, in this instance, persisting until the 1930s. If we consider only the data post 1910 is reliable, we still have 20 years of sustained warmth from 1910 to 1930, warmer than recent decades.
Remember that greenhouse gases are well mixed. If warming is produced by burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases, it should be evident in all seasons, in both the minimum and maximum temperature, everywhere, without exception. Warming should be a one-way affair, constantly up. The Greenhouse mechanism can’t take a holiday.
A Caution:
Regrettably, the temperature record from the BOM is sparse and discontinuous. Recording stations open and close. There have been changes in the type of housing that shield thermometers from direct sunlight. There have been changes in the amount of vegetation that cools the air in the vicinity of the recording station. One cannot assume that data from our BOM, possibly no better or worse than that of any other country, is capable of supporting an assertion that the background air temperature has changed from one decade to the next, let alone over a period of one hundred years.
In the 70 years prior to 1950 the average maximum reached or exceeded 35C on ten occasions. In the seventy years post 1950 it reached 35C on two occasions and exceeded it once. In the most recent seventy years the mean maximum is cooler by about a degree. If we rule out the data for the years prior to 1910, as being perhaps inflated due to the use of ‘non standard equipment’, no change.
The data for the airport runs from 1954. The situation in Kalgoorlie is like Mildura. The warmest years occur in the earliest decades, in this instance, persisting until the 1930s. If we consider only the data post 1910 is reliable, we still have 20 years of sustained warmth from 1910 to 1930, warmer than recent decades.
Remember that greenhouse gases are well mixed. If warming is produced by burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases, it should be evident in all seasons, in both the minimum and maximum temperature, everywhere, without exception. Warming should be a one-way affair, constantly up. The Greenhouse mechanism can’t take a holiday.
A Caution:
Regrettably, the temperature record from the BOM is sparse and discontinuous. Recording stations open and close. There have been changes in the type of housing that shield thermometers from direct sunlight. There have been changes in the amount of vegetation that cools the air in the vicinity of the recording station. One cannot assume that data from our BOM, possibly no better or worse than that of any other country, is capable of supporting an assertion that the background air temperature has changed from one decade to the next, let alone over a period of one hundred years.
deeps said:
You need to read the whole article. I feel you are misunderstanding it. I'm glad you at least have a questioning mind and are open to look at articles, which is more than can be said for those who will only bury their heads in the sand or request that the thread be closed to silence voices they don't agree with.
It turns out those who just ignored it because of the source were quite right to do so. I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
deeps said:
...I'm glad you at least have a questioning mind and are open to look at articles, which is more than can be said for those who will only bury their heads in the sand or request that the thread be closed to silence voices they don't agree with.
I totally understand people being sucked in by this kind of article. It's presented to look "sciencey", which to laymen like us gives an illusion of accuracy and thoroughness. There are certain things you learn to look out for, however. The red flags for me and the reason I didn't waste any further time on it was the daft ramble about "the collapse of western civilisation", and then figuring out the author's business has the potential to benefit from the agenda its promoting. That suggests the article is politics dressed up as science.
This is why the scientific method has a review stage. We can all be easily misled by a well structured presentation so an independent review (which kerplunk has done for you here) is crucial.
The next step for a "questioning mind" would be to read what kerplunk said then go back to the article see if what he's saying is right. Just waving it away because you don't like it is not critical thinking.
Incidentally, the Australian BOM website is pretty good for checking the data yourself.
Here's the long term record for the Murray / Darling basin: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker...
And South Australia: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker...
Here's the long term record for the Murray / Darling basin: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker...
And South Australia: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker...
El stovey said:
durbster said:
There are certain things you learn to look out for, however. The red flags for me and the reason I didn't waste any further time on it was. . .
That deeps posted it and Robinessex thought it was worthy of attention? 
To be fair, it was nice to see deeps post something that wasn't just a meme designed for simpletons to share on Facebook.
kerplunk said:
It turns out those who just ignored it because of the source were quite right to do so.
I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
The article is clear but of course will never be accepted by those of a warmer ilk.. No need for further elucidation.I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
durbster said:
El stovey said:
durbster said:
There are certain things you learn to look out for, however. The red flags for me and the reason I didn't waste any further time on it was. . .
That deeps posted it and Robinessex thought it was worthy of attention? To be fair, it was nice to see deeps post something that wasn't just a meme designed for simpletons to share on Facebook.
deeps said:
kerplunk said:
It turns out those who just ignored it because of the source were quite right to do so.
I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
The article is clear but of course will never be accepted by those of a warmer ilk.. No need for further elucidation.I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
deeps said:
kerplunk said:
It turns out those who just ignored it because of the source were quite right to do so.
I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
The article is clear but of course will never be accepted by those of a warmer ilk.. No need for further elucidation.I can't see anything in the bits you've added that rescues this sorry excuse for trend analysis in Mildura. If you think there is you need to explain how in your own words. Don't just paste - elucidate.
te and you're clearly incapable of defending it against the issues I've raised (as expected)If a warmist had used the same methods to demonstrate warming, sceptic auditors would be queuing up to shred it and shout FRAUD.
And you would be nodding along.
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 28th February 16:04
Cumbria coal mine plan 'damaging PM's reputation'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
Boris Johnson has been warned by some of his foreign ambassadors that a planned coal mine in Cumbria is damaging his reputation.
The PM wants to lead the world on climate change, but the ambassadors say his tacit support for the mine is bringing accusations of hypocrisy.
The issue has flared as the UK co-hosts a coalition of nations pledging to phase out coal in power generation.
The Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) was initiated by the UK.
Supporters of the Cumbria mine argue it should be encouraged because it will produce special coking coal for steel making, not thermal coal for power.........Germany is also a member of the PPCA, yet it opened a new coal-fired power plant last year. Canada has committed to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, but there are plans for new and expanded coal mining production in the west of the country..........contines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
Boris Johnson has been warned by some of his foreign ambassadors that a planned coal mine in Cumbria is damaging his reputation.
The PM wants to lead the world on climate change, but the ambassadors say his tacit support for the mine is bringing accusations of hypocrisy.
The issue has flared as the UK co-hosts a coalition of nations pledging to phase out coal in power generation.
The Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) was initiated by the UK.
Supporters of the Cumbria mine argue it should be encouraged because it will produce special coking coal for steel making, not thermal coal for power.........Germany is also a member of the PPCA, yet it opened a new coal-fired power plant last year. Canada has committed to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, but there are plans for new and expanded coal mining production in the west of the country..........contines
Looks like robinessex has moved on. He wants repudiations but then just ignores.
robinessex said:
The merry two are jointly both desperately trying not to refute what they consider as rubbish CC theory. That speaks for itself really, says it all.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 1st March 10:28
kerplunk said:
Looks like robinessex has moved on. He wants repudiations but then just ignores.
You bothered to look. The other two didn't.robinessex said:
The merry two are jointly both desperately trying not to refute what they consider as rubbish CC theory. That speaks for itself really, says it all.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 1st March 10:28
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
Looks like robinessex has moved on. He wants repudiations but then just ignores.
You bothered to look. The other two didn't.robinessex said:
The merry two are jointly both desperately trying not to refute what they consider as rubbish CC theory. That speaks for itself really, says it all.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 1st March 10:28
You and deeps are now the merry two - your lack of response speaks for itself, says it all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff