.!.
I was travelling yesterday, so the Monday Message Board is a day late. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
# Ian Gould Says: February 11th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
We are present in wars on other peoples soil when it is in our national interest to do so. So far this strategy seems to have worked pretty well, going by the absence other people fighting wars on our soil.
Many of AUS’s global-ranging military expeditions, detailed in Ian Gould’s shopping list, were deposits in the favour bank (or insurance premiums, if you like) made in the expectation of support from our hegemonic patron in the event of a real regional threat.
Although quite a few of them were aimed at confronting and containing direct and imminent threats to AUS’s national interests (Nippon militarism throughout Asia-Pacific, Communist revolution in East Asia, Indonesian expansion in the Near North, Nazi aggression against everyone, everwhere…)
In the case of Iraq-attack we participated in the Coalition of the Willing as payback for the US helping us curb rogue elements in the TNI in Timor. I pointed this out ad nauseum at the time (comment links rotted at Quiggin), it was later confirmed by Downer and, as Hugh White observed, was all of a piece with our alliance geo-politics. White begins by summarising the US’s assistance to AUS in the INTERFET expedition:
White states that AUS’s occasional forays in the ME in support of US military efforts there were a quid pro quo to build up our stock of alliance brownie points:
This is the common sense of Machiavellian regional power politics. Most ordinary Australians instinctively grasp this, which is why the US military alliance continues to enjoy strong popular support, even after being buggerised about by Republican misadventures. But most progressive Australians fail to see it, ignore it or deny the bleeding obvious until they are blue in the face. As you would expect.
Has anyone in the Ozblogoshphere, or indeed the MSM, noticed that Europe’ dramatic lurch to the Right is now nearly a decade old? (It began, as these things usually do, in Austria).
Now Israel has joined the mad rush, for similar underlying reasons. The Israeli Right, in contradiction to the Quiggin thesis on the futility of war, seems to be making a success of its recent military ventures.
Left-liberals seem to have averted their maidenly gaze from the deplorable events unfolding in beloved Europe. Or perhaps being in the throes of a prolonged Obamagasm over the past couple of years has distracted their attention.
I dont seem to suffer from such conclusion-jumping inhibitions. It fits perfectly with a much derided “Decline of the Wets” thesis that the present commenter has occasionally proposed.
My unpardonable bad taste in mentioning this usually draws a lecture about the fallacy of drawing general conclusions from a series of exceptional special cases. Plus a bit of finger wagging from some Left-liberal worthy on the wickedness of encouraging or even noticing politically incorrect trends. I seem to recall Pr Q dishing this out to me on a couple of occasions.
The Right-wing tendency in the USE bears little resemblance to the USA’s version thereof. Post-modern European right-wingery is isolationist rather than expansionist, fairly statist rather than free market capitalist and skeptical of Open Borders for people and goods.
Perhaps the eccentric nature of the European right-wing animal has thrown the aim of the Anglosphere’s liberal commentators. They are not used to having such exotic wild beasts in their ideological cross-hairs. Especially coming from a region reputed to be be inhabited tamer species.
But the Right-wing gorilla in the European living room has now grown so large and grumpy it has become impossible for even Left-liberals to ignore. Here is Newsweek tut-tutting about it earlier last year:
As predicted, Barroso did win the President of the USE. (Blair was relegated to the fools errand of the USE’s ME peace envoy. Good luck with that.)
The awkward silence about the USE’s right-ward lurch, which is now long and broad enough to be considered a secular trend rather than cyclical fluctuation, is not going to make matters better. And its not going to go away of its own accord.
Ordinary Europeans, in the present historical moment, show little or no interest in further experiments with elitist cultural liberalism. The double whammy of the top-down slam of integration and sideways squeeze from immigration has stretched their political patience.
I suggest that bloggers at least pay some attention to this trend. For a start it might shake some of their complacent liberal assumptions, which appear to have been set in specially re-inforced ideological concrete since about 1973.
More importantly it might direct their attention to broader ideological trends emerging in the worlds most recently formed super-power.
“The Israeli Right, in contradiction to the Quiggin thesis on the futility of war, seems to be making a success of its recent military ventures.”
Kadima, which emerged as the largest party in the elections and was in power (more or less) during the recent war in Gaza isn;t on the right of Israeli politics either doemstically or on security matters.
47# Michael
I agree about Senator Fielding. I dont think he is asking a lot at all, and what he wants is helpful. What I didnt like to see last night was the poor man stating his case that he was losing his own sleep over the fiscal stimulus and half the parliament were asleep on their desks when he was trying to make his case. Good on him actually (he wasnt one of my favourites after VSU). 4 bill to the unemployed IS a piddling amount and a lot of these people will be the NEWLY unemployed recently shed from companies as a result of the GFC.
Ian Gould @ 53: Please read Setser on the latest Chinese trade figures.
“Not knowing this marks you as a mindless parrot squawking right wing propaganda”
Good on you Ian.
I guess I’m just a mindless redneck parrot with a V8, a green lawn and better things to do than worry about unprovable predictions from the band-wagon of ‘scientints’.
My point was that it is not OK to have a go at people because their opinions differ from yours. Didn’t your mum teach you any respect?
Re Dave @ 1
It is regrettable the occurrences in Victoria and Queensland and my sympathy lies with all those adversely impacted.
A HISTORY of fatal bushfires in Australia;
Feb 7, 2009 – Many people confirmed killed and fears of more fatalities in bushfires across rural Victoria.
Dec 30, 2007 – Blaze kills three truckers on a highway near Coolgardie in WA.
Jan 2006 – Three deaths and multi-million-dollar stock and property losses in 10 days of bushfires in Victoria.
Jan 11, 2005 – Nine lives lost in South Australian Eyre Peninsula bushfires.
Dec 2003 – Two women die as they try to outrun flames near Tenterden, 350km south-east of Perth.
Jan 18, 2003 – Four people die and almost 500 homes are razed in a massive firestorm in Canberra.
Dec 2002 – Two men die and more than 20 homes lost in bushfires that spread from rural NSW to ring Sydney.
Dec 2, 1998 – Bushfire claims five firefighters at Linton in Victoria.
Dec 2, 1997 – Two die in bushfires at Lithgow in NSW.
Jan 21, 1997 – Three people die and 33 homes destroyed in bushfires that ravaged the Dandenong Ranges on Melbourne’s eastern outskirts.
Jan 1994 – Four die, 200 properties lost, several hundred people injured as bushfires from rural NSW descend on Sydney.
Feb 16, 1983 – Ash Wednesday bushfires in Victoria and South Australia claim 76 people.
Jan 8, 1969 – 23 people die in grassfires in Victoria across townships including Lara, Daylesford, Dulgana, Yea, Darraweit, Kangaroo Flat and Korongvale.
Feb 7, 1967 – Bushfires kill 59 people in southern Tasmania.
Jan 13, 1939 – Black Friday bushfires in Victoria kill 71 people and destroy several towns across 20,000 square kilometres of burnt land.
“I’m asking them to explain to me what is causing these incredible temperatures – they say its natural, that it isn’t global warming – so what is it.”
Dave stated the recent hot temperatures are a ‘Record’.Well Dave a record to what? Unfortunately, there are a few aeons of missing global climate data, so it would be moronic for anybody to find this “weather is all normal” or un-normal for that matter. If you want me to extrapolate to fill in the missing aeons of data, then I can create a chart or table to be as normal or un-normal as you like, depending whether you desire a denialist or AGW position.
Not only is there aeons of missing historical data, 97% of the globe has never had a temperature reading, so any percieved rise in temperatures is an extrapolated myth.
Anyway Dave, you might be a bit hot under the collar at the moment and that is regrettable, as I said above, my sympathy goes out to any victims of this disaster, but this disaster like the ones before it does not prove or disprove AGW, in fact it just confirms the thesis that when it comes to climate knowledge we are left in the dark..
it is so funny to see intelligent writers mangling their brains trying to make sense of obamas first actions,
martin wolf in the FT goes through the two possible causes for financial problems,
illiquidity or insolvency,
convinced himself that the system is insolvent he struggles to understand ‘the new plan’,
The new plan seems to make sense if and only if the principal problem is illiquidity.
the obama administration appears to be making a blunder he concludes,
well forgive me for repeating atheme,
there is a third possibility martin…
obama is working for the banks.
there, the new plan makes sense now doesnt it
# 53 Ian Gould Says: February 12th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Ian Gould’s suggestion that Israel’s non-Right wing parties are doing relatively well these days has a naive, threadbare quality in the light of the revival of Sharon and Netanyahu’s political fortunes. It is an indication of how far politics has lurched to the Right in Israel that a party set up by Sharon (“the bulldozer”) is now considered the Great White Hope of Israeli Leftism.
Kadima’s rise reflects the Israeli publics disaffection with Labor’s Old Left statism, cronyistic union-hack corruption and the failure of the Rabin-Barak Road Map to Peace. This is not exactly something for the Left to be crowing about.
Even by the weak standard of nominal description the Kadima is commonly classified as Centre-Right. Wikipedia notes that:
Un-reconstructed behaviorist that I am, I prefer to designate agents by their actions rather than their adverts. By this standard the whole Israeli political class has lurched drastically to the Right since Arafat launched Intifada II, thereby interring Oslo and resurrecting the career of Sharon.
And since then the Israeli Right has gone from strength to strength with the success of the Wall as a counter-terrorist measure and the systematic destruction of neighbouring terrorist havens in the West Bank, Lebanon and now Gaza. These Israeli militarist victories have translated into Israeli Right-wing political gains. The SMH reports this Right wing gain which everyone, with the apparent exception of Ian Gould, can see as plain as their face:
The interesting question is what is the underlying driving force behind this unsightly out-break of foaming-at-the-mouth Rightism. My interpretation is, as always, the failure of Left-liberalism to cope with the problem of maintaining civil integrity in the context of alien forms of cultural diversity and foreign-based martial adversity.
At least when these two create bad chemistry in ones own back-yard, as they have in the Israeli case. Its obvious that Palestinians are un-reconciled with Israel’s cultural identity, never mind its political sovereignty. And various supra-national agencies (UN, USA and USE) have been as much a hindrance as a help in sorting things out. So the Israeli Right has taken matters into its own hands.
Something similiar has been driving European politics to the Right, especially since Brussel’s has tried to shove integration down everyones throats post-Maastricht and immigration down everyones throats post-911 and 7/7.
The interesting problem from the political science pov is why the Right is still so politically successful throughout the world, despite its ideological unpalatability, intellectual disabilities and institutional failures esp in financial matters.
But at least Obama’s in the House and Kevin’s here to help. Something salvaged from the wreckage.
Hi Tony, so despite the fact that we are now getting temperatures the highest since our 150 years plus records started, and low rainfall, the lowest since our 150 years plus records started, you state this is not out of the ordinary because we can’t compare it against evidence from thousands of years ago.
The turning of Victoria (what used to be called the ‘Garden State’) into a baking desert is just normal in your view.
So thanks Tony. This is all just normal. This really proves my comment above about climate denialists. Oh, how I’d love to put you on your own planet where you can live in your own greenhouse……..
Tony G 57
That post is just nonsense. You have defined a standard of proof that no theory could pass (becasue you don’t have all the data from long before measurements started being taken). Then you list a bunch of anecdotal examples to “prove” your point. This is a chidish debating trick to impress the ignorant. Who do you think reads this blog? Thats the sort of stunt pulled by first year law sudents to prove who can be the biggest prat at the party. You’ve won the title.
Dave 1 is correct – the Victorain heat wave and fires have been a landmark event that starkly proves climate change IS at work. It has moved from risk to reality. Weather forecasters have been so stunned they have already run the statistics. See the detailed analysis of the 2009 southern Australian heatwave at the BOM.
Better yet read this quote from the summary:
“Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear…
It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “climate change increased the chances of an event” to “without climate change this event could not have occured”.
Michael G 2 (this event is just “a return to the 1970s” is also false), as the BOM has proven.
At this point the problem for CC skeptics is clearly psychological, not scientific. They simply can’t admit they are wrong, even though that conclusion is now inescapable.
‘Dave 1 is correct – the Victorain heat wave and fires have been a landmark event that starkly proves climate change IS at work.’
Rubbish!I’ll let this lady explain it to you, in particular-
“For climate scientists, having to continually rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme is all due to climate change is, at best, hugely frustrating and, at worst, enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html
Good comment Socrates (61). I’ve been shocked by the ruthless way the denialist/skeptics/whatever have attempted to blame greenies for it. It’s been jaw-dropping. On one hand they attack anyone who makes the fairly obvious point that global warming was a factor for ‘crowing’. Yet in the next breath they are calling for greenies to be strung up on lamp-posts for opposing back-burning (with absolutely no proof that that’s the case). It’s so bizarre that I think your point about it being psychological is probably right.
Philip
Thanks. Climate scientist Bary Brookes at the Brave New Climate blog has actually run some of the statistics for the Adelaide heatwave. (See the comments thread). Taking long run averages for Adelaide, the Jan/Feb 2009 heatwave was a 1 in 150,000 year event!. The odds of all the different records being broken in SA/Vic/Tas as occurred due to natural forcings alone (no underlying change) was concluded by one poster to be approx. 1 in 10 billion. I should clarify that the summary I quoted was from Brave New Climate not BOM, although there are many stark quoted in the BOM report to highlight the extraordinary nature of this event, in area of effect, intensity and duration.
See
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/10/heatwave-update-and-open-letter-to-the-pm/
Observa
Vicky Pope makes a general point, but she was not referring in any way to the Australian event. She also pointed out that human induced climate change IS occurring as evidenced by changes in trend over the past 30 years. Hence it in no way refutes what Australian meterologists are now concluding.
Socrates said; @ 61
“You have defined a standard of proof that no theory could pass (becasue you don’t have all the data from long before measurements started being taken).”
That’s “nonsense”, it is the AGW proponents who do not have any ‘scientific’ data.
Having a micron of climate data recorded out of an aeon and stating you know what is the normal climate for that aeon is fiction not science. Recording 1% of the earth’s surface area temperature for a micron of an aeon and stating you know which direction the temperature is headed is also fantasy not science.
Science is about facts and ‘scientific’ facts are proven by making a prediction come true in a controlled experiment and then varying that experiment to further test the prediction.
i.e. It is a ‘scientific’ fact the speed of light travels at a certain speed.
experiment (1) measure the speed of light between point A and B = 299 792 458 m/s.
experiment (2) measure the speed of light between point B and C = 299 792 458 m/s.
‘Scientific’ Fact, light travels at 299 792 458 m/s.
‘Scientific’ facts stay the same over time and theories change. A thousand years ago light travelled @ 299 792 458 m / s and it will in 1000 years time.
In the 1970’s people were worried about a new iceage now they are worried about the opposite. In 30 years time they will be worried about iceages again.
“the Victorain heat wave and fires have been a landmark event that starkly proves climate change IS at work”
You do not have the ‘scientific’ data to back your theory.
Where is the data and controlled experiments that prove it is getting warmer? Especially as the BOM considers there may have been quality issues with the climate statistics (calculated from historical records).
Next you will be fantasising that a 0.008% change in the atmospheres composition has;
(1) Actually happened and is; (no ‘scientific’ data that proves it)
(2) Doing something and;(no ‘scientific’ data that proves it)
(3) caused by man (proof of causation please suply)
“the sort of stunt pulled by first year law sudents” considering I left school at 14 I will take that as a compliment. What I will call a “chidish debating trick” is attacking the messenger and not the message (although necessary if yoou do not have a counter argument). I do not need “a bunch of anecdotal examples to “prove” [my] point.” Hot weather and bushfires are a natural fact of life in Australia and the bush wouldn’t exist without it as that’s the only way the bush can reproduce.
Tony G
To illustrate my point about your nonsense standard of proof, show me the recordings of the speed of light before the modern era. Any recordings soon after the big bang? early earth history? So how edo we know the speed of light has always been the same? Its nonsense but thats my point – by your standard of proof nothing can be proven about climate. Hence your post is only useful if you wish to deny climate change theories.
“show me the recordings of the speed of light before the modern era.”
X planet is y millions of light years away. This can be re-confirmed by triangulation at different points.
And coral bleaching and death of coral reefs Tony? What non explanation do you have for that? Just a Darwinian natural lifecycle (corals live and corals die)? Well perhaps we are not warming the planet, just warming ourselves off the planet so that in the long run the oil we have extracted over the past century and pumped into the atmosphere will ultimately be irrelevant. The planet will settle back into its long long long run equilibrium after our destructive populous human life form destroys its own future and turns into a memory in layer of bedrock.
Ok Tony, so, just confirming, you think the climate now in Victoria is normal – incredible record temperatures, collapse in rainfall, all part of the normal climate cycle, not caused by global warming.
I’d love you to come down here and explain that to people’s faces – just love it.
“turns into a memory in layer of bedrock.”
That will inevitably at some stage, as EVERYTHING is finite, but based on the resources at our disposal (baring a disaster like an asteroid hitting the earth) it should be a long way off.
“I’d love you to come down here and explain that to people’s faces – just love it.”
I’d tell ’em not to shake their fist at some fictional climate change god in the sky, but to blame the people who say you can’t chop a tree down if it is further than 3 metres from your home. Blame the crazy section of our society who value the lives of trees over people. They are the ones who let the bush grow wildly into the biggest bonfire in living memory.
Since 1997, SE Australia has been in a new climate regime. There has been a step change downwards in rainfall and upwards in max temperature. There are reasons to suggest that the previous big shift occurred in 1976 – certainly El Nino changed from that date.
If the 1977 to 1996 period is compared with 1997 to 2007 over a 1×1 degree grid over Melbourne (data from BoM), annual av. temp went up by 0.4°C, min by 0.3°C and max temp by 0.6°C. Rainfall dropped by 160 mm over the same period (almost 20%). Max temp is anti-correlated with rainfall, so if this relationship has not changed, about half the increase in max temp can be explained by the drop in rainfall (less cloud – warmer daytime temps). The other half would be independent warming. In summer, the increase is about 0.9°C in max temp pre to post 97.
Since 97, there have been three big fire events in SE Aust: in 02-03, 06-07 and 08-09. We got lucky in 97-98. The statistics of fires are as rough as guts because they are so episodic, but this is unsettling because never have we seen three such severe events so close together.
Extreme fire weather statistics have not been developed for spatial climate data – they have been for a few individual stations. My guess is that if a spatial data set was created going back to 1976, the post 97 part would be statistically different – very different. It’s hard to analyse past dry periods (before 1957) because of data problems. We know they may have been as dry but were certainly not as hot (sustained heat, not single hot days). Days above 35°C and 40°C also appear to have jumped since 1997 and this needs more work to be certain, because of the high variability of extreme hot days from year to year.
The step changes mentioned are statististically significant and involve a statistical test called the bivariate test.
this is what i dont get tony G,
if i said to you that releasing cyanide into a river killed fish life, i dont think you’d argue,
if i said that in the areas of china where the industry and pollution is heaviest there are increases in respiratory problems, i dont think you’d argue,
so if we say that a hundred years of massive global industrial pollution has almost certainly affected the biosphere adversely…
why is that such a leap?
Tony G
And Hiroshima didnt cause cancer and neither did Chernobyl and nuclear reactors are not dangerous now or in the future, and digging uranium out of the ground and flogging it overseas wont add to the risk of global nuclear weapon use or failures, and markets will self correct so they dont need regulation, and wealth trickles down if you look after the rich and all the problems we have are the fault of those ungrateful unemployed who wont work hard enough, or the lazy single mothers who have babies just to get the baby bonus, or greenies who are hugging every tree?.
Is that it Tony?.
Well Im a D sqared denialist denialist.
Tony G 67
That is kind of funny. You do realise that we use our KNOWLEDGE of the speed of light to measure distances to stars, not our “knowledge” of the distance of the stars to determine the speed of light. I’m not aware that any survey crews have measured the distance to other stars yet. Plus you are assuming in making the distance (not sped) calculation that the sped of light remains constant, which is precisely my point. You are using a circular argument, and causally the wrong way around.
Oh and Tony#71 and elsewhere
Our most famous export is an expat called Rupert Murdoch who left us to secure his own self interest in the US and has used us ever since as a cash cow for his oh so cheap US programming, which has now taken over our television and our newspapers to the extent there is very little real or honest debate on these issues and there is very little of our own Australian culture being invested in or shown on our TVS.
As far as I am concerned he is one boomerang we dont need to come back. I dont want to see a state run by the extreme left but equally I dont want to see it run by the farcical far right such as those who run out the usual arguments (climate change denial, science denial, blaming things on the “greenies” and a whole lot of other blind thoughtless dogmatic objections).
If it was even good enough for Thatcher to accept the need to do something about emissions, then its good enough for the farcical far right to contain their own unique brand of lunacy. Its also good enough for Rupert (dont come back) Murdoch to contain his and stop feeding us garbage on the television and rubbish inflammatory views in his newspapers.
Some of us are getting a tad impatient with the the “noise” and “vested interest arguments” that delay and obstruct helpful initiatives and actions by our governments.
The fire problem is extreme. Potential useful remedies may include
a) fire bunkers
b) early warning systems
c) systematic backburning and maintenance of fire trails
d) strong disincentives for arsonists
e) things like water pipes that dont melt in the heat
f) Councils reviewing their tree clearing policies or pruning policies near buildings.
g) Windows that reflect heat.
h) Construction materials that resist fire.
They do not include stringing greenies from lampposts Tony. The greens do a lot of good work pushing for useful environmental issues (more than the Coalition ever does, which is, as far as I can see absolutely NOTHING… but go ahead feel free to prove me wrong).
And what about a water system running along the ridges of roofs or walls that could be operated by generator or hand pump of some sort (in case of electricity failure which is highly likely in a fire) to wet the house. Really could these things be that difficult??
There are simple helpful solutions out there.
Socrates wrote “we use our KNOWLEDGE of the speed of light to measure distances to stars”.
A little learning is a dangerous thing… Different methods are used for different stars. The one used for cepheid variables uses the speed of light, but many others do not.
I should have written, the method used for cepheid variables implicitly uses the speed of light. It directly uses the period of variability and apparent brightness, but you have to use the speed of light in correcting the observed figures for Doppler shift.
PM Lawrence
Fair enough, but my point was simply that we don’t use the distance of stars, as a “known quantity” to determine what the speed of light is.
John, if I may reply to Tony G by saying putting the blame on the greenies for the Victorian disaster is a bit far fetched. Besides the fire buggs, most would agree it was the ‘high winds’ that contributed to the collateral damage and I doubt very much could have been done to mitigate the losses other than evacuate entire towns. As for the record high seasonal temperatures being the result of climate change who bucking knows, maybe it is as you say normal for records are there to be broken.
John, while Labor, Greens & Independents have a lot to crow over the $42 Billion stimulus package one must feel sorry for the Coalition whom seem to be on another planet.
Michael#83
The problem with evacuating whole towns is that it could lead to a worse death toll with so many on the road. When do you do it? How do you deal with evacuating eg half a million people, not just from a town but a region – at 10am authorities dont necessarily know which way the wind is going to blow and evacuation needs to be done early. Thats the problem with evacuation. Thats why I feel that the only reliable thing in fires like that is an ultimate escape bunker (that is if authorities cannot reasonably mass evacuate early enough and guarantee safety). That and anything else you can do to make houses fireproof during construction, including clearing around.
One fellow mentioned his house stood because it had mud brick walls and sloping eaves so that embers rolled off the eaves. Really sensible but even he said despite fully fireproofing his house during construction, he later added a timber deck to the house, facing south and thats the way the fire and it wasnt until then that he thought “oh no – the deck!”. Imagine going to all that trouble to have a mere deck undo your best laid plans. Its the little unexpected things. He also noticed the plastic pipes melted where they came out of the ground and that stopped his emergency water supply, stopping his ability to put any more of the fires near his house out.
I think some system that doesnt require electricity but is capable of keeping the house wet and the gutters full of water while you are safe in a bunker(and with pipe systems that wont melt) could be good?
We need an architects and landscapers competition to come up with something affordable but capable of standing through walls of fire that high – but not just a bit of this here and a bit of that – the whole thing has to be integrated as a package and tested somehow.
Its not safe on the roads, clearly either, even if you choose to evacuate voluntarily – I cant get out of my mind the horror of what some people went through.
Smiths @ 73
“so if we say that a hundred years of massive global industrial pollution has almost certainly affected the biosphere adversely…
why is that such a leap?”
It is not, I accept that dumping toxins like heavy metals and other rubbish into the environment can be bad. I do not accept that humans or other animals exhaling carbon is cause for concern.
Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity. Fluctuations of 0.008% in the composition of the atmosphere purportedly due to anthropological activities is not likely to have any consequence.
Alanna,
I did not mention the greens. I agree with some of your issues.
The illusion of the left and right concept is perpetuated by the political elite ruling class. They perpetuate it so they can divide, conquer and rule the masses. If you want a pollitical concept to follow, it is not left nor right, but ‘over the top’ so as to reduce the elite political ruling class and kerb their hedonistic and excessive life styles.
Socrates @ 75
Circular argument?
is it ?
The premise isn’t even questionable.
“we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.”
And whats to say you couldnt rig up the actual hand pump in the fireproof bunker (where you go) that pumped water from your storage facility to the house to keep it wet? My grandfather used to hand pump bore water in the Entrance from down the end of the garden to his house. It was just a big wooden lever at one corner of his block.
Tony#85
says
“The illusion of the left and right concept is perpetuated by the political elite ruling class. They perpetuate it so they can divide, conquer and rule the masses. If you want a pollitical concept to follow, it is not left nor right, but ‘over the top’ so as to reduce the elite political ruling class and kerb their hedonistic and excessive life styles.”
I am inclined to agree with first sentence (which explains exactly why Murdoch climbs into a penguin suit to stand on a podium at a dinner sometimes to say we need environmental initiatives or better infrastructure ie placate the masses by giving them a token) and then continues to print the divisive and utter tripe in his papers aka the Devines of the world. BECAUSE all he really cares about is the perpetuation of his own family wealth which means, cheap oil and no regulation, and cheap broadcasters for him to own as cheaply as possible (like the ABC) and tacky cheap programming he can stream to captured pay tv addicts. Then neither he nor any of his family have to fall down a social ladder so far that the poor things are forced to live in Balmain.
And u know Murdoch ought to think about his grandkids and their grandkids more often instead of just the almighty dollar and ruling everyone else with lies. They arent all going to be like him.
However, I dont understand what you are saying Tony in the third sentence re “over the top” political concept to follow?
If Murdoch had a heart (which I suspect he doesnt but he does have bloody deep pockets) – he would stick his ruling hand in that pocket right now for the money for an international competition to attract the best architects and thinkers to come up with a design for an affordable house you can survive in and stands through a fire like that.
We have had to put up with Murdoch’s Mirandas and Piers and Hendersons and Ramsays and the usual suspects for years – least he could do after we had to wade through the unthinkable mindnumbing boredom of repetition that passes for his political and economic journalism.
“over the top”
The masses are squabbling in the trenches during the battle with the political elite ruling class. Hence, unite and go “over the top” and straight down the middle to take up the fight to kerb the political elite’s hedonistic excesses.
Tony G – once again you have demonstrated that you do not understand how science works.
If you did you, would realise that you cannot “prove” anything with 100 percent certainty, you can only disprove something.
Hint 1: read up on “scientific induction”.
Let me give you an example, based on your use of the “fact” that speed of light is constant.
NOBODY can prove that the speed of light is constant, across all time, at all locations in the Universe. Physicists just “assume” that it is for two good reasons:
1) All evidence collected up to this point indicates that this is true; and
2) It is the most parsimonious explanation i.e. Ockham’s Razor.
Hint 2: look up the logical fallacy known as the “argument from personal incredulity”.
I believe your statements about anthropogenic carbon emissions would fall under this category?
The Chinese economy is apparently starting to accelerate again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ai0cU_72bPpU&refer=home
“Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) — China’s economy is showing signs that a 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package is taking effect.
The world’s third-biggest economy may expand 6.6 percent in the second quarter after slowing to 6.3 percent in the three months to March 31, the weakest pace since 1999, according to the median estimates of 14 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
China is trying to reverse an economic slide that has already cost 20 million jobs, raising the risk of social unrest as exports plunge and the property market sags. Spending on roads railways and housing has increased prices for iron ore, put a floor under industrial output and helped to drive a record $237 billion of new loans in January.
“China looks set to be the first major economy to recover from the current global meltdown,” said Lu Ting, an economist with Merrill Lynch & Co. in Hong Kong. “China is the only economy in the world to see significant growth in credit to corporate and household sectors after September 2008, when the financial crisis worsened to a near collapse.” ”
Chinese demand for raw materials is pretty important to the Australian economy.
Oh and the Baltic Dry Index has doubled since late January:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BDIY%3AIND
The BDI is leading indicator and highly volatile, this rapid rise may indicate that the severe oversupply in the sea freight market in late 2008 has begun to reverse itself.
Tony G, you are making yourself look ridiculous. What on Earth are you going on about? Speed of light? Seriously Tony, if you have nothing sensible to say, then shut up.
Socrates#64
‘Vicky Pope makes a general point, but she was not referring in any way to the Australian event.’
A general point is a general point and a Tim Flummery standing up in hot dry Victoria and claiming it proves global warming categorically is exactly the same as a Tim Bleah standing up in freezing, wet Britain claiming it disproves global warming, whether or not they are both 1 in 150,000 year events. True, we can all jump up and say ‘Tim is right!’, but which one will depend on the overall movement of global mean temperatures, to which each Tim’s observation is an infinitesimal contributor. That is Vicky’s sound, general scientific point and one we should all heed unless you have some other deep insight that escapes Vicky and I.
Philip B – as much as I disagree with Tony G, I will defend his right to express his own opinions. Telling him to “shut up” is not constructive in any way.
The question is Ben, do you “understand how science works”?
Ben, philosophy is not science, however it is understandable why Climate Change Pagans have the necessity to substitute philosophy for science.
The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, “facts” refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as “It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.” This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.
Noted that you cannot prove any theory to be true. You might think up a thousand totally different tests to try to disprove the theory, and it might pass every one. Does that mean it is “true”? No, because the 1,001st test could prove it false. While scientific theories are never supposed to be considered to be absolute truth, some have passed so many tests that they are called “laws.” For example, we will learn Kepler’s laws, and Newton’s laws. A scientific law is like a theory that has been inducted into the “Science Hall of Fame.” But even then it might have to be modified. Einstein found some corrections even for Newton’s laws, but they are normally far too tiny to even be able to measure.
If your theory makes no prediction like AGW, then it cannot be tested and hence it is not ‘scientific’. It still might be the correct explanation, it is just not scientific because the scientific method cannot be used to falsify it. There are many theories out there which cannot be tested, masquerading as scientific theories in order to have credibility, AGW is one of them. Be on the lookout for others.
Philip B and other Climate Change Pagans; I can appreciate how you are perplexed by the science behind the speed of light and undoubtedly you have to ask questions like “What on Earth are you going on about?” in relation to ‘real’ scientific matters , but when you have blind faith in pagan ideologies like climate change, what else could be expected.
Climate change pagans or denialist pagans Tony? Oh the strange twistings of your argument…..why do you bother? It seems such an unwinnable position to take.
I disagree with Tony G that the AGW theory cannot be tested in the usual scientific manner. It probably is true at the the moment that we cannot perform a comprehensive test; but then, this is true of many things that we willingly accept as true.
Perhaps this is a good place for me to explain what I mean by true in this context: true means to the level of accuracy it can be reliably measured, it has passed our tests so far. In other words, provisionally true, not logically true. I hope that makes sense.
Anyhow, climate science, which is the study of climate systems wherever they may be found, provides a set of tools for measuring and interpreting our current climate system. It also uses the vast edifice of physical results underpinned by the basic physical laws, such as conservation of energy, thermodynamics, and so on.
A greater part of climate science is founded on the mathematical expression of physical and chemical laws. The mathematics behind the laws is what provides non-trivial predictive capacity in climate science. It also provides a language for conducting deductive arguments concerning interaction of individual components of the climate system.
Now a great deal has been made out of the nature of computer modelling of climate; it is often treated as though the models are based on statistics only, when in fact they are in most cases a fundamental attempt to solve the mathematical equations governing energy and mass transfers throughout the system. Even before the computer revolution scientists had a good understanding of the basic elements of climate systems. I can recommend reading A.S. Monin’s book “An Introduction to the Theory of Climate”, if one wants to see how this process of quantitative analysis works. This book is based on Russian lectures pre-dating mass-computing power, so much of the analysis relies on algebraic rather than numerical techniques.
There are so many lines of observational evidence of the modern global warming episode being in large part, due to us, that to dismiss it is brave. As our measurement techniques and technologies improve, so does the quality of the measurements, reducing our level of uncertainty. These lines of evidence, coupled with observations of paleoclimate, give us a basis for making predictions. We may use the data to estimate parameters in the various mathematical models of aspects of the climate system, and then we may check the predictions against what actually happened (if predicting changes in paleoclimate, to validate the “predictions” some of the data must be held back, just like in statistical validation tests).
It is worth pointing out that the mathematical models can be tested against planets other than Earth. Granted there aren’t many for which we know enough to perform an assessment, but there are a few. Several moons and Venus, Mercury, Mars all offer data for testing against.
With so many mutually consistent lines of evidence, including results of mathematical solution of relevant equations, it is remotely possible, I suppose, for an alternative explanation of the global warming trend which matches all lines of evidence. Only remotely possible.
Donald, that is a very informative post that succinctly clarifies the AGW theory, thank you.
There are large parts of your post that we can agree on and as I stated above AGW “might be the correct explanation”, but from my world view, unlike yours I still have one foot firmly on the might ‘not’ side of the fence. You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I do, so I respect your opinion for that reason.
You state; “There are so many lines of observational evidence of the modern global warming episode being in large part, due to us, that to dismiss it is brave.”
My view, as stated @ 97 “in general in science, “facts” refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions”.
Disregarding the “so many mutually consistent lines of evidence” that you speak of, for the sake of simplicity and a starting point, lets look at the theory ‘that the globe is getting warmer’ irrespective of what is causing it. Both sides of the debate seem to agree that this is occurring, although the degree of warming might be in contention.
If possible, ignoring “arguments concerning interaction of individual components of the climate system”, could you please outline the “measurement techniques and technologies” that are relied upon to give the ‘scientific’ observations that the atmosphere is in fact getting warmer, also, what are the benchmarks used for this assessment?.