backtop

Print 114 comment(s) - last by Headfoot.. on Oct 22 at 9:52 PM

The World Wildlife Federation's "You can help: Stop Global Warming" campaign  (Source: WWF)

MP Dennis Jensen, Ph.D in Materials Science, is a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change blame. He is fighting a bill in Australia that would enact a carbon trading scheme similar to President Obama's  (Source: PerthNow)
An Australian politician is criticizing what he sees as an assault on democracy and the scientific method and calling for open discussion on climate change

Australia today faces a debate about climate change that close mirrors that of the U.S.  There are many that believe in an anthropogenic influence, but there are others that argue that cyclic factors or other mechanisms may be afoot.  At stake are costly proposals that could hurt the economy, but reduce carbon emissions.  While it may be possible in the long run for those seeking to cut carbon emissions to have their cake and eat it too -- through profitable green products like mild hybrids -- more dramatic operations such as corporate carbon taxes and carbon sequestration are expensive.

Attacking the notion of a climate consensus is a prominent leader in Australia's Federal Liberal party, MP Dennis Jensen.  The politician is an experienced researcher, himself, holding a doctorate in materials engineering and working at the CSIRO laboratory, before entering the world of politics.  While not a dedicated climate researcher, he's an avid follower of the topic and skeptic of the prevailing current view.

Dr. Jensen has vocally called for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be disbanded.  He is fond of quoting IPCC Vice Chairman Yuri Izrael, who once said, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."

With allegations of prominent American climatologists like NASA's James Hansen doctoring data, he says there's much uncertainty in the climate field and a need for an open scientific forum.  In a recent speech to the Australian Environment Foundation's annual conference in Canberra he describes, "It will come as no surprise that I am sceptical on the anthropogenic component of climate change.  Climate change is real - the liability of humans in questionable.  While the gap between climate observations and model projection outputs continue to diverge, the ardour and shrill character of the alarmists increase"

He accuses climate alarmist of trying to overthrow democracy and undermine the scientific process. 

Dr. Jensen is speaking out as Australian is mulling a carbon emission scheme similar to that proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama.  The Liberal party's leader, Malcolm Turnbull, is fighting the initiative, but he is conscious of the risk to his position as he faces opposition criticism within his own party.  Currently Turnbull is looking to modify the proposal, not scrap it altogether.

Dr. Jensen, though, is among several MPs suggesting that the proposal be thrown out.  He states, "Another reason for my concern is that embarking on setting a price on carbon dioxide is effectively putting a tax on everything and will give the control freaks a level of control on all human enterprise within a nation not seen in democratic history."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Bingo
By Ammohunt on 10/20/2009 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
He accuses climate alarmist of trying to overthrow democracy and undermine the scientific process.


Bingo! its all about control of peoples way of life and an attempt to destroy freedom and free market societies.




RE: Bingo
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bingo
By bdot on 10/20/2009 3:33:49 PM , Rating: 5
There is nothing free about government created markets.


RE: Bingo
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 3:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Name one market where government doesn't have some kind of role in regulating, facilitating, policing, enforcing, or otherwise enabling transactions.


RE: Bingo
By WW102 on 10/20/2009 3:50:12 PM , Rating: 3
True its hard to find a market with out government intervention, but I think the more important thing to note is the market with the least amount of government regulation are usually the markets that thrive.


RE: Bingo
By Xavier434 on 10/20/2009 3:58:02 PM , Rating: 5
Not exactly. It is the markets with the least amount of corrupt government regulation that are usually the ones to thrive. Those same markets usually contain quite a bit of market regulation still.

When government regulation is created by those who actually believe in government and balance within the markets rather than catering to corporate lobbyists it often works very well. It acts as a balance to the weaknesses which are inevitable within a capitalistic society. Balancing economic weaknesses is always a good idea no matter what approach one takes.


RE: Bingo
By WW102 on 10/20/2009 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you want to keep weakness in the market?


RE: Bingo
By Xavier434 on 10/20/2009 4:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't. I think you misunderstood me. The balance I was referring to eliminates the weakness. Properly government regulation has proven to help that a lot when it is both created by and enforced by those who believe enough in government rather than those who want nothing more than to downsize it.


RE: Bingo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2009 5:17:51 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone with half a brain should want a small government that interferes in its citizens lives as little as possible, if not none at all.


RE: Bingo
By bdot on 10/20/2009 6:32:48 PM , Rating: 3
High Five for common sense!!


RE: Bingo
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 7:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone with half a brain should want a small government that interferes in its citizens lives as little as possible, if not none at all.


people who genuinely think for themselves and are willing and able to, more importantly, take responsibility for their own actions.. yes.

but then again, does any government really want it people thinking for themselves?


RE: Bingo
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 11:28:44 PM , Rating: 3
Do corporations?


RE: Bingo
By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do corporations have a legal monopoly on deadly force? Can they enforce any arbitrary rule they want?

Can you stop buying a governments product until it fails?


RE: Bingo
By sld on 10/21/2009 2:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
One can argue that people make stupid decisions when they try to think for themselves, and that's why there has to be a government to uphold the common law.


RE: Bingo
By Hieyeck on 10/21/2009 8:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly haven't seen China.

Lead-paint toys, melamine powder milk - China's still one of the fastest growing markets that's poised to overtake the US.

Replace corrupt with weak and your statement rings truer. The US government doesn't have the balls the say enough is enough and can't give the country (and therefore it's markets) any focus and direction. Corrupt isn't much better, but at least it's SOME direction.


RE: Bingo
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 4:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
The problem becomes one of how you define "intervention."

Governments routinely offer subsidies to companies that want to mine or drill for resources, or build new refinery capacity, or develop new military technology, or build a new stadium downtown, or engage in R&D.

Governments routinely help companies defray risks associated with investing in "unstable" regimes - either through military intervention or other means.

Governments routinely bail out banks and investment firms that make bad decisions.

Governments routinely enact trade measures to protect home industries.

I suspect there are some forms of government intervention you strongly agree with, and some that you strongly disagree with.


RE: Bingo
By bdot on 10/20/2009 4:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidies, bailouts, lobbies, etc.. are not capitalistic or free. They are constructs of government; The ability for companies to lobby governments is a a facility of the government and is a corruption of government.

No matter the short term benefits regulations seek to create there are almost always long term drawbacks.


RE: Bingo
By AEvangel on 10/20/2009 6:50:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The problem becomes one of how you define "intervention." Governments routinely offer subsidies to companies that want to mine or drill for resources, or build new refinery capacity, or develop new military technology, or build a new stadium downtown, or engage in R&D. Governments routinely help companies defray risks associated with investing in "unstable" regimes - either through military intervention or other means. Governments routinely bail out banks and investment firms that make bad decisions. Governments routinely enact trade measures to protect home industries. I suspect there are some forms of government intervention you strongly agree with, and some that you strongly disagree with.


Actually I would disagree with every single one of those type of Government interference you just mentioned.


RE: Bingo
By AnnihilatorX on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bingo
By AEvangel on 10/20/2009 6:56:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, carbon trading scheme, again if handled properly, improve living standard of 3rd world countries by limiting on exploitation of natural resources, e.g. forest, and provide them a source of income.


This has to be the most ignorant thing I have heard in a long time....you realize "if handled properly" it would still raise the prices on everything produced not to mention oil and gas would skyrocket which would directly impact the poorest of the poor the hardest.

and the simple fact you actually based your whole argument on the idea of a Government body anywhere handling something properly speaks volumes of how flawed your argument is.

It would be like starting a discussion with "Well if the sun was made of Ice Cream!"


RE: Bingo
By JediJeb on 10/21/2009 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 1
When you tax something to provide money to help reduce its use, you are making a self defeating system.

You need the money to provide the investment to lower carbon emissions, so you tax carbon emissions. It works and you reduce carbon emissions but you still need money to invest in the lowering technologies, but with lower emissions you receive less money. You must then either abandon the process or increase the taxes. If you increase the taxes you must hope that the taxes needed are not so high as to destroy the entity being taxed, if so you lose all of your tax revenue and both the entity being taxed and your program fail.

Same thing was suggested with taxing tobacco to both fund health care and get people to stop smoking. If you succeeded in getting people to stop smoking then you would lose your funding for health care. Therefore if you succeed you also fail.

Also with the idea of taxing fuel higher to get people to use less fuel and fund development of more fuel efficient cars. You have to hope that you succeed in making more fuel efficient cars before the amount of fuel usage becomes low enough that your funds dry up. If you fuel useage falls faster than the technology grows then you again lose, and if the tax hurts the economy by increasing the fuel costs to businesses too much then you really lose.

There are just too many variables to these situations to make for a positive outcome for all parties involved. They may seem good in principal but usually are not sound on theory.


RE: Bingo
By lco45 on 10/20/2009 8:11:09 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, Somalia is a great example of that.

Zero government, yet piracy, drug trafficking and weapons trading are thriving!

The law itself is government intervention, and it's an intervention no free society could survive without.

Cheers,

Luke


RE: Bingo
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Most people refer to the absence of law and governance as a "failed state," yet libertarians treat it as some kind of holy ideal.


RE: Bingo
By sld on 10/21/2009 3:02:12 AM , Rating: 1
It's easy to think that way when you've been steeped in secular humanistic ideas that man is good and sensible enough to make and live by his own laws which somehow never conflict with the personal laws of others. From news, from anecdotes, from experience... ROFL.


RE: Bingo
By lco45 on 10/22/2009 12:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what you mean by libertarians? Are they the people who run libraries?

Cheers,

Luke


RE: Bingo
By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Anarchists dont want ANY government.

Libertarians just don't want abridgment of freedoms -- so they fully support laws against murder, theft etc etc.

Stupidest comment i've read all week.


RE: Bingo
By WW102 on 10/21/2009 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. Way to take an extremist view.


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bingo
By JediJeb on 10/21/2009 12:13:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're right. The market for credit default swaps and other deriviatives, alternative medicine, miracle diet pills, baldness cures, etc. are really thriving right now.


If schools could once again teach personal responsibility, and demand that students learn basics of finance, scientific reasoning and social responsibility then only a few would ever fall for such things.

I spoke with a teacher just this week who had a student skip her class when they were supposed to take a make-up test they missed. She gave that student a Zero for the test and was told by the administration she could never give a student a Zero grade. When she asked what punishment the student should get for skipping the class and test she was told " Nothing, we are not here to teach the students responsibility" Thirty years ago when I was in high school if I did the same thing I would have gotten a Zero for the test, been put in suspension for missing class and would not have wanted to face my parents because what they would have done would have been even worse. And honestly I would have deserved all I got. This is a trend that needs to be reversed soon if we want our country to ever be the world leader it should be and has been in the past.

quote:
All you ideologues talk so much shit about government regulation and then wonder why your kids toys are tainted with lead, your asthma is getting worse, your tuna sandwich is laced with mercury, your water faucet is spewing coal ash, your bank is bankrupt, your energy bills have doubled, and your beat-up Ford Pinto keeps bursting into flames.


What is really funny about this is that there are regulations in place to cover every one of those problems. The thing is people don't follow the regulations, and instead of someone having the guts to inforce the regulations, they just want to write more regulations that require more government to oversee yet still not enforce.

quote:
Regulations are just rules, pure and simple. Sometimes they keep good people from doing good things, but most of the time they keep bad people from burning the fucking house down.


What good are the rules and regulations when the people don't have the common sense to follow them. Why does there need to be a tag on a hair dryer saying not to use it in the bath tub. A person with enough common sense knows not to do that, and the ones lacking that common sense probably won't pay attention to the tag any way. If the first time someone filed a law suit because they were shocked while using their hair dryer in the tub the judge had laughed at them and said well you learned you lesson, instead of giving them a million dollars, then people would know that responsibility lies with themselves first. Now if the manufacturer build the hair dryer with a cord that falls out and shocks someone then the responsibility falls on the manufacturer.

Bad people are still going to burn the house down no matter how many rules and regulations you make. How many people drive faster than the posted speed limit? How many people park in the fire lane in front of WalMart while they wait for someone else to run inside to grab a loaf of bread? And when they get caught how many say " Yes I was disobeying the law" instead of " well I wasn't hurting anyone"? That is where personal responsibility comes in. Those who practice it usually don't violate the laws on purpose, and if they do by accident take responsibility for their actions. Those who do not practice personal responsibility will only follow the laws when it is to their advantage.


RE: Bingo
By sld on 10/21/2009 2:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, it's the markets with the right amount and type of regulation that thrive.


RE: Bingo
By bdot on 10/20/2009 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 5
Your absolutely right, which is why our markets are not really free.

A free market is made up people consenting on the trade of property rights without coercion. Government intervention should exist only to protect peoples property rights against theft, fraud, and force.

We have whats known as mixed markets, which grows ever closer to controlled.

Cap and Trade is entirely a controlled market.


RE: Bingo
By JPForums on 10/21/2009 7:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government intervention should exist only to protect peoples property rights against theft, fraud, and force.


This is about as close to correct as I've read on this thread. I would argue that it is a little oversimplified, but it conveys the idea nicely. The government is supposed to make and enforce laws that uphold the rights of its people. This is a completely separate issue from regulation.

Regulation, which many want to see less of, is the artificial limitation of <insert subject here> by the government, presumably for some positive benefit to society. This issue is that regulations create imbalances in competition and often reduce or eliminate customer feedback.

Though I'm of the opinion that most regulations are unnecessary, there are scenarios that require them. For instance, when the government creates legislation that causes an effective monopoly in a market (I.E. eletrical production for an area), it is their job to make sure the company can't abuse its lack of competition. Of course, I'd rather they avoid passing legislation that creates such artificial monopolies, but there is some merit to the idea of eliminating needlessly redundant elements (I.E. we don't really need 6 different sets of electrical lines going to each and every house).

One of the biggest problems with government regulation is that, when the government regulates something, it rarely, if ever monitors it appropriately. The government just assumes that its regulations should work as intended. Down the road, when it doesn't work as intended, rather that repeal regulations that don't work properly, the government will modify or even adds regulations to fix the problem.

quote:
The law itself is government intervention, and it's an intervention no free society could survive without.


I think the issue at hand is regulation, not to be confused with intervention. No government intervention (I.E. No Law) is effectively no government. I don't suspect many sane people would truly enjoy anarchy.


RE: Bingo
By croc on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bingo
By AEvangel on 10/20/2009 6:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you want to talk about the medical field look at Plastic Surgery and Lasik Eye Surgery to really un-regulated fields out there and both thoroughly thriving and pricing themselves competitively in the market.


RE: Bingo
By Jalek on 10/20/2009 10:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't some market of something of value being traded for money, this is an exchange of regulation.

I can see the upside of a system where the government controls the supply, since it's entirely arbitrary, and they can increase or reduce the supply as needed, but at the end of the day, it's a market of nothing but government invention.

The non-corrupt government ideal also mentioned here also doesn't actually exist. Just look at the ratios of lobbyists to Congressmen, and consider how ridiculous the TARP bill is and was since banks never have to reveal where the money went.


RE: Bingo
By weskurtz0081 on 10/21/2009 12:18:12 AM , Rating: 3
I think the point is, those are markets that the government regulates, but they did not CREATE those markets.

This would be a market created solely BY the government, that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Government regulation isn't inherently bad, over regulation is VERY bad, and absolutely no regulation isn't good either. A very small amount of effective regulation is what we need.

Why don't you go check on how well carbon trading has worked in Spain.


RE: Bingo
By Xavier434 on 10/20/2009 3:54:56 PM , Rating: 1
There is nothing free about corporate controlled governments either.

Also, the government may have sparked the fire of today's "green market" but it is just a spark. The continuously burning kindle is being produced by the people who have learned to make money off of it. That cornerstone has little to do with the government and nearly everything to do with how people wish to spend their money.


RE: Bingo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2009 5:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
Except several of the people making the most money off it are those writing the legislation. Al Gore makes tons of money off the green movement with his carbon credit businesses.

And the only reason companies are doing it is because they're being forced to. Sure there are other companies which have sprung up as a result of the government's forced creation of a market. But are companies who only exist due to the massive expenditure of tax payer money to solve a problem which does not exist the kind of innovation we really want?


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bingo
By barjebus on 10/20/2009 3:49:30 PM , Rating: 1
I like how "everyone is free to pollute" has something to do with carbon dioxide? What about carbon dioxide is a pollutant? It makes plants grow, not kill them off. How about we start cracking down on the real pollutants rather than some fairy tale that we're effectively adding 0.05% to the green house gas effect.


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bingo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2009 5:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Feel free to stop breathing if CO2 is a pollutant.

He even said that we should focus on real pollutants, not fake ones that are the result of natural processes.


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bingo
By JediJeb on 10/21/2009 11:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
Volcanoes and the oceans expel astronomically more CO2 than what man produces in a year. If CO2 is a pollutant who pays for the carbon credits needed to keep the oceans and volcanoes legal? Do we charge the earth with violating emissions standards?

Depending on whose data you look at, the global temperature has even been shown to drop this year so using global warming as the reason to regulate CO2 may not be correct.

Also CO2 does not fit the definition of a pollutant.

Pollutant: something that pollutes

To Pollute: 2 a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste.

Contaminate:1 a : to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association <bacteria contaminated the wound>
b : to make inferior or impure by admixture <iron contaminated with phosphorus>
2 : to make unfit for use by the introduction of unwholesome or undesirable elements.*

*taken from the Webster Dictionary

That last entry would be the closest CO2 would come to fitting the definition of a pollutant, and that is still not very accurate. At best in regards to our atmosphere and in relation to global warming CO2 could be classified as "a normally present component of the atmosphere whose variable concentration might cause changes in temperature and care should be taken to not upset the natural balance of said component." Though since humans only contribute about 0.05% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere on an annual basis I doubt we could do much to control the concentration in the atmosphere unless we learn to turn off volcanoes.


RE: Bingo
By corduroygt on 10/20/2009 6:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Let's inject a syringe filled with liquid nitrogen in your neck and see how you fare, after all it's over 70% of our atmosphere.


RE: Bingo
By ClownPuncher on 10/20/2009 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
I thought the nitrogen in the atmosphere was in gaseous form!

Why dont you inject a syringe filled with H1N1 vaccine into your neck and see how you fare?


RE: Bingo
By kattanna on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bingo
By otispunkmeyer on 10/20/2009 5:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
whats more, look around.... green products are big business, there is a multi-billion dollar industry based on the premise that its mans fault the earth is warming.

that may well be so, i dont think we can say for sure yet, but heck when theres so much money involved you can bet your life people will do anything in there power to keep it.

i imagine if, one day, a scientist discovers humans arent the cause... he'll be silenced an his data "lost" or "discredited" because certain people wont want to let go of their massive fortunes and the power they command over everyone else


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 10:55:19 PM , Rating: 1
As big as the green products industry has become, I guarantee you it isn't as big as the oil, coal, and natural gas industries put together. The "green" industries have a minute fraction of the money and influence of their non-green counterparts.

Imagine if, one day, you actually have some science to support your claims.


RE: Bingo
By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to read.

He's speaking in a future, hypothetical sense. As in "after this alarmist legislation is passed....."
Boom reading comprehension ftw


RE: Bingo
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 3
also current "cap and trade" bills are nothing more then wealth redistribution plans, from the poor to the rich.


RE: Bingo
By AEvangel on 10/20/2009 6:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
also current "cap and trade" bills are nothing more then wealth redistribution plans, from the poor to the rich.


DING DING DING....Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!

That is all they really are, another way to take the wealth and power out of the masses into a select few Governmental bodies.


RE: Bingo
By Felofasofa on 10/20/2009 8:30:56 PM , Rating: 1
As opposed to most other laws which sees the rich jailing the poor.


RE: Bingo
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 10:43:15 PM , Rating: 1
How in your twisted psyche does a cap-and-trade scheme aimed at lowering emissions of a gas become a sinister wealth redistribution scheme? I challenge you to give me the chain of events by money will be stolen from the poor and given to the rich.


RE: Bingo
By nuarbnellaffej on 10/22/2009 2:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
...the wealth would flow the other way...


RE: Bingo
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 9:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
i would also like to point people to this article:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

quote:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it


and

quote:
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects


now, seriously, tell me that doesnt sound familiar


DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 3:01:03 PM , Rating: 1
DailyTech editors, WTF is this?! It reads like some college sophomore's essay on global warming. I see you've fixed some of the grammar errors, but you somehow let this abomination slip by:

"Australia today faces a debate about climate change that close mirrors that of the U.S. There are many that believe in an anthropogenic influence, but there are others that argue that cyclic factors or other mechanisms may be afoot."

The first sentence should read "closely mirrors" and the second sentence is cluttered and poorly worded. What's that you say, Holmes? Other mechanisms may be afoot? Scotland Yard must hear about this at once!

As for the actual content of the article, its bias is overwhelmingly clear. It quotes predominately from some douchebag Australian politician who does not have expertise in the relevant field (Headline: Unknown Douchebag with a PhD Denies Global Warming is Caused by Humans). The author tries to cover for his expert's lack of credentials by saying, effectively, "But, but, but...he's an 'experienced researcher'".

The worst journalistic offense, however, is this passage:
"With allegations of prominent American climatologists like NASA's James Hansen doctoring data...". I followed the link. It's an even more horrendous piece of shit. It's based on a article from that journalistic paragon: Investors Business Daily. IBD is a cesspit of climate change denial and other wacky right-wing conspiracies. The basis for IBD's claims that Dr. Hansen was doctoring his data are that (1) he was funded by George Soros (nice of you to insert the update at the bottom revealing that this is not actually true), and (2) his computer models are biased, which is simply asserted without any support or references whatsoever.

So, to recap, your author is repeating discredited claims and supporting them with links to articles that he didn't actually read.

You could try to fix everything that's wrong with this article with a massive update, but I'd probably just pull it if I were you.




By TomZ on 10/20/2009 3:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DailyTech editors
That's an oxymoron.


RE: DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By Yawgm0th on 10/20/2009 3:39:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As for the actual content of the article, its bias is overwhelmingly clear.
Only because you don't know the author. He is trying to look unbiased by including the opposing viewpoint. Mick himself is an environmentalist and probably supports carbon trading.

quote:
So, to recap, your author is repeating discredited claims and supporting them with links to articles that he didn't actually read.
Dailytech wouldn't exist without this practice. ;)


RE: DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 1
If that's true, then he's going overboard to present the other side. If he does believe in anthropogenic climate change, then he's on the right side of the scientific consensus and thus, doesn't have to balance anything. You wouldn't balance an article on gravity by saying "on the other hand, some gravity skeptics, such as Australian politican Douchebag McGee, say gravity is a hoax."


RE: DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 5:20:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
gravity is a hoax.


BIG difference between calling gravity a hoax, and saying man is the primary mover and shaker of the worlds climate.

the theory of gravity, and yes, properly it is still called that, can be tested time and again by any team of researchers to prove it a viable theory, and correct in so far as to our current understanding.

man being the primary cause of the change of the worlds climate simply cannot even be called a theory, as it hasnt been able to pass ANY outside independent tests. heck some of the these so called peer reviewed papers shouldnt even exist as they refused to share the data for others to test, and now that it finally has come out, has been shown to be cherry picking of an obscene level, and simply cannot be called science. and lots of other papers have used those now debunked "research" as their proof. and if they are using newly debunked "peer reviewed" papers as their proof, then that calls into question their papers as well.


RE: DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By Keeir on 10/20/2009 6:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Gosh, thats hilarous.

You know, there is still not a tested source for gravitational force?

At least with gravity, there is a model which has been shown to work with high degrees of precision and accuracy.

In 1998/1999, I don't remember any climate models that predicted that in 2009 we would have lower surface temperatures and lower ocean temperatures... yet here we are... (not asking for year to year accuracy, but if we should believe 100 years projections, it would be good if at 10 years we had the predicted sign on the slope)

To be clear, I agree 100% that the Climate is Changing. I agree 100% that man has an affect on the Climate. I strongly disagree however with passing legislation that will cause human suffering and loss of life based on a scientifical model that has very low degrees of accuracy and precision. To be clear, reducing C02 will raise the cost of -everything-. To significantly cut C02, we will have to deny cheap power to much of the developing world. This will reduce -everyone's- quality of life with the poor and developing nations the worst hit.


RE: DailyTech Editors Asleep at the Switch
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 11:12:09 PM , Rating: 1
So let me get this straight. You agree that humans are causing climate change. I presume you agree that climate change could have any number of catastrophic effects, which will hit the poor the hardest. Yet, because scientists cannot predict the exact consequences to the thousandth decimal place, you're against doing anything about it.

If someone starts dumping radioactive waste into the local river, I can't tell you exactly what's going to happen. I can't tell you exactly how it will affect the local ecology or species diversity. I can't tell you exactly how much the cancer rates are going to increase. I can't tell you how much it's going to cost to clean up the water. But I can tell you it's going to be a huge fucking problem! To summarize, we can know that a change is coming and that it's going to hurt without knowing exactly how the change is going to occur.


By Keeir on 10/21/2009 1:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hahah...

Careful, most streams already carry radioactive waste, as well as lead and mercury.
You can't say until you know the quantity of the dumped waste to that there is naturally as well as the dilution rate.
This isn't the Simpsons or the TMNTs, in the real world it takes large doses of radiation/waste to make a significant effect. Heck, coal power plants are constantly outputing uranium dust!

Your whole post stinks of decision by fear. This is clearly a poor choice for government/humanity/science. The truth is, we don't know how much CO2 humans emit. We don't know how much nature emits. We don't know what the effect on climate will be... So we know regulating CO2 will have a dramatic cost, but we don't have any way to quantify the benifit. Sounds like poor policy and decision making to me....


By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
There is no scientific consensus.

In science you DONT NEED CONSENSUS.
The only people who need it are politicians.


An inconvenient truth...
By rdhood on 10/20/2009 3:59:37 PM , Rating: 5
Most ice/freshwater is captured in frozen form at the Antarctic. That is the ice that has to melt in order for Bangladesh to have to worry about flooding, and that ice is getting THICKER. Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent ON RECORD (back to the 1880s), behind 2006 and 2007.

Until this ice stops growing (and we won't even talk about melting until that happens), there is no threat of rising sea levels. People who invoke these threats are hysterical idiots.




RE: An inconvenient truth...
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: An inconvenient truth...
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2009 5:34:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and they've also potentially discovered an active volcano under all that ice in Greenland. I suppose the burning of fossil fuels by man are responsible for that as well? But its not like that would make ice melt or anything...


RE: An inconvenient truth...
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 9:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
This is a great example of everything climate denialists do when arguing this issue.

I'd heard something about this Greenland volcano theory before, so I spent some time googling. I was able to come up with one reference from way back in 2007 - essentially some researchers at the University of Ohio postulate that there may be a "thin spot" in the Earth's mantle down there somewhere, but this is the part that caught my attention:

"The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is, but if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could enable the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea.

To measure actual temperatures beneath the ice, scientists will have to drill boreholes down to the base of the ice sheet-- a mile or more below the ice surface. The effort and expense make such measurements few and far between, especially in remote areas of northeast Greenland."

So in other words, they have absolutely no idea how well their theory might be supported by actual evidence, but maybe one day in the future they'll get the opportunity to do some drilling. Maybe.

So while the denialists stomp their feet and raise a holy racket that there isn't enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. This particular study - which is nothing more than postulation supported by no concrete evidence of any kind - is wicked cool ammo and totally fair game to bring out in an attempt to discredit any number of other studies.

As I said in one of my previous posts, it's all about making enough noise - even using nonexistent evidence - to drown out the hundreds of other studies that are based on solid, peer-reviewed science.

Classic example. Thanks for bringing that up.


RE: An inconvenient truth...
By RamsayGetLost on 10/22/2009 1:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in other words, they have absolutely no idea how well their theory might be supported by actual evidence, but maybe one day in the future they'll get the opportunity to do some drilling. Maybe.


oh.. you mean like how you have absolutely no idea how well your theory might be supported by actual evidence, but maybe one day in the future you'll get the opportunity to do some... more regurgitating. maybe?


RE: An inconvenient truth...
By tallredeye on 10/21/2009 12:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't Greenland at one time... green? Who caused that?


RE: An inconvenient truth...
By tygrus on 10/21/2009 1:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Climate Change" .. it's been changing long before we were born.

I thought most of the increase in sea level is due to water above 4C expanding a small amount per 1C temperature increase.

The truth is, climate models are very complex and rely on many variables and assumptions. Temperature rises may increase evaporation of surface water which would then cool the surface, reflect more radiation back into space while reducing heat loss overnight. This may increase rain in other areas. Cosmic radiation increase rainfall but is counteracted by our suns solar flares.

There too many people in research, business and politics that rely on the "climate change caused by humans" idea for funding and future wealth.

Why don't they tax all of the other pollutants/poisons which are produced, released or buried?


RE: An inconvenient truth...
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 11:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick the evidence while ignoring the totality of evidence concerning Antarctic ice loss.

http://www.physorg.com/news119456760.html

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/19/west_antarct...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080113/full/news.2...


.
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: .
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
the only thing "carbon trading" will do is to make the rich people richer, and the poor people poorer through new taxes.

it will do ZERO to stop "global warming"


RE: .
By nafhan on 10/20/2009 3:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you're worried about smog and pollution, carbon dioxide isn't an issue for you, as it is a component of neither.

It bothers me that so much effort goes specifically towards fighting carbon emissions instead of actual pollutants.


RE: .
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Am I allowed to be worried about both? Toxic pollutants as well as climate-altering chemicals?

I'm pretty sure I can deal with two things at the same time if that's okay with you.


RE: .
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 5:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
climate-altering chemicals?


but are you then really concerned with ALL the climate altering chemicals?


RE: .
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 9:40:04 PM , Rating: 1
For now, I'll worry about CO2, methane, and HCFC's. Those will cover the bulk of our climate impacts, and we have control over how much of each are released into the atmosphere through our own activities ... well, at least until certain ecological tipping points are reached and then we'll be fucked no matter how much we do subsequently throttle back our own behaviour. See http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647 for an interesting example of this.


RE: .
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 11:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
/snickers

i take it your being serious??

from your own link..

quote:
Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about


dude..seriously.. decafe

if that was even REMOTELY true.. you and i would not be here because the earth would have never cooled.

have you ever studied the geology history of the planet you are standing on?

yes, isnt awesome how people doing before understanding things, replaced CFC's with HCFC's and actually introduced a much more potent GHG ??

whats most interesting, is that you are totally willing to overlook the PRIMARY GHG. im sure thats because, we humans, have almost ZERO ability to control it.

again, humorous to me. if it wasnt so sad.


RE: .
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 11:54:00 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, well considering the linked article explicitly discusses the fossil record, and the length of time it took for complex life to recover after each of these episodes, I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

One fascinating thing about the Earth: it has a remarkable ability to overcome cyclical variations in climate and return more-or-less to balance. But that's the long term view. Over the short term, there have been swings of a dozen degrees of more - in both directions - that resulted in mass extinctions. It's part of the fossil record. It's fact.

The Earth doesn't care whether a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is caused by a volcanic eruption or by a particularly clever species that figured out how to release 50 million years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere over the span of a couple centuries. It will carry on its merry way. Feedback loops may or may not kick in and amplify the effect. Regulatory mechanisms may or may not kick in to dampen the effect.

The Earth doesn't care. It also doesn't care how well a particularly clever species manages to cope with any increases in temperature. If that species happens to have a highly complex society that requires stable agricultural yields, the Earth genuinely does not give a fuck. It will go ahead and follow the feedback loops as far as they might happen to go. If the clever species has a bunch of really brittle economic and political structures that are susceptible to shocks brought about by climate catastrophe, guess what? That's right, the Earth doesn't give a fuck. If the clever species actually manages to get things so wrong that they become nothing more than an interesting blip in the fossil record ... well, you know the rest.

In short, humans are conducting a massive uncontrolled experiment, and we live inside the fucking test tube. But one thing we do know: if we're somehow stupid enough to cripple our civilization or even kill ourselves off, the test tube does not give a fuck.


RE: .
By sld on 10/21/2009 2:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Primary GHG = Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO).
Go read up on it, it's far, far more toxic and climate-changing than CO2.
http://www.dhmo.org/


mauling?
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 2:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dr. Jensen is speaking out as Australian is mauling a carbon emission scheme similar to that proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama.


im pretty sure you meant MULLING, but damn man.. mauling made me laugh

thanks




RE: mauling?
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2009 5:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure he meant Australia too. Unless the country is now an individual which refers to itself in the 3rd person.


RE: mauling?
By ClownPuncher on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
just another politician
By andrinoaa on 10/21/2009 4:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
Don't read what this guy says and think "he's right".
This guy is just another ahole politician. The opposition has the numbers in the upper house so can create havoc with the government's agenda ( read Obama and the Senate ). And beleive me, this opposition is just opposing for the sake of opposing. They even suggest changes to the legislation to give polluters the ability to pollute more. Irrespective of your position on climate change , opportunistic aholes like this guy need to be tared and feathered. Its a serious issue but aholes like this only muddy the waters without any contributions. You don't beleive CC is caused by humans, fine but give us the evidence to support your arguement because so far it hasn't turned up.




RE: just another politician
By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Stop talking.

There are assloads of evidence that point to things like the sun as the cause of climate change. You're just too dense to go read it.


There is a typo in the headline
By Lord 666 on 10/20/2009 1:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed it for you; "Australia's Version of Obama's Horse Trading Scheme Under Fire"




Global scamming
By Ripvanwinkle on 10/20/2009 1:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Go getum Dennis.




this is interesting
By jay401 on 10/20/2009 1:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
I miss Masher.
By Ordr on 10/20/2009 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
:(




Global warming myth
By asjflask on 10/20/2009 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
This guy has a great point, there is no direct link between humans and global warming. Global warming is taking place on other planets in our solar system, and last I checked, there are no humans living elsewhere.

Take a look at the past meteorological records and you'll also see examples of how the Earth has cooled and warmed over its existence. It's normal people, don't buy into the hype. Otherwise, other planets in our solar system wouldn't be undergoing climatic changes over their history either.




By bapcorp on 10/20/2009 7:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am an Australian and I follow politics, not a great deal, but I like to keep myself informed.

I would like to thank dailytech for pointing out some guy I have never heard of before.




By lco45 on 10/20/2009 8:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's not Australia's version of Obama's Carbon Trading Scheme.

The Australian carbon trading scheme was in discussion years ago, well before Obama ran for election.

The EU proposed the carbon trading system even earlier than that, I think during Bush's first term!

Luke




I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: I wonder ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/20/2009 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's a fair point, but it seems like you can also argue that some changes are so costly that the precautionary argument can't be applied.

It's one thing to ban certain plastics (the EU uses this argument to accomplish this), but its another to enact a proposal that will cost billions of dollars, an expense that will be shouldered by the taxpayers.

I'm not saying it might not be necessary. There are compelling arguments to adopt drastic measures. But there are also compelling arguments not to adopt them.

Even if we were to adopt some sort of drastic initiatives, its questionable whether carbon trading would really make a difference, versus something more practical like sinking a bunch of money into fusion/clean fission research and commercialization.


RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: I wonder ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/20/2009 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In Bangladesh there are tens of millions of people living within a few meters of sea level.


To play devil's advocate, that just goes to show why living right near sea level is not a wise choice. Whether climate change is occurring or not, you're assuming a risk if you build in a low-lying region by the sea. If you do, you should expect to move, and not be surprised if you have to. The people of Louisiana know this all to well.

One could argue that people in the U.S. should not have to suffer economic hardship because people in Bangladesh insist on living in a shallow basin.

Besides, far worse issues face Bangladesh right now -- disease, poverty, starvation, political strife.

quote:
To address your final point, the whole idea of carbon trading and similar mechanisms is to spur innovation. If some Chinese entrepreneur figures out a better way to commercialize pebble-bed reactor technology, he or she will make a lot more money selling that technology in an environment where economic mechanisms (whatever they may be) prioritize low/no carbon solutions.


But pebble bed reactors won't produce a useful product -- or not much of one at least. Fusion/clean fission reactors on the other would both reduce emissions AND produce relatively affordable power.

Anyways, regardless of whether you believe the evidence is sufficient to prove anthropogenic causation or not, if you're a scientist as opposed to a theologian, you'll welcome scientific debate of global warming's causation.


RE: I wonder ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/20/2009 2:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
EDIT:

*on the other hand, would both reduce emissions...


RE: I wonder ...
By kattanna on 10/20/2009 2:29:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyways, regardless of whether you believe the evidence is sufficient to prove anthropogenic causation or not, if you're a scientist as opposed to a theologian, you'll welcome scientific debate of global warming's causation


and its telling how many of these people who are saying the world is about to end, dont want exactly that.

if their "proof" is so incontrovertible they would welcome a public hearing of it.


RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: I wonder ...
By y0ssar1an on 10/20/2009 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for the link to the Precautionary Principle article. I hadn't heard of it before. Also, ignore the naysayers. Your posts were dead-on.


RE: I wonder ...
By FITCamaro on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 3:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
living right near sea level is not a wise choice

It's a choice? So if some dirt-poor slum-dweller has the misfortune to be born in a 3rd world hellhole within 2m of sea level, it's his/her own damned fault for choosing the wrong parents?

Interesting theory.


RE: I wonder ...
By Schrag4 on 10/20/2009 6:21:32 PM , Rating: 1
Children are routinely punished for ALL the poor choices of their parents, not just for where they live. Yes, it was the parents' choice to raise children there.

Now if the government of the "3rd world hellhole" won't let you leave...


RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/2009 9:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever actually travelled in the developing world? Walked through a tin-shack slum?

The idea that these people have the freedom to pick up and move wherever they choose is laughable. These people are born into poverty, and 99,999 out of 100,000 will spend their entire life within 5km of the spot where they were born.


RE: I wonder ...
By Headfoot on 10/22/2009 9:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you're living in a hut down by the sea thats built of trash, go find some trash somewhere else and build a different hut if it's honestly that bad.
It's called being nomadic


RE: I wonder ...
By knutjb on 10/20/2009 1:42:25 PM , Rating: 4
It sounds good at first. The problem with that method is once changes are implemented they never seem to get retracted even when proven wrong. It also places the burden on those who disagree, not those who accuse. How can we be sure that what is being implemented won't cause more harm than taking the time for more research?

Flawed logic designed to make it easy to implement and very difficult to fix.

This is nothing more than a pro green strong-arming law. Napoleon would be proud!


RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: I wonder ...
By TomZ on 10/20/2009 3:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe people are modding down your posts because they are "not worth reading"?


RE: I wonder ...
By bdot on 10/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: I wonder ...
By Looey on 10/21/2009 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think you should read Ishmael. It might help you.

I think volcano eruptions are more worrisome than global warming. Sorry, it's now called climate change.

Carbon taxes are are a prime example of a liberal hoax to enslave us all to a central government that controls everything in our lives. There are researchers whose jobs depend on global warming. Without it, they are out of a job. How can they be trusted when the unemployment line awaits them?

I live in the central part of the US. We have limestone with sea creatures embedded in it. We also have mounds of dirt and lakes gouged out by ice glaciers. The earth has gone through hot and cold periods for eons.

The Chinese are building hydro electric dams as fast as they can build them. They are then selling carbon credits to power companies in the EU so they can continue with business as usual. If that scenario isn't the biggest joke I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

What good will it do for power companies to get a carbon tax, pass it on to the consumer and then do nothing to lower carbon emissions? Who will have this huge pile of carbon tax money? Ah yes, the government. Then what? Give it to the poor countries of the world you say. Obama wants to do that very thing. Why are these countries poor? Corruption is a big part of that. Redistributing wealth will do nothing for the world. That is one of the goals of leftist radicals.

Carbon taxes could eventually cause civil wars when people get fed up and have had enough.


RE: I wonder ...
By randomposter on 10/21/2009 12:10:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Carbon taxes are are a prime example of a liberal hoax to enslave us all to a central government that controls everything in our lives ... Carbon taxes could eventually cause civil wars when people get fed up and have had enough.

Do you have any idea how unhinged you sound?


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki