I’ve been offline too. You are into thread derailment, so if you carry on in that vein I’ll close it. I think it has pretty well run its course.

Honestly, is this the sort of thing you web log people waste time on? Do something useful instead.

Nuh, no way. Don’t feel like it. So there.

Why not ask your mate MarkL? He seems very fond of posting 1000 word plus comments here.

What a waste of time it represents.

Even though I just do not care one whit, David Rubie, I shall pass that on to him as I told him I would, for I keep my word.

Honestly, is this the sort of thing you web log people waste time on? Do something useful instead.

Imperial Trade

This is the “religious dogmatic retreat” distilled to its purest essence. When things are complex and not fully understood, the things you don’t know must be far more important than those you do, so just shut up.

Looking dispassionately at it, the ecohysteria…

You use that word, but claim to be rational and/or dispassionate.

Here’s the deal: Nobody has claimed that human produced C02 is the only cause of global warming (which is what you’ve assumed the “ecohysteria” is about). Nobody has claimed that sunspots don’t influence the earths temperature, or any other large and possibly unquantifiable things that have tiny, tiny influences. None of them add up to much in the face of the evidence for AGW caused by greenhouse gases and human activity. None.

Imperial Trade

So, let me get this straight, MarkL: because you can list references from a scientist outside the emerging global scientific consensus on global warming (or just writing about something else), you’re NOT a fringeist?

Comment: Science is about consensus? Who knew? So much for the scientific method, then. LeftyE. *Religion* is about consensus. Science is about verifiable results. If those who conduct research in the field are ‘fringists’ - dating from nearly two generations ago, I might add - then that is a *religious* viewpoint from the standpoint of green dogma and green ‘priests’ like Brown, Wong, Garrett and Flannery. But as I merely find the ‘green religion’ hilarious, I can chuckle at this point, and move on. I’d be rather glad to be regarded as a ‘fringist’ by any member of so pitiful a ‘religion’.

Dont get me wrong (I for one cant wait to get the latest data from 1961), but isnt that type of selective source sampling straight out of the introductory wingnut toolkit?

Comment: What are you on about? That’s a few of the basic papers from a large number. I just thought you could perhaps find time to read a small number – it would be silly to post a couple of hundred references. Go to the journals and find the rest. For 50-odd years there has been a large body of research done by a number of persons which explores the role of the sun on terrestrial climate. This has generated a large number of papers. I have been following this for half that time. Are you pretending that this is somehow my invention, or cherrypicked somehow? Look, I’m good, but I’m not *that* good: you seem to think that I have organised an entire line of scientific research (starting years before I was born) just to use in a discussion at LP in 2008. Why don’t you see for yourself by actually reading some of the material involved, scientific research from the era before this latest ecohysteria (and therefore untainted by it)? Or do you think that the sun has no impact on climate?

Or are you afraid of any challenge to green dogma? If that is the case, who is the reactionary here?

And buddy, can you get more tinfoiled ( and dare I say, Godwin-bothering) than to claim you’ve been equated with a holocaust denier somewhere on this thread? And only you can see it>

Comment: You are the one using that shallowest and most emotive of terms, not I. You did it deliberately and you cannot pretend not to know why that form of words is used. Yes, I called you on it, and apparently you do not like that. Dry your eyes, and discuss things civilly. I am not the one using terms like “knobjockey” here.

Anf finally, do stop pretending you’re some fearless Galileo, staunch in the face of pre-reformation religous zealotry - when youre just a nutter who switches on all lights to prove what a tool he is to ordinary punters trying to actually do something as Antarctica melts at unprecedented rates.

Comment: Well, it’s amusing that you interpret things that way. I am merely pointing out that this latest ecohysteria is a sham just like all its predecessors, lacking a scintilla of actual evidence. *Where is the heat,* LeftyE? There’s only two places left unchecked, the lower atmosphere and the abyssal deeps. We know that it is not in the upper or middle atmospheres, or in the top 3000m of the oceans. And the former is not able to hold all of it and not impact the mid and upper atmosphere, while we know of no mechanism which could place and then isolate the heat the ecohysterics keep banging on about into the abyssal deeps. So if your ecohysteria is real, where is the heat? That is a heck of a lot of energy, and if it cannot be found, *then the ecohysteria may well be false.* This is because it cannot ‘get hot’ as the ecohysterics claim without that energy, which so far, has not been found.

Oh, and while the Antarctic peninsula is warming (a local phenomina) for reasons we do not fully understand, the Antarctic mainland (the remaining 97% of Antarctica) has been getting colder since the 1950s. But as you do not read the journals, you do not know that, and so believe the false information peddled by people making money off this latest scare. Again, go and read the research material - it is what we grown-ups are supposed to do.

As an aside, for an entertaining read on how the ecohysteric Lord Butler was ambushed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, see: [link]

David: Trouble is MarkL, you posted a pretty standard list of straws that AGW skeptics like to post indicating that there is a relationship between sunspot activity and ocean temp, without really understanding the current state of play. Worse than that, you didn’t tell us exactly what we should be looking for in your list ….

Comment: I suspect that I understand more of the state of play than most ecohysterics, but freely admit that I know much less than scientists active in this field. I am not aware that there is any kind of ’standard list of straws that AGW skeptics like to post ‘. If there is such a list of papers, which I assume is the meaning of “straws”, I request that you post it here. I also note that you do not mention that I also mentioned “Huang, North and Koutsoyiannis”. There is ongoing work in this area. May I ask how much of it you have read?

I also stated that “…are entering a the prolonged cooling cycle with cycle 24. This was predicted…” so there’s one small thing, at least. However, you are correct that I was not very specific. What to look for is the existence of areas of research which look at the natural causes of and mechanisms which account for variations in terrestrial climate. The SIM hypothesis is one of these, and it seems to offer reasons for sudden sea level rises and temperature surges such as the last ice age, Roman maxima etc, events which could not have had a man-made cause. Examining a number of these will provide anyone actually interested with a more balanced view of current research that that presented by ecohysterics. How is this contentious?

Basically, Fairbridge has made a list of unproven assertions about ocean temps and sunspot cycles / activity

Comment: Correct, this is called an hypothesis. The idea is that it drives people to conduct research to prove or disprove it. EITHER is a good outcome.

and verification of his theory is taking a long time

Comment: Correct, this is common in any area of scientific research. For example, please recall that there is still much we do not know about how evolution actually works, and Darwin first proposed that as an hypothesis in the century before last.

aka it’s just obfuscation.

Comment: This observation does not flow logically from the previous statement, it is an absolute statement and an interjection. Therefore it is not a valid statement. If it were, you could also use it to cast similar doubt in the concept of Darwinian evolution or any other scientific theory, as relatively few can be 100% proven as you seem to insinuate. There are always gaps in knowledge, so what?

In fact, if the ocean doesn’t cool as per the theory, Fairbridge may well be adding to the evidence of human activity being the source of global warming, not subtracting from it

Comment: Yes, of course, and in that case a rational person will simply follow Keynes advice regarding new knowledge and change their views. What is risible about the current ecohysteria is that hypotheses are being touted as fact. This is a bad practise. Again, how is this contentious to a rational person?

Looking dispassionately at it, the ecohysteria has now settled down on a single touted cause, CO2 increase in the atmosphere, with a single cause, burning fossil fuels. This is ridiculous prima facie: how can one simple cause be isolated in a complex and poorly understood system where we still do not know many of the variables?

FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. 1997. Orbital commensurability and resonance

Trouble is MarkL, you posted a pretty standard list of straws that AGW skeptics like to post indicating that there is a relationship between sunspot activity and ocean temp, without really understanding the current state of play. Worse than that, you didn’t tell us exactly what we should be looking for in your list (another piece of ignorance).

Basically, Fairbridge has made a list of unproven assertions about ocean temps and sunspot cycles / activity and verification of his theory is taking a long time aka it’s just obfuscation. In fact, if the ocean doesn’t cool as per the theory, Fairbridge may well be adding to the evidence of human activity being the source of global warming, not subtracting from it. Care to try again?

back when I was slaving in the coalmines of alt.folklore.urban, we tried and tried to find a single reliable cite supporting this oft-repeated (in various locations) Blackout Baby Boom factoid.

Tigtog, it was reported at the time in the local press as stats from the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. So should be mouldering away in the archives of the Courier-Mail - or on microfiche!

Sorry I didn’t respond to this in timely fashion - I guess my next step then is to send the Registrar-General a begging letter for the relevant figures, and see whether the Courier-Mail’s journos were responding to actual data or just spinning a yarn. What month of 1985 were the blackouts?

NASA scientist urges PM to stop coal exports

Fantastic. And about time. Put Merkel on. Now. We need to stoush this.

Dont get me wrong (I for one cant wait to get the latest data from 1961), but isnt that type of selective source sampling straight out of the introductory wingnut toolkit?

And buddy, can you get more tinfoiled ( and dare I say, Godwin-bothering) than to claim you’ve been equated with a holocaust denier somewhere on this thread? And only you can see it>

Anf finally, do stop pretending you’re some fearless Galileo, staunch in the face of pre-reformation religous zealotry - when youre just a nutter who switches on all lights to prove what a tool he is to ordinary punters trying to actually do something as Antarctica melts at unprecedented rates.

Comment: Please pay attention, Dave. I have NEVER bought the glowball warmenating ecohysteria of the 90s onwards for the same reasons I never bought the glowball coolerising ecohysteria of the 70s and 80s (or acid rain, ‘frankenfoods’ etc etc etc). I had the good fortune to be taught at Uni in the 70s by a former post-grad student of Rhodes Fairbridge and have studied him extensively since.

So I do not care what Bolt says, or what the people making a fortune off the gullible over this latest ecohysteria say. Unless the laws of thermodynamics have been revoked, we are entering a the prolonged cooling cycle with cycle 24. This was predicted long, long ago (and there is good supporting evidence), see:

FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., (ed) 1961b. Solar variations, Climate Change, and Related Geophysical Problems, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 95, (Art 1), 1 - 740.

FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., 1961c. Convergence of Evidence on Climatic Change and Ice Ages. In: FAIRBRIDGE, R. W., (ed.) (1961a), 542 - 579

FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. and SANDERS, J. E., 1987. The Sun’s Orbit, A.D. 750-2050: basis for new perspectives on planetary dynamics and Earth-Moon linkage. In: RAMPINO, M. R.;SANDERS, J. E.; NEWMAN, W. S.; and KONIGSSON, L. K., 1987. Climate: History, Periodicity, and Predictability. Van Nostrand Reinhold USA, pps 446 to 471.

FAIRBRIDGE, R.W. and SHIRLEY, J. H., 1987. Prolonged Minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion. Solar Physics, 110 191-220.

FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. 1997. Orbital commensurability and resonance, in: Encyclopedia of planetary sciences, Eds. J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fairbridge, Chapman & Hall, London, 564-571.

And of course the work of Huang, North and Koutsoyiannis etc.

“Then, this:
Oh, I forgot, YOU are the Establishment now, and some members brook no dissent.
And a sore loser to boot. We’d feel sorry about JHo, OK? But he had to go. Want a tissue?”

Comment: I am on record on this site as predicting a Rudd win; in any case, I’m a swinging voter who votes based on policy. Voted for Hawke each time due to his micro-economic reform focus, voted for Howard because of his team’s economic management expertise. Even so, I am not unhappy to see a change, even to a less competent and ‘policy hollow’ government. It is not good for our system for any government to have more than two terms, three tops. This Govt may be an exception for me if they keep discarding their pre-election policies at the rate they are.

84 Lefty E
“Well, if its got denialists riled, MarkL, and publicly exposing themsleves as prize knobjockeys - then Id say it was probably worthwhile!”

Comment: How interesting that you start with an ad hominem, thereby invalidating what you have to say (Katz’s comment at #82 was quite funny, this is not meant that way at all, is it?). As for ‘riled’, no. Oh, I find the self-revealed ignorance and gullibility of the glowball believers to be somewhat depressing as it proves Barnum’s point. I have no idea why the gullible cannot read scientific papers and come to a rational decision based on scientific method, Lefty E, but there are many poorly learned people out there. So at least you are not alone. What consistently amazes me is that there are so many gullible people who believe the uninformed views of clueless media types and politicians on scientific matters, but who never bother to even look at the journals where the real subject matter experts are debating the issues. I mean, even the most basic warning signs are ignored: like ‘is the person espousing this ecohysteria making money from it?’ And: ‘Do they have the qualifications to say what they are saying?’ How easily people fall for the con-men.

There is also a fascinating debate in theological circles about the rise of a new paganism – earth worship – among the supposedly secular left since their previous false religion collapsed. This view has some merit from what one can observe.

“Not that fringe denialists matter anymore. You guys are irrelevant.”
Comment: I invoke Godwin’s Law. Seriously, how can you engage in any serious discussion, Lefty E, when you move so quickly to the cheapest of all possible emotive points, equating anyone who disagrees with your dogma with a Holocaust Denier? It’s impossible to think of anyone who stoops to such juvenile nonsense as other than a lowly boor. As for ‘irrelevancy’, we will see what happens further in to Cycle 24. Umm, you DO know that the ARGOS project (designed and funded to track the real rate of ‘glowball warmenating’ via tracking the oceanic heat sink effect) has actually shown a slight oceanic cooling, yes? You have been following the cooling of the upper and middle atmosphere over the last decade, yes? These data points support what Fairbridge et al have been publishing since the late 1950s.) Basically, the papers in the journals are trending to support of the Solar Inertial Motion hypothesis. This means that the solar polar observation data from ULYSSES is being awaited with bated breath over the next two years. If you cannot understand what I am saying, try reading things other than what Al Gore says.

“Its the mainstream who are converted, but as yet dont know how to focus their energies. Form this point, we need government price signals and programs.”

Comment: The religious wording of this is revealing. We have ‘converted the unbelievers’. Now we need force majeure to impose our creed and dogma on the masses. Hilarious – but as a follower of enlightenment principles I’ll keep following the actual science as best I can, thanks, and leave the witch-harrying to you religious zealots. They DO amuse me.

85 NicM
If Earth Hour has upset the denialists, wait till they see this:
NASA scientist urges PM to stop coal exports

Comment: NicM, we exported $23.3 billion worth of coal (nearly 233 million tons) in 05/06. Coal employs something like 250,000 people directly in this country. It provides the Asian energy market with about half of its imported electrical base load power. Now tell me honestly, do you really think that the Rudd government is going to kill this industry and throw all those people out of work – and cause a global recession – just because the amount of plant food in the atmosphere is being slightly increased? The mining unions alone would skin them if they tried. The report is amusing as it shows that the person making it is a drongo, that’s all.

MarkL
Canberra

Its the mainstream who are converted, but as yet dont know how to focus their energies. Form this point, we need government price signals and programs.

We certainly do. Enough of the symbolism and time for some real action.
There’s no reason for the average household to be using over 20kWh of electricity a day.