Jump to content

dieter

Members
  • Content count

    1,149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

842 Excellent

About dieter

  • Rank
    Master Demon

Recent Profile Visitors

1,821 profile views
  1. SSM postal vote

    We won't talk about the billions wasted on building concentration camps in Nauru and manus, or the billions wasted fighting USA proxy wars. That's just for s start. Pink bats, ding bats...
  2. SSM postal vote

    Civilised and democratic only for Jews, not for the original inhabitants. for
  3. I'm addicted and cant help myself!

    I was at cricket practice. A 14 year old in the nets at Sunshine Cricket Club. We lived in the street surrounding the park. There weren't too many trannies - in those days a trannie was a portable radio - listening to the game. I was bowling during the last quarter, trying to concentrate, every now and then I'd lament another Barassi behind - I'd been to the 2nd semi where we smashed them - and starting to worry. I hear the Gabelich wobbly cake walk to goal, I bowl, I fetch, I bowl another ball. Then I hear a roar, it's my favourite back pocket player of all time - yes, better than Fowler and Johnson - the mighty ex-rover who went AWOL, returned in '64 to win a flag. Them was the days. Next year, my so called Leaving Year, we win the first 7 games, most of them not by very much, then the mighty Norm is sacked and apart from Northey, the first few years of Balme, the Daniher years and the last two years of rehab it's been a bucketload of shite.
  4. I'm sure I saw footage of Kent on the track for the first run last week. Lay off, you guys.. Also saw Vandenberg. They're still in rehab...
  5. SSM postal vote

    Most of those 11 Labor seats are in low income heavily migrant populated areas, areas where religion still yokes the brain cells of its constituents towards very basic conservative values. There are also very many so-called Catholics who vote labour but no to ssm.
  6. 2015 the hottest year on record

    The bottom line, sweetie, being prepared to believe in man made climate change does not make you or me or the ABC a leftie. For the record, I write, bowl, bat, kick, eat, pick my nose and wipe my bum with my right hand. I am not a molly dooker.
  7. 2015 the hottest year on record

    You might well have an earths sciences background, it doesn't mean you qualify as an intelligent human being. What indicates that maybe you're not is the reference to 'the leftist rags like the age and the ABC'. To categorize debate on this topic as 'leftist' indicates you have the proclivities of an ignorant name caller. Once upon a time people like you were called neanderthals. They used clubs instead of words. Slogans are the modern version of the club. Slogans are the enemy of logic.
  8. I won't be the only one annoyed, W.B.
  9. 2015 the hottest year on record

    Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry Willie Soon is researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Documents: Koch brothers foundation among groups that gave total of $1.25m Willie Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, instead blaming the sun. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images View more sharing options This article is 2 years old Shares 14,707 Comments 878 Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent @suzyji Sunday 22 February 2015 08.32 AEDTFirst published on Sunday 22 February 2015 08.14 AEDT A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal. The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules. Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules Read more Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun. In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award. Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby. “The question here is really: ‘What did API, ExxonMobil, Southern Company and Charles Koch see in Willie Soon? What did they get for $1m-plus,” said Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace researcher who filed the original freedom of information requests. Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, of which Davies is the founder, shared the documents with news organisations. “Did they simply hope he was on to research that would disprove the consensus? Or was it too enticing to be able to basically buy the nameplate Harvard-Smithsonian?” From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence. The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company. Harvard's high-profile alumni join fossil fuel divestment campaign in open letter Read more In 2012, Soon told Southern Company its grants had supported publications on polar bears, temperature changes in the Arctic and China, and rainfall patterns in the Indian monsoon. ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed. Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines. “The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.” In letters to the Internal Revenue Service and Congress, Greenpeace said Soon may have misused the grants from the Koch foundation by trying to influence legislation. Soon did not respond to requests for comment. But he has in the past strenuously denied his industry funders had any influence over his conclusions. “No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself,” he told the Boston Globe in 2013. As is common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He receives his compensation from outside grant money, said Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics. World's biggest PR firm calls it quits with American oil lobby – reports Read more The Center for Astrophysics does not require scientists to disclose their funding sources. But Pulliam acknowleged that Soon had failed to meet disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research. “Soon should have followed those policies,” she said. Harvard said Soon operated outside of the university – even though he carries a Harvard ID and uses a Harvard email address. “Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said. “There is no record of Soon having applied for or having been granted funds that were or are administered by the University. Soon is not an employee of Harvard.” Both Harvard and the Smithsonian acknowledge that the climate is changing because of rising levels of greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human activities. Pulliam cast Soon’s association with the institutions as an issue of academic freedom: “Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.” Topics Climate change
  10. 2015 the hottest year on record

    Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Quotes Articles Arguments Blogs Links Search Quotes by Richard Lindzen Climate Myth What the Science Says ""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming"" 25 July 2012 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something." 30 April 2012 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts." 22 February 2012 (Source) Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. "...one can see no warming since 1997." 22 February 2012 (Source) Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded. "As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years." 22 February 2012 (Source) Phil Jones was misquoted. "You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter." 6 April 2011 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication." 6 April 2011 (Source) Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade. "The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases." 6 April 2011 (Source) Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change. "The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference." 6 April 2011 (Source) If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale. "It's a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?" 6 April 2011 (Source) The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. "For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone." 6 April 2011 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "I think even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this [a carbon tax] would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia's output during that millennium was increasing exponentially." 6 April 2011 (Source) CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "The models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more than you've already seen, you know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you've seen, but some mysterious process has cancelled part of it." 6 April 2011 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "If nothing else changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we've added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we've seen." 6 April 2011 (Source) Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change. "There's not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature [...] This is pretty tiny; it's a fraction of a degree." 6 April 2011 (Source) A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate. "If it's greenhouse warming, you get more warming in the middle of the troposphere, the first 10, 12 kilometres of the atmosphere than you do at the surface. There are good theoretical reasons for that, having to do with how the greenhouse works." 12 December 2010 (Source) We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot". "CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving..." 26 November 2008 (Source) Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995." 11 March 2008 (Source) Statistical significance requires sufficient timescales but many lines of evidence indicate global warming is still happening. "the main greenhouse gas is water vapor which is both natural in origin and highly variable in its distribution. In the absence of good records of water vapor we aren't even in a position to say how much total greenhouse gases have increased." 10 June 1997 (Source) Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse. "On the planet the most wonderful constituent is water with its remarkable thermodynamic properties. It's the obvious candidate for the thermostat of our system, and yet in most of these models, all water-related feedbacks are positive. I don't think we would have existed if that were true" 27 September 1989 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "In the current models, for reasons that puzzle almost everyone, the cloud feedbacks are positive rather than negative" 27 September 1989 (Source) Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. "Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, except for one form which isn't a greenhouse gas: clouds. Clouds themselves as liquid water are as important to the infrared budget as water vapor. Both swamp by orders of magnitude all the others. With CO2 one is talking about three watts per square meter at most, compared to a hundred or more watts per square meter for water" 27 September 1989 (Source) Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse. "in 1983 a panel of the National Academy of Sciences recommended a technique to validate climate models known as "fingerprinting"--efforts to find at least regional effects in modeling that are correct. This has turned out to be a disaster in methodology, because all the models differ even in their signs [directions] of predicted change, and they don't even agree on these features for the present climate" 27 September 1989 (Source) Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. "It is interesting that before this last appearance of 'greenhouse warming' (1970 to present), there were actually quite a log of books on the coming ice age. Now a new set of books on the coming warming are hitting the stands" 27 September 1989 (Source) The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. "the models showing that warming will occur with increasing CO2 predict after-the-fact (post-predict) that since the 19th century we should have seen between about one and two degrees of warming" 27 September 1989 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "What we have is data that says that maybe [warming] occurs, but it's within the noise....The point we have to keep in mind is that without any of this at all our climate would wander--at least within limits" 27 September 1989 (Source) Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century. "The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree...I would say, and I don't think I'm going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming" 27 September 1989 (Source) The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. "Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example" 27 September 1989 (Source) The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. "I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small" 27 September 1989 (Source) Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. Back to Climate Skeptics 00 : 00 : 97 The Consensus Project Website THE ESCALATOR (free to republish) Smartphone Apps iPhone Android Nokia © Copyright 2017 John Cook
  11. 2015 the hottest year on record

    More sophistry from The Australian on coral reef science in wake of Great Barrier Reef bleaching Bleached and algae covered coral at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, May 2016: Credit: XL Catlin Seaview Survey If you’ve been reading The Australian recently, you might think that coral reef science is in some kind of crisis. The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper has been attempting to spin the worst coral bleaching event in the reef’s recorded history as a beat-up by environmentalists and high-profile scientists. It isn’t. The latest instalment came earlier today from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd, under the print headline “The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world” and online under the headline “Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching.” Lloyd seems to be trying to construct a narrative that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent death of about a quarter of all the corals has opened some sort of schism among scientists. The bleaching, writes Lloyd, has “unleashed long-simmering tensions over the quality of reef research.” This is, in my view, bollocks [sorry kids]. Lloyd includes three individuals to back up his claims. They have two things in common. One is that none of them are anywhere close to being actual experts in coral biology. The second thing Lloyd’s “experts” all have in common is a broad rejection of the science linking dangerous human-caused climate change to fossil fuel burning, something Lloyd does not mention. Let’s look for a minute at who Lloyd quotes to back up his narrative. First there is Prof Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, who has no peer-reviewed publications at all in relation to coral reefs. Having a solid body of peer-reviewed research behind you in the relevant scientific field should be the pre-requisite for assigning “expertise”. Curry is a favourite among climate science deniers for her view that human-caused climate change is a beat up. Then there is the curious inclusion of Jim Steele, of San Francisco State University. According to that university’s website, Steele is “emeritus” – which means he is retired. I cannot find a publication listing for Steele, but this biography suggests expertise in biology and, in particular, birds. In 2013, Steele released a book claiming that climate change was natural and not being caused by humans. Then there is James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd, who is not a coral biologist. He has published work on how sediments and waters move around coral reefs, but I am told he has no expertise on the biology of corals. Lloyd again neglects to mention Ridd’s work on projects to support the construction of fossil fuel export facilities along the Queensland coastline close to the reef. Nether does he mention Ridd’s tendency towards climate science denialism. Lloyd does get quotes from one actual expert on coral bleaching – arguably one of the the world’s foremost authorities on the issue, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland. Lloyd includes a discussion of Hoegh-Guldberg’s seminal 1999 paper on coral bleaching which warned that “present and future increases in sea temperature are likely to have severe effects on the world’s coral reefs within 20 – 30 years”. Hoegh-Guldberg is currently at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Hawaii with a couple of thousand other reef and coral experts. He has read the story in The Australian, and told me: But in my view, not only did Lloyd choose people who were “simply not experts” but he also missed some key facts and nuance in his scrambled narrative. For example, Lloyd looks at the issue of calcification rates of corals saying that “one paper claims there has been a 15 per cent decline in calcification rate between 1990 and 2005.” Lloyd is referring to this 2009 Science paper by Dr Glenn De’ath, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). You can see if you follow that link that this paper was corrected by the authors in 2013, to show that calcification rates had actually dropped by a likely 11.4 per cent, rather than 14.1 per cent, as had originally been estimated (not 15 per cent, as Lloyd had written). Lloyd cites “quality assurance work” carried out by Ridd (and published in the journal Marine Geology) that claimed to have found “two major flaws” in the 2009 De’ath et al paper. One of those flaws had been addressed in the correction, which Lloyd had not mentioned. Neither had Lloyd mentioned that De’ath et al had actually responded to Ridd’s paper in the same Marine Geology journal and explained why they thought his criticisms were not valid. Lloyd also raises the issue of historical coral bleaching, writing that “there is certainly documented evidence of earlier bleaching” than prior to 1980. He cites a paper (actually a book chapter) from retired AIMS scientist Ray Berkelmans which pointed out that British scientists visiting the reef in 1929 witnessed bleaching. But does this Berkelmans paper show that this 1929 event was evidence of “reef-wide bleaching” as Lloyd claims? I asked Berkelmans, who retired from AIMS in March 2015. He told me: So does Berkelmans think his work, cited in The Australian, is evidence that mass coral bleaching is not a modern day phenomenon driven by global warming? “No,” he said. “There are of course early reports of bleaching – there was one in the US in the late 1890s. But we certainly know that since the 80s we are seeing many, many more [episodes of bleaching] and they are widespread and include widespread losses of coral.” So the point is this. Nobody has claimed that some corals have not occasionally bleached when under local stresses, such as high water temperatures or high pollution levels (Hoegh-Guldberg points to this 1993 paper to illustrate this). The issue at hand is whether there has been mass coral bleachinghappening simultaneously across not only the Great Barrier Reef, but across multiple ocean basins around the globe, and that this is a new phenomena. The answer to that, from all genuine experts, seems to be yes. So is there debate in the scientific literature about the precise nature of coral bleaching and the multiple and interweaving factors that contribute to it? Of course there is. But does this mean that the current bleaching event has opened up some kind of schism among marine scientists that is distinct from the everyday cut and thrust of science? No.
  12. 2015 the hottest year on record

    https://climatecrocks.com/2015/12/12/denier-for-hire-its-still-a-thing/ This is what Wrecker and Pro Dee should be advocating, not their collection of Climate Change Sceptics for Hire.
  13. Please no more Hartung threads. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO.!!!!
  14. 2015 the hottest year on record

    Dear Wrecker and ProDee You can present all the 'evidence' you like, the bottom line is that the Scientific community,as such, believes that the likes of you and Mr Roberto of the Hanson Rejects are preaching unscientific crap. I hope you can live comfortably in your skins while the world fries because it ain't gonna affect you. Your grandchildren may remember you both as ignorant dogmatic yes sayers, the type that just upholds the status quo so we can make a buck or two in the short term.
×