Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[daisycutter 29,600]

even if badly misdirected colin, a funny little skit

it does reinforce that itchy chip personna of yours, old boy

[daisycutter 29,600]

[hardtack 10,514]

Someone spoke to Soon or too Soon?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

[P-man 13,366]

Someone spoke to Soon or too Soon?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Shocking. Not.

[daisycutter 29,600]

are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations?

i would imagine that gw sceptic scientists would find their funding (and employment) options very scarce indeed

not saying it is, but this could be a bit of a hatchet job. seems like greenpeace have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to silence this guy by smear

[P-man 13,366]

are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations?

i would imagine that gw sceptic scientists would find their funding (and employment) options very scarce indeed

not saying it is, but this could be a bit of a hatchet job. seems like greenpeace have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to silence this guy by smear

How is it smear when it's just basic facts?

Is there ANY evidence to suggest "pro GW" scientists are funded by corporations? Because there is plenty of evidence of climate skeptics being funded by large industry. Clearly their employment options aren't limited when you take into account the amount of funding, speaking engagements etc.

[daisycutter 29,600]

How is it smear when it's just basic facts?

Is there ANY evidence to suggest "pro GW" scientists are funded by corporations? Because there is plenty of evidence of climate skeptics being funded by large industry. Clearly their employment options aren't limited when you take into account the amount of funding, speaking engagements etc.

How is it smear when it's just basic facts?

Is there ANY evidence to suggest "pro GW" scientists are funded by corporations? Because there is plenty of evidence of climate skeptics being funded by large industry. Clearly their employment options aren't limited when you take into account the amount of funding, speaking engagements etc.

facts? more like innuendo.

it was a fact that soon said that his research was totally independent.

you can believe him or not, but i didn't see any "facts" that proved he was lying

[P-man 13,366]

facts? more like innuendo.

it was a fact that soon said that his research was totally independent.

you can believe him or not, but i didn't see any "facts" that proved he was lying

newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soons work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as deliverables that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

So there is documented evidence obtained under FOI that proves he accepted a huge sum of money to deliver his reports as a "deliverable" to suit an agenda. At what point do you accept that evidence? When it is placed under your nose? Are NYT lying? Another conspiracy afoot?

Soon has said his corporate funding has not influenced his findings. Of course he'd say that. His reputation as a scientist depends on it. And he may be telling the truth. But the fact he is funded by fossil fuel companies seriously compromises the integrity of the reports no matter what he states about the extent of their influence.

I'll assume your not answering the second question as there being no such evidence to support your claim of "yeah but I bet the other side is just as bad. Probably."

Edited February 22, 2015 by P-man

[dee-luded 2,959]

Someone spoke to Soon or too Soon?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

well, just what did Soon say, anyway?

[hardtack 10,514]

well, just what did Soon say, anyway?

I think it's more a case of what he didn't say.

[bing181 9,193]

i didn't see any "facts" that proved he was lying

He's been as fast and free with his funding information as he has with his "science".

"Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said."

[daisycutter 29,600]

He's been as fast and free with his funding information as he has with his "science".

"Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said."

you might be correct, and i'm not pro or anti soon. wouldn't even know his research except it's to do with solar activity

but your quote from "many experts" is not facts. it is in just anonymous opinions claimed by a journalist. not worth the paper it is written on

as for mr schmidt that is also opinion as he cites no evidence or scientific papers on his claim of "probably no more than 10 percent"

i'm only being a devil's advocate here bing, it's too easy to play the man and not the ball

Edited February 25, 2015 by daisycutter

[P-man 13,366]

you might be correct, and i'm not pro or anti soon. wouldn't even know his research except it's to do with solar activity

but your quote from "many experts" is not facts. it is in just anonymous opinions claimed by a journalist. not worth the paper it is written on

as for mr schmidt that is also opinion as he cites no evidence or scientific papers on his claim of "probably no more than 10 percent"

i'm only being a devil's advocate here bing, it's too easy to play the man and not the ball

Yes dc but it's easy to play devil's advocate when you hypothesise without substance. Just about anything can have doubt placed upon it if you reach far enough. Again, what evidence is there of a climate scientist who supports the theory of man made climate change being corporate sponsored? I'm looking for one example and I'm not playing the man, I'm simply asking you to back up what you've said.

[daisycutter 29,600]

Yes dc but it's easy to play devil's advocate when you hypothesise without substance. Just about anything can have doubt placed upon it if you reach far enough. Again, what evidence is there of a climate scientist who supports the theory of man made climate change being corporate sponsored? I'm looking for one example and I'm not playing the man, I'm simply asking you to back up what you've said.

firstly i didnt claim anything

here is what i said "are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations?"

​an enormous amount of scientific research is funded these days by large corporates, multinationals and private conglomerates of various flavours

it is the capitalist way. and where there is money there is often self interest

it also doesn't always mean it is corrupting and has strings attached

i'm not going on an extensive search for your benefit as i merely posed the question as i think it highly likely that some pro gw scientists have funding from pro gw groups or groups that have a financial interest in the gw economy. there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. there could or could not be, it all depends, but i'm not naive enough to think that where money is involved that everything is squeaky clean

your mileage may vary

[P-man 13,366]

firstly i didnt claim anything

here is what i said "are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations?"

​an enormous amount of scientific research is funded these days by large corporates, multinationals and private conglomerates of various flavours

it is the capitalist way. and where there is money there is often self interest

it also doesn't always mean it is corrupting and has strings attached

i'm not going on an extensive search for your benefit as i merely posed the question as i think it highly likely that some pro gw scientists have funding from pro gw groups or groups that have a financial interest in the gw economy. there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. there could or could not be, it all depends, but i'm not naive enough to think that where money is involved that everything is squeaky clean

your mileage may vary

Granted, but surely if it's "highly likely" then it wouldn't take much effort to uncover one solitary example of said funding.

There absolutely is something wrong with that, were it to be true. Research driven by private interests is not independent and therefore not worth the paper it is written on. But until there is any evidence of it, your question and attached proposition is baseless. The fact remains that there are examples, like Soon, of self interested companies clouding the debate with ill-conceived views.

The unfortunate result is that it appears as a collective we'll be debating this thing and fighting reisistance to action well past the point of being able to do anything about it.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

firstly i didnt claim anything

here is what i said "are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations?"

​an enormous amount of scientific research is funded these days by large corporates, multinationals and private conglomerates of various flavours

it is the capitalist way. and where there is money there is often self interest

it also doesn't always mean it is corrupting and has strings attached

i'm not going on an extensive search for your benefit as i merely posed the question as i think it highly likely that some pro gw scientists have funding from pro gw groups or groups that have a financial interest in the gw economy. there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. there could or could not be, it all depends, but i'm not naive enough to think that where money is involved that everything is squeaky clean

your mileage may vary

DC we have been here before. Are you sitting on the fence again? Yes you didnt claim anything but where do you stand?

Dr Soon is yet another what I would call a "Global Warming Sceptic'" commentator. He is a scientist but he does not conduct empirical scientific studies into global warming he just commentates on how in his case sun spots or something may be an issue for discussion and more importantly inaction, just as the geologist Professor Ian Plimer postulates about the long term effects of some geological phenomena and its effects on temperatures but produces no data. They are all extrovert academic talkers, funded by mining companies, by the way but where is their actual empirical data and painstaking research! Of course it doesn't exist because these people have moved on from basic science and data gathering, they are mostly guns for hire by those who want to pay for inaction.

Governments in general fund the gathering of real data for further analysis, not sure how many multinationals are funding basic research which may produce outcomes that don't suit them. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

I always wonder how "on the ground" scientists, gathering data for example from ice cores in the Antartic must feel when their empirical data findings are regularly trashed by a university drop out, like big mouth Andrew Bolt?

DC at some stage you have to commit to the cause. Or are you going to do a Greg Hunt on us?

[daisycutter 29,600]

DC we have been here before. Are you sitting on the fence again? Yes you didnt claim anything but where do you stand?

Dr Soon is yet another what I would call a "Global Warming Sceptic'" commentator. He is a scientist but he does not conduct empirical scientific studies into global warming he just commentates on how in his case sun spots or something may be an issue for discussion and more importantly inaction, just as the geologist Professor Ian Plimer postulates about the long term effects of some geological phenomena and its effects on temperatures but produces no data. They are all extrovert academic talkers, funded by mining companies, by the way but where is their actual empirical data and painstaking research! Of course it doesn't exist because these people have moved on from basic science and data gathering, they are mostly guns for hire by those who want to pay for inaction.

Governments in general fund the gathering of real data for further analysis, not sure how many multinationals are funding basic research which may produce outcomes that don't suit them. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

I always wonder how "on the ground" scientists, gathering data for example from ice cores in the Antartic must feel when their empirical data findings are regularly trashed by a university drop out, like big mouth Andrew Bolt?

DC at some stage you have to commit to the cause. Or are you going to do a Greg Hunt on us?

you make it sound like a religion earl

do i have a time limit before i am excommunicated?

will i lose my head to some gw jihadist?

i'll let you know when they get the global climate predictor model working

[nutbean 8,838]

i'm only being a devil's advocate here bing, it's too easy to play the man and not the ball

I'm the Rod Grinter of the Global warming debate....

[Earl Hood 6,082]

you make it sound like a religion earl

do i have a time limit before i am excommunicated?

will i lose my head to some gw jihadist?

i'll let you know when they get the global climate predictor model working

DC you use an interesting analogy. Most people believe in a religion because it offers salvation from some equivalent of hell. Religions are belief systems based on a faith in someone's teachings. Belief in climate change is based on scientific facts and data and that if we act according to what the science is telling us we may achieve a form of salvation from the worst effects of global warming.

We can embrace zero emission energy technology that will create jobs and exports or we can hold onto the old fossil fuel industries as our future. Me personally I do not want to promote the profits of the likes of Clive Palmer or Gina Rhinehart particularly. Although the country will take a big export income hit in the short term, it is going to happen anyway as our markets move away from coal and gas.

By the way the IPCC models are predicting what is happening quite well. There will always be some variance from the predicted trend of global warming that leads to further data analysis, investigation and refinement to take into account so many variables in the planet. And then the model is reset.

The planet is complex and doesn't fit into some Andrew Bolt inspired linear equation

[nutbean 8,838]

I am far from an expert on subject and base my thinking on my readings which admittedly are from mainstream media. I do like to read the likes of Andrew Bolt as it challenges my thinking.

My frustration in this debate is from what I will ill advisedly call the "skeptics" side, is honing on in isolated discrepancies in predictions and modelling, or grabbing at the more extreme comments as a catalyst to completely debunking climate change.

Wrecker pointed to the discussion on Ocean warming and pointed to one article which discussed the deep ocean not warming as rapidly as modeled. In the same article the same scientist noted that the top half of the ocean warming at an abated rate pointing unequivocally to the planet warming.

Even DC, who argues articulately and logically, debated with me on the consensus within the scientific community. I understand the dislike of throwaway lines and stats and I agree we do need more considered reporting and less headline grabbers but whichever way you cut it , the vast majority of scientists in the field agree that the planet is warming and the main contributor is man. I believe that you can argue the quantum - but the basic premise does not change.

[hardtack 10,514]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-know-there-are-more-giant-craters-in-siberia-but-are-nervous-to-even-study-them-20150226-13q7b5.html

[daisycutter 29,600]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-know-there-are-more-giant-craters-in-siberia-but-are-nervous-to-even-study-them-20150226-13q7b5.html

reminds me of the bogle-chandler case (mysterious gases come from the river)

never occurred to me it could have be caused by gw

Edited February 27, 2015 by daisycutter

[Earl Hood 6,082]

reminds me of the bogle-chandler case (mysterious gases come from the river)

never occurred to me it could have be caused by gw

Bogle & Chandler case? I still say KGB myself DC. And you are confusing hydrogen sulphide gas with methane you realise? just being pedantic I know.

[daisycutter 29,600]

Bogle & Chandler case? I still say KGB myself DC. And you are confusing hydrogen sulphide gas with methane you realise? just being pedantic I know.

maybe earl. both hydrogen sulphide and methane are often found together and both are flammable and poisonous

are you denying it indicates global warming?

so the ivans got bogle and the yellow peril got holt? makes sense to me

[Earl Hood 6,082]

maybe earl. both hydrogen sulphide and methane are often found together and both are flammable and poisonous

are you denying it indicates global warming?

so the ivans got bogle and the yellow peril got holt? makes sense to me

DC let's stick to the facts. What we do know is that Harold Holt swam through 4 meter surf off Portsea in December 1967 to an off shore Chinese submarine and was taken back to mainland China where he is still living happily in Qinghai Province to this day. All this to escape Dame Zahra apparently. OK I am joking.

Hard Tracks reference to the craters forming in Siberia is scary. When they were first detected last year, my first guess was it had something to do the breakdown of the permafrost. Today's article confirms that suspicion, witnesses are talking of methane explosions opening up a crater that then fills with water but still oozes methane gas. Still more investigation needed of course but it all looks very ominous to me. The article mentions elevated temperatures in the arctic. And that is one of the problems we face, a two degree global average temperature increase results in a 10 or 15 degree increase at the poles and that is where a lot of the trapped methane, that if released quickly sets up a feed back loop. That is concerning but there is an alternative to live in Andrew Bolt's world of denial where the science is all rubbish and we can keep doing what we do and coal is our God.