Speak for yourself.
He try get rid of people like me who demonstrate the truth Hillary should have won but was instead defeated by Russians who installed TRUMP through election metal.
And here is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with this site...A "Top Editor" who is unable to type a coherent message either:
1) Because they lack the ability
OR
2) Because they are so partisan that they feel they have to post as quickly as possible in order to defend "their side" and so are unable to take the small amount of time to proof-read what they are posting.
And sadly, based on the types of articles which seem to be appearing on this site, the "Editors" seem to be unable to take (or at the least present) an objective view on most controversial topics, instead pushing articles which favor their personal "side" of the arguments...Many of which also seem to be lacking the "tech" factor which this site used to be known for.
Being a tech site, I'm curious: When did a registered domain become referred to as a single website.
Having looked at the articles, I see plenty of reference to 28 domains, but no mention of how many sub-domains each has, nor how many sites (blogs/static page/wiki/whatever) are hosted on each domain, and so I was wondering why it is being categorically stated here that there are only 28 websites. My understanding has always been that there can be multiple websites on a single domain, but Slashdot seems to be equating 1 domain=1 website here (and on looking at the links, even some inaccessible domains are being categorised as websites, when it is equally possible they are registered purely for email and have no webpages attached).
In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?
I'm curious why it is that on a site where people seem to defend downloading movies\TV shows as not being "theft"\"stealing" (not necessarily condoning or otherwise the practice), the "unauthorized duplication" of encryption keys by the government is considered theft.
I would have thought either both are theft, or neither is, and would like to know how both forms of "unauthorized duplication of data" differ so much that only one is considered as theft here.
It would appear from this that there is a high likelyhood that all except one of the documents is genuine.
Of course, there's no indication (as yet) that the "Climate strategy" is not a part of the original documents, but given that one document was received from an anonomous source, and Heartland deny that this specific item originated from them, it'd be interesting to know where it originated from.
Looks like the rest of the documents are probably authentic, though.
It's just a shame that the government feel they need to do this in order to put together their NBN plans. (I believe this is the first time they've even mentioned the idea of splitting Telstra.)
Of course, once split, they should be able to buy up the infrastructure arm for a song and actually have a chance of getting the NBN in under budget...And removing any competition they would otherwise have for customers.
However from what I could tell from the abstract it doesn't seem to cover my point. The problem I have with the models is that they talk about how, based on the levels of CO2, etc in the atmosphere today, the future (say 20-30 years) is going to have temperatures of X degrees. However, if you were to put in the equivalent data from 20-30 years ago, the results don't match (or in many cases come close) to current observed temperatures.
With regards to the climate Audit web site, in this case I wasn't really interested in the analysis (other than the mention of the location of the measuring stations), and as far as I can tell the data for the graphs has not been "altered". I'm generally fairly sceptical with claims from both sides (real climate is another site I take "analysis" from with a grain of salt).
As to the "north west passage", from what I can understand, the levels being measured are being measured by satellite. However, as these measurements started in 1979, there's not really enough recordings to say this is unprecedented. Additionally, should 1979 be the starting point, it does happen to appear towards the end of a time of lower than average temperatures, so that would also potentially skew the results.
And yes, I had noted the reference to overland routes...I just hadn't had a chance to clarify the method of travel used.
Sorry to take so long to reply, but I had to track down a couple of records for you.
With regards to point 1:
Could you provide a reference to those studies...I haven't heard yet of a model taking data from the 1960's/1970's that accurately matches to todays climate. The only ones I know of all seem to think the earth should be at least 1 degree higher.
With regards to point 2:
The tweaking may not be doing what it should be doing in that case. For example: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1943
If the average values for these were taken into account, it would cause a skewing of the data. Strangely, the one relatively constant graph is from a rural area, while the other 5 are from areas that have rapidly urbanised...The one without urban heat island effect(UHIE) doesn't match global warming "predictions", while the others do. As such, it would seem prudent to consider that the AGW hypothesis may be based on the mistaken assumption that UHIE doesn't alter reading much.
In addition, with the GISS modelling, there are a number of recording stations that are duplicated, while others are ignored...This will also skew the data don't you think?
In 1903 he sailed with a crew of six on his 47-ton sloop Gjoa around the northern Canadian coast, commonly called the Northwest Passage. His east-to-west journey finished at Herschel Island in the Yukon in 1905.
Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east.
Additionally:
A considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated... 2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74 and 80N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years, entirely disappeared... The floods, which have the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened...
These are extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic ice reduction - in 1817. (Ref; Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153.)
As such, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that ice levels in the Arctic region are at record lows...
I'm guessing from your profile that you should be educated enough to know how many ways your reply was wrong too, but just in case:
The "talk" of a near-future Ice Age was from a few scientists and was not supported by the mainstream. Just like the "talk" today that there's no anthropogenic global warming.
Except that there has been no EVIDENCE produced in support of AGW. Sure, there is a hypothesis that rising CO2 levels will increase the earths temperature, and there is evidence that Humans do cause CO2 to be released, but as yet NO MODEL has been able to come even close to representing current conditions based on KNOWN historical data (say 1960's/1970's), with all models producing results well in excess of observed temperatures. This little piece of information SHOULD, in a person with a scientific background, trigger warning bells that maybe there is a problem with the whole AGW hypothesis, and that maybe it isn't a valid hypothesis to believe in (or at a minimum that it needs a LOT more work done on it).
The most recent sunspot minimum (2005) coincided with the hottest year ever recorded for our planet! (Or second-hottest, depending on which set of numbers you use. Also, just to head you off at the pass, note that I mentioned the planet and not just the United States.)
Yet the southern hemisphere is not warming at anywhere near the rate of the Northern hemisphere...And measuring stations data has been selectively "tweaked" if it doesn't fit the warming pattern instead of trying to work out if maybe there's a problem with the stations that don't have their data tweaked (Urban Heat Island Effect for example?). It is strange how measuring stations away from towns, etc. haven't noticed much (if any) change in temperature, while those in towns do, don't you think?
here is more than just "talk" of the ice caps melting. We just surpassed the previous minimum Arctic sea-ice records by more than 20%!! (Meanwhile, while the Antarctic sea-ice area reached a maximum, the total mass continues to decline.)
But measurements of Arctic ice began in 1979 (from memory) while there are several records from the 1700's and 1800's of ships using the "north west passage"...Which was recently announced as having only just recently being done for the first time in history.
And of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that there is a fixed, optimum global temperature, whereas it has been shown that human's (and the earth for that matter) actually thrive much better in warmer temperatures, and that an increase in the earths temperature from the current levels may actually be beneficial.
Having read material from both sides of the AGW arguement myself, I personally find the claims and supposed proofs in support of the AGW hypothesis to be lacking...
your comment "These models aren't just computer generated models. They are based on input variables, regression, mathmatics, and statistical data based on hard facts from observations." gives rise to an important question...What about the assumptions behind the models?
It is important to consider that the person designing the model may, whether knowingly or not, have introduced certain assumptions into their model [For example, the assumption that CO2 is the CAUSE of AGW]. The presence of these assumptions would of course not be made known by the models creator, and in most cases where these were willingly included, the creator would make a major attempt to prevent others looking at their models and calculations.
Additionally, when a model that is claimed to be accurate, and able to predict the future, is unable to demonstrate based on past observations (say 1960's and 1970's) what the climate was in the 1990's, it does make it hard to have any faith in the model predicting what will happen in 20+ years.
The important thing to remember with computer models is that they are specialised computer programs, and as with all programs any mistake, error, or assumption made (whether wittingly or not) will have an effect on the output.
Why is it that people on this site who seem to dislike FUD and to be largely in favour of Open Source software and distrustful of closed source (such as Microsoft products) are so easily convinced by FUD[1] from supporters of closed source computer models?
And as for the "People, even if the models aren't completely accurate, they are indicators of expected outcomes"...this outlines the AGW problem. The results are not "expected", they are AT BEST guesses. There are still too many guesses, assumptions, and unknowns that impact on this area of science, not to mention not enough known data, to support the AGW theory. True, "doing something" may seem the prudent (or profitable) thing to do, but that does not mean it is the BEST or even RIGHT thing to do . Consider that even if humans DO have an impact on the earth's temperature, what is to say that the current temperature is the optimal temperature for life on earth. Is it not possible that a higher temperature may be better....or that nature may evolve to cope with (or even couter-act) any suppposed temperature changed caused by humans?
[1] I use the term FUD here to indicate the AGW believers actions: Fear: The earth's temperature is rising, we're all doomed, the sea levels will rise [insert latest guess],... Uncertainty: The continued use of "could" and "may" instead of a definite "will" which to me also indicates they don't even believe their own models... Doubt: "You can't trust them...look where their funding comes from/who they used to work for" style comments. However they NEVER mention that: 1) their OWN funding is dependant on AGW. When/if AGW is proven false, then their own funding dries up, so they have as much (if not more) reason to work for results supporting their hypotheses. Why would anyone work towards something that cuts their own income? 2) You very rarely seem to hear a scientific based (and claims of a "scientific consensus" are not scientific) rebutal from those supporting AGW. The most you will hear is that "the claims can't be right because their funds are from [insert company]" or "why isn't it published in [insert publication]". However publication requires the item to have to be approved, not just by scientists, but also by the EDITORS who know where they'll get more funds from to publish/not publish certain items.
In addition, peer review of a model that supports your own pre-conceived ideas is a lot easier than one that doesn't (or that threatens your livelihood)...If [hypothetically] someone came up with a study showing that the e=mc2 equation was fundamentally flawed (and it could be proved), do you think that there would be more scrutiny placed on the science than a claim that supported the theory?
"Except the changes in CO2 far exceed any measurement from the last 800,000 years"...Interesting claim. I would quite like to know how they know the records go back 800,000 years, and how they claim these are the highest readings in the time covered by the records.
From what I have researched, these records come from ice cores. However, a minor problem with ice is that it has a habit of meling above a certain temperature. Given that there may be 800,000 years covered by the samples, that does not prove that the earlies sample is 800,000 years old. how are we to know if it is not in fact 8,000,000 years old, but due to natural climate variations, a large proportion of the sample has melted in this time.
So, without the dubious claim of having accurate readings for the past 800,000 years, we are left with the claim that the issue is the speed of the temerature rise. Strangely enough, there aren't all that many accurate temperature readings for the globe over 1,000 year old, and so all that can conceivably be claimed is that the current temperature fluctuations are the fastest in recorded history.
And so we come to "Except that the invers squar laws say otherwise. Also, while increased over all, the earth continued to warm during a multi-years cooling period of the sun.".
So from this we should be able to deduce that you believe that the sun is having no affect on temperature change here. however to claim thus would be to ignore evidence from at least 2 planets, where the temperature there has continued to rise. In fact, looking at our nearest neighbour, it seems that other than the sun, there has been no other possible cause for this temperature rise.
Besides which, I seem to recall that temperatures peaked around 1998, and have been stable/dropping since then.
Which leads on to "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply". Strangely enough, it seems that the only science that HAS ruled these out is the science dependant upon a "CO2 is causing this, what can we do to stop CO2" funding system. this is emphasised by the attacks on scientists funded by "big oil", and the way in which their studies are considered biased due to the funding source. However, no such claim of bias is levelled at those whose funding comes from organisations with a vested interest in keeping the AGW myth going, or those who would lose funding were it to be known that the change in the Earth's climate WAS natural.
Additionally, ALL the research being done that shows CO2 is the cause of global warming is started under the premise that this is what is the cause, relies entirely on almost identical computer models, includes large "fudge factors"...and has yet to provide accurate results based on known information, even for past years. The only real exception to this has been where the models have succesfully produced results based on known information for a given year, but which fail entirely when information for a different year is used instead.
Wouldn't it be nice if others as well as "big oil" did research where it was begun on the premise that CO2 is NOT the cause of the earth's change in temperature. Maybe then we would get some true research done, rather than propoganda to assist in gathering further funding. At present, any scientist wishing to do true research is hard pressed to find a funding source due to the "CO2 is the cause" lobby. This is the ONLY group claiming that the science is finished, and which is still dependant on "fudge factors" to prove this.
An additional consideration would be that those who do research which "proves" CO2 is the cause are not willing to allow those who do not agree with this THEORY to look at their computer models, purely because they do not wish the degree they rely on "fudge factors" to be known. If their research was accurate and valid, they should be able to take their model and based on the same data (ie, CO2 levels, solar output, etc.) for ANY year be able to produce an accurate measure
And based on this: If the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen in the past, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any current changes are entirely natural...
Alternatively, given that the solar output has increased recently, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any change in the Earth's tempersture would be related to that...
Maybe Australia is one of "the worst offenders"...But at least Australia is closer to it's "theoretical" Kyoto goal than many countries that have signed.
Oh yes...And with the size of Australia, compared to it's population, you would expect a higher per-capita level of CO2 than a small country where everyone lives in a small area.
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself. He try get rid of people like me who demonstrate the truth Hillary should have won but was instead defeated by Russians who installed TRUMP through election metal.
And here is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with this site...A "Top Editor" who is unable to type a coherent message either:
1) Because they lack the ability
OR
2) Because they are so partisan that they feel they have to post as quickly as possible in order to defend "their side" and so are unable to take the small amount of time to proof-read what they are posting.
And sadly, based on the types of articles which seem to be appearing on this site, the "Editors" seem to be unable to take (or at the least present) an objective view on most controversial topics, instead pushing articles which favor their personal "side" of the arguments...Many of which also seem to be lacking the "tech" factor which this site used to be known for.
Being a tech site, I'm curious: When did a registered domain become referred to as a single website. Having looked at the articles, I see plenty of reference to 28 domains, but no mention of how many sub-domains each has, nor how many sites (blogs/static page/wiki/whatever) are hosted on each domain, and so I was wondering why it is being categorically stated here that there are only 28 websites. My understanding has always been that there can be multiple websites on a single domain, but Slashdot seems to be equating 1 domain=1 website here (and on looking at the links, even some inaccessible domains are being categorised as websites, when it is equally possible they are registered purely for email and have no webpages attached).
In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?
Or that Hillary will receive a sentence?
I'm the voter who's going to decide who becomes the next POTOUS.
Looks like someone has tickets on themselves here...
I'm curious why it is that on a site where people seem to defend downloading movies\TV shows as not being "theft"\"stealing" (not necessarily condoning or otherwise the practice), the "unauthorized duplication" of encryption keys by the government is considered theft. I would have thought either both are theft, or neither is, and would like to know how both forms of "unauthorized duplication of data" differ so much that only one is considered as theft here.
Now if only they could also manage to have their models reflect observed temperatures as well, then everyone would be happy.
Looks like the source of the release has identified himself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
It would appear from this that there is a high likelyhood that all except one of the documents is genuine.
Of course, there's no indication (as yet) that the "Climate strategy" is not a part of the original documents, but given that one document was received from an anonomous source, and Heartland deny that this specific item originated from them, it'd be interesting to know where it originated from.
Looks like the rest of the documents are probably authentic, though.
It's just a shame that the government feel they need to do this in order to put together their NBN plans. (I believe this is the first time they've even mentioned the idea of splitting Telstra.)
Of course, once split, they should be able to buy up the infrastructure arm for a song and actually have a chance of getting the NBN in under budget...And removing any competition they would otherwise have for customers.
Sorry, I couldn't get to the article.
However from what I could tell from the abstract it doesn't seem to cover my point. The problem I have with the models is that they talk about how, based on the levels of CO2, etc in the atmosphere today, the future (say 20-30 years) is going to have temperatures of X degrees. However, if you were to put in the equivalent data from 20-30 years ago, the results don't match (or in many cases come close) to current observed temperatures.
With regards to the climate Audit web site, in this case I wasn't really interested in the analysis (other than the mention of the location of the measuring stations), and as far as I can tell the data for the graphs has not been "altered". I'm generally fairly sceptical with claims from both sides (real climate is another site I take "analysis" from with a grain of salt).
As to the "north west passage", from what I can understand, the levels being measured are being measured by satellite. However, as these measurements started in 1979, there's not really enough recordings to say this is unprecedented. Additionally, should 1979 be the starting point, it does happen to appear towards the end of a time of lower than average temperatures, so that would also potentially skew the results.
And yes, I had noted the reference to overland routes...I just hadn't had a chance to clarify the method of travel used.
With regards to point 1:
Could you provide a reference to those studies...I haven't heard yet of a model taking data from the 1960's
With regards to point 2:
The tweaking may not be doing what it should be doing in that case. For example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1943
If the average values for these were taken into account, it would cause a skewing of the data. Strangely, the one relatively constant graph is from a rural area, while the other 5 are from areas that have rapidly urbanised...The one without urban heat island effect(UHIE) doesn't match global warming "predictions", while the others do. As such, it would seem prudent to consider that the AGW hypothesis may be based on the mistaken assumption that UHIE doesn't alter reading much.
In addition, with the GISS modelling, there are a number of recording stations that are duplicated, while others are ignored...This will also skew the data don't you think?
With regards to point 3:
Roald Amundson 1872 - 1928
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northpole2001/explorers.shtml
http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
Additionally:
These are extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic ice reduction - in 1817. (Ref; Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153.)
As such, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that ice levels in the Arctic region are at record lows...
I hope that is of interest to you.
Except that there has been no EVIDENCE produced in support of AGW. Sure, there is a hypothesis that rising CO2 levels will increase the earths temperature, and there is evidence that Humans do cause CO2 to be released, but as yet NO MODEL has been able to come even close to representing current conditions based on KNOWN historical data (say 1960's/1970's), with all models producing results well in excess of observed temperatures. This little piece of information SHOULD, in a person with a scientific background, trigger warning bells that maybe there is a problem with the whole AGW hypothesis, and that maybe it isn't a valid hypothesis to believe in (or at a minimum that it needs a LOT more work done on it).
Yet the southern hemisphere is not warming at anywhere near the rate of the Northern hemisphere...And measuring stations data has been selectively "tweaked" if it doesn't fit the warming pattern instead of trying to work out if maybe there's a problem with the stations that don't have their data tweaked (Urban Heat Island Effect for example?). It is strange how measuring stations away from towns, etc. haven't noticed much (if any) change in temperature, while those in towns do, don't you think?
But measurements of Arctic ice began in 1979 (from memory) while there are several records from the 1700's and 1800's of ships using the "north west passage"...Which was recently announced as having only just recently being done for the first time in history.
And of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that there is a fixed, optimum global temperature, whereas it has been shown that human's (and the earth for that matter) actually thrive much better in warmer temperatures, and that an increase in the earths temperature from the current levels may actually be beneficial.
Having read material from both sides of the AGW arguement myself, I personally find the claims and supposed proofs in support of the AGW hypothesis to be lacking...
Of course, you probably know all this already.
your comment "These models aren't just computer generated models. They are based on input variables, regression, mathmatics, and statistical data based on hard facts from observations." gives rise to an important question...What about the assumptions behind the models?
It is important to consider that the person designing the model may, whether knowingly or not, have introduced certain assumptions into their model [For example, the assumption that CO2 is the CAUSE of AGW]. The presence of these assumptions would of course not be made known by the models creator, and in most cases where these were willingly included, the creator would make a major attempt to prevent others looking at their models and calculations.
Additionally, when a model that is claimed to be accurate, and able to predict the future, is unable to demonstrate based on past observations (say 1960's and 1970's) what the climate was in the 1990's, it does make it hard to have any faith in the model predicting what will happen in 20+ years.
The important thing to remember with computer models is that they are specialised computer programs, and as with all programs any mistake, error, or assumption made (whether wittingly or not) will have an effect on the output.
Why is it that people on this site who seem to dislike FUD and to be largely in favour of Open Source software and distrustful of closed source (such as Microsoft products) are so easily convinced by FUD[1] from supporters of closed source computer models?
And as for the "People, even if the models aren't completely accurate, they are indicators of expected outcomes"...this outlines the AGW problem. The results are not "expected", they are AT BEST guesses. There are still too many guesses, assumptions, and unknowns that impact on this area of science, not to mention not enough known data, to support the AGW theory. True, "doing something" may seem the prudent (or profitable) thing to do, but that does not mean it is the BEST or even RIGHT thing to do . Consider that even if humans DO have an impact on the earth's temperature, what is to say that the current temperature is the optimal temperature for life on earth. Is it not possible that a higher temperature may be better....or that nature may evolve to cope with (or even couter-act) any suppposed temperature changed caused by humans?
[1] I use the term FUD here to indicate the AGW believers actions:
Fear: The earth's temperature is rising, we're all doomed, the sea levels will rise [insert latest guess],...
Uncertainty: The continued use of "could" and "may" instead of a definite "will" which to me also indicates they don't even believe their own models...
Doubt: "You can't trust them...look where their funding comes from/who they used to work for" style comments. However they NEVER mention that:
1) their OWN funding is dependant on AGW. When/if AGW is proven false, then their own funding dries up, so they have as much (if not more) reason to work for results supporting their hypotheses. Why would anyone work towards something that cuts their own income?
2) You very rarely seem to hear a scientific based (and claims of a "scientific consensus" are not scientific) rebutal from those supporting AGW. The most you will hear is that "the claims can't be right because their funds are from [insert company]" or "why isn't it published in [insert publication]". However publication requires the item to have to be approved, not just by scientists, but also by the EDITORS who know where they'll get more funds from to publish/not publish certain items.
In addition, peer review of a model that supports your own pre-conceived ideas is a lot easier than one that doesn't (or that threatens your livelihood)...If [hypothetically] someone came up with a study showing that the e=mc2 equation was fundamentally flawed (and it could be proved), do you think that there would be more scrutiny placed on the science than a claim that supported the theory?
"Except the changes in CO2 far exceed any measurement from the last 800,000 years"...Interesting claim. I would quite like to know how they know the records go back 800,000 years, and how they claim these are the highest readings in the time covered by the records.
From what I have researched, these records come from ice cores. However, a minor problem with ice is that it has a habit of meling above a certain temperature. Given that there may be 800,000 years covered by the samples, that does not prove that the earlies sample is 800,000 years old. how are we to know if it is not in fact 8,000,000 years old, but due to natural climate variations, a large proportion of the sample has melted in this time.
So, without the dubious claim of having accurate readings for the past 800,000 years, we are left with the claim that the issue is the speed of the temerature rise. Strangely enough, there aren't all that many accurate temperature readings for the globe over 1,000 year old, and so all that can conceivably be claimed is that the current temperature fluctuations are the fastest in recorded history.
And so we come to "Except that the invers squar laws say otherwise. Also, while increased over all, the earth continued to warm during a multi-years cooling period of the sun.".
So from this we should be able to deduce that you believe that the sun is having no affect on temperature change here. however to claim thus would be to ignore evidence from at least 2 planets, where the temperature there has continued to rise. In fact, looking at our nearest neighbour, it seems that other than the sun, there has been no other possible cause for this temperature rise.
Besides which, I seem to recall that temperatures peaked around 1998, and have been stable/dropping since then.
Which leads on to "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply". Strangely enough, it seems that the only science that HAS ruled these out is the science dependant upon a "CO2 is causing this, what can we do to stop CO2" funding system. this is emphasised by the attacks on scientists funded by "big oil", and the way in which their studies are considered biased due to the funding source. However, no such claim of bias is levelled at those whose funding comes from organisations with a vested interest in keeping the AGW myth going, or those who would lose funding were it to be known that the change in the Earth's climate WAS natural.
Additionally, ALL the research being done that shows CO2 is the cause of global warming is started under the premise that this is what is the cause, relies entirely on almost identical computer models, includes large "fudge factors"...and has yet to provide accurate results based on known information, even for past years. The only real exception to this has been where the models have succesfully produced results based on known information for a given year, but which fail entirely when information for a different year is used instead.
Wouldn't it be nice if others as well as "big oil" did research where it was begun on the premise that CO2 is NOT the cause of the earth's change in temperature. Maybe then we would get some true research done, rather than propoganda to assist in gathering further funding. At present, any scientist wishing to do true research is hard pressed to find a funding source due to the "CO2 is the cause" lobby. This is the ONLY group claiming that the science is finished, and which is still dependant on "fudge factors" to prove this.
An additional consideration would be that those who do research which "proves" CO2 is the cause are not willing to allow those who do not agree with this THEORY to look at their computer models, purely because they do not wish the degree they rely on "fudge factors" to be known. If their research was accurate and valid, they should be able to take their model and based on the same data (ie, CO2 levels, solar output, etc.) for ANY year be able to produce an accurate measure
And based on this: If the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen in the past, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any current changes are entirely natural...
Alternatively, given that the solar output has increased recently, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any change in the Earth's tempersture would be related to that...
just wondering...Would these be the same climatologists who warned in the 1970's that we were headed for a mini ice-age?
Maybe Australia is one of "the worst offenders"...But at least Australia is closer to it's "theoretical" Kyoto goal than many countries that have signed.
Oh yes...And with the size of Australia, compared to it's population, you would expect a higher per-capita level of CO2 than a small country where everyone lives in a small area.