MEDIA RELEASE
10/8/2010
Liberals Hijack The Climate Sceptics on Google
This week has seen the Liberal Party seek to leverage their campaign on the back of momentum generated by The Climate Sceptics. Following the launch of a hard-hitting TV blitz in South Australia, Liberal strategists have recognised the level of public interest in the new kid to the Australian political landscape, led by South Australian senate candidate Leon Ashby.
A google search for any of The Climate Sceptics senate candidates reveals a paid link to the Liberal campaign site.
Beau Woods, West Australian senate candidate for The Climate Sceptics, points out that the Liberal party was only one vote away from capitulating to Labor’s ill-conceived ETS. “There is a select group of multinational banking corporations that stand to make huge profits trading in carbon credits, paid for by Joe Consumer. The Liberal party is attempting to walk both side of the street in regard to both the man-made global warming theory and carbon trading. The Australian public cannot be sure that plans for a carbon tax or artificial trading scheme have truly being shelved for good. The interests of Goldman Sachs* lie waiting in the shadows.”
“This blatant hijacking of our fledgling party shows that we are well and truly on the radar. There are a number of marginal seats in the lower house that will probably come down to preferences from The Climate Sceptics.”
*Source: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/business-initiatives/trading-and-cap-markets.html
–
Beau Woods
WA Candidate for the Australian Senate
The Climate Sceptics
Which article?
“RH drops as temperature increases; this is a basic premice, and is why fog forms when it gets cold.”
Tell that to the IPCC which assumes a constant RH:
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
M&D show that while increasing temperature slightly increases water vapor and specific humidity (and thus a positive feedback increasing climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling), the amount is much less (-30%) then that generally shown by the climate models which assume constant relative humidity. Their modelling shows that the increase in specific humidity is not enough to keep up with the amount needed to keep relative humidity constant for the increasing temperature, and so relative humidity falls. The paper says the models get it right about the positive feedback, but wrong about relative humidity, and so the effect is exaggerated. M&D are of course wrong about the +ve feedback as Miskolczi shows:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
I suppose you’ll be telling me there really is a THS!
As you’ll note, I said almost, to indicate rounding up. Would you prefer “more than 9K”?
“I did not say everything has stayed in balance; RH has fallen:”
Defensive much? I specifically noted that you were not contesting they remained in balance. Yet you use a constant balance when you make your claim of CO2′s contribution.
“the graph I posted simply matches CO2 levels with temp without H2O”
Does it? Which would be why it has three different lines on it? Either the graph is wrong, or your 9.4 is wrong, because they contradict each other. I’m not sure which one it is, but either way, you’re wrong. Again. “And it ignores other greenhouse gasses humans are also pumping out”
“I’ve come across this approach before; you ignore everything you can’t rebut and go the sophistry route;”
Well, it would be familiar to you, considering your regular employment of it.
“I have already linked to a rebuttal of solar thermal which you ignored”
You linked to articles whose only mention of solar thermal was to say that they were not considered in the studies.
“parrot-like you keep repeating your little list”
Because you’re ignoring the points raised, and I think it bears repeating that you’re full of it.
“Are you saying CO2 concentration increase does not have an asymptotic effect on temp”
No, I’m saying you can’t even cherry pick consistently. Being as how you’re contradicting yourself.
Oh, and, because ignoring it doesn’t make you less wrong:
1) He says capital cost 20x more. That’s very different to 1000x materials. And that article only talks about PV solar which, again, no-one here is suggesting as viable for grid power.
2) It’s renewable. It does not rely on digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Just because it doesn’t fit neatly behind your strawman doesn’t invalidate the point. You said it wasn’t possible. You were wrong.
3) ^^
4) You talked about subsidies for PV cells. I never mentioned PV cells, I said solar hot water, which is not PV. You’re also moving the goalposts again. You first said they couldn’t exist without subsidies, now you want one that isn’t currently subsidised. Most ‘green’ industries are currently subsidised to some extent or other (as are many non-green, for that matter), which has certainly been a boost for them. But those industries existed before the subsidies, and would if they were removed – solar hot water is one where I know a lot of people – myself included – would happily buy one without the current subsidy because it’s still cheaper than an electric or gas system in the long-term. Then there were the other examples you ignored.
5) You criticise others for support of technology that exists, yet advocate technology that’s decades away from even preliminary deployment.
Chris, the 3 asymptotic curves on the graph of CO2 saturation represent the different forcings for CO2 from IPCC. Given the minimal further heating from extra CO2 based on the IPCC’s own forcings it is essential for CAGW that +ve feedback occur; the IPCC nominates water; they are wrong. There is no contradiction there or between Ramanthan and the trivial forcings for extra CO2; they all demonstrate that CO2, as a greenhouse determinant is practically expired; it’s like the parrot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
CAGW would be the parrot, the sceptics John Cleese, you and your ilk Michael Palin, although that is doing a disservice to Michael.
Yeah, ok, you keep telling yourself that. We’ll be over here not ignoring reality.
I guess you could probably go play with the creationists, I hear they claim scientific credibility, too.
you asked which paper i said was already shot down. i was taling about the one you linked in the comment before my previous one. which you linked again, in which Miskolczi is shown to be making some stupid and untrue assumptions (refering back to him again makes it a little too obvious that you don’t look at evidence). and while an increase in temperature decreases the RH, it does take a large drop to do so. but after reading into some of those articles a bit, it looks like that drop has been more than compensated for…
and now i think you’ve got very little to stand on…. funny how as soon as i looked into the credability of your links, they start to work against you…
Oh yeah, go the ad hom boys; I await your rebuttal of Miskolczi Ygfi! The water on the brain delusions of IPCC and AGW is of 2 sorts; firstly that, as you saym Ygfi, it increases with temp; clearly that isn’t right:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
Secondly, increases in water increase temp; which brings us back to Miskolczi; so rebut him.
I’m glad to know that the secretary of the Climate Sceptics has nothing better to do during an election campaign than spend time on this website.
It’s heartening to say the least. And I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching you take the thread go from the Climate Sceptics’ lack of understanding of google adwords, to the feasability of 100% renewable energy, to the cost of renewable energy, then away from the cost of renewable energy as that would be admitting that 100% renewable energy is feasible, to trying to discredit thousands of scientists’ peer-reviewed work over decades, to beating up the wind energy strawman at any turn you think is appropriate, to advocating for technology not yet developed over technology already in place.
It’s been a fascinating ride. Do you have anything additional to add, other than your usual argumentum ad verbosum?
Much mirth David; I’m glad to argue the toss with the sanctimonious world savers of the AGW cult anytime, anyplace; why don’t you raise your blood pressure a tad more and read this:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2979736.htm
Cheers
And don’t forget, a green vote is for a sustainable future; you were warned!
http://landshape.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/scaled.jpg
So a pretty clear “no” then.
Good-o.
Funny, the guy who’s spent days on end saying everyone else is too stupid to see the vast Al Gore conspiracy, is complaining about ad hominem attacks.
I guess we should probably be used the the hypocrisy by now.
No, not at all guys; I love the ad hom attacks; I’m compiling a list for a book about the substantive arguments for CAGW; you know, calling sceptics sock-puppets, Dunning-Kruger, agnotologists etc and using emotive, paranoid descriptions like catastrophy, 100 metre sea level rises, images of children being terrified by the CAGW bogeyman, etc;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/orwells_green_britain/#commentsmore
None of you though have responded to my point that the optical depth of the atmosphere has efectively not varied for the last 60 years; so whatever is causing the climate variation is not greenhouse change.
That link… I have this feeling…
Did anyone just hear a shark being jumped?
Andrew Bolt: the Godwin’s Law of climate change debate.
Is this you Chris; an “inconvenient youth”?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/21/not-a-joke-gores-inconvenient-youth/