Thursday, November 26, 2009

What We Do in Life

Stephen sent out a press release tonight to Australian Senators.

He writes:

Just as Australia is on the verge of signing into law a crippling new tax that will hurt our economy, destroy jobs and reduce our quality of life, shockwaves from the scandal known as 'climategate' are reverberating around the world.

It's time to stand up to the great global warming fear campaign in Australia and delay the ETS for a proper investigation into the work of the scientists who have mislead us.


  1. Credible evidence. What do you think, governments around the world are being fooled by greedy scientists looking for grant funding?. How do you explain the rise of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, especially CO2, and the changes to the sea level, ice behaviour, climate patterns and plant growth. Still one must thank you for allowing scepticism to be measured so the problem can be described and then ignored whilst something is done to address the reality we all face.

  2. Changes in CO2 concentration, sea level, ice behaviour, climate patterns and plant growth are nothing new.

    They have all been changing for millions of years.

    Despite the best attempts, there is no scientific evidence to link human CO2 as the direct cause of any of these things.

    Correlation is not causation. Don't presume cause and effect until you can prove it.

  3. These things have changed before and there is scientific evidence linking rise in CO2 with changed climate patterns in the past. The rise in CO2 and the observed and modelled impacts are in alignment today. Its a pity you need to learn by risking everthing everybody depends on to defend your right to be sceptical. If you go to Real Climate you can find the raw data and other evidence of a causal link that you deny.

  4. Phil,

    If one resorts to emotional arguments rather than facts, have they lost the debate ? ;)

    The present climate is not in alignment with any of the models - none of them predicted the current cooling trend.

    You could well question the objectivity of when they reportedly censor the forum posts to keep sceptical comments out of the debate.

    Google 'Manns hockey stick' and 'CRU hacked' for some background.

  5. Phil, if you go to "real climate", you will find a highly biaised blog masquerading as neutral. Just type climate gate who's who into youtube for a ten minute expose video.

  6. Just wondering Stephen Murphy, if you ACTUALLY believe what you are saying or can you think of nothing else to get you a cheap vote??

    On your advertisment, in bold text you write "Climate change is natural" i agree it is definatly natural, however is it natural for climate change to increase so dramatically? is it natural for such sudden rises in sea levels or ice melting quicker each year that polarbears are on the verge of extinction. Well this is common knowledge not 'scary global warming scenarios'
    I am 19 and i finish my Science degree next year, i focuse in environmental, ecology, zoology subjects that relate to climate change. So what did you do your honours in? sure your a climate sceptic but your view is as valuable as an uneducated persons if you have not studied the related fields for all we know you could be a biomedical scientist...

  7. It is in fact very common for the Earth's climate to warm or cool at rates between -2.5 and +2.5 degrees per century. So the 20th century global warming of just over half of one degree C is not in any way dramatic.

    You're right to point out that I'm not a climate scientist, however you don't need a PhD to see that the Earth hasn't warmed since 2001 and that there are some very big question marks hanging over the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming.

    If you're interested, have a look at Lindzen's 2009 paper to see what I mean.

    Good luck with your studies.

  8. If you really are doing your science degree, I think you have been brain washed. Start to do what science does best. Question everything.
    1. The globe has been getting cooler not hotter. Where does your info come from. The IPCC are not reliable as they have been adjusting trends.
    2. Sea levels have not been rising check out the dead isle in Tasmania.
    3. Ice always melts and then grows again it is natural cycle. Just ask the cruise ship that has been stuck in the ice pack.
    4. Polar bears are doing very well and have been increasing. This info is on the net.
    Check out this Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, he has more knowledge about sea levels than any of your professors at uni
    Have a look at this site it will give you a little background on what the IPCC does.
    Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

  9. Hi there,
    I'm so relieved there seems to be a bit of realism creeping in to the public discourse on climate change.
    One remarkable thing about this whole debate is the way in which the thesis of manmade climate change by emission of so-called greenhouse gases can be demolished by several means-it's not just one thing that's fatal. Temperautre records since 1998, ice core samples showing a rise in CO2 after a rise in temperature, and the fact that Global Warming is now often called Climate Change, as if it's scientific to have a thesis that can't be falsified, are just a few. Now we have Climategate, which brings into focus the question of bias in the collection and recording of data.
    One of my personal favourites which doesn't get a great deal of attention, is to ask how a greenhouse works. There's up to three times the CO2 in a greenhouse as in outside air, yet how is the greenhouse heated? By glass panels and heaters. The extra CO2 has nothing-and I mean literally absolutely nothing-to do with it. It enhances photosynthesis in a chemical way but does not provide heat.
    ABC Green at Work and Ask an Expert did not answer my greenhouse inquiry. It may well be that it's not QUITE as simple as extrapolating from a greenhouse to the atmosphere as a whole. However, it is obviously similar enough to them that they find it awkward. The greenhouse CO2 question is, I believe, a winning point in this debate, yet oddly, is not used very often.
    The ABC are a bunch of gutless wonders. They and anyone else who promotes the idea that CO2 emissions cause dangerous warming/any change you like, ought to be asked the simple question: How does a greenhouse work?
    That includes people who are teaching your kids this at school, academics, politicians and media. I'd love to see Kevin Rudd or Penny Wong ambushed with this question.

  10. I am very glad to see this blog. I have been watching the ABC and pounding the cushion with my fists in frustration as no ABC journo will ask the hard questions. There is no evidence to show that CO2 drives increased temperature. We should all try to reduce emissions of course, but to 'dumb down' the environmental movement to CO2 is just ridiculous and down right dangerous.