tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3768730645019170425..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: PM Tony Abbott and his party and independents commit Australia to faster global warmingSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49378893246882845122014-07-21T00:13:20.585+10:002014-07-21T00:13:20.585+10:00I've added an update to the article up top, ab...I've added an update to the article up top, about how the Liberal National Party in Queensland just had another massive defeat at a by-election. That isn't Federal politics and issues are different. Still, Tony Abbott won't like it too much. He wouldn't be much more popular than the current Queensland Premier, and may be just as unpopular.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43824847831824767092014-07-20T11:33:24.326+10:002014-07-20T11:33:24.326+10:00Schitzree, as for "Peek Oil", you keep w...Schitzree, as for "Peek Oil", you keep writing it that way. Are you using that term to make fun of "peak oil" or do you not know what the term means? Your explanation suggests that you don't know what the term means.<br /><br />There are two aspects to the peak, one is the peak of discovery the other is the peak of production. It is generally accepted that the peak of discovery was passed some decades ago, probably in the 1960s. Since then the size of extractable oil deposits discovered has not increased in any decade. Whether the peak of production has been reached or not is not, to my knowledge, yet known. As you probably know, explorers are now looking for oil in very hard to reach places, including places that, if oil extraction proceeds it will be at great risk to the environment as well as at great cost. For example, exploration for oil and gas is proceeding in the Arctic and in the pristine Great Australian Bight. If there were a major spill in those places it would be devastating. Not only will extraction be very difficult and technologically challenging, it will be very expensive.<br /><br />As for the population explosion - you ignore the fact of efforts to prevent it, such as medical discoveries for contraception, government and NGO programs like family planning and "one-child" policies. Do you think they would have been put in place if there was not the risk of too many people stretching beyond the capacity to feed and clothe them? You also ignore the fact that since 1950, the population has more than trebled. Population is growing at an exponential rate. It's though it will peak around the middle of this century. It will be a challenge to house, feed and clothe double the number of people at the end of the twentieth century.<br /><br />Look, there will hopefully be people like yourself that will one day say that global warming was "overblown". But if there are, it won't be because it was "overblown". It will be because the world ignored deniers and addressed the problem and drastically cut CO2 emissions in time. I don't mind that and expect it. There will always be naysayers in the world and people who don't understand science, techonology, economics and sociology. And there will always be people who oppose social order and want "small" or no government. That is, there will always be a small proportion of the population for whom perceived self-interest dominates their desire for social harmony and well-being - as long as the human race survives. They will survive only because they are protected by the different various people who understand science, technology, economics and sociology talking to each other and combining their knowledge for the good of humanity. They will survive because there are people who have the vision and wisdom and courage to speak out and warn the world when they recognise major risks like acid rain, DDT. Because there are people with the skills and expertise to develop solutions to the problems of food production, global warming, birth control, waste management, pest and disease control etc etc.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64321925004038608422014-07-20T11:32:45.413+10:002014-07-20T11:32:45.413+10:00Schitzree, the comment policy doesn't permit p...Schitzree, the comment policy doesn't permit posting links to disinformation websites for a number of reasons. One is that HotWhopper exists to "demolish disinformation" and disapproves of spreading it.<br /><br />Another is so that if a person wants to use information on a website that promotes FUD, they first verify with a reputable source that it's valid and then cite that reputable source.<br /><br />The Heartland Institute is a political lobby group and not a scientific body. It promotes pseudo-science and FUD and is not a reliable source of climate science or any other science. Your first link was to a website that describes itself as: <i><b>"Geology and Geophysics vs Enviromarxism"</b></i> so is also blatantly political, not scientific.<br /><br />Now that of itself doesn't mean the information is wrong. However, if you are persuaded by the arguments on those unreliable websites and if what is written there is valid, then it will be supported by evidence elsewhere. Therefore you will have no difficulty in finding a reputable source to link to instead of the links you provided. For example - any reputable source - including peer-reviewed scientific papers, will provide supporting references and supporting data. Check those too, particularly if your original source is as disreputable as the ones you chose. Then link to a reputable, reliable source and/or explain your thinking in your own words.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33044585430328647642014-07-20T08:40:31.886+10:002014-07-20T08:40:31.886+10:00China demonstrates the reality of acid rain not be...China demonstrates the reality of acid rain not being solved, and it's not a pretty sight.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16563426294523561322014-07-20T08:19:40.961+10:002014-07-20T08:19:40.961+10:00I love the way he capitalizes the "S" in...I love the way he capitalizes the "S" in "Skeptic" as though wearing a tin foil hat is somehow honorable :)<br /><br />Again, please read: The DDT Zombie reanimated:<br />http://crookedtimber.org/2014/07/14/zombie-ddt-ban-myth-reanimated/Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47625163777989488872014-07-20T05:51:55.942+10:002014-07-20T05:51:55.942+10:00Appears to me that the first article about acid ra...Appears to me that the first article about acid rain was quite well debunked in the comments. it didn't really have legs at all ....<br /><br />As for the Heartland Institute article - you are right - I cannot be bothered to read that as I believe it will be untrue.<br /> Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55949943637302904092014-07-20T04:27:31.962+10:002014-07-20T04:27:31.962+10:00Schitzree wrote:
"The Acid Rain scare was an...Schitzree wrote:<br /><br />"The Acid Rain scare was another example of a 'Solved' crisis that looks like it was overblown at the time. There are a number of good articles that show that the problem wasn't anywhere near as serous as it was made out to be.<br /><br />http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/the-acid-rain-scam/<br /><br />http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/02/01/acid-rain-nitrogen-scares-debunked"<br /><br />These aren't "good articles". You are linking merely to an opinion blog, where some guy makes some claims, and to an opinion article also just filled with claims, for which no scientific references are given, posted at the website of a political think tank that is known for its politically and ideologically motivated anti-science propaganda. You are trying to "back up" your assertions just by referencing someone else you found in the Internet, who merely makes the same assertions. This doesn't prove anything of what you claim. Why don't you just cite yourself to "back up" your claims, then? it would be the same.<br /><br />What about you link to real scientific sources where results from actual scientific research is presented, which support your claims? Do you have to offer any papers from the peer reviewed literature? That would be something at least.<br /><br />"So, here's an honest question for you all. As a Skeptic I've run into articles on a lot of scares and Critical Decades"<br /><br />This is what you claim, but is it a fact? And why "as a Skeptic"? What strange statement is that?<br /><br />What do you believe is it that makes you a skeptic? Scientists are skeptics. It's part of their professional profile. The crowd that rejects the findings from scientific research out of political or ideological motivation aren't skeptics. They just misuse the label.<br /><br />"I honestly would like to know if there are counter examples to the failed predictions that the skeptical community holds up against climate change."<br /><br />The request is loaded. What about you lay out the evidence first, that there were all these "failed predictions" as you claim, predictions that were backed by an overwhelming consensus among scientists who do the research in the field, comparable to the consensus regarding anthropogenically caused climate change? I say you are just making things up.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88697873918008092702014-07-20T03:57:14.995+10:002014-07-20T03:57:14.995+10:00Perhaps its meant as black comedy. I can do that....Perhaps its meant as black comedy. I can do that. Shall I say that the Ukrainian government is responsible for shooting down a civilian airliner and then link to a Russian government website for an 'authoritative' statement. Then, of course, I write something like:<br /><br />"(yes, the second one is from the Russian government. I know many will believe it must be untrue just because of that. ;)"<br /><br />And that will make it all true.<br />Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63724832370271906662014-07-20T03:50:46.366+10:002014-07-20T03:50:46.366+10:00Schitzree July 20, 2014 at 3:08 AM...
Is this pos...Schitzree July 20, 2014 at 3:08 AM...<br /><br />Is this post meant to be satire?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8874984415343503042014-07-20T03:08:39.991+10:002014-07-20T03:08:39.991+10:00Sou said:
"I expect cognitive scientists have...Sou said:<br />"I expect cognitive scientists have studied this phenomenon of downplaying problems for which solutions have been fully or partly implemented, as if they would not have continued to be a problem if they weren't addressed."<br /><br />Now this is an excellent point. And you're right, there does tend to be a downplay of the danger after a solution has been found. While It's true the environmental danger of DDT have been overblown in the past, It was a potentially dangerous chemical that was being overused, and limiting it's use to specific anti-malaria campaigns in developing countries actually makes it MORE effective by slowing the development of immunity. Also countries like Mexico and Vietnam have show it's possible for more developed countries to control malaria without DDT. <br /><br />The Acid Rain scare was another example of a 'Solved' crisis that looks like it was overblown at the time. There are a number of good articles that show that the problem wasn't anywhere near as serous as it was made out to be.<br /><br />http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/the-acid-rain-scam/<br /><br />http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/02/01/acid-rain-nitrogen-scares-debunked<br /><br />(yes, the second one is from Heartland. I know many will believe it must be untrue just because of that. ;)<br />What many skeptics ignore (and I sometime forget myself) is that just because a danger was overstated, it doesn't mean that danger didn't exist. While Acid Rain was never the danger it was made out to be, increasing SO2 and NOx emissions would have eventually overpowered the environments ability to neutralize or respond to them. China right now is proving that. And like I said above, pollution controls had many legitimate reasons other then the alarmism to be implemented.<br /><br />So my second category of Critical Decades, The ones where major changes were made, are a poor argument against making changes, even if the reason necessitating those changes were overblow.<br /><br />But what about my first category? The ones where little to nothing was ever done about them, but none of their predictions of doom came true? Sou says Peak Oil is being addressed, but is it really? Sure we're going to less accessible oil areas, but wasn't the whole point of Peek Oil that we were supposed to be running out of new areas by now? And the idea that alternatives are a part of this seems wrong, because if alternatives were having an effect then the rate of petroleum extraction would be leveling off, or at least not climbing as fast. But it's still climbing at the same basic rate as it has since the 80's. Sure, it has to hit a peek eventually, but there's no sign it's coming soon, and it could just as easily be in a hundred years. And it sure didn't hit the peek in 2000 like Hubbert predicted.<br /><br />The whole Population Bomb scare was even further off the mark, if only because it's had longer since it's predictions past.<br /><br />So, here's an honest question for you all. As a Skeptic I've run into articles on a lot of scares and Critical Decades, were the predictions didn't come true even if nothing was really done to prevent them. But what about the flip side of the coin? Skeptics don't really talk about the times the scare turned out to be right. Are there any? Do you folks have any Critical Decade stories where the decade past with little or nothing done, and the disaster happened as was predicted? I honestly would like to know if there are counter examples to the failed predictions that the skeptical community holds up against climate change.<br /><br />ThanksSchitzreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311863873634513259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7470444042286151802014-07-19T23:25:52.264+10:002014-07-19T23:25:52.264+10:00Australia has warmed by more than the average - 0....Australia has warmed by more than the average - 0.9C. Not as much as the Arctic though. We keep experiencing new records - hottest year after hottest summer after wettest year after worst drought etc etc.<br /><br />Tony Abbott anywhere else would have explicitly rejected the science, but he can't get away with that thanks in part to the Climate Council. So he's done what he can to get rid of any advice and any mitigation policies. He's appointed a rabid denier to key posts hoping to dismantle the agencies that are part of the climate mitigation initiatives.<br /><br />Julia Gillard worked in a hung parliament and achieved a huge amount of major reforms despite that. Abbott is having trouble getting anything done at all. He's undone the carbon price but that's all so far. He's incompetent, one of the worst Prime Ministers ever. And very unpopular according to the polls.<br /><br />The next drought and major flood will be a test for him. Especially if there are big fires as well. That plus international pressure. I'm surprised he's lasted this long. I don't think his party has much talent to choose from though.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38861147513362756152014-07-19T23:07:33.040+10:002014-07-19T23:07:33.040+10:00As a European I find it rather weird that this is ...As a European I find it rather weird that this is happening in Australia of all places. Isn't the Australian climate already too hot and too dry? Will thus not Australia be hit much more than most countries by global warming? One would expect Australia to be lobbying for good good global warming policies, like the small island states. Or is this just an outside caricature of Australia?Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72720506742909593092014-07-19T16:43:04.814+10:002014-07-19T16:43:04.814+10:00"There have been no reported deaths from DDT...."There have been no reported deaths from DDT. Not one. "<br /><br />Not one corporate shill died. Here in the UK some bird species were driven to the brink of extinction, but as corporate profits were not affected that would not bother John.<br /><br />There are studies indicating a possible link between DDT and human health issues: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1012-ddt-finally-linked-to-human-health-problems.html<br /><br />"If high DDT exposure really does cause prematurity, the insecticide could have accounted for 15 per cent of infant deaths in the US in the 1960s, Longnecker estimates."<br /><br />So how does John know for sure that not one human died from DDT use? Does John possess data that convincingly refutes studies like this?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34746657521682428032014-07-19T09:42:15.874+10:002014-07-19T09:42:15.874+10:00The DDT Zombie reanimated:
http://crookedtimber.or...The DDT Zombie reanimated:<br />http://crookedtimber.org/2014/07/14/zombie-ddt-ban-myth-reanimated/<br />Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7192302709802874032014-07-19T08:34:15.441+10:002014-07-19T08:34:15.441+10:00The common feature is an industry-sponsored denial...The common feature is an industry-sponsored denial campaign. John and his ilk buy into every one, and there's been quite an accumulation of them over the last half-century. It's like an ever-expanding conservative credo; neonicotinoids are the latest addition. No True Conservative believes they could be a problem.<br /><br />Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90660465506176266132014-07-19T06:28:16.982+10:002014-07-19T06:28:16.982+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12615798823093185502014-07-19T04:38:56.255+10:002014-07-19T04:38:56.255+10:00I'm wondering if the reasoning goes like this....I'm wondering if the reasoning goes like this. <br /><br />If governments agree that something is undesirable then it must be good. <br /><br />If all governments of every nation agree something is undesirable it must be very very good and without it people will die. <br /><br />If scientists and governments agree something is undesirable that means it must be essential to life on this planet.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83980942635299304252014-07-19T04:16:38.547+10:002014-07-19T04:16:38.547+10:00Oh and I particularly like the way in that DDT and...Oh and I particularly like the way in that DDT and fossil fuels are - in John's mind - inextricably linked. Is that because he thinks overuse of DDT would lead to global warming or that fossil fuels will be banned for all uses except malaria control?<br /><br />Actually the overuse of DDT led to DDT resistant mossies. And no one wants fossil fuels banned entirely, just their use limited to the small amount that cannot be replaced by cleaner, cheaper sources that represent a long term solution to our energy needs: wouldn't anyone who is not a fossil fuel industry shill want that?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76043806944906532542014-07-19T04:13:57.216+10:002014-07-19T04:13:57.216+10:00Reading John's comments is a surreal experienc...Reading John's comments is a surreal experience. Motivated reasoning is mighty powerful. Cognitive science must be a fascinating and slightly scary field to research.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59035140146112396982014-07-19T04:05:46.926+10:002014-07-19T04:05:46.926+10:00It is at times like this that I struggle to accept...It is at times like this that I struggle to accept that people like John are honest dupes. To become familiar with the history of DDT use does not require any scientific expertise, merely the ability to understand written English. And yet John persists in spouting gobshite when all the information necessary to prove how false it is is easily accessible and very clear.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77061134993926323242014-07-19T00:11:26.206+10:002014-07-19T00:11:26.206+10:00Deleted by blog adminstrator.
As promised, sent t...<i>Deleted by blog adminstrator.<br /><br />As promised, sent to the HotWhoppery, </i><br /><b>Sou.</b>Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2640783717470803232014-07-18T23:02:49.681+10:002014-07-18T23:02:49.681+10:00Now we can add pesticides to the list of things th...Now we can add pesticides to the list of things that John is ignorant about. DDT wasn't banned because it kills people, although it is considered to have adverse health impacts for humans.<br /><br />It was banned mainly because of its adverse environmental impacts.<br /><br />http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm<br /><br />John - stop showing off your ignorance. As they say, it's better to look dumb than click your keyboard and prove it.<br /><br />We all get it that you are in favour of all things that harm our planet and against all things that could improve it. You don't have to keep proving your stance over and over again.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64004470969507277682014-07-18T22:47:29.210+10:002014-07-18T22:47:29.210+10:00"DDT was banned for practically everything ex..."DDT was banned for practically everything except malaria control. There were similar controls put in place for other dangerous organochlorides - and organophosphates are subject to regulatory control in most places too."<br /><br />So then, Sou, the world properly handled the use of DDT after ample review of its costs and benefits? There was an environmental uprising against DDT thanks to Ms.Carson. It stopped being used. Huge political pressure was put on African countries to stop using it. In places where malaria was significantly reduced, it made a comeback. Many many millions of children die as a result of malaria. DDT was a total fiasco for the environmental movement. And, whenever it is brought up today as an example, the response is always "we never banned it for use against malaria."<br /><br />It is now endorsed by the WHO and is being successfully used.<br /><br />And here is the thing. There have been no reported deaths from DDT. Not one. Compare that to the 800 people that die from aspirin annually in the US alone. Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71586822076583529802014-07-18T22:39:08.794+10:002014-07-18T22:39:08.794+10:00John, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is...John, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of your zillion comments full of faked "caring" and idiotic claims that unfettered global warming is less harmful than your outmoded, filthy coal-fired power plants - while gaily ignoring the health and environmental hazards of both. <br /><br />Your ignorance on any and all climate science and energy technology topic is evident to all, so you're adding nothing whatsoever to this board. Go find someone who agrees with you. Try WUWT or Prison Planet or Canada Free Press or the Drudge Report.<br /><br />Give it a rest here.<br /><br />Any more of your idiocy on the subject will be removed from the comments and shifted to the HotWhoppery, if I can be bothered doing so.<br /><br />Others - please don't fan John's flames. There's enough burning of fossil fuels going on and more than ample (polluted) hot air has been blown by John already.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53224508360977148832014-07-18T22:09:14.071+10:002014-07-18T22:09:14.071+10:00Well Sou, will cutting CO2 emissions "kill mo...Well Sou, will cutting CO2 emissions "kill more people?' Rank the countries of the world by CO2 emissions per capita. In the countries that have low CO2 emissions per capita, the poor lead short, miserable lives. In the countries that have high CO2 emissions per capita, the poor have flat screen TVs, Xboxes, and cell phones and don't miss many meals. Why is that? Is it an unrelated correlation? Or does cheap energy improve the lives of the poor?<br /><br />Shitzree's point about dams and nuclear is clearly valid as Lionel's post proves. Hydro could save many lives, but look at all of the "objections" that are seemingly more important than the lives of the poor.<br /><br />Do I agree with Muller's advocacy of natural gas? Well, obviously, I don't agree that global warming is the problem that Muller believes it to be. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it is. Muller, at least, recognizes that the problem is global and requires a global solution. In places where natural gas is cheap, it provides energy with lower CO2 emissions than coal. <br /><br />Personally, I am all for natural gas. It is the reason my family does not freeze in the winter. I support whatever energy sources make financial sense.Johnnoreply@blogger.com