Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Carbon Trading » I love this truth about ETS from the father of Gaia theory.

I love this truth about ETS from the father of Gaia theory.

My scepticism about AGW is a given and of late I have been arguing against the Warministas on the basis of the sheer impossibility of their prescription for the disease ever being politically possible.

So imagine my surprise to find that James Lovelock saying that ETS schemes are nothing more than a scam designed to make money for the Green spivs?

Eamonn McCabe / Camera Press)

James Lovelock (Image: Eamonn McCabe / Camera Press)

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt – that’s an awful lot of countryside.

What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It’s a crazy idea – and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

Source

There is a message here for the spotty faced and gullible AGW enthusiasts and it is the same one that I have been making for a long time: There is just no point in pursuing a course of action that will be expensive and will ultimately have no effect whatsoever. Now as the message has been enunciated by one of the prophets of The Green faith will you actually listen?
There are none so blind a he who will not see.
Cheers Comrades
😉


91 Comments

  1. cosmicjester says:

    turnbull is trying to out-green rudd

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24955367-601,00.html

    how will you be voting in 2010 iain?

  2. PKD says:

    Yes, I’d agree with Lovelock Iain – ETS schemas are bad, inefficient ways to reduce CO2 levels.

    Of course it might limit the amount of additional CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, but it does nothing to reduce the existing levels already there…

    There are none so blind a he who will not see.

    Love the irony of that statement Iain! 🙂

  3. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    Yes, I’d agree with Lovelock Iain – ETS schemas are bad, inefficient ways to reduce CO2 levels.

    He is saying more than that , he is saying they are entirely useless.
    And as that is all that you Warministas cite as a solution to the “problem”, it means that even one of your Gurus thinks that you are heading in the wrong direction.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Yes I saw that CJ and it makes me so very sad , however when it comes down to choosing between voting for two imperfect options we all have to choose the lesser of the evils don’t we?

  5. cosmicjester says:

    douche and turd as southpark called it

    so will you be maintaining the rage against the horrible warminista turnbull as well as rudd?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    When it comes to climate change I will, But he is more than OK on other issues.

  7. Shawn Whelan says:

    The AGW theory is a fraud.

    Just why is is more taxes always the answer?
    That is why the left so embraces it, moretaxes and socialism.

    There is a handful of countries in the world that have enjoyed great posperity and freedom as a result of limited government power. And there are hundreds of countries where the people live in poverty while the government controls everything and the government people live in great luxury.

    So the left goes to a great effort to increase the power of government in the successful countries and make them a copy of the poor countries.

    It really is hard to figure out why the leftoids want the government to control peoples lives and force socialism.

    “Alexander Tyler’s Principle. “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.””

  8. PKD says:

    Iain,
    I wouldn’t buy a useless car anymore than I’d bad a bad, inefficient one. Lovelock is arguing against the value of ETS, and I agree with him. I’m sure I’m not the only one…

  9. mitchell porter says:

    Iain – you do understand that Lovelock’s reasons for considering carbon trading a sham are the opposite of yours, right? Lovelock is in the school of thought which wants massive emission cuts now, and his attitude is entirely commonplace there. But in theory an ETS could enforce really big cuts, and if it did, it would have the deep-green stamp of approval.

  10. Shawn Whelan says:

    That is a very simple understanding of economics Mark L. Unfortunately a reflection of the authors knowledge. This is why Stalin would call you guys, “Useful Idiots”.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to my blog Mitchell
    Yes I do appreciate that Lovelock still believes that Emissions reductions are a technically a “cure” for the “problem” and for a number of reasons I have serious doubts about that.
    However as I say in my piece his point about ETS schemes is essentially the same as mine : they are pointless, futile and will cost ordinary punters, like you and me a shit load of money for no return,either in the greens in our pockets or for the green of the environment.

  12. PKD says:

    That is a very simple understanding of economics

    And yet you offer no evidence to contradict Marks opinion Shawn – only childish insults. Interesting.

    like you and me a shit load of money for no return,

    Actually Iain I think their was a study recently released that suggested it would only cost on average about a dollar a day. If so, I can afford that!

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Iain I think their was a study recently released that suggested it would only cost on average about a dollar a day. If so, I can afford that!

    Even if it is “only about a dollar a day” that is still a dollar a day that is being needlessly wasted for no return. Frankly i would rather save that money and see it spent on something that will be much more fruitful.

  14. PKD says:

    Frankly i would rather save that money and see it spent on something that will be much more fruitful.

    Sure – I respect that you’d rather spend a dollar a day on something that will reduce CO2 more effectively than the ‘useless’ ETS scheme. Good on yer Iain!

    My point was that a dollar a day isnt exactly shitloads. I mean thats like a 1/3 of a left-wingers daily latte nowadays!!!

  15. Iain Hall says:

    It does become “shit loads” when you add up the “dollar a day” per person by our population what would that be? $365 per person x 20,000,000… per year.
    You do the sums but it is a great deal more than pocket change overall.

  16. PKD says:

    Sure Iain – because you can fix the problems of climate change for $50 and a bit of political willpower!

    Of course its going to cost serious money to fix – you think you can just wish it all away as a left-wing eco-conspiracy of religious proportions?

    I see even Antractica is warming now (strange how you never cover events that damage the ‘sceptics’ argument hey Iain?) – so now the denialists argument will doubtlessly shift from ‘Antarctica is not warming – AGW is bunk’ to ‘Antractica is warming – but you can’t prove its man made – so AGW is still bunk!’. 🙂

  17. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    when the highest summer temperature in Antarctica is still barely zero it makes very little difference that the temperature may rise by one half of a degree. In any case check out what Anthony Watts has to say about this report Here and here the second link gives a chap who is actually a meteorologist in Antarctica the chance to show what a crock this bit of alarmist nonsense is.
    How is that guest post going by the way?

  18. PKD says:

    Anthony Watts is pretty well discredited Iain after some of false claims.

    Yes I’ll do a mini year in review, something along the lines of ‘coolest year of the century vs 15th hottest year on record’….

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Did you even read the pages I linked to PKD?
    🙄

  20. PKD says:

    Sure I did – and yet your reports are still from a largely discredited source!

  21. Shawn Whelan says:

    And yet you offer no evidence to contradict Marks opinion Shawn – only childish insults. Interesting.

    I have a very good understanding of economics and spend a lot of time studying it for my own use. You and your socialist buddy have a about a grade three understanding of economics, always spouting the same lefty idiocy.

    The economy is in freefall and President BO is going to throw gasoline on the raging gasoline fire. This is a lot worse than the average person even realizes and at this late point there is nothing but time that will fix this economy. All that is left for the liberals is to make excuses and push farther into socialism. Stalin’s “useful idiots” are always ready and willing to destroy there own economy. Really doesn’t make any sense.

  22. Shawn Whelan says:

    Anthony Watts is pretty well discredited Iain after some of false claims.

    Yes I’ll do a mini year in review, something along the lines of ‘coolest year of the century vs 15th hottest year on record’….

    Watts is very respected in the real scientific community once you get past the socialists with an agenda like Hansen.

    The Earth is cooling and next year the Northern Route of the Northwest Passage in the Arctic will be froze up solid for the Summer. We shall wait to hear the explanation. The globaloney warming bunch is either very shrill or have run and hid and are very quiet. Mostly the latter.

  23. Shawn Whelan says:

    PKD,

    I have a title for your little writeup.

    “Why the Guillible Left Still Believe in AGW”.

  24. PKD says:

    You and your socialist buddy have a about a grade three understanding of economics, always spouting the same lefty idiocy.

    And yet despite your allegedly superior knowledge on economics you again failed to provide any evidence to contradict Marks opinion Shawn – only more childish insults (perhaps you repeated grade 3?) and some rant about Stalin. Even more interesting…

  25. JM says:

    “The AGW theory is a fraud.”

    Hey Shaun, remember you were going on about how arctic ice was storming back (or some such nonsense) a while back?

    You are aware that the numbers you and your mate Anthony Watts were relying on to make this argument have been revised?

    Downwards.

    The ice extent numbers from October onwards – the ones you and Anthony based your argument on – were wrong, they were too high. (Watts has acknowledged this but only in comments on his blog)

    Late summer 2008 was (very slightly) worse that 2007, the previous worst year on record.

    Care to revise your opinion a little?

  26. Iain Hall says:

    Put up or shut up on the ice extent JM because as given the severity of the northern winter which Shawn has been experiencing first hand You must be wrong, you can’t even get Shawn’s name right and you expect us to believe you on the ice extent 🙄

  27. JM says:

    Here’s Watt’s post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/13/something-is-rotten-in-norway-500000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/

    Note the update at the end:


    I received this email from Stein Sandven at Nansen in response to my query:

    Dear Anthony,

    The ice area calculation has been too high since about 22 October, causing too steep slope of the 2008 curve. We corrected for this yesterday and recalculated the ice area for 2008. The slope of the 2008 curve should now be correct and can be compared with 2007 and the previous mean monthly ice area.

    Best regards
    Stein

    For my opinion though it seems to be an incomplete answer, generating even more questions

    (my bold)

    Take away: Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest ever recorded for December 20.

    Corrected graph here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/22/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

    Note we’re talking about early winter ice here. Far from “storming back” or however it was described, it’s feebly struggling to overtake 2007 – the worst year on record so far.

    Sorry Shawn for mispelling your name – slip of the touch typing.

  28. JM says:

    BTW Iain, you might like to note that further on in the interview (about 2 questions) Lovelock says that the real answer is a different form of sequestration:-

    Burn farm waste in a low oxygen environment to create charcoal, then bury the charcoal. This effectively extracts CO2 from the atmosphere and the environment.

    His opinion is that solution is very workable, cheap and will give large gains in a short period of time.

    So your quotations appear to be a little selective.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Looking at the graphs of Anthony Watt”s piece still seems to show a greater Ice extent even with the correction J M.

    The point i was trying to make is that Lovelock may well be putting his hopes in other methodologies but every true believer in any government is putting their faith in ETS in one form or another and it is a bird that ain’t going to fly in terms of making any difference to the actual climate and if such a true believer like Lovelock says that the emperor’s arse is hanging in the breeze on this one then why can’t even the likes of yourself see that any kind of carbon trading scheme is a crock of stuff that don’t smell that grand? You can be a sceptical about AGW as I am or as much of a true believer and be in agreement that ETS is much more about making money for the spivs and speculators than it is about doing actual good for the environment.

  30. JM says:

    “seems to show a greater Ice extent even with the correction”

    If you mean that ice in 2008 > ice in 2007 for most of the time – then yes. But it’s still less than 2006.

    Shawn’s point – I think – was that the *slope* of winter ice recovery indicated “storming back” ie. an implication that the winter extent in 08/09 would be greater even than 06.

    My retort here is that, no the data was wrong. And in fact, given that for part of December the extent is actually very slightly lower than Dec 07 that we should be drawing the opposite conclusion – things don’t look too good at all, or at least we have no cause for optimism.

    Re. Lovelock. I agree with him that a direct method of sequestration is better than an indirect method like ETS. I also agree with his point that CO2 sequestration attached to power plants is complex, expensive and years off, so it’s more of a technological fantasy than anything else.

    However, burying charcoal sounds pretty good as a direct method.

  31. PKD says:

    given the severity of the northern winter which Shawn has been experiencing first hand You must be wrong,

    Iain,
    Regardless of whether minimum ice extent was marginally lower this year or last, have you seen the latest levels at NSIDC?

    We’re still running neck and next with the record low of 07 – despite the current cold snap in N America. And never confuse cold snaps with climatic average either Iain…

  32. Shawn Whelan says:

    We broke the snowfall record or the year of 2008 and this Winter is ahead of record snowfall pace ad much colder. My bill for gas says the temp is 5deg C colder than last year on average.

    As for the Arctic the ice extent for the Summer of 2008 was much greater than 2009 and followed by a fast freeze up. Henry Larsen easily took his little ship through the Northern Route of the NW Passage in 1944 and then in 1947 he could not even enter the Northern Route of the passage since it had froze up solid. This is just history repeating. The gig is up for AGW and only the guillible liberals and their leaders still believe. Of course Algore has a reason to believe since he is making millions off this scheme. The guillible libeals will believe in anything that includes higher taxes.

  33. Shawn Whelan says:

    JM
    If you mean that ice in 2008 > ice in 2007 for most of the time – then yes. But it’s still less than 2006.

    Do you just make stuff up to suit your beliefs?

    Lots of ice in the Arctic. Already as much as 2006’s maximum and still freezing.

    Ice compare Arctic 2006 to 2009. Despite global warming ice has increased. Doesn’t fit well into the AGW theory, does it?

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=01&fy=2007&sm=02&sd=01&sy=2009

    Previous post should say 2007.
    As for the Arctic the ice extent for the Summer of 2008 was much greater than 20092007.

  34. JM says:

    “Do you just make stuff up to suit your beliefs?”

    No, I use the information I have to hand. Thank you for pointing me to IJIS for Jan 2009 information, I hadn’t seen it before.

    Nonetheless since I win on December and you win on January I think we can agree that short term numbers are meaningless?

    If you have a look at 2008 as a whole it sits right between 2006 and 2007 – hardly storming back. ie. 2008 was larger than 2007 but it was still the second lowest on record.

    And the low blip in December gives us no reason for optimism.

    Particularly since your original argument based on the early winter gradient (“slope”) has been blown out of the water by corrected data.

  35. Shawn Whelan says:

    The Arctic froze very fast this year and started with much less heat. Now the cold conditions and likely a late Spring mean the Northern Route of the NW Passage is gonna be froze up through the whole summer. That is my prediction.

    There is already more ice in the Arctic than the max of 2006 and a couple months left to max out.

  36. Shawn Whelan says:

    Dec 07 had much more ice then Dec 06.

    The ice is coming back like it did everytime before.

  37. JM says:

    “The ice is coming back like it did everytime before.”

    Shawn, you wouldn’t be straining under the misapprehension that AGW implies that the seasons are going to stop and it will be summer all year round by any chance?

    Because that’s what your argument appears to boil down to:- the ice comes back every winter and AGW is not real until we don’t get winter any more.

    We’re talking about climate, not weather, not seasons. Climate. Variation that can only be seen over timescales of 20-30 years or more.

    And since 1960 Arctic ice extent has been declining – gently – but declining. Until 2007 when it fell off a cliff, and 2008 wasn’t much of an improvement.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    as we have discussed before we have to reliable data to say what the ice extent actually was prior to the advent of satellite measurements, even your citation of the 1960 ice extent is a bit suss and far from having enough standing to be called empirical data.

  39. JM says:

    Well Iain, the data is quite clear when expressed on an annualized basis (so we can ignore Shawn’s “but it’s snowing” argument), a summary is available here

    The data points are sea ice extent from sattellites (Sputnik went up in 1957 I believe)

    And another graph here shows the September ice extent since 1980.

    I think it’s quite clear what the data says and you’re rhetorical response of “suss” and “[not] empirical” is unsubstantiated.

  40. JM says:

    And by-the-by Iain – what do you mean by “empirical data”?

    How is data derived from observation “not empirical”?

    Can you give me an example of “non-empirical data”, I having trouble following your usage of the term.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    the entirety of Sputnik’s abilities was to send out a repetitive radio signal which basically said “I am here” to the monitoring stations on earth to suggest otherwise as you do is just silly. Now it was not until the 70’s that there was a satellite in a suitable position to monitor Ice extent in the Arctic which is why i suggest that any measure of Arctic Ice extent from the sixties can not be anything more than an estimate.

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Empirical data that which is quantitatively measured by direct observation
    an example of “non-empirical data” is any measure derived from proxies “like ice cores” tree rings ect.

  43. PKD says:

    JM,
    I now ignore any of Shawns AGW ramblings as a lost cause of a denialist troll. But if you want to keep wasting energy on him be my guest!

    Shawn,
    Still happy to debate non-AGW topics a la Geneva Convention BTW…

  44. JM says:

    Hmmm, that’s what I get for being facetious. All the data I’ve referred to here is sattellite data since 1980.

    Also, I think you need to review the meaning of empirical. Data from ice core rings is just as much observational. On your definition all observational data would be a proxy for the observed phenonoma.

    But putting philosophy to one side – I repeat, the data I referred to comes from direct sattellite observations since 1980.

    It shows a clear, steady decline in sea ice extent until suddenly in 2007 the deviation is very substantial, and 2008 just about repeats the trick.

  45. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I am old enough to remember the day that Yuri Gagarin went into space and I have followed the development of all things to do with space travel ever since which I why I was surprised that you cited Sputnik

    But of course as you keep reminding us you can’t draw much of a conclusion about climate from observations that span such a short time period which is why I give so little credence to claims about ice extent being at the lowest extent in centuries ect.

  46. PKD says:

    I am old enough to remember the day that Yuri Gagarin went into space

    Blimey I wasn’t even born then – thanks for making me feel a bit younger Iain!

    you can’t draw much of a conclusion about climate from observations that span such a short time period

    yeah totally agree, thats why when – after you’ve pointed the above out to them – knee-jerk people who STILL conclude that the current cold snap in N America disproves climate change OR people who think this heatwave proves climate change can be safely written off as deniers and alarmists repsectively.

    Its the long term climatic average that proves or disproves the case, not one-off events…

    Cheers,
    PKD
    .

  47. Iain Hall says:

    Shit you agreeing with me twice in one day!!!! Oh my things must be crook in billa rook !
    😆

  48. JM says:

    “claims about ice extent being at the lowest extent in centuries”

    Iain, you’re hiding behind a strawman. The claim is that human activity in the last century (not centuries) is causing GW, and that this is having an especially apparent impact on climate since about 1970.

    So direct measurements since 1980 are very relevant.

    No-one is claiming that the earth has been warming for centuries. In fact anti-warmalists like yourself are rather fond of pointing to natural variation over those centuries in support of your (alleged) case – the medieval warm period comes to mind here.

    What we are discussing is a very restricted claim – sea ice extent has been falling steadily since at least 1980, and over the last 2 years appears to have shown a substantial acceleration.

    The data clearly support that claim.

    No matter how many cold snaps occur in northern Europe.

  49. PKD says:

    Well for the other topic my radio is broken – without being able to listen 24 hours a day to the left-wing propoganda of the ABC I’ve lost the ability to sympathise with those poor hard-done by criminals!

    I don’t think I’ve ever changed position on climate change though – so it must be you coming round to the common sense world the AGW realist Iain! Good on ya!

  50. Iain Hall says:

    Jm the point that I have argued elsewhere in another thread is that when it comes to ice extent we just do not have data, of sufficient accuracy, to make any claims about how dire the decline in Ice extent is. For all we know the changes that we have recorded since that advent of satellite measurements could be well within the range of natural variability. Now if I live long enough I would like to see just what happens over the next thirty years in the Arctic before I start suggesting that the sky is falling.and as a man of science JM I suggest that you should too.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    That is a bummer about your radio PKD, check out the The ABC website: you can stream Radio National from the web if that helps:)
    I love Radio National 🙂

  52. PKD says:

    What we are discussing is a very restricted claim – sea ice extent has been falling steadily since at least 1980, and over the last 2 years appears to have shown a substantial acceleration.

    Iain,
    I was going to pinch this graph for my piece (I still can I guess) but to get an idea of what JM is really talking about here, check out the graph at the bottom of the following link.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786910.stm

    It clearly shows the rate of Arctic ice loss to be greater than *any* of the predicted models for ice loss. Given how much I’ve heard from denialists about this year having the natural cooling cycles for both PDO and solar activity, its a bit worrying to see this years level *only just* higher than the previous year, and still well below the rates of predicted ice loss by ‘biased’ GW models. I don’t paricularly look forward to seeing the ice extent when the PDO and solar cycles return to their warming phases…

    Cheers,
    PKD.

  53. PKD says:

    That is a bummer about your radio PKD, check out the The ABC website

    Hmmm, ok
    .
    .
    .
    click click clickety click
    .
    .
    .
    WHAT!?! How dare that poor innocent student get hard time!!! Free her immediately!!!!

  54. JM says:

    1980: 7.5 M km^2 (approx)
    2008: 4.5 M km^2 (approx)

    Decline: 40% in 28 years or 1.4% per year.

    (Let’s hope our economy doesn’t contract like that.)

    Yes, I think on any reasonable measure it qualifies as dire.

    Can you think of any other large scale climatic phenonemon that has shown similar variation in such a short time?

  55. Shawn Whelan says:

    Well you guys better enjoy your disappearing Arctic ice beliefs while you can because after this Winter I am going to enjoy hearing the explanation of why the
    Arctis has enjoyed a big ice recovery. Last summers ice recovery was the prelude to this years major recovery. This has happened before and goes in cycles. Just that the so called science lead by Algore refuses to look at the actual science.

    These two articles from a scientist who is a liberal and a former believer. The climate has changed up here in the last year plus and it is not a brief burst of cold. It has been continous. Notice the difference in his beliefs in 6 months. Many scientists are running for cover as they see AGW for a scam. Algore and Hansen played the scientific community for suckers and now the gig is up.

    June 12, 2008
    What might this mean? I suggest that we will loose much more perennial sea ice this year than expected paving the way for a mostly single season ice regime. In fact, it appears that this perennial ice is been attacked almost preferentially at the moment. I suspect that my prognosis of a complete clearing of the Arctic seas by as early as 2012 may turn out to be conservative.

    June 2008

    January 30, 2009
    History will show that the atmosphere discharged surplus heat into the Arctic in 2007 and thereafter global temperatures fell back abruptly by a degree or so by now. In short, the warmth that took a decade or more to accumulate and sustained for an additional decade, was lost almost overnight. We also have a much better understanding of the mechanism.

    In the summer of 2007, we were on the road to an ice free summer Arctic by 2012. Three months later, the switch had been visibly been pulled and we had started on the down slope. That has continued through this winter. We are literally back to the worst of it and are hoping that some nasty volcano does not pick this time to blow its top.

    Right now, the folks who should have known better, or were simply too intimidated to speak their minds are now standing up and kicking this dead horse to death.
    6 months later

  56. Shawn Whelan says:

    Quote PKD
    JM,
    I now ignore any of Shawns AGW ramblings as a lost cause of a denialist troll. But if you want to keep wasting energy on him be my guest!

    Actually PKD your inability to beat the broken clock is not my fault. So you should not blame me.

    Why when liberals are shown the truth do they get angry and then say they will ignore? Why would I care if you ignore me?

    The best part with liberals is they can never really ignore and always come back for more.

  57. JM says:

    Uh oh.

    Shawn: “These two articles from a scientist …”

    From the “scientist”‘s blog:

    “About Me

    40 years ago I took an honors degree in applied mathematics from the University of Waterloo.”

    Okey dokey. Makes him a mathematician, not a scientist. Shawn there is a difference. Mathematicians make stuff up, if it’s consistent and logical they win.

    Scientists make hypotheses, if they match the data they win.

    Mathematicians: no data. Scientists: all data.

    Let’s go on.

    “My interest was Relativity …”

    Not looking good. Relativity is physics, not maths.

    “… and my last year there saw me complete a 900 level course under Hanno Rund on his work in relativity….

    Ok. Dunno anything about this Rund guy, but fair enough.

    “… as well as differential geometry(pure math) and of course analysis. “

    From physics back to maths, but we’re moving all over the shop here – applied maths to pure maths to analysis. Sounds like an undergraduate course.

    “I continued researching new ideas and knowledge since that time and I have now prepared a book for publication titled Paradigms Shift.”

    But presumably still in preparation and not published yet. And the word “paradigm”, not a good indicator.

    ” I have recently accepted a founders position with a group ….”

    Group not named.

    “… to establish a cradle to grave cyperspace [sic] medical data file that integrates and retains all medical information specific to the individual who will own this information. “

    Either can’t spell or doesn’t edit his blog very well. And this sounds more like IT – the elephants graveyard of many a failed scientist (including myself actually)

    “This initative is separate from this blog and you may follow this initiative by emailing me at arclein@gmail.com and putting ‘vital data’ in the subject line. “

    No reference or link to the “initiative”. Wonder why?

    “It is time.”

    Yes it is.

    Shawn, are you familiar with the word “kook”?

  58. Shawn Whelan says:

    This is the common view the scientists are taking. Anyways by next summer the Arctic will once again be froze solid and only you and Algore will still be preaching AGW. The Earth is turning colder at the same time manmade CO2 hugely increased. That alone shows the AGW theory to be bogus. And all of Nasa’s climate models are wrong.

    Why do liberals always attack the scientist instead of the science? That guys brain compared to yours would be like comparing a pumpkin to a Ferrari with your brain being the pumpkin.

    Algore is making hundreds of millions off this scam and his useful fools are making fools of themselves for free.

  59. JM says:

    “… by next summer the Arctic will once again be froze solid …”

    Ummm, ice melts in the summer Shawn. Besides this “we still got seasons so there is no warming and I won’t believe it until winter entirely dissappears” argument of yours is getting pretty old.

    “Why do liberals always attack the scientist instead of the science”

    You haven’t shown he’s a scientist, by his own admission he seems to be an undergraduate maths student who is currently involved (somehow) in a hubristic and kooky IT project to solve the problems of health systems everywhere and across the board. (Trust me on this one, no-one has ever done what he claims to be trying to do. If you doubt me, google Healtheon – a Jim Clark fiasco, and NHS “spine” or “backbone” which is a project that has spent over a billion pounds over nearly 10 years and delivered absolutely nothing).

    Since he claims to be able to do in his spare time what legions of professionals have failed at, I’m going with “kook”

  60. Shawn Whelan says:

    And I am going with “pumpkinhead”.

    All the ice in the Arctic does not melt in the Summer. Where do you get these ideas? That is getting old? How could you possibly think all the Arctic ice melts in the Summer?

  61. Shawn Whelan says:

    Your still attacking that guy and not providing one bit of science that shows the Earth is still warming.(there is none) That was an example of how anybody with a teaspoonful of brains would realize the AGW gig is up and duck for cover.

  62. Shawn Whelan says:

    How come with my very limited budget I can predict this stuff better than NASA and all these other scientific globaloney warming organizations that waste billions off taxpayer dollars?

  63. JM says:

    “not providing one bit of science that shows the Earth is still warming.(there is none) ”

    I have before. To you. In threads on this blog.

    “How come with my very limited budget I can predict this stuff better than NASA ”

    OK. Your prediction is that next summer (July-Sept) the arctic will be “completely froze over”?

    Wanna bet? I’ll put up $100 even money (all serious bets are for small stakes)

    You up for it?

  64. Iain Hall says:

    Well JM, Anthony Watts’ piece on the arctic ice stats is rather interesting and perhaps you would be interested in checking it out here 🙂

  65. JM says:

    Iain, it’s the same argument as Shawn – ice reforms every winter.

    What Watts is doing is trying to measure how fast it reforms, and asserting that it is now reforming in winter faster than it has in the past.

    He then uses that result to distract from the decline in extent over time – ie. he uses the natural seasonal cycle to deny climatic change. Same thing Shawn’s been trying to do.

    It’s a bit like someone selling you a seaside property that is being washed away with the line “but the tide comes in fast here so you have more swimming time” in the hope you won’t notice that your front yard is getting smaller.

    I don’t feel like redoing Watt’s analysis to understand it better as he doesn’t have a great track record (and also he hasn’t posted his code or data so I can’t tell exactly what he’s doing anyway)

  66. PKD says:

    Actually PKD your inability to beat the broken clock is not my fault. So you should not blame me.

    Aaah yes, more childish insults from you Shawn with your stopped clock nonsense. Hence why any comments from you are ignored.

    You’re just not worth the waste of breath when it comes to talking AGW….

  67. Shawn Whelan says:

    JM
    [quote]OK. Your prediction is that next summer (July-Sept) the arctic will be “completely froze over”?[/quote]

    I have clearly stated that I think the Northern Route of the NW Passage will be frozen solid next Summer and not open up for anything except large ice breakers. (which means there was more ice in the Arctic in 2008 and 2009 than there was in 1944) The AGW crowd has predicted all ice will disappear from the Arctic in the Summer.

    The Earth is cooling and the Arctic is freezing.
    You still didn’t provide the science to show the Earth is warming. We anxiously await this non existent data.

    What are you predicting for the Arctic ice?

    PKD
    I thought you were ignoring me.
    Make up your mind and let me know if your not ignoring me..
    You can’t even get that right. Another victory for the broken clock.

  68. JM says:

    ” have clearly stated that I think the Northern Route of the NW Passage will be frozen solid next Summer and not open up for anything except large ice breakers.”

    The northern route? What’s wrong with the southern route? Or are you just trying to give yourself an edge?

    In fact what you actually said to me was “by next summer the Arctic will once again be froze solid” and that’s what I’m responding to. That’s quite a different proposition from the “northern route of the northwest passage” which wasn’t “open” this summer (at least to commercial shipping)

    So what actually am I betting against here? That the Arctic will be “froze solid” as you claimed, or some far more restrictive cannot-lose proposition, one that no-one on the warmist side thinks is in prospect for 2009.

    You’re just trying to force a strawman down my throat.

    Stand up for “the arctic will be froze solid in summer 2009” or withdraw it.

    But tell you what, we could do this:- $100 evens on 2009 September ice extent being at or above 80% of its 1980 level.

    That corresponds to 6.5 million km^2 (as opposed to about 4.5 in 2008 )

    Deal?

  69. Shawn Whelan says:

    Well the southern route opens almost every year is why. Do you really know anything about this topic? I am not interested in cherry picking 1980. I am interested in the claims the global warming people made that all the ice was disappearing and would be gone in the summer of 2012. This was the common claim widely reported in the press. Do you not believe all the ice is going bye bye? The scientists that predicted this were wrong and Bluecon was right?

    I know last year before the melt I predicted there would be an increase in the ice extent. All the expert scientists were quite confidant the ice would mostly disappear like those fools that tried to kayak to the North Pole. All those scientists were wrong and I was right. They wasted billions of taxpayers money and I wasted none.

    As the world cools and the Arctic refreezes and Bluecon continues to predict the worlds temperature correctly.

  70. JM says:

    Shawn, you’re wriggling.

    Your claim has been that “the ice is coming back” and that the “arctic will be frozen solid in summer 2009″

    ” the global warming people made that all the ice was disappearing and would be gone in the summer of 2012.”

    Reference please. I’ve never made that claim and I don’t know anyone (reputable) who has.

    “expert scientists were quite confidant the ice would mostly disappear ”

    Reference?

    You’re just putting up strawmen to run your bogus “but the seasons, the seasons’ argument.

    “I am not interested in cherry picking 1980”

    I’m not cherry picking, I’m asking you to stand by your argument.

    With money. Pick another year if you like.

  71. Shawn Whelan says:

    Just tell me exactly what your claiming. Last I heard the theory was that manmade CO2 was rising and this would cause the Temperature of the Earth to rise and the Arctic ice would melt entirely away in the Summer. The fact is the Arctic is not going to melt entirely away and the Earth is cooling at the same time that manmade CO2 is hugely increasing.

    Last year it was all over the press that the Arctic Ice would all melt away by 2012.
    Just one example of this prediction.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

    You seem to be incapable of any sort of long term memory.

    An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.

    One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

    “We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them,” Hansen said in an email. “We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time — but it is going to require a quick turn in direction.”

    Past the tipping point says Hansen. And now the Arctic refreezes.

    Read that article or one of the hundreds more that were on the internet last year.

    And before you start insulting National Geographic you can go look up what the kooks on Real Climate predicted. They were all wrong and I was right.

  72. Shawn Whelan says:

    So now give me your scientific proof that the Earth has been warming for the last ten years.

  73. JM says:

    What am I claiming?

    Me: “But tell you what, we could do this:- $100 evens on 2009 September ice extent being at or above 80% of its 1980 level.”

    I think it’ll be less, you – frequently and in many different ways – say the earth is cooling. Therefore, shouldn’t you take this bet?

  74. Shawn Whelan says:

    JM,
    Well if you want to cherry pick years let’s say we make the bet that there is more ice in the Arctic this year than there was in 1944 when Henry Larsen easily went from Nova Scotia to Vancouver in 86 days. Let us see if there is less ice in the Arctic than there was in 1944 before global warming. Do you think in 2009 Larsen could do the same thing?
    So 1944 to 2009 it is?

  75. JM says:

    Shawn – you’re the guy who doesn’t trust a measurement unless it’s done with a sattelite, why are you picking 1944?

    As you’re so fond of pointing out measurements of ice extent in 1944 are less reliable than modern ones, so I don’t think we can that as a criteria.

    No my bet is specific:- Sept 2009 ice extent will be less than 6.5 M km^2 (ie. 80% of the 1980 level)

    I think that’s loose enough to accomodate natural variation, while sharply delineating your claims (“arctic frozen solid” and “ice storming back”) from my beliefs.

    You’re still wriggling.

    Are you up for it or not?

  76. Shawn Whelan says:

    I think the old evidence is very good. i just don’t believe the Hansen/Gore temperatures from GISS.

    Once again your lefty scientists have been caught in an outright lie. This is why I don’t trust lefty Hansen’s temperature data.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/04/snow-job-in-antarctica-digging-out-the-data-source/#more-5448

    Does it not get you thinking that in 1944 Henry Larsen could easily navigate the Northern Route of the NW Passage and after 60 plus years of Algores global warming Larsen could not hove gone through in 2008. Even the simplest should question that when the facts are presented.

    So I am saying that I will compare this year to 1944. Will a little boat like the St. Roch be able to navigate the Northern Route of the NW Passage in 2009 after 60 plus years of global warming?

    Or is Algore making hundreds of millions while he plays the AGW believers for suckers?

  77. JM says:

    Shawn I know you’re only trying to distract me and I shouldn’t respond but Larsen’s ship – the St. Roch – was “ice fortified” ie. an icebreaker.

    And his first trip took 28 months, during much of which he was iced in. Not so easy as you make out, and using an icebreaker which rather undermines your point.

    Back to the topic.

    You have repeatedly claimed that historical levels of Arctic ice extent are on the way back – in fact by September this year.

    If they are, they have to reach some substantial fraction of historical levels – 1980 is as a good a year as any to set the “historical level” benchmark.

    They are currently at 60% of that level. I’ve put it to you that if your argument has any substance that I will accept your point if they reach as much as 80% of 1980 levels this coming September. I will accept such an event as confirming your “ice is coming back just like it always does” argument.

    I’ve asked you to back your view in a small friendly wager for a nominal sum.

    You’ve ducked and weaved so much I’m going to take your statements as a refusal.

    If you value your own opinion so little I don’t know why you expect me to pay any attention to it.

  78. Shawn Whelan says:

    Larsen’s first trip has nothing to do with the second.

    The St. Roch was by no means an icebreaker. It was a small wooden vessel with a tiny 300hp diesel motor. Less than a decent pickup truck should have nowadays. We have already discussed this. You have a good memory but it is very short.

    The St. Roch had a very easy time travelling through the passage and could not have replicated that voyage last year since the end of the passage was frozen.

    Doesn’t it make you think a little bit when you are provided the fact that a little wooden boat could travel through the passage in 1944 and after 60 years of supposed continuous global warming there was to much ice in the Arctic in 2008 to replicate the feat? I would expect even the most simple person to question that.

    The point is that next year after the melt there will be more ice than there was in September 2008. And I believe that the Northern Route of the NW Passage will remain frozen. The ice is increasing and there is more ice than there was in 1944.

    By no means is the ice currently at 60% of the 1980 level. Why do you just make stuff up? I have no idea what 80% of 1980 would prove.
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=04&fy=1980&sm=02&sd=04&sy=2009

    The ice is increasing and the Earth is cooling.

    Only an idiot would make a monetary bet on the internet.

  79. JM says:

    Sept 1980: 7.5 M km^2
    Sept 2008: 4.5 M km^2

    4.5/7.5 x 100 = 60%

    Learn arithmetic Shawn.

    “The ice is increasing and the Earth is cooling.”

    Well if you think so, you’d have no trouble taking the bet.

    Shawn you’re all mouth.

    This conversation is over.

    Iain, what do you think about Lovelock’s proposal to bury charcoal as a means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere (and reducing emmisions overall)?

  80. Iain Hall says:

    Well It seems more workable than any of the other schemes that I have heard about. However as I think that Co2 is not the driver of climate change I don’t think that it would make any difference.

  81. Shawn Whelan says:

    They are currently at 60% of that level.

    What does currently mean in Australia?

    Must be some different kind of English than the rest of the world.

    You still have provided no evidence that the Earth is warming. You have none so you cut and run?

    A hundred bucks is chump change. Collecting the hundred bucks is a lot more time and trouble than it is worth.

  82. PKD says:

    You have none so you cut and run?

    No Shawn – its just another person simply cannot be arsed to waste their breath on your denialism!

  83. Shawn Whelan says:

    Or it might be another AGW believer that has absolutely no factual scientific argument to back up his beliefs and it is much easier to cut and run.

  84. PKD says:

    Haha – I bet you even believe that bit of hubris there, hey Shawn?

  85. Shawn Whelan says:

    I thought you were ignoring me?

    Do I know typical liberal behaviour or what.

  86. Shawn Whelan says:

    OK PKD go ahead and provide the science to show the Earth is warming in conjunction with the huge increase in Manmade CO2. What JM wouldn’t provide.

  87. PKD says:

    Aah Shawn – can you not grasp simple basic English. You are ignored on all GW debates. But I’m not debating you on AGW right now am I?

    This is just a general conversation with you about why your childish attitude leads you to be ignored, along with your failure to understand English!

  88. Shawn Whelan says:

    I figure you have two choices.

    1/ Cry me a River
    2/ Tell your mommy

  89. PKD says:

    Now you seemt to have grasped the concept of basic English Shawn I can likewise inform you of your 2 choices

    1) Grow up, debate like an adult and people will start to debate with you again istead of choosing to ignore you when they tire of your childish behaviour.
    2) Keep acting in the childish manner you are currently doing and be ignored like the spoilt child you so repeatedly show yourself to be.

    Its up to you mate!

  90. Shawn Whelan says:

    I figure you have two choices.

    1/ Cry me a River
    2/ Tell your mommy

    Actually there is a couple other choices.

    3/ Quit the whining.

    4/ Just ignore me and mind your own business.

    I fully realise either of these paths are very difficult for leftoids.

  91. PKD says:

    Ha – you’ve chosen option 2. Fair enough…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: