Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Welcome to our Australian Low Carb Forums. Join us for free support, information and recipes to help you with your low carb diet. We're a friendly bunch so please register and join in the fray, but most of all have fun! If you like us please share and spread the love!

    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      It's not just about competition in the electricity market but about innovation. It's in the companies' interest to only minimally put up prices to the consumer if there is some competition and to achieve that they will have to innovate in the electricity market.
      Innovation is what will save us money.
      Example: currently solar panels pay for themselves after 15 years because those who have them don't fork out for electricity bills for that period. It is ridiculously expensive to purchase/install now, however, with market forces driving innovation the next generation of solar panels might have nanotubing which would increase efficiency and be cheaper to produce thus would pay for itself in a shorter time frame. A more efficient product will be attractive, creating demand = competition in that arena and boom you get CHEAP ELECTRICITY!
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      From what I have read solar is starting to get cheaper and hence the government are removing the rebates. The thing is, at least here in South Australia, electricity is already very expensive. Everywhere you look these days you see homes with solar panels, of course it's only an option for those that own their own home and can afford it and now will be harder due to the loss of rebates and soon to come higher prices in everything. Renters, well they are simply stuffed. One thing that has been shown over and over again with examples such as food prices, housing etc if the demand is there they can up the price and we just keeping paying for it.

      And then you have to think about for what? some slight impact on our environment that is already changing as it does and that we will never see any benefit from our actions for tens of generations to come (if any). What about the more short term impacts, obviously the cost of living is a huge issue but what about the alternatives? What about natural gas, do you think that is an alternative? that's what they want and that has a huge impact on our environment and the health of people, crops, livestock, water.

      Mining is a big industry for the government, even with all that money they make from it, they still can't balance their books, do you really think they want to reduce that income?
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      I agree with you in the grumble about increasing electricity costs and I'm a renter so I don't even have the solar option handy but regardless the transition now is cheaper than it will be later - this has been modelled economically. I find the bigger picture a more compelling argument than my personal struggle.
      Now we still have a chance at keeping the climate within 2.5 degs - sure climate change happens anyway but mitigation is the difference between small disaster and catastrophe at a temperature much higher which is where we'll be if every country sits on its hands and does nothing. Already we are tracking towards losing 30% of animal species this percent goes up dramatically for every half degree.
      I implore you to read the garnaut report. I don't think you realise how soon we are going to be feeling the effects - it won't be tens of generations it will be our children and grandchildren and the benefits will be sooner than you think as given the lifetime of carbon dioxide. I just took a course at the ANU in international climate law a couple weeks ago which discussed all the logistics of tackling the carbon dioxide emissions through law (ie. what worked o/s and what didn't) and I wanted to be skeptical like yourself but after talking with a few scientists and doing my own research you realise that it must be done here for o/s and for our own economic wellbeing.

      As a capitalist society people only really respond to money pressures and the government is going to do it's best to alleviate those pressures on those who can ill afford it through subsidies so hopefully the poor won't feel the impact as much as those who ought to make a sacrifice for over consumption.
      Abbott's alternative to the tax is a repackaged form of Howard's climate policies which never worked then and won't now.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      We are a capitalist society because our governments make it so, we respond to money pressures because our cost of living is increasing much faster then our income.

      Personally replacing coal with gas is not my idea of an improvement, have you read any of the opposing views of other climate change scientists?

      I am not saying that it is not true, I simply don't believe it has been proven and as far as our government goes, I do not believe their intentions whatsoever.

      Does that mean I think we shouldn't research and invest in renewable energy, no not at all for obvious reasons being that they are renewable, but business needs to invest in this anyway if they want to keep making money, we do not need a tax.


      This view is interesting:

      Dr Roy Spencer
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Hey thanks for that link Sherrie. Roy Spencer's comments are interesting. I actually do read and watch a lot of documentaries of the sceptics arguments and there certainly are a few that make valid points and are great for creating new avenues of research - Roy Spencer being one of them but the fact is that his argument is factored into the latest climate models and what he mentions are all things that the IPCC acknowledges. They know that earth's climate sensitivity MIGHT be more robust than some current data suggests and actually identify that the feedbacks of clouds/water vapour are a primary weakness in the models because we lack historical evidence. However, in acknowledging this 'flaw' in their modelling scientists worldwide have not given it as much weight as Dr Spencer has, they have justified their reasoning and gain confidence as the evidence trickles in (Dr Spencer's research and subsequent argument is specifically focused on the Pacific which is not representative of the world climate as a whole and so less weight is given to it when put in perspective of what's happening elsewhere - what's more the pacific decadal oscillation can change because more heat trapped by GHG causes icesheets to melt which releases fresh water into salt oceans and the alterations in water density mean changes of current and consequently climate - ie. need to broaden the perspective). Anyhoo, regardless of whether it's manmade or the IPCC create best case and worst case scenarios and model then hundreds of times, do more research and fine tune the models again. End of the day - we need to take out an insurance policy (through mitigation and adaptation policies) because the accuracy of these models is finally of a sufficently high level (compared to even just 2 years ago) and have been scrutinised more thoroughly than any other research ever done. Bascially we'd be stupid, ignorant and selfish not to respond.
      As for human involvement - yes the earth's climate fluctuates and it has previously had excessive volumes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but previously these peaks of carbon dioxide took centuries/ milleniums to build up. It's much more than a coincidence that human industrial activities correlate to the changes we are observing. If I'm to argue it in the simplest of term what is happening now is much too quick a process to be natural. CO2 isn't the only culprit but it is probably the easiest one for us to alter hence why it has been the primary focus.

      I whole heartedly agree with you we shouldn't replace coal with gas but gas will not be the only replacement (there's other options in the mix) and using some gas rather than coal still reduces emissions so I guess it's a transitional compromise we have to make.

      And I also hate the idea of the cost of living going up due to a tax but as I said there will be subsidies and eventually we will be more sustainable -a higher cost of living might force more people to grow their own veggie patches and cycle instead of driving to save money and so all sorts of beneficial things might come out of it. After much debate internationally no one has been able to come up with a better/quicker/more long term method of reducing emissions than the tax/ETS versions currently on the table and believe me there are people looking for alternative/better methods. Whilst this carbon tax proposal is the best on offer I think we ought to go with it.

      I also agree with you that our gov makes us capitalist which is why we respond to taxes but I don't think there's a cultural shift in sight - let alone the desire for one among the masses unfortunately (not that I'm an advocate for socialism/communism either - there's many other options - some slightly crazy but intriguing proposed in this doco called Zeigeist: Moving Forward: youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w).
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      How do people grow their own veggie patches yada yada when they are lucky to even have a front lawn these days and struggle to even pay for homes that size? and that's now? and what about our population growth? The further and further the cost of living goes up the less self sufficient we will be able to be, the smaller our blocks of land will be and the further away we will have to live from where we work,from where we shop and from where our kids go to school, making vehicles even more necessary. Not only that, you have Gillard wanting super schools which replaces multiple smaller schools with one big school making this even a bigger issue again. If anything, our government is making us and will continue to make us, even more reliant on vehicles and thus fuel.

      It doesn't cut it and no gas is not a better alternative imo. Ask the people in Queensland how they are liking these gas mines on their doorstep and how does that factor in floods and the like. Gasland
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      An interesting argument from Dr David Evans:


      David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

      His bio for anyone wondering whom he is:

      Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Sherrie wrote:

      An interesting argument from Dr David Evans:


      David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

      His bio for anyone wondering whom he is:


      He's not a "climate modeller" and never has been, he has no published papers on climate science. He calls himself a "rocket scientist" though has never worked in this field either. He's one of the red guys here who is being dishonest for either money or ideology:

      [Blocked Image: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/97_Climate_Experts_500.jpg]

      That's from a couple of studies done asking all scientists in related fields if they felt that humans are contributing to warming. 97% said yes, 2% said I'm not sure and 1% said no. These aren't "government scientists" as the chap above goes on about, these are scientists from all walks of life.

      Now if I saw 100 specialist doctors and 97 told me I had cancer, 2 said they weren't sure and need to run more tests but 1 said "nah mate, you're fine" I think I know what I'd be inclined to believe.

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Why would you put down that you consulted full time for the department of climate change (formerly known as the Australian Greenhouse Office) to show the validity of your argument if it wasn't true??? All that serves is to discredit you very very easily. Note how they changed from "greenhouse" to "climate change"

      Here you go here is their carbon accounting model co written by Dr David Evans on the Governments own Department of Climate Change website:

      THE FullCAM CARBON ACCOUNTING MODEL
      (VERSION 3.0) USER MANUAL


      Gary Richards, David Evans, Ainslie Reddin and Jim Leitch

      7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      FULLCAM

      FullCAM was developed and implemented through the Australian Greenhouse Office’s National Carbon Accounting System (greenhouse.gov.au), GPO Box 621, Canberra ACT 2601
      Australia, in 2000.

      FullCAM is the result of collaboration between the two authors. Dr Gary Richards (+612 6274 1926, gary.richards@greenhouse.gov.au) led the conceptual design and selection of models, and Dr David Evans (david.evans@sciencespeak.com) provided the modeling and programming services for implementation. FullCAM should be cited as ‘Richards, G.P. & Evans, D.M.W. (2000) Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM)’ National Carbon Accounting System, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.’
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Sherrie wrote:

      Why would you put down that you consulted full time for the department of climate change (formerly known as the Australian Greenhouse Office) to show the validity of your argument if it wasn't true??? All that serves is to discredit you very very easily. Note how they changed from "greenhouse" to "climate change"

      Here you go here is their carbon accounting model co written by Dr David Evans on the Governments own Department of Climate Change website:

      THE FullCAM CARBON ACCOUNTING MODEL
      (VERSION 3.0) USER MANUAL


      Gary Richards, David Evans, Ainslie Reddin and Jim Leitch


      I don't think *he* said that *he* has done climate modelling, others attributed it to him to beef up his resume on a chain email, it happens all the time. He has however called himself a rocket scientist even though he's a mathematician/electrical engineer. Infact he has said that while he knows a lot about modelling he has never done any climate modelling himself.

      desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

      My father is always forwarding me these emails along with others, the other day he sent me one that was presented as a quote by Sir Edmund Barton (an early Australian PM) but was actually a quote by Theodore Roosevelt where someone had replaced all the "american" and "americas" with "australian" and "australian.

      I've no idea why people do it, they're being deceitful purposely to push their own agenda I guess..

      All anyone, such as this chap, needs to do to disprove it all is to publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal presenting his facts and data. He's never published one and, like the others, probably never will as he has no hard data or fact to back up his arguments.

      Edit: Also, who's they that changed from 'greenhouse' to 'climate change'? Climate science is a huge dis-jointed and uncentralised group of people who contribute to the science, there's no group of men in lab coats hiding in a room going "oh darn, we can't call it global warming anymore, we have to call it something else". The science is still there, it's still proven the planet is warming it's still proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's still proven what greenhouse gasses do and it's still proven that humans are putting a lot of extra CO2 into the planet.

      Double edit:

      I can't help but feel that if John Howards cabon tax or Malcolm Turnbulls carbon trading scheme had have been bought in there'd be a lot less belief in the public that there's some huge conspiracy with scientists sitting in mansions on the government payroll making this stuff up.

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Charlie ().

    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Um???

      This is his bio that I originally quoted:

      Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.


      Nowhere in there is any mention of rocket science or the like it is purely based on his role within the government and their carbon modelling.

      Then after your reply I have provided you with the actually manual straight from the government itself that he co authored that clearly details and credits his role and backs up his bio. This is not hearsay it is straight from the horses mouth AKA The Department of Climate Change. The link I have given you is a the governments own website.
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Sherrie wrote:

      Um???

      This is his bio that I originally quoted:



      Nowhere in there is any mention of rocket science or the like it is purely based on his role within the government and their carbon modelling.

      Then after your reply I have provided you with the actually manual straight from the government itself that he co authored that clearly details and credits his role and backs up his bio. This is not hearsay it is straight from the horses mouth AKA The Department of Climate Change. The link I have given you is a the governments own website.


      Follow back what I've said. The bio you quoted was something tacked onto the end of a chain email. He himself has said that though he knows a lot about modelling he has never done any climate modelling. You can't use something someone added to the end of an email randomly as a truthful source.

      I said that he hasn't done any climate modelling though the fake bio says he has and then I said that he has called himself a rocket scientist thought isn't one, I didn't relate the rocket science bit back to the quote.

      You can contribute to a piece of software without actually doing any of the science with said software. I wrote a website for local music, this does not mean I started a band and have played live.

      Like I said, he himself has said that he has not done any climate modelling.

      Here's the poor chap having one of his speils shredded up: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/…ans_war_on_science_16.php

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Sherrie wrote:

      I would assume this to be his words as I believe it is his website: David Evans


      Well either he's contradicting himself again (if he wrote that) or it's deliberately misleading as he has written (which I'm trying to track down but am at work) to the effect that while he knows a lot about modelling he has not done any climate modelling. I think it was two links back that talked about it but as the link it links to was hosted on geocities it's now gone.

      What he is saying though has been well disputed. Like I said before, if he is right all he needs to do is publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal.

      Edit: I also cannot find *any* paper attributing him to have provided any data from any form of climate modelling. Maybe he beta tested the software or something, he doesn't seem to have done any tracable real climate modelling with it.

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      I don't see what the issue is meaning why you ascertain that he is not capable of being able to form his own opinion on this issue. He's obviously been involved in Australian carbon modelling and had the privelegde of seeing what we the public don't see and from what he's seen and or discussed with peers has over time changed his views and become a skeptic. It doesn't make him right but it doesn't make him wrong either. I can only assume he is not finding that the numbers add up for him. He's obviously educated enough to be able to form his own opinion and he's well entitled to it, he does not need a peer reviewed paper to form an opinion and I see no where that he claims to be an expert. Thats like saying Dr Atkins was not capable of forming his own opinions in regards to particular diets, fat and cholesterol based on his experiences with his patients in his cardiology practice because he hadn't written a peer reviewed paper.

      Anyway from my earlier quote, this explains what fullCAM does:

      Welcome to FullCAM, a model for tracking the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon stock changes associated with land use and management. FullCAM is a fully integrated Carbon Accounting Model (CAM) for estimating and predicting all biomass, litter and soil carbon pools in
      forest and agricultural systems. In addition to this, it accounts for changes in major greenhouse gases, nitrogen cycling and human-induced land use practices.

      FullCAM is the model used to construct Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions account for the land sector. Users of the model can determine project-based results on a similar basis to Australia’s official recording of greenhouse emissions trends for land use and land use change.

      FullCAM was developed under the National Carbon Accounting System to integrate data on land cover change, land use and management, climate, plant productivity, and soil carbon over time - to provide a dynamic account of the changing stock of carbon in Australia's land systems since 1970.

      It draws together a suite of verifiable component models, adapted for use at a fine spatial (25 m) and temporal (monthly) resolution for the Australian continent, including:

      • CAMFor - for forest systems;
      • CAMAg - for cropping and grazing systems;
      • 3PG - for forest growth;
      • GENDEC - for microbial decomposition; and
      • RothC - for agricultural soil carbon.

      More specifically, FullCAM calculates the carbon and nitrogen flows associated with:

      1. Forests - including the wood products made from wood harvested from the forest. It calculates the carbon in the trees, debris, mulch, soils, and wood products, and the carbon and nitrogen exchanged with the atmosphere, due to thinnings, multiple rotations, fertilization and fires.

      2. Agricultural systems - which can be cropped or grazed systems. It calculates the carbon and nitrogen in the plants, debris, mulch, soil, and products, and the carbon and nitrogen exchanged with the atmosphere, while including the effects of harvest, plowing, fire, herbicides, fertilization and grazing.

      3. Afforestation and reforestation systems - which are represented and modeled as transitions from agricultural systems to forests.

      4. Deforestation systems - which are represented and modeled as transitions from forests to agricultural systems.

      5. Mixed (e.g. agroforestry) systems - assorted combinations of the systems above.

      FullCAM calculates the carbon and nitrogen stocks and flows (including the effect of nitrogen shortages on plant growth) for land subject to different land use and management activities.

      Sensitivity analysis of the data (via Monte Carlo methods) can also be used to assess the relative effects of uncertainty in model parameters (including input data and key variables).

      FullCAM also has the ability to calculate the fossil fuel displacement values by use of forest or agricultural products (including bio-energy). For instance, if forests or crops are used for bio-energy (energy derived from burning them or their residues), FullCAM can calculate how much fossil fuel based energy emissions this would equal (given 1 tonne of biomass burne equates to ~x kilojoules of fossil fuel emissions). This gives users a better understanding of the relative impacts of their land use practices on greenhouse emission levels.

      FullCAM contains the forest carbon accounting model CAMFor, the cropping and grazing system model CAMAg, the forest growth model 3PG (research edition only), the microbial decomposition model GENDEC, and the soil carbon model RothC. FullCAM can run each of these sub-models in
      isolation or in any sensible combination.

      The sub-models used within FullCAM can be integrated into various combinations to suit the data available and outputs required. Whilst it may be used for tracking of carbon and nitrogen stocks and flows in different forest and agricultural systems, it may also be used more simply to review project-based results for small land holdings. The public Toolbox edition of the model does not include the additional research tool of 3PG, which is available from the product developers, CSIRO.

      FullCAM Version 3.0 released with the National Carbon Accounting Toolbox Version 1.0 accounts for carbon stock changes associated with land use and management. Capacity to account for nitrogen cycling, as documented in this manual, exists in research editions of FullCAM and will be incorporated into subsequent versions of the Toolbox.


      This is his involvement in FullCAM:

      FullCAM was developed and implemented through the Australian Greenhouse Office’s National Carbon Accounting System (greenhouse.gov.au), GPO Box 621, Canberra ACT 2601
      Australia, in 2000.

      FullCAM is the result of collaboration between the two authors. Dr Gary Richards (+612 6274 1926, gary.richards@greenhouse.gov.au) led the conceptual design and selection of models, and Dr David Evans (david.evans@sciencespeak.com) provided the modeling and programming services for implementation. FullCAM should be cited as ‘Richards, G.P. & Evans, D.M.W. (2000) Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM)’ National Carbon Accounting System, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.’

      FullCAM integrates and modifies a series of existing models, including:

      • CAMFor (Richards & Evans, 2000)
      • CAMAg (Richards & Evans, 2000)
      • 3PG (Landsberg & Waring, 1997)
      • GENDEC (Moorehead et al., 1990)
      • RothC (Jenkinson, 1990).

      CAMFOR
      The CAMFor model within FullCAM finds its conceptual foundations in a public domain FORTRAN program called 'CO2Fix', published in October 1990 by Frits Mohren, Kees Klein Goldewik, "De Dorrchamp", Wageningen. It was enhanced and otherwise designed at the Australian Greenhouse Office by Gary Richards, with programming and modeling by David Evans.

      CAMFor should be cited as Richards, G.P. & Evans, D.M.W. (2000) Carbon Accounting Model for Forests (CAMFor v3.35) User Manual, National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 26, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.

      CAMAG
      Based on CAMFor, conceived and designed at the Australian Greenhouse Office by Gary Richards, implemented by David Evans. CAMAg should be cited as Richards, G.P.& Evans, D.M.W. (2000)
      Carbon Accounting Model for Agricultural Systems, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra


      Both of those quotes come from the Manual on the Department of Climate Change website, which I linked to earlier.

      And that's just one verifiable document I found within less then a minute of searching so there may be more out there that he was involved in also. That document alone back ups his involvement with the Department of Climate change.
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      I've not once said he wasn't involved with the department of climate change (or it's predecessor), if you believe I have you should point me in the direction I did. I've disputed that he is a "climate modeller" as he himself has stated that he has not done any climate modelling on other occasions.

      People present these chain mails, speeches and other such things then try to say "well at this guy, he's an expert in all matters relating, he knows what he's talking about" but expect us to ignore the other 99% of verifiable experts and *every single scientific body/org on the planet* who say the complete opposite.

      Sure, everyone can have opinions but we're talking science, not opinions. He is being presented as some expert scientist and as such should be providing evidence to back up his claims, not some string pulling words to connect with people who already have some particular leaning/feelings to further sway them. You read raw data, you look at laws, you come to conclusions.

      The oddest thing is that most of these things people post as 'evidence' that we're not messing up the planet, it's life and our children's future totally contradict with each other.

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      But that quote of the bio in his article that I quoted which you are arguing with states exactly what he did and what formed his opinion and this has been verified from that document that I have linked and quoted (fullCAM).

      This is just going around in circles and pointless.
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      Sherrie wrote:

      But that quote of the bio in his article that I quoted which you are arguing with states exactly what he did and what formed his opinion and this has been verified from that document that I have linked and quoted (fullCAM).

      This is just going around in circles and pointless.


      This is just going around in circles and pointless.[/QUOTE]

      I agree it's going in circles and is pointless.


      All I've seen in these links is that:

      - fullCAM is a piece of software
      - he contributed to the creation of this piece of software


      This does not mean he is a "climate modeller', this means he helped create a piece of software. I can write a musical composition program, it doesn't make me a composer. If he had done up any climate models of note his name would pop up in papers all over, when searching his name for peer published papers his name comes up once and that's for some audio harmonics paper from years ago.

      He has stated previously that "while he knows a lot about modelling" he "hasn't done any climate modelling himself". I linked to another scientist talking about this earlier.

      I was simply pointing out that he has said he hasn't done any climate modelling yet his bio in the email I saw (and I'm assuming the same as you've linked as the bio was the same) stated he was. Much like the email from that amateur astronomer bloke on the gold coast that had some crazy things added to the end of it to give him some extra cred.

      Why doesn't he publish a peer reviewed paper with his fact based arguments?

      [Blocked Image:
      http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wD6UesQ/weight.png]

      Come out with thousands of other Aussies, Australia wide, in support of action on Climate Change June 5, Brisbane details.
    • Re: Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Wind

      He said he did carbon accounting modelling, that is what he has said in his bio, article and what is stated in the credits for him in the FullCAM.
      Low Carb in a Nutshell ~ Carb Counts ~ Research ~ Measurements/Conversions ~ Glossary


      Let me know if you think of anything else handy from the site to put here.