atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: Rod Stuart <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:13:26 +1000
OT
Hi Petra
I learned something called “The scientific Method” nearly fifty years ago
when I received my first parchment that says “Bachelor of Science”.
The scientific method has been with us for about 1000 years. Most attribute
it to a Persian whose name was Alhazen. Throughout the millennium, it has
served mankind well, dispelling illogical concepts including witchcraft,
animal and human sacrifice, and in fact, slavery.
The scientific method is elegant in its simplicity. Fundamentally, if
someone has an idea, or an explanation of some observed occurrence of
experience, it is called an hypothesis which stands until it is disproved.
Once disproved, there is space for another hypothesis which stands until it
is disproven, and so on, down through the decades.
There are several tennets involved, however. One is called “Occam’s Razor”,
attributed to William of Occam, which is sort of a rule of thumb which says
the simplest hypothesis is always the best. Something like Pareto’s Rule.
Another is that, in science, NOTHING is ever “proved”. In the discipline of
science, an hypothesis is always disproved.
Another tennet has to do with something called “the Null Hypothesis”.
Virtually every observation has a null hypothesis, in that it is a natural
process. Only when the null hypothesis is disproved can another alternate
hypothesis be postulated.
Now, in terms of this thing you call ‘global warming’, it is postulated
that global mean surface air temperatures have risen inordinately. There is
no evidence to support this theory. While it is a very complex task to
determine a parameter such as this at all, after fifty years’ experience in
determining the accuracy of measurement, I am particularly sceptical that
this parameter can be computed to the nearest tenth degree, since most of
the measurement apparatus is no more accurate than that at its best.
Nevertheless, it is pretty well accepted by all and sundry that this rise
in temperature since the industrial revolution has been about 6 or 7 tenths
of a degree. There is nothing at all unusual about this. We are, after all,
fortunate enough to be in an interglacial period, during which the
temperature has fortunately been rising sporadically for nearly 20,000
years since the last Ice Age. Even the argument that the increase I the
last two decades of the twentieth century is bogus. The record of the
period from 1920 to 1940 had not only higher temperatures, but a greater
rate of increase.
Since there is no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, in this case
that the observed data is well within normal natural variations, to
postulate another hypothesis at all is an affront to science and the
scientific method.
Nevertheless, there is a fairy tale that insists that carbon dioxide is
responsible for the rise in temperature. While this has never been formally
postulated, it is based on another hypothesis called “the Greenhouse
Effect”. While it is true that Earth’s surface temperatures are higher than
would be the case if there were no atmosphere, the substance responsible
for this is water! While it is true that substances such as carbon dioxide
and methane might have some role in this greenhouse effect, it is pure
conjecture. In fact, a recent paper published by NASA (the people that send
astronauts into space) which maintains that the so called “greenhouse
gases” other than water actually INCREASE the rate at which heat energy is
transferred to space, therefore having a COOLING effect. That is why
nothing is ever proven in science. An idea stands until it is DISproved.
So far as climate change is concerned, no one dares dispute the fact that
climates have been dynamic for about 4.5 billion years. What mechanism
could possibly relate what you call “human induced climate change” if it
weren’t the non-existent ‘global warming’?
Furthermore, the rate at which the warmists are leaping off the alchemy of
climate change is astounding. Several papers are being published every week
that not only demonstrate that it is not warming we need be concerned with
but COOLING. Since the release of “Die Kalte Sonne” in German, papers which
relate natural changes to solar cycles, Milankovich cycles, and orbital
mechanics are coming fast and furious. There is even some evidence that we
have dropped a degree since 2006. Cold kills far more people than warm. We
are very fortunate as a species to have lived in an interglacial, and the
last three generations have been fortunate to live through the last of the
warm periods which occur regularly every thousand years; the Egyptian Old
Kingdom, the Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, the Medieval warming and
the late twentieth century warming.
It’s a hoax, and one that has cost the human race dearly. Santa Claus and
the Tooth Fairy are myths, because there is no evidence. The Lost City of
Atlantis, Sasquatch, and UFO’s are myths, but at least there is some
anecdotal evidence. For catastrophic anthropenic global warming, there is
no evidence; it’s a myth. There is no evidence to support ‘catastophic’.
There is no evidence to support anthropogenic. There is no evidence to
support its existence. (Unless you think a little more than a half a degree
in 150 years is somehow significant). Certainly nothing of significance in
the last quarter century.
So just as with alchemy and witchcraft, all of the arguments in favour of a
CAGW catastrophe are logical fallacies. With no evidence the only thing
the warmist community has is ad hominem, ad publicum, ad ignorantum, etc.
One of the most factual presentations you could watch is at
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c>
On 21 May 2013 15:11, LIVERANI Petra <
Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ** ** ** ** ** **
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ** **
>
> I've just attended a 3 day weekend conference, Beyond Coal and
> Gas<http://www.beyondcoalandgas.org/>,
> that included a session on climate change given by Ian Dunlop, former Chair
> of the Australian Coal Association. It was the only session I didn't attend
> as I feel I know enough about climate change and it only depresses and
> alarms me to learn any more about it. Yes, I felt offended by your
> reference to 'mythical 'global warming' but I can live with it, it's not as
> if I haven't encountered it before.****
>
> ** **
>
> Whatever people's acceptance of the climate science, I hope everyone can
> agree that getting off fossil fuels is important. Digging nine mega mines
> in the **Galilee** basin for exportation of millions of tonnes of coal,
> drilling coal seam gas wells all over the country, etc is wrong from
> multiple points of view, not least simple economics.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ****Petra********
>
> ** **
>
> *****Petra****** Liverani*
>
> Technical Writer / UX Designer****
>
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>***
> *
>
> Transport Management Centre****
>
> Transport NSW****
>
> *****25 Garden St******, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry
> Hills NSW 2012**
> **P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617 *****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 11:17 AM
> *To:* **austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx**
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ** **
>
> I suppose that is it in a nutshell. There is no 'science' about it at all.
> To you it is political, and to to ****Petra**** religious intolerance. ***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> On 21 May 2013 11:14, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ****
>
> I would say your comment about the word ‘glurges’ was on topic. Your
> comments about the ‘mythical’ nature of climate change were not. We all
> have differing political viewpoints, what we share in common is our
> profession and, I presume, our love of language.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards****
>
> Michelle****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:55 AM****
>
>
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ****
>
> I thought it was pretty much on the topic that Bob had started i.e. "heat
> glurges to the surface"! ****
>
> If the All Bull Corp announced some other mythical phenomenon as fact,
> such as "Santa's reindeer glurged into the air" would that not be on
> topic???****
>
> ****
>
> On 21 May 2013 10:50, **LIVERANI Petra** <
> Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ****
>
> Can you please label any posts where you express an attitude towards the
> phenomena of global warming or human-induced climate change as OT.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> ****Petra********
>
> ****
>
> *****Petra****** Liverani*****
>
> Technical Writer / UX Designer****
>
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>***
> *
>
> Transport Management Centre****
>
> Transport NSW****
>
> *****25 Garden St******, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry
> Hills NSW 2012**
> **P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617 *****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:22 AM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ****
>
> Here is one for you. On the ABC news site <
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/global-warming-could-be-slower-than-first-thought-report/4701010>there
> is the usual BS about the mythical 'global warming' etc. in which this
> little gem is dropped, much like excrement for the rear end of a bull: ***
> *
>
> ****
>
> "For example, an El Nino is when the heat stored in the ocean temporarily
> *glurges* out so the surface warms up but the total amount of heat in the
> system doesn't change."****
>
> ****
>
> Apart from being total nonsense, it really belies the source of the ABC's
> stories:****
>
> ****
>
> World English Dictionary****
>
> *glurge** * (ɡlɜːdʒ)
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> — <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> *n <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>*****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> stories, <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> often sent by email, that are supposed to be true and
> uplifting, but which are often fabricated and sentimental
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> On 21 May 2013 06:45, Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> We all moan about the falling standards in grammar these days, but
> something strange is happening. Forget the standards, as some things don’t
> even make sense.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> An ABC TV newsreader said “a high day of drama”.
> Suely, it should be “a day of high drama”? Maybe the writer was a bit
> high when they wrote this.
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> Later in the same news broadcast, we were told about thieves in Cannes who
> stole “the safe in a hotel room packed with jewels”.
> Why would anyone steal the safe when the room was packed with jewels? Now
> I am really
> confused.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> Then I relaxed with some good news as I read about “a suspected boat of 83
> asylum seekers …”
> At least the asylum seekers had been accepted as genuine and only the boat
> was a suspect. I am still wondering what would the boat be suspected of.
> Maybe someone suspected that it was a boat but wasn’t
> sure.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> Bob Trussler <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
>
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> **** <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> *
> ------------------------------
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>*
>
> ** **
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> legally privileged information and is intended only to be read or used by
> the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender by return email, delete this email and destroy any copy. Any
> use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this email by a person who is
> not the intended recipient is not authorised.
>
> Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, and are
> not necessarily the views of Transport for New South Wales, Department of
> Transport or any other NSW government agency. Transport for NSW and the
> Department of Transport assume no liability for any loss, damage or other
> consequence which may arise from opening or using an email or attachment.
>
> Please visit us at http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500
> .com.au <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
>
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> ****6 Brickhill Drive****
> Dilston, TAS 7252, ****Australia****
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543 ****
>
> ------------------------------
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> legally privileged information and is intended only to be read or used by
> the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender by return email, delete this email and destroy any copy. Any
> use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this email by a person who is
> not the intended recipient is not authorised.
>
> Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, and are
> not necessarily the views of Transport for New South Wales, Department of
> Transport or any other NSW government agency. Transport for NSW and the
> Department of Transport assume no liability for any loss, damage or other
> consequence which may arise from opening or using an email or attachment.
>
> Please visit us at http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500
> .com.au
>
>
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
Other related posts:
