i don't drive Secong - public transport is good enough for me

the world is changing folks

thought as much womble hence your eagerness for higher taxation of everyone else whilst you are smug in your inner city life,  unfortunately OZ is a vast country where public transport is nowhere near good enough for the majority of the population.....yes like is changing womble its a 24/7 world...public transport will never be able in our country to be adequate

impossible to adequately supply public transport for the majority due to the vast open spaces....you cant have trains/buses going here there and everywhere on demand 24/7 with 3 people in at time....would actually add to carbon emissions... I don't mind paying tax either just that it needs to spent a lot better and most definitely better than the last 6 years of waste....

there will always be a need for cars in some places MOST PLACES IN OZ WOMBLE!
, we should have better public transport in the cities though - AGREE WITH THAT

do you consider taking away the carbon tax but not taking away the compensation (i.e. associated pension increases and tax decreases) sensible???

probs not but the carbon tax premise is fake......and politically you would have burnt yourself by taking it away

OMG its raining again up here, I thought it would never ever rain again....apparently
...but luckily things just normal

TB


the powers that run the co2 scam are not saying stop it - they are saying trade it  ffs

BIGGEST RORT EVER

I'd suggest you come up and smell the roses womble , not sure how you are breathing under all that sand

BIGGEST RORT EVER

Climate Change denial is like saying there is no consensus that cigarette smoking is harmful.

FACT    97% of Climate Scientists have PROVEN IT beyond reasonable doubt.

Yet you believe in the Vested interests of the deniers.

Get over your doubt and believe the people that study in the field.

otherwise it's just made up BS

google not your friend today AFL?

How about you post the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that conclude that there is no consensus and that the human impact on Climate

Change is minimal or even non-existent.


I think there has been three published in decades of study and each one has been rebutted by the majority.



Now why would the DENIERS not submit peer reviewed papers ????

Ohh that's right .....because they prefer to use the compliant media to promote doubt....with-out proof and prefer to use this

method because their scientific arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

Climate change on earth is significantly affected by the changing 11 year solar magnetic cycles, according to Friends of Science and many solar and climate researchers. A recently released NASA video, complete with animation explaining the process wherein the sun’s magnetic poles flip polarity, lends credence to the scientific position Friends of Science takes on climate change and global warming

What the DENIERS SAY

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."



WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS...

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data.  They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

Table 1: Trends in  °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

table 3

Figure 7

Figure 2: Influence of exogenous factors on global temperature for GISS (blue) and RSS data (red). (a) MEI; (b) AOD; (c) TSI.

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming.  Those studies find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 3).

solar attribution

Figure 3: Solar contribution to global warming according to various peer-reviewed attribution studies.  The studies are Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, blue), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, green), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, purple).
Other studies on solar influence on climate

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

    Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

    Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

    Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

    Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

    Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

    Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

    Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

    Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

    Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

    Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

    Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.

    Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

    Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

    Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

    Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."

    Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

    Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

    Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

    Schurer 2013 finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.

YOUR..

bunkum afl



We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.



Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².

So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.

The survey is titled:

Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹

Abstract

Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.

From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.

The introduction says:

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).

So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:
◾Yes: Mostly human
◾Yes: Equally human and natural
◾Yes: Mostly natural
◾Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
◾Yes: Don’t know cause
◾Don’t know if global warming is happening
◾Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

BIGGEST RORT EVER

its the SUN stoopid