Jake commented on sally's question: “Very true - I hate to put it so simplistically, but monsanto are evil (in the way they operate - I don't mean Satan is running the company...) (google 'monsanto evil', positive bias I know). They represent one of the worst possible outcomes of poorly-regulated capitalism.”
Jake commented on Konrad's question: “Konrad, not to put to fine a point on it, but your question bears a striking resemblance to something warm and odorous that emanates from a male bovine's posterior. To probe a little, how has an 'artificial' consensus been 'manufactured', when the consensus is based on a huge body of peer-reviewed science from scores of the most reputable journals? Oh that's right, it's 'manufactured' and 'artificial' because you don't like it or agree with it... ignorance must be bliss. For me, I think I'll stick with the scienctific process thanks, you know...”
Jake asked the question: “We are currently experiencing an extinction crisis, long-term decline in water availability, land degradation and human-induced climate change that threatens Victoria's environment. Given that some of the key Principles of Environment Protection under the EPA Act include: intergenerational equity; conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; accountability; and the precautionary principle - what more can, and needs to, be done by the EPA to achieve the purpose of the Act, namely the protection of the environment in Victoria?”
Jake commented on Simon's question: “Harry, you're really strectching to try and find any supporting evidence aren't you? You're earlier post (~6 posts back) contained links that you purported to support you're position that temperatures aren't tracking within the major earlier predictions. Regarding the first link (a blog), which tries to assess Hansen's predictions from 1988 - I would make two points: a) this is one of the earlier models and a greater degree of uncertainty would be expected, and b) I would point you to the author's limitations at the end, and particularly this...”
Jake commented on Stephen's question: “Harry, you're being misleading (yet) again - the overwhelming evidence of AGW occurring is frrom examining entire datasets, not looking at certain periods or time or certain regions. Large melting at a particular glacier in the past can have a multitude of causes, including regional temperatures higher than normal (which may or may not be correlated with global temperatures), ice colour changes due to ash or other particulates etc.. Despite the variation between some individual glaciers, it has been conclusively shown by direct observation as...”
Jake commented on harry's question: “Geoff, Harry has a recurring method of inferring or stating that the facts support his argument, when even a little searching puts the lie to the majority of his words.The only valid point raised in his four posted responses was that the carbon price doesn't directly decrease the absolute price of renewables (it reduces them in relative terms). So please don't take my silence as any form of agreement with Harry et al, rather take it as waiting in hope for valid points to be raised by deniers.”
Jake commented on Ivan's question: “Kevin, you should stop getting your maths and argumants from Alan Jones. The '3%' figure of human CO2 (not total GHG) emissions (vs natural emissions) is irrelevant and misleading - the problem is the additional CO2 equivalents put into the atmosphere by man (i.e. the '3%'), not the background rate, which is largely in balance with CO2 uptake by the ecosystem over time. The 'Australia is only responsible for 1.5%...' argument is nonsense, something you wouldn't expect to hear beyond primary school - we can only do what we can as a country, and...”
Jake commented on Daniel's question: “Bob, arguing over whether CO2 is a pollutant is semantic and misleading - it is of course necessary for plants to undertake photosynthesis, however, in rapidly accelerating quantities in the atmosphere it is being shown to be a problem (by the way, CO2 is of course generally a shorthand way of saying GHG equivalents - of course you knew that but weren't trying to obfuscate, were you...). It's GHG properties in the atmosphere are well known and understood, and even leaving the critical issue of climate change out of it, there are several pros...”
Jake commented on Simon's question: “Harry/Bob - please stop your nonsense about current temperatures tracking outside (i.e. under) modelled predictions - it is patently false, temperatures are currently tracking within most of the 'business as usual' scenarios, and the predictions of numerous early modelling efforts have been vindicated by real-world data since (including both temperatures and ice cover). And Bob, we're not going to accept your 'own mathematical calculations' 'showing' small or negative feedbacks - I think we'll go with published scientific literature just...”
Jake commented on harry's question: “Exactly Charlotte. The key point that Bob et al don't understand/won't concede is that the energy sector needs to change (relatively swiftly) - one of the key mechanisms is by pricing carbon, which increases the costs of carbon-intensive sources and decreases the costs of low-carbon sources (a market approach - but conservatives don't like it, go figure...). Therefore industry reduces the use of carbon if it wants to save money. The proposed carbon tax works on several levels in addition to this basic mechanism - 1) money raised is invested in...”
Jake commented on harry's question: “Bob L, having read some of your posts (I'll never get that time back unfortunately), I've come to the conclusion that your 'facts' are highly questionable and unsourced, your maths appears to be tracking at somewhere between a Grade 2 / 3 level (80% of 8.32W/m2 does not equal 1.05W/m2), your call to fellow 'believers' consists of a handgrab of ludicrous statements ('feedbacks are small positive or negative values', 'locking up oxygen molecules for millenia'?!?!) and your opinions waft through this comment thread dressed as 'science' and...”
Jake commented on Lou's question: “Harry, despite you using one of the favourite tools of organised deniers (i.e. try to deflect the discussion by attacking one particular element, usually methodology), I'll humour you (this information is of course easily available. Tree rings have been used for decades in analysing past temperatures, like this - annual growth rings are generally wider during warm years than cold ones. By sampling numerous trees from numerous regions, global temperatures changes over time can be assessed (these data have been compared to measurements from...”
Jake commented on Daniel's question: “An excellent question Daniel, hopefully it makes it into the top 10. Gallup polls over decades show over 40% of Americans believe in some form of creationism. Fortunately Australia is not quite as bad, unfortunately it is trending up. The general belief amongst a large portion of society that you can pick and choose your 'science' based on your idealogy is highly disturbing - Science is simply science, and results in an accumulation of evidence-based knowledge over time, leading to either the strengthening and refining of hypotheses, or their...”
