2011-04-16 00:29:22CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Here.

 

I see James W has entered this into a new rebuttal, but I can't find it.  And even so, I'm not sure how to chop this down or what level it would be, or if it would even work.  I think it works as a blog post on it's own though.  I'll let John or Dana sort that out and let me know what to do.  

2011-04-16 01:50:40comments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Nice, grypo.  Comments:

"The argument is about preventing the climate from changing more than we are already have, and prevent more change than already committed to through unrealized energy and carbon in the ocean." => I would re-frame this to "the choice is between continued warming and climate change to ever-more dangerous levels, or slowing and eventually stopping warming of temperatures at hopefully safe levels."  Something like that, feel free to re-word.

That's all I got, very clear basic rebuttal othewise.  I added the argument to the list as #181 so you can claim it.

2011-04-16 03:30:48
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Thanks.  Made the changes.  I'll also work on making this a rebuttal.  It's a weird rebuttal because the argument itself is correct, It's just not at all relevant.  Well, in fact, it actually should promote exactly the opposite of what Bolt and Abbott are using it for.

2011-04-16 09:34:34
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.145.235.170

This gets my vote!

2011-04-16 16:41:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.43.85

grypo,

As stated in the "Basic" thread, I think it is too complicated.

2011-04-18 22:59:58
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
98.191.11.162

Okay, I've adjusted this to be like the work you helped me with on the basic rebuttal and turned it into a blog post.  Much appreciated on both sides.

2011-04-19 04:34:01
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.165.122

One typo: "Parliament" not "Parliment"

Abbott: And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years. What a misleading statement! 

A metaphor that might help in explaining this is the distinction between national debts and annual budget deficits. Reducing a budget deficit to zero will not pay down the debt. But continuing to run annual deficits will certainly increase the national debt.

2011-04-19 06:34:19IPCC figure
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'd recommend using the IPCC temp projection figure:

Figure: Global surface temperature projections for IPCC Scenarios. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is  constant CO2 concentrations at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range.  (Source: IPCC).

That way people can see the difference between taking action to reduce emissions (i.e. Scenario A1T where we transition away from fossil fuels and CO2 emissions peak in 2040) and A1F1, where we continue relying on fossil fuels like Abbott wants.  In A1T, warming slows down and eventually stops.  In A1F1, it just keeps going up and up.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one pretty much sums up the point of the post.

2011-04-19 11:29:56
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Added.  plus link to emissions scenario explanantions.

2011-04-19 20:00:07
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

Looks good. Maybe the figure is a bit to large?

2011-04-20 03:08:01
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Thanks, I shrunk that down.  

2011-04-20 03:11:39scheduled
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I put this one on the schedule for tomorrow afternoon.  Make sure you put it into the basic rebuttal so we can link to it.

2011-04-20 06:00:36
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Okay, done.

 

Here is the link if you need it:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/arg_list.php?Action=Preview&r=369

 

Also, I am unable to edit the skeptic argument part, soeone will need to put something in there, ie...

The Skeptic Argument...

CO2 limits will not cool the planet

"So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."  (source:  Tony Abbott)

2011-04-20 06:21:01done
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

All set grypo, and I also added a link to it at the bottom of your post.

2011-04-20 09:33:25Cross post this on STW
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

Steve Lewandowsky is interested in reposting this on shapingtomorrowsworld.org - grypo, are you okay with this? If so, there is a catch as Dana learnt - we need a bio and photo.

2011-04-20 09:41:10
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Sorry, not in a position where I can do that for employment and personal reasons.  Wish that wasn't the case.  Not at this time.  But Neal helped with this and contributed enough to take credit.  Or anyone can take the byline.

I do appreciate getting noticed.

2011-04-20 19:23:37
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.39.58

Hmm, I am happy to help to shape the logic, but to be honest, I do not feel knowledgeable enough about the facts to want to pin on my name as author. In my book, that would translate to being willing to engage in a spirited defense of everything said in the article, and I don't feel that I have sufficient knowledge.

John, perhaps you can stand in as "leading a group" that generated this analysis?

2011-04-20 19:40:08SkS group
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92
What if on the STW website, we have a user/author "Skeptical Science" (with the logo as the photo... Or the penguin :-)

And the bio can talk about how SkS is a community of bloggers, scientists, students and laypersons who collaborate together to communicate climate change issues. Any thoughts on what the bio should say?

2011-04-20 20:26:15
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Good idea John.  

2011-04-21 01:21:18bio
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's a good idea.  The bio can give a little site history, i.e. John ran SkS from X to Y and then created the community of authors (bloggers, scientists, students and laypersons) to help contribute content to the site.  The main purpose is to create the database of climate myth rebuttals, but we also respond to "skeptic" errors in the media and in testimony to policymakers.  More recently we've begun to examine the science behind climate change solutions.  Something like that.