If anyone is interested, the Australian position statements on Antarctic Ice Melts are at http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=36276. I sat through the entire video presentation and thought it was very credible.
From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Richard Jones Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:27 PM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Ken, can you provide web address for the synthesis report? From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 7:48 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 5:28 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed Hands up everyone who is worried about AGW and wants to disconnect their A/C at home and work, sell their car to only catch the bus, move into a small unit, have no power hungry XBOX/PS3/gaming rig/whatever at home? *crickets* This is why we should have a tax-and-dividend policy. If you want to pollute, you have to pay to pollute, and everyone gets a rebate check (so, it’s all revenue neutral). You choose what you want to cut back on. You can either cut back a little on things that pollute a lot, or you can cut back a lot on things that don’t pollute much. Either way, the choice is yours. Its a huge discussion, but if people like Bill (who made him an expert in energy matters anyway?) start talking about miracles, then we would be best served talking about miracles that can help us now, not in 40 years when alternatives are at a level to replace our dependance on fossil fuels. Personally, I don't think we can wait that long. The merits or not of the main AGW arguments and the concomitant worrying are a whole discussion in itself - especially in light of the debacle that is IPCC AR4 and the EUA leak/hack. The IPCC AR4 isn’t a debacle. That’s hyperbole pure and simple. The entire synthesis report has to be signed off by all participating governments. That included our own sceptical Liberal government, and G W Bush, and major petroleum exporting countries. Every major scientific body (including our own CSIRO) has signed off on the synthesis report. I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling evidence. As for people who like to complain about “modelling” – I think we all agree that models aren’t perfect. But all models used need to be able to accurately model the past, and our models are constantly improving, and so is available computing power. When the AR1 came out, we had roughly 200Mhz machines on our desktops. Now we have multi-core Ghz machines, and correspondingly so has our ability to deliver more sophisticated models. And this will continue for the foreseeable future. Some models are have source code available, so you are able to go see yourself what you might think are the problems with them. But whatever quibbles we have along the edges, they all predict an outcome that isn’t a status quo, or a cooling. Cheers Ken
