Resisting Climate Hysteria

[tothemax6]

A good explanation of the "Trick to hide the decline" email that was the core to Climategate with a segue into Dr Mullers BEST program. Some annoying use of imagery in here but it is well explained in layman's terms.

Its a lot easier to take a video seriously when he is using neutral intonation. When he sounds from word one like he thinks he is so clever, and that his targets are stupid children, one tends to just turn the video off.

Yes, there are plenty of loons out there, and Glen Beck is certainly one of them. However, the fact remains that the climate brigade are focused with tunnel-vision on possible disaster scenarios, and refuse to consider the economic damage their policies would cause.

I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough. They are looking like 'the bad guy', and they are not convincing the public that it is in fact the Left that are 'the bad guys'. As always, the Right always sound like they are on the defensive, and the Left are slugging away. Its time the Right got their act together and fought back.

 

[ghotib]

.... The AGW alarmist's world is fast unraveling

You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got.

Ghoti

It's why alarmists should admit defeat on the ruse of runaway global warning and turn to real environmental problems.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

You're right. Sadly it's only world any of us have got.

Ghoti

This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.

 

[tothemax6]

This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.

Tasty video, thanks for that

 

[Julia]

I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough.

Who are you referring to when you say "The Right"?
If you're meaning the Opposition here in Australia, then I think Abbott and co. are indeed doing a good job of pointing out the adverse implications on the lives of ordinary people a carbon tax would have. And as far as I can tell, they are largely avoiding attacking 'the science'.
They have been noting in detail the rise in electricity prices in particular that will occur with a carbon tax, plus increases in price in everything else due obviously to electricity being involved in pretty much the production of all we consume.

What more, specifically, would you have them do?

 

[ghotib]

It's why alarmists should admit defeat on the ruse of runaway global warning and turn to real environmental problems.

Runaway global warning? Wassat???

Don't you think that the number of present and impending problems need solutions that address more than one problem at a time.

 

[ghotib]

This is a good summary of the Global Warming scam by Dr David Evans. Ghoti as you clearly think that the Climate Establishment is on your side and their efforts of taxation will "save the world" you can fast fwd to the end of the talk to 13:04 - the message here is simple.

I'm on wobbly wireless broadband and I can't get the video to play past 4:53, so I don't know what the simple message is. From the short section I did see, I recognised some points from Dr Evans' recent article in the Wall St. Journal, where he reproduced a number of ancient myths and misunderstandings of climate science. I don't know if this talk includes every mistake he made there, but they are explained in this article at the Skeptical Science website.

Governments set taxes and I don't see much evidence that any Australian government is a Climate Establishment. Nor do I think that taxation will save the world. The world is not at risk. It will keep rolling around the Sun even if humans change the conditions on the world to such an extent that we wipe out ourselves and 90% of the other species we share it with. Taxation is one tool that might help prevent that.

Sometimes it seems that people think the choice is between paying for carbon (specifically fossil carbon) and carrying on as usual. If that really is the choice then of course there's no point in any carbon pricing mechanism. The trouble is that carrying on as usual leads to enormous costs when the effects of a climate that human civilisation has never known start to overwhelm us. The most obvious at the moment might be food shortages, but how many times can an economy cope with floods such as the recent ones in Queensland, Pakistan, or the Mississippi valley?

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

Who are you referring to when you say "The Right"?
If you're meaning the Opposition here in Australia, then I think Abbott and co. are indeed doing a good job of pointing out the adverse implications on the lives of ordinary people a carbon tax would have. And as far as I can tell, they are largely avoiding attacking 'the science'.
They have been noting in detail the rise in electricity prices in particular that will occur with a carbon tax, plus increases in price in everything else due obviously to electricity being involved in pretty much the production of all we consume.

What more, specifically, would you have them do?

Face the facts of a disrupted global climate and help voters do the same.

I wish the government would do that too.

Ghoti

 

[Smurf1976]

Face the facts of a disrupted global climate and help voters do the same.

I wish the government would do that too.

Ghoti

Indeed. There is no realistic chance that CO2 emissions are going to do anything other than continue to rise and that situation is well out of Australia's hands. As such, the only rational domestic policy is to plan to adapt to the consequences.

 

[Logique]

Agree completely.

The operation of the free market, reviled by so many in the left-leaning compassion fatigued commentariat, suddenly becomes the vehicle of choice in the carbon crusade.

Surely an admission that their own methods have failed.

 

[joea]

Its a lot easier to take a video seriously when he is using neutral intonation. When he sounds from word one like he thinks he is so clever, and that his targets are stupid children, one tends to just turn the video off.

Yes, there are plenty of loons out there, and Glen Beck is certainly one of them. However, the fact remains that the climate brigade are focused with tunnel-vision on possible disaster scenarios, and refuse to consider the economic damage their policies would cause.

I think the Right have this all wrong. The people they are attacking have their entire careers invested in climate science - how do they think they can compete on the scientific front? The Right needs to be critical of the science, point out uncertainty in the theories etc, sure. But they should be investing the other 50% of their time explaining in detail what the direct effects of anti-climate-change policies would have on peoples lives. They are not doing this nearly enough. They are looking like 'the bad guy', and they are not convincing the public that it is in fact the Left that are 'the bad guys'. As always, the Right always sound like they are on the defensive, and the Left are slugging away. Its time the Right got their act together and fought back.

You make a point of saying the anti-climate-change policy's should be explained.

Can you please show us where Combet and Gillard have clearly explained on paper(not through the media), how the carbon tax actually helps reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[wayneL]

Runaway global warning? Wassat???

That is what is colloquially referred to as a typo, short for typographical error. But I am certain that you knew that but was indulging in some pathetic nitpicking over insignificances. (There, you can nitpick my grammar as well )

Don't you think that the number of present and impending problems need solutions that address more than one problem at a time.

Yes, so long as the problems are real and worth addressing.

 

[ghotib]

That is what is colloquially referred to as a typo, short for typographical error. But I am certain that you knew that but was indulging in some pathetic nitpicking over insignificances. (There, you can nitpick my grammar as well )

Thank you. I'll let the disagreeable verb pass, and merely remind you that the professional wordsmith's abbreviation for typographical error is tupo. And I liked yours so much I thought it might have been deliberate. If it wasn't then I must assume that you were being either mischievous or alarmist in referring to runaway global warming. That was Venus. Earth is not Venus.

Yes, so long as the problems are real and worth addressing.

Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem. Repairing water and soil degraded by industry and industrial agriculture is a gargantuan problem. Ending the stream of non-degradeable plastics into the oceans and finding practical ways to get the stuff out again, not to mention restoring the historical chemistry of the oceans, is profoundly difficult problem. Solutions to all of those go along with ending carbon emissions. That enough for starters?

 

[wayneL]

If it wasn't then I must assume that you were being either mischievous or alarmist in referring to runaway global warming. That was Venus. Earth is not Venus.

Ahem!

Alarmists use the term "runaway global warming" very often in reference to earth:

For example, from the Socialist Fabian Daily: "If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said.

More here http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=runaway+global+warming

Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem. Repairing water and soil degraded by industry and industrial agriculture is a gargantuan problem. Ending the stream of non-degradeable plastics into the oceans and finding practical ways to get the stuff out again, not to mention restoring the historical chemistry of the oceans, is profoundly difficult problem. Solutions to all of those go along with ending carbon emissions. That enough for starters?

While pushing an obvious ruse, people will not listen, IOW environmentalists are addressing this the wrong way round. People who believe in AGW think they're helping by buying Toyota Piouses and mercury laden "eco" bulbs; while not really helping with carbon emissions they add profoundly to pollution.

Kinda dumb if you ask me.

Yes carbon emissions will drop in response to addressing these other problems, but as this is not a primary problem, the effect will not be noticeable.

A cleaner more sustainable world will be.

 

[mccollr]

Found this interesting ......



Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.



Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress, that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus ''human-caused'' climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention ''Global Warming'' any more, but just ''Climate Change'' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme (that whopping new tax)
imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

 

[derty]

bla bla bla

You have just pasted up a viral email that has been doing the rounds for a year or so.

It's bunkum. Look here, here, and here.

The reduction in CO2 from the aircraft grounded by the eruption was greater than the amount of CO2 emitted by the volcano during the grounding period. Look here.

Plimer was shown to be wrong in his statements regarding volcanic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

From the US Geological Survey: Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well yes. Replacing oil is a doozy of a problem.

To the extent that some suggest shifting from coal to gas for electricity generation so as to cut CO2, they are making any solution to the oil problem dramatically harder given that gas is really all we've got in that regard.

That's one of my major objections to the various proposals to cut CO2 emissions - they seek to use up the world's gas resources at a truly shocking rate, thus depriving future generations not only of natural gas as a fuel but also of the by-products such as helium.

A more rational approach in my opinion would be to focus on reducing fossil fuel use as such, thus achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions and the other side effects of fossil fuel use without creating an incentive to squander all the gas.

 

[bandicoot76]

You have just pasted up a viral email that has been doing the rounds for a year or so.

It's bunkum. Look here, here, and here.

The reduction in CO2 from the aircraft grounded by the eruption was greater than the amount of CO2 emitted by the volcano during the grounding period. Look here.


Plimer was shown to be wrong in his statements regarding volcanic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

From the US Geological Survey: Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

i would take the word of a world-renowned vulcanoligist/geologist like professor ian plimer over a bunch of self serving, talking-head twats anyday...

none of the b/s, theory/modelling based info/links you post on here explains the practical realities of whats really happening in the 'real world' (confirmed by the satellite global temperature measurements) showing the earths temp has levelled off if not slightly decreased in the past decade. you keep posting B/S links from B/S sources that are about as reliable/truthfull as mann's hockeystick...

reading your posts you remind me of a spanish inquisition priest, so certain of your position you refuse to accept any other possibilities preferring blind faith & dogma over reason & sceptical thinking... well keep the faith brother derty... your gunna need it once ppl realise AGW/CC is all just one big money grabbing con! :

p/s: since you like your little links so much heres one for you to 'put on the rack'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjCjEH7X_MA&feature=youtube_gdata

 

[derty]

i would take the word of a world-renowned vulcanoligist/geologist like professor ian plimer over a bunch of self serving, talking-head twats anyday...

I am a geologist myself. I liked Plimer's work against the creationists. But he did become a bit obsessive during the process. He can also be quite dogmatic. The Mt Isa area has been subject to a widespread and voluminous Na-Ca metasomatic alteration event and even with the isotopic, stratigraphic, chemical and textural evidence in support of the event Plimer refused to budge from his existing theory that the rocks were evaporites. His global warming book has some very sloppy science in it, the claim that volcanic CO2 dwarfs human emissions being just one of them. He has been asked to justify many aspect of his book but to date has refused to do so. Criticisms of his book aren't limited to climate scientists, former geological colleagues of his have also been scathing.

none of the b/s, theory/modelling based info/links you post on here explains the practical realities of whats really happening in the 'real world' (confirmed by the satellite global temperature measurements) showing the earths temp has levelled off if not slightly decreased in the past decade. you keep posting B/S links from B/S sources that are about as reliable/truthfull as mann's hockeystick...

Which b/s theory/modelling links have I posted? Most journal papers are behind pay walls so if one is to provide a link the only option is often to an article that discusses a paper.

The temperature does appear to have flattened off somewhat over the last decade (ignoring 1998). The surface and satellite data agree coincide on this. However, the last decade contains 9 of the 10 hottest years since the 1880's so one can hardly say it is getting cooler when you look at decadal trends.




As for Mann's hockey stick, if it was just the tree ring proxy data that displayed it then there might be a case. But as the hockey stick anomaly is supported by multiple non-tree ring proxies it does tend to throw weight behind it.

reading your posts you remind me of a spanish inquisition priest, so certain of your position you refuse to accept any other possibilities preferring blind faith & dogma over reason & sceptical thinking... well keep the faith brother derty... your gunna need it once ppl realise AGW/CC is all just one big money grabbing con! :

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. I always try to remain rational and refrain from accusatory language. I think the science is largely correct. Sure there are uncertainties but in science things are rarely black and white, especially when this complex. I generally avoid referencing predictive models and prefer to just look at what the trends are. And the trend is that of a warming Earth and the current understanding of the physical dynamics of the Earth by the bulk of the scientific community cannot account for the warming without considering CO2.

As for the religious accusations. I tend to see it the other way. Especially when you keep seeing the same old debunked objections being trotted out as fact. Faith is continuing to believe the proclamations of discredited charlatans such as Monckton et.al. I stick a lot of the 'denialsphere' up on the shelf with the Flat Earthers and Creationists. Sure there is some good critical work going on and it serves to ensure that the science is more precise and robust but most of it is just ideological driven people with little to no real understanding of what they are talking about regurgitating tired old memes.

However, before you pop a blood vessel. I think the apocalyptic doom-spreaders are just as guilty as those above.

I'm not sure why that because I largely think the science is correct it is assumed that I am automatically a card carrying greenie pinko.

p/s: since you like your little links so much heres one for you to 'put on the rack'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjCjEH7X_MA&feature=youtube_gdata

I prefer to support my statements with references rather than make unsubstantiated claims.

You might be surprised that I agree with most of the utube clip. He supports AGW, doesn't think that there is any realistic way we will be able to cut emissions and effect the temperature, that we are locked into a projected rise even with a cut in emissions and that the whole process is now politicised and perverted. Cheers