Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Wayne what Bridget actually says is

Correct, basically what I said she said

And guess what ? In the real world everyone with a half a brain accepts that we go on balance of probabilities, acceptable risk scenarios ect. If there is a perceived risk of a disastrous outcome well we tell people to get out of hurricance areas and so on. It is not a leap of faith just practical common sense.

And what are the best ways to reduce this risk ? That could be debated but it would be a good start to respect reality and the risks we are taking and not just heap scorn on the mountain of corroborative evidence with misdirected comments about Null hypotheses, or some fraudulent drivel as per Oz Wave Guys random quotes.

The balance of probabilities is as per the chap on the youtube above.

Look! We can invent all sorts of balance of probabilities scenarios and take all sorts of actions.

The balance of probabilities says that one day China will have economic; a.nd perhaps military and cultural hegemony over the west. We should act now, no?

Clearly, the ludicrous worst case scenarios as promulgated by Hansenites and Gorists is bunkum... scientifically dealt a death blow, with the most probable scenario not demonstrated to be negative in toto.

Meanwhile, while this sideshow persists, other things get ignored, the science surrounding such lacking in credibility because of the above clowns.

 

[bandicoot76]

Hell, I didn't know he believed in either climate change or eugenics. You don't think his position on Eugenics may have changed over 60 years?

(maybe he did have a bigger influence on Prince Charles than I thought)

prince philips eugenics position is quite well documented, when asked if he could be re-incarnated what would he come back as he replied "a virulent airborne strain of ebola virus to reduce the number of ppl on earth by 60%"

he is also co-founder and figurehead of the WWF who are major supporters of the AGW movement, funnily enough the royal family has big financial connections to BP and Rio tinto and other "global plunderer's"... talk about a foot in both camps!

 

[bandicoot76]

*1)Just found out the Holdren thing is a 2)right wing lie. Should have known.

*3)I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail. Be careful what you are told.

1) i have read alot about holdren including watching a 'home video' of a university lecture he gave about the benefits of diseases such as ebola, plague,malaria etc in reducing human population! I couldnt believe he tried to put such a positive spin on human suffering! not a nice fellow! i bet he'd change his tune if it was his family & friends dying in agony all around him!

2) i think you need to step outside the box and realise the whole 'left Vs right' political paradigm is complete bollocks, a marxist era hoax designed to keep the people divided so 'the establishment' can carry on business as usual without concern of the citizens interfering!... labor liberal national republican green democratic ...all smoking the same pole... all with their snout in the same trough. judge them all by their actions not their words and you'll soon see they are all one in the same, all just after power & money!

2) i cut, pasted & saved that onto my PC some time ago as i didnt have time to read the whole article at the time, so no sorry i dont have a link, though i believe it was an article from UK newspaper 'the guardian' but cant be certain. sorry

 

[Aussiejeff]

Meanwhile, back at the Green Dude Ranch, a Second Wave of Hysteria is being brewed to feed the hoi poloi...

Labor and the Greens have seized on a report from the government-appointed Climate Commission to ram home the need for [size=+1]urgent action on climate change.[/size]

In its first report, titled The Critical Decade, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is now even stronger.

It warns global warming could cause global sea levels to rise up to one metre by the end of the century, higher than previously thought.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the report underlines the need to "get on with it" and backs the Government's plans for a carbon tax.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/23/3224009.htm

Funny about that. At the same time it seems pertinent to review how some "resisters" have reacted to the stunning announcement in the last couple of days by the UK Gum-minters that they will set up legislation to slash CO2 emmisions by 60% by 2030 regardless of what the rest of the planet does!! And we think 5% might damage OUR economy? Check this out then for a glimpse into our Maddening Future...

Chris Huhne has done it again. No, I’m not talking about certain allegations, but about carbon emission targets. A few months ago, he was pushing the EU to raise their 20 percent reduction by 2020 to 30 percent.

Now he wants the UK to pledge a 60 percent cut on 1990 levels by 2030. This is madness on many levels -- not least because in trying to reduce emissions so quickly, he is likely to undermine the British-based companies, and the innovation from them, which might deliver this. Counter intuitive? You bet.

http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...n_british_industry_and_make_the_problem_worse

Have a luvverly day, partygoers.....

 

[Knobby22]

Yawn, that hysterical Murdoch press article is old.

The Conservative party have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions

 

[wayneL]

Yawn, that hysterical Murdoch press article is old.

The Conservative party have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions

That link doesn't work.

 

[Knobby22]

Sorry. Good link follows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions

 

[wayneL]

Sorry. Good link follows.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions

Ahem!

It's politics, not science. I should be point out (as a former member of a Lib Dem Orange Book think tank) that Chris Huhne is a Social Democrat... i.e. a member of the far left of the far left of the Lib Dems.

Geez even St Vincent was agin it.

 

[Calliope]

Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.

Chief commissioner Tim Flannery said there was no doubt any more about what was happening to the globe, saying the report's findings were based on a peer review of the latest science.

"The planet's warming, that is incontrovertible," he said. "All the data points that way, that humans are causing it, again that is incontrovertible."

A poll in today's paper says otherwise;

Are humans causing global warming?
Yes
27.7% (82 votes)
No
64.86% (192 votes)
Not sure
7.43% (22 votes)
Total votes: 296

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rees-wont-cut-it/story-e6freooo-1226060787069

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The Conservative party have agreed to do it with big business support and have Bi-partisan support with the main parties over at the old dart.

just because the conservatives support it means nothing.

Robert Mugabe is a Global Warming advocate, and turned up in Copenhagen with his sick parade of flunkies and shopaholics to shout his low carbon credentials from the sewers.

From the Globe And Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/

When you're getting lectures on “aspiring to misrule” from despot Robert Mugabe, you may conclude you've stepped through Alice's looking glass.

The gathering at Copenhagen was huge, 34,000 by some reports. A few strange outbursts would be par for the course. But Mr. Mugabe, who more or less single-handedly has brought Zimbabwe to ruin, giving the world lectures on “misrule” and deploring “arbitrary power and governance systems” – well, this is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. Zimbabwe can lay claim for a near non-existent carbon footprint only because its geriatric dictator has despoiled his country

When you have an old despot and lowlife like ole Bob on side, you need to look hard for credibility. One can drag up the good and bad to spruik the non-science of global warming, but you can't ignore the null hypothesis.

A Poeme

by Garpal Gumnut

No null, no science.
No science, no proof
Just belief
A new religion
Rapture
Sure

gg

 

[noco]

I always believed the "GAURDIAN" used to be a pro communist rag.

 

[Logique]

..http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/through-copenhagens-looking-glass/article1406080/....One can drag up the good and bad to spruik the non-science of global warming, but you can't ignore the null hypothesis.

A Poeme
by Garpal Gumnut

No null, no science.
No science, no proof
Just belief
A new religion
Rapture
Sure

gg

You never fail to amaze. I think you should be the GG, replacing 'Polly Prissy Pink' at Yarralumla.

sptrawler doubtless understands your 'poeme' wasn't a shot at him. I'm fan of ole TS myself and this works for me. Ezra Pound was there first, but eclipsed I think.

 

[basilio]

This forum is certainly full of very special people....

The capacity to dismiss and debunk the work of climate scientists around the world with an airy wave of the hand ( "it's just politics you know ....") and a poeme on the Null Hypothesis by good ol GG has to be part of a very special set of skills.

Crafted and Honed of course by those master educators Bolt, Monchton, Carter and co

For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[Julia]

Courier Mail readers think Tim Flannery is full of bullsh*t.

Why haven't journalists challenged Tim Flannery on the apparent contradiction between today his statements about utter urgency to act immediately, and his suggestion a few weeks ago that even if Australia were to act now it would make almost no difference to global temperatures for about 1000 years.
(That's from memory: if I'm slightly misquoting him, someone will correct me.)

Let's just remember that Tim Flannery is being paid by the government so of course he's going to spruik their line.

And why are so few journalists pressing for answers on the economic disadvantage that will apply to Australia if we have a carbon tax whilst the major polluters of the world do nothing?
I just can't believe that this aspect is being so little pursued.

No wonder the electorate is cynical.

 

[wayneL]

For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.

Dare I say you should follow your own advice?

 

[moXJO]

For the the rest of us mere mortals perhaps a forage into a world outside of the looking glass might be instructive.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Reading the comments from there, they seem just as divided on CC

 

[basilio]

Dare I say you should follow your own advice?

Wayne et al.. you're not speaking to me when you suggest I am being totally and completely delusional. You're saying that the vast majority of scientific community has seriously stuffed this up. That the analysis of multiple measures of world temperature changes, melting of polar ice caps, increases in ocean temperatures, changes in the biology of plants and animals around the world are all delusions or systemic and systematic fakery

I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to re evaluate evidence. It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.

But I won't humour your wilful ignorance.

__________________________________________________________

Julia, you open a discussion on the comment that Tim Flannerys suggets that Australia's contribution to reducing global warming would take hundreds of years to be apparent.

By definition any particular countries contribution to reducing total greenhouse gases is only part of the picture. You can use the same logic talking about any country and come to a similar conclusion. It doesn't change the need for a whole world approach to the problem.

There is a good analysis of this argument at the following location. The rest of the site is also worth checking out for anyone interested in the science of this debate.

Tragedy of the Commons Once Again

Their main argument seems to be becoming a favorite amongst "skeptics": "CO2 limits will make little difference." In his radio interview, Christy applied the argument to California (which is attempting to implement a carbon cap and trade system), Australia (with the aforementioned proposed carbon tax), and in his congressional testimony, to the USA:

"We’re talking about less than a hundredth of a degree [if California cuts emissions by 26% by 2016]. It’s just so miniscule; I mean the global temperature changes by more than that from day to day. So this is what we call in Alabama “spitting in the ocean”."

"On the climate front, [Australia cutting its emissions by 5% by 2020] will be imperceptible or minuscule compared to what the rest of the world is doing."

"you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html

________________________________________________________________

And just to reiterate an earlier post.



National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
Posted on 17 May 2011 by dana1981

The USA's National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) was ordered by Congress several years ago to offer “action-oriented advice” on how the nation should be reacting to the potential consequences of climate change. America's Climate Choices, the final in a series of five reports, was recently published. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts. The press release summarizes the report's basic scientific conclusions:

"The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nas-nrc-report.html

 

[Julia]

__________________________________________________________

Julia, you open a discussion on the comment that Tim Flannerys suggets that Australia's contribution to reducing global warming would take hundreds of years to be apparent.

By definition any particular countries contribution to reducing total greenhouse gases is only part of the picture. You can use the same logic talking about any country and come to a similar conclusion. It doesn't change the need for a whole world approach to the problem.

Hence the stupidity of subjecting Australia to such huge economic disadvantage by acting in the absence of the world's major emitters doing likewise.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne et al.. you're not speaking to me when you suggest I am being totally and completely delusional. You're saying that the vast majority of scientific community has seriously stuffed this up. That the analysis of multiple measures of world temperature changes, melting of polar ice caps, increases in ocean temperatures, changes in the biology of plants and animals around the world are all delusions or systemic and systematic fakery

I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to re evaluate evidence. It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.

But I won't humour your wilful ignorance.

Excuse me?

Would you like to reconsider this post to restore the remaining vestiges of both your credibility and character please?

Basilio, evidence cuts both ways. You have to consider that which supports your hypothesis; but you also have to consider that which contradicts it. Lastly, you have to consider the nature of climate science itself (as per discussion a few posts up), along with all ancillary factors and financial/funding considerations.

This is why I say you should follow your own advice, as you are singularly unwilling to do as I suggest. Because if you did, it would be totally impossible to view climate change deterministically as you do.

 

[basilio]

Interestingly enough Julia the Conservative government in Britain has now decided to legislate deep cuts in carbon emissions. Someone has to start somewhere.

But the other big move in this debate is the Pentagon. There is a good analysis of their approach in the Guardian.

US military goes to war with climate sceptics

Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon

....Enter what some might view as a counterintuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, "We must recognise that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".

For years, in fact, high-level national security officials both inside the Pentagon and in thinktank land have been acknowledging climate change is for real and that we need to take action to preserve and enhance US national security interests. The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report (pdf), "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." It noted the department of defence is actively "developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities".

CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon's urgency, writing, "Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board's perspective, presents significant risks to America's national security." The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.

This isn't a tree-hugging festival. It's the US military and its partners making clear-eyed calculations based on the best available climate science.

So, why this quiet camaraderie between scientists and military higher-ups? The answer, most certainly, is uncertainty.

Uncertainty is an inherent element of honest science. But in the political sphere, uncertainty has been harnessed as an alibi for denial and inaction. The military, however, operates under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Like scientists, they wade through the unknown to assess varying degrees of risk. As CNA Corporation put it, military leaders "don't see the range of possibilities as justification for inaction. Risk is at the heart of their job."

Climate cranks – many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security – are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...y/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism