Resisting Climate Hysteria

[white_goodman]

interesting to see the latest Canadian election... 1 out of 5 parties totally against climate change/carbon tax policy... win via landslide

 

[Calliope]

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.

You got that right. Gillard says global warming is man-made and she is a proven liar.

 

[basilio]

Wayne you suggest I evaluate the evidence that supports Global warming versus the evidence against it.

I have done that for 20 years. I expounded it in detail in earlier posts on ASF. I re visit it regularly at sites like Skeptical Science which painstakingly identify how people like Carter and Monkton make up information, redraw graphs and otherwise abuse scientific process to throw dust in people's eyes.

The science is not complete. It never can be or will. There will always be something extra to learn, gaps to be filled, adjustments made. But if anyone cares to read the reports I noted in previous posts the evidence is going one way and at a rapid rate of knots. Trying to perfect a Null Hypothesis argument is futile and goes against every practical approach to risk management. We rarely have full information on a subject - we almost always have to work with uncertainties and do the best we can with them.

If the debate was how do we best tackle the issue and discussing how many approaches to take and how to tackle the inevitable dislocations we could have a conversation. But I stand on what has been said repeatedly by the scientific community - the overwhelming evidence regard man induced climate change is in. Denying it is just wilful ignorance.

 

[Calliope]

I have done that for 20 years. I expounded it in detail in earlier posts on ASF. I re visit it regularly at sites like Skeptical Science which painstakingly identify how people like Carter and Monkton make up information, redraw graphs and otherwise abuse scientific process to throw dust in people's eyes.

Why do you do it? Why is it such an obsession? The usual answer from the warmists is that they want to leave a better world for their grandchildren. In your case I think it is because you like preaching to those you condescendingly call the "wilfully ignorant."

I would be interested to know how many of the ignorant you have converted in your 20 years of religious proselytising.

 

[basilio]

Your right Calliope . I do want to leave a more or less sustainable world for my grandchildren.

Probably be more constructive in this debate for you and others to try and demonstrate a strong case that shows the world is not actually warming and that excessive man produced greenhouse gases are not behaving the way they are proved to behave in repeated scientific experiments.

 

[Calliope]

Probably be more constructive in this debate for you and others to try and demonstrate a strong case that shows the world is not actually warming .

The world warms and the world cools... life goes on. Over the eons natural selection has developed species that can adapt to the changes. Perhaps we have had our day, so sit back and enjoy life while you can.

 

[Knobby22]

You got that right. Gillard says global warming is man-made and she is a proven liar.
.

I would be interested to know how many of the ignorant you have converted in your 20 years of religious proselytising.

Religion relies on faith not evidence.
Where is your evidence?

I suggest you are the one acting religously, spouting scripture in the form of snide slogans supplied to you from the forces paid to slow action on climate change for financial interests. If you are going to name call then make sure you are not implicating yourself.

The climate is a complex (in the scientific sense) system. We don't know precisely how it will act and so modelling cannot be 100% correct. We doubt! We don't have faith. We have peer reviews. We have new theories. Science is the opposite of religion.

So don't spin your slogans of denialism at us!! Your religous dogma! Provide evidence supporting what you are saying because if you don't then we have the right to just think you are just another uninformed fool who is weak minded enough to fall for propaganda.

 

[Calliope]

So don't spin your slogans of denialism at us!! Your religous dogma!

Who is "us"? It is a practice I have of trying to prick the egos of pompous know-it-alls and if you think that includes you that is your problem, not mine.

...we have the right to just think you are just another uninformed fool who is weak minded enough to fall for propaganda

Strange,:sheep: That's the category I would place your "us" in.

 

[Knobby22]

Who is "us"? It is a practice I have of trying to prick the egos of pompous know-it-alls and if you think that includes you that is your problem, not mine.
.

Is that the best answer you can provide?

Strange,:sheep: That's the category I would place your "us" in.

"Us" are people not joining your flock.

 

[explod]

The world warms and the world cools... life goes on. Over the eons natural selection has developed species that can adapt to the changes. Perhaps we have had our day, so sit back and enjoy life while you can.

Head in the sand rationalisations, blah blah blah.

Have you read the "Sixth Extinction" yet?

The change in the planets climatic conditions are different this time.

Nothing can adapt to change on the current scale that takes place in just a few generations.

 

[Calliope]

Is that the best answer you can provide?[/QUOTE}

Yep, and it works, as your response shows. I really have no interest in climate change.

"Us" are people not joining your flock.

I work solo. Not in a flock of converts like your "us" group. You worry too much about things you can do nothing about. And now you've got explod worried. He wants to include the planets in the coming holocaust.

 

[wayneL]

But I stand on what has been said repeatedly by the scientific community - the overwhelming evidence regard man induced climate change is in. Denying it is just wilful ignorance.

Another deterministic comment that is instructive.

1/ You purport that the scientific community is in total agreeance. They are not, ref Lindzon, the Pielkes et al. There are varying views on the extent and modality of man's influence on the climate, all of which are scientific in nature.

2/ You seem to purport that any dissent from the most catastrophic scenario is denial

3/ I have repeatedly stated my personal view that man has influenced climate, and that I think something like Pielke Snr's view is the most likely. Your categorization of me as a "denier", disingenuous, pious and dishonest... downright offensive actually.

4/ The evidence is not "overwhelming" at all. What is overwhelming is the propensity to arrive at the "official" Gorist conclusion, despite enormous difficulties in linking hypothesis to reality. A huge scientific non sequitur if you will.

5/ If the science is so unequivocal, there would be no need for clowns like Hansen et al to go the ad hominem route, such as he did recently here in New Zealand when asked a difficult question referencing Lindzon. He trotted out the tobacco lie... again.

6/ There is plenty of data available that DOES NOT support runaway global warming; an inconvenient truth.

 

[basilio]

Wayne, I can certainly see the possibility that some quality scientists can offer some variations on the current overwhelming scientific consensus. Pielke Snr is one such person.

But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited. What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out with many other people who have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example. Their claims are generally just rubbish but nonetheless are repeated endlessly because in this debate the intention is to create doubt and stop any firm action.

In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small. This is why the overwhelming body of current science sees a very serious problem and is pointing out the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne, I can certainly see the possibility that some quality scientists can offer some variations on the current overwhelming scientific consensus. Pielke Snr is one such person.

But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited. What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out with many other people who have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example. Their claims are generally just rubbish but nonetheless are repeated endlessly because in this debate the intention is to create doubt and stop any firm action.

In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small. This is why the overwhelming body of current science sees a very serious problem and is pointing out the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?

LOL! OK I will leave you to your opinion.

But regarding the doctors, based on my experience I would want to know what the 2 know that the other 98 don't.

 

[Knobby22]

LOL! OK I will leave you to your opinion.

But regarding the doctors, based on my experience I would want to know what the 2 know that the other 98 don't.

I reckon there will be some shock from left field with climate science at some point over the next ten years. Hopefully it will be a "nice" shock.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

It seems the alarmists are back to the "all climate scientists" believe in AGW, that I'm sure was covered months or years ago. I suspect comments made by various alarmists in Government who see a tax on 'working families' have been spouting this topic again in a desperate attempt for a 'consensus'....

Various figures from 2500 to 4000+ expert climate "scientists" have been regurgitated countless times. So, for 10 points answer this question:

So how many climate scientists actually endorsed the IPCC AR4 report?​

 

[basilio]

97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Posted on 11 May 2011 by John Cook

I was talking about climate to my dad last week (since the book launch, he will now talk to me about the subject) and I mentioned that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that humans are causing global warming. He registered great surprise at that statistic. "I thought it was more 50/50", he said. It made me realise just how good a job both the mainstream media and the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign have done in confusing the public about the scientific consensus on global warming. At the same time, I was working on a consensus graphic (cribbed from the Guide to Skepticism) for a video presentation. So as a tool for anyone wishing to communicate the scientific consensus, I've added the following infographic to the Climate Graphics resource:

The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009). As "climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change" doesn't really roll off the tongue, I abbreviated that down to "climate experts".

One feature of Doran's survey results is that while 97% of climate expert said "yes, humans are causing global warming", only 1% said "no, we're not". The other 2% were unsure:


Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)

I've indicated the "I'm not sure" portion in the "97 out of 100 climate experts" infographic with grey colouring.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Inf...erts-think-humans-causing-global-warming.html

It's worth going to the site to see the graphs.

 

[Smurf1976]

It must be remembered that taking action to reduce CO2 emissions entails unleashing a vast array of other forms of environmental destruction.

That's not something you would want to do without being certain it was necessary.

 

[ghotib]

... I really have no interest in climate change.

That might be the most revealing statement in this entire thread.

Calliope, and others who take no interest in the science of climate, why do you think you know what the scientific consensus is, let alone whether it's right or wrong?

 

[Julia]

. Your categorization of me as a "denier", disingenuous, pious and dishonest... downright offensive actually.

Agree. The implied moral highground of criticism of even agnosticism on the subject is arrogant and inappropriate.

But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited. What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out with many other people who have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example. Their claims are generally just rubbish

How do you know? Are you yourself a climate scientist? I suspect you'd have long ago made us aware if this were the case, and are rather parroting off what your idols tell you.

In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small.

Again, how can you confidently assert this? Because of the lack of willingness on the part of those who control the scientific literature to admit any dissenting voice, it's impossible to be sure of the level of dissent.

As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?

I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I' ve heard nonsense propagated by doctors simply because they've adopted the view of someone they consider superior to themselves. Any contrary view is shouted down, and quickly.
It's a silly analogy.

So how many climate scientists actually endorsed the IPCC AR4 report?[/INDENT]

Interesting. Thanks, OWG.