Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Knobby22]

I'm not going to argue the climate case as the belief system is so strong and it has been argued infinitum before.
I am just trying to put a skerrick of doubt in the minds of those accolytes of Jones and Bolt. Just a skerrick.... that they might be hearing a slightly biased view from people who are paid to tell them how to think.

 

[Ruby]

I'm not going to argue the climate case as the belief system is so strong and it has been argued infinitum before.
I am just trying to put a skerrick of doubt in the minds of those accolytes of Jones and Bolt. Just a skerrick.... that they might be hearing a slightly biased view from people who are paid to tell them how to think.

Hmmm!........... and you think that the 'other' side might not be presenting a biased view by people who are paid to tell them how to think?????

Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side. We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change. It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.

Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.

 

[Knobby22]

You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.

Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.

Just a skerrick of doubt.

 

[noco]

Hmmm!........... and you think that the 'other' side might not be presenting a biased view by people who are paid to tell them how to think?????

Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side. We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change. It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.

Spot on Ruby.

I keep emphasising the fact where Gillard and co persist in saying, if you don't believe in a carbon (dioxide) tax you are a climate change denier. What a load of rubbish.

I would say 95% of people believe in climate change, but not man made.

 

[sails]

Actually Ruby and others there is quite clear evidence that "human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming" not withstanding bullies like Alan Jones comments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

We are facing record cold weather here in Qld. Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?

 

[medicowallet]

We are facing record cold weather here in Qld. Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?

Has anyone ever seen the temp projections of

the IPCC reports

With what really happened with the temperature on them?

I mean all of the projections from the first report through.

 

[trainspotter]

We are facing record cold weather here in Qld. Shouldn't we be getting milder winters if temperatures are supposed to be warming?

Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh See ! This is what global warming is all about. It is the change in the weather as in some places will get colder whilst others get warmer. Blame CO2 gas for this conundrum. As the earths ozone warms up it creates different vortex wind currents changing the weather cycle. NOW DO YOU GET IT?

 

[Smurf1976]

Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh See ! This is what global warming is all about. It is the change in the weather as in some places will get colder whilst others get warmer. Blame CO2 gas for this conundrum. As the earths ozone warms up it creates different vortex wind currents changing the weather cycle. NOW DO YOU GET IT?

The stock market might go up tomorrow. Or it might go down. Or maybe sideways.

See, I'm right either way and can now call myself an expert at forecasting the direction of the stock market. You should hand over lots of money to me for this...

As for winter, well yes it's damn cold outside. I came home about half an hour ago and it was 10.6 degrees - that's inside the house, not out. It's warmed up to about 13 now. On a positive note, at least the mice are getting some use out of the heating I put in the mouse cage (yep, a heated mouse cage...).

 

[ghotib]

You and others have been given plenty of room to put up a case that unequivocally proves CO2 from man drives catastrophic global warming. You have failed to provide a link to a sound study that is supported by experts from all sides. Instead you sneak back to post more rubbish from a propaganda blog. Perhaps your definition of "scientific" is different to everyone else's.

Why do you believe in this green ideology Basilio? Please explain why you insist on using deceit to push an agenda or is this simply a representation of the "green" mindset? Perhaps now you can see the damage this deceit is causing to your green ideology with more people seeing thru the scam.

OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.

In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study.

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

Has anyone ever seen the temp projections of

the IPCC reports

With what really happened with the temperature on them?

I mean all of the projections from the first report through.

Yes, and I note that there are four sets of projections based on four emissions scenarios, that they go through to 2100 and that even in the highest emission scenario (the one we're actually closest to, as it happens) the fastest warming happens later in the century so that if we're noticing it now, barely a decade in, we're in even deeper trouble than the IPCC reports indicated.

That's what you meant isn't it?

Ghoti

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.

In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study.

Ghoti

Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."

 

[OzWaveGuy]

OWG, I don't understand why you expect to see one study that indisputably proves the claim you are making. No field of knowledge progresses like that. Even the big paradigm shifts are rarely the work of one person, and very often the significant papers are only identified in retrospect. Even Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.

In many ways the development of climate science is like the development of chaos theory. There's a very readable account in James Gleick's book "Chaos", which shows how individuals and groups working in apparently unrelated fields gradually came to see a deep connection between phenomena they were studying in different ways through data that included population numbers, the Red Spot on Jupiter, cotton prices, turbulence, heart rhythms, and an early computer model of weather. Similarly, the understanding that human activity is driving climate change has developed over nearly 200 years from work in fields as diverse as physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, and statistics. That's why Basilio refers to multiple lines of evidence: release of fossil carbon through human activity can explain the data from all these different fields of study. The onus is now on those who dispute this explanation to produce a better one. I hope they can do it, but I know it will require a lot more than one sound study.

Ghoti

Thanks for another useless book post, The only evidence the non-expert alarmists put up is pretty hockey sticks that seem to have convinced the green faith that CO2 drives Temp. Then use deceit to spin the usual "correlation" argument.

What about the critical hotspot 10km up? Isn't that meant to be the key finger print of CO2?

Since you cannot post links to credible scientific studies that clearly show man made gases drive temperatures, then the only thing left for you is to fall back to studies based on flawed hypothesis models.

But it doesn't stop there, please post links to credible studies that show if man was to reduce CO2 emissions by say 5%, there would be a temperature drop. Noting that man made emissions are 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's see, 5% of that 3% is a whopping 0.15% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

So we are told by the alarmists that aren't actually doing anything about "Global Warming" themselves including all the alarmists in this thread, but we must have faith in their models to save the earth for $billions, whilst the elite alarmists continue to fly their personal jets and yet see no temperature change. Yes Ghotib, the fiction you spin is truly amazing

Real Studies based on real observed evidence by real scientists please.

 

[bandicoot76]

Hear, hear. Funny how the people claiming that climate change is caused by humans have research to back their claims, but those opposing say, "No. You're wrong."

the onus is on the ppl pushing the theory to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not for those ppl unconvinced to dis-prove it.... i thought that was basic science 101? OWG is right, where's the irrefutable 'smoking gun' evidence?

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

the onus is on the ppl pushing the theory to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not for those ppl unconvinced to dis-prove it.... i thought that was basic science 101? OWG is right, where's the irrefutable 'smoking gun' evidence?

If you want it spoon-fed, here:

Exhibit A: (Picture) Simple chart

Exhibit B: (Writing) "Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity-and very little else- is warming the world's oceans.

The Scripps' report, coming from one of the world's leading ocean research institutions, may turn out to be the "smoking gun" that finally establishes the link between greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other pollutants) and the increase in temperature worldwide, or global warming.

The authors contend that their results clearly indicate that the oceans' warming is produced "anthropogenically," i.e. by human activities. The study, conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce, along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans, a Scripps bulletin stated.

The findings were reported at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held in Washington D.C. Dr. Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps, stated: "This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution." He admitted to being "stunned" by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming," he continued.

In an interview with the BBC Barnett noted that the world's oceans cover around 71 percent of the earth's surface, and that what happens in them therefore has significant consequences on the world's weather and climate. The study used advanced computer models of climate "to calculate human-produced warming over the last 40 years in the world's oceans," said Scripps' bulletin. "In all of the ocean basins, the warming signal found in the upper 700 meters predicted by the models corresponded to the measurements obtained at sea with confidence exceeding 95 percent. The correspondence was especially strong in the upper 500 meters of the water column."

The bulletin noted that it is this "high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming."

If the observations Barnett and his colleagues have identified continue, they will "produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land." Rapidly melting glaciers in South America and China could greatly reduce the amount of water available in the dry summer months. In the Western U.S. warmer conditions could fundamentally alter the snow pack upon which many Western States rely for water.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," Barnett stated. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers."

While it may be an exaggeration to say that the world's decision makers have been "dithering" over climate change, the only concrete result so far has been the Kyoto protocol, which went into force last week (See IJ Website Feb.17), at least for the countries that have signed up to it. The United States, Brazil and China are notably absent. If the Scripps report convinces those who are still unsure about the causes of global warming that it originates from greenhouse gases, the world will owe Dr. Barnett and his colleagues a great debt.

More details concerning the report and the effects of global warming can be obtained on the Scripps' Website at: http://scripps.ucsd.edu/; or on the AAAS Website at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0217warmingwarning.shtmle. For general information, see also the United Nations Environment Program Web site at: http://www.unep.org/, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm."

Exhibit C: (Movie) Watch An Inconvenient Truth

Now it's your turn.

 

[bandicoot76]

If you want it spoon-fed, here:



Exhibit C: (Movie) Watch An Inconvenient Truth

Now it's your turn.

i was going to but your 'an inconvenient truth' link has made me run to the toilet!

 

[DB008]

5 minutes on Google can produce various results...

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

i was going to but your 'an inconvenient truth' link has made me run to the toilet!

That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument.

5 minutes on Google can produce various results...

Yes it can, depending who you want to listen to.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

That's the way. Ignore the other points, take what you want and mock the person presenting the argument.

And in the same breath cannot answer the most basic question Where's the observed evidence from real scientists using observed evidence instead of corrupt models and hockey sticks? and what will the temperature drop by should the flimsy 3% from man be reduced by 5%?

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

No matter what I say now will significantly alter your views, so I'm not going to bother trying.