Resisting Climate Hysteria

[InvisbleInvestor]

It does not have to be done by anyone.

Onus of proof is on the theorist.

Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.

 

[drsmith]

In the context of pricing carbon dioxide:

It is up to the proponents of carbon pricing to demonstrate that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming, not anybody else.

It is not up to anybody else to disprove the above.

 

[Ruby]

I think so. How would you go about testing a hypothesis such as "Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming."?

I am not a climate scientist so I can't answer that question.

However, climate scientists and scientists in many related fields (geology, oceanology, etc) are constantly testing this hypothesis. For example, they collect temperature data from thousands of weather satellites, balloons, buoys; they collect ice core samples from glaciers; and cores from the ocean bed.......... and on and on. Hundreds of small and large observational tests are constantly being done and the empirical data collected. This is the proof by which scientific theories stand or fall, and so far, the empirical data has not given the results the hypothesis expected. So the hypothesis has not been proven correct.

The two parts of the hypothesis are:-
1. That human CO2 emissions are causing gobal warming, and
2. That the warming is dangerous

So far, neither has been proven. In fact, the global temperature may even be cooling at present.

It is very difficult to relinquish long-held and cherished opinions, but if a hypothesis fails rigorous testing, then it must be discarded.

I hope this answers your question - albeit in a rather round-about way.

 

[Ruby]

Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.

No, it is not just a theory. If you had studied any physics you wouldn't ask that question.

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

No, it is not just a theory. If you had studied any physics you wouldn't ask that question.

No I haven't studied any physics, so that explains that!

 

[wayneL]

Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.

Gravity is:

1/ Observable
2/ predictable
3/ measureable

Unfortunately the AGW hypoguessis is none of the above

 

[wayneL]

Here's another sceptic obviously in Big Oil employ

Fossils Uncover A Different Take On Climate Change

When he began his PHD studying fossils and climate change, Dr Geoff Deacon had no idea his area of expertise would become as topical, political and controversial as it is today...

..."In the aspect of anthropogenic global warming I'm a sceptic and proud...I would argue that every scientist is actually a sceptic," Dr Deacon says.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The alarmist in this thread continue to deflect the issue that's top of mind - Present the evidence that confirms the CO2 warming hypothesis. It's becoming obvious that after weeks of asking the same question we are shown no credible evidence, but simply told to believe the their faith. Do the alarmists also use the same logic when investing in the stock market by believing what they are told? Perhaps.

The alarmists here continue to flat line at zero credibility, but I'm kinda amused by the fact you guys front up with another "book" post of zero evidence thinking it's a game changer each time. Some professions would call it delusional.

Here's some observed evidence v's the IPCC "to big to fail" model predictions, but feel free to start another "book" post, and I'll follow up with my apparently unanswerable simple questions that $80B+ investment hasn't been able to uncover.

 

[Sean K]

I agree with averaging things but,

The best start to a ski season in 20 years.

HUH?



Is that global warming caused by carbon?

 

[trainspotter]

Just to help derail the thread, what about gravity? Not attempting to be smart-alecky but isn't it just a theory? Just because there is no better one doesn't make it correct, or incorrect for that matter.

Go jump off a tall building and test the theory. Gravity is real alright.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Einsteins Theory of Gravity is something else all together and is to deal with the unknown mechanations of space and time.

 

[Knobby22]

The alarmist in this thread continue to deflect the issue that's top of mind - Present the evidence that confirms the CO2 warming hypothesis. It's becoming obvious that after weeks of asking the same question we are shown no credible evidence, but simply told to believe the their faith. Do the alarmists also use the same logic when investing in the stock market by believing what they are told? Perhaps.

The alarmists here continue to flat line at zero credibility, but I'm kinda amused by the fact you guys front up with another "book" post of zero evidence thinking it's a game changer each time. Some professions would call it delusional.

Here's some observed evidence v's the IPCC "to big to fail" model predictions, but feel free to start another "book" post, and I'll follow up with my apparently unanswerable simple questions that $80B+ investment hasn't been able to uncover.

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.


2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.


Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.

 

[Knobby22]

Here's another sceptic obviously in Big Oil employ

Fossils Uncover A Different Take On Climate Change

I agree, all good scientists are skeptics and that bloke is a scientist.
All scientists will be skeptical on the modelling, all scientists knowthey don't understand or even know all the drivers of global warming, much less understand exactly all the feedbacks (positive and neagitive) that are occurring.

The same goes however for the deniers. How can you be so certain that there is nothing in it. I appreciate the skeptics in this thread and their opinions but the deniers who quote tainted sources who have been proven liars and just discount everything by saying all the scientists are in a giant conspiracy just come across as closed minded fools to me.

I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.

And if anyone here says that there is NO WAY that man can effect the environment as I have seen on this thread, then I reserve the right to think (privately) of that person as a closed mind idiot.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

Yes, you're correct, the IPCC continuously demonstrates misleading propaganda in their material.

 

[drsmith]

An open mind is one thing.

A tax is quiet another.

 

[InvisbleInvestor]

An open mind is one thing.

A tax is quiet another.

As opposed to a loud another

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.

Er, don't be hysterical, don't have closed minds, it's a weakness of human condition. Excuse me for pointing this out, you and the rest of the alarmists have played out these "human conditions" to the letter in this thread.

None of you are asking your Gaia priests the very same questions on observed evidence and the actual impact of reducing man's contribution of 3% of CO2 to world's temperatures. Instead you blindly follow and regurgitate the rubbish spewed by the climate establishment and now claim to "keep an open mind". This sounds incredibly hypocritical to me

Many others here have pointed to real environmental concerns that are causing real issues, yet the alarmists are silent on these and continue to think CO2 plant food is the enemy. You forgot "delusional" as one of the human conditions

 

[Knobby22]

Er, don't be hysterical, don't have closed minds, it's a weakness of human condition. Excuse me for pointing this out, you and the rest of the alarmists have played out these "human conditions" to the letter in this thread.

None of you are asking your Gaia priests the very same questions on observed evidence and the actual impact of reducing man's contribution of 3% of CO2 to world's temperatures. Instead you blindly follow and regurgitate the rubbish spewed by the climate establishment and now claim to "keep an open mind". This sounds incredibly hypocritical to me

Many others here have pointed to real environmental concerns that are causing real issues, yet the alarmists are silent on these and continue to think CO2 plant food is the enemy. You forgot "delusional" as one of the human conditions

I am not excusing either side of bias.

OK, so you are 100% certain that there is no global warming and that even if there is that its not caused by humans?

(I'm not 100% certain on either that it is true but I think the evidence points that this is likely.)

 

[wayneL]

I agree, all good scientists are skeptics and that bloke is a scientist.
All scientists will be skeptical on the modelling, all scientists knowthey don't understand or even know all the drivers of global warming, much less understand exactly all the feedbacks (positive and neagitive) that are occurring.

The same goes however for the deniers. How can you be so certain that there is nothing in it. I appreciate the skeptics in this thread and their opinions but the deniers who quote tainted sources who have been proven liars and just discount everything by saying all the scientists are in a giant conspiracy just come across as closed minded fools to me.

I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.

IOW the science ISN'T settled?

Lo!!

 

[Julia]

I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:

i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?

Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?

Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?

Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.

I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.

Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?

 

[trainspotter]

I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:

i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?

Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?

Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?

Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.

I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.

Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?

The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-

"Phytoplankton grow faster in a cool ocean and slower in a warm one," said Siegel. "The scary part is that the oceans are warming now ---- probably caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide."

These microscopic plants are predicted to grow even slower in the warmer oceans of the future. This in turn will reduce the food available to fish and other organisms, including marine birds and mammals, which are supported by the ocean's food chain. Phytoplankton are responsible for about the same amount of photosynthesis each year as all the plants on land combined.

Another disturbing result of reduced phytoplankton is that our atmosphere depends on the consumption of atmospheric carbon dioxide by these plants. Reduced phytoplankton means less carbon dioxide is taken up by the ocean, which could speed global warming, contributing to a vicious cycle of increased warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm

Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record.

Really ??? So much for that theory then !