Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Had read about ice core samples from Antartica some years ago and lucky enough to find a reference to it today.

And yes I know most do not think a carbon tax is the way to go, I do not know myself but this thread is about the hysteria surrounding the possibilities of climate change. I have feelings of concern as having grown up in the bush I feel very close to the natural world and also from the stories of my Father and Grandfather know how fickle small changes to seasons are on cropping and livestock. Suppose I am just some sort of Anecdotalist maybe as well as in the naughty corner.

Anyway I am sure some bod has done some recognised research to discredit these findings but they seem okay to me. In fact by the venom that has emerged on this thread, (and beyond my IQ to comprehend and respond to in the way that seems to be desired) I am sure a lot of oil and coal dollars were spent to bring this one down too.

Anyway enjoy: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7644

 

[basilio]

Any luck in finding observed evidence Basilio? Or will you simply continue to paste "fascinating" articles without actually answering the real questions CO2 impacting climate?

Will any of the alarmists step up with any credible information? Or do we have to endure pointless blog articles to make us feel afraid of storms and weather.

Ozwave guy for 16749th time

Just so we understand each other Ozzie. I have repeatedly posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming. The fact is that you either can't understand english (not true of course..) or point blank refuse to take any notice of any information that doesn't fit your point of view. Solutions to these issues are entirely in your hands and I refuse waste any more time on it.

So how about putting your xxxxxxx drum away and coming up with something more insightful to say ?

__________________________________________________________

The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas. In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.

The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem) and the Amercian armed forces.

 

[wayneL]

The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas. In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.

The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem) and the Amercian armed forces.

"You all should be like schizoid and cave in to AGW propaganda so we can all hold hands and say OMMMM" is hardly conciliatory basilio, particularly while mouthing erroneous bullcrap like 98% of scientists blah blah blah (which has been dealt with before).

It was more like an ambit claim.

 

[explod]

"You all should be like schizoid and cave in to AGW propaganda so we can all hold hands and say OMMMM" is hardly conciliatory basilio, particularly while mouthing erroneous bullcrap like 98% of scientists blah blah blah (which has been dealt with before).

It was more like an ambit claim.

Some clarifiication ole pal. What is AGW ? and if not clear the propaganda?

What was erroneous in Basilios post ?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Ozwave guy for 16749th time

Just so we understand each other Ozzie. I have repeatedly posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming. The fact is that you either can't understand english (not true of course..) or point blank refuse to take any notice of any information that doesn't fit your point of view. Solutions to these issues are entirely in your hands and I refuse waste any more time on it.

So how about putting your xxxxxxx drum away and coming up with something more insightful to say ?

__________________________________________________________

The reason I put up my earlier posts were to attempt to take the discussion into more conciliatory areas. In particular I thought the Schizoid blog offered some insights from a person who until now been quite skeptical of GW but has reviewed his opinion in the light of objective evidence.

The fact that he is pretty conservative person doesn't mean he can't evaluate the research around GW and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem) and the Amercian armed forces.

Maybe my ongoing requests were structured in such a complex way that the alarmists have failed to properly understand the core questions, perhaps from the distracting fear of weather. Lets try to make this as simple as possible:

Question 1: Observed evidence please. Link to study supported by all climate scientists and contains observed evidence of a atmospheric hot spot solely due to man's 3% contribution of CO2 gas. (btw Observed evidence doesn't mean "model", just so we're sure on the definition basilio - perhaps this is where your confusion lies)

Question 2: What will the global temperature drop by should man reduce CO2 emissions by 5% and 100% (take your pick)? Again link to study supported by all climate scientists

So far I'm the recipient of many "fascinating" articles from propaganda blogs that asks everyone to simply believe man's 0.00112% addition to the atmosphere = end of days because a failed hockey stick says so.

I'll reserve my supplementary question on the topic of linear v's logarithmic CO2 impact to temperature when we get past the first 2.

Simple enough.

 

[wayneL]

Some clarifiication ole pal. What is AGW ? and if not clear the propaganda?

You're asking me what AGW is?

Anthropogenic Global Warming

What was erroneous in Basilios post ?

One example - 98% of scientists agree on AGW.

 

[explod]

You're asking me what AGW is?

Anthropogenic Global Warming

"Human impact on the environment". Good. Do you think we we are having an impact?

One example - 98% of scientists agree on AGW.

Okay we are getting somewhere. So it is only 2% supported by the oil and coal companies .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

 

[wayneL]

"Human impact on the environment". Good. Do you think we we are having an impact?




Okay we are getting somewhere. So it is only 2% supported by the oil and coal companies .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

What?

This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.

Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.

 

[trainspotter]

What?

This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.

Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.

What's a duscussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Make of it what you will.

 

[Julia]

What's a duscussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?.

That's quite enough of that ridicule, TS. There are some sensitive little Kiwi souls out here. You may not be unkind to us.

 

[trainspotter]

That's quite enough of that ridicule, TS. There are some sensitive little Kiwi souls out here. You may not be unkind to us.

Aaaaaaaaaaah yes ..... a bit below the belt on that one. I reckon after the hammering Christchurch has had of late the sensitivity meter would be off the richter scale. Pun intended.

CSIRO website I posted has some magnificent detail about it as well. Interesting to note they have distanced themselves of any climatic assumptions and have positioned themselves right in the middle of Switzerland.

 

[wayneL]

What's a duscussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?

Hahah! Good typo pickup TS. But with your PM, glass houses come to mind.

OT trivia - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10602759

The kiwi accent has been rated the most attractive and prestigious form of English outside the UK in a BBC survey.

Respondents from throughout the UK completed an online survey rating the prestige and social attractiveness of 34 different English accents.

The kiwi "fush and chups" came seven places ahead of Australia's "sex and Seedney" - and nine ahead of the American accent in terms of attractiveness.

 

[explod]

What?

This is asinine Plod. I refuse to indulge in such childish debate.

Ask intelligent questions and don't indulge in such ridiculous non sequitur and we might have a duscussion.

Well said, but just wish more people would take the problems of the shrinking planet more seriously.

 

[macca]

What's a duscussion? Is this NZ for communicating to and fro? Chus and Fups anyone?

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Make of it what you will.

Hi TS,

I find this bit of that report particularly interesting

<<Seasonal variation

Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink).>>

Makes me wonder why we are getting taxed on CO2 when the CSIRO says that it is coming from the northern hemisphere.

 

[trainspotter]

Hi TS,

I find this bit of that report particularly interesting

<<Seasonal variation

Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink).>>

Makes me wonder why we are getting taxed on CO2 when the CSIRO says that it is coming from the northern hemisphere.

Hi macca,

I also liked the part whereby it claims "seasonal variations and annual cycles". Would be interesting to see what this actually corresponds to? Winter in the Northern Hemisphere produces more CO2 due to more fossil fuels being burned to keep warm? I dunno

Exactly macca. Australia produces 1.3% of global CO2 and we are pontificating on the world stage as if we are the largest "releaser of CO2" (notice I did not say polluter) I don't believe we should be rushing into taxing ourselves out of global competition by placing a price on carbon.

 

[Ruby]

Basilio and Explod, just to add a bit more clarification, which I know is repetitious, but......

......... I have repeatedly posted the best available evidence that demonstrates the effect of CO2 on global warming......

"Best available evidence" is not good enough if it cannot be supported by observation, and the evidence you have produced is not observed evidence. Observation has shown the global warming models are wrong. You really can't argue with observed data. Climate scientists are discovering more all the time - things which just do not fit the models.

........ and come to the same conclusions that 98% of climate scientist, the insurance industry (which were amongst the first to acknowledge this problem) and the Amercian armed forces.

You probably don't realise that this oft-quoted figure of "98% of climate scientists agree...." is 98% of about 75 climate scientists who responded to a poll - actually an insignificant number. This is an important point which many people do not realise. Once again the alarmist lobby has omitted vital information leading people to draw incorrect conclusions. There are thousands of very reputable and well qualified scientists who do not subscribe to the theory as it stands.

Insurance companies and the armed forces? When did they become authorities on the climate?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

"Best available evidence" is not good enough if it cannot be supported by observation, and the evidence you have produced is not observed evidence. Observation has shown the global warming models are wrong. You really can't argue with observed data. Climate scientists are discovering more all the time - things which just do not fit the models.

Ruby, I suspect the alarmists here truly know and understand the exact nature of the questions repeatedly asked upon them, but in a psychological sense, they will never admit to being wrong or being "had" by the AGW PR machine since their belief is firmly in the "we must act" camp. Yet they cannot specify the outcome of acting, but simply follow those with "authority" that back a new revenue stream from taxation. The scam is so obvious to most.

I doubt there is anyone in this forum who doesn't believe in acting to preserve nature and ensuring responsibility for their actions. Yet the alarmist use terms like "deniers" as a catchall phrase for AGW skeptics that see them as a "mad group" fighting to destroy the environment. Bizarre really, but fits with human responses to such emotional/religious issues.

 

[Ruby]

I doubt there is anyone in this forum who doesn't believe in acting to preserve nature and ensuring responsibility for their actions. Yet the alarmist use terms like "deniers" as a catchall phrase for AGW skeptics that see them as a "mad group" fighting to destroy the environment. Bizarre really, but fits with human responses to such emotional/religious issues.

OWG, this is an important point, and one on which I think a lot of climate alarmists get confused. Those of us who are sceptical about the propaganda fed to us seem to be automatically considered environmental vandals, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Calliope]

Some clarifiication ole pal. What is AGW ?

Bang goes any credibility you may have had. In other words you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[explod]

OWG, this is an important point, and one on which I think a lot of climate alarmists get confused. Those of us who are sceptical about the propaganda fed to us seem to be automatically considered environmental vandals, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

On overview many of our positions I now admit are not too distant on the issues at all.

The cost is a big matter and so is belief, it is a very emotional mix. I had not realised that the word "denier" was such a problem or the bad connotations it connects with for some people. However some people will put on a reaction to weaken another side of the argument too. To my mind words are merely that, it is the overall intent behind them that is important. In my past I have had to turn the other cheek to some frightfull descriptions but have always tried to see beyond that to the real cause. I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes but we can only do our best and nor should we be deterred from putting all of our views and ideas forward.

Some of the observations of the last few posts have been very good and food for thought.