Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Ruby]

........... If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false - then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.

It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.

Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact". .................

Basilio my friend, you could equally apply these words to yourself and your beliefs on climate change.

"Skeptical Science" is not an unbiased website. John Cook set it up because he wanted to demolish what he called the "climate change deniers" so anything he says should be taken with a large dose of scepticism. Might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?? Bob Carter is a very reputable scientist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science

 

[wayneL]

Basilio my friend, you could equally apply these words to yourself and your beliefs on climate change.

Indeed Ruby. But because of his/her raging cognitive bias, I doubt (s)he would do so.

 

[basilio]

"Beliefs about climate change ? ". In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.

I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.

I accept the empirical evidence of temperature measurements around he world that our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms. In particular as John Cook noted from research papers the temperatures in the Arctic are rising quite quickly and causing an exponential increase in ice melt. That is backed by numerous data observations.

I can also understand the bigger and longer picture of how our climate has change and the various factors that have influenced it. In that sense I can see the capacity for various other factors at play.

But in the end I accept the basic understandings I have and finally the collective knowledge and cross checked research of the vast majority of the scientific community.

One could accept that the science is not totally settled. I'm certain every scientist in the field would acknowledge that. If one sees this as a giant jigsaw puzzle a certain number of pieces have not been put in place. But the big picture seems very clear and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic.

Why do we want to take such a risk unless we were totally certain all these scientists were wrong ?

Now on the other side of the picture. The range of arguments put up by people to discredit the AGW idea.

I've already said that one could closely question current theories and measurements. That is what peer reviewed scientific work is about. On the big picture however I find it extremely hard to see how querying small elements of what is happening climatically will make a substantial difference to the overall story.

And then we go to what I put in big letters as outright lies. The assertion that volcanoes put out more CO2 than us is an outright lie. The evidence by vulcanologists who are the people who actually study this completely and flatly refutes this statement. So whenever it is trotted out again it just demonstrates the proponent has no interest in observed facts and is willing to accept or make up anything that will support his/her case.

At that stage that person in my eyes has little credibility and particularly when they use their Professorial status to say they understand how science works. That's Professor Carter

On a similar theme Professor Carter tries to say that more CO2 will help green the Sahara. Peter Cook pointed out how illogical that statement was particularly understanding all the factors affecting vegetation. Are we suppose to accept quite illogical statements in this debate ?

There are scores of similar outright lies, cherry picked figures, illogical arguments and misinformation promoted by organization trying to stop decisive action on reducing greenhouse emissions. Again John Cook has taken each of these statements and pointed out what the observed facts are or the logical fallacies or the use of cherry picked data.

The problem for those who want to legitimately hold a skeptical view and query uncertain aspect of the science of AGW is that these areas are quite small and often obscure. (Much of science is obscure) So the rest of the deniers (not genuine skeptics) simply throw in any sort of drivel with the view that if its said loud enough and often enough then we will accept it.

Cue Carter, Ian Plimer, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. et al

 

[Ruby]

I didn't specify which of your statements I'd like to see citations for, but there are several. Here are some from this thread:

From post 1931:
From post 1965:
From post 1988:
From post 2000:
From post 2025:
Also from post 2025. In this case I'm asking for the source of the argument that that you rightly reject.
From post 2203:
From the same post, I'm asking what significance you attach to this point, which you've made several times:
Post 2283:

Thanks,
Ghoti

Hi Ghoti,

Here is a list of links which will provide the answers to most of your questions. There are lots more of course and you will be able to find them yourself. If you spend the time reading these and watching the videos you will find them very imformative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://joannenova.com.au/ - go to the "New? Start here" button first, then read the rest.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...imate-hysteria
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmcl...lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/09/foi-request-to-phil-jones/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

Some of the things that might not be covered in the links....

Post 1931
I can't give a ref for something that does not exist (ie, the proof does not exist). The onus of proof is on those who claim our responsibility for climate change, and our degree of responsibility. I don't say this is false, just that it is unproven.

Post 1988
?? That is the scientific method. Ask a scientist.

Post 2025
This is simple logic. Temp rising. CO2 levels rising. You cannot assume one is caused by the other. Geological data has shown that in the past temp has risen before CO2 levels (see links provided)

I hope this will answer your questions.

Cheers,

Ruby

 

[explod]

basilio: One could accept that the science is not totally settled. I'm certain every scientist in the field would acknowledge that. If one sees this as a giant jigsaw puzzle a certain number of pieces have not been put in place. But the big picture seems very clear and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic.

Why do we want to take such a risk unless we were totally certain all these scientists were wrong ?

A great post.

And as I have repeated, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?

 

[Calliope]

A great post.

The gospel according to preacher Basilio.

 

[wayneL]

A great post.

And as I have repeated, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?

China might attack, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?

Logical fallacy.

 

[basilio]

Thank you Ruby. That was an excellent link to the Guardian article on why John Cook set up his Climate Skeptics site.

It certainly explains far better than I can the ways in which climate change deniers ignore observable facts, cherry pick information, create false arguments and so on.

Certainly well worth reading and I'm sure the links explain his statements.

So what does he use as a base for his arguments ?

To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science

 

[basilio]

China might attack, we do not really know but can we afford to sit idly by, cost or no cost?

Logical fallacy.

BS response Wayne. On current evidence the probability that almost all climate scientists are right and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.

A more equivalent situation would be the weather bureau predicting a force 5 cyclone coming within a few days and telling everyone to get out or get flattened. There is always a chance the cyclone will veer away or loss strength. But the smart money takes notice of what the science is saying and takes action instead of ignoring it.

 

[basilio]

The gospel according to preacher Basilio.

Nay calliope. Just my thoughts.

And I'm getting fed up with your snide, nasty comments to anyone who disagree with you. I can see they are short and sharp but they just poison the discussion and should not be part of this forum.,

Joe, Moderator's over to you.

 

[Ruby]

"Beliefs about change ? ". In particular of course that the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change is caused by human produced CO2.

Why do you believe that, given that the climate was changing long before industrialisation?

I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.

I accept the empirical evidence of temperature measurements around he world that our world is warming at a very rapid rate in geological terms.

The empirical evidence is that the world is not warming at a rapid rate in geological terms

In particular as John Cook noted from research papers .......

Why do you think John Cook has credibility and Bob Carter has not? John Cook is not a climate scientist.

I can also understand the bigger and longer picture of how our climate has change and the various factors that have influenced it. In that sense I can see the capacity for various other factors at play.

But in the end I accept the basic understandings I have and finally the collective knowledge and cross checked research of the vast majority of the scientific community.

Vast majority? How do you know this?

One could accept that the science is not totally settled........

..........But the big picture seems very clear and ignoring it in favour of alternative points of points appears wantonly wrong given that the consequences of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere look catastrophic.

.....I've already said that one could closely question current theories and measurements.

Hmmm! I see contradiction there. Which is it?

On the big picture however I find it extremely hard to see how querying small elements of what is happening climatically will make a substantial difference to the overall story.

That is because you are not a scientist. Small elements are often very important, and more are being discovered all the time

..... it just demonstrates the proponent has no interest in observed facts and is willing to accept or make up anything that will support his/her case.

But this is what you are doing Bas.

At that stage that person in my eyes has little credibility and particularly when they use their Professorial status to say they understand how science works. That's Professor Carter

Are you saying Prof Carter doesn't know how science works?

There are scores of similar outright lies, cherry picked figures, illogical arguments and misinformation promoted by organization trying to stop decisive action on reducing greenhouse emissions. Again John Cook has taken each of these statements and pointed out what the observed facts are or the logical fallacies or the use of cherry picked data.

I think John Cook might be the one doing the cherry picking! And I don't think anyone argues that we should keep trying to reduce our greenhouse emissions.

The problem for those who want to legitimately hold a skeptical view and query uncertain aspect of the science of AGW is that these areas are quite small and often obscure. (Much of science is obscure) So the rest of the deniers (not genuine skeptics) simply throw in any sort of drivel with the view that if its said loud enough and often enough then we will accept it.

But you said the picture was clear.

Bas, there is one thing you keep ignoring. You say 'we must take action to prevent this climate change' but there is nothing we can do in Australia that can stop it. If we shut down tomrrow the difference would be miniscule. Our climate has always changed and always will.

(I have added some bold type)

 

[Ruby]

Thank you Ruby. That was an excellent link to the Guardian article on why John Cook set up his Climate Skeptics site.

It certainly explains far better than I can the ways in which climate change deniers ignore observable facts, cherry pick information, create false arguments and so on.

Certainly well worth reading and I'm sure the links explain his statements.

So what does he use as a base for his arguments ?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science

You are ignoring his initial bias!!! He is not a credible source, and if you do some further reading you will see that the IPCC peer review process has been largely discredited.

 

[Ruby]

On current evidence the probability that almost all climate scientists are right and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.

Bas, can you please explain what you mean by "almost all climate scientists are right"? That is a very sweeping generalisation. How do you know what "almost all" climate scientists think?

 

[wayneL]

BS response Wayne. On current evidence the probability that almost all climate scientists are right and that we will have catastrophic effects as a result of ensuring cliamte change is 90% plus.

It is not BS. There is a flash point in Taiwan, they have a nuclear arsenal and a huge standing army and are known to harbour a grudge against the west.

Your 90% surety of catastrophic climate change is proven where? And yes almost all scientists agree... that is if you dis-include those who disagree. Sorry Bas, you are convincing nobody except yourself of these things.

A more equivalent situation would be the weather bureau predicting a force 5 cyclone coming within a few days and telling everyone to get out or get flattened. There is always a chance the cyclone will veer away or loss strength. But the smart money takes notice of what the science is saying and takes action instead of ignoring it.

Incorrect.

The formation of cyclones is a well known phenomenon and the prediction is based on well worn patterns of weather... and of course the storm already existing. There is no leap of faith, the science is valid because of the predictability.

This analogy is nowhere near what is purported with catastrophic climate change and your use of such highlights the scientific non-sequitur you alarmists are fond of using, where no such predictability exists.

 

[basilio]

Bas, can you please explain what you mean by "almost all climate scientists are right"? That is a very sweeping generalisation. How do you know what "almost all" climate scientists think?

It is a generalization that is supported by research amongst climate scientists and their understandings of how human produced CO2 is affecting our cliamte. The paper that establishes this fact is listed below. I attached the Abstract

Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 ,
James W. Prall b ,
Jacob Harold c , and
Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1

+ Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract?loc=interstitialskip

________________________________________________________________

With regard to Peter Cook's intention in setting up his website. He is trying to carefully explain the myriad stories that are thrown around to discredit the overwhelming evidence of AGW. To do that he uses what he sees as the strongest available evidence - peer reviewed scientific research. So if someone says "volcanoes throw out more CO2 than us " they need to produce the evidence that this is so.

The way to show this is a lie is to point to scientists in that field who have actually done the measurements and can show this is untrue.

There are scores of other assertions. Each of these is similarly dealt with. At this stage the response offered by those who want to disagree with the findings is to dismiss almost all peer reviewed research that supports AGW and somehow put up ideas that are either proven to be wrong, irrelevant or half truths.

There is nothing new about this process. The Tobacco industry was faced with a similar problem in the 1950's when doctors made the link between smoking and lung cancer (as well as other throat, mouth etc cancers) So the industry started a systemic public misinformation campaign and even established it's own Research institute to continue studies on the effects of smoking. It took about 50 years for our societies to accept what scientists had established and to expose the deceptions of the Tobacco industry. (References available)

This is no different. It's just that the stakes are far higher.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I just think that the scientific understandings of how CO2 warms the atmosphere are rock solid. They have provable evidence to back up the effect of CO2 on trapping heat.

LOL - Nobody in this forum has provided any evidence of man's 3% of Global CO2 emissions drives Global temperatures. Unless your talking in the range of 1/1000th of a degree, also as CO2 increases, the strength of it's so called "greenhouse" ability quickly diminishes.

The alarmists continue to be fraudulent on these very obvious facts, hence nobody in the Australian Government will debate it and nor will the alarmists here put up the observed evidence.

So far plenty of useless book posts by Basilio and Goti. Next book post?

 

[Calliope]

But you said the picture was clear.

Bas, there is one thing you keep ignoring. You say 'we must take action to prevent this climate change' but there is nothing we can do in Australia that can stop it. If we shut down tomrrow the difference would be miniscule. Our climate has always changed and always will.

An excellent post, Ruby. You have effectively dismantled the alarmist warmist arguments. One would have to be indoctrinated to imagine that anything we do can alter the progress of climate changes.

 

[Ruby]

It is a generalization that is supported by research amongst climate scientists and their understandings of how human produced CO2 is affecting our cliamte. The paper that establishes this fact is listed below. I attached the Abstract

Bas, a generalisation is not sufficient to assert that "almost all climate scientists agree..." when quite clearly they don't, and when dissent has been rigorously suppressed. See link for one such instance.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmcl...lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

With regard to Peter Cook's intention in setting up his website. He is trying to carefully explain the myriad stories that are thrown around to discredit the overwhelming evidence of AGW. To do that he uses what he sees as the strongest available evidence - peer reviewed scientific research. So if someone says "volcanoes throw out more CO2 than us " they need to produce the evidence that this is so.

The way to show this is a lie is to point to scientists in that field who have actually done the measurements and can show this is untrue.

There are scores of other assertions. Each of these is similarly dealt with. At this stage the response offered by those who want to disagree with the findings is to dismiss almost all peer reviewed research that supports AGW and somehow put up ideas that are either proven to be wrong, irrelevant or half truths.

There is nothing new about this process. The Tobacco industry was faced with a similar problem in the 1950's when doctors made the link between smoking and lung cancer (as well as other throat, mouth etc cancers) So the industry started a systemic public misinformation campaign and even established it's own Research institute to continue studies on the effects of smoking. It took about 50 years for our societies to accept what scientists had established and to expose the deceptions of the Tobacco industry. (References available)

This is no different. It's just that the stakes are far higher.

I am going to resist tempation to respond to the rest of your post and say only this...

John Cook is not a credible source for reasons I have already given.

You seem to forget that the so called 'climate sceptics' have nothing to prove. They merely observe what is happening (which is, after all, the scientific method*) and a lot of what is happening does not conform to the models and predictions of the IPCC (whose peer-reviewed papers are quoted by John Cook.)
*The scientific method is to take a theory or hypothesis and try and disprove it. If it cannot be disproven then it is accepted by the scientific community as fact

All the vitriol, vilification, demonisation, personal attacks, death threats etc, are coming from those who promulgate the AWG theory - not those who are sceptics. I wonder why that is??? If you don't believe me, read about the 'climategate' scandal - just google it - there are plenty of links - and you will see just how vitriolic it has become.

I would like to suggest to you (and this is done in good faith, because I once occupied a place in your camp) that you set aside your prejudices and read the info on this website with an open mind.... just to inform youself. You may not change your mind, but you will have a better view of the situation.

http://joannenova.com.au/

 

[Julia]

Basilio, in response to your above cited basis for suggesting the majority of scientists are in agreement, the authors of your 'proof' and the affiliations don't necessarily provide reassurance, i.e.

+ Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Biology: Electrical & Computer Engineering: some foundation about which we know nothing: a university department of environment.
From the abstract:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field ...........

(The bolding is mine.)

The wording underlines once again the suggestion that the peer review process is tainted by the non-acceptance by scientific publications to accept research/opinion that doesn't align with their predefined conclusions.

It's the same principle as the Australian government's "MULTI PARTY Committee on Climate Change". It's not multi party at all, because only those who - before the committee even began its so called investigations - had already declared their firm belief in AGW and that a carbon price was required.

This is the sort of manipulative stuff that so depresses those of us who would so like to see a genuinely objective evaluation with results that are not a foregone conclusion because of the undeniable bias of the participants.

 

[Calliope]

Ruby, you are right when you say. "that the so called 'climate sceptics' have nothing to prove." We are the ones being bombarded with misinformation and threats of global warming and inundation by rising seas.

Some religions threaten their people with hell if they don't conform to their doctrines. These quasi-religious alarmist cranks are threatening us with hell on earth, and they know that even if their predictions come to pass there is nothing they can do about it.

So why are they intent on "proving" the dodgy science to to the sceptics with such evangelistic zeal? What are their motives?