Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

What are their motives?

Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.

 

[sails]

Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.

And yet, as posted on the other thread, even Mark Dreyfus, the Gillard Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency doesn't think Australia's carbon tax will reduce global temperatures for at least 50 years. Maybe Flannery was spot on with his 1,000 years...

An email from the above secretary to one of Bolt's readers -
full story here: Dreyfus: no cut in temperature under our tax

 

[Calliope]

Merely a growing concern for the state in which we leave the planet to our Grand and Great Granchildren.

Most of them use this tired old cliche. On the other hand you say the earth is overpopulated. Do you share the blame for this?

 

[explod]

Most of them use this tired old cliche. On the other hand you say the earth is overpopulated. Do you share the blame for this?

Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times.

First we need to face the fact that our comfort days are numbered. I do but we need more followers to try and do something.

 

[basilio]

Okay lets respond to the dissection of an earlier post by Ruby.

Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
"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 industrialization?

My quote says current and forseeable climate change. Other forces do act over a longer period of time. We are talking about additional impact of mass human produced CO2

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

This was one of the half truths used by Professor Carter. He and others have picked the last 10 year period used a temperature model that doesn't include Arctic temperatures and then tried to say the world is not warming at a rapid rate. I showed the references demonstrating this when quoting Peter Cooks article.

Incidentally the last 10 years has seen escalating levels of ice melt in the Arctic and and Antarctic regions. These research around this data forms a critical part of understanding what the effects of further warming will be.

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.

John Cook bases his argument on research that has been peer reviewed and published. He also does it in good faith in that he accurately reports what the researchers are saying.

Bob Carter doesn't do that and in fact there is an extremely limited number of scientific papers that question the basic principles of AGW.

But going further than that when Professor Carter makes statements saying volcanoes produce as much or more CO2 than humans he destroys his credibility. Same goes for the comments about the Sahara become greener because of the extra CO2.

I have already posted a reference to show how the vast majority of current cliamte scientists support AGW.

I offered comments about scientists still learning more and more of the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate. But that doesn't detract from the amount of knowledge already established and the direction this points. Life is risk management. We often act on uncertain knowledge using the best information we have at present.

If we choose to accept the collective research and cross checking of 97% of climate scientists we take immediate decisive action. But of course you have to actually respect the skills and integrity of these scientists and it's clear in this forum that few people will argue with the research directly but prefer to invoke dishonesty, incompetence, a huge one world conspiracy idea


_________________________________________________________

Regarding the Joanna Nova website. It is intriguing. If it in fact reflected evidence of an alternative hypothesis regarding GW and had robust evidence to back it up I would expect to see references to papers published in scientific journals around the world. Is that the case ?

________________________________________________________

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. Julia

Julia scientists live and breathe to make original ground breaking research. But a scientific paper can't just be an opinion piece with a set of made up or cherry picked data. The point of peer review and subsequent analysis and questioning is that other scientists want to make sure the story is logical and the data robust. And it's because of the lack of a logical thesis and good data that there is almost no peer reviewed published papers discrediting AGW.

BUT.... this doesn't stop some scientists from publishing all sorts of theories with accompanying data outside the scientific publishing world. And that is often where much of the misinformation comes. Professor Lindzen is an excellent example of this. In fact it was his (non published ) article that was the beginning of this thread and used by him to undercut the work of the remainder of the scientific community.

 

[trainspotter]

This was one of the half truths used by Professor Carter. He and others have picked the last 10 year period used a temperature model that doesn't include Arctic temperatures and then tried to say the world is not warming at a rapid rate. I showed the references demonstrating this when quoting Peter Cooks article.

Incidentally the last 10 years has seen escalating levels of ice melt in the Arctic and and Antarctic regions. These research around this data forms a critical part of understanding what the effects of further warming will be.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225700043191#ixzz0sEAJvIYS

*GOSH* ........ now I don't know who to believe?

 

[trainspotter]

John Cook wrote this as well. "The more interesting puzzle is that of Antarctic sea ice which has increased since satellite measurements began in 1978."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh the "land ice" is melting but the "sea ice" is getting bigger.

 

[Calliope]

Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times..

Good one Your policy would wipe out the human race quicker than the global warming holocaust.

 

[explod]

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225700043191#ixzz0sEAJvIYS

*GOSH* ........ now I don't know who to believe?

Rubbish.

http://www.universetoday.com/28643/data-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

And a carefull read of the latter which does talk about a current increase points out:

Lead author Professor John Turner of BAS says:

“Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”

 

[explod]

Good one Your policy would wipe out the human race quicker than the global warming holocaust.

A more humane way than chocking and starving to death.

 

[trainspotter]

Rubbish.

http://www.universetoday.com/28643/data-shows-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

And a carefull read of the latter which does talk about a current increase points out:

But but but basillio wrote this ....... "John Cook bases his argument on research that has been peer reviewed and published. He also does it in good faith in that he accurately reports what the researchers are saying."

and I wrote this about which John Cook CLAIMED "The more interesting puzzle is that of Antarctic sea ice which has increased since satellite measurements began in 1978."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/is-a...r-growing.html

So which one is it????

Trainspotters Law states "For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"

Very similar to Newtons Law

 

[Ruby]

Okay lets respond to the dissection of an earlier post by Ruby.

My quote says current and forseeable climate change. Other forces do act over a longer period of time. We are talking about additional impact of mass human produced CO2

No Bas, your quote says "the large majority of current and foreseeable climate change." Big difference. Please show me the proof of this.

You have not properly responded to my post, so I am not going to continue having a circular argument with you.

You choose to grant an insignificant non-authority like John Cook credibility because he agrees with you, even though he quotes from "peer reviewed" papers whose claims cannot be backed up by empirical data.

Oh, and incidentally, the "97% of scientists......." that you and others keep trotting out is 97% of a small group of about 75 scientists who responded to a poll. Hardly indicative.

(my bolds)

 

[Ruby]

Trainspotters Law states "For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"

Very similar to Newtons Law

Love it TS

 

[trainspotter]

And that would be game, set and match. Thank you linesmen and ballboys. Now back to you in central missionary position. :

 

[tothemax6]

Of course, do I need to repeat, I supprt a one child per woman policy and so it goes on etc., as I have stated many times.

And what would that do? Australia's natural birth rate is below the replacement level. Let me explain what this means: given that there is approx 1 woman for each man, when a woman dies she must have given birth to two people, plus an additional amount to make up for women who die prior to doing the same, to maintain a stable (non expanding) population. This 'replacement level' is claimed to be about 2.1 in the West, for example.
Since Australia has a fertility rate (births per woman) of around 1.7 to 1.8, we have a naturally declining population. However, no one in Australia believes that Australia's population is declining. Why? Because it isn't, and it cannot, due to immigration.

Indeed, perhaps you should consult the worlds fertility statistics. A below replacement birth rate is the norm for the nations of Europe, for East Asia, for Russia, for Canada & Mexico, for Australia. A bare replacement rate is the norm for the US & NZ. [source CIA world factbook]
An above-replacement fertility rate can be found in North Africa, the near and middle east, and South Asia. Do you expect them to social engineer their fertility rates below 2.1, or send the surplus here, to Europe, and to Canada?

Your policy is stupid. Max rests his case.


Incidentally, has Climate Hysteria stopped yet? I hadn't being paying attention, its all boring nonsense anyway.

 

[Julia]

I have already posted a reference to show how the vast majority of current cliamte scientists support AGW.

And I, for one, have made it clear that I don't find this convincing.

Life is risk management. We often act on uncertain knowledge using the best information we have at present.

What about the risk management situation for our economy and vital, well established industries? You seem to completely fail to take into account the very obvious downside of your desire to see a tax introduced to make greenies feel good.

If we choose to accept the collective research and cross checking of 97% of climate scientists we take immediate decisive action. But of course you have to actually respect the skills and integrity of these scientists and it's clear in this forum that few people will argue with the research directly but prefer to invoke dishonesty, incompetence, a huge one world conspiracy idea

Perhaps with very good reason. Just today Bob Brown said, in an interview where he was asked about the Greens' aspirations now that they are about to hold the balance of power in the Senate, he wanted to see a global government.
Doesn't this, fergawdsake, give you pause for thought?
But perhaps not, because presumably you have the same objective.

Julia scientists live and breathe to make original ground breaking research. But a scientific paper can't just be an opinion piece with a set of made up or cherry picked data.

And exactly how would you know what sort of protocols have gone into any research which disagreed with what you want to believe?

The point of peer review and subsequent analysis and questioning is that other scientists want to make sure the story is logical and the data robust.

Ah yes, in an ideal world. But in the real world, where a predetermined agenda has been established, any research which disagrees with that agenda may simply not be accepted.

And it's because of the lack of a logical thesis and good data that there is almost no peer reviewed published papers discrediting AGW.

Really? How exactly do you know this? What way would you have of knowing everything that has been submitted to all scientific journals?

 

[Calliope]

And that would be game, set and match. Thank you linesmen and ballboys. Now back to you in central missionary position. :

You got that right. The alarmist "experts" on these pages don't have a leg to stand on. They have as much credibility as Al Gore. I will still back common sense to beat the AGW dodgy science every time.

 

[wayneL]

What's this?

"Follow the money" as exhorted by AGW alarmists?

I'm hearing stories of big oil funding of Greenpeace and other green organizations.

DYOR.

 

[basilio]

Well sussed out Wayne. I was certain you're eagle eye wouldn't miss the Greenpeace Big Oil connection

As you know what Greenpeace has discovered is that Dr Willie Soon, astrophysicist to the masses, scored about a $1m worth of support from Big Oil while he was busily producing a series of papers knocking off AGW, decrying the effects of mercury in coal fired power stations and showing how polar bears are not affected by climate change.

Of course he denied that he had ever received any of these funds at the time because ( how strangely !!.) questions might have been raised about conflicts of interest. Just a little perjury.

Dear old Willie also comes in for some close attention because of his behavior in getting a paper published in a science journal which tried to say the 20th Century was not the warmest on record in flat contradiction to all existing studies.

For example, in 2003 the reputable journal Climate Research published a paleoclimatological analysis that concluded, in flat contradiction to virtually all existing research, that the 20th century was probably not the warmest of the last millennium. This paper, partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute, attracted considerable public and political attention because it seemingly offered relief from the need to address climate change.

The paper also engendered some highly unusual fall-out.

First, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over its publication, including the incoming editor-in-chief who charged that “…some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”

This highly unusual mass resignation was followed by an even more unusual public statement from the publisher that acknowledged flaws in the journal’s editorial process.

Three editorial resignations and a publisher’s acknowledgement of editorial flaws are not standard scientific practice and call for further examination of the authors and the accepting editor.

The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools. (The people who teach such summer schools, actual climate scientists, published a scathing rebuttal of Soon’s paper.)

Check out just how Big Oil pulls the strings of denier puppets at
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/american-climate-skeptic-soon-funded-oil-coal-firms-0

And for the complete story on Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review check out

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552

The whole Greenpeace report detailing the fundings for his various papers can be found at
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...lie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

These are public record documents and the information comes from the various organizations that funded Dr Willie Soon.

 

[noco]

Here is another one of Rudd's DUDD schemes in coperation with that dudd Tim Flannery.

$90,000,000 of tax payers money down the drain.

Guess that is only 'peanuts' when one looks at the $135,000,000 this inept Green/Labor socialist left government borrows every day.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...green_investment_in_deep_strife/#commentsmore