Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

I think we all know that short term weather extremes, in either direction, are of little relevance to this debate. It is reality however that both sides do make extensive use of them.

Anyway, it's been a tad chilly down in Hobart lately and it's causing trouble with the buses. http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/07/07/243725_todays-news.html

On a positive note, I've been sort or warm inside during the evenings thanks to a roaring fire. And since I'm burning wood that would otherwise be left to rot, it's not really adding much CO2 to the air. And best of all, Julia can't really put a tax on firewood when those who sell it aren't exactly known for paying existing taxes as it is...

 

[drsmith]

On a positive note, I've been sort or warm inside during the evenings thanks to a roaring fire. And since I'm burning wood that would otherwise be left to rot, it's not really adding much CO2 to the air.

But you are (and so am I ) as the CO2 is being produced faster than by rotting. It's sorta like what we are doing with fossil fuels, all-be it on a much (x10 ) smaller scale.

And best of all, Julia can't really put a tax on firewood when those who sell it aren't exactly known for paying existing taxes as it is...

Their use could be banned to force us on to super expensive over taxed electricity or as the Greens would prefer, to make us shiver in the dark.

 

[Logique]

In the 'wish I'd said' that stakes, well said by this blogger. It's longish, but hits the mark. My bolds.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_last_chance/P40/

"..So the man made global warming carbon issue for labor is going to suddenly become an absolute winner here, and they are going to turn it all around, record low polls, the lot, no worries, when it has been a guaranteed proven absolute loser in the US (Senate) and Canada (recent general elections). A lot of people would like to know how that is going to work?
Rudd, ever the prick eared opportunist, would seem to have had the insight to know that it wouldn’t, when he ditched the greatest moral challenge of our time. The evidence from the US has been staring everyone in the face for several years now.
References now to what a handful of US states are doing with the warmie dogma is not the story, despite the ABC trying as hard as it can, it is what the vote for the US Senate amounted to, a repudiation of the greenie/warmie agenda that was simply bound to happen.
The Aussie warmie journos blogs trying to sell us the religion are having their comments sections become chock full of opposition now, and expression of the numerous lines of legitemate scientific doubt that the absurd promotion of the nonsense theory has created. This is no big oil conspiracy, it is the eventual triumph of common sense.
As a consequence the level of hysterical stupidity from the warmies is reaching truly comic proportions, read the whacko catastrophising warmie article in Wednesday’s(6/7) Age(paper ed), which must surely have been researched from the warm list itself. These crying wolf efforts are now only self cancelling, and fuel to the doubt fire.

It was good to see the argo bouys getting a mention recently on a blog here.
The argo bouys pepper the world’s oceans and amount to the world’s most modern and comprehensive temperature measurement system.
They indicate no warming, over a time when the highest ever levels of human created carbon pollution in the history of the world have occurred, and arguably, alone, amount to a proof that cancels out the greenhouse gas theory, as the bouys measure the temperature of the greatest heat regulator of the earth, the great mass of ocean that covers over 70% of the earth’s surface. Why no warming indicated? Consequently, only silence from the warmies on the argo bouy’s data. This issue never addressed by the ‘scientists’. The obvious answer, because the theory is totally bogus, that’s why!

The old hippie/confirmation bias/ warmie hysteria will pass, as it has elsewhere, despite the push along it got from the big idea merchants in various faculties of academia, and the union cafeteria ‘big bang theory’ Einsteins thinking they were scientific breakthrough revolutionaries of a new age. This is one fantasy that has happened, and one scientific revolution that hasn’t. We still just plain don’t know. The allegation of an alleged scientific understanding of the heat transfer dynamics of the entire planet is, at last, becoming widely recognised for the total, absolute and utterly fantastic nonsense that it is. Recall “the evidence” button on the IPPC website pre Copenhagen leading to climate models?
The real mystery is entirely sociological.
How it ever got the hold it did in the age of reason, when every aspect of every appliance in everyone’s house operates on the uncompromising principles of the scientific method only (unless they have a Brock commodore in the driveway)
For my part, a letter from an old uni friend, recieved in the late 80’s, points the way, speaking about a change in the climate, and how he suspects the greenhouse effect. The hippies in their dream world were the only ones talking about the greenhouse effect in the 70’s. A bit like the way the oldies copy the fashion of the young, and boom up the old surfie haunts, the old hippy nonsense got a hold, thanks to confirmation bias, and the drawing of conclusions in circumstances where all the variables were simply never covered. This was never real science, it was post modern sloppy thinking and the history of the scientific method/industrial revolutions indicates it has no future.

Gillard’s catastophising to try and sell the unsellable carbon tax will only serve to hasten it’s end.
Dangerous climate change = dangerous nonsense, for all parties!
The only relevant question now is, do we end up in serious economic trouble as a nation before this government is either fundamentally re-arranged or thrown out, or afterwards, due to it’s legacy? While the economic future cannot be predicted, the level of national debt should be everyone’s major concern at the moment, and it is a fair argument that we are already in serious economic trouble. Our export income is the key, with sound and very careful economic management required for many years to come, reform of science education to re-instate the scientific method, repair of our international relationships, especially with the democracy of Indonesia, and hopefully the lesson learnt by the electorate that the green left is a toxic political poison.
Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here.."

endofpostmodernscience (Reply)
Fri 08 Jul 11 (02:45pm)

 

[wayneL]

Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here.."

endofpostmodernscience (Reply)


Fri 08 Jul 11 (02:45pm)

A point consistently stated my myself on these boards.

 

[Knobby22]

The article is a bit hysterical.

What about the NASA figures?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

And the Argo buoys are interesting. They appear to show global warming or global cooling has occurred depending on the author and the parameters they pick but they do show global warming has slowed over the last 6 years but then again they show substantial warming over the previous 40 years and as the guy above says "The allegation of an alleged scientific understanding of the heat transfer dynamics of the entire planet is, at last, becoming widely recognised for the total, absolute and utterly fantastic nonsense that it is.".

If it starts warming again next year as el nino restarts then what does that mean? I don't think we understand ocean and atmospheric dynamics well enough to use one lot of data in isolation with the rest of the data to completely repudiate all global warming. To do so is being hysterical.

 

[Glen48]

Maybe this is the cause:

http://blog.imva.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/video.jpg

 

[bandicoot76]

A point consistently stated my myself on these boards.

+1 !!!

 

[Smurf1976]

Genuine moves to reduce chemical pollution and deforestation, and research solar and other forms of energy, that may well prove viable, and more efficient in the future than coal, have likely been seriously set back by the warmanistas time in power here.."

That's what really worries me. We do need viable alternatives to fossil fuels certainly. It's just that we need to develop them before we stop using (or run out of) coal, oil and gas.

 

[sails]

That's what really worries me. We do need viable alternatives to fossil fuels certainly. It's just that we need to develop them before we stop using (or run out of) coal, oil and gas.

Agree Smurf. I have no problem with using alternative energy, but it seems fool hardy to mess with our major power supply BEFORE reliable and affordable sources have been developed.

But it seems that would be way to sensible for Gillard and her merry men (greens and three indies) to consider.

 

[Calliope]

I don't think we understand ocean and atmospheric dynamics well enough to use one lot of data in isolation with the rest of the data to completely repudiate all global warming. To do so is being hysterical.

Nobody repudiates global warming. It is axiomatic.The planet warms, the planet cools, and so it will go on in cycles into infinity. And there is nothing we can do to tweak these cycles.

 

[Calliope]

Agree Smurf. I have no problem with using alternative energy, but it seems fool hardy to mess with our major power supply BEFORE reliable and affordable sources have been developed.

But it seems that would be way to sensible for Gillard and her merry men (greens and three indies) to consider.

Only a fool disobeys The First L;aw of Wing Walking

Never leave hold of what you've got until
you've got hold of something else.

 

[sails]

Nobody repudiates global warming. It is axiomatic.The planet warms, the planet cools, and so it will go on in cycles into infinity. And there is nothing we can do to tweak these cycles.

And the more Gillard tries to ram this down our throats as an excuse for another tax is pushing me further and further the the sceptical side.

I once had an open mind, but all this political propaganda and apparent deceitfulness is enough to make anyone with half a brain believe the whole lot is lies - AGW and carbon tax/ets.

And when most of the cited AGW "scientists" appear to be on government pay rolls, it calls for further caution, imo.

I think Gillard is probably doing a great job at creating extreme cynacism to anything remotely linked to AGW. Too bad if there is some truth in middle ground - I think there is so much rising hostility that even Gillard's AGW excuse is going to get chucked out with the bath water as utter nonsense.

She doesn't seem to have learned a thing from Howard's fall from favour when he seemed to stop listening to the people.

 

[trainspotter]

Julia Gillard -

"And friends you know we must lead because the science says we must and friends we've known that for an awfully long time," “Two decades of denial and delay will come to an end” and "Polluters will have to pay." she said.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-carbon-tax-plan/story-e6frfku9-1226091231059

George Orwell –

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

Chapter 9 Animal Farm

Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?

 

[bandicoot76]

Julia Gillard -

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-carbon-tax-plan/story-e6frfku9-1226091231059

George Orwell –

Chapter 9 Animal Farm

Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?

+1 !!!!

 

[sails]

And the Australian government is going to be exempt from carbon tax?

IMO, that gives a clear message that they don't believe in AGW or that Australia really needs to lead the way like an ant leading a herd of elephants...

Full story here by Tim Wilson: Government’ s carbon skeleton

IF there are any undisclosed details left for tomorrow’s carbon tax announcement, taxpayers can be sure Australia’s dirtiest secret, that the government is one of Australia’s largest, growing greenhouse gas emitters, won’t be included.

 

[trainspotter]

And the Australian government is going to be exempt from carbon tax?

IMO, that gives a clear message that they don't believe in AGW or that Australia really needs to lead the way like an ant leading a herd of elephants...

Full story here by Tim Wilson: Government’ s carbon skeleton

I especially liked this part of the story -

As a result, the cost of running government will also go up as the carbon tax price increases annually. Considering taxpayers finance government, it doesn’t take sophisticated Treasury modelling to figure out who’ll pay for the federal government’s carbon emissions hypocrisy.

 

[Julia]

Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?

+1 !!!!

+2.
I feel a rising nausea when she addresses us as 'friends'. Used in this way, it's interchangeable with 'comrades' and we all know what that denotes.

 

[Logique]

Brilliant.

Originally by trainspotter:
Anyone but me see the similarity of this garbage we are being fed?

George Orwell – Chapter 9 Animal Farm:
"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

And just before:

"In any case he [Squealer] had no difficulty in proving to the other animals that they were not in reality short of food, whatever the appearances might be. For the time being, certainly, it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of rations (Squealer always spoke of it as a 'readjustment,' never as a 'reduction'), but in comparison with the days of Jones, the improvement was enormous."

 

[Smurf1976]

And the more Gillard tries to ram this down our throats as an excuse for another tax is pushing me further and further the the sceptical side.

I once had an open mind, but all this political propaganda and apparent deceitfulness is enough to make anyone with half a brain believe the whole lot is lies - AGW and carbon tax/ets.

And when most of the cited AGW "scientists" appear to be on government pay rolls, it calls for further caution, imo.

I think Gillard is probably doing a great job at creating extreme cynacism to anything remotely linked to AGW. Too bad if there is some truth in middle ground - I think there is so much rising hostility that even Gillard's AGW excuse is going to get chucked out with the bath water as utter nonsense.

I've been aware of the AGW theory my entire adult life. I've done my own experiments and concluded that it does seem plausible.

If you take out the energy production issues, then I don't think you'll find too many people saying that adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere is a good idea in itself. To paraphrase a former PM's comments on a related issue, nobody wants CO2 as CO2. What they want is adequate power at an affordable cost.

Go back 10 years and I was certainly willing to spend a few $ to reduce my personal fossil fuel use. And even today I'm reasonably energy efficient in my lifestyle and I've always been an advocate for using renewable energy wherever it is viable to do so.

But suffice to say that over the years I have become increasingly cynical in regards to the whole thing. I still think there quite likely is an issue at the scientific level with CO2, but it appears to be being used as simply a means to justify other agendas.

We are told that cutting CO2 emissions in Australia, or even in just one Australian state, will ensure that locals are safe from the effects of global warming. Now, anyone who thinks that clearly does not understand the scientific theory involved and/or is oblivious to the fact that emissions rates globally are steadily increasing. We could completely black out South Australia, NSW or even the whole of Australia but that isn't going to save us from the effects of CO2 emitted elseswhere.

At best, the measures proposed to deal with the issue are being misleadingly marketed. Cut emissions locally and that will keep us safe we are told. Clearly that is correct only if global, not local, emissions are reduced - and there is overwhelming evidence that they are going up not down.

All of which has slowly but surely pushed me to the other side of the whole debate. When someone continually tries to get me to accept something that is clearly incorrect, and can easily be demonstrated as such, then either they are themselves ignorant of the facts (possible in the case of individuals, but unlikely for the Australian Government) or they are pushing some other agenda. In this case, it looks very much like the latter.

 

[Logique]

I won't feel that I'm a real woman until I join: 1million women: http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/The-Campaign.cfm?ruuid=11612186-04EB-CAE0-14594B8B17A80A81

"1 Million Women - A campaign of daughters, mothers, sisters and grandmothers - Committed to protecting our climate, our communities and our future, leading change for the better".

The 1 Million Women website will guide me through ways to cut my 1 tonne (of CO2, within a year of joining), and will track my progress. I don't have to be an expert on climate change, just join up and they'll guide me every step of the way.

1 Million Women - a million tonnes of CO2. It's a huge challenge.

With my help they will make it happen.