Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Logique]

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

Malthusian daydreaming. '..In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence..' , and '.."Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet..'.

Naturally these postulated 'Green' aliens would have developed an advanced civilization and interstellar travel without ever having had industries, which as we know are carbon producing and hence bad.

Give those 'NASA affiliated' academics a research grant at once. Only this can save the world from the deranged 'Green' aliens.

 

[derty]

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

It certainly is a hysterical headline.

But the actual work they are cherry picking is simply a hypothetical postulation on the range of possible scenarios that may result from alien contact.

Here is the abstract of the paper:

While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible. Contact could occur through a broad range of scenarios that have varying consequences for humanity. However, many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author. In this paper, we analyze a broad range of contact scenarios in terms of whether contact with ETI would benefit or harm humanity. This type of broad analysis can help us prepare for actual contact with ETI even if the details of contact do not fully resemble any specific scenario.

While it is certainly science fiction the actual work the article is based on is far from crap. have a read.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf

 

[Calliope]

We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu

The alarmists scare tactics haven't worked, so now they are enlisting the support of the aliens.

 

[sails]

The alarmists scare tactics haven't worked, so now they are enlisting the support of the aliens.

You are correct, Calliope, the scare tactics aren't having the slightest bit of difference. In fact, they are probably making their cause less believable. Latest Nielsen poll on climate:

MAJORITY OPPOSE PRICE ON CARBON

A majority of Australians continue to oppose a price on carbon, according to the latest Nielsen Poll.

The national poll of 1,400 respondents, taken from 11-13 August, found that opposition to a price on carbon is steady (since July) at 56% while 39% (also steady) are in favour. Support is highest among Green and ALP voters (79% and 68% respectively) while an overwhelming majority of Coalition voters (82%) are opposed.

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml

 

[wayneL]

I suppose warmists are trying their best to ignore the results of the CERN experiment? LOL

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

 

[Knobby22]

I thought you said that you couldn't say an experiment conducted in a test tube could possibly show how the atmosphere works. Glad you have changed your mind.

OK, the experiment shows that cosmic rays cause changes to the atmosphere which helps prove that the Suns reduction in output caused the weather to become cooler, great.

So when the Sun returns to normal won't the other effects then kick in and enhance this?

And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.

 

[Calliope]

And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.

At least he is doing his bit to reduce climate hysteria ("frenzied climatology"), which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[basilio]

And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all. Knobby 22

Of course you can find an authoritative intelligent assessment of the paper from scientists who actually know what they are talking about. (Just don't expect most of the forum members to bother reading it.)

The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
Filed under:

Aerosols
Climate Science
Sun-earth connections

The long-awaited first paper from the CERN/CLOUD project has just been published in Nature. The paper, by Kirkby et al, describes changes in aerosol nucleation as a function of increasing sulphates, ammonia and ionisation in the CERN-based ‘CLOUD’ chamber. Perhaps surprisingly, the key innovation in this experimental set up is not the presence of the controllable ionisation source (from the Proton Synchrotron accelerator), but rather the state-of-the-art instrumentation of the chamber that has allowed them to see in unprecedented detail what is going on in the aerosol nucleation process (this is according to a couple of aerosol people I’ve spoken about this with).

This paper is actually remarkably free of the over-the-top spin that has accompanied previous papers, and that bodes very well for making actual scientific progress on this topic.

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

[basilio]

And The Guardian offered a more accessible insight into the CERN/Cloud results. There is some interesting new science in these studies. ( But it doesnt dismantle the rest of climate science understandings. Simply adds some new ideas to explore .)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models

 

[wayneL]

And The Guardian offered a more accessible insight into the CERN/Cloud results. There is some interesting new science in these studies. ( But it doesnt dismantle the rest of climate science understandings. Simply adds some new ideas to explore .)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models

What understandings?

 

[basilio]

What understandings?

The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny. Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.

And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards. The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook.

(The last thread I started on how much CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)

 

[wayneL]

The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny. Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.

What? What disingenuous and insulting drivvle basilio. Everyone knows and accepts this as it has nothing to do with AGW. This is a very immature comment.

And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards.

How big a factor is the subject of ongoing debate.

The global warming has been clearly measured

Attempts to measure it have been made, but there are problems... need I mention the missing hot spot and other contradictory data?

and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2

As above. The chaotic system we call climate contains numerous forcing and science just does not have an adequate handle on that. We are now discussing one of those "forcings" that has put the cat amongst the pigeons. There is no more evidence required than inability of climate models to predict ANYTHING AT ALL.

we will cook.

Emotive crap.

(The last thread I started on how much CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)

What? The co2 emitted by one tank of petrol is great analysis on the co2 emitted by one tank of petrol, but not much else.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook

Cooking from Alien lasers or cooking the AGW models?

The only thing clear is that your assertions lack complete credibility - as has been the case with almost all your posts as after several months you still cannot point to observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 "cooking" the earth. Sorry didn't hear you? How much will the temperature drop should we reduce CO2 emissions 5% from year 2000 levels by 2020? or 50%? or 100%

Sorry my mistake - I shouldn't be asking such simple questions to such a complex problem.

 

[explod]

What understandings?

Yep, it all seems rather difficult my ole Pal.

3AW snow report on a few minutes ago. Nice cold night up in the hills overnight so the snow machines had a great night prepring for the weekend, and he added "we have done well for the season in one of the warmest winters ever"

Ah well, froth and bubbles.

You do seem rather vehement of late on this topic wayneL, some sort of agenda perhaps? or are things just getting to you?

There is really no proof of anything anymore you know.

Anyway, just good to catch up

 

[wayneL]

Yep, it all seems rather difficult my ole Pal.

3AW snow report on a few minutes ago. Nice cold night up in the hills overnight so the snow machines had a great night prepring for the weekend, and he added "we have done well for the season in one of the warmest winters ever"

Ah well, froth and bubbles.

You do seem rather vehement of late on this topic wayneL, some sort of agenda perhaps? or are things just getting to you?

There is really no proof of anything anymore you know.

Anyway, just good to catch up

Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.

 

[explod]

Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.

Must say I do miss the old froth and bubbles inspections along St Kilda Road.

Lets see how it pans out with Irene. Pretty early in the season for the US; strange this weather we seem to be having.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Tick-tock-tick-tock

Getting close now. Tim Flannery, William Steffen and Greg Combet have been all Noticed, still waiting for their responses.

Then the fun begins.

Time's up. No response. The process of law now kicks in. Notices of Default will be sent to each respondent. This matter is res judicata and stare decisis and the Respondent's are in estoppel by Respondent’s failure to respond.

 

[Julia]

The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.

The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.

I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax, about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.

There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.

 

[sails]

Beyond Blue should know better than that, surely. I am appalled.

My daughter has had a long term depression and yet she struggles more in winter and seems to do better in summer. Bring on the warmer weather...

So, even IF AGW has any merit (which I doubt), it certainly isn't making depression worse in my experience.

PS - agree Julia that the potential damage carbon tax could do to this country is quite depressing.

 

[basilio]

The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.

The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.

I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax, about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.

There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.

I can totally understand your view that concern about climate change causing increased depression is bumpkin.

Your view Julia and Sails and Noco and Wayne and so on seems quite clear. You believe the large majority of climate scientists have just got it totally wrong. Their understanding of the current drivers of climate is hopelessly compromised and whatever global warming is happening is not going to be significant and will have little long term effect on our climate and thus our future.

You would also need to believe that the current warming will be reversed in some way to refreeze the polar ice caps and therefore not cause further significant rises in ocean levels.

If you believe all that (and it comes to pass ) then of course there is nothing to worry about.

But, if in fact this vast majority of scientific research is accurate, if the global warming figures are reflecting the changes that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will bring, then the future doesn't look so good. And seeing minimal real changes in our societies direction that might change the course of history would certainly cause some depression in anyone who has studied climate science and accepts there is a significant chance it is on the mark.

On a more constructive note I just saw another doco which pulls together the range of alternatives that could change our future.

Is the key question "How absolutely sure are you that all these scientists, their research and observations are completely and utterly wrong ? And how much are you willing to bet against it ?"

One degree matters ”” Full documentary film

'One degree matters' follows social and business leaders as they travel to Greenland and experience for themselves the dramatic effects of the melting of the ice cap and come to understand the planetary effects of climate change and the impacts these will have on society and the economy. The film brings to the screen the latest science from the Arctic and shows why a further rise in global temperature of one degree matters for the future of humankind. Film had premiere: 13 December 2009 during COP15

.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/cop15/bend-the-trend/one-degree-matters-movie