Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Yes, the sceptics and power lobbies have certainly done a good job of that.

Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.

 

[explod]

Yes they've exposed them well Mr Plod. Hopefully now we can focus on real and quantifiable environmental problems, instead of Gorist fantasies.

Absolute childish rubbish.

The whole debate on climate change is subjective at best. However the risks of erring on any possibility may] have devastating consequences.

And in that I am referring to the discussions by ASF'ers who cannot be but slanted towards the nice fuzzy feeling of business as usual.

 

[wayneL]

Absolute childish rubbish.

The whole debate on climate change is subjective at best. However the risks of erring on any possibility may] have devastating consequences.

And in that I am referring to the discussions by ASF'ers who cannot be but slanted towards the nice fuzzy feeling of business as usual.

Why is it childish to point out that climate science is subject to arbitrary adjustments?

Why is it childish to be concerned about other environmental issues which require addressing and are not so subjective?

Perhaps any point you don't agree with is childish? Just an ad hominem slur because you have zero logic with which to counter with? (Too common with alarmists )

And there's that Pascal's Wager yet again.

 

[sails]

/stir

Thanks for sharing that, Disarray. I had never heard of Irene Sendler and she most certainly deserves major recognition. She put her own life at risk and suffered terrible treatment for her selfless efforts.

However, those children she rescued would always hold her in high esteem. Such a shame that a money hungry person like Al Gore takes the prize when someone far more deserving is shelved.

It's another nail in the coffin for anything AGW that I used to passively believe until a couple of years ago when I was labelled a "denier" here at ASF. That got the shackles up and I realised we were dealing with something very cult like, imo.

An interesting comment in reply to the incredibly specious Map of Organized Climate Change Denial that appeared in the NYT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/

And from that quote, Wayne, I think this fits the bill perfectly. I have never denied natural climate change...

"In other words, there is nothing to deny in the first place.

Where exactly does that put me on that list? "​

And wouldn't warmists have had a field day 39 years ago with the massive heat wave that hit SE Qld? I had a six week old baby with no aircon to keep cool for around two weeks. She survived OK and is about to have her 39th birthday which has reminded me of that relentless heat wave.

How do warmists/alarmists account for severe heat waves all those years ago? I really can't make any sense out of the scare tactics of AGWers.

 

[Smurf1976]

I do suspect that putting a whole lot of CO2 into the air probably isn't a good thing in itself and I think most would agree at least in principle.

But where the whole AGW movement comes unstuck is with their practice of stunts. Make some claim that it will never rain again (now changed to increasing floods by the way) etc and everyone gets excited and willing to do something. Then the inevitable happens, the claim is shown for what it really is, and so the movement responds with either a refusal to discuss the issue (witness the carbon tax "debate") or an even bigger stunt.

It's like a bad boss who loses an argument with the workers over a perfectly reasonable idea and who then enforces the management view by means of authority. In the long term, that's a failed management strategy simply because it relies on ever increasing authority, an a workforce willing to put up with it (ie paid highly), in order to work. A point inevitably comes where such a strategy fails.

Likewise with the carbon issue. We have ever increasing authority and what amount to bribes in order to ram it down the public's throat, the actual debate having long since been lost as the public realised that the drought would indeed break and that emissions are rising globally no matter what we do here in Australia.

In the long term, the strategy of losing a debate then responding with ramped-up authority always works in the short term and always fails eventually. The government may well get its carbon tax through, but will fail at some future date over something else as a direct result of burning through such massive amounts of goodwill over this one issue.

No doubt there are some genuine researchers in this field, and no doubt the climate will change (for whatever reason) over a period of time. But the generic "CO2 = imminent disaster = must take draconian action NOW" argument has worn more than a bit thin with anyone who cares to think critically rather than simply accepting what they are told.

 

[explod]

I do suspect that putting a whole lot of CO2 into the air probably isn't a good thing in itself and I think most would agree at least in principle.

Good and honest, as laymen we can go no further.

But where the whole AGW movement comes unstuck is with their practice of stunts. Make some claim that it will never rain again (now changed to increasing floods by the way) etc and everyone gets excited and willing to do something. Then the inevitable happens, the claim is shown for what it really is, and so the movement responds with either a refusal to discuss the issue (witness the carbon tax "debate") or an even bigger stunt.

This is the most common argument and biggest error. Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is. There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity. More rain at times in some areas and much less in others. Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.

Its become a bit like the markets, things do not seem to be right so its becoming more volatile.

On the weather, it is just the simple matter of temperature and cloud cover. More heat which makes more cloud which in turn creates greater volatility.

 

[wayneL]

This is the most common argument and biggest error. Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is.

Is it?

Such claims require statistical substantiation.

Lets see it.

 

[JTLP]

Good and honest, as laymen we can go no further.




This is the most common argument and biggest error. Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is. There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity. More rain at times in some areas and much less in others. Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.

Its become a bit like the markets, things do not seem to be right so its becoming more volatile.

On the weather, it is just the simple matter of temperature and cloud cover. More heat which makes more cloud which in turn creates greater volatility.

This is something that irks me to tears. Can science explain the ice age or any other strange weather phenomenon's of the last x amount of years? Did man cause these problems? Man is kidding himself if he thinks he is the one causing all these so called weather 'problems'. When we were in drought was Africa in drought also? Is it just not the climate these countries are subject to?

Yawn. The funniest thing of all was when it was called "Global Warming" and when things weren't exactly warming it went to "Climate Change".

 

[explod]

This is something that irks me to tears. Can science explain the ice age or any other strange weather phenomenon's of the last x amount of years? Did man cause these problems? Man is kidding himself if he thinks he is the one causing all these so called weather 'problems'. When we were in drought was Africa in drought also? Is it just not the climate these countries are subject to?

Yawn. The funniest thing of all was when it was called "Global Warming" and when things weren't exactly warming it went to "Climate Change".

Yes it can be explained and is in a book "the Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995)

 

[explod]

Is it?

Such claims require statistical substantiation.

Lets see it.

Hot air rises cool air falls, moisture moves with it and of course the elements of evaporation are a part of it.

Did you do chemistry, are you able to reason and think independently.

 

[Smurf1976]

Scientists stated 20 years ago that the weather would also be more volatile. And it is. There are more storms and they are increasing in intensity. More rain at times in some areas and much less in others. Very dry across northern Africa of late, continued floods beyond anything before in Packistan, Drought and then horrific floods across a lot of China and the same in the USA, all in the last eighteen months.

Maybe. But that does not lend any credibility whatsoever to the claims that the drought was permanent, or the very recent claims (after 3 wet winters in a row) that we'll now see a rise in flooding.

Permanent drought and now flooding. These people very clearly do not understand the subject themselves, and yet they would have us believe that they are the appropriate people to be leading public debate on the issue.

Periodic droughts and floods I can understand. But permanent? Clearly that is not the case and it is claims like that, from people like Tim Flannery and Bob Brown, combined with clearly ineffective "solutions" which have substantially destroyed credibility of the whole issue in the minds of the general public.

Stick to the science, based on proper research and that will eventually help build up credibility if there is indeed a problem. Likewise stick to actual solutions, not socialism in disguise or handing money to bankers, and that too will eventually restore public confidence if there is indeed a problem.

 

[sails]

Three scientists, Professor Peter Ridd, Professor Bob Carter and Emeritus Professor Garth Pattridge speak about their take on AGW and the carbon tax. They have some good points, imo:

 

[wayneL]

Hot air rises cool air falls, moisture moves with it and of course the elements of evaporation are a part of it.

Did you do chemistry, are you able to reason and think independently.

You said the weather has become more volatile. So far you have not produced a a shred of evidence that it is so.

Questioned on this, you once again resort to playing the man and not the ball... all this subsequent to you having the temerity to accuse me of childishness for asking pertinent questions.

I asked for statistical substantiation, not a grade two science class which has SFA to do with the topic at hand.

I want facts Mr Plod, not a pissing contest.

 

[explod]

You said the weather has become more volatile. So far you have not produced a a shred of evidence that it is so.

Questioned on this, you once again resort to playing the man and not the ball... all this subsequent to you having the temerity to accuse me of childishness for asking pertinent questions.

I asked for statistical substantiation, not a grade two science class which has SFA to do with the topic at hand.

I want facts Mr Plod, not a pissing contest.

I have given anecdotal examples. I am not a scientist.

I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.

This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue. And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.

 

[Logique]

I have given anecdotal examples. I am not a scientist.
I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.
This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue. And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.

G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves.

Change and innovation will come, as they always have. Saw a program on the weekend about a new building in China with a built-in wind generator, solar panels over large areas, and a double skin of glass, very energy efficient. Even the elevators are used to produce power, through a link to a built-in generator.

I just think many of the so-called 'warmists' got impatient, and wanted change to happen imprudently fast (in view of the times), and in the case of a small selection of them, with political gain in mind.

 

[explod]

G'day Explod. This and similar threads have grown into monsters in size, but not sure if there's been much common ground or changing of minds. Lessening CO2 emissions, and boosting renewables, even the staunchest of so-called 'deniers' would not be against these things of themselves.

Change and innovation will come, as they always have. Saw a program on the weekend about a new building in China with a built-in wind generator, solar panels over large areas, and a double skin of glass, very energy efficient. Even the elevators are used to produce power, through a link to a built-in generator.

I just think many of the so-called 'warmists' got impatient, and wanted change to happen imprudently fast (in view of the times), and in the case of a small selection of them, with political gain in mind.

Agree with your take.

The uncertainty of course raises individual concerns which in turn narrows the outlook down to our own particular beliefs.

It is a shame that at the ordinary (non scientific) level we are not able to find some reasonable understanding of where we are headed and what we might do about it.

I think that this is played on too in order to confuse the real science.

Good post Loqique

 

[wayneL]

I have given anecdotal examples. I am not a scientist.

I believe on my experience that we have a climate change/global warming problem.

This part of the forum is for our own ideas, to discuss and to argue. And if you are going to swear, ie. "SFA" then you obviously feel on the back foot.

You speak of anecdotes only and think I'm on the back foot for using an anagram?

Dear Lord!

As I have ably demonstrated that you have no idea what you are arguing about, my work here is done.

 

[explod]

You speak of anecdotes only and think I'm on the back foot for using an anagram?

Dear Lord!

As I have ably demonstrated that you have no idea what you are arguing about, my work here is done.

Ably achieved what? and why do I have no idea? because I suspect you talk in riddles, a bit like that Bolt, and changes the subject (or cuts them of) as soon as he is cornered too.

We have pacific islands sinking into the sea and you think its all okay.

Well I do not and I do not run away either.

And its your "work"; now that is an interesting insight. King Cong of the kids hey.

 

[young-gun]

I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".

 

[explod]

I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".

You can come back now wayneL because we are both in the boxes and doing a good job spreading the word on ASF. And I do not mind at all you being the Boss.

Thanks for posting up young-gun