Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

Yes, which corrupts him.

Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.

 

[basilio]

Andrew Bolt (and others) are just spewing nonsense when they deride Tim Flannery for suggesting that many Australian cities would run out of water the effects of Climate Change.

Firstly Tim Flannery was just echoing the CSIRO climate model which, over the long term, predicts a much warmer and overall drier Australia. But even in that model they pointed out there would be weather extremes including floods that would be the result of global warming. The increase in evaporation would result in more extreme weather events.

Australia has simply been lucky with the last two El Niño years. If they had been delayed by 12 months Melbourne and Sydney (and other cities) would have run out of water and that would have been a full blown catastrophe.

The floods in the last 2 years in no way change overall Global Warming. Despite other climatic influences like El Niño the Arctic is still melting rapidly and extreme climatic conditions are more frequent.

The climate picture is bigger and more complex than one element. And despite the knowledge base of climate scientists much more will be learnt. The most certain knowledge at the moment is that the extra huge amount of human produced greenhouse gases are trapping extra heat, warming the earth and changing the climate in quite drastic ways. This is in addition to many other short and long term effects on the earths climate.

 

[moXJO]

Andrew Bolt (and others) are just spewing nonsense when they deride Tim Flannery for suggesting that many Australian cities would run out of water the effects of Climate Change.

Firstly Tim Flannery was just echoing the CSIRO climate model which, over the long term, predicts a much warmer and overall drier Australia. But even in that model they pointed out there would be weather extremes including floods that would be the result of global warming. The increase in evaporation would result in more extreme weather events.

.

It was nothing but a scare campaign run by Flannery, end of story.

 

[basilio]

Well if I were paid $180 thousand bucks a year for giving advice on something I know nothing about, I would consider myself, if not corrupt, then at least fraudulent.

This vilification of Tim Flannery is rubbish. He is an outstanding scientist with over 100 published peer reviewed papers. When he wrote the Weather Makers he used his scientific skills to examine and interrogate the climate science field and represent its findings in an accessible form. He did a remarkably good job in that book.

Because he became the very effective public face of global warming awareness he has been attacked by mish mash of organizations who do not want to recognise reality.

Tim Flannerys understanding of climate science is elite. It is the Andrew Bolts who refuse to or can't understand the science behind what is happening to our climate who are fraudulent.

 

[wayneL]

This vilification of Tim Flannery is rubbish.

What vilification? People have merely highlighted where his definitive statements have mean incorrect

He is an outstanding scientist with over 100 published peer reviewed papers.

When he wrote the Weather Makers he used his scientific skills to examine and interrogate the climate science field and represent its findings in an accessible form. He did a remarkably good job in that book.

How can it be remarkably good when it is remarkably wrong?

Because he became the very effective public face of global warming awareness he has been attacked by mish mash of organizations....

Oh dear! The big oil conspiracy theory again.

...who do not want to recognise reality.

Which reality is that basilio?

Tim Flannerys understanding of climate science is elite.

This is the bloke that said we should flood the atmosphere with N2O right? Basilio, all you have is an untestable hypothesis and some computer models. There is no elite understanding.

It is the Andrew Bolts who refuse to or can't understand the science behind what is happening to our climate who are fraudulent.

Bolt is a journalist and is merely the opposite side of the coin to the likes of Moonbat et al.

However there are many bona fide scientists (who do understand the science) who oppose the hypothesis as put forward by Alarmists Inc, or who have a more moderate view.

 

[basilio]

Calliope called Tim Flannery fraudulent with no knowledge of cliamte science. I think that is libelous and in a fairer world wouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged.

With regard to the discussion about Tims "definitive" statements regarding the risk of running out of water. How did you manage to lose the fact that the CSIRO and BOM and practically all other climate scientists shared that fear ? The fact we escaped that fate two years ago doesn't change the overall picture on global warming.

And yes Wayne if you ever chose to look you will discover that Big Oil and Big Coal are largely behind the misinformation on global warming. It would be just too inconvenient to their interest to have to change our energy use. The entire future value of the oil and coal industry lies in their reserves. So they have to obfuscate the GW debate to protect the value of these assets. The discussion by Bill McKibben the second reference makes this very clear.

Your point of view of course is the opposite. That somehow 99% of the climate scientists are in cahoots to create a completely wrong theory on what is causing the sharp increase in temperature. That really does make sense doesn't it ?

Finally there are no bona fide scientists who have put up a case that discredits the current understandings on CO2 induced global warming. There are people grasping at straws to come up a plausible alternative - and they don't cut it. In fact when the peer reviewed papers do come up they are proven inaccurate or simply wrong. That is what peer reviewed science is about.

Of course that doesn't stop your Moncktons, Carters and Pilmers distorting facts to create doubt. Of course when their presentations are examined the misrepresentations and lies just keep coming out.

Anyone who wants to see just how these presentations just don't stack up should check the final references.

Lindzen's Junk Science
Posted on 8 March 2012 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate regarding another Lindzen misrepresentation in the seminar discussed in Lindzen's London Illusions. As noted by Skeptical Science reader WheelsOC, the graphic in question used by Lindzen in his London presentation appears to have been created by Howard Hayden and posted on Junk Science. This suggests that the error discussed by Schmidt was actually made by Hayden and then uncritically reproduced by Lindzen (who also did not provide a reference citation for the faulty graphic in his presentation).

Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencers-junk-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/18/wh...millions-or-oil-companies-doing-what-they-do/

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/climate_change_denials_new_offensive/

 

[Calliope]

Calliope called Tim Flannery fraudulent with no knowledge of cliamte science. I think that is libelous and in a fairer world wouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged.

Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard of "cliamte" science. I haven't.

 

[explod]

Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard of "cliamte" science. I haven't.

No but you do support a lot of the other silly geese who do.

And that is the point, anyone who is on the side of denial is the friend of the big people (where the money is). greed rules.

And an excellent post Basilio.

wayneL, your call for fact is not possible for a trend follower. The evidence is a collective of overall information that leads one to conclusions.

If you are going to be so bombastic it may do you some good to actually read some books. And the good ones do state verifiable facts with references. The "Sixth Extinction" is a good one but will make you uneasy. Arrh what the heck, open another stubby and enjoy, the world is ........ anyway

I conclude that we do have a problem due to co2 emissions, you do not.

 

[basilio]

Wrong again you silly goose. I didn't even mention Flannery. And I doubt he has ever heard of "cliamte" science. I haven't.

The topic was about Tim Flannery and the amount of money he was being paid to talk about Global warming. You suggested he was fraudulent because he knew nothing about the topic.

Just par for the course - but not true.

 

[sptrawler]

Even Bob Brown the other night on lateline said that the coal will be burnt overseas. So what are we achieving.

 

[wayneL]

I conclude that we do have a problem due to co2 emissions, you do not.

For one who purports to read, you sure have trouble with comprehension Plod.

How many times must I detail my views?

 

[Calliope]

The topic was about Tim Flannery and the amount of money he was being paid to talk about Global warming. You suggested he was fraudulent because he knew nothing about the topic.

Just par for the course - but not true.

I'm afraid, Bas, that Flannery's qualifications on climate science are the same as yours - diddly squat.

 

[basilio]

I'm afraid, Bas, that Flannery's qualifications on climate science are the same as yours - diddly squat.

And exactly what do you know about either Tim or me to make that observation ?

 

[explod]

For one who purports to read, you sure have trouble with comprehension Plod.

How many times must I detail my views?

You make little sense and perhaps that is your façade.

Your bluster merely takes the discussion into circles and of course it would be a tactic to ensure confusion on the topic.

You do not specifically detail views at all, you target and put others down with little or no substantiation.

One can only conclude that you must surely have a big stake in the oil or coal industry.

 

[wayneL]

You make little sense and perhaps that is your façade.

Your bluster merely takes the discussion into circles and of course it would be a tactic to ensure confusion on the topic.

You do not specifically detail views at all, you target and put others down with little or no substantiation.

One can only conclude that you must surely have a big stake in the oil or coal industry.

Plod surely you are not that much of a dill... are you?

 

[sails]

View attachment 46355

Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km², the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

This one suggests something is

LOL - I wonder if the 2100 model will turn out to be like "no more dam filling rains".

Models are purely that...models. They are not fact until those models are proven correct by history. So far, AGW model predictions seem to be failing dismally.

 

[Calliope]

And exactly what do you know about either Tim or me to make that observation ?

Tims qualifications are an open record. You I know little about, except that you love posting links to support your claim that one day we will cook and it will serve us right. And that you resort to intemperate language when someone criticises the other half of your comedy duo...Plod.

 

[ghotib]

Crikey sails, I sure hope you're not a chartist.

The graph orr posted shows that observed Arctic sea ice is well below the range calculated by models. Another way to say the same thing is that actual Arctic sea ice decline is much faster than the range calculated by models. Is that what you mean by a failed prediction? That things are much worse than the IPCC reports stated?

The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.

Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected. Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible. How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?

 

[wayneL]

Crikey sails, I sure hope you're not a chartist.

The graph orr posted shows that observed Arctic sea ice is well below the range calculated by models. Another way to say the same thing is that actual Arctic sea ice decline is much faster than the range calculated by models. Is that what you mean by a failed prediction? That things are much worse than the IPCC reports stated?

The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.

Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms. Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected. Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible. How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?

Fishb

Satellite data is not very old. The big questions are 'what is the long term ice extent?' and what factors other than temperature affect ice extent?'. If satellite data starts at a high (of which there is evidence that it did), we get an inaccurate picture of 'normal'.

Your other points take the alarmist line and can be effectively argued.

"Projections" are just models and likely wrong.

But I agree we need to act on the environment, but as I've consistently pointed out, the focus on CAGW is incorrect and detracts from the actions humans should be taking to preserve the environment.

Once CC alarmism dies the miserable death it deserves, the environmental movement will be irreparably damaged and all other concerns will be regarded simply as another scare campaign whether bone fide or not.

 

[cynic]

Arctic sea ice is declining decades earlier than the first IPCC reports projected.

Excellent. We've finally reached some agreement on the inaccuracy of IPCC reports and projections. This does of course lead me to wonder why climate change proponents keep citing IPCC findings given their unreliable track record.

Ocean chemistry is changing faster than anyone thought possible.

Why is it that every time someone chooses to confess their own ignorance, they always seek to include the entire human population as a party to their misconception?

How bad do things have to get before we decide to do something?

Taking action on the basis of misinformation can often be more dangerous than simply taking no action at all!

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people whom lack the intelligence to recognise just how precious little is truly known, (let alone understood).

I sometimes wonder what happened to the scientists from prehistoric times.
Did they also try to arrest the natural processes of evolution on this planet? (I haven't seen many woolly mammoths or sabre toothed tigers recently - have you?).
Did it ever occur to any of our climate change "experts" that virtually everything on our planet is going through an evolutionary process (one that is essential to the survival of the entire planet) and that these changes (weather, ocean, technology, economy, ecosystems etc.) are an inevitable part of said process? (Attempt to arrest this process at your own peril!)

Is mankind so conceited as to actually believe themselves to possess power beyond the forces of mother nature herself? (Please enlighten me, which God was it that died and left such a disorderly bunch of simpletons to assume the vacancy?)

Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.