Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

...Interesting reading, looks well researched and may dampen the enthusiasm of those who believe that we are seeing "something terrible" is about to happen.

Welcome to ASF dbeyat45...

Unfortunately, nothing seems to dampen that enthusiasm. Not Flannery's and other AGW modelled predictions which have failed miserably. They still march on in support of their beliefs even though the model's inputs of AGW theory are becomming more questionable by the day.

 

[dbeyat45]

Thanks for the welcome Sails.

I hope I will be able to contribute something to the discussion of climate & weather. When I come to grips with the search mechanisms here, I will try to avoid posting on subjects that have been well covered already.

 

[sails]

Thanks for the welcome Sails.

I hope I will be able to contribute something to the discussion of climate & weather. When I come to grips with the search mechanisms here, I will try to avoid posting on subjects that have been well covered already.

lol - most of the climate (and political) discussions are in a perpetual merry-go-round with neither side seemingly never giving an inch!

There is an easy search function at the top right hand corner of the screen - just type in your request and hit the button. To the left is a link to the "Advanced Search" and you can then choose if you want the results in threads or as individual posts. If you want to see posts from an individual poster, just left click on their name on the left of one of their posts and choose "show forum posts".

 

[basilio]

BEST?

We've dealt with the BEST nonsense bas.

Yeah. Just deny it and it will go away.

Same treatment as the remainder of the evidence.

 

[basilio]

Thanks for the fascinating piece of scholarship dbeyat45. Makes one appreciate the broader history of humanity.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

Yeah. Just deny it and it will go away.

Same treatment as the remainder of the evidence.

Deny what and what will go away?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/why_best_will_not_settle_the_climate_debate.html

 

[ghotib]

After 2006, I took part in an internet discussion forum, initially adopting the role of agnostic on serious anthropogenic climate change, arguing with both extremes; let’s call them “alarmists and deniers”, for want of better labels. This experience was what eventually changed my mind on the seriousness of climate change and the idea that climate scientists had an alarmist bias. Every time I examined a denialist argument, a little research quickly convinced me that they were wrong; invariably their references were unreliable and their arguments incoherent. When it came to disagreeing with the alarmists, even if the worst outcomes they predicted were questionable and sometimes overstated, their overall case was coherent and based on solid references. Over a period of a few years, I drifted away from my lukewarmer stance. I can thank a handful of deniers for provoking me to do my homework, which helped me change my mind; but I don’t think I had any success in changing their minds.

I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.

The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html

 

[Smurf1976]

I've long thought (since the late 1980's) that there was logic behind the underlying argument about CO2 trapping heat etc. It certainly does work in a lab at least.

But it's the politics which turns me off the whole thing. Extreme claims that are proven wrong, and advocates for reducing emissions who then stand in the way of the very things needed in order to achieve that. Etc. Maybe it's serious, maybe it isn't, but even those who say it's serious don't seem to actually be doing anything about it. Action speak louder than words...

 

[explod]

Created on: January 16, 2008

Ted Koppel, the host for Nightline, whom Gore had approached, blamed Gore for profiling the scientists simply because they did not agree with his point of view. "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore [is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis", Koppel is quoted as saying (Singer, 294). But the question is, was Gore really persecuting the opposing scientists, or was he trying to maintain the integrity of science? In the end, all this criticism only goes to show that the line between politics and science is difficult to define, even for the experts themselves.



"We have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs. blue, Republican vs. Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren't political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth" (Crichton). The underlying debate in the case of controversial topics is the validity of science after it has been politicized. Global warming is no longer a debate about the future of the planet, instead a battle between powerful factions. The information available about global warming is not conclusive enough to be decisive, as shown by the many skeptics out there for both sides of the argument. In the opinions of Crichton and Gore, politics should not interfere with the discoveries of science, but science should be granted the power to steer politics in the right direction.

The whole debate is a difficult one from all sides. Singer appears to be a bit on his own for his stance and a look at his credentials would indicate that his physics are more in line with engineering satellites than with nature and its changes. He has made some good calls too but to rest your hat on him against the majority of the science community sounds a bit like political bias to me.

Again the concern needs to be that, if Co2 emissions prove to be a problem will it be too late to make any correction.

 

[basilio]

I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.

The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html

That article was very interesting Ghotib. Probably one of the most useful contributions I have seen on the discussions about why we believe what we believe re climate change.

FWIW I think everyone on this forum ( regardless of position) would get a genuinely different insight after considering this story.

Cheers

 

[Calliope]

He has made some good calls too but to rest your hat on him against the majority of the science community sounds a bit like political bias to me.

It is reassuring to know that a staunch Greenie like you has no political bias. What do you think is driving the GW debate if it is not politics? And don't give me that crap that it is about making a better world for our grandchildren. My grandchildren don't give a rat's about GW, even though they were indocrinated at school.

 

[wayneL]

I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.

The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html

Is that supposed to be some compelling evidence for CAGW?

People are persuaded around to different points of view all the time... many sceptical scientists used to be warmists and visa versa I'm sure.

 

[dbeyat45]

Is that supposed to be some compelling evidence for CAGW?

People are persuaded around to different points of view all the time... many sceptical scientists used to be warmists and visa versa I'm sure.

Interesting point WayneL. I wonder ho much "leakage" there has been from one "side" to the other over the years since, say 1988 when James Hansen spoke to the US Congress. Maybe someone is keeping count?

 

[Smurf1976]

Again the concern needs to be that, if Co2 emissions prove to be a problem will it be too late to make any correction.

We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. It's not as though reducing CO2 doesn't come with an environmental downside.

Nuclear power is an obvious one as are proposals to burn native forest woodchips to generate electricity. The latest example of this I've heard about is that environmentalists are upset about plans to dredge on the Great Barrier Reef due to the LNG projects. A classic "fix one problem and cause another" situation.

 

[orr]

We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. .

Here's an attempt at it:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...56314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pd

to quote from the 2006 Stern review into climate change...'The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs'

Tragically it spawned an obscurantist industry led by the likes of Monckton that have served their purpose well, by confusing a great many. To the advantage of the intrenched vested interests. And it's the remnents of this confused blinkered bewildered directionless straw clutching rabble, we're still attempting to lead out of pre-copernican wilderness.
But I take heart, From the closing verses of Eric Bogles ode to a lost campaign 'The band Played Waltzing Matilder'
But year after year there numbers get fewer
Someday no one will march there at all

try this quick quizz
One of the following has a political bias
a/ science
b/ Money
c/ lots of Money

 

[Knobby22]

Love it orr - practically literature !

Quote of the week "pre-copencican wilderness"

Reminds me of one of the allies of the anti climate change movement - "the Flat Earth society".

Is the answer (c) ???

 

[wayneL]

Yes a lovely piece of writing, the use of language exemplary; I enjoyed reading it.

However this is the post's only redeeming feature, the factual content being bullshyte.

The answer is actually a) + c)

 

[explod]

Yes a lovely piece of writing, the use of language exemplary; I enjoyed reading it.

However this is the post's only redeeming feature, the factual content being bullshyte.

The answer is actually a) + c)

Need to clutch that straw a lot harder against the wind ole pal, getting stronger.

And the winner, graciously decreed and bestowed upon by (c)

is (b)

 

[bellenuit]

I don't know whether to classify this as light hearted relief or just damn scary.

U.S. senator: God says that there can’t be global warming

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...r-god-says-that-there-cant-be-global-warming/

 

[sails]

I remember a conversation some time ago where there were taunts that Flannery never said anything about no more dam filling rains. Well, here is an ABC Landline transcript from February, 2007. And here is an excerpt (bolds and underline is mine):

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.​

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

And now, AGWers are trying to imply that the floods are caused by global warming? If the models predicted no more dam filling rains, how can that now be changed?

Why would anyone believe anything that is predicted by these models ever again? Surely historical weather cycles and patterns are a far more reliable predictor...