Resisting Climate Hysteria

[orr]

There is no money in non-alarmism. That alarmist papers outnumber non-alarmist papers is hardly surprising, given the prerequisites for government funding.

Well over blown rhetoric we're used to. The Uber Conservative Koch Foundations 'inconvenient" Climate Report, put the sword to this trite little quip.
Of course you can truck with Rick Santorum... 'it's a hoax', and the dozens of other flim flamers
Or 97-98% of scientists who work in the field of climate research, yes even conservative funded ones, given to the prerequisites of peer reviewed scrutiny of their arguments.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

 

[Knobby22]

(Can't resist this)

I think Clive Palmer is worried about climate change?
Why else would he build a big shp like that???

 

[moXJO]

(Can't resist this)


Why else would he build a big shp like that???

I heard he invited every member of parliament on the maiden voyage.

 

[Logique]

Looked like a stunt from the ABC, Miranda Devine gives her opinion.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...legraph/comments/climate_alarm_is_turned_off/
Climate alarm is turned off - Miranda Devine, 28 April 2012

...She [climate activist Anna Rose] didn’t even try to meet Minchin half way. It was as if sceptics were supposed to be pathetically grateful to get airtime on the ABC at all.

The alarmists have only been driven to dialogue with the enemy through desperation, as public opinion deserts them...

...They tried ignoring the sceptics. But that just made them look shifty and insecure. They tried to smear sceptics by linking them to Big Tobacco or Big Oil but that made them look mean and tricky. They tried accusing sceptics of violence and death threats but it didn’t wash. They even talked about suspending democracy.

Now when they’re licked, they deign to talk. Big concession...

 

[OzWaveGuy]

David Evans goes into detail about the "simulated" climate from models v's observed evidence - something the media and Government avoid covering in light of the carbon tax....

And before Basilio and Knobby react - yes yes - we know the world's climate changes and we know who the "elist" scientists like Flannery are and their "superb" track record of predictions...and yes we all know you haven't answered questions on observed evidence except pontificating that the answer is in thousands of "scientific" reports that can be found in a John Cook blog...and yes we know you love to continuously use the surface temperatures even though they are proven to be corrupted....now for some context and reality...

...As David often points out, the mainstream media have never shown this data anywhere in the world, ever, even though it is extremely relevant, from mankind’s best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, and is publicly available....​

 

[basilio]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion around the evidence regarding climate change Ozzie.

I had a close look at the Dr David Evans videos and was very surprised at the first statement which basically said there was no discernible increase in temperature since 1988 as measured by the NASA satellites. He also said this was from "mankinds best instruments, impeccable sources" and so on. He also dismissed land based temperature records because of location biases etc.

Firstly the dissing of surface based temperature figures is just plain wrong. For years skeptics tried to point to particular weather stations and argue they were contaminated by local conditions. The BEST analysis of all climate records (which had significant funding from the Koch brothers and was instigated by a climate change skeptic) ended up acknowledging that surface based climate records were accurate. Dr Evans effective dismissal of this analysis suggest he just didn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient truth.

With regard to the UAH satellite figures. These have been around since 1979. However there is no way they are gospel or absolutely accurate. The facts are that the measurements that are made are very complex and in fact have been repeatedly reinterpreted as instruments become more sensitive and measurement problems identified and resolved.

"As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up. It’s also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully."

Dessler is referring to the complex nature of constructing a global temperature series from the satellite observations. The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don't actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and the intensity of this radiation is a proxy for air temperature. Given that the radiation reaches the satellite sensors having travelled through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere, that bias exists between the various sensors, issues with orbital decay, and a host of other obstacles, there's a lot of careful and painstaking analysis required, and much that can go wrong.

One of the issues with the UAH graphs is that Roy Spence and John Cristy have been the foremost analysts of this information. Both these scientists have been at the forefront of denying/minimizing global warming and have used the UAH information as important parts of their argument. However when their figures are checked by other scientists it becomes clear that their interpretations don't stand up to scrutiny.

The figures don't add up.

Dr Evans dismisses around 6 other scientific temperature records in favour of 1 record and then uses the interpretation of a couple of scientists who have been repeatedly caught out misusing this data. He just isn't credible.

________________________________________________________________
For those who are interested in the science surrounding this question check out the link.

UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence
Posted on 27 December 2011 by dana1981, Albatross

Christy Crocks November 2011 marked the 33rd year of atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-basic.htm
This analysis goes into further detail on the correlation of UAH figures and ground level temperature records.

 

[sails]

Basilio - how about stop calling people "sceptics" simply because they do not agree with YOUR viewpoint?

Are you calling the majority of Aussie "sceptics"?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Presently 24C in Townsville, expecting a low of 20C, with some showers a possibility, and looking at a high of 29C tomorrow.

Much as one would expect this time of year.

I see no evidence of warming. This warming business would have to be the greatest con of a generation. The guilty should be sued for all the bother they have caused.

gg

 

[OzWaveGuy]

thanks for the john cook blog links...the web site is so credible, lets ditch the satellite data, argo buoys and the other devices used to measure temperatures in favour of ground based thermos. next to ac machinery and upon rooftops.

lets then add x3 forcing, and magically adjust early temps lower and recent temps higher to create a magical 5deg of warming using "proven" models - we can then call this sound scientific ipcc process

feel free to create some more credible process whilst lying on the couch there basilio - your mission in helping people uncover the facts and question alarmists like yourself and so called gov experts is working.

does the BOM follow the same process too?

 

[orr]

Max Planck has jumped into my imagination. Planck who buried four of his children and his first wife.
On quantum mechanics he said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

On Evans's tropical hot spots
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

This aspect of his blurb fails the credibility test.
I look forward to the first paper that he puts up for pier review. As I suspect do many.
Send him your encouragment Oz, to get on with it.

 

[sails]

And the handful of carbon tax enthusiasts here wonder why so many feel this whole "climate change" is nothing more than an excuse for a fabian styled wealth redistribution...

The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters.

Read full article from the UK daily mail:
Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

And this massive power hungry machine is obviously only as good as it's inputs. It got the April forecast for the UK horribly wrong - forecasting drought and instead they had massive rain...lol

From the BBC: April is the wettest month for 100 years

Comments from Whattsupwiththat:
Met Office April Forecast: “…drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable.”

The proof of the pudding...FAIL..the pic below says it all really...

 

[wayneL]

Orr

Scientific truth? Good Lord even that has redefined by the Fabian alarmist lobby.

 

[Logique]

We ridiculed these claims at the time. According to this article, we were right. The FOI adjudicator found 10 of the 11 emails were harmless, and the 11th '..perhaps alluding to a threat..'

Climate blogger Simon Turnill had to work hard to access the documents under FOI, as the ANU initially refused to release them.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg8y6-1226345224816
Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke, Christian Kerr From: The Australian May 03, 2012 (Subscription required)

 

[sails]

We ridiculed these claims at the time. According to this article, we were right. The FOI adjudicator found 10 of the 11 emails were harmless, and the 11th '..perhaps alluding to a threat..'

Climate blogger Simon Turnill had to work hard to access the documents under FOI, as the ANU initially refused to release them.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg8y6-1226345224816
Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke, Christian Kerr From: The Australian May 03, 2012 (Subscription required)

Sounds like it was no more than propaganda - here's the definition from a google search:

prop·a·gan·da
Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

 

[Logique]

I found this truly shocking. A ponzi scheme of the worst kind, the insiders include union superann funds, and we're subsidizing it through rising kWh rates for coal-fired energy.

Wind farm scam a huge cover-up
James Delingpole May 03, 2012 (Subscription needed)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...huge-cover-up/comments-e6frgd0x-1226345185075

 

[sails]

I found this truly shocking. A ponzi scheme of the worst kind, the insiders include union superann funds, and we're subsidizing it through rising kWh rates for coal-fired energy.

Wind farm scam a huge cover-up
James Delingpole May 03, 2012 (Subscription needed)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...huge-cover-up/comments-e6frgd0x-1226345185075

And yet some here seem so dense that they don't understand why people have a healthy, questioning attitude to this whole AGW thing.

The more that comes out now, it seems the smellier this AGW thing gets. Which makes carbon tax look like one big scam, imo

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And yet some here seem so dense that they don't understand why people have a healthy, questioning attitude to this whole AGW thing.

The more that comes out now, it seems the smellier this AGW thing gets. Which makes carbon tax look like one big scam, imo

I suggest some of the alarmists that frequent this thread actually work for agencies/NGOs pushing the AGW scam. Arguably, it's not that they are "dense", they are on a mission since their career may somewhat depend on it.

The AGW agencies and NGOs need to have their funding shut off if their predictions are false or they use misleading information and data. Legal action against individuals using false and misleading information is also necessary to drive accountability.

 

[explod]

On the anecdotal, a few more are starting to get the message. Something just not right perhaps.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NE05Dj02.html

 

[So_Cynical]

I watched an interesting episode of Catalyst this afternoon. (link with video below)

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm

Apparently there is a bit of a Global tree die off going on, has been for the last decade or so.

Of course the deniers will say trees die all the time, have done for century's right, even in Townsville...google turned up some more reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?pagewanted=all

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2252

 

[basilio]

I watched an interesting episode of Catalyst this afternoon. (link with video below)

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3488105.htm

Apparently there is a bit of a Global tree die off going on, has been for the last decade or so.

Of course the deniers will say trees die all the time, have done for century's right, even in Townsville...google turned up some more reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?pagewanted=all

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2252

Well thats all very well but global temperatures can't be rising can they ? After all according the most accurate scientific instruments and measurements available there has been no significant change to global temperatures since 1988..

So the trees and ecosystems have just got it all wrong again.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/