Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz. :

Cal, the emoticons are the only way to try and add some 'body language' to the posts. They are not there to be childish, but to add a little bit that unspoken dimension that is missing in text conversation such as fora.

In person it might be done with a raised eyebrow, feigned indignation or a hundred other ways that is not possible in print.

 

[Smurf1976]

I was referring to your "stick out tongue". viz. :

I was responding to your "I am sitting here tonight shivering" post which, given that short term weather is no indication of climate change or otherwise, I took to be somewhat light hearted in nature.

In an equally light hearted manner, I suggested that if you are cold then you could burn some coal to keep warm.

I don't think either post was intended as being particularly serious (apart from my safety related comment for anyone who does burn coal at home).

All is good - no harm intended to anyone.

 

[Logique]

Smurf and Calliope,
those of us who know you both - never thought this was anything else but a misunderstanding.

 

[Calliope]

Smurf and Calliope,
those of us who know you both - never thought this was anything else but a misunderstanding.

Yes Logique I over-reacted, but when I was a kid sticking out the tongue was a rude gesture. I was just surprised that Smurf, whose views I respect, thought it added anything to his post. It was the sort of gesture I would have expected from the warmists. Never mind, revenons a nos moutons.

 

[wayneL]

The alarmist hypocrisy/green illusion.

First, vehicle such as the Toyota Pious are revealed as net more polluting than an equivalent normal car; now this!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098

BERKELEY, Calif., June 4, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.

Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.

The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098#ixzz1wrB5blik

 

[herzy]

Basilio - AGW does not appear to be proven, it seems to be no more than a hypothesis and any scientist who disagrees with it is considered loopy at best. Emotional tactics are not scientific.

Flannery's forecasts didn't pan out too well, did they? Shows the inputs to AGW computer modelling were not correct and this money grab based on an unproven hypothesis has speeded up the total rejection of such nonsense by the majority of voters.

Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:

1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?

2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.

3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is 19c here in Townsville at present.

We had a high of 25C, a beautiful winter's day.

We expect a low of 15C

Much as it has ever been in these parts.

Let us hope nobody from the University of East Anglia ever relocates to JCU. Gawd knows what climate we would have.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.

The reason for the public disregarding it is pretty straightforward.

1. "Suspending democracy" in no way helps resolve the problem.
2. Sending money to the UN doesn't help either.
3. Too many "boy who cried wolf" predictions of imminent disaster have lead to people tiring of the issue.
4. Imposing a tax whilst boosting coal production is clearly not doing anything to help.

The public may well consider that action needs to be taken, but they are not being presented with any credible means of doing so. The 3 major political parties are all proposing to do effectively nothing, whilst attaching all sorts of unrelated causes to the issue to which large sections of the community are opposed.

Anyone who really wanted to fix the problem would propose doing just that. Fixing it. Labor, Liberal and Green have all failed to do so, indicating that none of our "leaders" see it as a top priority. It is thus no surprise to find that the average citizen is somewhat dismissive of the issue.

 

[Julia]

I agree with Smurf's comments.

Herzy, aren't you perhaps interpreting the widespread rejection of the need for the carbon tax for a definite assertion by the electorate that there is no such thing as AGW?

Imo they are two separate issues.

I personally am agnostic about AGW, but I'm totally opposed to Australian business and the ordinary population being economically disadvantaged via a tax which exceeds that anywhere in the world.

Possibly a quite different story if there were a global acceptance and adoption of this, thus not rendering Australian business at such a disadvantage.

People are rightly angry about the imposition of a tax which will - in the absence of global action at least - do nothing to change the climate but further impact on their already stressed cost of living, so perhaps don't be so dismissive of genuine concerns of ordinary people.

Just as an aside, there are some countries in the world (my native NZ for one) where the inhabitants would absolutely welcome an increase in temperature. Consideration is never given to this. The people in much of Europe, Canada etc with snow up to their windowsills every winter would probably be very happy to have somewhat less of it.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:

1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?

2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.

3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.

Since Herzy chooses to simply believe the "scientific" consensus as does basilio who continues to use the worn and fraudulent "97% of scientists believe" statement, once again and for the record perhaps Herzy can reference the source of survey? Better still, here's the write up....from wattsup

....This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.​

Let's welcome herzy to the AGW alarmist carrot club. Perhaps you may have better luck referencing the Mann hockey stick - there couldn't be any fraud there, right? Or is there selective cherry picking there too? Thanks for your opinion - but we're only concerned with the facts - not spin and fraud.

 

[wayneL]

Interesting to read your comment critically - I'd like to make a few points:

1. We never rely too much on financial forecasts, and yet when something as complex as climate forecasts fail (which no one has been able to accurately predict) - this is proof that man-made climate change doesn't exist?

This is the problem with the debate as it stands Alarmists continue portray a polarized debate characterized by 1/ a catastrophic worst scenario where life on earth is virtually destroyed and 2/ Outright denial. In fact the sensible debate resides somewhere in the middle, viz, 1/ how much climate change is due to anthropogenic factors and haow much is natural 2/ What anthropogenic factors they are, GHGs, land use etc

2. Emotional tactics are not scientific - I agree completely. Contrary to 'the majority of voters' rejecting 'such nonsense' as an 'unproven hypothesis', real scientists (cf the general public) have reached a consensus that supports that man is affecting the climate. This was an hypothesis, and has been supported to the same extent that any other scientific research can be supported.

You will find a range of views, only a few escapees from the asylum and those with a political support the catastrophic hypothesis.

3. I choose to believe scientific opinion rather than that of laypeople. This goes for all areas of science, rather than just climate science. If 97% of scientists said that there was a significant chance that carrots caused cancer, I guarantee people would stop eating carrots. Now, 97% of scientists say that the actions of man are affecting the climate - yet for some reason, the general public choose to disregard this.

You plead the proper use of science and then use unscientific stats as highlighted by OzWave. Tsk Tsk just another 'believer' I'm afraid.

 

[IFocus]

3. Too many "boy who cried wolf" predictions of imminent disaster have lead to people tiring of the issue.

This is were the lunatics took over the asylum unfortunately and now you have discredited bigger lunatics weighing in from both sides being quoted continually in the general media and by politicians depending on their personal agendas.

 

[sptrawler]

This is were the lunatics took over the asylum unfortunately and now you have discredited bigger lunatics weighing in from both sides being quoted continually in the general media and by politicians depending on their personal agendas.

Yes it would appear Tim Flannery can allow his own biases and personal prejudices to cloud his judgement.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/vindicated-after-the-agony-of-a-lifetime-20120616-20ghe.html

 

[basilio]

A contribution to the AGW debate from a prominent conservative professor.

If you click on the link and read the article he supports James Hansons proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax..

A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change

Guest post by Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and regular contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy

No environmental issue is more polarizing than global climate change. Many on the left fear increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases threaten an environmental apocalypse while many on the right believe anthropogenic global warming is much ado about nothing and, at worst, a hoax. Both sides pretend as if the climate policy debate is, first and foremost, about science, rather than policy. This is not so. There is substantial uncertainty about the scope, scale, and consequences of anthropogenic warming, and will be for some time, but this is not sufficient justification for ignoring global warming or pretending that climate change is not a serious problem.

Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern. I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative. Even if some parts of the world were to benefit from a modest temperature increase -- due to, say, a lengthened growing season -- others will almost certainly lose.
.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/

 

[OzWaveGuy]

A contribution to the AGW debate from a prominent conservative professor.

If you click on the link and read the article he supports James Hansons proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax..



http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/

hmmm, that's a nice warm statement basilio, thanks for thinking of us - what makes you think anyone trusts warmists with their tax monies in the first place? Perhaps you could address the corruption issues in the so called "science" first before we consider addressing any alledged problem. However, your conduct in this thread strongly suggests you support corruption in order to have green ideology orchestrated, so i guess we'll never see honest answers to a mulitude of corruption issues by agw extemists in the foreseeable future.

I was a little surprised when the mann hockey stick equivalent for australia was published a few weeks ago and you didn't post it here. Unfortunately it was recently taken down because of inherent errors and corrupt methods - no surprise.

 

[basilio]

Ozzie, did Jonathan Alder say anything that made you think again ?

 

[Calliope]

Environment summit is a waste of time.

Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. Even if we assumed unreasonably that it caused all deaths from floods, droughts, heatwaves, and storms, this total would amount to just 0.06 per cent of all deaths in developing countries. In comparison, 13 per cent of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution.

So, for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels (such as dried animal dung) indoors, and from breathing polluted air outdoors.

By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realise that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-at-wrong-goal/story-e6frgd0x-1226398020777

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

From the SMH, a fine journal, heading towards a more independent less left wing driven editorial policy.

The meeting was never intended to reach a binding agreement, but the deal it did reach was so watered down that many activists and some ministers were openly questioning whether it was worth the massive effort of bringing 45, 381 participants and almost 100 world leaders to Brazil.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaO5LRTf

How much energy did these boofheads waste flying all over the planet on this absolutely futile exercise.

And La Gillard was up front with all the other muppets.

gg

 

[Julia]

In addition to the 'massive effort' what about all the emissions they created in getting to this talkfest?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

In addition to the 'massive effort' what about all the emissions they created in getting to this talkfest?

One of the major outcomes of the talkfest was that the Clinton lady complimented La Gillard on her hair.

Be fair Julia, be fair.

Ms Clinton complimented Ms Gillard on "everything she has been doing" and on her hair.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-rio-summit-20120623-20ukj.html#ixzz1yaWs7zFR

I do wish they had invited the "real" muppets to the Rio talkfest, perhaps something might have been achieved.

gg