Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

The cleanest most accessible document I have found was put together by a group of scientists at the Skeptical science blog.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.

 

[basilio]

Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.

Wayne that summary didn't troll the net for mindless distortions and downright lies. It uses the work of 68 peer reviewed papers to back up its explanations. They probably could have multiplied it by 10 or 100 but that would be rediculous.

How would it be useful to use scientific papers that other scientists would simply deconstruct because the evidence was non existent, or faked ? Or just related to a small set of data that didn't cover the whole picture ?

The critical problem with the anti AGW case is it's rejection of almost the whole body of climate science in favour of people who cherry pick data, deliberately distort evidence and refuse to use logic.

_______________________________________________________________________________

With regard to bringing up the current massive heat waves as evidence of Global Warming. Are we not talking about an overall increase in global temperatures as a result of more heat being trapped in the atmosphere by extra greenhouse gases ? I would have have thought the massive nationwide examples in the US of such a heat wave was relevant to the discussion.

No one has ever suggested that weather around the world will rise in lock step. But what is clearly happening is the extra heat energy in the atmosphere is changing the climate in a number of ways. The strength and depth of the heatwaves is a clear indication that is not just the same weather cycles but significantly stronger systems.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The critical problem with the anti AGW case is it's rejection of almost the whole body of climate science in favour of people who cherry pick data, deliberately distort evidence and refuse to use logic.

Get the feeling that your posts seem to attracting an increasing amount of negativity? Perhaps because of your demonstrated: support for corruption, inability to provide observed evidence of man's 3% contribution of CO2 on temperatures, continual referencing of 2nd rate blogs, inability to accept IPCC and others have admitted to using corrupted data and processes, and above all your unequivocal inability to answer basic questions on the impact of human CO2.

The trend is simple to understand: 3yrs ago, some would listen to the dribble from your posts including Knobby and a few others, however, you're in complete denial of the mounting evidence of corruption in AGW so called "science" (and cooler temperatures). There's a few words to describe entities like you which I won't post here, but one thing's for certain your tainted and corrupted view of so called climate change is educating many here of the kind of people that we don't want pontificating lies and deceit to us or anyone else here in Oz.

 

[basilio]

Ozzie you have been directly answered a score of times. You just can't or won't read the scientific data. The reference I put in my previous post addresses your questions.

And by the way Skeptical science pulls together all the peer reviewed science in this field. Calling it a second rate blog site is surreal.

I take your point about the lack of support for me on this forum. It reflects the reality that all other science based contributers have given up discussing the issue when its clear evidence and logic are not part of the discussion.

(I think i just have too much time on my hands...)

 

[Glen48]

Why Jesus turned green:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAS3Tmz7IYI&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Calliope]

Basilio's hero George Monbiot is complaining bitterly that oil reserves in the ground are huge.

There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.

But right now I'm not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-lot-of-us-20120703-21fbi.html#ixzz1zctFdgvR

 

[Knobby22]

Basilio's hero George Monbiot is complaining bitterly that oil reserves in the ground are huge.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-lot-of-us-20120703-21fbi.html#ixzz1zctFdgvR

The funny thing is that US and Europe petrol usage has dropped dramatically since the GFC a combination of better technology and everyone being broke. Even China is flattening on their use of petrol. Australia, (proudly?) has done no such thing but we are in the minority.

Read in New Scientist recently that the new battery technologies are also taking hold and can be expected to further reduce our reliance on oil. Peak oil nearly happened imo but now is looking a fair way off.

Interesting times...

 

[wayneL]

Wayne that summary didn't troll the net for mindless distortions and downright lies. It uses the work of 68 peer reviewed papers to back up its explanations. They probably could have multiplied it by 10 or 100 but that would be rediculous.

I presume you meant 'ridiculous'.

I also presume you have attended the Goebbels School of Propaganda judging by the number of times you have repeated the phrase 'mindless distortions and downright lies'.

Unfortunately for you (et al), we are all onto that now. Repetition does not imply truth any more, quite the opposite actually.

We have been over the problems with modelling, soft science and purported peer review a number of times now on this thread.... sorry ma'am, that just doesn't cut it. What we are interested in is hard science and proper scientific method. In cases where hard science is available, it increasingly favours the moderate 'lukewarm' view.

Awaiting your next troll post in eager anticipation. </sarc>

 

[explod]

In cases where hard science is available, it increasingly favours the moderate 'lukewarm' view.

Awaiting your next troll post in eager anticipation. </sarc>

So post some links to this up';

and awaiting yours

 

[wayneL]

Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):

Global temps remain below normal for the year
http://policlimate.com/climate...

and if not for the Warm AMO, it would be even be colder ( forces the warmth north of Russia)

notice most land masses are colder than normal

3 year trend is jagged and down since pdo shift

http://policlimate.com/climate...

The US is less than 10% of the globe. Moral is you are being deceptive using The US. Scandinavia had coldest June on record Australia is having a bad winter. A coffee freeze may ht Brazil within next 15 years.

Please if you want to talk globally, use global weather, not just an area less than 10% it is deception when all facts are not shown.. or even some of them

btw 25 states had RECORD LOWS last week too

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-climate.html#comment-575334775#storylink=cpy

 

[Smurf1976]

Peak oil nearly happened imo but now is looking a fair way off.

Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.

 

[explod]

Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):

A couple of years is meaningless.

Like my claim that more rain is due to more moisture rising due to higher temps down south. And more cloud causing lower temps up the latitudes.

You and I as laypersons just do not know.

I just do not think that head in the sand on any angle are worth the risks.

 

[wayneL]

A couple of years is meaningless.

Like my claim that more rain is due to more moisture rising due to higher temps down south. And more cloud causing lower temps up the latitudes.

You and I as laypersons just do not know.

I just do not think that head in the sand on any angle are worth the risks.

But you can raise any fear and demand action on the same basis. Also you are suffering (as layman) a cognitive bias that my fear is subordinate to your fear. That is both fallacious and arrogant.

And skeptics do not have they're head in the sand Plod, they are examining the the HARD evidence.

 

[explod]

But you can raise any fear and demand action on the same basis. Also you are suffering (as layman) a cognitive bias that my fear is subordinate to your fear. That is both fallacious and arrogant.

And skeptics do not have they're head in the sand Plod, they are examining the the HARD evidence.

And the evidence on all side is still subjective. However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.

And arrogance. Strewth, you are certainly not able to see yourself objectively ole Pal, but keep working.

 

[wayneL]

And the evidence on all side is still subjective. However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.

So your subjective indications are worth more than my subjective indications?

I have a list of cognitive biases for your self-realization.

And arrogance. Strewth, you are certainly not able to see yourself objectively ole Pal, but keep working.

Again, you believe me unable to see myself objectively, yet you believe you see yourself objectively?

FFS Plod, I have often wondered about your capacity to review data dispassionately and with a minimum of bias; but your latest comments leave me with no doubt - People with a minimum cognitive ability should disqualify themselves from strongly held opinion.

 

[explod]

Again, you believe me unable to see myself objectively, yet you believe you see yourself objectively?

.

I do not see myself objective in this debate, unless one is a scientist in the specific field how can one.

You still do not see what I am saying in an objective manner and on this I am not referring to climate.

Is there someone else out there who can help the lad, I am obviously not up to it.

 

[wayneL]

I do not see myself objective in this debate, unless one is a scientist in the specific field how can one.

You still do not see what I am saying in an objective manner and on this I am not referring to climate.

Is there someone else out there who can help the lad, I am obviously not up to it.

Classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Not every scientist is objective, nor is every non-scientist subjective.

Empirical evidence trumps all.

 

[explod]

Classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Not every scientist is objective, nor is every non-scientist subjective.

Empirical evidence trumps all.

Again you assert your own perfection. You are UYOA ole son and cannot see it.

It is a wonder anyone bothers with you at all, but I will stick around myself for the fun of it.

 

[wayneL]

Again you assert your own perfection. You are UYOA ole son and cannot see it.

It is a wonder anyone bothers with you at all, but I will stick around myself for the fun of it.

Eh?

Can you please quote line and verse, my assertions of my own perfection?

I merely assert what i think is logical on the grand scale of things and stand to be corrected.

Further logical fallacy on your part does not do you any favours old bean.

 

[Knobby22]

Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.

A few years ago I was expecting $200 a barrel combined with a Depression!
Once again through ingenuity and luck we seem to have avoided the worst and given ourselves time to change how our economy works. Humanity is lucky, if other alien races are watching us they must gasp to see our wars, weapons, energy usage, posioning of environment and yet we always seem to escape.

Even global warming won't be all bad. The arctic sea will be trafficable. Our farms will be able to grow plants quicker.
Sure the other creatures we share the earth with will suffer, and some third world countries in Africa and Asia. And our insurance premiums will continue to rise but hey in Australia and New Zealand we can just ignore it, perhaps providing a bit of aid to salve our consciences.