Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Pompous and hypocrites!!!. With a lot of assumption also there pal.

Your tone is that of guessing now, you would not have a clue.

And a need to bring the missus into it too, jeeze, the lad's about to cry.

The posts of Basilio over the last few days have been well researched, put together and quote references relevant to the urgency now of the real issues.

I recommend anyone new to this thread or uncertain to read back over them.

You are not qualified to make those judgement calls, by your own admission and as is obvious by what you post here.

I also recommend people read basilio's posts, but science does not progress by swallowing the confirmation bias of this new breed of Armageddonists. It progresses by argument, point and counterpoint. It progresses by transparency of data so that others can analyse. It progresses with empirical evidence.

On all these points, it is evident that argument should also be taken from sceptics if you want to form a balanced view as the empirical evidence diverges from modelling.

Now go away and play with someone of your own brain size.

NB. Isn't it curious that modern day brown-shirts come under the banner of Green. Paradoxical that.

 

[Logique]

So we graduate from indoctrination at school, but never fear, 8c a day radio and television is there to ensure we don't stray from the path of righteousness. The pathway to independent thought is steep, and increasingly litigious, ask Andrew Bolt. And the Press Council.

We are being asked to believe that Labor, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, have a belated moment of clarity about the Greens. It wasn't me Mum it was him!

AGW is the new Intelligent Design, and at the same time the obverse of it.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...da-on-lnp-summit-hit-list-20120712-21ygz.html
A push to ban “environmental propaganda” from schools and teach “normal science” about climate change is among motions set to be discussed at the Liberal National Party convention beginning today..

At last year's conference, LNP president Bruce McIver questioned the role of humans in driving climate change, arguing the climate was always changing and children were being “brainwashed” in the way climate science was taught....

Happy Bastille Day tomorrow to all, but please don't go storming things, there are peaceful ways.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

it appears the green alarmists here are still bleating about temperatures that always change (and are cooling) and a trace gas that if reduced may make 1/1000th degree change (if you believe a trace gas has any impact at all). It's also interesting to note that the loudest extremist here seems to always be quoting from alarmist blogs v's what the IPCC and Dept of Climate change actually support.

Legally, these government organization believe they have escaped accountability by the numerous disclaimers they post on AGW web sites, documents, reports and studies etc then hope 4th rate blogs can take up the slack. I think not.

Hence, Basilio never elaborates on any such disclaimers in the plentiful reports it posts on this thread, however, what gives the falsehood away is the plentiful use of terms like: likely, maybe, may, could, perhaps, in the future......

Perhaps legally changing the term "Green" to "Gullable" is the first step, since these terms could mean the same thing, and may accurately represent the truth in the future, or perhaps now, but could show and perhaps mean the same thing after all....

 

[Knobby22]

(if you believe a trace gas has any impact at all). ]

Lol, just because it is a trace gas doesn't mean it has no effect, OWG.
Stay in a room with some trace carbon monoxide and see how long you live.

I've got some definitions also.

blind   /blaɪnd/ Show Spelled [blahynd] Show IPA adjective, blind·er, blind·est, verb, noun, adverb
adjective
1. unable to see; lacking the sense of sight; sightless: a blind man.
2. unwilling or unable to perceive or understand: They were blind to their children's faults. He was blind to all arguments.
3. not characterized or determined by reason or control: blind tenacity; blind chance.
4. not having or based on reason or intelligence; absolute and unquestioning: She had blind faith in his fidelity.
5. lacking all consciousness or awareness: a blind stupor.

 

[prawn_86]

I think that World governments should take no action on climate change, and focus solely on reducing known pollutants (mercury, sewage into waterways etc), until this thread can come to an agreement amongst the main posters here on ASF

 

[explod]

Hence, Basilio never elaborates on any such disclaimers in the plentiful reports it posts on this thread, however, what gives the falsehood away is the plentiful use of terms like: likely, maybe, may, could, perhaps, in the future......

And that is the whole point "perhaps"

And perhaps if the changes now will turn out to be catastrophic and we are not doing something about it then is that responsible?

Of course the evidence is unclear, but the strong anecdotal is compelling enough in my view for us to be concerned and taking the action that has commenced.

 

[herzy]

Who cares what scientists on government payrolls sprout?

the weather just keeps doing it's own thing as it always has.

We don't need screeds of quotes to prove otherwise. Reality and history says it all.

But then there is no money in the common sense approach.

1. The consensus of scientists support human induced climate change. It still baffles me that lay people refuse to accept scientific viewpoint in this one area, and are willing to accept drivel from lay people spouting bias and government payroll crap. Are we all this questioning of other scientific consensus? I think not. Perhaps this is because they would rather believe that the status quo is fine, and hence discredit or disbelieve what scientists have been telling us for years. Is this akin to westerners continuing to eat unhealthy diets (high meat/cholesterol, processed foods and sugars) with low exercise despite health warnings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. The quote a few comments above is a perfect example of lay people relying on assertions ('reality and history says it all' 'the weather just keeps doing it's own thing') - what kinds of people actually ignore scientists and belief this crap?

3. WayneL you talk about impartiality and empirical data. I wonder why it is that you continually discredit scientific research and consensus. Surely this is forming your opinion and then trying to find examples to back you up? This would be the complete opposite of the scientific method you supposedly support.

4. LOL at the 'trace elements' argument. The whole idea is that of balance. For example, if you have more CO2 in the atmosphere, this increased concentration will cause more carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in water) in the ocean, which increases the acidity of the ocean. Irrespective of climate change issues, this in itself is damaging enough. The specific quantity of each gas is not relevant - it is the relative proportions, and how we are changing them that matters. Sulphur is only a trace element in the human body, but good luck functioning without it. What stupidity. This is akin to the 'it's naturally produced' argument, and the 'it's clear and non-toxic' argument... Proportion, origins and irrelevant chemical properties distract from the true argument.

 

[herzy]

I think that World governments should take no action on climate change, and focus solely on reducing known pollutants (mercury, sewage into waterways etc), until this thread can come to an agreement amongst the main posters here on ASF

don't worry, mercury is just a trace element. As are lead, other heavy metals and radioactive elements.

 

[white_goodman]

the same scientists who were in consensus that we had global cooling coming in the 70's, the ones that said our dams would never be full again? Of course in this armageddon scenario the climate 'scientists' dont too bad out of it, grants galore $80b has roughly been spent on climate programs by the US govt up till 2009, then look at the multi multi billions out of the carbon trading by the major banks... throw in the IPCC scandals and none of this raises any suspicion?

Even if man made global climate destruction was real, there is so much corruption and self interest going on that its akin to a mafia racquet.

If you dont agree imagine what career a scientist against the narrative would have, science without debate is propaganda. If 99% of funding went into why the earth is the centre of the solar system vs the skeptical sun is the centre crowd, whats the bet that the scientists tired to do ptolemy justice and come up with as much geocentric modelling as possible. Common sense aint that common

its amazing after all the history of human action that people still have a healthy trust in big govt.. i put it down to ignorance or being a shill

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".

Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.

Perhaps this link can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.

Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.

 

[Julia]

Are we all this questioning of other scientific consensus? I think not. Perhaps this is because they would rather believe that the status quo is fine, and hence discredit or disbelieve what scientists have been telling us for years. Is this akin to westerners continuing to eat unhealthy diets (high meat/cholesterol, processed foods and sugars) with low exercise despite health warnings?

Perhaps not such a good analogy, given the rapidity with which nutritionists et al change their minds about what we may eat and remain healthy. It's not so long ago, e.g. that eggs were deemed immensely dangerous for anyone, let alone those with elevated cholesterol. Now, it seems, that advice was rubbish and we may all eat as many eggs as we like.

Ditto the advice before such a high proportion of the population became overweight and obese to 'eat lots of carbohydrate: "It will never make you fat". And the wonderful olive oil which, it was suggested by these gurus, we could all drink by the bottle and - because it was such a healthy fat - the massive numbers of calories were irrelevant. What total rubbish it all has turned out to be.

Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".

+1. As we fork out for massive increases in electricity and everything we consume where it's a component, it would warm our hearts to know we are saving the planet. Please?

 

[Ferret]

Perhaps not such a good analogy, given the rapidity with which nutritionists et al change their minds about what we may eat and remain healthy. It's not so long ago, e.g. that eggs were deemed immensely dangerous for anyone, let alone those with elevated cholesterol. Now, it seems, that advice was rubbish and we may all eat as many eggs as we like.

Ditto the advice before such a high proportion of the population became overweight and obese to 'eat lots of carbohydrate: "It will never make you fat". And the wonderful olive oil which, it was suggested by these gurus, we could all drink by the bottle and - because it was such a healthy fat - the massive numbers of calories were irrelevant. What total rubbish it all has turned out to be.

Yes - bottom line is everything in moderation. And that includes CO2.

 

[sails]

NZ Scientists “stunned”, “shocked” by mere 1% rise in CO2 absorption. What spin!

The NZ Herald reports a new study showing that since 1988 there has been a sudden increase in the absorption of CO2 over land. It’s in the order of a billion tons of CO2 a year and amounts to 10% of all human emissions. As usual, the spinmeisters frame it in terms of our guilt instead of their ignorance. “Look! Things would have been worse and even warmer if not for this new unknown factor.”

But globally plants already emit about 80Gt per year. Finding one extra Gt of absorption is both predictable and largely insignificant. What this episode really shows is just how far the alarmist PR departments will go to find any excuse to cover up for two decades of poor predictions.

Read more: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nz...d-by-mere-1-rise-in-co2-absorption-what-spin/

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".

Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.

Perhaps this link can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.

Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.

Surely there must be someone from team gullable who can easily provide an accurate assessment? I keep hearing temperature rises of 5C will be upon us in less than 100yrs from the basilio drivel. So how much will the temperature change by reducing human co2 by 5%? Citations pls and any disclaimers from the referenced sites and calculations to also be provided. Basilio asserts there's a 1000 peer reviewed papers on Global Warming all proving increased temps from man's 3% contribution to natures 97% of co2. The proof and calculations should be located after page 1 in the first report, right?

Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?

 

[So_Cynical]

Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?

I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.

I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.

 

[sails]

I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.

I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.

SC, the co2 in our atmosphere will be nothing like the concentrations in a glass house. Long way off the mark.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I used to work in a big glasshouse that grew roses, they used to pump in C02 from the gas powered boilers that were used to heat the glasshouses, the increased CO2 in the air made the roses grow faster, but to much killed them so they had to constantly monitor the C02 levels.

I thought it was a no brainer that plants grew faster due to increased CO2 levels to lock up carbon quicker, to restore balance, like a natural environment CO2 balancing mechanism...implying that nature needs balance.

Good thread distraction - if this was a thread on Roses then I might respond, but it's not, but I'm sure there are experts to be found thru Google that could shed some more light on your assertions.

Now back to the original question - anyone with verified calculations pls? Disclaimers included.

 

[sails]

“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda by William F. Jasper

An excerpt:

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times ”” for science. Over the past several years, the world has been spectator to an alarming meltdown as one serious scandal after another has publicly exposed many of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, institutions, and publications as being captives of rigid ideologues who employ rigged computer models, fraudulent “evidence,” censorship, and intimidation to advance a radical “green” political agenda and to squelch genuine scientific inquiry and debate.

Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.

 

[herzy]

imagine what career a scientist against the narrative would have, science without debate is propaganda. If 99% of funding went into why the earth is the centre of the solar system vs the skeptical sun is the centre crowd, whats the bet that the scientists tired to do ptolemy justice and come up with as much geocentric modelling as possible. Common sense aint that common

its amazing after all the history of human action that people still have a healthy trust in big govt.. i put it down to ignorance or being a shill

Given the sluggish way in which governments are responding to threats to climate change (see responses to the Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen, etc) I think it's a fairly misguided statement that belief in climate change stems from a trust in government. I trust science, not governments who refuse to act on what scientists tell them. As I said above (or meant to say above) if anyone comes up with real science which shows that climate change is not human induced, and/or that increased CO2 levels by man will not affect the climate, I will be ecstatic. Fantastic news, because it means there will not be the dangers to ecosystems and biodiversity that I far are inevitable. Given the lack of such data, I assume the worst - and it baffles me that people conclude otherwise with a complete lack of scientific basis, and based purely on their own conclusions.

Unlike religion or dogma, scientists are always happy (or at least should always be happy) to be impartial and respond to what their data and findings put out. This is in contrast to the biased, oil-funded groups who have tried (and failed) to refute climate science findings. Yes, it hasn't been pinned down accurately - please name a single area of science which, from the outset, has been completely accurate? - and the inaccuracies of weather forecasts are enough to show that this is a particularly difficult area to model accurately. That does not, however, mean that the entire premise is false.

I humbly suggest that your denial of climate science is derived from significantly greater ignorance of the area than the scientists that publish and research this area.

Scientists go 'against the narrative' all the time. There are no repercussions for this, assuming the findings are based on good and accurate research. Science is continually changing, and scientists accept this. There are many more recent examples than Ptolemy (which incidentally was a time when there were many more scientific misconceptions - by today's understanding of science - than merely the centre of the solar system).

Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".

Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.

Perhaps this link can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.

Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.

No, I can't. I'm not a climate scientist. Even climate scientists can't accurately (and shouldn't try to). Neither can Lord Mockton, who is definitely NOT a climate scientist (what a joke). Why is it that people are willing to listen to Lord Mockton because their opinion is in line with his, and ignore and discredit people who actually know about this area?

+1. As we fork out for massive increases in electricity and everything we consume where it's a component, it would warm our hearts to know we are saving the planet. Please?

Julia and OzWaveGuy you assume that a reduction by 5% is intended to save the world. It is not. Australians are the biggest per capita producers of CO2 in the world. Assuming for a moment that CO2 produced by man will change the climate, if Australia wants to operate on a global stage, and negotiate and convince other countries to be taken seriously, and convince other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, how can they do that without first doing something themselves. Yes, our CO2 contributions are minuscule on a global scale, and when compared with China, India, America, etc - but (at least for me) that's not the point. Australia is the first country to have come out and done something proactive, and can now put political pressure on others to do the same. It breaks the deadlock between developed and non-developed countries refusing to change before the other does. We should be proud. Will a 5% reduction by Australia make a difference? No. Will the implementation of the policy make a difference to global politics? Maybe.

And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.

Surely there must be someone from team gullable who can easily provide an accurate assessment? I keep hearing temperature rises of 5C will be upon us in less than 100yrs from the basilio drivel. So how much will the temperature change by reducing human co2 by 5%? Citations pls and any disclaimers from the referenced sites and calculations to also be provided. Basilio asserts there's a 1000 peer reviewed papers on Global Warming all proving increased temps from man's 3% contribution to natures 97% of co2. The proof and calculations should be located after page 1 in the first report, right?

Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?

Not sure if this is what you are after, but I think you are confusing the issue. CO2 is a radiatively active gas, which in short means that it traps heat into the atmosphere. Whether this property alone is sufficient for you to consider it a pollutant I can't answer. Mercury and CO were examples of elements being 'bad' in small amounts. Also look at CFCs, and many other things. This was to counter the rubbish argument that 3% of atmospheric CO2 is man made. This argument is rubbish, because it doesn't matter - if a 3% increase is enough to upset the balance, this is significant. If a 300% would be required to upset the balance, then 3% would probably be of less interest.

Anyway, in brief this is what the IPCC says on CO2 in one of their glossaries.

"Carbon dioxide (CO2): A naturally occurring gas, also a by-product of burning fossil fuels from fossil carbon deposits, such as oil, gas and coal, of burning biomass and of land use changes and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential of 1."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf

 

[Tannin]

Australia is the first country to have come out and done something proactive, and can now put political pressure on others to do the same.

Not even close to the first. We are we are well back, in the peloton if you like, and a long way behind the leading group.

Australia is around about the 45th country to introduce a carbon price (rough figure, you can argue it up and down a little depending on the exact way you define the the question, but between 40 and 50 is certainly true), and the 16th country in the world to do that in the form of a tax.

The massive mistake in the Australian system is that we have failed to tax imports. By exempting exports and taxing imports - exactly what we do with GST - we cxould make a massive difference and improve the position of our import-competing manufacturers. That's a win-win.