Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

Prophetess Basilo and her disciple Orr.

 

[white_goodman]

the religious notions of original sin and apocalypse seem to have found a new home in the church climate alarmism

 

[basilio]

Well the possum has been well and truly stirred..

Wayne now believes that we don't actually have global warming because he has now accepted evidence that negates the millions of climate records across the world and through the last couple of hundred of years....

Frankly I was astounded at this particular leap. Up until now I thought most people in the discussion at least accepted we had an increase in world temperatures and the argument was what was causing it and would it continue.

And then I appreciated how simply brilliant Waynes new position is. ( I'm assuming here he has accepted this view from the work of other parties)

One of the serious problems with explaining temperature increase has been finding some other feasible story. So we had volcanoes, solar storms, cosmic rays and ABC (anything but CO2).

The trouble with this line of argument was that they never actually stacked up. Scientists were able to routinely identify the mathematical, logical and evidential problems with each explanation. So what to do ?

Simple... Just state there actually isn't any rise in global temperature. Argue that the temperature records are compromised/adjusted/ wrong.

So now instead of having to create a score of small stupid lies that have to be defended and end up contradicting each other causing lots of friendly fire .....

You just have one super lie to defend

With one super lie you can deny global warming until the cows come home. You can deny the integrity of all science, all observations all events. Whatever actually happens on the earth cannot be associated with global warming because there is no global warming. It's been denied out of existence

Isn't that just so clever? Stalin, Mao and Goebbels would be proud of this work.

So in that sense I can now understand why Wayne has moved to the view that the figures are all wrong and therefore global warming isn't happening. The movement now has just one neat, simple monstrous lie to spread and regurgitate on demand.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Apocalypse Now.

It's interesting isn't it that no one here has bothered to actually challenge the observations of ice melt or the science behind the warming of the planet. Nope - climate scientists have been cast as Apocalyptic priests sowing the seeds of brimefire and damnation. Forget the evidence behind what is said. Ignore the reality of current changes in climate. Just trash the messengers, turn then into high priests from hell and then ridicule them or burn them at the stake. (Figuratively of course) Is that about right ?

So lets consider other scientific predictions.

When a meteorologist picks up a monster cyclone coming into the coast and threatening widespread devastation do we call them High Priests from hell?

How about the scientists who track earthquakes and predict the possibility of tsunamis rolling through our shores? More High priests from hell ? Or vulcanologists who warn of impending eruptions ?

How do we regard the work of scientists who warn about bird flu ? Outbreaks of disease ?

How about those who discover that industrial chemicals are causing widespread cancers amongst workers and the community ? Perhaps the deaths of millions of people from say smoking ? More scaremongers here ? More doomsayers that need to be demonised and then disregarded ?

Folks you are been totally stooged. I'm in no way happy with what scientists are almost uniformly saying is happening re global warming. I don't want to believe it any more any one else does. But how dumb would I be to ignore credible warnings of storms, flood or other natural disasters just because I didn't want to know about it ? What will happen to our society if we disregard the expertise of people who know what they are talking about in deference to those who simply havn't got a clue ?

 

[wayneL]

Cynic,

Great post... what I wished I had taken the time to type out.

Most notable that, just like television evangelists, they do not practice what they preach. Reminds of of the saying - "what you do speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you say".

 

[wayneL]

basilio

1/ You continue to misconstrue, ergo, have no honour.

2/ You refuse to address the elephant in the room as regards your own actions (despite repeatedly being asked to do so), ergo, continue with the above-mentioned hypocrisy of megalithic proportions.

3/ You continue to ignore data contrary to your belief, ergo, wouldn't now scientific process if it king hit you in the back of your obviously below average IQ skull case.

Either you are not aware of these and are simply struggling to discern advocacy and belief from science, or you are aware and simple a troll... or suffer from psycopathy as outlined by cyinc.

Either way, you have an acute credibility problem and cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Knobby22]

ill make a bet with you Orr, the end of the arctic ice sheet scenario drawn above, if it happens within 4 years ill give u a sum of money, and vice versa... though for someone who joins a investing website, makes not one post with regards to investing might not have the wallet to back up his beliefs .. keep on keepin on my linear minded friend

Since the scientists are saying the arctic will be ice free sometime between 2025 and 2030, I would advise Orr not to take up the sucker bet.

From the Calgary Herald, Canada, today. (The nadir has been reached and so the ice will begin to build up again over winter.)

In mid-September, Arctic ice covered 3.41 million square kilometres, down dramatically from the previous low in 2007, when it measured 4.17 million square kilometres, Stroeve’s agency reported.

“The record is unbelievable,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia. “This is a stunning loss of ice. To say that it is anything less than stunning would be an underestimate.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/techno...cent+history/7267358/story.html#ixzz26xVkzUOE

 

[Knobby22]

In defence of Wayne, he did say global warming is occurring but the figures are being exagerrated by scientists and influenced politically and that he believes the effect is a lot less calamitous than we are being led to believe by some parties.
Also, that some actions proposed are ill thought out, which is true and there are a lot of chancers taking a ride on the movement, which is true.

There are kernals of truth in that; however there is definitely a counter movement that is willing to distort facts, lie and scaremonger to try to slow down action. Unfortuantely this use of propraganda has been effective - witness the "religion" argument that is so regularly espoused.

 

[basilio]

In defence of Wayne, he did say global warming is occurring but the figures are being exagerrated by scientists and influenced politically and that he believes the effect is a lot less calamitous than we are being led to believe by some parties.

I'm not sure about that Knobby

I originally thought that was a rough summary of Waynes position. However in the last few days he appears to have shifted ground to the repeated position that

other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.

On the face of it Wayne is saying the only warming on the planet is coming from dodgy figures. He has held and repeated that view since he first made it a few days ago. He agreed later on that this was a new stance he had taken after seeing fresh evidence of these arbitrary adjustments ect.

I have already offered my view on the assault to reality and implications of saying there is no real global warming beyond dodgy figures. Wayne has still has not offered a single reference to back up a claim that contradicts millions of independent current and historical records not to mention physical observations of changes in animal behaviour, plant behaviour and rapid changes in glaciers and global ice coverage all indicating widespread increases in global temperatures.

Enoughs enough for me.

 

[wayneL]

Bang on Knobby!

Basilio is indulging in an appalling political pissantery.

Lower than a snake's belly bas.

 

[explod]

Bang on Knobby!

Basilio is indulging in an appalling political pissantery.

Lower than a snake's belly bas.

Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.

Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett

wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t

And methane comes from a cow.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio is merely pointing out the facts as have been determined at this stage by science.

Not the science funded by the petro dollars as leaked out by Jeremy Leggett

wayneL you merely sit back in your chair and regurgitate ........t

And methane comes from a cow.

Mr Plod

Based on previous interchanges and my observations on your intellectual capacity, I am pretty comfortable with regarding anything you say here as completely ignore-worthy.

This post of your's serves to reinforce that view.

 

[explod]

Mr Plod

Based on previous interchanges and my observations on your intellectual capacity, I am pretty comfortable with regarding anything you say here as completely ignore-worthy.

This post of your's serves to reinforce that view.

So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?

You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.

Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.

If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.

And you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread. Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.

 

[cynic]

So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?

You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.

Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.

If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.

And you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread. Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.

Thanks so very much Plod for providing such an accurate summation of the practices of the acolytes of the esteemed Church of Climatology!

Many of us heretics do try our utmost to remain humble, but as I'm sure you can understand, humility can be difficult to maintain when in the presence of so many self abasing zealots, many of whom obviously prefer not to seek remedy for the selective amnesia with which they are acutely afflicted.

P.S. Jeremy Who?

 

[wayneL]

So you just ignore the revelations of Jeremy Leggett?

You simply bypass the content which does indicate you may not have the arguments to rebut the facts.

Not one word within your last few posts contributes anything but an attempt to belittle anyone who does not agree with your narrow view.

If that is a measure of intelligence, oh Self Exalted one, then I am am happy to be a dummy at the bottom.

And you do have a wonderful knack of getting us off the subject of the thread. Anything I suppose to cloud the truth.

Oh Dear Lord Plod. ROTFLMAO

The subject of the thread is "Resisting Climate Hysteria".

I've never read Jeremy Leghorn, but Google reveals him to be just another vested interest advocate living it large while advising the rest of us to live shivering in the dark... unless of course you purchase his wares. Hypocrite. Re his "Revelations", I suspect they will have much in common with the original Biblical version; scarey, but basically the figment of someones vivid imagination.

As far as arguing the "facts": That is a scientific argument whereas what we have here are warmist advocates who will not admit contrary data. So far it has been futile discussing anything with screaming Fabian Gaurdian readers.

For instance, while on the face of it the arctic may be distressingly low on sea ice at the moment, warmists ignore the record highs being set at the other end of the earth and fail to consider a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.

 

[wayneL]

....a possible reverse correlation between southern and northern sea ice volumes. There's a study waiting in the wings right there.

Yep http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml

 

[basilio]

Yep http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml

Thanks Wayne. Just fascinating...

So you come up with a scientific peer researched paper which compares the Arctic and Antartic ice levels this century.

Interesting certainly. Does this now mean you will be looking at the merits of the remining scientific, peer researched papers which outline how our earth is warming up and argues on why this is happening ?

And can you find some similar peer researched papers that tackle the question of why so many ecosystems are changing in line with the effects of increasing tempeartures when there is supposed to be no significiant increase in temperatures "apart from badly sited weather stations and arbitary temperature adjustments."

 

[basilio]

I did find further references to increases in Antartic ice levels.

The Antarctic ice sheet, however, is expected to grow during the 21st century because of increased precipitation

a b c d e Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan (2007). "Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (PDF). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.. Retrieved 2007-12-29.

Now if you want to discuss the rest of this analysis feel free. Lets start with a longer selection from one section

Consistency of evidence for warming

11 key indicators of global warming.[3]

[4] Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends (see Instrumental temperature record). The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced Arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels. Some of these indicators are further discussed in this article.
Global average temperature

[5] Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4 °F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.
Diurnal temperature

[2] There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.
Indirect indicators of warming

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

 

[basilio]

To follow up on the discussion regarding Surface temperature accuracy there was a debate on PBS televison in America between Richard Muller and Anthony Watts.

Sckeptical science did a summary of this interview. Couple of points are worth highlighting.

When asked to describe his 'skepticism' about human-caused global warming, Watts went into a long discussion about his concerns that encroachment of human development near surface temperature stations has introduced a bias into the temperature record. However, what Watts failed to mention is that the scientific groups who compile the surface temperature record put a great deal of effort into filtering out these sorts of biases.

Watts also failed to mention that there have been many peer-reviewed scientific studies investigating whether these efforts have been successful, and they have almost universally concluded that those extraneous influences on the temperature record have been removed. For example, Fall et al. (2011) concluded that for all temperature stations classifications with regards to the influence of urban influences, the long-term average global warming trend is the same.

"The lack of a substantial average temperature difference across classes, once the geographical distribution of stations is taken into account, is also consistent with the lack of significant trend differences in average temperatures....average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes."

The second author on Fall et al. is a fellow who goes by the name of Anthony Watts.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html

 

[white_goodman]

And can you find some similar peer researched papers that tackle the question of why so many ecosystems are changing in line with the effects of increasing tempeartures when there is supposed to be no significiant increase in temperatures "apart from badly sited weather stations and arbitary temperature adjustments."

Just a few q's:

- do ecosystems remain in stasis? Were there habitat and species extinctions before man?
- If the globe is warming which I have no problem admitting, is it dangerous?, is it largely man induced? how much is it warming?
- do climates remain in stasis?
- Has there ever been natural disasters before industrial revolution, is it more prevalent in the last 30 years or does it just seem more prevalent due to our own experiences etc?
- Is climate science all known, and perfected? Is there allowed to be debate or is the AGW theory meant to be treated as self evident, infallible and dogma?
- What is the history of scientists and modelling/forecasting? What are the parallels of the geniuses/experts of modelling in less complex fields? (finance)
- Is it wrong to address the obvious self interest incentives of a) the government grant crowd pushing the political ideology of the day, what is the career prospects for those researching against the theory of the day? b) the finance industry where the carbon market will be potentially bigger than US treasuries?

imo the whole global warming fraud has done more detriment to the environmental movement that anything big oil could do... probably why you are seeing many classify themselves as an environmentalist but not an AGW amrmageddon-ist. In the next decade my pick is that Lenin's 'useful idiots' might have played into the interests of big finance and big government.... lets wait and see, but for certain this isnt 'the crucial decade' and its not "this time is different"

 

[wayneL]

Bas

refer to knobby's comments and then go and reflect on why you have lost all respect here.

Everything is consistent with warming. Heat cold rain drought wind no wind.

But I repeat my question to you for perhaps the fifth time - what are you personally doing that is congruent with your belief?