Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Logique]

Prof Karoly and the Climate Commission didn't miss their opportunity. Right in the middle of a bushfire crisis and heat wave, and dutifully relayed on the ABC news. Shameful timing, exploiting the fear of a captive audience.

Climate Commission, or was that the Ponds Institute.

..The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change..

Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission - 12 Jan 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960

 

[sails]

Prof Karoly and the Climate Commission didn't miss their opportunity. Right in the middle of a bushfire crisis and heat wave, and dutifully relayed on the ABC news. Shameful timing, exploiting the fear of a captive audience.

Climate Commission, or was that the Ponds Institute.



Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission - 12 Jan 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960

They are playing on psychology, imo. The more you talk about how hot it is, the hotter one feels!

As I said earlier, we reached 32 degrees here and yet the weather news are all displaying charts with plenty of alarming red colours on it. They are crowing about records being broken, but I believe the 1972 record was only broken somewhere by a few points of a degree.

1972 - that's 41 years ago

And it has taken this long to reach that temperature again? 41 years!!!!!

What caused it 41 years ago? I would think normal climate cycles which dish up extremes from time to time.

From the article I just posted and a quote from Vaclav Klaus, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles":

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”​

And that is unacceptable in this country, imo.

 

[sails]

And all the fuss being made about temperatures out west in places such as Birdsville is actually not that unusual. Here is a chart of AVERAGE temps:



Source: http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Australia/Queensland/Birdsville/climate-profile.aspx

 

[Knobby22]

And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...

We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse. Again, what is your point?

My point is that religion gets in the way of science. Religous dogma. Like the anti-evolution crowd searching for any minor point to try to say evolution never happened and the earth is 5000 years old. I just threw a few facts at the religous dogma. Didn't expect a result. Keep reading your prophets.

GG seems to relate it to the present heat wave which is breaking records but that should be in the context of continually increasing records over the last 50 years.

 

[sails]

My point is that religion gets in the way of science.

Yep - AGW has shown many traits similar to religious cults...

 

[Some Dude]

There are a few interesting ones here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Highlights

Which one have you read that you found most compelling?

 

[noco]

They are playing on psychology, imo. The more you talk about how hot it is, the hotter one feels!

As I said earlier, we reached 32 degrees here and yet the weather news are all displaying charts with plenty of alarming red colours on it. They are crowing about records being broken, but I believe the 1972 record was only broken somewhere by a few points of a degree.

1972 - that's 41 years ago

And it has taken this long to reach that temperature again? 41 years!!!!!

What caused it 41 years ago? I would think normal climate cycles which dish up extremes from time to time.

From the article I just posted and a quote from Vaclav Klaus, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles":

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”​

And that is unacceptable in this country, imo.

Sails, I don't know how old some of these ASF posters are, but I would hazard a guess they have just started shaving and still a bit wet between the ears.

I noted you have related to 1972, well I am a bit old in the tooth these days so I can take you back to the 40's and the 50's where I worked as a plumber for some years in south west Queensland out around Roma, Goodiwndi and Dirranbandi mostly on sheep stations.

Tempertures over 40 c
Severe drought with cracks in the ground big enough for one to get his foot stuck in.
Marooned on one station for two weeks due to floods. No helicopter food drops in those days.
Help fight fires which raged on for days.
Extreme freezing conditions in the winter.

So what is new today that did not happen over 60 years ago. Climate change yes, Global warming Bull$h!t.

I will also relate to the Gold Coast where my family spent many holidays and long weekends at Palm Beach. I now go back to the late 30's. A beach which used to be 100 yards wide. We would often have wild weather eroding the sand dunes and leaving sand cliffs 9 and 10 feet high. Six months later the sea breezes would blow the dry sand off the beach to reform the sand dunes back to there original state.

As time progressed, the local authorities, who were either very naive or money hungry allowed the building of houses on the sand dunes. I had a friend who told me he was about to retire and was building a house on the sand dunes at Palm Beach. Even though I told him what takes place from time to time, he neverthe less went ahed and built his house. Come 1963 more wild weather hit the coast washing away the sand dunes and my friends house was threathened causing him to spend 3000 pounds ($6000) to place rocks in front of his house and his next door nieghbor had to do the same; a lot of money in those days when you could build a house for the same amount of money. Palm Beach now has a ROCK WALL the entire length of the beach.

So you know what those so called scientist can do with their modelling and predictions? They can shove it up where the sun don't shine.

 

[Some Dude]

Yep - AGW has shown many traits similar to religious cults...

I find these types of comparisons problematic and can be made anywhere. For instance:

Religious people object to evolution being taught in schools because they don't believe it is a fact, or at best it is just a theory, for which there is plenty of controversy or scientific alternatives.

People will cite references, or references to references, seemingly not having read them but because someone told them that it supports their underlying world view.

Religious people will try to establish that atheism is a faith or religion and that as such, they don't have enough faith to believe in atheism. I don't think I need to reference this back to a post, do I?

On a tangent, has anyone here heard of the Gish Gallop?

 

[Calliope]

On a tangent, has anyone here heard of the Gish Gallop?

You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.

The GW Alarmists are the new 16th Century Popes of the 21st Century.

Intolerant, abusive, hateful of science, addicted to meddling and modelling, and unwilling to listen to questioning scientists with a different opinion.

They elect their own to University Departments and control the Media.

Long live Free Science. Bring back Luther to rid us of the GW Alarmist priests, seeking indulgences for the supposed sins of the past.

gg

 

[Knobby22]

Sorry. I shouldn't show religous intolerance. You are entitled to your beliefs.

There are supporters who you can look for guidance. The flat earth society also agrees there is no such thing as global warming. Or are they part of a different faith?

 

[wayneL]

Which one have you read that you found most compelling?

No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.

This is rather like pro warming studies.

However, these things must be considered in toto; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.

This is rather like pro warming studies.

However, these things must be considered in toto; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.

Good post.

From another, Popper, who also spent some time in New Zealand and who would agree with you.

Falsibility is absent from the present Warmist's view. GW has become a Religion.

In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.

For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found that is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "It will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

The concept first popularized by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable. "Falsifiable" is often taken to loosely mean "testable." An adage states it loosely as "if it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific". But the state of being falsifiable or scientific says nothing about its truth, soundness or validity, for example the unfalsifiable statement "That sunset is beautiful."

The Warmists have a positivist attitude and belief.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Sorry. I shouldn't show religous intolerance. You are entitled to your beliefs.

There are supporters who you can look for guidance. The flat earth society also agrees there is no such thing as global warming. Or are they part of a different faith?

Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.

 

[sails]

Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.

And I would think the flat earthers are far more like AGW alarmists as both are (were) based on predictions rather than absolute fact.

Those who believe in natural climate cycles (with extremes) use the FACT of history.

One side is based on prediction (which has already failed) and one on facts provided by history.

Big difference.

 

[Some Dude]

You have obviously based your debating techniques on his. GW Alarmists have a lot in common with Creationists.

Obviously that explains why I try to identify a single point to discuss and reach agreement about before moving onto the next one.

 

[Smurf1976]

Do you mean the climate research done by climate scientists or the discussion about it in the general public?

I am referring to public perceptions and attitudes rather than the actual science.

To illustrate the point, consider another example. Smoking tobacco.

So far as the science is concerned, it's pretty clear that smoking is harmful to health. So far as attitudes are concerned, we're getting to the point that the younger generation may not realise that not that long ago smoking inside shopping centres, offices, restaurants and even hospitals was acceptable and quite a normal thing to do. Don't even mention how thick the smoke used to be inside some pubs and especially nightclubs.

These days however, nobody would seriously suggest that smoking be permitted inside a hospital or even a pub. Attitudes have changed and there's very little chance that we'll ever go back to what it used to be. I'd consider that one "settled" so far as public opinion is concerned.

The same goes for a few other things too. The world didn't end when they stopped putting lead in petrol and that debate is dead in developed countries. It seems that functional engines were indeed quite practical without needing to poison anyone. Again, that issue is "settled".

But so far as the climate is concerned, there is no consensus amongst politicians or the general community on what to do. We can't even agree if there's a real problem or not, and even if there is a problem them practically nobody in a position of power seems to have a workable solution to actually fix it. If anything, public opinion seems to be drifting somewhat away from the issue.

Smoking, for example, was settled because most came to realise that it's just not good to be in a room full of it all day. Add in that the majority of the population doesn't smoke, and throw in the implied threat of legal action, and it's a no brainer that it shouldn't be allowed inside. And so it was banned.

Leaded petrol went away simply because there were alternatives available at minimal cost. Add in that there is a clear link between lead exposure and health damage and there was really no reason to continue with it apart from private profit for those wanting to continue manufacturing outdated engine designs. And so it was phased out in Australia from 1985 onward and disappeared entirely about 20 years later.

Climate change is nowhere near that point yet. Regardless of what the science says, the general community isn't convinced, at least not sufficiently to accept the costs (including the environmental costs) of doing something about it. People don't seem willing to accept the economic and environmental costs of reducing CO2 in the absence of overwhelming proof that it's actually a problem. Add in that we have no easy "bolt on" or "drop in" solution and that puts it firmly in the too hard basket for the time being. Hence we get some token action for political reasons but that's it.

 

[Knobby22]

Sorry Knobby. Your attempts at humour and sarcasm fall as flat as your your flat earth. I don't think it is in your nature. Apeing Basilio has put you on a regressive path.

It would be nice if you had some humour in your posts.

 

[Knobby22]

And I would think the flat earthers are far more like AGW alarmists as both are (were) based on predictions rather than absolute fact.

Those who believe in natural climate cycles (with extremes) use the FACT of history.

One side is based on prediction (which has already failed) and one on facts provided by history.

Big difference.

Creationists and flat earthers ignore the science. I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway going to play golf. See you later. I'll just post this again as a reminder that the earth is warming. Based on measurements.

"The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-1...hfires/4461960

 

[burglar]

... "The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer." ...

A record is only recorded if the previous record is surpassed.
That is the fundamental nature of records.

Or do I have that wrong?