Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Sails the USA report and our Climate Commisssion are largely reporting on what is currently happening to our climate. These are the current facts on the ground if you like.

They have happened as the world wide temperatures have risen by .8C fuelled by the very large increases in greenhouse gases. (See the USA appendix) It is the view of the hundreds of scientists who have researched this field that the continuing emission of GG gases will result in average global temperatures increase of at least 2 degrees C and most likely 4-6 degrees C. In fact the current level of GG gases is consistent with a further .7degrees warming - it just hasn't worked its way through the system as yet.

Of course they could all be totally and completely wrong. But at this stage the facts on the ground are pointing in one direction.

What is the value in disregarding or dismissing out of hand this understanding of how the world is working ?

 

[Calliope]

They have happened as the world wide temperatures have risen by .8C fuelled by the very large increases in greenhouse gases. (See the USA appendix) It is the view of the hundreds of scientists who have researched this field that the continuing emission of GG gases will result in average global temperatures increase of at least 2 degrees C and most likely 4-6 degrees C. In fact the current level of GG gases is consistent with a further .7degrees warming - it just hasn't worked its way through the system as yet.

Bas, you are totally off topic This thread is about resisting Climate Hysteria.

 

[Knobby22]

Don't you mean computer modelled predictions by some scientists on government pay rolls?

No results. Not predictions. I posted it twice. I'm sure you must have read it.

Let's just leave it for a while till the next lot of results come out. I think we are all tired arguing about theology (though you are one of the better ones sails).

And let me put this on the record again. The approach the present Government has to global warming is incorrect and I am happy for it to be rolled back. I'm sure there are many who agree that global warming is occurring but think the present scheme is flawed.

That's it from me. See you when the next lot of interesting results come out. Like the arctic has melted to another record. Then GG can go all religous on me again.

 

[explod]

Bas, you are totally off topic This thread is about resisting Climate Hysteria.

Yeh, good point as the sceptics are possessed with the hysteria of resistance of late (and it is late IMHO) to the emergent facts and "the vibe" .

 

[ghotib]

Scaremongering at best, imo.

And this is simply another PREDICTION. Will this one have the same fate as Flannery's "no more dam filling rains in Qld"??? TIME WILL TELL...

Aaaaaaarghhh!!! FLANNERY DIDN'T SAY THAT!!

I posted the transcript of what he actually said up thread - page 132 I think. You are dismissing a "prediction" that was never made. The media who persistently spread this alleged prediction are misleading you.

If your information about the IPCC, the Climate Commission, the Academy of Sciences or any other scientific assessment of climate change comes mainly from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs, then you do not know what scientists are really trying to tell you.

If you've learnt about climate science from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs then you're quite right to reject it, because what they present is a twisted cartoon version of less than half the message.

Climate science is not about politics or ideology; it's about physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, biology, and systems. The planet doesn't care whether humans exist, let alone who's in government. We release fossil carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere, the planet gets warmer. We release enough fossil carbon, the planet gets too warm for our comfort. We release more fossil carbon, the planet gets too warm for our survival. The planet won't care; we will.

 

[explod]

If your information about the IPCC, the Climate Commission, the Academy of Sciences or any other scientific assessment of climate change comes mainly from the Murdoch media or the "skeptical" blogs, then you do not know what scientists are really trying to tell you.

Posted about the distortion and in fact bias of the IPCC (due to petro/co infiltration) a week or so back but ignored or over the heads here.

Only want to accept what is comfortable.

Interesting on the dam filling, the rain squalls now so severe at times that the dam walls are almost being knocked down. Another point not accepted is that due to warmth, more cloud in places at times = wilder weather and seemingly a cooling.

Good post ghotib.

 

[dutchie]

Does an unusually cold winter in China cancel an unusually hot summer in Australia?

 

[explod]

Does an unusually cold winter in China cancel an unusually hot summer in Australia?

No just further evidence as the increased activity of hot impacting on cold has increased the gulf stream flows, bringing the very cold conditions of the arctic down to places like China and last year Europe and the British Isles and already early very cold conditions in the upper US.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

No just further evidence as the increased activity of hot impacting on cold has increased the gulf stream flows, bringing the very cold conditions of the arctic down to places like China and last year Europe and the British Isles and already early very cold conditions in the upper US.

And if you don't put a shilling in the Church of Climate Change's plate of a Sunday you will go to Hell !

gg

 

[sails]

Aaaaaaarghhh!!! FLANNERY DIDN'T SAY THAT!!....

Ghoti, are you saying that landline did not write the transcript correctly? This is what it says (quoting Flannery):

"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems"​

That is pretty close to my summary of "no more dam filling rains". How else do you plan to spin it?

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

 

[explod]

And if you don't put a shilling in the Church of Climate Change's plate of a Sunday you will go to Hell !

gg

Good point gg. Moving on from the bicycle powered alternator mentioned her a day or so backto charge batteries our next project is a steam powered generator. This involves the simple method of preheating water though black pollie pipes (as with home swimming pools) then using natural gas to give the final boost to turn the turbine. We are thinking about an alternative natural gas source, (from rubbish/garden/toilet refuse) to do this but one step at a time to fill the padre's plate.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Good point gg. Moving on from the bicycle powered alternator mentioned her a day or so backto charge batteries our next project is a steam powered generator. This involves the simple method of preheating water though black pollie pipes (as with home swimming pools) then using natural gas to give the final boost to turn the turbine. We are thinking about an alternative natural gas source, (from rubbish/garden/toilet refuse) to do this but one step at a time to fill the padre's plate.

Good one plod.

Sometimes protagonists are closer than you think.

Please get the Greens back to Green issues, and away from Rhiannon/Commo ideology, and you would probably get a few preferences next election.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

Ghoti, are you saying that landline did not write the transcript correctly? This is what it says (quoting Flannery):

"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems"​

That is pretty close to my summary of "no more dam filling rains". How else do you plan to spin it?

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

So far as I'm concerned, the real point here isn't about Flannery per se but that over the top statements like this have undermined the public credibility of the entire issue.

The same goes for scientists handing taking party political lines rather than sticking to the science - again it undermines public confidence in the issue.

 

[sails]

Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume

Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.

What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.

SD - yes, don't assume...

SD, I haven't forgotten about this question as I wanted to give it some thought. I did start to type up a reply and I realised the biggest issue comes down to the lack of honesty and transparency, imo.

Voters, like myself, will decide much along the lines that a jury will decide by weighing up truth from perceived lies and then mix it with a good dose of common-sense.

So, transparency and honesty would be a good start. No more stunts like colouring clear co2 a nasty black looking colour coming out of power stations in official TV ads. No more scaremongering predictions as if they are fact - it does the AGW cause no good when those predictions fail miserably. Taking the carbon tax to an election would have been another step in honesty instead of legislating it against the majority as shown by opinion polls.

Giving so many compensation gives the appearance that the government do not believe we have a serious problem, imo.

A willingness for government to hold honest, transparent debate taking into consideration the expert opinion of scientists who have a differing view point. A willingness to look at climate history instead of putting all the eggs into the one basket of predictions and trying to pretend it is worse than it use to be. A willingness to see that 0.8 degree rise in temperature may have other causes other than AGW - there are also long term heating and cooling cycles which could easily move our temperature by that much.

Is such honesty and transparency possible for those promoting AGW? It should be if it is real.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

So far as I'm concerned, the real point here isn't about Flannery per se but that over the top statements like this have undermined the public credibility of the entire issue.

The same goes for scientists handing taking party political lines rather than sticking to the science - again it undermines public confidence in the issue.

Agree, scientists, need to stick to science.

Then it is up to politicians, the public, and philosophers, not necessarily in that order to decide our course of action.

It has been nerdsville and comedians for the last 30 years,

When I was a lad guys like Flannery and Doyle would have been hard put to get not just a **** but within cooee of said ****.

Now they are on Radio National.

gg

 

[basilio]

SD - yes, don't assume...

SD, I haven't forgotten about this question as I wanted to give it some thought. I did start to type up a reply and I realised the biggest issue comes down to the lack of honesty and transparency, imo.

Voters, like myself, will decide much along the lines that a jury will decide by weighing up truth from perceived lies and then mix it with a good dose of common-sense.

So, transparency and honesty would be a good start. No more stunts like colouring clear co2 a nasty black looking colour coming out of power stations in official TV ads. No more scaremongering predictions as if they are fact - it does the AGW cause no good when those predictions fail miserably. Taking the carbon tax to an election would have been another step in honesty instead of legislating it against the majority as shown by opinion polls.

Giving so many compensation gives the appearance that the government do not believe we have a serious problem, imo.

A willingness for government to hold honest, transparent debate taking into consideration the expert opinion of scientists who have a differing view point. A willingness to look at climate history instead of putting all the eggs into the one basket of predictions and trying to pretend it is worse than it use to be. A willingness to see that 0.8 degree rise in temperature may have other causes other than AGW - there are also long term heating and cooling cycles which could easily move our temperature by that much.

Is such honesty and transparency possible for those promoting AGW? It should be if it is real.

That sounds so reasonable Sails. And I guess your comments and sense of reasonableness would be echoed by other ASF posters who believe AGW is just not the problem it is cracked up to be (or really don't want to believe it could be a very serious problem)

It seems to me however that very few people here follow the findings of the scientists who study this topic in exceptional detail. Whenever I post material from CSIRO, The Climate Commission, USA climate authorities or the Sckeptical Science website (which effectively marries all these sources and more) I am derided. The response is that somehow all these scientists are wrong , or wrong headed. That they are part of some conspiracy to make up stories to enable further grants to be made; that it all part of an attempt to cripple the economy or take over the world.

The alternative view as I understand it accepts a very small number of scientists and non scientist views that suggest

1) Green house gases arn't going to affect the climate as much as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe
2) The actual increase in temperatures is not real. It is a product of poor or deliberately wrong measuring techniques
3) That something else is causing any temperature increases. Could be the sun, natural causes, or simply "the climate is always changing" argument

There are about 100 more excuses/reasons to dismiss the current science on climate change. That report I cited from the USA attempted to answer them all.

As scientists have said all along there is no absolute certainty in almost all science. It is possible all the climate scientists are wrong in their analysis and predictions.

The question for a reasonable person then is to ask

"How willing am I to believe that all these scientists have got it completely wrong and that we don't have to take steps to reduce GG emissions?"

Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers

 

[Ijustnewit]

ABC Environment Reporter Sarah Clarke sets out to provide the answers. A five part series.

Nice timing ABC it's the middle of Summer , yes it's hot and there will be fires and yes there will be king tides and Cyclones ect. Nice way of drumming a bit of fear into us. Also note the Carbon Tax Explained running down the outside of the article.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/how-will-rising-seas-impact-australia/4460688

 

[MrBurns]

ABC Environment Reporter Sarah Clarke sets out to provide the answers. A five part series.

Nice timing ABC it's the middle of Summer , yes it's hot and there will be fires and yes there will be king tides and Cyclones ect. Nice way of drumming a bit of fear into us. Also note the Carbon Tax Explained running down the outside of the article.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/how-will-rising-seas-impact-australia/4460688

Another fine piece of work from ALP TV.

 

[explod]

Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers

Just on balance any reasonable person looking at all the issues critically can see we may have a problem. An understatement of course.

We have alternatives which if subsidised to the degree the petro's were they are cheaper and clean.

basilio

 

[sails]

That sounds so reasonable Sails. And I guess your comments and sense of reasonableness would be echoed by other ASF posters who believe AGW is just not the problem it is cracked up to be (or really don't want to believe it could be a very serious problem)

It seems to me however that very few people here follow the findings of the scientists who study this topic in exceptional detail. Whenever I post material from CSIRO, The Climate Commission, USA climate authorities or the Sckeptical Science website (which effectively marries all these sources and more) I am derided. The response is that somehow all these scientists are wrong , or wrong headed. That they are part of some conspiracy to make up stories to enable further grants to be made; that it all part of an attempt to cripple the economy or take over the world.

The alternative view as I understand it accepts a very small number of scientists and non scientist views that suggest

1) Green house gases arn't going to affect the climate as much as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe
2) The actual increase in temperatures is not real. It is a product of poor or deliberately wrong measuring techniques
3) That something else is causing any temperature increases. Could be the sun, natural causes, or simply "the climate is always changing" argument

There are about 100 more excuses/reasons to dismiss the current science on climate change. That report I cited from the USA attempted to answer them all.

As scientists have said all along there is no absolute certainty in almost all science. It is possible all the climate scientists are wrong in their analysis and predictions.

The question for a reasonable person then is to ask

"How willing am I to believe that all these scientists have got it completely wrong and that we don't have to take steps to reduce GG emissions?"

Almost no decisions are made with perfect knowledge. They are made with the best information to date. That is why insurance companies have been at the forefront of concerns regarding climate change. It's why the US military is equally concerned. It's why reasonable citizens should be as well. Cheers

Basilo, you miss the main point of my post. It was about honesty, not more spin...