Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Logique]

Dr Karl K. beloved of the ABC, was made to look very silly this week. It was pointed out that he'd exaggerated by 6 times the warming reported by the UK Met. His response? He deleted the Twitter posts where he'd said this. No apology, no explanation.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Dr Karl K. beloved of the ABC, was made to look very silly this week. It was pointed out that he'd exaggerated by 6 times the warming reported by the UK Met. His response? He deleted the Twitter posts where he'd said this. No apology, no explanation.

I missed that Logique, what did he say?

gg

 

[Logique]

A question for Dr Karl, the warmist
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/

Dr Karl, debating the figures of Britain’s Met, asserts the world has warmed 0.3 degrees in 16 years - which still isn’t that much, actually.

But the Met’s figures, as tweeter Bill correctly informs him, actually show a warming just one-sixth of what Dr Karl claimed. That is so small that scientists say it’s statistically insignificant. It’s indistinguishable from background noise. Essentially zero.

Just in case there is any doubt about what the Met figures show, here is the Met in its own words, excuses and all:

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03 °C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05 °C over that period...

 

[sails]

Here is a snapshot of the apparently now removed tweets found on the same link provided by Logique:



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Thanks Logique and sails.

I can't understand why he will not apologise.

If I ever have tonsillitis I won't be going to him as a doctor.

What a duffer, he can't multiply. More scary talk from the godbothering warmists.

Is he really a doctor?

gg

 

[white_goodman]

the lack of warming is evidence of global warming, surely thats the spin

 

[basilio]

Theres is a very good reason for Dr Karl to simply ignore Andrew Bolt and the other climate change deniers on the blogger sphere (including ASF)

Andrew Bolt is a sociopathic liar. His columns are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies. Its why no one with any sense of rationality would accept his line on most issues unless there is other evidence.

With regard to the question of changes in the earths temperatures from 1997 to 2012. As indicated in Bolts column this period of time cheery picks the peak of an El Niño year with the bottom of a La Nina one

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03 °C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05 °C over that period...

As has been shown in numerous occasions global warming doesn't go up in lock step. There are other factors at play. You can see Andrew deception at work when you read the next paragraph where he takes this cheery picked period and attempts to extrapolate it for the next century.

Or put it this way: if this rate of warming is real and was maintained for the rest of the century, the world by 2100 would be hotter by about 0.27 of a degree. You’d struggle to even measure it. You certainly wouldn’t notice a change in the climate, other than the natural ones that have always been with us.

This is Andrew sophistry at its best. Pick one window of figures between the 2 most favourable points and then attempt to deny the rest of the evidence that shows a serious long term problem.

Karl K. made an error in his maths. But apologizing to Andrew Bolt ? No xxxxxxx way.

For a few facts on the long term movement in temperatures check out the following Url. And it also highlights how one can cherry pick any short term period and use it to say "nothing has happened".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

 

[Julia]

This is Andrew sophistry at its best. Pick one window of figures between the 2 most favourable points and then attempt to deny the rest of the evidence that shows a serious long term problem.

Karl K. made an error in his maths.

Well, this is basilio sophistry at its best. Made an error in his maths???
He made a completely misleading statement. Leave Andrew Bolt right out of it.
He simply needs to apologise for making an incorrect assertion.

 

[wayneL]

Lol... thanks for more material for my hypocrisy thesis basilio.

yep Bolt is a piece of work. but no mor so than the skeptical science crank et al. Two sides of the same coin.

And doesn't absolve Karl one iota.

 

[basilio]

Well what else would I expect from you Wayne ? One one hand we have a sociopathic liar (Andrew Bolt) who deliberately distorts data to undermine the credibility of the climate change scientific community.

And on the other side there are hundreds of scientists who have checked, cross checked and understand this issue as far as can be done .

And you put them on an equal footing...

Bravo Wayne!! I assume this means you still think the world has not warmed in the last century as per your repeated claims last year ?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

And just for the sake of actually looking at the facts of what is happening to the worlds temperatures how about a conversation on the link I posted which illustrates the problem we are facing.?

Or is that too uncomfortable ?

 

[sails]

...Andrew Bolt is a sociopathic liar. His columns are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies...

Isn't this defamatory?

 

[Calliope]

Isn't this defamatory?

Guess whose posts "are full of deceptions, half truths and complete lies."

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Here is a snapshot of the apparently now removed tweets found on the same link provided by Logique:

View attachment 50904

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/

So has he apologised or corrected his mis-statements.

I am sure his patients won't be too pleased that he makes such basic errors.

Imagine if he gave you a dose of amoxal that was one tenth of the proper dose when you had bronchitis. It could be serious.

gg

 

[DB008]

http://www.vkooten.net/?p=469

 

[sails]

So has he apologised or corrected his mis-statements.

I am sure his patients won't be too pleased that he makes such basic errors.

Imagine if he gave you a dose of amoxal that was one tenth of the proper dose when you had bronchitis. It could be serious.

gg

Let's hope he's not an anaesthetist...

 

[basilio]

Something to think about..

Keep playing dirty

PEOPLE claim Australia is ”ahead of the game” in cleaning up sport. That doesn’t wash. One of the most successful arguments against taxing carbon is that we must not get ahead of the game. And just as all right-thinking Australians believe we should do nothing to make fossil fuels dearer for Australian businesses, so they will believe we should do nothing to make it harder for our athletes to get drugs and continue to win.

We must insist that nothing be done to clean up sport in Australia that is not also being done in every other country. We must ensure that athletes from Fourth World countries that have never won so much as an Olympic bronze are not enabled to steal our gold medals because we have put our athletes in a politically correct straitjacket.

What’s the use of cleaning up your economy or your sport while everyone else is playing dirty? If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it, surely we can cope with doing bugger-all to save sport in Australia as we know it.

Colin Smith, St Kilda

Letter to The Age

 

[Smurf1976]

A better analogy would be to say that our athletes need to keep taking drugs because if they don't then they will be removed from the competition and replaced by someone else who is taking drugs.

It's not as though we have the choice to play clean, at least not without reintroducing tariffs and other forms of protection for domestic industry.

For what it's worth, my crystal ball tells me that tariffs etc are exactly where we'll head once it becomes clear to all that there are no industries at which we are competitive against lower standards (employment, environment, safety etc) offshore.

There are plenty of news reports about the black skies in China. How can any manufacturer, of anything, in Australia hope to compete against a country where that sort of thing is allowed?

A much fairer system would be to have the same rates of pay and the same environmental laws globally, thus giving advantage only to those who are genuinely more efficient rather than those who simply do things cheap. That won't likely happen, which leads us to the back door method - tariffs, duties, quotas etc.

I'm not against free trade in principle. But it's ridiculous to think that Australia can compete, at anything, against others with wages at $1 per hour and stuff all regulation over safety and the environment. Mining works only because that has to be done where the minerals are - if someone finds heaps of iron ore etc in China then we'll be out of the game pretty quickly.

 

[Judd]

If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it,

Interesting. I wonder what Mr Colin Smith will write to The Age about "securing...life on Earth" when the Yellowstone Caldera finally does its thing, which it will at some unknown time?

 

[wayneL]

Interesting. I wonder what Mr Colin Smith will write to The Age about "securing...life on Earth" when the Yellowstone Caldera finally does its thing, which it will at some unknown time?

We can prevent that with a caldera tax.

 

[Happy]

Carbon Tax must be working, as we recently had coldest day in 45 years.