Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

So I have a minute to answer this garbage

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 .

No that is not what we have, we have one blogger (Bolt) and another blogger (Cook)

And you put them on an equal footing...

Yes, both manipulate data for an agenda. Cook is rather more clever, but no less dishonest.

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 ?

I want you to consider how utterly dishonest and dishonourable you have been in repeating this lie once again.

On this thread I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.

I have also stated that we humans have other more pressing environmental concerns of our own doing.

So please do not repeat this dishonesty again or else the inevitable conclusion would at that point be inescapable, that you are pathological liar, preferring to lie and misrepresent, to further an agenda and sully the reputation of an opponent over actual empirical data.

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 ?

I look at all the 'facts' I can find, but never on face value due to political and financial agendas, paticularly within the warmist agenda. And I never consider a single source.

I have both cause for hope and worry, but I am comfortable with my views on climate change.

You however, should be uncomfortable about the ethics of your discourse here.

 

[wayneL]

BTW, here is another lukewarmer often vilified as a "denier" by dishonest alarmist brownshirts.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/too-much-hot-air-about-global-warming-says-researcher-rv-1

I can identify with Steve's views also.

Would you like to call Steve a denier as well basilio?

 

[burglar]

... What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario. ...

I have also stated that we humans have other more pressing environmental concerns of our own doing. ...

... I am comfortable with my views on climate change....

The argument as I see it:
Too much CO2 up there and man is responsible for some of it!
Apparently we have to pay trillions and change our lifestyle to reduce emissions.

Too much methane up there and sheep, cows and various ruminants are reponsible for some of it!
Apparently we have to pay billions and change their lifestyle to reduce emissions.

Supposedly the tropics are to increase in area. An estimated 3% MORE MALARIA cases.
Apparently we cannot cure malaria, that would be way too clever.
Some islands will go under water. Apparently the obvious won't work (seawall, emigration, stilts ...?)
Again ... it's back to the caves and reduce emissions.

I am not entirely with you wayneL, but ...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

With thanks to DotMatrix@AyesHavit on Twitter.

gg

 

[basilio]

Ok Wayne lets go back through your responses to my post claiming

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 ?

Firstly you say that Andrew Bolt and John Cook are both simply bloggers and that both distort information to suit their agenda.

What drivel. The Skeptical science website pulls together hundreds of scientific, peer reviewed papers which dissect the research that is happening around climate change. In addition these scientists also dissect the arguments proposed by Monckton. Lindzen, Pielke and co. In fact it is these analyses which demonstrate how dishonest the arguments are against AGW.

And there is an critical difference between Bolt and the Skeptical science website. Andrew Bolt writes some of the most read newspaper and internet columns in the country. His capacity to deceive people is magnitudes higher than the more complex analysis undertaken on the Skeptical Science website. So when, for example, he cheery picks a 15 year period of information and then extrapolates it for the rest of the 21st Century to dismiss concerns about future warming we have a very big deception.

With regard to your considered views on global warming.

On this thread I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.

I don't have a problem with this statement Wayne. It's arguable even if I disagree with it.

But this was not what you repeatedly said late last year.

Lets refresh our memories please. Last year Best came out with his reanalysis of world global temperatures. He confirmed that there in fact had been a significant rise in temperatures (which of course had already been well proven)

You then started to quote Watts who has been endlessly banging on about urban heat islands and arbitrary adjustments to temperature records. This was all in an attempt to deny the facts on clear increases in global temperatures.

On 16th September you finally came out with the following statement

But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors... and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.

Post 3717

I was so surprised at that statement I challenged you in post 3719

Wayne that is just provably wrong. If you can't accept or understand the evidence that shows we are warming rapidly you never will

We went back and forth for a few posts. You managed to add another little snipe in post 3723

By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

This was the first time I had actually seen you attempting to say that there wasn't an agreed recognizable increase in global temperatures. Instead you appeared to be blaming fiddles on temperature records.

I put this position on the next post

Well Wayne you have piqued my curiosity

Your position as you seem to have repeatedly stated it is

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

As I read that you seem to be saying we don't actually have any significant warming of the planet. Its just the temperature figures have been fiddled and /or the weather stations are badly sited.

Thats it wayne. According to you we just don't have a global warming problem at all. (This is completely separate from questioning what might be causing any increases in temperature )

So out of interest how many other posters on ASF would agree that global temperatures have not increased in any significant way in the past 100 years ?

Just asking. It would be useful to see what are the range of views on this particular point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have previously cited a range of literature to back up the view that temperatures have risen.
Wayne your welcome to cite any evidence that backs up your statement that there is no actual global warming - just fiddled figures.

Wayne I was astonished when you made your first statement and thought it was a error. You chose to repeat and confirm it.I expressed my views in post 3733

Really Wayne ? In which case I'll have to join the rest of the scientific community which measures with care and works off all the evidence rather than made up nonsense.

With regard to your views on the issue of AGW. I had tentatively believed you classified yourself as a "luke warmer". In that sense you accepted the reality that temperatures were rising but did not accept that human produced CO2 played a significant role in the increase. In that context you would then believe there would be a relatively small rise in any future temperatures and that attempts to stop this by drastically reducing O2 emissions would be counterproductive.

And now you come out with the statement that you don't actually accept there is any significant temperature rise at all. That in effect we don't even have some substantial, measurable temperature increase across the planet and in particular the polar regions.

You confirmed this position in the your next post

post 3734
In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.

Enough !! Lets accept your position Wayne as a Luke warmer.

But do not try and slander me as liar when I point out what you repeatedly said last year in relation to the clear increase in global temperatures. The posts are all there.

 

[white_goodman]

But do not try and slander me as liar when I point out what you repeatedly said last year in relation to the clear increase in global temperatures. The posts are all there.

 

[Smurf1976]

How often do we have to have abnormally hot days before it's normal?

I think the below graph shows quite clearly what hs been happening over the last 50 years - at least in the Sydney area

For the Eastern part of the city, there is an apparent warming trend until the early 1980's followed by a slight cooling and no real trend after that.

For Parramatta there is a clear warming trend shown on the chart.

I contend that this is evidence of an urban heating effect and not of a climate trend. There has been massive development of Sydney heading west over the past few decades, to the point that Parramatta is now pretty close to being the actual geographic center of Sydney whereas once it was on the outskirts.

On the other hand, there has been less development in the East (since it was already substantially developed) combined with the permanent shutdown of several power stations and other industries which used to discharge large amounts of heat. Offsetting that is that there are more office buildings, traffic and aviation than there used to be (all of which release heat) but overall it comes somewhere near to a balance it would seem.

I don't think you could really say anything based on that chart other than that Parramatta has warmed relative to Observatory Hill and that a plausible explanation is the one I've stated here.

More useful information would be to look at somewhere that has not had significant changes in land use or heat emission over that time. Realistically, that means somewhere that isn't a city and which doesn't have heat emitting industry (unless that industry is unchanged in nature and scale over many decades).

 

[sptrawler]

For the Eastern part of the city, there is an apparent warming trend until the early 1980's followed by a slight cooling and no real trend after that.

For Parramatta there is a clear warming trend shown on the chart.

I contend that this is evidence of an urban heating effect and not of a climate trend. There has been massive development of Sydney heading west over the past few decades, to the point that Parramatta is now pretty close to being the actual geographic center of Sydney whereas once it was on the outskirts.

On the other hand, there has been less development in the East (since it was already substantially developed) combined with the permanent shutdown of several power stations and other industries which used to discharge large amounts of heat. Offsetting that is that there are more office buildings, traffic and aviation than there used to be (all of which release heat) but overall it comes somewhere near to a balance it would seem.

I don't think you could really say anything based on that chart other than that Parramatta has warmed relative to Observatory Hill and that a plausible explanation is the one I've stated here.

More useful information would be to look at somewhere that has not had significant changes in land use or heat emission over that time. Realistically, that means somewhere that isn't a city and which doesn't have heat emitting industry (unless that industry is unchanged in nature and scale over many decades).

Possibly Giles weather station at Warakurna in central Australia.
One would think they have very accurate historical data, there's nothing within cooee to influence the data.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio. I do not resile from any of those comments and they do not contradict my stated view one iota. Ergo I stand by my comments above.

 

[basilio]

Basilio. I do not resile from any of those comments and they do not contradict my stated view one iota. Ergo I stand by my comments above.

Ok......

So does that mean that in the future you can be accurately quoted as saying (and believing...)

But what is happening? You speak in terms of the rapid collapse, yet clearly arctic sea ice cycles from low to high from a variation of factors... and other regions of the planet are only showing warming via arbitrary adjustments and/or improper citing of weather stations.

and

By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

At first blush of course these statements may somewhat contradict your now stated position that

On this thread I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has wormed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change, broadly in line with Pielke Snr's hypothesis. What I do disagree with, is the catastrophic warming scenario.

But hey !! there is no problem here at all is there ? You are welcome to invoke whichever of the following positions you please to square the circle

1) The Divine Right of Kings. It is the Kings Right to rule and to be Right

2) Papal Infallibility.

3) Never apologize, never explain principle

4) Whatever other excuse takes your fancy...

Never Apologize, Never Explain. -- Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893) -- [Of Whom It Was Said That What He Didn't Know Wasn't Knowledge.

http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Misce...-that-what-he-didnt-know-wasnt-knowledge.html

PS No disrespect meant to Benjamin Jowett. He was a noted scholar

 

[wayneL]

Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.

I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.

Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.

 

[burglar]

Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.

I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.

Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate." Cool Hand Luke (1967)

 

[sails]

Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.

I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.

Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.

I don't know about anyone else, but my eyes glaze over at Bas's lengthy posts cluttered with numerous quotes and I can't be bothered reading them anymore. So much of the same stuff being regurgitated ad nauseum. His posts have done nothing to convince me that the globe is warming let alone it being man's fault - if anything he has put me off even further.

Maybe bas is young and hasn't yet witnessed the longer term repeating weather/climate cycles that keep rolling around. I have not yet seen anything new or different in my lifetime.

Or, does Bas have a vested financial interest in pricing carbon? I think that is a reasonable question given his vehemence in trying to promote something that doesn't stack up well.

 

[sails]

And this sort of thing does alarmists no good whatsoever. The picture below is of Saibai Island and seems to be a favourite of alarmists to scare people witless about AGW. Claims that this island is being subjected to rising sea levels when it seems it has ALWAYS been prone to king tides during the wet season - this is clearly nothing but scaremongering, imo. If something is legitimate, one doesn't have to resort to dodgy scaremongering to convince people:

Saibai Island has a low, swampy topography that is prone to flooding during wet season and king tides. Fortunately, the town is built high enough above sea level to avoid the worse of this flooding.

and recent flooding is not new:

After Saibai Island was devastated by abnormally high tides wave after WW2, a group of Saibai Islanders, led by Bamaga Ginau, accepted Government assistance to resettle on Cape York.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766640.htm?site=farnorth

Source of above quotes: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/workforus/profiles/TorresStrait/TS_SaibaiIs.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saibai_Island

 

[basilio]

Bas you only see Armageddon or denial.

I repeat, none of my statements contradict my stated view.

Try to spin it any way you can, use huge letters, stamp your feet, try in vain to use clever sarcasm (fail). My view is that warming has been largely exaggerated and/or fiddled. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been some warming/change, some of it human induced.

Fair enough Wayne. Thats your view.

It just concerned me that you repeatedly went out on a limb last year to deny any warming was actually happening. For example your repeated comments blaming poorly sited weather stations and rigged adjustments.

And I suppose I was even more concerned when you just abused me for suggesting that the entire scientific community might have got it a bit right in measuring the countless ways our world is definitely warmer.

And now of course we can appreciate that in Waynes (quantum) world one can both have our cake and eat it.

Simultaneously.

In the same sentence you can state that

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

By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this,

In view of new evidence regarding arbitrary upward adjustments and station sitings, I have revised my view of temperature changes downward.

and then without drawing a breath say

I have repeatedly stated my position that the world has warmed in a broad trend since the end of the little ice age. I have stated that I believe humans have contributed to some change

I appreciate there are many subtleties in the shadowy half world of quantum physics. But in the current Newtonian world acknowledging the clear reality of the temperature changes that have occurred in the past 150 years separates the deluded or the deniers from those you can still read figures.

Which world are you living in Wayne ?

______________________________________________________________________

Sails

I agree it was a long post. Sorry if it was a bit hard to follow.

Wayne called me a total liar when I challenged him on his previous statements regarding the lack of any legitimately proven increase in the earths temperatures. He denied ever having made such statements

This forum has a history to hold people accountable for what they have said.

That is what I did.

 

[wayneL]

Fair enough Wayne. Thats your view.

It just concerned me that you repeatedly went out on a limb last year to deny any warming was actually happening. For example your repeated comments blaming poorly sited weather stations and rigged adjustments.

And I suppose I was even more concerned when you just abused me for suggesting that the entire scientific community might have got it a bit right in measuring the countless ways our world is definitely warmer.

And now of course we can appreciate that in Waynes (quantum) world one can both have our cake and eat it.

Simultaneously.

In the same sentence you can state that



and then without drawing a breath say



I appreciate there are many subtleties in the shadowy half world of quantum physics. But in the current Newtonian world acknowledging the clear reality of the temperature changes that have occurred in the past 150 years separates the deluded or the deniers from those you can still read figures.

Which world are you living in Wayne ?

______________________________________________________________________

Sails

I agree it was a long post. Sorry if it was a bit hard to follow.

Wayne called me a total liar when I challenged him on his previous statements regarding the lack of any legitimately proven increase in the earths temperatures. He denied ever having made such statements

This forum has a history to hold people accountable for what they have said.

That is what I did.

I repeat once again. I do not resile from any statement and there are no inconsistencies. If you examine the first statement, it acknowledges the warming trend. I could not adjust my view of a warming trend downward If this were not the case.

You have repeatedly called people, including me, "deniers". That is demonstrably a lie. The accountability is on your ticket ma'am, not mine.

Now please stop wasting everyone's time by trying to wiggle out of it.

 

[orr]

Re: Climate change another name for Weather
There is no AGW.

There is warming in some areas (eg Arctic). There is cooling in some areas(eg Antarctic). The "global" trend was up for a while. But since 1998 the trend has been down.

There is natural Climate Change on a macro scale. There is also anthropogenic climate change on a regional scale due to deforestation, heat sink effects of cities etc.
From Waynel post 39# Climate change another name for weather Thread, it goes on but you get the drift. The pangs of Pride must be like pitch forks for you.

 

[wayneL]

And......?

Are we going to dissect minutia in some petty kinderment?

Or are we going to see my broad view?

Must I repeat ad nauseum? I do not resile anything such as the catastrophists are required to do.

 

[basilio]

Not dissecting minutia Wayne. Just your credibility.

A key plank of recognising Global Warming is actually acknowledging the earth is actually warming. (One can argue about the actual causes later on.)

One of the key elements used by of deniers of Global Warming has been the rejection of the temperature records produced by meteorologists and scientists that show an increase in global temperatures and the heat load on earth . These includeeduced ice cover, increased ocean temperatures, increases in ground temperatures.

For many years Watts and co used the argument of badly sited weather stations to deny the reality of increasing temperatures. You, Wayne, quoted him an many occasions.

In 2012 Best who at that stage was seen as a climate sceptic was bankrolled by the Koch brothers (amongst other people) to undertake a totally exhaustive review of all the climate record to determine if in fact official records were suspect.

When Best and his scientific team finished their analysis his results mirrored what had already been proven many times. He confirmed what meteorologists and scientists had shown - the world had warmed sharply in the last 150 years.

Watts did not accept this review. He still banged on about dodgy weather stations. When I opened the discussion about Best's findings in September last year your position was still

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

By the way bas, the temperature record has been "fiddled", we know this,

Absolutely no acknowledgment that in fact there was a clear increase in global temperatures. And of course the inevitable result of saying there is no global warming is to say there is no problem to worry about.

Now you are attempting to justify two positions simultaneously - that is there is global warming and that there isn't global warming.

You can do that in Quantum physics Wayne but your explanations to date just dissect your credibility.

 

[medicowallet]

Not dissecting minutia Wayne. Just your credibility.

A key plank of recognising Global Warming is actually acknowledging the earth is actually warming. (One can argue about the actual causes later on.)

One of the key elements used by of deniers of Global Warming has been the rejection of the temperature records produced by meteorologists and scientists that show an increase in global temperatures and the heat load on earth . These includeeduced ice cover, increased ocean temperatures, increases in ground temperatures.

For many years Watts and co used the argument of badly sited weather stations to deny the reality of increasing temperatures. You, Wayne, quoted him an many occasions.

In 2012 Best who at that stage was seen as a climate sceptic was bankrolled by the Koch brothers (amongst other people) to undertake a totally exhaustive review of all the climate record to determine if in fact official records were suspect.

When Best and his scientific team finished their analysis his results mirrored what had already been proven many times. He confirmed what meteorologists and scientists had shown - the world had warmed sharply in the last 150 years.

Watts did not accept this review. He still banged on about dodgy weather stations. When I opened the discussion about Best's findings in September last year your position was still



Absolutely no acknowledgment that in fact there was a clear increase in global temperatures. And of course the inevitable result of saying there is no global warming is to say there is no problem to worry about.

Now you are attempting to justify two positions simultaneously - that is there is global warming and that there isn't global warming.

You can do that in Quantum physics Wayne but your explanations to date just dissect your credibility.

The lowest forms of argument is name calling and strawmanning.

I do not think there are many "global warming deniers" who do not believe that the planet is warming, they just believe that CO2 is not the main driver of it. There were corrections regarding the heat island effect, and you must clearly know this, so at the time when it was relevant, it was relevant to an extent. Alternatively " AGW magnitude sceptics" could bring up many fraudulent claims made by many IPCC scientists, including our very own egomaniac David Karoly ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdUFUWQNS-4 ), or do you still believe in the hockey stick representation?

This then leads to an argument that we do not need to take drastic action to prevent AGW. How else can you explain no warming in 16 years of increasing CO2 production, models that predict ocean warming well in excess of observed figures, sea levels rising at trend etc. Don't fall for the media beatup of scientific regurgitation of poorly authored experiments.

Perhaps global warming zealots are better off targetting the increased CO2 production in China as opposed to the plateauing CO2 production in Australia.

MW
(A real scientist)