Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Orr when you learn to play the ball and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists

 

[sails]

Meanwhile snow is falling and yet co2 is increasing. Can't be co2 at fault after all.

2000 - a prediction from the centre of global warming alarmism:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

2000: a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research:

Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.

and the result in 2013:

A ski station in the French Pyrénées has had to temporarily shut down because there has been too much snow… Since the beginning of winter, Cauterets has had 15 metres of snow in total, the French television channel TF1 reported on Friday. Local residents say this winter has seen the heaviest snowfalls in 30 years.

lol - found some of the above on Andrew Bolt's blog - now watch the alarmists attack his credibility. If alarmists have a credible theory, then surely the theory should stand on it's own merits rather than resort to attack the credibility of those who do not agree with them. Sad really.

A ski station in the French Pyrénées has had to temporarily shut down because there has been too much snow… Since the beginning of winter, Cauterets has had 15 metres of snow in total, the French television channel TF1 reported on Friday. Local residents say this winter has seen the heaviest snowfalls in 30 years.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/warmists_snowed_under_again/

 

[basilio]

Scientists are learning more and more about the effects of Global Warming Sails as the earths heat load increases. Changes in climate are very complex. For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.

But don't worry there are still plenty of droughts and extreme summer temperatures to go around. Would they make up for these events ?

 

[explod]

from Chapter 13, "The Sixth Extinction" Leakey and Lewin, 1995"-

Why has there been this criticism of scientists whose expertise supposedly is the understanding of the dynamics of biodiversity? Perhaps one reason is that the message is so startling that people are simply unwilling to hear it, or, if they hear it, are unwilling to believe it. A human-caused mass extinction is startling. Ecologists' predictions therefore came to be viewed as "the outpouring of overwrought biological Cassandras," says Thomas Lovejoy, of the Smithsonian Institution. 7 Another reason for the incredulity, no doubt, was the disparity of predictions from different authorities of the scale of the imminent extinction, which ranged from 17,000 species lost a year to more than 100,000. If the experts are so uncertain about the magnitude of the alleged extinction, critics legitimately wondered, how can we believe anything they say?

And as we see they do not, just sit back in the armchair and it will all go away. Or like some, point score, penny pinch and even try to twist what they themselves have said. Everything but consider that we may have a global warming problem induced by man made pollution.

 

[sails]

... For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather....

I wonder what else they have missed? 13 years ago they were as adamant as they are now - and yet it seems they don't know it all.

Who knows, one day they might realise that they have been wrong in their assumptions or governments will want a new reason to tax so they will come up with another hypothesis...

 

[explod]

I wonder what else they have missed? 13 years ago they were as adamant as they are now - and yet it seems they don't know it all.

Who knows, one day they might realise that they have been wrong in their assumptions or governments will want a new reason to tax so they will come up with another hypothesis...

The reasoning that warming causes more moisture to rise and therefore more cooler areas away from the poles I have mentioned on here many times and was discussed and agreed by many scientists for very many years.

As said, you just do not want to believe it, ie., the sceptics that just do not want to know it all

 

[sails]

The reasoning that warming causes more moisture to rise and therefore more cooler areas away from the poles I have mentioned on here many times and was discussed and agreed by many scientists for very many years.

As said, you just do not want to believe it, ie., the sceptics that just do not want to know it all

Then what caused the same cooling 30 years ago in the link I posted? It's a 30 year record. co2 wasn't doing as much then so what excuses do you have for that same cooling?

It's not that I just don't want to believe it - it simply doesn't make sense! And I resent being called a sceptic for something that doesn't make sense. For goodness sake, cut the personal attacks!

Why should I believe something that doesn't seem truthful? But then AGW has never been about truth or common sense, imo. It seems to be all about the money. Maybe if Gillard hadn't rammed a carbon tax down our throats that will do little, if anything, for the environment, AGW might have more credibility.

 

[sails]

and calling other posters sceptics or deniers simply because they do not see things the same way as you do is more insulting as calling someone an idiot.

Time to stop the insults. I think these two words should be banned at ASF. Childish bully behaviour to say the least.

 

[orr]

Orr when you learn to play the ball and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists

You're absolutely correct Waynel, I should of labelled it as;
duplicitous hypocrisy of denialists transmogrified into the asinine, petty, puerile pea-brained and nauseatingly obvious hypocrisy we are subjected to these days

I wholeheartedly agree with the tenet of the article, but the comments of the lame-witted denialist numbskulls are so petulantly and unintelligently hypocritical that I can scarcely believe that they are made by people of a mental age greater than 3 1/2.
I know I've read something similar somewhere recently, maybe you could help me?

How many times does the Koch Brother's report need to be put down the pitch for you to let it go through to the keeper. It's a slow ball outside off stump.
We'll all watch it go through to the keeper again...

 

[explod]

and calling other posters sceptics or deniers simply because they do not see things the same way as you do is more insulting as calling someone an idiot.

Time to stop the insults. I think these two words should be banned at ASF. Childish bully behaviour to say the least.

Well those of us who think that global warming is a problem are described as hysterical.

Are there two rules on here sails?

 

[explod]

Then what caused the same cooling 30 years ago in the link I posted? It's a 30 year record. co2 wasn't doing as much then so what excuses do you have for that same cooling?

It's not that I just don't want to believe it - it simply doesn't make sense! And I resent being called a sceptic for something that doesn't make sense. For goodness sake, cut the personal attacks!

Why should I believe something that doesn't seem truthful? But then AGW has never been about truth or common sense, imo. It seems to be all about the money. Maybe if Gillard hadn't rammed a carbon tax down our throats that will do little, if anything, for the environment, AGW might have more credibility.

Global warming has increased the extremes at each end of the scale and has also made it increasingly inconsistent and sporadic.

 

[explod]

Orr when you learn to play the ball and not the man, you will earn the credibility to discuss credibility. While you do nothing but play the man you will only earn aupplause from discredited catastrophists

Discredited merely in your view; and

"catastrophists" your term and playing the man.

The plural is the singular unless specified.

 

[wayneL]

You're absolutely correct Waynel, I should of labelled it as;
duplicitous hypocrisy of denialists transmogrified into the asinine, petty, puerile pea-brained and nauseatingly obvious hypocrisy we are subjected to these days

I wholeheartedly agree with the tenet of the article, but the comments of the lame-witted denialist numbskulls are so petulantly and unintelligently hypocritical that I can scarcely believe that they are made by people of a mental age greater than 3 1/2.
I know I've read something similar somewhere recently, maybe you could help me?

How many times does the Koch Brother's report need to be put down the pitch for you to let it go through to the keeper. It's a slow ball outside off stump.
We'll all watch it go through to the keeper again...

Yes I said something similar.

But is parry and counter-punch the same as preemptive ad hom such as yours?

No, absolutely not, my comments on the occasion were entirely warranted.

 

[wayneL]

Discredited merely in your view; and

"catastrophists" your term and playing the man.

The plural is the singular unless specified.

No, you people believe in catastrophic global warming, by your own admission.

Ergo, the tag is entirely accurate and warranted.

 

[basilio]

No, absolutely not, my comments on the occasion were entirely warranted

.

Isn't it interesting...

How every time Wayne abuses another poster, another view or a whole scientific field his comments are entirely warranted

If anyone else does it - they are of course pathological liars, playing the man, ad hominem attacks ect, ect

It just fits in so neatly with being being able to say two completely opposing statements in the same breath and declaring undying love for both versions of reality.

Wayne you have out Chutzpahed the entire forum hands down.

 

[explod]

No, you people believe in catastrophic global warming, by your own admission.

Ergo, the tag is entirely accurate and warranted.

Rubbish, it is an assertion of error again and it is wrong.

In my view we have a problem and it could well turn out to be catastrophic.

The use of the word believe indicates no real conviction of where you do in fact stand.

It is about playing mind and word games for amusement in my view.

 

[sails]

Global warming has increased the extremes at each end of the scale and has also made it increasingly inconsistent and sporadic.

So you are saying that global warming was the same 30 years ago to produce the same amount of snow? It seems the goal posts keep being changed with this AGW stuff.

And, when have I called you hysterical?

I just think to repeatedly call other posters sceptics simply because they have a different viewpoint to your own is pretty low. Deniers is even worse due to the association with the holocaust.

If global warming has merit, there should be no need to resort to name calling.

 

[wayneL]

.

Isn't it interesting...

How every time Wayne abuses another poster, another view or a whole scientific field his comments are entirely warranted

If anyone else does it - they are of course pathological liars, playing the man, ad hominem attacks ect, ect

It just fits in so neatly with being being able to say two completely opposing statements in the same breath and declaring undying love for both versions of reality.

Wayne you have out Chutzpahed the entire forum hands down.

Basilio,

The alarmist community have been caught out lying and/or exaggerating several times now, and any dissenting scientific view is immediately met with attacks on credibility, Jesus basilio, even suggestions of gaoling and executions.

Don't give me freakin' chutpzah, for sheer audacity alarmist activists take the cake! I am not exaggerating on this, go and study what your alarmist community is actually saying about these things.

Another thing, pointing out hypocrisies, wrong-headedness, gaping chasms of logic etc is not abuse, it is debate; something your totalitarian buddies would like to shut down.

And show me where I have opposing views please basilio. As stated before, I have always maintained my right for my views to evolved as information becomes available, something climate alarmists should try, instead of shrill propaganda that is increasingly believed only by Grauniad readers and folk who form their life view at the behest of so called journalists.

 

[wayneL]

Rubbish, it is an assertion of error again and it is wrong.

In my view we have a problem and it could well turn out to be catastrophic.

The use of the word believe indicates no real conviction of where you do in fact stand.

It is about playing mind and word games for amusement in my view.

Eh?

1/ You've shoved that work of fiction, "The Sixth Extinction" down our throats for years. The alarmist community speaks in terms of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Runaway Global Warming, Tipping Points, and preposterous predictions of disastrous sea level rise and extreme that have proved to be bunkum.

2/ My use of the word believe is in reference to alarmists, not myself. Can you not see that that is written in plain English? My view is stated unambiguously and there for all to see... and with conviction to spare I might add.

 

[spooly74]

The alarmist community speaks in terms of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Runaway Global Warming, Tipping Points, and preposterous predictions of disastrous sea level rise and extreme that have proved to be bunkum.

Not any more.
They tried selling 'fear for the future' and it hasn't worked.
The 'Extreme theme' is the current model.
They're now selling 'fear of the present'.

For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.

Did you just make this up?