Resisting Climate Hysteria

[medicowallet]

Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.

And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem. And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.

Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs. Would like to know your experience of these things.

I have been around a while too,

Nobody can claim that their experience is valid.

Only relevant evidence over thousands of years will show trends, as the so called experts with egg on their faces found out when the temperature rise paused, the rain returned and the politics settled somewhat.

Stick to country bumpkining and let us scientists make comment on science

MW

 

[chiff]

Are you a climate scientist Medico?

 

[white_goodman]

Are you a climate scientist Medico?

I dont think he's a mammologist, so he atleast outranks our climate Tsar

 

[basilio]

Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.

You can always tell when an article successfully skewers Waynes specious logic and dodgy science.

We see the shortest piece of vitriol with no attempt to address any statement.

 

[medicowallet]

Are you a climate scientist Medico?

There is really no such thing is there?

However if the current behaviour of having a scientific (or non-scientific) degree, and having conducted peer analysed research, and then conducting searches and forming opinion on "climate" then yes, I probably would qualify as an unpublished "climate scientist" if I would ever, stupidly want to choose to do so.

Because isn't that what a lot of them are anyway?

I mean I can rejiggle, and regurgitate the poor science of other articles to fit into the crowd.

I can also conduct a literature review and conclude that there is no significant driving force of global warming from CO2, nor is there any proven increase in significant weather events, nor has the planet warmed for 16 years etc.


MW

 

[explod]

I can also conduct a literature review and conclude that there is no significant driving force of global warming from CO2, nor is there any proven increase in significant weather events, nor has the planet warmed for 16 years etc.


MW

And you will get the result that you seek,

for or against.

 

[wayneL]

Ma'am, if you believe that article skewers anything othet than the authors's own credibility, then I truly worry for you.

Compare to Cook's aricles you contiuouslly spam this forum with, which contain at least well thought out and well argued points.... even if bised and intellectually fraudulent.

 

[basilio]

Ma'am, if you believe that article skewers anything othet than the authors's own credibility, then I truly worry for you.

Compare to Cook's aricles you contiuouslly spam this forum with, which contain at least well thought out and well argued points.... even if bised and intellectually fraudulent.

Hmmm.... Well this exchange highlights a few points

1) Wayne thinks that John Cooks writing

contains at least well thought and well argued points

2) Wayne says he read the article I quoted and dismisses it as asine and a load of rubbish

3) Wayne doesn't realise that the article was written by John Cook and in fact forms part of his booklet on Understanding Climate Denial

4) Wayne hasn't a clue what he is talking about.....

I'll finish with the final comments from John Cooks article

Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories. If you disagree with an entire scientific community, you have to believe they’re all conspiring to deceive you. A conspiracy theorist displays two identifying characteristics. They believe exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators. The scientific consensus on climate change is endorsed by tens of thousands of climate scientists in countries all over the world. A conspiracy of that magnitude makes the moon landing hoax tame in comparison.

Conspiracy theorists are also immune to new evidence. When climate scientists were accused of falsifying data, nine independent investigations by universities and governments in two countries found no evidence of wrongdoing. How did conspiracy theorists react? By claiming that each investigation was a whitewash and part of the conspiracy! With each new claim of whitewash, the conspiracy grew larger, encompassing more universities and governments.

A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.

This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.

http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763

 

[wayneL]

Clearly I overestimated Cook then. Not only an intellectual fraud but capable of writing pure bilge.

Thanks luv, very enlightening

 

[basilio]

Clearly I overestimated Cook then. Not only an intellectual fraud but capable of writing pure bilge.

Thanks luv, very enlightening

And of course you don't waste your time actually reading any articles I quote do you ? A confident instant dismissal is far simpler and appropriate for this audience isn't it? Certainly no room for thinking is there ?

 

[wayneL]

And of course you don't waste your time actually reading any articles I quote do you ? A confident instant dismissal is far simpler and appropriate for this audience isn't it? Certainly no room for thinking is there ?

Thinking? Oh please. You have no weapon apart from misrepresentation of ASF member's views, which weapon is no better than a spit wad... annoying, harmless, vacuous, yet peurile and provocative.

There is no doubt that skeptics do a great deal more thinking than the parroting sycophantic acolytes of Cook, Hanson, the Moonbat et al.

You have nothing more than a religious like intolerance to anything other than the worst case delusion; evangelistic in the extreme, but kill/imprison/attempt (unsuccessfully) to discredit the infidels.

There is a Climate Taliban and ma'am you aspire to nothing less than a position as cleric in this poisonous cult.

Now if you would please consider proper debate rather than the hateful mendacity you frequently resort to, this thread might not be sidetracked with unproductive last-wordmanship.

 

[basilio]

Wayne What poisonous nasty drivel you spout. I don't think I have ever seen as many lies, insults and provacations in so few words.

As far as having the last word ?

Clearly you always demand it as our local lord and master.

Getting back to the actual topic? Wayne you never, never ever respond to the content of any scientific material I present. As I noted you find it far far easier to dismiss and vilify anything that you don't want to consider.

Consider for example the observation made by John Cook that climate denialists refused to accept the findings of 9 investigations into Cliamte gate on the basis that they were all in on the AGW conspiracy. Typical delusional drivel Wayne.

And you are clearly part of it.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks Bas, A more clear illustration of my point could not be made.

And stop copying my adjectives, go find your own.

 

[wayneL]

Consider for example the observation made by John Cook that climate denialists refused to accept the findings of 9 investigations into Cliamte gate on the basis that they were all in on the AGW conspiracy. Typical delusional drivel Wayne.

And you are clearly part of it.

Hang on, let me get this straight (and obnoxious use of denialist term noted); you believe there was no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?

 

[explod]

you believe there was no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?

You know otherwise ?

 

[wayneL]

You know otherwise ?

I can only peruse what is in black and white.

What do you think Plod?

 

[explod]

I can only peruse what is in black and white.

What do you think Plod?

You wont' deal with the shades of grey.

It is uncertain to say the least so we should not be punting with the future lives of our species.

Could you car less ?

 

[explod]

and obnoxious use of denialist term noted)

And you obviously need to get a life.

The evidence seems to be getting pretty strong and you wont have a bar of it, perhaps Bas's term is too polite.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I still believe it to be all weather.

As I post, a gentle shower of rain is descending on Gumnuthouse.

It has been a very hot summer.

Not unlike many before.

gg

 

[wayneL]

You wont' deal with the shades of grey.

It is uncertain to say the least so we should not be punting with the future lives of our species.

Could you car less ?

No ad hom, no tangents Plod, just answer the question.

And you obviously need to get a life.

From here my life seems pretty full and content, .... what sort of life would you have me get?

The evidence seems to be getting pretty strong and you wont have a bar of it, perhaps Bas's term is too polite.

I wouldn't give a rat's how polite or not it is, what I'm concerned about is it's accuracy. As we have shown in this thread, it is in outright misrepresentation, AKA a lie.

BTW, what evidence is it that I won't have a bar of?