Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Mickel]

Perusing the last few days posts in this thread I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri's admission that the world hasn't warmed over the last 17 years-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

In another admission, rare for a pro warming advocate, he is quoted "People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning," Dr Pachauri said. TRUE but rarely mentioned in Australia, (remember Kevin 07 stating "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"so setting the agenda for scientists who wished to receive Govt grants).

While he says that it would take 30-40 years pause in temp increases to change the overall warming, it will be interesting to see if the next IPCC Report modifies their extravagant temp increases based on a 17-21 year pause.

Meanwhile, another leading Pro Warmist, Dr James Hansen, in a talk on Feb 21 2013 in Santa Fe, carried on regardless as reported here by Robert W. Endlich-

"One item after another struck me as being completely at odds with measurements. For instance, Hansen claimed Earth’s energy balance is out of balance, and we are warming rapidly, but recent global surface temperatures of land and water have not increased and in fact many measures show cooling over the past 17-19 years. In the US, there has not been a new state maximum temperature record set since 1995, and in spite of the claims to the contrary, July,1936, is still the warmest month on record, set when CO2 was less than 300 parts per million. CO2 is now 395 PPM ".

http://climaterealists.com/index.php

PS Read Endlich's expanded article and draw your own conclusions on the worth of Hansen's claims.

 

[basilio]

Always fascinating to see what Malcolm Roberts is up to in his quest to expose the perfidy of warmists. (Malcolm is the guy who is so extreme that Andrew Bolt distanced himself from his world wide conspiracy theories. But Malcolm is still a great friend of Alan Jones.)

Malcom has decided that the CSIROh is an integral part of the Circle of Deception. So as his patriotic duty demands he has completed an extensive investigation. forwarded his results to people of importance and demanded their immediate response.

Fascinating.

CSIROh! Climate of deception or first step to freedom?
CSIROh!
Climate of Deception? ... Or First Step to Freedom?
I've written to many of the people whose behaviours, opinions and/or claims are discussed in this report and whose core claim is that human CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming that ended in 1998. Most have responded. All have failed to provide empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning for the basis of their core claim. All seemed reluctant to address my questions adequately. They failed to meet my reasonable need for integrity, reassurance and understanding.

View PDF report

Exchanges of letters with politicians and others

http://conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Enjoy !!

 

[basilio]

Further to the first Malcolm Roberts post I found a reply from Ben Cubby a SMH journalist who recieved one of hos letters of demand.

Great fun.

Malcolm-Ieuan,

In considering your request that I identify errors in the report you sent to me – CSIROh! Climate of Deception? Or First Step to Freedom? – I find myself confronting an unusual problem: how does one critically analyse a pile of horse ****?

Even by the exceedingly low standards of Australia’s climate skeptic community, your report is dire. You direct me to Appendix 13. It is littered with errors of all kinds: a mish-mash of muddled conjecture, impossible leaps of logic, fundamental misunderstandings of the scientific method, misread and misquoted research that has been poorly cited, internal contradictions, confused dates, spelling mistakes, and strangled grammar. It is, in all respects, a dud.

I am not going to comply with your demand that I ‘‘identify, specify and justify’’ all the errors in your report. There are too many. However, this should not be read as a reluctance on my part to address your complaints. You will recall that, many months ago, you asked me to provide you with some empirical evidence of human-induced climate change, and I immediately sent you a series of peer-reviewed papers that did just that.

You responded, a month later, after lengthy consultation with your science advisor Tim Ball (not ‘‘Tim Tall’’, as you call him in your report). You advanced an unpublished and frankly bizarre theory about underwater volcanoes. Apparently these hidden volcanoes conveniently rumbled to life at just the right rate to mimic both the rise and isotopic signature of human-generated atmospheric CO2. With theories like this, it is not difficult to see why even other climate skeptics have distanced themselves from your work.

Your report tries to allege that there are factual errors in my reporting. If you honestly believe this, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it: request a correction from the newspaper. Your requests will be independently considered on their merits by people other than me. It is remarkable that you allege thousands of errors, spanning a period of several years, yet have not sought to address them in this straightforward, transparent way.

http://www.readfearn.com/2013/02/climate-change-new-world-order-malcolm-roberts-ben-cubby/

 

[Logique]

Seems ever-increasing numbers of Polar Bears are relaxing on the banana lounge with a seal sanga - 'what global warming bro?' How could our Climate Commissioner have missed this?

Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears -2013
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf
Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology and is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. She is the author of Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf
8) Global temperatures have not risen in a statistically-significant way in the last 16 years9 (see Figure 2) – a standstill not predicted by climate models and a phenomenon even the chairman of the IPCC has acknowledged – which suggests that the record sea ice lows of the last few years are probably not primarily due to CO2-caused increases in global temperatures.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is presently 24 degrees centigrade here, in Townsville, with a soft rain falling, which is slowly increasing.

Much as it has been in recorded memory.

When will the alarmists desist?

We often get quite a wet Easter, and Anzac Day can be cold and wet at the Dawn Service.

gg

 

[basilio]

The UK is currently freezing its nuts off with blizzards etc.

Anything to do with Climate Change/Global Warming ?

Absolutely

Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Melting sea ice, exposing huge parts of the ocean to the atmosphere, explains extreme weather both hot and cold


John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 March 2013 17.03 GMT
Jump to comments (572)

A snow-plough clears the A66 near Bowes, County Durham, where the road was closed for several hours due to heavy snow. Forecasters have warned that another cold snap is on its way - with parts of the country facing more snow and freezing temperatures.
Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream, which affects weather in the northern hemisphere. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.

Both the extent and the volume of the sea ice that forms and melts each year in the Arctic Ocean fell to an historic low last autumn, and satellite records published on Monday by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, show the ice extent is close to the minimum recorded for this time of year.

"The sea ice is going rapidly. It's 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic," said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.

According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.

"This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes," she said. "It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It's now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ic-sea-ice-loss?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=SOCNETTXT8763I

 

[basilio]

For those interested in understanding how the jet stream has changed as a result of Arctic ice melt and the effect this has on weather and cliamte in the Northern latitudes check out the following clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

 

[explod]

Bas

Have averred to these understanding for a number of years on this thread.

And no names, but me ole Pal will come on and laugh at me again with some dim link to a petro scientist.

We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.

 

[Knobby22]

Thankyou Bas.
A very good video. It explains a lot for me also.
It's obviously been taken by students at their Professor's lecture.
The meandering effect is very interesting. We are going to see a lot more weird weather hitting the northern hemisphere. I feel sorry for England, Russia and North America.

I would love to see a Southern Hemisphere analysis. Why is Victoria getting amazingly hot weather while Queensland is getting increasing wet weather? I know the off the cuff theories but a proper scientific theory like the Professor produced above would be very useful. The tornadoes on the NSW/Victoria boarder were also a bit weird.

The effects of global warming are only small at this stage. By 2030 the effects will become more obvious and discernible. The truth is the world will do nothing (due to the petrochemical money) so we should be looking at how this will affect us in the investment sense. If a trend can be caught then real money can be made.

By the way it is 32 degrees here and 34 degrees tomorrow! In Melbourne and its practically April!!! Amazing.

 

[burglar]

... Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears -2013
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf ...

If you can count them, you can manage them!

 

[wayneL]

Bas

Have averred to these understanding for a number of years on this thread.

And no names, but me ole Pal will come on and laugh at me again with some dim link to a petro scientist.

We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.

Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.

 

[basilio]

Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.

It was really great Wayne for all of us to support Explod through the difficult times his family had faced.

But unless you have completely and utterly changed your views I don't see how his comment was not a fair reflection of what you would say. It wasn't duplicitous just accurate.

Do you want to share your view on the scientists observation of how climate change is affecting European climate ?

 

[wayneL]

It was really great Wayne for all of us to support Explod through the difficult times his family had faced.

But unless you have completely and utterly changed your views I don't see how his comment was not a fair reflection of what you would say. It wasn't duplicitous just accurate.

Do you want to share your view on the scientists observation of how climate change is affecting European climate ?

Ma'am, I utterly disagree with your appraisal, but TBH expect no better.

IMO, this debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science in toto, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable. Ergo, conversation here is an exercise in futility and regresses to ad hom.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the argy bargy... when running on all twelve ( something you, as an intellectual lawnmower engine, will never experience). But there are times I can do without it.

The likes of the duplicitous and two faced Plod (redundancy an' all)... and those blithely unaware of their cognitive biases such as yourself, use have used the good nature of forumites to score the cheapest of cheap points; capitalizing on our good nature's.

This is low.

So, I have tried to gracefully withdraw from this discussion, on the grounds that it could be damaging to those on a vulnerable emotional state, unbeknowns(?) to myself or others. But you of the moral nether regions come out fighting dirty at the first opportunity.

What a so very bad show.

 

[basilio]

Unbelievable Wayne. Just xxxxing unbelievable...

I agree with you that the debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. I too have generally decided to give it away.

However I did decide that the evidence presented by meteorological scientists on how the melting of the Arctic ice caps was affecting the climate was worth posting. It adds a factual content to the discussion.

There is no need to yet again turn this into another personal attack complete with the sniff of of burning martyr.

 

[Some Dude]

The likes of the duplicitous and two faced Plod (redundancy an' all)... and those blithely unaware of their cognitive biases such as yourself, use have used the good nature of forumites to score the cheapest of cheap points; capitalizing on our good nature's.

What cognitive biases do you have? If any of course.

 

[Whiskers]

I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but there are a number of factors that influence the cycles of weather on earth from the miniscule such as earth's polarity slowly changing and contentinal shift to more significant changes in solar flare activity.

I think aligning all these factors, cycles and cycles within cycles goes a long way to explaining the cyclical changes we are experiencing, rather than just global warming. For me the last couple of years of hot steamy wet weather is reminicant of the 1970's.

This chart also aligns with long range forcasts I've seen, especially for southern Australia, for very wet seasons in the mid 2020's to 2030ish.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/

 

[Logique]

You might also be interested in the work of Kevin Long (Mech Engineer and lifelong weather observer - The Long View): http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html

Kevin is very interested in sunspot activity, which he also sees as declining in the near term, and he predicts a colder, dryer climate for 2010 - 2028.

 

[wayneL]

What cognitive biases do you have? If any of course.

I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.

How about you?

 

[Knobby22]

But we have been in a period of low sunspot activity that's only really started increasing now (and is lower than last century) and yet the temperatures keep increasing. If there is an effect from solar activity, and there most probably is, it appears to be swamped by other effects. When the little ice age occurred there was similar low activity that occurred however the recent very low activity that has taken place over the last 20 years did not really see a major drop off in temperatures, just some flattening of the ever increasing temperature rise.

This from the NASA website that also shows the solar activity over time: Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions so the effect it will produce will be by magnetic disturbance of the upper atmosphere.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

If the effect is greater than thought then as we are entering a new sunspot phase we could see more massive temperature rises than normal. Logique, that site you posted tries to get out of it by saying the temperature rise that occurred was a delay from the previous sunspot cycle. It looks suspiciously like they couldn't get the figures to match so they just re-arranged the facts to suit themselves.

 

[Some Dude]

I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.

A very sensible disposition.

How about you?

As indicated previously, I think that irrational thought and thus cognitive bias is our natural state.

Quite the contrary. I believe that our natural state is irrational thought, even when we think to ourselves that it is otherwise so, and that we have to work very hard to produce rational and logical thinking. I have not found it effective simply assuming that my thoughts are the objective ones with an inescapable conclusion. Quite the opposite, I have found it effete to do so

So in this context, I am pondering this premise:

On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science in toto, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable.

Is there any of any cognitive bias in that premise?