Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

My closest Brother died last week so have been quiet. I did not mention it as wayneL thinks I use such things to take advantage of everyone.

Not fair Plod.

However having lost my only sibling @19, I have empathy, you have my condolences.

 

[Some Dude]

I suppose I should have repeated also, that they refered to melt from below the glaciers. Sure melt from atmospheric conditions can find its way down, but where is the conclusive proof that it's all from atmospheric and nothing to do with something else.

Let me know when you have read their study and emailed them about this. I look forward to reading the response. I'm sure that if open and honesty enquiry is your motivation that you will seek to do this before implying other conclusions.

As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.

So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.

Take a big step back for a moment and look at the 'big' historic picture. Aren't we coming off an ice age and not yet reached historic high temps!?

What caused the ice ages and warming cycles?

Also note the warming of .9 C from 1910... a bit alarmist and insignificant in the bigger scheme of things, isn't it?

Miles of charts here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

Maybe you could provide the update for the lower chart, up to say 2012.

Choose a point for discussion, cite the source and research, and we will discuss. If all you want to do is say that something doesn't make sense to you, then by all means contact the relevant researchers and seek their input. If you believe you can demonstrate some conspiracy or problem then contact one of the many organisations that will fund you for being able to do so.

I look forward to hearing how you go.

 

[spooly74]

I think we may have a real problem with burning coal and oil to the point where we should be taking attention and doing something about it.

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

Make your mind up.

Not fair Plod.

That's an understatement.

 

[Whiskers]

Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.

Not dishonest... simply cautious.

The basic tenant of law is the same as in science. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, or to rephrase for science, a theory is just a theory until it can be proved and replicated.

Sure there has been some global warming (and cooling) during human civilisation, but where the hysteria comes in is to paint that as some cataclysmic man made disaster.

Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying. The charts below from NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ show the warming rate was higher in the northern hemisphere... note I say WAS! Also, since the peak abt 1997 they have been pretty much stable.

Consider the history of volcanic activity for Iceland (a couple of bigger ones a couple of years ago and abt 1940's) and see some sort of correlation with northern hemisphere warming. It could be argued that the pent up lava in Iceland causes warming of the land and sea and once it has had a decent snort and got it off it's chest, there is significant glacial melt and temps cool down again.

 

[sptrawler]

Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.

Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?

I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.

Or is it just another case of rope the dope.

 

[Some Dude]

Since you didn't provide a chart of recent 'warming', I took the liberty to check myself what the latest info was saying. The charts below from NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ show the warming rate was higher in the northern hemisphere... note I say WAS! Also, since the peak abt 1997 they have been pretty much stable.

Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct? If not, modify the wording of your claim. Once we have agreed on a claim that you wish to make, we can assess that.

Consider the history of volcanic activity for Iceland (a couple of bigger ones a couple of years ago and abt 1940's) and see some sort of correlation with northern hemisphere warming. It could be argued that the pent up lava in Iceland causes warming of the land and sea and once it has had a decent snort and got it off it's chest, there is significant glacial melt and temps cool down again.

You seem to like this concept. Two questions. Firstly, do you think that volcanic activity has not been taken into account with the climate models? Secondly, can you cite any source or research regarding this or is it simply something that makes sense to you?

 

[Some Dude]

Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.

Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?

I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.

Or is it just another case of rope the dope.

Maybe you can ask Tony Abbott also? It appears that a "carbon tax" was an idea that he supported once upon a time also.

If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

 

[Whiskers]

Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct?

According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently.

You seem to like this concept. Two questions. Firstly, do you think that volcanic activity has not been taken into account with the climate models? Secondly, can you cite any source or research regarding this or is it simply something that makes sense to you?

I don't recall the 'hysteria' mainly residing in the USA, taking into account anything other than their vetted surface temps.

I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can produce where they have.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe you can ask Tony Abbott also? It appears that a "carbon tax" was an idea that he supported once upon a time also.

So without reading through your 'spin', the answer is, ask Tony Abbott? LOL
excuse me I need to take a wizz I'm laughing so much, what a limp d#ck response that was.
Hope Basillio the great can come up with a more credible response.lol

 

[sptrawler]

Well we are now into 12 months of the carbon tax, cleaning up our climate.

Can someone tell me how many of the dirty brown coal power stations have shut down?
How many have been bought out by this 'clean' government tax and shut down to save our planet?

I haven't been following the issue as I think it is just another 'spin' deal done by the goons.
However I will appologies if some of the climate change gurus can answer the question.

Or is it just another case of rope the dope.

So can one of you Labor, Green lovers, answer the question?

Some Dude, said ask Tony Abbott, he must be employed in the Labor party.lol

 

[Some Dude]

So without reading through your 'spin', the answer is, ask Tony Abbott? LOL
excuse me I need to take a wizz I'm laughing so much, what a limp d#ck response that was.
Hope Basillio the great can come up with a more credible response.lol

The link is to Tony Abbott's site where he supported the idea of a carbon tax. Perhaps you could put some effort into reading what he said

 

[Some Dude]

According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently.

Which means?

 

[sptrawler]

The link is to Tony Abbott's site where he supported the idea of a carbon tax. Perhaps you could put some effort into reading what he said

Perhaps you could put some effort into answering my initial question? Rather than trying to deflect the issue.

To remind you, how many dirty filthy polluting brown coal power stations, that the carbon tax was going to shut down, because they are killing the planet.
Have been shut down, or even look like they are going to shut down?

What a bunch of dicks

 

[Some Dude]

Perhaps you could put some effort into answering my initial question? Rather than trying to deflect the issue.

I couldn't surpass Tony Abbot's words in support for the idea of a carbon tax so I will leave it to him.

It may be instructive to compare the proposed treatment of carbon emissions with the actual treatment of another harmful practice. Would any government decide that, in order to halve smoking within ten years, say, decreasing numbers of permits should be issued to smokers who could then trade those permits among themselves? If such a scheme were adopted, the government would have to decide how many permits each smoker would get and, almost certainly, would decide that it would be unfair not to give heavier smokers more.

Reformed smokers could make a killing by selling their permits to their still-addicted brethren. Potentially, those who had originally been the worst smokers could make the most from their self-destructive habit. Speculators could buy permits when they are relatively cheap to sell them at a much higher price during the policy-induced nicotine drought. They would have to be compensated for their loss of property-in-permits should the government subsequently decide to change the scheme or to abandon it altogether because, say, of public revulsion at a new artificially-created means to exploit people.

It’s highly unlikely that any government would choose to treat smoking this way. Deciding on permit entitlement, managing the disputes with people who thought that they had been unfairly treated, monitoring smoking levels and regulating the subsequent market would be far more trouble than it’s worth. Instead, governments impose heavy taxes on cigarettes to put a price on nicotine and to discourage consumption.

To remind you, how many dirty filthy polluting brown coal power stations, that the carbon tax was going to shut down, because they are killing the planet.
Have been shut down, or even look like they are going to shut down?

You do raise an interesting question though. How many brown coal power stations did the government say that the "carbon tax", which Tony Abbott once supported, would shut down?

 

[drsmith]

None of our recent political leaders can cover themselves in glory over carbon pricing, least of all Julia Gillard.

A carbon price out of step with the global economy as a whole will do little to manage global fossil fuel output of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of which side of the climate change fence people sit.

All we have effectively done is create a reverse tariff on energy usage relative to the rest of world with the obvious economic consequences. These will become apparent over time an in particular, if there's a downturn in resources.

 

[Some Dude]

None of our recent political leaders can cover themselves in glory over carbon pricing, least of all Julia Gillard.

Agreed.

A carbon price out of step with the global economy as a whole will do little to manage global fossil fuel output of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of which side of the climate change fence people sit.

All we have effectively done is create a reverse tariff on energy usage relative to the rest of world with the obvious economic consequences. These will become apparent over time an in particular, if there's a downturn in resources.

Under the premise of implementing some kind of program i.e. setting aside for the moment which side of the fence we are all on, what do you think we as a country regardless of political party should do?

 

[drsmith]

Under the premise of implementing some kind of program i.e. setting aside for the moment which side of the fence we are all on, what do you think we as a country regardless of political party should do?

As a broad principal, act only in step with our economic influence. We are only a small portion of the global economy and our influence is limited by that.

 

[Some Dude]

Ok, so your assertion is that the global average temperature has leveled and is no longer rising? Is that correct? If not, modify the wording of your claim. Once we have agreed on a claim that you wish to make, we can assess that.

According to NASA the average trend actually declined recently.

Which means?

Is there a claim that you would like to make about NASA's chart relating to the field of climate science? Or are you highlighting a selected data point that you wish others will infer something from?

 

[Whiskers]

Is there a claim that you would like to make about NASA's chart relating to the field of climate science? Or are you highlighting a selected data point that you wish others will infer something from?

I'm trying to get you to provide some evidence, charts etc, of there being out of control climate change, or 'Global Warming', as the 'hysteria' was in the early 2000's.

All I've done is to canvas a number of factors that have an effect on climate change and evidence that the cyclical northern hemisphere warming (and cooling) is probably more to do with volcanic activity than human factors.

Again, I don't deny climate change occurs, that human activity has some effect, or that we are in a longer term warming cycle... but what I'm not convinced about is the hysteria that:

1. global warming (now more all-inclusive climate change) is out of control
2. human emissions are totally responsible, and
3. nature will not and can not rebalance CO2 naturally

 

[Some Dude]

I'm trying to get you to provide some evidence, charts etc, of there being out of control climate change, or 'Global Warming', as the 'hysteria' was in the early 2000's.

One of the benefits of not making hysterical claims is that I don't need to conjure up hysterical evidence in an attempt to support it.

Could you provide the climate science sources or research that made the hysterical and out of control claims?