Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Whiskers]

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

The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start.

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.

Maybe, but you appear to be denying there is/was hysteria and continually asking questions in response to questions and requests for the point of your questions.

Asking questions is fine, but not to engage in dialogue about the response and just ask more questions is fruitless and leads to frustration and confrontation about one's intention or ability to comprehend and grasp what is presented.

Continuous questions without any dialogue is also indicative of someone who is evasive, or can never be satisfied and keeps demanding 'impossible' (from their perspective) proof.

So, to avoid being ignored in future, please explain the point to your incessant questions? Is it that you agree with the Global Warming notion and deny there is hysteria?

 

[explod]

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

It is and will take time. It is the principal that is importand.

Gradually more wind turbines are being erected and more solar panels going up, more countries being invloved.

Such change is huge and will take years (unfortunately) but we are on the way, not perfect but gradually things will be refined through public opinion and the ballot boxes and we will get there.

 

[Knobby22]

There is some great research taking place with storing the power produced. This is the big problem with wind and solar power.

You can be sure we will be buying it off other countries as they solve these problems after we finishing arguing among ourselves and missing the boat (as usual).

 

[burglar]

... after we finishing arguing among ourselves and missing the boat (as usual).

Not missing the boat!

South Australia has close to half of the nation's wind power capacity, accounting for almost twenty percent of that state's electricity needs of as October 2010. Victoria also had a substantial system, with about a quarter of the nation's capacity, ...

 

[Some Dude]

I have reversed the order of your primary points i.e. I will address the procedural points before returning to the original point. If you object, let me know.

Maybe, but you appear to be denying there is/was hysteria and continually asking questions in response to questions and requests for the point of your questions.

At the risk of contradicting my signature, appearances can be deceiving. I believe there is a substantial amount of hysteria on this (and other) topics. Anyone who suggest that hysteria is not potentially applicable to people or opinions is lacking the most basic awareness of human thoughts and emotions. Have you ever looked at this thread title and pondered whether it could apply to both sides of the discussion? Hysteria is an equal opportunity emotional response.

The conversational thread about hysteria from my perspective. If I have left out anything pertinent, let me know.

I actually did get caught up in the hysteria a bit back in the 1990's, but two main things shone through after Al Gore started pumping the issue. The first was the controvosy over the actual data. There was a lot of selective locations and as I recall "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings. It seemed locations that didn't rise in conformoty with their notion were disregarded. The other was the financial issue, geared toward a new form of tax revenue and agencies setup to facilitate this.

Multiple points but trying to deal with the first one:

Which apparent controversy do you refer to?

It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html

The release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the British University of East Anglia. Again, appears simple enough given the availability of the information so I asked about that.

And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.

Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .

I'm not going to simply believe you without question or evidence, so I asked.

1. Lack of real consensus. What lack of consensus are you referring to? Can you be specific by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.

2. The politicking and intent to suppress. Can you be specific as to what was being suppressed by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.


Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.

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.

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.

I found it interesting that the link you posted in reference to this incident states the following:

The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change. But they do hand a powerful political card to skeptics at the start of perhaps the most important environmental summit in history.

If I was to demonstrate malfaesence, bad behaviour, politicking, etc on behalf of those who reject the scientific consensus about climate change, would that mean that you would adjust your views? Did you evaluate your position about the scientific research on politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perceptions, etc.?

Asking questions is fine, but not to engage in dialogue about the response and just ask more questions is fruitless and leads to frustration and confrontation about one's intention or ability to comprehend and grasp what is presented.

It may come as no surprise to you that I believe that I have engaged in dialogue about your responses. But feel free to demonstrate where you believe that I have not and we can take up those points.

Continuous questions without any dialogue is also indicative of someone who is evasive, or can never be satisfied and keeps demanding 'impossible' (from their perspective) proof.

I am very easily satisfied. If you make a claim that does not correlate with my understanding on this topic, I will ask you for the specific information that informed your opinion or belief. Another option is not assert opinions as fact. It's isn't that hard or impossible

So, to avoid being ignored in future, please explain the point to your incessant questions? Is it that you agree with the Global Warming notion and deny there is hysteria?

Ignore me or not as you wish but it will not stop me from asking for evidence relating to claims made on this topic. If you choose to ignore them then perhaps others should draw the same inference that you invited about climate scientists i.e. reasonable doubt? That would not be a valid conclusion to draw though would it? It may be instructive of how climate scientists have felt about or an example of how people generally react when confronted with what they perceive as difficult?

And I agree with you, people should be able to rationally discuss these issues in an open, honest, and supportable manner

And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.

From that position though, I have very little to offer other than looking around and noting the hysteria.

(Snip/Reverse)

The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start.

As earlier in my response, did politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perception, or other non scienctific aspects changed your views on the climate science?

 

[Knobby22]

Not missing the boat!

South Australia has close to half of the nation's wind power capacity, accounting for almost twenty percent of that state's electricity needs of as October 2010. Victoria also had a substantial system, with about a quarter of the nation's capacity, ...

I was talking more about power storage, but point taken.

As an aside, which USA state uses windpower to supply 9.2% of their power needs? Texas!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

 

[basilio]

Whiskers you have posted a number of comments which in your mind suggest that Global warming is not what it is cracked up to be. In fact you neatly summarized your ideas with the following comments

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

If you care to check out the following URL you will find all the evidence necessary to answer those questions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_New_Abridged_Skeptical_Science_Quick_Reference_Guide.html

I notice a wide range of hypothetical possibilities you canvas to explain current changes in our climate. Volcanoes. Cloud cover. Heat from inside the earth.

Sorry but these are all red herrings. Fairy dust. BS...

One can make a case for some contribution to changing climate from many factors. In fact climate scientists are quick to acknowledge that and take great pains to identify these factors and take them into account when evaluating the major causes of current climate change.

But the overwhelming major cause for current climate change is the huge additional human produced CO2. This understanding goes back over 200 years. Again if you are interested in the depth of scientific research check out the following analysis.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

 

[Whiskers]

Hey Dude, now that we've got more opinion (and less questions) and your position in all this, I can better deal with you.

Have you ever looked at this thread title and pondered whether it could apply to both sides of the discussion?

Yes, but the title is "Resisting" Climate Hysteria.

Hysteria is defined as behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic. The Global Warming and Climate Change sceptics are not the ones acting in fear and panic as in introducing half baked laws to correct the probably uncorrectable.

And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.

Therein lays one of the points I am trying to make about hysteria.

Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise... and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?

If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand.

As earlier in my response, did politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perception, or other non scienctific aspects changed your views on the climate science?

All to some extent, plus more specifically the big far less controversal scientific climate picture.

Remember, hysteria is just an emotional state... until you start to act in panic on that fear.

The onus is on the climate change activists to fully explain and justify the case for the continued need for their perceived 'panic' actions.

 

[basilio]

Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.

One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change. If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening.

And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.

As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ? If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.

We, businesses, governments live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.

 

[basilio]

And one last point Whiskers about the use of the word Hysteria.

This thread is called that because someone wanted to poison the discussion from the very start and accordingly framed the debate to diminish the standing of the scientists in that field.

 

[wayneL]

Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.

One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change. If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening.

And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.

As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ? If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.

We, businesses, governments live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.

Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.

 

[basilio]

Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.

Another typical wayne rubbishing. Biggest BS artiste on the forum and chief poisoner of discussion.

Go forth and multiply.

 

[Some Dude]

Hey Dude, now that we've got more opinion (and less questions) and your position in all this, I can better deal with you.

Glad to hear that you feel more comfortable.

Yes, but the title is "Resisting" Climate Hysteria.

Yes, I am resisting the hysteria on the topic of climate science.

Hysteria is defined as behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.

Agreed.

The Global Warming and Climate Change sceptics are not the ones acting in fear and panic as in introducing half baked laws to correct the probably uncorrectable.

Disagree but more importantly, this is a positive claim that is being made. For it to be valid, you need to demonstrate that panic is driving the laws and that they are half baked. Simply asserting it or disagreeing with a course of action does not make it so.

Therein lays one of the points I am trying to make about hysteria.

Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise... and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?

No. I have an opinion and belief that those who spend their professional lives in this field are better able to analyse and draw conclusions from data that is not even available to us yet. I am open to be being convinced that we who do not do this professionally are better qualified or better informed but that is a positive claim that you would need to demonstrate that to me. This is why I continually ask for the evidence. If you believe that you are in a better position to assess and formulate coherent ideas about the latest data on climate science then by all means enlighten us. Demonstrate to us how you are able to see more clearly than the overwhelming and vast majority of climate scientists who publish their work in a highly competitive environment.

Further, simply saying "maybe" does not make it so either. If I said that that there maybe individuals or groups within the climate change skeptic community that are actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise without evidence, would that change your mind?

If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand.

Correct. Not sure why you think that applies here though. I have an opinion and belief informed from reading, assessing and discussing as best I can within the bounds of my abilities. Part of that assessment is identifying who can sustain and logically sound and valid argument. If I am business owner, I don't need to understand Ethernet collision algorithms to assess the viability of network segmentation and switching. What I need to be able to do is assess metrics and outcomes so that I can make determinations on who is the most suitable or capable to provide the service or advice. If someone regularly makes claims that they can't substantiate then they are not deferred to when it comes to matters that I can't possibly invest the time or resources into investigating.

Regarding your ole mate Einstein:

Netwon's third laws of cliches. For each and every cliche, there is an equal and opposite cliche.

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics" - Richard Feynman

I endorse quantum mechanics even though I do not understand it. I endorse it because there is a scientific consensus of the overwhelming and vast majority of physicists.

Which leads to your comment about faith.

2. belief that is not based on proof

I reject your notion about faith or blind faith. We have scientific evidence as proof, and I accept that I am not the best qualified or capable to assess the latest data and derive conclusions from it so I defer to those who demonstrate that they are.

All to some extent, plus more specifically the big far less controversal scientific climate picture.

I am unclear what you mean here. Could you clarify this please?

Remember, hysteria is just an emotional state... until you start to act in panic on that fear.

The onus is on the climate change activists to fully explain and justify the case for the continued need for their perceived 'panic' actions.

Burden of proof is an age old concept that is incumbent on those making positive claims.

For example:

Claim: Anthropomorphic Global Warming is the scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Correct, evidence is available for this positive claim.

Claim: Action being proposed by some group in response to the scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is panic.

Please, do fully explain with actual relevant scientific research the claim that some arbitrary group of "climate change activists" warrants the label panic.

1. a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group of persons or animals.

Are you going to revisit the previous questions?

 

[Some Dude]

Congratulations for stuffing the largest number of logical fallacies in a single post in ASF history; and concurrently including a monumental hypocrisy ... well done.

You could always demonstrate how this is so?

 

[wayneL]

You could always demonstrate how this is so?

I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.

BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.

Ol' Soc always had a point that the questions always led to, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.

 

[Some Dude]

I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.

BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.

Ol' Soc always had a point that the questions always led to, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.

The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?

 

[wayneL]

The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?

The point is illegitimate, ergo Socratic method can never lead to your point.

 

[Whiskers]

I am unclear what you mean here. Could you clarify this please?

You asked what changed my view on the hysteria about climate change. My answer was (in part) the big climate picture, which is far less controversial, recognises cycles in, and a long term climate warming trend... the warming bit, the alarmists focus on the recent and that it's 'bad'.

Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be?

Are you going to revisit the previous questions?

No, except to say think more about this.

"My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​

Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria.

People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.

 

[Some Dude]

I hold that it is self evident to bona fide logicians.

BTW, you might want to brush up on your dicombobulated pseudo-Socratic questioning technique.

Ol' Soc always had a point that the questions always led to, rather than merely trying to obfuscate and befuddle.

The point is in plain sight. Maybe that is what confuses you?

The point is illegitimate, ergo Socratic method can never lead to your point.

You sir, are an unrealised and unrecognised genius. The quantum point.

You asked what changed my view on the hysteria about climate change. My answer was (in part) the big climate picture, which is far less controversial, recognises cycles in, and a long term climate warming trend... the warming bit, the alarmists focus on the recent and that it's 'bad'.

Do you believe in evolution? Or does it's supposed label as controversial by some groups make it less supported by the evidence?

Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be?

My preference is for stable but regardless of global warming I don't know if that is realistic.

Are you going to revisit the previous questions?

No, except to say think more about this.

Sorry to see you bail out on the dialogue.

"My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​

Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria.

People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.

You missed the most important part of that statement.

My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic.

I don't have the equipment, training, resources, or involvement in the latest research, thinking, arguments, peer review, etc. with regard to the field of climate science. I can't possibly pretend with any credibility to be even in vague co-location to the forefront of the most recent modelling, assessments, etc. Are you?

The next sentence which you highlight as a possible contradiction is an acknowledgement that I try to keep up but I am at best playing catch up.

Thanks for the discussion though

And we return viewers to the regular theme....

One theme seems to be quote some article, others go and check the article and source research, demonstrate that it has been misrepresented (at best), little to no response, move onto next article or sub topic, rinse and repeat. I wonder why people don't adjust where they get their sources of information from or how they evaluate what information they listen to?

Definitely seems like part of a theme...

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers I think you are way off course with your arguments regarding climate change.

One doesn't have to act "in blind faith" when assessing the arguments and evidence produced to supported the reality of human induced climate change. If one takes the trouble to read the material I referred to, a rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening.

And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned.

As for as absolute, cast iron certainty about the cause of current climate change and the probable results ? If anyone demands absolute and total proof before taking action they arn't living in the real world. Either that or they just want some fig leaf of an excuse to justify not responding.

We, businesses, governments live and die on judgments they make about with the best available current information. With regard to climate change the current best information agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field is that it is serious, human induced and must be addressed.

Basilo, I chose this reply of yours because you mentioned a few key concepts that when related to government hysterical policy and laws on climate change, demonstrate their lack of sincere concern with climate change, but more concern with revenue raising from new taxes and industry.

"Human induced climate change"
One of the main greenhouse gases is methane. The gov has laid plenty of blame on the rural sector for methane contribution from animal herds and are trying their best to use that as a means to tax them more.

Yet at the same time, the state and fed gov's have rushed in Coal Seam Gas (CSG) development under the Coordinator General provisions with initially no environmental controls but eventually modified with mild controls in some areas under public pressure.

There is plenty of current, living proof out there that the fracking process to develop CSG causes considerable methane and other gas to escape into the air and water table. You can go out into those areas and measure detectable increases around many wells, smell it and feel it burning your eyes and skin and even see it bubbling up in the creeks and rivers.

When the hysterical and hypocritical climate change activists and government that not only allowed it, but endorsed it with open arms, do something pretty fast to stop all this extra methane and other undeclared chemicals leaking into the air we breathe and water we consume, then I'll start taking you seriously about climate change.

"And given the consequences that flow from that they should be very concerned."
If this sort of government contradiction keeps up, we'll all be poisoned long before the climate change has any marked effect on us.

"A rational person would understand what is happening and why it is happening."
The gov has bowed to the whims of climate extremists as a populous political election tool and a guise to introduce new tax revenue, create new industry and jobs for political gain... completely disingenuous about real environmental issues.