Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.

Yeh and looks like sand on which to sunbake getting scarce again up your way too.

Strewth these hundred year wave surges seem to be every month or two now. And cant blame the moon because the sun and the moon are pulling against each other at the moment which cancels them both out.

 

[wayneL]

Yeh and looks like sand on which to sunbake getting scarce again up your way too.

....and this is relevant because?

 

[explod]

....and this is relevant because?

Increasing extremes of weather events indicating climate change on the move even in paradise.

On where this started a few posts back, colder mornings were discussed. Caused by warmer air, particularly at the poles leading to increased cloud, more hot and cold, juxtaposed into higher winds, seas, rain and storms in some places and less in others.

The problem we have is that the extremes to the wet and cold side lead those opposed to the idea of global warming to say "aha, it is all false"

These points were explained to the US Congress in 1988 by NASA Scientist James Hanson.

 

[wayneL]

Increasing extremes of weather events indicating climate change on the move even in paradise.

On where this started a few posts back, colder mornings were discussed. Caused by warmer air, particularly at the poles leading to increased cloud, more hot and cold, juxtaposed into higher winds, seas, rain and storms in some places and less in others.

The problem we have is that the extremes to the wet and cold side lead those opposed to the idea of global warming to say "aha, it is all false"

These points were explained to the US Congress in 1988 by NASA Scientist James Hanson.

Hansen..LOL

Man has certainly affected the beachfront, but I suggest you encompass a range of anthropogenic and natural factors when considering beach erosion, rather than rushing to blame AGW.

Just one easily found article http://www.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-living/coastal-erosion-natures-way-or-man-made-problem

You might want to check your weather stats too

 

[burglar]

Hansen..LOL

Man has certainly affected the beachfront, but I suggest you encompass a range of anthropogenic and natural factors when considering beach erosion, rather than rushing to blame AGW.

Just one easily found article http://www.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-living/coastal-erosion-natures-way-or-man-made-problem

You might want to check your weather stats too

Why would a farrier flog a dead horse?

:horse:

 

[wayneL]

It is a well known fact that if you ever need to know anything, ask your farrier We get oir information straight from the horses mouth .

 

[wayneL]

 

[Knobby22]

Damn those scientists. They should be banned from doing research that doesn't agree with Conservative orthodoxies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

 

[wayneL]

Damn those scientists. They should be banned from doing research that doesn't agree with Conservative orthodoxies.

That's your retort the McQuarrie's disgraceful treatment of Murry Salby, that scientists must conform to CONSERVATIVE dogma?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

 

[Some Dude]

That's your retort the McQuarrie's disgraceful treatment of Murry Salby, that scientists must conform to CONSERVATIVE dogma?

It seems to be a regular motif that people confuse the demonstrating with claiming.



As happened recently with Coppage and JPL, I'll wait until the facts are known.

 

[wayneL]

Dude, I suppose you have seen Salby's case?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/ma...s-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/

 

[basilio]

Have seen Professor Salbys case.

According Macquarie University he was sacked because he refused to teach as per his contract. With regard to his work on climate change it really was poor science. He hasn't had a peer reviewed paper published and his presentations have been analysed and found in critical error.

If in fact Professor Salby could present a coherent case for overturning the role of human produced CO2 impacting on the climate he would deserve a Nobel Prize. But the maths doesn't stack up and he just doesn't understand the carbon cycle and how it works.

http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/...ing-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

 

[Some Dude]

Dude, I suppose you have seen Salby's case?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/ma...s-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/

You mean the one I provided a link to (last one)? I assume you also know about Mr Carter?

Having been involved for years in discussions about evolution and intelligent design with creationists, I am very familiar with claims of academic bias. It is a claim often cited when someone loses their job in this context but the real reasons can differ from the ones given by either claimant.

 

[wayneL]

Cookesque bullsh*t aside ladies, what do you have to say about Salby's Claims?

 

[Some Dude]

Cookesque bullsh*t aside ladies, what do you have to say about Salby's Claims?

If as claimed his contract was terminated because of his scientific opinions then that was wrong and I hope he and his union (assuming he is a member of one) litigates his former employer for it. I am also a believer that there is a major imbalance in the employer and employee dynamic when it comes to these types of situations in everyday life for everyone. It's one of the reasons I am philosophically opposed to legislation that generally speaking makes it easier to terminate employee contracts.

But as is the primary theme that I try to make people here aware about through all topics, there is a world of difference between a claim and a claim with veracity. The Coppage link I provided above is but one example where the mantle of being the victim is often cited but rarely demonstrated for these types of situations. I will be approaching this like all other claims, yes it is possible but simply saying so doesn't make it so. All parties are just as capable of, to borrow your word, bullsh*t. It's substantiating it that makes the difference. I follow these types of situations because they are good litmus tests to see how others deal with potentially conflicting philosophical imperatives i.e. do they allow their disagreement with the person to inform how that person should be dealt with.

As to the specifics, I am still collecting facts from all perspectives on this manner and am not letting my disagreement with his scientific opinion affect whether he his employment situation has been correctly and fairly dealt with. For reference, this story was also in Crikey on Friday.

The case of Salby is an interesting one that Crikey has monitored for some months. So what happened to him? Macquarie University says it terminated him because he refused to teach as required and breached the university's travel rules. He claims he was treated poorly and denied resources, and links this to his research on greenhouse gas emissions. Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):

Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change. Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):

A question for you. Do situations like this present pause for thought to concepts generally proposed by the Coalition to make it easier to terminate people's contracts?

 

[basilio]

Certainly worth reading the Crikey report with regard to Salbys claims. Apparently he was behind a story produced in The Australian which attempted to debunk the Angry Hot summer story which highlighted the temperature extremes in Australia over 2012-2013.

Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):

Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change. Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):

"The Bureau stands by its climate analysis that portrays the last Australian summer as exceptional. So many temperature records were broken over such a wide area of the continent during this summer past, that it is absurd to argue otherwise. The Bureau rejects assertions that surface based climate observations made and analysed by the Bureau of Meteorology are somehow fatally flawed."

.........
So Salby's op-ed for The Australian, which claims to show that the climate is not warming insofar as Australian summers are not getting hotter, is based on records taken up to 10 kilometres above the earth's surface, which "don't always align" with temperatures on the earth's surface.

So astronauts have no need to worry about climate change, then.

For some reason I can't upload the full text of this section.

 

[Knobby22]

Thanks basilio.
Salby sounds like a complete crank and conspiracy theorist.

 

[orr]

Orr,



Just to let you know I will address this in my own time, and it will be like taking candy from a baby.

I'll see you a snide and raise you a dose of reality (sans de rigueur leftist ad hom).

Dude just a bit of background;
This is wayneL's response to a request to critique the Koch's brothers sponsored climate report that confirmed the work of James Hansen with regards predictions from as far back as the mid 80's, see my post#3336 from april last year. No response ever came.
So as to the the pit fall you've set for wayneL above? can we only assume he's 'Pleading the Fifth' ' ? again...
As for Salby: Where will the ever thinning ranks of 'the Merchants of Doubt' find the solace of their own 'leper island' to see out their affected lives. My I suggest a low lying one.

 

[wayneL]

Dude just a bit of background;
This is wayneL's response to a request to critique the Koch's brothers sponsored climate report that confirmed the work of James Hansen with regards predictions from as far back as the mid 80's, see my post#3336 from april last year. No response ever came.
So as to the the pit fall you've set for wayneL above? can we only assume he's 'Pleading the Fifth' ' ? again...
As for Salby: Where will the ever thinning ranks of 'the Merchants of Doubt' find the solace of their own 'leper island' to see out their affected lives. My I suggest a low lying one.

Well I apologize for not sitting in front of a computer twelve hours a day, fretting about an imaginary Armageddon, jousting with obnoxious leftist evangelical alarmists.

To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded

 

[basilio]

To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded

Yep Wayne lets have a look for confirmation bias shall we. How about searching peer reviewed scientific papers published between Jan 1 1991 and Nov 9 2012. Lets say we look for keyword phrases "Global warming" or Global climate change".

What do you think we might find with that little look ? How about a total of 13,950 papers And guess how many have rejected global warming ?

Thats right 24 papers . Total. Complete out of 13, 950

So clearly if one was looking outside of ones raging confirmation bias you would have to discard 13,926 scientific papers on the topic and focus most keenly on 24 of them.

Cheers.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Repost This
Comment on this StoryEmail this story

This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.*

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart