Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

And in reply I seriously wonder how a person who has described one of the leading climate scientists as a deranged sociopath is still walking the streets. And keep the gratuitous insults to George Monbiot to yourself or expect an appropriate response

Carry on ....:bad:

Re Hansen https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

Re Moonbat. I realize I have insulted your poster boy, your butthurt is palpable, but really all he does is regurgitate the most extreme of alarmist propaganda.

I also realize your lot fantasizes about the arrest and execution of critical thinkers who have arrived at the moderate case, but that ain't happening without a fight.

 

[orr]

Re Moonbat.

Luv ya name call'n.... is there a latin phrase for that?

How does the school yard jibe go?
'Sticks'n stones may break my bones But whips and chains excite me'????

Gobsmacking is we only have to go back a couple of weeks in this thread to a post by a 'waynel' that still questions CO2 as a causation of Global Warming; from #6715

That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.

Just quietly between you and me before you cause yourself any further embarrassment, there is no argument about causation. Except of corse in 'certain circles'.

 

[trainspotter]

Ermmmmm yeah ... "luna bat"

Read ,,, understand ,,, digest ,,, comprehend ,,, process ,,, cognitive ,,, response ... in that order

 

[trainspotter]

Meanwhile back in the real world ...

 

[wayneL]

Luv ya name call'n.... is there a latin phrase for that?

How does the school yard jibe go?
'Sticks'n stones may break my bones But whips and chains excite me'????

Gobsmacking is we only have to go back a couple of weeks in this thread to a post by a 'waynel' that still questions CO2 as a causation of Global Warming; from #6715

That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.

Just quietly between you and me before you cause yourself any further embarrassment, there is no argument about causation. Except of corse in 'certain circles'.

Does bug eyed inbred Lord ring any bells for you, orr has your bias blinded you to the monumental hypocrisy of the alarmist group?

I see no reason to be embarrassed about being open to causation. For the record (and I am on the record) I do believe anthropogenic emissions are responsible for some degree of change, I also believe there are other anthropogenic factors, land use etc. There are also, unquestionably, natural factors.

So yes orr, there is still discussion on causation "except" in certain circles.

 

[AntN]

Climate change denier looking for conspiracies.
lol

 

[trainspotter]

Climate change denier looking for conspiracies.
lol

Moderate Jean Luc Picard meme for the sleepy koalas dipped in molasses

 

[trainspotter]

Julie bishop taking it seriously ...

Today I will travel to Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

I will lead Australia’s delegation and will work with my ministerial counterparts to deliver a strong and effective global climate change agreement.

Our priority is to deliver an agreement where all countries set and regularly review emission reduction targets. The agreement should also ensure countries accurately report on their emissions and progress towards targets.

At the conference I will outline Australia’s commitment to climate action at home and in our region, including our responsible and achievable target to reduce emissions by 26–28 per cent by 2030.

I will also highlight measures Australia is taking to support the uptake of new technologies and to improve energy efficiency, and our support for developing countries, particularly in the Pacific, to build resilience to climate-related events.

I will address the opening of the COP21 High-Level Segment, the High-Level Assembly of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and a Carbon Market Institute event.

These events will highlight the world-leading efforts of the Australian Government and businesses to reduce emissions and deliver new and improved technologies.

http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2015/jb_mr_151205.aspx

The rest of the country ... NOT !

 

[basilio]

How does one respond to the total self delusion of climate change deniers when they rabbit on about "Models not being data". I suppose the the figure people with their heads up their xrses is the most eloquent.

Lets look at the reality of CC in the UK. There are currently ginormous floods up and down the country. Thousands of homes flooded, roads and bridges swept away etc, etc.

And is this "unusual" ? A "Once in a Century" event as the deniers would have us believe ?

Rubbish. Try every second year in the UK since 2005.

The Guardian is pulling the pieces together and the big picture is exactly what climate scientists told us 30 years ago. More intense weather events, rising sea levels, and the evolving picture of a world that is radically different from our recent experience.

The Guardian view on Britain’s floods: the reality of climate change
Editorial
If the government is serious about infrastructure, then flood defences should be a greater priority than HS2 or another airport runway


Tuesday 8 December 2015 06.56 AEDT
Last modified on Tuesday 8 December 2015 07.12 AEDT


Winter freeze-ups and phew-what-a-scorcher summers may traditionally have made more dramatic headlines for newspapers, but in Britain the real threat from climate change today comes from flooding. The rains that hit north-west England and southern Scotland over the weekend were certainly exceptional. A record 341.4mm of rain fell at Honister in the Lake District. And the storms had devastating consequences. One man has died, 3,500 homes have been flooded, more than 2,000 of them in Carlisle, while road, rail and power links have all been cut. Yet this year’s floods were hardly unusual.

The floods of December 2015 follow, among many others, floods in 2014 in Somerset and the Thames valley, floods in north Yorkshire and Tyneside in 2012, floods in West Cumberland in 2009, floods in the Severn Valley in 2007 and floods in Carlisle in 2005. This is getting to be almost an annual event. Those who are at the sharp end are entitled to be angry. It is high time we learned the lessons better and got the measure of the problems more thoroughly.

The first thing we need to learn is to stop talking about once-in-a-century risks. Many of the worst affected areas in the current floods are places that have already been through bad floods in the past few years. Several had been equipped with sturdier and more comprehensive flood defences, which have held up against recent but lesser flood threats, as David Cameron was right to point out when he visited Carlisle on Monday.

Yet when the rains came this time those defences were overwhelmed. Cockermouth, on the edge of the Lake District, was inundated in 2009 when eight-foot-deep floods coursed through the town centre. Since then, a £4.4m system of flood barriers has been installed to protect the town from its two rivers. But still the floods came back to Cockermouth at the weekend. For some people in the town, this was the fourth flood in a decade. Things can’t go on like this.

When a house is flooded, the consequences are awful: physical dangers, damaged homes, written-off possessions and insurance claims are just the start of it. That these things should happen at a celebratory time of year – as is the case with many recent floods – is particularly miserable. But the effects endure beyond midwinter, sometimes for years, in the shape of the long clean-up, living in temporary accommodation, delayed insurance claims, increased premiums for householders and businesses, and in the exhaustion and trauma. Those who have experienced one flood will often live in fear of another whenever the heavy rains come. They should not have to do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...britains-floods-the-reality-of-climate-change

 

[wayneL]

Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

Let's just say that UKPravda is being very selective.

And by the way, your continued use if the word "denier" to tag moderates and observers of data, tells me everything I need to know about you:

Advocacy>science
Obfuscation>enlightenment
Belief >fact

 

[trainspotter]

How does one respond to the total self delusion of climate change deniers when they rabbit on about "Models not being data". I suppose the the figure people with their heads up their xrses is the most eloquent.

Lets look at the reality of CC in the UK. There are currently ginormous floods up and down the country. Thousands of homes flooded, roads and bridges swept away etc, etc.

And is this "unusual" ? A "Once in a Century" event as the deniers would have us believe ?

Rubbish. Try every second year in the UK since 2005.

The Guardian is pulling the pieces together and the big picture is exactly what climate scientists told us 30 years ago. More intense weather events, rising sea levels, and the evolving picture of a world that is radically different from our recent experience.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...britains-floods-the-reality-of-climate-change

Don't be worrying about Ol' Mother England matey boy. Have a look in your own backyard ... Like Brisbane for example.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/qld-floods/

Models are not data basilio ... comprende amigo?

 

[explod]

Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

t

A good run down on those figures would not raise your fading horn of the wilderness much but may help.

Have been following the banter here with interest. Scientist on all sides are inconsistent and often wrong in world change that we have NOT seen on such a scale before.

The reasons for effects that would appear to nullify the rapid changes are either being ignored or overlooked.

The slight warming at the poles is shifting cooler conditions outwards. As well it is causing more cloud and thereby further increasing cooler conditions away from the poles. The sceptics jump on this. In the winters therefore we have increased snow and ice falls which of course shows up on the satellite photos to indicate all is well. "gee look how big the ice sheet in Antarctica is this year!!!" But as summer comes it dissipates faster each season and in fact new shipping lanes are opening up across the arctic as never before.

I could go on much further in regard to the loss of permafrost ice, escaping methane and very visible receeding glaciers but the sides to the debate have shifted to the global warming reality and problems.

The hysteria so called is the fading horn.

I note Ikea and Aldi are preparing to have solar panels installed atop all of thier buildings.

 

[basilio]

Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

Let's just say that UKPravda is being very selective.

And by the way, your continued use if the word "denier" to tag moderates and observers of data, tells me everything I need to know about you:

Advocacy>science
Obfuscation>enlightenment
Belief >fact

Really Wayne ? You have some fantastic data which somehow moderates/explains/ justifies away the last 10 years of extreme weather events in UK ? Makes all them all seem like part of a normal process that shouldn't be considered a cause for concern perhaps evidence of significant changes in climactic conditions? Completely destroys any suggestion that serious CC events are unfolding ?

Really interesting...Just confirms to me that your "observation of data" is so ridiculous it has no credibility. It can't be believed. It's just BS.

In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth.

They are up the Nile.

 

[trainspotter]

In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth.

And so sayath the Lord ... Amen ! There's that HYSTERIA rising again

 

[basilio]

TS what an interesting way to present the figures for the changes in temperature over the past 120 years.

Yep when you make the Y axis nice and big you can minimise the apparent changes in temperatures. In fact the really special people in this field ( the really crazy deniers) start at 100 below and finish at 100 above. At that scale, man, you can't see any change at all !!

The trouble is that in the real world, that 1 degree of increase in temperature is very significant. It is outside the range of most of the last 10,000 years and has resulted in marked changes to habitats, local geography and local climates.

And it is still increasing at a rate unprecedented for thousands of years.




Now the problem is that data like this that shows what has happened to the worlds temperature and is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tells the wrong story for those who want another version of reality.

So we then get creations along the lines of the following graphs


and



Interesting isn't it ? Just how did the 98% of the world's climate scientists make such obvious mistakes ?
Or perhaps the people producing these graphs wern't quite telling the truth.

If anyone is interesting in discovering how the second graph was constructed and why it is so wrong check out the following url

https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)

 

[trainspotter]

basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities.

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.
The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.
The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.
Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.
The governments which fund the IPCC have tabled 1,800 questions in relation to the report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

My favourite part ....

However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.
“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."

There I feel better now

 

[basilio]

Hmmnn TS . A two year article from The Telegraph as a contribution to partially questioning the accuracy of the IPCC reports. Truth be told their overall history on reportage of this topic is somewhere between The Herald Sun and The Australian ie complete BS and plausible rubbish.

But to be fair I wouldn't put that story into that category.

What still surprises me about your contributions is the way you somehow throw up graphs and information that are either misleading or completely wrong. Why use that such clearly deceptive information unless you are trying to minimise what is happening as a result of CC ?

 

[explod]

basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

My favourite part ....



There I feel better now

Don't put too much faith in the IPCC, figures often averaged down to comply with thier political support/survival.

As well the figures are based on those up to and prior to thier reporting period. So most often the are six years old. A lot may have (and has dramatically from myview) changed in tgat time.

Have quoted this with references over the years here. Main one from the book "climate wars" forgot the auther and have loaned the text

 

[trainspotter]

Hmmnn TS . A two year article from The Telegraph as a contribution to partially questioning the accuracy of the IPCC reports. Truth be told their overall history on reportage of this topic is somewhere between The Herald Sun and The Australian ie complete BS and plausible rubbish.

But to be fair I wouldn't put that story into that category.

What still surprises me about your contributions is the way you somehow throw up graphs and information that are either misleading or completely wrong. Why use that such clearly deceptive information unless you are trying to minimise what is happening as a result of CC ?

But but but you can quote the Guardian as gospel because it fits your agenda

So the IPCC was NOT wrong and they DID NOT claim in the IPCC AR4 predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 ?

Oppenheimer, Hansen, Holdren, Gore, Maslowski, Viner all making predictions about CC and ALL of them WRONG

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Page 4 says it all for mine ....

Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.

That’s right. Regardless of its cause. Working Group 2 isn’t claiming that these observed impacts are necessarily a result of human activities. They could equally well be the result of natural climate change – the IPCC makes no distinction.

As has been pointed out repeatedly there is no doubt that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend ...

There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.

 

[basilio]

What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.

TS

Is that the core of your argument TS. ? As I understand it you are saying that this changing of climate has been going on for millions of years. You are also saying that humanity has had an effect on the change in climate . ( I presume by that you mean increasing the CO2levels, widespread removal of tree cover perhaps other influences.

And finally you are saying that attributing it all to man and CO2 alone is just not true.

I can agree with all those statements. The climate has been changing for millions of years. Obviously humanity had no part of those changes for almost all of that period. Intense research by climate scientists has identified the different climates we have experienced and started to understand the many different elements that have affected our earth's environment.

The argument by climate scientists is that humanity's effort at rapidly increasing Greenhouse Gases is having a large and rapidly increasing effect on our climate. The evidence for that statement is the sharp increase in global temperatures in the past 130 years (and particularly the last 45 years) as well as the understandings of how much extra energy GG gases will trap in the atmosphere. In fact scientists are saying that our impact on climate has become the dominant driver. (But not the only factor.)

As for the future ? All depends doesn't it .