Resisting Climate Hysteria

[dutchie]

The trillion pound bill: That's what this respected expert says the climate summit may cost the world each year. And yet, he argues, it will hardly change a thing

By Bjorn Lomborg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...argues-hardly-change-thing.html#ixzz3uAOJ0Hth
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Article by Lomborg so no doubt will be ridiculed but food for thought...

 

[Knobby22]

Yep, the guy Tony Abbott wanted!
And respected??? by Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mail???

His argument is spurious. We should have given the money to the poor. As Paul Keating said, "I always back the horse called self interest". it is in the interests of the major world economies that we don't get 4 degree global warming, hence the action.

But even Bjorn states that this will spur green energy technology research that will lead to improvements in these technologies.

And as per usual, he is paid by oil companies etc. to be a contrarian.
the old story -follow the money.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center

And he is so wrong with what he says and uses dog whistle language like Climate Hysteria. I hope he can still sleep at night after betraying his scientific principles for cold hard cash.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/

 

[explod]

OMG......when did you have that dream...was it a wet or a dry dream?

You have a wonderful imagination explod.......Time to join the majority of skeptics.

You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves. Read what I said over carefully again, nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. .

When the kettle is on the steam (moisture) rises. Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps.

Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco.

Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity. Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.

 

[orr]

Y

dog whistle language like Climate Hysteria.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/

Language is every thing; it's no small coincidence that of the half a dozen or so threads related to this topic(AGW) in this forum that the polemist trope titling this thread is the one that attracted the most attention of , to use Stalins affirmation, 'the useful idiots' ....
But of corse I may be wrong and those that give credence to the goggle eyed inbred hereditary peer conspiracist ..."the UN turfed out Abbott"
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/u...hristopher-monckton-says-20151207-glhtco.html

maybe right...

 

[Ijustnewit]

You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves. Read what I said over carefully again, nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. .

When the kettle is on the steam (moisture) rises. Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps.

Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco.

Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity. Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.

So now we have steam coming from the polar ice caps as well , gee what a mess the planet is in. I think others would call it evaporation and it doesn't only happen at the Polar ice caps but in the rest of the planet as well. I think this steam or evaporation has something to with clouds and causes rain sometimes . Of course non of these climate / weather events caused by steam or clouds ever occurred before man made climate change did they.
Interesting I stood on a pristine piece of beach here in Tasmania today with huge sandstone cliffs. You could clearly see the layers of geological history from many thousands of years of the changing planet and environment.
And that's exactly the point the Planet is constantly evolving and changing , it's only in the last 15 years that some pretty sharp people have come up with a new idea to blame mankind for it and charge everyone a fee because of it. The Planet will do what it does and throwing trillions of dollars down the gurgler won't change a thing.
And just another point , if the cold air is pushing from the Polar caps towards the Equator then how come it's still stinking hot in Cairns . Should the people of PNG be stocking up on Winter coats ? Just a thought

 

[wayneL]

You all refuse to observe and think for yourselves. Read what I said over carefully again, nothing to do with imagination but all to do with the real dynamics. .

When the kettle is on the steam (moisture) rises. Exactly the same thing is happenning from the polar caps.

Did you not understand your basic science lessons from school noco.

Of course no one like the truth and and or its simplicity. Need to make it complicated to confuse those trying to come to grips with the truth and or hopefully turn off the general population.

There is nothing about climate science that is basic Plod. That's why climate models suck, because the system is so complex with so many unknown inputs and variables.

 

[wayneL]

Yep, the guy Tony Abbott wanted!
And respected??? by Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mail???

His argument is spurious. We should have given the money to the poor. As Paul Keating said, "I always back the horse called self interest". it is in the interests of the major world economies that we don't get 4 degree global warming, hence the action.

But even Bjorn states that this will spur green energy technology research that will lead to improvements in these technologies.

And as per usual, he is paid by oil companies etc. to be a contrarian.
the old story -follow the money.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center

And he is so wrong with what he says and uses dog whistle language like Climate Hysteria. I hope he can still sleep at night after betraying his scientific principles for cold hard cash.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/03/bjorn-lomborg-did-not-get-facts-straight/

Intellectual dishonesty exposed by intellectual dishonesty. Oh pulleeez Knobby. >>>IF<<< Lomborgs article is advocacy over science, then these articles are stunning in their hypocrisy, utilizing the self same advocacy and disinformation.

 

[Knobby22]

Intellectual dishonesty exposed by intellectual dishonesty. Oh pulleeez Knobby. >>>IF<<< Lomborgs article is advocacy over science, then these articles are stunning in their hypocrisy, utilizing the self same advocacy and disinformation.

Pot kettle black argument.
A bit simplistic.

Saw this morning that some of the dumb right of the Libs are upset because Wind power is allowed again. I am sure Julie Bishop didn't want to be the laughing stock of the world, hence the change.

 

[wayneL]

Pot, kettle, black argument? My point exactly.

All funding has an underlying agenda. That is how it is today.

If you don't think the funding of pro anthropogenic warming research doesn't have an agenda you are a fool.

Damn I wish this whole debate would be de-politicized. In my opinion the side benefit would be a faster move to sustainable energy, rather than the resistance caused by scientifically untenable alarmism.

Attitude polarization on a grand scale will never produce optimum results.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you don't think the funding of pro anthropogenic warming research doesn't have an agenda you are a fool.

Of course it does but the case still has to be proved.

IMO governments would have little to gain by pursuing a pro AGW agenda if there was no basis to the argument.

Scaring people is not good politics, better to keep them warm and fuzzy in the belief that everything is fine and that their governments are doing a good job supplying them with cheap electricity and fuel.

But, somewhere along the line governments have to look at the evidence, and 190 nations around the world did that and decided that the evidence checked out and something had to be done.

Damn I wish this whole debate would be de-politicized.

A unanimous vote of 190 countries means that it has been de politicised.

 

[trainspotter]

Nuclear industry stands ready to help tackle climate change

9 December 2015

Agneta Rising, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, speaking at the International New York Times Energy for Tomorrow conference in Paris on December 9, said;
"The nuclear industry stands ready to deliver more to help tackle climate change. Nuclear generation could provide 25% of the world's electricity with low carbon generation by having 1000 gigawatts of new build by 2050."

Speaking at the same event Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency, said that if governments are serious about nuclear they should find the right frameworks for investors, because of the challenges of large investments in liberalised markets.

The IEA's Two Degree Scenario requires a major shift to low carbon generation by the middle of this century to prevent dangerous climate change. This scenario includes 18% of global electricity being supplied by nuclear energy by 2050, the largest contribution from any low carbon option. To reach this target global nuclear capacity would need to more than double..

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/

But but but the climate scientists agree?

At COP 21 four leading climatologists discuss the role of nuclear energy as part of a low carbon mix for electricity generation.

Dr. James Hansen is a professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Dr. Kerry Emanuel is a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide.

Dr. Ken Caldeira is a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and at the Stanford University Department of Earth System .

Well four of them anyways ..... Start buying Paladin and Wild Horse

 

[Knobby22]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Features/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-and-Nuclear-Energy/

But but but the climate scientists agree?



Well four of them anyways ..... Start buying Paladin and Wild Horse

It would be great for Australia should the nuclear industry get a second wind.

Its the capital cost issue stopping it I believe. I think if the world is really serious then the advantages of nuclear are obvious. Politically with the strange left we have, it won't happen in Australia.

 

[Knobby22]

A unanimous vote of 190 countries means that it has been de politicised.

It's helped. But a bit wishful.

Think of the USA Republicans. Read a great article on the weekend where the Republicans worked out why they lost the last two elections and the policies they needed to get voted in again. Marco Rubio wrote some of it. Yet he has had to ignore his own advice to try and get nominated. Sorry for thread drift.

 

[Knobby22]

Attitude polarization on a grand scale will never produce optimum results.

True. What annoys me is that the big players (corporations, politicians, media etc.) have worked out how to emote all the issues bypassing the reasoning faculties people should use. We are a bit of a herd animal.

Sorry, third reply in a row, not my style.

 

[SirRumpole]

No need to apologise Knobby, your responses are valued.


With the departure of people like Harper and Abbott and the ascendency of softer Conservatives like Cameron and Turnbull I think the Right are changing their tune on AGW in line with "community expectations", which is why if the Republicans win the next election I don't think it will be with Trump.

Trump may be of temporary amusement but I think the voters have fathomed his line which is more for the rich and powerful and less for the average worker.

 

[dutchie]

... and the winner is ..........

Switzerland !!


$100 billion new private bank accounts every year !!!

 

[Tisme]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/12/australia-not-yet-welcome-climate-alliance

 

[noco]

Arctic Ice Report
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.


Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.


Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.


********************
I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post -- 93 years ago. Alarmist global warning even back then. No doubt caused by Model T Ford emissions.

 

[noco]

As Tony Abbott once said......"GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY CO2 IS CRAP".......How so correct he is!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t/news-story/37981928db2b302e01f0ca7a5f32e684

Every time there is a big cyclone a finger is soon pointed to the modern witch of carbon dioxide emissions. This continues despite there being no evidence that extreme weather events have increased because of global warming. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that “evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific”.

A significant issue with climate change science is that often only one side of the debate is heard, so clear exaggerations and untruths can remain unchallenged.

The US military pioneered the use of so-called red teams whose job was to argue against prevailing wisdom, making its strategies more robust. Climate change science would benefit from more red team analysis.

For example, if you listen to the mainstream media, you would not realise that since the last major attempt to forge a climate change agreement in Copenhagen six years ago, the science has become less certain and gives us less reason to worry. This is primarily because the globe’s climate seems less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide than previously thought.

In just the past 18 years we have experienced one-third of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution, but temperatures have not increased as expected.

Satellite data shows no or only minimal warming, and surface-based measures show a warming rate far below projected climate models. At a US Senate hearing this week, John Christy, a lead author on previous IPCC reports, presented evidence that, on average, climate models over-estimated the rate of warming by three times compared with what actually has occurred.

If these models cannot replicate the past, how can we rely on them to predict the future?

Read the whole article.

 

[SirRumpole]

As Tony Abbott once said......"GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY CO2 IS CRAP".......How so correct he is!!!!!!!!!!

Tell that to the leaders of 190 countries who have agreed that climate is change is real and something has to be done about it.

Cease flogging a dead horse noco old chum, your cause is lost. Have a good Christmas.