Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

Nuh. I referenced an earlier post which detailed an analysis on the rapidly changing climatic conditions in Canada. Basically much hotter, much earlier, less snow melt. These have all contributed to creating a far more dangerous forest fire situation.

The argument is not about climate change "causing" this fire. It's about how the rapidly warming ecosystems of the area are creating far more favourable conditions for a fire to become uncontrollable.

Artist also posted a reference which detailed how this increase in fire risk is happening throughout the world as temperatures rise.

That latest article you linked was essentially a highly prejudiced opinion piece. Those sharing the proferred opinion, might choose to entertain it as part of their personal take on reality, but others are entitled to hold out for something with a bit more substance and objectivity before committing to that particular viewpoint.

 

[artist]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

from post #7578

So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.

You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.

Is this response in reply to my discussion of the Nature article by Jolly et.al., or to Luutzu?

 

[cynic]

I've heard of climate shifting South at something like 8 miles per day in the Northern Hemisphere but season shifting... just past couple years or past 20 years where SirR read it's been the hottest on record?

Anyway, when's the last time 97% of any group agree on anything?

I have read all sorts of things also.

The seasons do appear to be gradually shifting forward. Whilst I cannot conclusively prove this to be the case, I believe that the temperature records are lending support to this observation.

As to the claims of the "elite" 97%, I won't be buying what they're selling until such time as they start to back their claims up with some rigorous scientific proof.

The publication of numerous papers, asserting unproven conjectures as factual, really only serves to confuse the issue and potentially damage the reputation of science.

If one is unwilling to take the time to understand the scientific basis for any claim being made, then one cannot automatically conclude that a scientific basis actually exists!

 

[luutzu]

I have read all sorts of things also.

The seasons do appear to be gradually shifting forward. Whilst I cannot conclusively prove this to be the case, I believe that the temperature records are lending support to this observation.

As to the claims of the "elite" 97%, I won't be buying what they're selling until such time as they start to back their claims up with some rigorous scientific proof.

The publication of numerous papers, asserting unproven conjectures as factual, really only serves to confuse the issue and potentially damage the reputation of science.

If one is unwilling to take the time to understand the scientific basis for any claim being made, then one cannot automatically conclude that a scientific basis actually exists!

True that we can't just take people's words because they have this or that title. True too that just because it's published doesn't mean it's objective and beyond reproach.

But if you want scientific proof and indepth evidence, Basilio and others here can help you. Me I'm just a layman.

From a layman's perspective, and from knowing first hand the extensive literature review and scientific rigour requires in carrying out an experiment and come to a conclusion that your finding is not by chance or accidental... the standards are pretty high.

With high standards being required to conclude either way, and with 97% of research published having concluded one way. You tell a layman like me who should I believe?

It's not 50/50, maybe this or could also be that...the science are in.

Sure we can ask for specific evidence - all of them... can also ask for specific headcounts of scientists....

that or maybe open the window or take a hike through the mountain to see for ourselves.


I know a couple who travel practically everywhere around the world. Their trip are always to mainly hike and camp... they told me Climate Change is definitely here. So much so that they're willing to pay some 3 times more to only use electricity from renewable source.

 

[noco]

I thought Explod answered you pretty well.

luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.

 

[cynic]

True that we can't just take people's words because they have this or that title. True too that just because it's published doesn't mean it's objective and beyond reproach.

But if you want scientific proof and indepth evidence, Basilio and others here can help you. Me I'm just a layman.

From a layman's perspective, and from knowing first hand the extensive literature review and scientific rigour requires in carrying out an experiment and come to a conclusion that your finding is not by chance or accidental... the standards are pretty high.

With high standards being required to conclude either way, and with 97% of research published having concluded one way. You tell a layman like me who should I believe?

It's not 50/50, maybe this or could also be that...the science are in.

Sure we can ask for specific evidence - all of them... can also ask for specific headcounts of scientists....

that or maybe open the window or take a hike through the mountain to see for ourselves.


I know a couple who travel practically everywhere around the world. Their trip are always to mainly hike and camp... they told me Climate Change is definitely here. So much so that they're willing to pay some 3 times more to only use electricity from renewable source.

Thanks for that lutzuu. Unfortunately I do not share your confidence in the claims that the "science are in". From what I have observed thus far, the offerings are so heavily opinionated, that I am of the current view that the climate "science" is too far removed from scientific practices to be seriously entertained as anything more than a demonstration of human folly.

There's a lot more to science than merely observing changes in nature, hence my reason for not insisting my observation of seasonal shifts be taken as proof of anything more than the observation in and of itself.

 

[luutzu]

luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.

Noco, I posted a link to that article before.

You could go there yourself, read the paper yourself, then go nuts counting how many papers they included and of each paper how many authors.

So no one is skirting around the numbers - it's there, just some of us have movies to watch.

 

[luutzu]

Thanks for that lutzuu. Unfortunately I do not share your confidence in the claims that the "science are in". From what I have observed thus far, the offerings are so heavily opinionated, that I am of the current view that the climate "science" is too far removed from scientific practices to be seriously entertained as anything more than a demonstration of human folly.

There's a lot more to science than merely observing changes in nature, hence my reason for not insisting my observation of seasonal shifts be taken as proof of anything more than the observation in and of itself.

Scientific conclusions work on probability... you're not going to find any scientific theory or evidence that will conclusively "prove" x cause y. Especially when there's a bunch of x causing a wide variation of y, and some a, b and c may also contribute depends on e, f, g being present or not. etc. etc.

Just read that the fire in Alberta doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping after 7 days. It got bigger, have its own weather pattern with lightning causing more fire.

Let's just hope the oil pipelines are deep enough underground or nowhere near it.

I'm sure that for the 88,000 residents who evacuated and most likely to lose their home, if there's a chance current human activities cause or add to chance of this kind of destruction happening... we should try to end it.

 

[noco]

Noco, I posted a link to that article before.

You could go there yourself, read the paper yourself, then go nuts counting how many papers they included and of each paper how many authors.

So no one is skirting around the numbers - it's there, just some of us have movies to watch.

I can see I am not going to get a straight answer from when you start talking about assumptions...

You obviously do not know so just forget it OK.

 

[cynic]

luutzu, I am more than ever convinced you do not have a number associated with your 97%.......So I will give up asking you.......You and explod have been skirting around the issue because you either simply don't know or you are using fictitious data to make it look good.

97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant.

I think I can recall basilio helpfuĺly offering some insight into the qualification process some time ago.

Like so many others, eagerly awaiting presentation of some rigorous scientific proof of natural happenings and their causation, I hold deep reservations about the integrity of the process used to establish this claim to 97% agreement.

 

[cynic]

Scientific conclusions work on probability... you're not going to find any scientific theory or evidence that will conclusively "prove" x cause y. Especially when there's a bunch of x causing a wide variation of y, and some a, b and c may also contribute depends on e, f, g being present or not. etc. etc.

Just read that the fire in Alberta doesn't seem to show any sign of stopping after 7 days. It got bigger, have its own weather pattern with lightning causing more fire.

Let's just hope the oil pipelines are deep enough underground or nowhere near it.

I'm sure that for the 88,000 residents who evacuated and most likely to lose their home, if there's a chance current human activities cause or add to chance of this kind of destruction happening... we should try to end it.

I can see fron your post that you have much in common with those that have accepted a given ideology and trusted that those promoting it had done their homework.

However, before aligning with a campaign to put an end to something or other, it would be wise to first make a sincere attempt to understand what it actually is. Actions taken based upon misinformation tend to cause more problems than they actually solve.

 

[wayneL]

97% is certainly a bold claim. However, when people attempt to explain it, they often make mention of the fact that not all scientists were deemed relevant and were hence excluded from consideration. So in effect the 97% isn't reflective of all scientists, only those that the climate brigade qualified as relevant.

I think I can recall basilio helpfuĺly offering some insight into the qualification process some time ago.

Like so many others, eagerly awaiting presentation of some rigorous scientific proof of natural happenings and their causation, I hold deep reservations about the integrity of the process used to establish this claim to 97% agreement.

The 97% claim has been thoroughly discredited in the real world. It is instructive that the alarmists continue to use this fraudulent stat.

Take your pick https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.8597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Modus operandi -

Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.

Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.

Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.

If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (inter alia)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.

The 97% being the classic example.

Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.

 

[wayneL]

Back in the real world this is what is happening.



http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo

And this is typical of the disingenuous crap utilized by alarmists and employing the above MO.

Basilio has skipped over the part that it is SINKING.

Let's be clear there are a range of anthropogenic factors in this land loss, which have noting at all to do with climate change.

Meanwhile as the basilios of this world intentionally and mendaciously misassign the factors to this land loss, focus is directed away from the true factors, which are not expedient to address.

As such, these climate alarmists actually do our planet the greatest disservice.

 

[SirRumpole]

As such, these climate alarmists actually do our planet the greatest disservice.

No, it's the people who say nothing needs to be done that do the greatest disservice.

 

[cynic]

No, it's the people who say nothing needs to be done that do the greatest disservice.

Pray tell, what exactly is it that you believe yourself to know needs doing and what do you believe such action will achieve?

Whilst you're at it, could you also explain how it is that you know whatever it is that you think you know about whatever it is that you think needs to be done and how you know that such action will achieve the intended result?

 

[SirRumpole]

Pray tell, what exactly is it that you believe yourself to know needs doing and what do you believe such action will achieve?

Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.

Whilst you're at it, could you also explain how it is that you know whatever it is that you think you know about whatever it is that you think needs to be done and how you know that such action will achieve the intended result?

Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity ?

 

[noco]

The 97% claim has been thoroughly discredited in the real world. It is instructive that the alarmists continue to use this fraudulent stat.

Take your pick https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.8597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Modus operandi -

Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.

Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.

Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.

If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (inter alia)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.

The 97% being the classic example.

Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.

Thank you so much Wayne for your support.

If that link relating to that fictitious 97% does not settle this recent argument perhaps we will just have to keep pounding the table with it until certain people sit up and take notice but you can bet your boots those same brainwashed naive people will rise again with their propaganda and manipulated truth.

The Greens have been very clever with their marketing using the tools to capture the minds of the young and the naive into believing the world is going to be destroyed with man made Global Warming......They will stop at nothing to intrude in their minds that we must stop mining coal because burning fossil fuels are adding too much CO2 into the atmosphere.......we need CO2 for plant life...... you can't build a dam here because it is the habitat of the hairy red nosed wombat or some rare snake........I could go on quoting but it all adds up to anti development by the Greens.

I was in sales and marketing for 28 years and you have to know what you are doing....You need a good product....you need to know your product....it is imperative to good service and you need attractive advertising of your product to catch the eye and finally it is important to consistently advertise......There is no point in doing one letter box drop as some do when starting a business say for lawn mowing or hair dressing or one TV advertisement....Viewers look at the first and it is forgotten in 5 minutes....they look a second one and it clicks the brain into action but on the 3rd and subsequent viewers begin to think more positively about the product you are trying to market.

The Greens have adopted the same philosophy but they have been unethical and immoral in using these tools...The Greens use their marketing through the media with their largest supporter being the ABC who have been very biased over the past years with 41% Grreen and 32% Labor journalists and also through the Aussie Stock Forum which has attracted thousands of viewers.......So if you sprout your message often enough, you will get some people believing it.......Their modus operandi is to convert the world into socialism, world domination and world government and their leader has been the UN General Secretary Ban-ki-Moon who is a recognized Greenie....This is why the Greens are known as the "WATER MELON PARTY", green outside and red inside....They all belong to the Fabian Society and their motto is we are "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING".....Time means nothing to them......They have all the time in the world to keep chipping away with their propaganda and lies.

I know I will be ostracized, ridiculed and character assassinated for this post but that is the just another way with the Greens if you do not accept what they say.....It is their Bible and they believe it no matter how hard anyone tries to convince them otherwise....They are totally brain washed and no matter what argument anyone displays against their propaganda they will keep coming back with more and more.

I will be told I am full of BS.....I will be told to shut up.....I will be told to get stuffed...I will be asked if I live on another planet....But I will tell you one thing I am at least ethical and have high moral standards and that has been my success in life.

Perhaps one day there will be more people waking up to what the Greens are really stand for.

 

[SirRumpole]

Thanks again for the laughs noco.

Pure gold.

 

[cynic]

Reduce pollution of all types -> cleaner air , cleaner water, cleaner land, reduced greenhouse gases->slower global warming.



Do you really think that reducing pollution is a bad thing or will not produce a beneficial result to humanity ?

Whether or not pollution reduction is a good or bad thing for humanity is largely dependant upon the pollutants and the reduction method employed.


From your response it seems that you are of the opinion that the globe is warming and that this is a problem that may somehow be addressed by reducing "grèenhouse gases".

If I have understood you correctly, what is your basis for these beliefs?

 

[SirRumpole]

From your response it seems that you are of the opinion that the globe is warming and that this is a problem that may somehow be addressed by reducing "grèenhouse gases".

If I have understood you correctly, what is your basis for these beliefs?

The opinions of scientists who are experts at this sort of analysis.