Resisting Climate Hysteria

[SirRumpole]

So it's now quite okay for the climate brigade to argue that the stats from opinion polls somehow prove their "science" but no one is allowed to counter argue with opinion polls of their own!

So what exactly has been proven?(Blatant hypocrisy would seem a reasonable summation at this juncture.)

Huh ?

No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.

 

[wayneL]

Huh ?

No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Did you know 100%of Muslims believe in God because Mohammad said so?

 

[cynic]

Huh ?

No point in arguing further, I refer you to the AMS's official position. Kindly continue your argument with them, and let us know how you go.

And I refer you to my official position that there is a dearth of scientific proof backing the claims of the climate brigade. One may choose to side with whomsoever one wishes, but let's not pretend that one is blameless when choosing to unquestioningly align with another's agenda.

 

[luutzu]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Did you know 100%of Muslims believe in God because Mohammad said so?

How else would anyone follow any religion?

Christians believe in God and Christ being His one and only Son because..... ?

Buddhists believes in Buddha and other fairies because...?

Pretty sure they believe it on faith and not on actual evidence Sifu.

 

[wayneL]

How else would anyone follow any religion?

Christians believe in God and Christ being His one and only Son because..... ?

Buddhists believes in Buddha and other fairies because...?

Pretty sure they believe it on faith and not on actual evidence Sifu.

Exactly my point Grasshopper

 

[luutzu]

Exactly my point Grasshopper

Sorry Sifu, should have known.

 

[Logique]

Oh dear, it's a pity some more research was not done...

You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.

And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.

 

[SirRumpole]

You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.

And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.

View attachment 66684

Do you have climate science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?

As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't see why someone needs formal scientific qualifications to look at that chart and conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is clearly not linear. To see what the chart says only requires a high school level of understanding, not a masters degree. Understanding the reasons requires a deeper understanding certainly but the chart itself seems pretty clear.

I'll likewise say that you don't need a degree or other professional qualifications in finance to look at a chart of the ASX200 and conclude that it has gone up since the lows of early 2009 but has thus far never returned to the peak value seen in late 2007. I'm pretty sure that even those who have never invested in anything more complex than bank deposits and a superannuation fund could look at the chart and see that.

Back to the chart itself, what I do find interesting is the question of where the CO2 is actually going. Emissions have gone up massively compared to 40 years ago but the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration hasn't accelerated to anywhere near the same extent.

My concern there is that if we simply cut CO2 emissions by, say, 30% then that's not going to result in a 30% slower rate of increase in atmospheric concentration as it doesn't seem to be a linear relationship. That being so, to have any real impact we may need to cut far more drastically and even then the concentration keeps rising albeit more slowly.

The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right.

 

[noco]

Do you have climate science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?

As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.

Oh Yeah.....Ain't science great when it goes the way you want it to go and not in the opposite direction of one's expectations.

 

[SirRumpole]

The above all assumes that the chart posted is in fact accurate. I won't claim to know if it is accurate or not, I'm just commenting based on the assumption that it's right

Precisely. If it was lifted from a peer reviewed publication of experts in the field then we give more weight to it, but we also need to know the ifs, buts and maybe's.

Just as looking at a financial chart doesn't tell you the circumstances why stock prices behaved the way they did, you also need to know all the other contributing factors which in a complicated system are multifarious.

Graphs from the nasa site seem to show a different result to that above.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

 

[noco]

Precisely. If it was lifted from a peer reviewed publication of experts in the field then we give more weight to it, but we also need to know the ifs, buts and maybe's.

Just as looking at a financial chart doesn't tell you the circumstances why stock prices behaved the way they did, you also need to know all the other contributing factors which in a complicated system are multifarious.

Graphs from the nasa site seem to show a different result to that above.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

We all know these peer reviewed publications by so called "EXPERTS" can be manipulated according to the way they want it to go to make one believe they are true.......But someone gets up and says but 97% of scientists cannot be wrong.....I am still trying to find out from on this site and google what is the number of 97%....I have also been trying to make wine out of water but to date I have not had any success.....I did learn from Chemical engineer how to make wine into urine..

Also one will always believe the charts and data that suits their political beliefs.

But there is nothing like believing in what one has seen and experienced in the closing in of 90 years of life after traveling around Australia for 12 months and to many parts of the Globe...There is nothing like having listened to my parents,who were both born in the late 1800's, and their experience with the weather.

Many people believe in God purely because they have been told to believe there is a God.

 

[cynic]

Do you have climate science qualifications Logique ? Degree in atmospheric physics perhaps ?

As I said I"m not going to argue any further. I suggest you present your evidence to a professional body like the BOM, and please let us know their response.

Whilst we're at it, perhaps you could first direct us to the scientific body that has proven the existence of a degree or academic qualification that somehow confers sufficient immunity from error, bias and mendacity as to render the claims of the holder infallible and therefore beyond reproach.

 

[SirRumpole]

Whilst we're at it, perhaps you could first direct us to the scientific body that has proven the existence of a degree or academic qualification that somehow confers sufficient immunity from error, bias and mendacity as to render the claims of the holder infallible and therefore beyond reproach.

It's really a matter of the odds isn't it ?

I consider a qualified doctor has a better chance of finding out my health status than a Chinese herbalist.

Of course doctors and other qualified people can be wrong, but the more of them that say the same thing increases the chances that they are right and that the mainly unqualified people who argue with them are wrong.

 

[cynic]

It's really a matter of the odds isn't it ?

I consider a qualified doctor has a better chance of finding out my health status than a Chinese herbalist.

Of course doctors and other qualified people can be wrong, but the more of them that say the same thing increases the chances that they are right and that the mainly unqualified people who argue with them are wrong.

Aha. Now I know where you're coming from! Well, yes I suppose the sun is rotating around our flat earth.

 

[SirRumpole]

Aha. Now I know where you're coming from! Well, yes I suppose the sun is rotating around our flat earth.

You make less sense every time you post here.

Where are you coming from, that you are right and that NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc are wrong ?

What's your evidence for that ?

 

[cynic]

You make less sense every time you post here.

Where are you coming from, that you are right and that NASA, CSIRO, BOM etc are wrong ?

What's your evidence for that ?

Scientific conjectures aren't rendered proven via ballot!

 

[basilio]

You mean like this SirR? To my eye, temperature and CO2 are going in opposite directions, certainly since 1939.

And all that lovely CO2 is supercharging crop yields, helping to feed the Third World.

View attachment 66684

Really Logique ? I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.

If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have fallen in the past 18 years and there has only been maximum of .4 C increase in global temperatures since 1880.

And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.

If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.

But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming. In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica ice.

But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication. I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.

The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
(From NASA website

This is in fact a few years old. Currently the world is running at 1.3C over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012. The last few years have been exceptionally warm.

 

[noco]

Really Logique ? I don't know where that graph was created but it certainly doesn't reflect the temperatures on Planet Earth.

If it was somehow accurate then clearly global temperatures have fallen in the past 18 years and there has only been maximum of .4 C increase in global temperatures since 1880.

And of course that graph says that temperatures in the late 1930's were in fact higher than current temperatures.

If this was in fact the case, yep the whole global warming issue is overblown and off tack.

But you know it wouldn't quite matter what the graphs say if in fact we wern't seeing the physical evidence of steep warming. In particular the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctica ice.

But it's a lie Logique. A fabrication. I reckon it's a Monkcton/Heartland piece.

The actual figures on global warming are represented by the following graph.
View attachment 66686 (From NASA website

This is in fact a few years old. Currently the world is running at 1.3C over normal. That graph is showing around .7C in 2012. The last few years have been exceptionally warm.

Here we go again on that confounded Merry-Go-Round.

We have gone a full circle of what happened 1000 years ago when the temperatures in the Arctic and Greenland were higher than they are today....But that makes little difference to your thinking...Your mind is set and nothing, I mean nothing will change it....You can come up with all the graphs and data but what happened 1000 years ago is not important or is it?

Any computer literate "SCIENTIST" can develop a graph and make it look extreme for the right people who are willing to pay for it....We see different graphs on this thread which conflict with each other.

 

[explod]

Here we go again on that confounded Merry-Go-Round.

We have gone a full circle of what happened 1000 years ago when the temperatures in the Arctic and Greenland were higher than they are today....But that makes little difference to your thinking...Your mind is set and nothing, I mean nothing will change it....You can come up with all the graphs and data but what happened 1000 years ago is not important or is it?

Any computer literate "SCIENTIST" can develop a graph and make it look extreme for the right people who are willing to pay for it....We see different graphs on this thread which conflict with each other.

What happenned 1000 years ago in a small section of the planet has nothing to do with the huge changes today all over the planet.

And we do not have to worry about scientists, it is very obvious to those of us who grew up on the land to see with our own eyes.

Have put up very many clear examples over time on this thread, but noco you choose to ignore them so could not be bothered anymore.