Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

OMG...The good old communist paper the Guardian again......The paper that exaggerates and distorts the truth by their own admission.......How can any one trust what they say now.

Right on cue Noco. Mindless, factless and totally unwilling to actually read a report let alone discuss it.

Tell you what. If you can't actually comment on the article how about just shutting up and stop repeatedly demonstrating to everyone else how clueless you are on CC ? OK

 

[basilio]

On reflection perhaps we should look at the case for sufficient evidence to acknowledge that CC is happening.

Is this a good start?

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
The skeptics laid out four conditions that must be met for them to accept that climate change isn’t simply a theory: 100 named hurricanes a year, the full evaporation of the Mississippi River, nine-month-long heat waves, and the complete extinction of every animal in the class Reptilia.
NEWS
August 19, 2015
Vol 51 Issue 33

WASHINGTON””Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.

The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events””including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars””they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed.

“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities””and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”

“The reality is that we’re still experiencing cold, snowy winters, and the entire global population is not currently embarking on cross-continental migrations in search of arable land,” Davis continued. “Until that changes, we cannot be expected to believe climate change is occurring.”

http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-51129

 

[wayneL]

Right on cue Noco. Mindless, factless and totally unwilling to actually read a report let alone discuss it.

Tell you what. If you can't actually comment on the article how about just shutting up and stop repeatedly demonstrating to everyone else how clueless you are on CC ? OK

Ironic.

BTW, did you hear what's going on in Californ I A?

 

[explod]

Ironic.

BTW, did you hear what's going on in Californ I A?

No wayne, tried a google search but none the wiser. Of course you will conclude I am not wise, but would be pleased if you would elaborate.

 

[wayneL]

Google Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 Plod.

Apparently canned because lo and behold, it contravenes the first amendment. But it is a disgrace that it was ever even drafted.

 

[cynic]

Google Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 Plod.

Apparently canned because lo and behold, it contravenes the first amendment. But it is a disgrace that it was ever even drafted.

Unfortunately attempts to reinvent contemporary versions of the "Spanish inquisition" are alarmingly typical of the unchecked fanatacism of religious zealots.

 

[trainspotter]

Ooooerrr now this can't be right now can it?

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Former US Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and later head of the UN Foundation

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” – Former French President Jacques Chirac speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” – Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state

http://www.bull****exposed.com/global-warming-is-bull****/

They must be using the wrong side of the water intake valve with their mercury thermometers again

 

[basilio]

Ooooerrr now this can't be right now can it?



http://www.bull****exposed.com/global-warming-is-bull****/

They must be using the wrong side of the water intake valve with their mercury thermometers again

And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS. I read that drivel. Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.

What is it with you guys ? You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ? It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?

 

[trainspotter]

And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS. I read that drivel. Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.

What is it with you guys ? You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ? It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?

The rest of the scientific community? Do tell basilio ....

Why is it when you present something from the Guardian it is GOSPEL and should be adhered to like an alter boy going down on a priest but when there is an opposing view it is ...

And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS.

Just like the water temps from the war and steam ships right?

The world is cooking ??? SERIOUSLY ??? So when there is one of the coldest winters in American history in 2014 this did not happen right? But but but when the scientists (and I use the term loosely) GUESS the anomalies in temperature vagrancies on areas they have do not have sensors in, it is always rounded UP ??

Basilio .. READ the title of this thread please

So Proffesor Chris Folland DID NOT SAY THIS ??

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 

[noco]

And your re quoting lies, misinformation and fantasy TS. I read that drivel. Yep if you want to accept it go right ahead. After all your simply banking on some unknown ranter against the rest of the scientific community on the fate of the world. Chump change really.

What is it with you guys ? You really can't recognise the world is cooking or do you believe that reading enough fairy dust will make it all go away ? Not much point is there in actually quoting evidence of accelerating global temperatures and the effect this is having around the world ? It would spoil the effect wouldn't it ?

Are you talking about that fake 97% of phony alarmist scientist?

 

[luutzu]

Are you talking about that fake 97% of phony alarmist scientist?

How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?

I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.

 

[trainspotter]

How often does storm surge and king tides wash away beach front houses in Sydney noco?

I can't imagine it happening every year or seasonal climate changing all the time stuff.

How many times does this happen?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-27/major-sinkhole-swallows-vehicles-on-qld-coast/6807536

April 21st 2015 - The town of Dungog – which saw three deaths and houses washed away – recorded 190 mm of rain, a near record. Nearby Tocal saw a record-breaking 242mm, while Sydney recorded 119 mm.

Nahhhh happens every year

14th April 1999 Hail storm anyone anyone?

http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/sevwx/14april1999.shtml


http://theconversation.com/explainer-was-the-sydney-storm-once-in-a-century-40824

Or in a 3 year cycle apparently !



13th October 2014?? Wanna check how many houses were washed in to the sea that year??

 

[ghotib]

The rest of the scientific community? Do tell basilio ....

<SNIP>

So Proffesor Chris Folland DID NOT SAY THIS ??

Yes he said it, and at the time it was accurate. The time was 1992. Scientists, including Professor Folland, have since spent more than 20 years gathering and analysing many independent sets of data , which is why more than 95% of practising scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous. 20 years of data collection has also enabled scientists to test and improve climate models, as they continue to do, which is why e.g. continuing to mine and burn coal and gas would be monumentally stupid.

Here's Professor Folland's response to a 2014 inquiry about it from the climate contrarian blog Climate Reality ( https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/pr...ot-basing-our-recommendations-on-the-data-we/

Dear Mr Battig
*
Thanks for your request. You are about the fifth person to ask me this in the last ten years or more.
*
What you quote a very abbreviated report of*a much longer discussion at least*22 years ago!**-*soon after the 1990 IPCC*report and possibly around the time of the 1992 Supplementary Report. I cannot be sure to which sceptical scientist it was made but it may have been Pat Michaels - and possibly others with him. Please check with Pat. *
*
At that time, the key driver for nations' concern about climate change was indeed mostly*driven by model projections of global warming.* The attached published*letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself*and one of the then*IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators*tried to accurately reflect*the*general view at that time*(1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. *Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s.*This view*was soon to change greatly; notice that the*letter looks forward at*its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations'*policy actions and concerns.
*
The situation is*now very different and has been since about 1995.**Up to*1993, there were no published*detection and attribution studies. The situation had changed*by the 1995 IPCC*report with the first published detection and attribution*studies and since then the many*results of these studies have become the most quoted and influential*aspect of all*the IPCC Reports. Detection and attribution depends critically on observed climate*data as well as climate*models. It had centre stage*of course*in the 2001, 2007 and 2013 IPCC*reports. So*climate data started to move to centre stage*by the mid 1990s and was definitely right there by 2001 when I was a convening lead author of the 2001 Report.*Observed data and climate models*are now*equally important and vital to each other. This was further helped by the fact that in 2001 the first error estimates of observed global mean temperatures were published (I lead the first paper) – much been improved conceptually but not greatly changed quantitatively in recent years - and now available for everywhere location in the world. So great efforts*continue to go on*into improving data by the leading climate scientists of the world using ever more advanced statistics. I, of course, have devoted*considerable*time since 1990 to climate data, uncertainties,*and assessing the*climate changes, and importantly, the variations,*that they show.**
*
You might notice*that some*sceptics have a bad habit of quoting, or going after,*very*out of date stuff, such as the conceptual curve of global temperature back to the Middle Ages*in the 1990 report, as if*climate*science stands still.* Thus another development for which climate data are essential is the relatively new subject of decadal to multidecadal prediction (now in the fifth IPCC Report as a stand alone chapter). I co-authored the first widely quoted decadal prediction paper 2007 in Science. Here I was particularly responsible for the use of observed data methods to test the veracity of the early part of these predictions. Moreover all decadal prediction models have to be initialised with climate data. So decadal forecasting is actually impossible without observed global climate data. *But decadal forecasting did not exist in 1992.
*
Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *
*
So climate*data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!
*
Please feel free to quote the attached published letter in the context of the above remarks in any publication – I encourage you to do this.
*
I hope this helps
*
Chris
*
*
Professor Chris Folland
Research Fellow
Met Office Hadley Centre
FitzRoy* Road Exeter Devon EX1 3 PB
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
*
Hon. Prof. School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia
*
Guest Prof. Faculty of* Science Univ. of Gothenburg Sweden
*
Adjunct Prof.* Dept of* Sustainable Catchments* Univ. of Southern Queensland* Australia

 

[trainspotter]

Yes he said it, and at the time it was accurate. The time was 1992. Scientists, including Professor Folland, have since spent more than 20 years gathering and analysing many independent sets of data , which is why more than 95% of practising scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous. 20 years of data collection has also enabled scientists to test and improve climate models, as they continue to do, which is why e.g. continuing to mine and burn coal and gas would be monumentally stupid.

Here's Professor Folland's response to a 2014 inquiry about it from the climate contrarian blog Climate Reality ( https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/pr...ot-basing-our-recommendations-on-the-data-we/

Ermm pause ? Hiatus??

Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!. *

This cannot be !! The world is warming at an alarming rate ghotib !! The hockey stick graph shows exponential warming year after year. We are cooking (according to basilio) because of Co2 and the fish are dying and and the oceans are warming and the temperatures are soaring and and we need to STOP immediately any kind of fossil fuel burning and go solar and and and ....... get my drift yet?

Yep one decent volcano and the whole thing is off.

Tambora is the only eruption in modern history to rate a VEI of 7. Global temperatures were an average of five degrees cooler because of this eruption; even in the United States, 1816 was known as the “year without a summer.” Crops failed worldwide, and in Europe and the United States an unexpected outcome was the invention of the bicycle as horses became too expensive to feed.

http://www.livescience.com/28186-krakatoa.html#sthash.J6NLlOcM.dpuf

Only 200 years ago ... when is the next one coming? We have bigger things to worry about IMO

 

[wayneL]

which is why more than 95% of practicing scientists accept that the present global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous.

Bullshyte.

There is a CSIRO just up the road from me and I have a few of the scientists as clients. A close friend, a PhD, was on staff at UWA and there was a group of scientists we socialized with.

Not one holds the above view ascribed by you. Not one qhotib.

As a matter of fact, I have only ever met one scientist that privately held the alarmist view.

All said they (and particularly those scientists in relevant fields) have to toe the line in public because of career considerations, but in private hold more moderate views. All remark on the parlous state of science with most research in every field totally bogus.

You should see what passes for science in the field I work in... LMAO.

I'm not a qualified scientist, but at the moment I'm part of a group trying to put together a study to a/ debunk current BS and b/ test a new hypothesis on perfusion in the equine digit. I have another friend in the UK in the middle of a study, and another doing his PhD in an allied field. We don't discuss CC in those circles, but all remark on the BS that passes as science.

So when you quote purported consensus figures (which have actually be thoroughly discredited), it's BS, pure propaganda that belongs in the cesspit that is politics, not scientific discussion.

 

[basilio]

Thanks Ghotlib for identifying the source and context of Professor Follands 1992 comment. It's noteworthy that,despite the fact it is 24 years old and has been overtaken and proven by subsequent research and data on Global Warming, CC denialists still trot it out as a Gotcha line to deny what is happening around the world.

Even with the benefit of this explanation TS still manages to ignore the current reality. Whatever slowing of the increase in temperatures between the peak of 1997 and 2013 has been overtaken by the record increases in 2014-15-16.

Isn't a shame we can't reset the world and go back to more pleasant times.

 

[Knobby22]

Don't worry about it Bas, the fact they are quoting something 24 years ago show they are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pretty embarrassing really.

Meanwhile: the need for a sea wall due to rising sea levels was recognised in 2014 but the residents didn't want to put in saying the council should have a levy for all residents to pay. They now realise they have no choice and will have to shell out about $130,000 per home and less for apartments.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-st...on-the-brink-of-collapse-20160607-gpdqsk.html

BTW I was involved in the design and installation of the sea wall installed for St Kilda. it was built to protect the extensive property including the shopping centre and arterial road from being swamped over the next 50 years due to rising sea levels. Expensive process.

 

[Knobby22]

Some basic science.



btw the 2100 scenario won't be allowed to happen. I am confident mankind will do something.
One idea is to install a mirror between the sun and earth in orbit between the Sun and Earth. Wouldn't cost that much. And who knows, maybe the giant earthquake in California would occur by then.

David Brin (who is a well known scientist) in his latest SF book foretells earth partially freezing due to misjudgements in human actions combined with natural events. I like the mirror idea though as we could get rid of it easily if circumstances change. Possibly we could find a way to use the reflected energy also.

 

[trainspotter]

It's in the Daily Mail so it must be true !!

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz4AwLzlnIH

Hmmmm yep the science is settled alright

And now some facts ...

So, according to NOAA, the chance that 2014 was the warmest on record was 48.0% and based on their table, the global surface temperature anomalies in 2014 appear in the range of “more unlikely than likely”.

Curiously, the NOAA omitted that all-important “more unlikely than likely” language from its main 2014 State of the Climate report webpage. You have to click on the Supplemental Information links to discover that 2014 was “more unlikely than likely” the warmest on record.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01...in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/

 

[trainspotter]

btw the 2100 scenario won't be allowed to happen. I am confident mankind will do something.
One idea is to install a mirror between the sun and earth in orbit between the Sun and Earth. Wouldn't cost that much. And who knows, maybe the giant earthquake in California would occur by then.

Cloud seeding technology ... could be worse !!

That, however, has been the worry with proposed technical fixes to the climate all along. We could fire a fleet of little mirrors into an orbit around the Sun that locks them in place to deflect sunlight from the Earth. But if it goes wrong, we could be plunged into an ice age. Manipulating the clouds has been a popular idea with would-be geo-engineers, but these proposals face the fact that the climate effects of clouds are among the hardest parts of the climate system to understand and predict, so we can’t be too sure what the results will be.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130304-the-trouble-with-cloud-seeding