Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

Thanks for that Ves. I had a quick look at some examples of those fallacies. Perhaps some will believe me to have a blind spot here, but I am not really seeing the presence of those fallacies without at least a little bit of stretching.

I do however, acknowledge that I am viewing this debate with a significant level of prejudice against the apocalyptic arguments being so eagerly presented. This prejudice has been formed over some years now, and is largely attributable to my resentment towards those whom so hastily claim virtually any meteorological event as evidential proof of their apocalyptic philosophy. Whilst that doesn't necessarily mean that their is no problem, it does mean that I consider many apocalyptic claims suspect on account of the behaviour of those making such claims.

They are going to need to do a lot better, in the future, to regain the trust of myself (and others like myself) if they are to have any chance of regaining the trust and confidence that has been all but obliterated by such zealous behaviour.

The downside of all this, is that if any sound claims are presented , such gems might not be easily recognisable amidst all the faeces that is now permeating the media and academic fields.

Some may call myself (and others like myself) "deniers", but such unenlightened people only have themselves (and their departure from rationality into hysteria) to blame for the scepticism and contempt that they are encountering.

Cynic...so very true.

 

[noco]

I really think you have lost it mate. A guy who told so many lies to get elected he's starting to believe his own lies.

As far as credibility goes, he's got zero, so please quit quoting his b.s.

And your socialist champion Hillary is Lilllie white....If she does not finish up in jail over her fraudulent Clinton foundation, I will be very surprised.....It was only while she had control of the FBI that she has been protected.

Rumpy, play the ball and not the man..........Your character assassination is in full swing again.

Get over it..Trump won...Clinton lost....He knows the UN Climate Change is a scam along with the majority of Americans.

 

[explod]

Your current events, as usual, are fake...Just ask Donald Trump....He is on the ground and up to speed with the UN and their scam.

Many predictions, 10 to 15 years ago by Tim Flannery and other alarmist are now proving to be false....Flannery said there would never be enough rains to fill the dams around Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane......He also said there would be permanent drought in the West......The West, central Australia and western Queensland have had their best rains in years thanks to to the Dipole system from the Indian ocean.

Jobs and growth?????.....The Greens are trying stop and disrupt progress, new mines, new dams and job growth where ever and when ever they can.

Tim Flannery and most others did not anticipate the effect that warmer polar regions would have on air and moisture movement.

The whole system is very complex and difficult even for the best of science. Which is why it is fair game for distortion by deniers.

I work on the basis that things are not looking good and that we cannot take the risk in case the worse case scenarios may be correct.

The amount of work that could be generated by high intensity farming on small lots with families help to fully sustain themselves would create huge opportunities.

As I have said before, 400 families could be housed and feed themselves on our old 600 acre family farm. But it would not be profitable for the right wing fascists or for coal or oil. But could be a good start in protecting our planet from what appears to be looming.

 

[noco]

Tim Flannery and most others did not anticipate the effect that warmer polar regions would have on air and moisture movement.

.

In that case, Flannery should never have opened his mouth because he cost the Labor states of Victoria, NSW and Queensland billions of dollars in Desalinization plants which are now in moth balls and costing millions every day....Flannery did not have a clue.

The North Pole may have become warmer due to the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun......The South Pole is actually cooler......So you have got it wrong as far as the South Pole goes....There was no warmer air from that region....I think you getting all baffled with your own science.

 

[luutzu]

Gee that beach has receeded, looks like low tide too.

Be looking for a quick sale before the pool goes in too i'd say.

Good call.

I was going to give the agent a ring.

 

[luutzu]

Where's the heliport ?

It's probably under the pool. See, when they need to, the pool will slide sideways and up came the batcopter.


Dam, the rich know how to live don't they. It's nice to have money where you somehow need a pool right next to your own private beach.

 

[cynic]

Well as I have already stated, I am less than impartial in my approach to this topic.

As such, I found the following article somewhat endearing:

http://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

Whether or not it is factually correct, is something I haven't yet delved into. So I thought I would save myself some time and effort by posting it here.

Perhaps those siding more with the climate alarmism side of this debate, may be able to offer some helpful insights into the accuracy (or lack thereof) and consequent implications.

 

[luutzu]

Orbitting a star or orbitting a planet that orbits a star.

The overall proximity to the star would be similar, so perhaps not.

Still, there are some notable differences between Earth and those planetary bodies.

Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?

I'm actually quite impressed at you somehow managed to mental gymnast your way out of Ves and others' scientific evidence there.

It's a fail but still, good effort.

 

[Ves]

Thanks for that Ves. I had a quick look at some examples of those fallacies. Perhaps some will believe me to have a blind spot here, but I am not really seeing the presence of those fallacies without at least a little bit of stretching.

It's not a stretch. I'll give you a hint. It's got to do with thoughts that have the theme "Science was wrong before so...." and the creation of a false dichotomy of right/wrong. The denialist/alarmist dichotomy is another example. The second part is the implication that nothing should ever be done until a perfect solution can be found (another false dichotomy).

 

[cynic]

It's not a stretch. I'll give you a hint. It's got to do with thoughts that have the theme "Science was wrong before so...." and the creation of a false dichotomy of right/wrong. The denialist/alarmist dichotomy is another example. The second part is the implication that nothing should ever be done until a perfect solution can be found (another false dichotomy).

Ves. My sincere thanks for taking the time and patience in clarifying your point. You might find yourself in partial (or perhaps even full) disagreement with the rest of what I have to say here (then again perhaps not!). Whether my views perpetuate the creation of further dichotomies (false or true) will likely distract from the seemingly real question of what (if anything) is going on in the universe (whether that universe be a manifestation of reality, duality or something else entirely!).

I am most definitely demanding a far greater degree of scientific certainty from those campaigning for action, whilst at the same time being prejudicially lenient with those leaning towards the other side of the debate. (Anyway I have already stated my reasons for choosing this approach). However, I am still just a tad reluctant to accept the mantle of demanding a "perfect solution" as I do not see that as an at all realistic expectation.

On the subject of the continuum fallacy, I believe I can see what you are saying, however I believe I can recognise both downsides and upsides (in roughly equal measure) to the application of this "fallacy"!

I am reasonably certain some examples of what I am talking about will likely have occurred to you upon reading the above. (Unless of course, we're stepping down the path of that philosophy that ascribes all duality to illusion and falsehood!)

Whilst experiencing myself as a material physical being, I am of the opinion that all claims to infallibility and/or omniscience warrant the utmost scepticism until such time that such scepticism can be proven to be no longer warranted! Perhaps others will choose to disagree, but I am simply not enamoured by the thought of the likely outcomes of surrendering free will to the self acclaimed "demigods" of our time!

So if this "continuum fallacy" is something that one perceives as worrisome, then one had better place me on ignore, or start getting used to seeing more of it, because I am damned if I am abandoning it!

 

[Tisme]

Those mercury thermometers that were used in, say, the 1910 Terra Nova Expeditions; I wonder how they stack up with repeatability of accuracy when moved from London to the south pole with a colder glass (more constricted) column and larger polar magnetic differential?

Mercury becomes a super conductor below 4degK and a perfect diamagnet. They didn't discover that until 1911. Being the poles are the strongest magnetic fields, I'm wondering if accurate corrections have been made on past data to compensate for the 50% decline in magnetic strength over the last 4k years, with 15% of that in the last 150 years and accelerating.

 

[orr]

These buffons have been wrong for decades now! Time to wake up!!

These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;




Time to 'wake-up' indeed.

 

[noco]

These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;

View attachment 68849View attachment 68850


Time to 'wake-up' indeed.

Orr, where is your graft for 100 and 1000 years ago?..Can you provide one please?

 

[cynic]

These 'buffons'? did you mean 'buffoons' or perhaps 'boffins'... either way those to which you graciously refer have been observing and from those observations proffering possible outcomes, one of the more dire of those looks like this;

View attachment 68849View attachment 68850


Time to 'wake-up' indeed.

I am glad to find myself in agreement with you on something. But about these squiggly lines you've chosen to present, are they actually supposed to mean something?

 

[noco]

I am glad to find myself in agreement with you on something. But about these squiggly lines you've chosen to present, are they actually supposed to mean something?

cynic, orr is trying press home his point that the dark red squiggly at the bottom (note how they have made it to stand against all the others, very clever) is the one caused by that nasty Global Warming....the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of it all hence the sea ice is melting at a faster rate not seen since 1000years ago.

The alarmist just will not accept that it has to do with the angle of the axis the Earth to the Sun......The Alarmist will not accept the fact that it occurred 1000years ago as per details I have posted on previous occasions...Their Green bible tells them tells them it is the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that bush fires represent half of those emissions, and they believe it....Brian washed.

 

[basilio]

cynic, orr is trying press home his point that the dark red squiggly at the bottom (note how they have made it to stand against all the others, very clever) is the one caused by that nasty Global Warming....the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of it all hence the sea ice is melting at a faster rate not seen since 1000years ago.

The alarmist just will not accept that it has to do with the angle of the axis the Earth to the Sun......The Alarmist will not accept the fact that it occurred 1000years ago as per details I have posted on previous occasions...Their Green bible tells them tells them it is the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that bush fires represent half of those emissions, and they believe it....Brian washed.

Actually Noco if you follow the graph you will see that it represents the last 40 years of measurements of minimum and maximum sea ice expanses in the Arctic. The overall trend for the last 40 years shows a substantial reduction in sea ice levels. The red line for 2016 is just an horrific off the chart indication of how the loss of sea ice is accelerating as a result of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warning Noco; the fact that in 2014-15-16 we have had three successive leaps in average global temperature that have shattered all records to date. And of course the temperatures in the Arctic have been even higher than elsewhere in the world.

As for bush fires being half of emissions .

Total and utter BS Noco. Of course if you want to include the clearing forests for agriculture in Indonesia and Brazil and elsewhere that has an effect.

 

[noco]

Actually Noco if you follow the graph you will see that it represents the last 40 years of measurements of minimum and maximum sea ice expanses in the Arctic. The overall trend for the last 40 years shows a substantial reduction in sea ice levels. The red line for 2016 is just an horrific off the chart indication of how the loss of sea ice is accelerating as a result of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warning Noco; the fact that in 2014-15-16 we have had three successive leaps in average global temperature that have shattered all records to date. And of course the temperatures in the Arctic have been even higher than elsewhere in the world.

As for bush fires being half of emissions .

Total and utter BS Noco. Of course if you want to include the clearing forests for agriculture in Indonesia and Brazil and elsewhere that has an effect.

The use of 40 year data is absolutely useless when you consider how long Earth has existed....The science of Climate Change has taken place over a much longer period of 40 years.

You still won't accept that this event happened 1000 years ago at which time I have pointed out on several occasions what took place in Greenland.......You still persist with your deranged data of recent times.

So how are you and the Greenies going to stop this ice melt?....

 

[explod]

The use of 40 year data is absolutely useless when you consider how long Earth has existed....The science of Climate Change has taken place over a much longer period of 40 years.

You still won't accept that this event happened 1000 years ago at which time I have pointed out on several occasions what took place in Greenland.......You still persist with your deranged data of recent times.

So how are you and the Greenies going to stop this ice melt?....

People dying increasingly of excessive heat in the last few years was not something of concern in the past and back then no air conditioners either.

Towns being washed away in floods of little concern back then either. If it had been they would not have built them in the current locations. And they did not have dam controls back the either.

What happened 1000 years ago when checked out properly (and I posted that here before) was due to an interruption to a weather stream from the north, thus blocking the normal cold. It was an incident isolated at that time to the Greenland area only.

And as far as the sun shining down and the earth's axis it has always been there and has no effect whatever on the changes now suddenly taking place.

In any case even if the above does not convince you the fact that its possible should on that possibility alone send a chill down our spines for the future of our children.

 

[noco]

People dying increasingly of excessive heat in the last few years was not something of concern in the past and back then no air conditioners either.

Towns being washed away in floods of little concern back then either. If it had been they would not have built them in the current locations. And they did not have dam controls back the either.

What happened 1000 years ago when checked out properly (and I posted that here before) was due to an interruption to a weather stream from the north, thus blocking the normal cold. It was an incident isolated at that time to the Greenland area only.

And as far as the sun shining down and the earth's axis it has always been there and has no effect whatever on the changes now suddenly taking place.

In any case even if the above does not convince you the fact that its possible should on that possibility alone send a chill down our spines for the future of our children.

So how are you going to stop the ice melt?

Your fabricated science makes no sense.

The emphasis was placed on Greenland being affected at the time because very little would have been know about the Arctic ice which obviously would have been affected also.

 

[explod]

So how are you going to stop the ice melt?

Your fabricated science makes no sense.

The emphasis was placed on Greenland being affected at the time because very little would have been know about the Arctic ice which obviously would have been affected also.

I am not a scientist, one cannot absorb the huge amount of science information. Like you I am an ordinary human being who has taken an interest in the land and the climate since a child.

I go by what I see and read in the everyday news and as an old tree hugger speak to farmers in this Bendigo region.

No one can stop the ice melt, particularly now that the methane from underneath is escaping. One would hope that mankind can some how collectively develop a way to slow it down and one day stop it. But procrastinating on who's right and wrong is not going to get us anywhere.

From memory, unfortunately I lent the book "The Sixth Extinction" it was a huge ice sheet that blocked the cold air flow from the polar region that in fact warmed/sheltered Greenland at that time.