Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Tisme]

Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim. Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary? I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.

You some kinda 'tard or something ... do I need to train you in the use of a genuine "Climate Denier Keyboard MKII" by Mattel?

 

[ghotib]

Perhaps you should read the link below where there are a lot of claims debunking the consensus........Please read right to the bottom and all the comments.

There are some 30,000 + scientist who are sceptical of man made Global Warming.
I believe the scientist mentioned are a very select few of which consensus has been taken while ignoring the opinion of those scientist who are sceptics.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alone
(https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm) i.e. 99.7% who didn't sign the petition.

That doesn't mean that there's a 99.7% consensus on global warming. Doesn't mean there isn't either. Yet.

Thanks for your response. I won't be able to reply further for a while.

 

[noco]

Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alone
(https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm) i.e. 99.7% who didn't sign the petition.

That doesn't mean that there's a 99.7% consensus on global warming. Doesn't mean there isn't either. Yet.

Thanks for your response. I won't be able to reply further for a while.

10million people qualified people over 46 years and you are trying to claim that 31,000 into 10 million represents 3%.....Tricky to say the least.......That is really average out to 23043 per year.

Now you say they were qualified in what science?
Which ones of the following:-

Biological
Engineering
Factual methology
Human Behavior and societies
Physics
Physical
Chemistry
Earth
Oceanography
Meteorology
Geology
Space
Biology
Zoology
Human Biology
Botany
Mathematics
Logic
Statistics
Systems Theroy
Theoretical Computer
Applied
Nursing.

Now having posted your link, it has also brought to the surface lots of contradictions pertaining to doctored data and the way polls were taken.
Here one to look at:-
Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 14 October, 2011
Tristan @10, the petition was originally circulated to "virtually every scientist in every field" in the US according to one of its critics. But the OISM refuses to indicate the size of the mailout.

From SourceWatch:

"OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:
"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [16]"

The original mail out only garnered about 15,000 responses. Despite Robinson's claims, without a precise statement of the mail out number, no significance can be assigned to the petition as a survey of scientific opinion. What is more, given the anecdotal evidence of the size of the mailout, and the small size of the respondents (15,000) compared to the number of "virtually every scientist in every field", the reasonable conclusion is that the response rate was very small. Indeed, if it were not, you can be sure that the OISM would be trumpeting not only the absolute number of signatories, but the response rate as well.

Since the original mail out, the petition has been available online to add the signature, and has been frequently trumpeted by various political figures, so its presence has been known. Given that, the response rate is best given by the number of signatories divided by the number of potential signatories as given in the main article, ie, 0.3%.

As such, this petition is no more significant than any of the various creationist petitions that get circulated. Indeed, given the close ties of the OISM and the Discovery Institute (an Intelligent Design creationist site), it can be viewed as one of the various petitions circulated by creationists.

Also check out further comments from your link.

Comment #39 Tom Curtis
Comment #40 Eclectic
Comment #41 Tom Curtis.

So when you analyze all the information, there can be a lot of doubt as to the authenticity of what is said, what has not been said and what should have been said.
I believe there are too many factors hidden and unknown which can create a lot of confusion.

 

[Tisme]

90% of all scientists that ever were are alive today, the rise starting in the 70's...that's a lot of new observations and analysis that are replacing thumb sucks, doctored data and gut feel.

 

[cynic]

During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.

One wonders just how many more individuals, families and townships ,are going to suffer the very real tragedies that occur consequent to the placation of others' delusional apocalyptic fantasies!

Whilst the alarmists continue to "selfrighteously" and arrogantly bluster about imagined future doom, they somehow fail to acknowledge the very real harm their crusade is presently visiting upon innocent communities.

Well I am now very, very, very alarmed by the very real and very destructive impact of climate alarmism!!

 

[luutzu]

During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.

One wonders just how many more individuals, families and townships ,are going to suffer the very real tragedies that occur consequent to the placation of others' delusional apocalyptic fantasies!

Whilst the alarmists continue to "selfrighteously" and arrogantly bluster about imagined future doom, they somehow fail to acknowledge the very real harm their crusade is presently visiting upon innocent communities.

Well I am now very, very, very alarmed by the very real and very destructive impact of climate alarmism!!

Nasty Greenies. Wanting to save lives instead of 270 jobs (that'll either go soon or are going to be located in Tasmania anyway).

While we're at it, dam those peaceniks. Wanting to end wars, save lives instead of the jobs those weapons are offering. Dam anti-smoking hippies, imagine the jobs lost from nursing and cancer specialists.

As Sun Tzu says, jobs lost can be found again; the dead can never be brought back to life. Neither can a family home swept with the wind and the seas.

As some recent greenie research have found, new jobs created in the US solar industry last year are greater than all coal mining jobs in the US currently available.

 

[cynic]

Nasty Greenies. Wanting to save lives instead of 270 jobs (that'll either go soon or are going to be located in Tasmania anyway).
....
As some recent greenie research have found, new jobs created in the US solar industry last year are greater than all coal mining jobs in the US currently available.

As expected, another lame effort to justify abdication of personal responsibility for harm being inflicted upon others!

Do you truly believe that the people that just lost their jobs, and the local businesses that depend upon patronage, are going to come through this unscathed?

One doesn't require a consensus of scientists and mounds of academic research papers to recognise that people are being adversely impacted by your religion!

 

[Tisme]

As Sun Tzu says, jobs lost can be found again; the dead can never be brought back to life. Neither can a family home swept with the wind and the seas.

Which probably why many Asian countries live in abject poverty while waiting in the queue to be the next up for westernisation by the illuminated sons of Great Britain and Jesus Christ.

 

[luutzu]

As expected, another lame effort to justify abdication of personal responsibility for harm being inflicted upon others!

Do you truly believe that the people that just lost their jobs, and the local businesses that depend upon patronage, are going to come through this unscathed?

One doesn't require a consensus of scientists and mounds of academic research papers to recognise that people are being adversely impacted by your religion!

That particular case you linked to doesn't really show the fault to be with the Greenies, does it? It seem as though the gov't put a quota on how much hardwood timber they'll be buying, so the company can still employ people, just make less money. But management decided that's it's not worth it so they're moving to Tasmania.

Yet somehow that's all "our" alarmist's fault? How long do you reckon those jobs will last anyway?

But main point is this: those people who lost their jobs can find new ones. Maybe the workers can work together, lobbied the gov't for some fund and set up their own sustainable timber farm. Maybe use their knowledge and experience of the forest and start an eco-tourism business. etc. etc.

As to those who would die when a freak storm hit; or die from drought and famine... what are their choices? Starve while they wait a few years for the rain to come back? Be homeless while the insurers ran out of wiggle room the fine prints will let them get away without paying their due? Come back to life if the water swept them away?

Oh yea, alarmist! Jobs, save the jobs. Screw the children.

 

[cynic]

That particular case you linked to doesn't really show the fault to be with the Greenies, does it? It seem as though the gov't put a quota on how much hardwood timber they'll be buying, so the company can still employ people, just make less money. But management decided that's it's not worth it so they're moving to Tasmania.

Yet somehow that's all "our" alarmist's fault? How long do you reckon those jobs will last anyway?

But main point is this: those people who lost their jobs can find new ones. Maybe the workers can work together, lobbied the gov't for some fund and set up their own sustainable timber farm. Maybe use their knowledge and experience of the forest and start an eco-tourism business. etc. etc.

As to those who would die when a freak storm hit; or die from drought and famine... what are their choices? Starve while they wait a few years for the rain to come back? Be homeless while the insurers ran out of wiggle room the fine prints will let them get away without paying their due? Come back to life if the water swept them away?

Oh yea, alarmist! Jobs, save the jobs. Screw the children.

Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!

Concerns over environmental sustainability were most definitely cited as the reason for denying the ASH mill the resources it needed to be viable. So don't you dare pretend that your religion didn't put those people out of their jobs!

And don't you dare use your subscription to delusional apocalyptic fantasies as your justification for hurting people in the here and now!

And don't even try to pretend that your religion and its followers are concerned for the welfare of others and their families! The deeds that are done, in its name, speak strongly to the contrary!

This incident is just one of many examples of the devastation caused by unchecked religious zealousy!

 

[luutzu]

Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!

Concerns over environmental sustainability were most definitely cited as the reason for denying the ASH mill the resources it needed to be viable. So don't you dare pretend that your religion didn't put those people out of their jobs!

And don't you dare use your subscription to delusional apocalyptic fantasies as your justification for hurting people in the here and now!

And don't even try to pretend that your religion and its followers are concerned for the welfare of others and their families! The deeds that are done, in its name, speak strongly to the contrary!

This incident is just one of many examples of the devastation caused by unchecked religious zealousy!

That's one way to spin it mate.

Save jobs, not lives.

No kidding the gov't's decision play a part in those lost jobs. But is that your final argument? If it is, it's pretty pizz weak.

What would happen if, say the gov't allow any company to log as much as their workers can swing them chainsaw. They'd clear the land in a few months.

Then say a normal rainstorm hit and, I don't know, mudslide happens, naturally.

Here's a trick question... if drought, famine, flood, storm kill a bunch of people, how many jobs were lost and how many jobs would it generate?

But anyway, it's only the coal, mining and logging jobs that counts. New jobs in greentech, new industry and innovation to improve and replace crumbling and obsolete infrastructures with those green tech... those don't count. Lives don't count too, apparently. I guess other people's lives don't count.

 

[cynic]

That's one way to spin it mate.

Save jobs, not lives.

No kidding the gov't's decision play a part in those lost jobs. But is that your final argument? If it is, it's pretty pizz weak.

What would happen if, say the gov't allow any company to log as much as their workers can swing them chainsaw. They'd clear the land in a few months.

Then say a normal rainstorm hit and, I don't know, mudslide happens, naturally.

Here's a trick question... if drought, famine, flood, storm kill a bunch of people, how many jobs were lost and how many jobs would it generate?

But anyway, it's only the coal, mining and logging jobs that counts. New jobs in greentech, new industry and innovation to improve and replace crumbling and obsolete infrastructures with those green tech... those don't count. Lives don't count too, apparently. I guess other people's lives don't count.

Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.

By now I would have hoped that you would realise that I do not consider fantasized future outcomes as justification for inflicting real harm on others in the present. It appears my hopes were in vain (but then what more could I reasonably expect from a religious zealot than more proselytizing?).

Your responses show a callous disregard for the welfare of those directly impacted by actions taken pursuant to certain apocalyptic fantasies (to which you have unfortunately chosen to subscribe).

From this, I can readily discern, that you care more for your chosen fantasy than you do for the welfare of others in the here and now!

I invite you to take the time to compare your beliefs and behaviour to that of certain zealous religious bodies during recent centuries. Organisations that thought that they knew better than the heretical skeptics (aka "deniers") and thus considered their destructive actions to be somehow justified by fantasised future outcomes!

 

[luutzu]

Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.

By now I would have hoped that you would realise that I do not consider fantasized future outcomes as justification for inflicting real harm on others in the present. It appears my hopes were in vain (but then what more could I reasonably expect from a religious zealot than proselytizing?).

Your responses show a callous disregard for the welfare of those directly impacted by actions taken pursuant to the apocalyptic fantasies (to which you have unfortunately chosen to subscribe).

From this, I can readily discern, that you care more for your chosen fantasy than you do for the welfare of others in the here and now!

I invite you to take the time to compare your beliefs and behaviour to that of certain zealous religious bodies during recent centuries. Organisations that thought that they knew better than the heretical skeptics (aka "deniers") and thus considered their destructive actions to be somehow justified by fantasised future outcomes!

I don't know man.. .I look at people losing jobs and feel bad for them. Then I look at hundreds and thousands and possibly millions of people now dead from landslides, floods, famine and thought, fark that's a whole lot worst than losing a job; life is a one-off, God don't give two of them.

Different priorities and scale I guess.

btw, where's the outrage for the company who decides to sack all their workforce instead of just reducing it; or selling the company to the gov't?

So the gov't want to balance between all the jobs or some of the jobs but with preservation - that's bad and terrible.

A company getting rid of all jobs so they can move to more fertile forests and get that economy of scale and efficiency... that's understandable.

Company gotta make money; people needing clean air and maybe a forest to wonder through... god dam parasites.

 

[cynic]

...
Different priorities and scale I guess.
...

On that particular sentence I can agree that the priorities and scale are indeed quite different.

One set is grounded in current reality and the other set is informed by apocalyptic fantasy!

Maybe you think that you feel bad about people losing their livelihood, but your posts strongly suggest that your concern for others is, at best, feigned.

 

[Jorgensen]

The timber industry had many years to invest in plantation timber.However they assumed,as in this case a well,that they could always use the forest as they pleased.No matter what the cost to future generations and the maintenance of fauna diversification.
If the workers are upset,and I can understand that,they should direct a lot or their upset toward derelict timber companies.
I worked in the timber industries for over twenty years.

 

[cynic]

The timber industry had many years to invest in plantation timber.However they assumed,as in this case a well,that they could always use the forest as they pleased.No matter what the cost to future generations and the maintenance of fauna diversification.
If the workers are upset,and I can understand that,they should direct a lot or their upset toward derelict timber companies.
I worked in the timber industries for over twenty years.

Thanks for chiming in on this one. Given your years of experience in the industry I value your input on this issue.

Over the years I have noticed reference to political interference with industry efforts to establish and/or accommodate rotational timber plantations.

From your experience within the industry, are you able to confirm or deny that such interference took place?

 

[Ves]

During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.

With all due respect, you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.

It's a debate that has been going on for decades, far longer than the climate change debate you want to keenly insert it into.

The timber debate, especially the one in regards to the Heyfield Mill closure, isn't solely the domain of the global warming / climate change debate. Most of this debate has to do about forest sustainability.

It has to do with timber sustainable supply. The equation is simple: you cannot cut down trees quicker than they mature or the supply decreases and eventually becomes non-exist (ie. you run out of trees).

Rapid population growth in Australia and historic forest clearing mean there are obviously less trees but more demand.

There are two sources of timber: plantations and natural forests. Victoria has a big supply deficit from plantations so they need to cut down natural forests to make up supply.

Forests with the best types of wood can take 120 years to reach required maturity. Plantations are somewhere between 20-40 years.

Plantations have enormous trouble on a mass scale to encourage people to invest in them, because let's face it, due to the long pay-off date and big risks involved it's not necessarily attractive.

What has happened at Heyfield is that the State Government is concerned that the natural supply is decreasing way too fast so they have significantly reduced the contract supplied from state owned logging enterprises to the Mill. Both the Mill (especially when it was owned and sold by Gunns) and the Government have known about this dilemma for years. For instance, there was a Commission into this in 2005 if you want to read it.

Plantations have a quicker growth cycle, but the quality and type of wood make it much more limited in its final uses. This especially applies to hardwood. From what I recall most of the plantations in Victoria really aren't the right mix to fill the supply gap. I think there was some plantations made to fill some of this gap, but obviously these take 20-40 years to grow. But that doesn't provide a solution right now.

The issue, in my view, is a structural one, and really has little to do with 'Climate change', 'Carbon crusaders' and 'religious zealots.' That's wishful thinking of the type that achieves little else but impresses uninformed forum posters.

 

[cynic]

With all due respect, you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.

It's a debate that has been going on for decades, far longer than the climate change debate you want to keenly insert it into.

The timber debate, especially the one in regards to the Heyfield Mill closure, isn't solely the domain of the global warming / climate change debate. Most of this debate has to do about forest sustainability.

It has to do with timber sustainable supply. The equation is simple: you cannot cut down trees quicker than they mature or the supply decreases and eventually becomes non-exist (ie. you run out of trees).

Rapid population growth in Australia and historic forest clearing mean there are obviously less trees but more demand.

There are two sources of timber: plantations and natural forests. Victoria has a big supply deficit from plantations so they need to cut down natural forests to make up supply.

Forests with the best types of wood can take 120 years to reach required maturity. Plantations are somewhere between 20-40 years.

Plantations have enormous trouble on a mass scale to encourage people to invest in them, because let's face it, due to the long pay-off date and big risks involved it's not necessarily attractive.

What has happened at Heyfield is that the State Government is concerned that the natural supply is decreasing way too fast so they have significantly reduced the contract supplied from state owned logging enterprises to the Mill. Both the Mill (especially when it was owned and sold by Gunns) and the Government have known about this dilemma for years. For instance, there was a Commission into this in 2005 if you want to read it.

Plantations have a quicker growth cycle, but the quality and type of wood make it much more limited in its final uses. This especially applies to hardwood. From what I recall most of the plantations in Victoria really aren't the right mix to fill the supply gap. I think there was some plantations made to fill some of this gap, but obviously these take 20-40 years to grow. But that doesn't provide a solution right now.

The issue, in my view, is a structural one, and really has little to do with 'Climate change', 'Carbon crusaders' and 'religious zealots.' That's wishful thinking of the type that achieves little else but impresses uninformed forum posters.

Whilst I grant that this might not have been the best example to use (for some of the reasons you've mentioned) the phrase "not environmentally sustainable" features in the linked article.

As an informed forum poster, I am sure that you are already aware of many instances from the past 20 years, where the environmental movement has influenced government (federal, state and local) in ways that resulted in lives being adversely impacted. As such, I trust that I won't need to link further media releases to illustrate the point I am highlighting.

 

[Ves]

Whilst I grant that this might not have been the best example to use (for some of the reasons you've mentioned) the phrase "not environmentally sustainable" features in the linked article.

It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article. Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable! It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...

As an informed forum poster, I am sure that you are already aware of many instances from the past 20 years, where the environmental movement has influenced government (federal, state and local) in ways that resulted in lives being adversely impacted.

There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place. Now, whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society, surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well? If those actions were never taken then no one would be adversely affected, would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.

But making that argument puts both corporate interests and government authorities into an awkward position so we will never hear that line of thinking in the media.

 

[cynic]

It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article. Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable! It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...


There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place. Now, whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society, surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well? If those actions were never taken then no one would be adversely affected, would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.

But making that argument puts both corporate interests and government authorities into an awkward position so we will never hear that line of thinking in the media.

And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?

Another example, much closer to home (quite literally and dangerously so), was the introduction of local laws about canopy trees, which subsequently prevented me from being able to quickly and efficiently dispense with a dangerous tree.

I had to patiently wait months for approval from the council, whilst the tree dropped large branches from a considerable height onto my neighbour's house and yard, only to be told that approval was contingent on me planting two larger trees to take it's place.

Now that particular situation, and the associated laws, had nothing, whatsoever, to do with sustainability of timber supply!

Your responses about the ASH mill and similar scenarios, might well be sound, but, in my direct personal experience, there is no question that the intent and impact, of this environmental movement, extends a lot further than issues concerning availability of supply and any unsound practices that may have occurred prior to the tightening or introduction of regulatory practices.