Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Tisme]

So science is required then!

I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.

Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?

Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?

So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?

Just asking, but when you say questions have been unanswered, do you believe you are the only person with the key to the solving it or do you cherry pick papers to suit your concreted stance?

I think we are all biased because we allow our own interpretations of life's experiences to skew the idea that we may be wrong.

 

[cynic]

Just asking, but when you say questions have been unanswered, do you believe you are the only person with the key to the solving it or do you cherry pick papers to suit your concreted stance?

I think we are all biased because we allow our own interpretations of life's experiences to skew the idea that we may be wrong.

I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.

I do consider the failure of the alarmists to answer some very pertinent (and crucial) questions, relating to our biological needs, to be cause for very great concern, hence my intense skepticism.

I would hope by now that you have noticed that I have never claimed to be without prejudice.

I would also hope that you have noticed that very few (if any) people in this thread, let alone the entire planet, can truly make such claims.

 

[SirRumpole]

So science is required then!

I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.

Did I say science was not required ? I don't think so. What I said that not all knowledge is personal experience , in response to your assertion as to whether I had personally experienced hurricanes etc.

The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.

What informs you seems to be your own prejudices. I think it goes back to your polio experience, for which I have a lot of sympathy for you but it seems to have clouded your opinion of science in general to the point where you seem to think that scientists are all cranks and you know a lot better than they.

 

[cynic]

Did I say science was not required ? I don't think so. What I said that not all knowledge is personal experience , in response to your assertion as to whether I had personally experienced hurricanes etc.

The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.

What informs you seems to be your own prejudices. I think it goes back to your polio experience, for which I have a lot of sympathy for you but it seems to have clouded your opinion of science in general to the point where you seem to think that scientists are all cranks and you know a lot better than they.

In relation to the topic of personal prejudice, I refer you to my most recent response to Tisme.

In relation to the cause, to which you attribute my prejudice, I have a couple of things to say.

Firstly the last thing this thread needs, is the introduction to this debate, of a matter pertaining to another zealous religion! I have already made ample comment on the health issue (that you have shamelessly chosen to draw into this debate) elsewhere, and do not consider it at all relevant to the topic of this thread.

Secondly, your decision to introduce it here, was both unwise and unkind. My respect for you has dramatically lowered as a result. If your expressions of sympathy were sincerely meant, you would never have unscrupulously attempted to discredit my arguments in this manner. I believe the forums ignore facility was designed to cater for situations such as this!


In relation to your claims about what you didn't say, I refer you to the final sentence in one of your earlier posts, in which you stated:

... It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.

This gave rise to several of my questions of you, including the one about your personal experience of these phenomena.

Your selective amnesia is not at all helpful to the progression of this debate. Perhaps your health issues need to be brought into the argument!

 

[SirRumpole]

Perhaps your health issues need to be brought into the argument!

I'm quite well, but thank you for asking.

Maybe I got the words the wrong way , I should have said "it doesn't need just science, also the ability..."

Anyway, you pick the scientists that agree with you, whoever they are, but I'll stick with the people who work in the field and most of them say AGW is real and is mostly caused by burning coal and other organic fuels.

 

[cynic]

I'm quite well, but thank you for asking.

Maybe I got the words the wrong way , I should have said "it doesn't need just science, also the ability..."

Anyway, you pick the scientists that agree with you, whoever they are, but I'll stick with the people who work in the field and most of them say AGW is real and is mostly caused by burning coal and other organic fuels.

And when those "scientists", you've chosen to heed, start providing credible answers to the crucial questions that I have repeatedly raised, I will gladly join you in listening to them.

But until that happens, I shall continue with my skepticism of their unscientific and unsound apocalyptic claims.

 

[Tisme]

I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.

I do consider the failure of the alarmists to answer some very pertinent (and crucial) questions, relating to our biological needs, to be cause for very great concern, hence my intense skepticism.

I would hope by now that you have noticed that I have never claimed to be without prejudice.

I would also hope that you have noticed that very few (if any) people in this thread, let alone the entire planet, can truly make such claims.

Is there a difference between and alarmist and say someone like me who just admits a belief that general climatic events are making a persistent entropic change? I'm not spending any time running around with doom and gloom, although I do lament the loss of what I knew as a boy to be good predictable climate events peppered with the odd surprise (say an Indian rain during the dry spell).

 

[cynic]

Is there a difference between and alarmist and say someone like me who just admits a belief that general climatic events are making a persistent entropic change? I'm not spending any time running around with doom and gloom, although I do lament the loss of what I knew as a boy to be good predictable climate events peppered with the odd surprise (say an Indian rain during the dry spell).

You already know the answer to your question. You've amply articulated the distinction between yourself and the alarmist brigade, within your very own post.

 

[noco]

The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.

.

So what degree of intensity over would you say that I experienced in the 30's and 40's......I witnessed plenty of intense storms in Brisbane......plenty of heat waves through out the country.....Fires in Vic and NSW were a common occurrence except people were not stupid enough to build in the dense bush and those that did had adequate fire breaks.......Plenty of great floods.....in Brisbane, houses in the Chelma area where floods went over roof level in the 50's......Homehill and Ayr were often flooded before the Burdekin dam was built......I once saw a cow with its head stuck in the fork of a tree in Homehill 12 feet above the ground on the main highway.

So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .

 

[cynic]

So what degree of intensity over would you say that I experienced in the 30's and 40's......I witnessed plenty of intense storms in Brisbane......plenty of heat waves through out the country.....Fires in Vic and NSW were a common occurrence except people were not stupid enough to build in the dense bush and those that did had adequate fire breaks.......Plenty of great floods.....in Brisbane, houses in the Chelma area where floods went over roof level in the 50's......Homehill and Ayr were often flooded before the Burdekin dam was built......I once saw a cow with its head stuck in the fork of a tree in Homehill 12 feet above the ground on the main highway.

So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .

I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.

 

[luutzu]

So science is required then!

I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.

Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?

Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?

So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?

Trump's kind of "scientist" or peer-reviewed scientific journals kind of scientists?

 

[cynic]

Trump's kind of "scientist" or peer-reviewed scientific journals kind of scientists?

Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?

How can the peer review process take effect when the "scientists" insist that their assertions are not open to debate?

 

[luutzu]

Luu. you are not taking into account the 20% difference in efficiency of coal....You don't take into account what happens when the SUN does not shine or the wind does not blow.....So what do they fall back on when this takes place?

Efficiency will also be gained once there's a stable market for solar. There's already a few innovation I've seen happening at Australian universities that could potentially triple the current panel's efficiency, and that was by chance watching a doco on the ABC.

Safer to go with an energy mix. Coal might still not be able to be delivered. That's why there's a panic in China from Cyclone Debbie. They have to scramble for coal from other places due to the shut downs and damages Debbie cause to rail and ports.

Then there's that eventual running out of coal and other finite resources. Not to mention pollution, health effects and that imaginary climate disaster.

 

[SirRumpole]

So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...al-temperature-records-once-every-three-years

 

[noco]

I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.

Wow, that guy certainly had Mr.Nair over a barrel........He was like some of the parrots on the ASF about that 97%.....Mr.Nair just did not have the answers and could not accept that perhaps he was wrong.

 

[luutzu]

Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?

How can the peer review process take effect when the "scientists" insist that their assertions are not open to debate?

Ted "Carpet Bomb 'em" farking Cruz. That's the "sceptic" you're asking people to listen to?

The smarter guy there told Cruz that by "not open to debate" he meant the issue is settled by scientific evidence. That is, it is clear from research and data that Climate Change will first kill poor minority community.

How can you not see through the political spin Cruz did there? What are you saying Mr Smarty Pants, that we can't debate your hysteria?

No, Ted! You can debate it, but the results are quite clearly evident that when the shiet storm hits, those in poor areas will get stuffed while those in richer areas will get rescued and properly looked after by both the insurers and the high grounds and the welfare state.

That when famine hit, the poor will not be able to afford food or medicine or a jet plane ticket out of the country.

I guess that kind of common sense from any idiot with two eyes and a grey cell is just too much for some people.

Let's bring on Rex Tillerson on Climate Change; or Ryan what's his face on Healthcare.

 

[noco]

Efficiency will also be gained once there's a stable market for solar. There's already a few innovation I've seen happening at Australian universities that could potentially triple the current panel's efficiency, and that was by chance watching a doco on the ABC.

Safer to go with an energy mix. Coal might still not be able to be delivered. That's why there's a panic in China from Cyclone Debbie. They have to scramble for coal from other places due to the shut downs and damages Debbie cause to rail and ports.

Then there's that eventual running out of coal and other finite resources. Not to mention pollution, health effects and that imaginary climate disaster.

So you are saying that one day solar panels will be 45% efficient...Where is your back up link or is that just your usual mere hear say.....Perhaps Smurf might may be able to help here.

There is enough coal for the next 186 years and beyond.

Yes the some coal mines were shut down after TC Debbie but have you seen the massive stock pile at Abbott Point?

 

[luutzu]

So you are saying that one day solar panels will be 45% efficient...Where is your back up link or is that just your usual mere hear say.....Perhaps Smurf might may be able to help here.

There is enough coal for the next 186 years and beyond.

Yes the some coal mines were shut down after TC Debbie but have you seen the massive stock pile at Abbott Point?

That was some research a professor at either UNSW or UTS was trialing. You can look it up noco, we all have the same internet, for now.

From memory, there was another research where they try to reuse the sunlight that bounces back once it hit the cell.

Anyway, point is, science and technology will improve and become more efficient with further application and cash injection. Cash from investment. Investment come about when there's a fair market with some gov't incentive and none of the obstacles.

Look at the hidden incentives and welfare all gov't around the world forces its people to subsidise the oil and fossil fuel industry. It's in the trillions. And that's not counting the wars of liberation in places with weak armies and lotsa oil.

TC Debbie just prove the point noco. That just a mere shut down of the ports disrupt supplies to China's power stations. To make up for it they'd have to source it from the Americas etc.

It's very rare for the Sun to be cloudy continuously for over a couple of weeks at a time right? Not when engineers and scientists have the entire outback to place their panels and farm. That kind of planning lessen the chances of frequent cloud disruption.

Yup, 186 years of coal vs a few hundred million years, give or take a million or two of the Sun still shining. Pretty sure it's in the billions of years, but pretty sure the human species won't last that long given our love for war in the age of nukes.

 

[noco]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...al-temperature-records-once-every-three-years

There has ben no Global Warming for over18 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

 

[SirRumpole]

There has ben no Global Warming for over18 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

OK I'll have to assume that you can't read and leave it at that.