Climate change another name for Weather

[Sean K]

By the way, I never said that Antarctic sea ice was decreasing, instead the opposite.

Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.



Maybe just an error.

 

[Happy]

Just extending on this thought, could families of killed persons get carbon credit for the deceased?
There were 50 fatalities so far this Christmas - New Year break.
So every person is not going to live to their life expectancy age, hence carbon dioxide emission reduction, quite substantial so many years – will not use petrol, food, clothing, water, will not produce waste.
Same with stillborn or swimming pool drowning and if kid is 2 imagine 80 years of credits worth in case of a girl.

Sorry for being off topic and not sensitive enough, just extended concept of getting credit for not cutting trees in Indonesia.

 

[2020hindsight]

Ignoring the sadness of the untimely deaths you refer to , but in general :-

are we talking cremated or buried / sequestered ?

ABC had a discussion about burying people vertical - easier to drill holes with a posthole digger etc.

Some bushie rang up - complaining he didn't want to end up a stick in the mud

 

[basilio]

This is a real waste of time here. It has become clear to me that the reason for starting the thread was to simply reinforce the views of Garpal and Wayne and others that there was absolutely NO possibility that Global Warming was happening, that the current general scientific model on CO2 induced GW was completely wrong and that the thousands of scientists who somehow believed this were simply looking for grants to continue their misleading efforts.

In that perspective it is also clear that there is simply no significant increase in temperatures around the world and obviously any suggestions that the Arctic is warming rapidly and arctic sea ice is disappearing is simply a figment of the deluded scientists and their deluded equipment and part of the global liberal commie propaganda that is trying to undo our way of life.

Given this position, I cannot see how any conversation which relates to any scientific theory which comes from the 99.9% of current climate scientists or any observations which comes their equally mistaken equipment will make any impact on the closed wagon train of Waye, Garpal et al.

Lets stop wasting our time shall we?

And by the way Garpal; I'm sure we all appreciate the daily beauties of Townsville and its excellent friendly climate. Do you ever take seriously those pesky cyclone warnings that may punctuate your day while you are still basking in the dreamy daze of summer?

 

[wayneL]

Top dummy spit there basilio.

But that is not what is being said.

 

[rederob]

Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.



Maybe just an error.

Stick to something you know about, or prove my statement wrong?
Your choice.

 

[wayneL]

Rederob has now become so shrill, as to become irrelevant.

Anyway, here's an interesting link, concluding with a revealing indictment of the disgraceful politically motivated UN IPCC:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.

 

[2020hindsight]

on the question of "optimists" vs "pessimists"
sure I'm optimistic.
Especially when I read reports like this (from a CSIRO publication by Paul Holper and Simon Torok) :-

[ also a brief poem:- ]
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=379547

 

[rederob]

Rederob has now become so shrill, as to become irrelevant.
Anyway, here's an interesting link, concluding with a revealing indictment of the disgraceful politically motivated UN IPCC:

This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.

Tilting at more windmills I see.
How about you address the issues I have raised.
I am barely interested in your sideshows of irrelevance.
If you aren't up to a reasoned debate, just say so.
As for the linked article, it's very old news and carries the usual lack of credibility that accompanies most skeptics.

 

[2020hindsight]

Didn't you say 'polar ice sheets decreasing'.

kennas, didn't you say you just read Weather Makers?
So what's your opinion ?

 

[rederob]

This is a stunning finding, considering that a pro AGW conclusion is the only one which ensures funding.

Oh dear, the botched research from Wayne gets better and better.
Let's look at what a proper review of the material throws up:

Results From Dr Benny J Peiser's study contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her work: Of all 1117 abstracts (using the same keywords "global climate change"), only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.

Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.

34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".

44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

 

[basilio]

This is a real waste of time here. It has become clear to me that the reason for starting the thread was to simply reinforce the views of Garpal and Wayne and others that there was absolutely NO possibility that Global Warming was happening, that the current general scientific model on CO2 induced GW was completely wrong and that the thousands of scientists who somehow believed this were simply looking for grants to continue their misleading efforts.

In that perspective it is also clear that there is simply no significant increase in temperatures around the world and obviously any suggestions that the Arctic is warming rapidly and arctic sea ice is disappearing is simply a figment of the deluded scientists and their deluded equipment and part of the global liberal commie propaganda that is trying to undo our way of life.

Given this position, I cannot see how any conversation which relates to any scientific theory which comes from the 99.9% of current climate scientists or any observations which comes their equally mistaken equipment will make any impact on the closed wagon train of Waye, Garpal et al.

Top dummy spit there basilio.

But that is not what is being said.

Wayne.


Really ??

Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.

Wayne
__________________

It's all politics. The sooner the the mainstream wakes up to that fact, we can concentrate on things that matter. To repeat for the millionth time, co2 is just a sideshow, the main game is other forms of pollution the effects of which are real and measured.

Wayne

The New Scientist eschews any evidence to the contrary and disseminates junk science as it's core mission.

Wayne

The cleverest and probably most dishonest part of the discussion about the uncertainty of global warming has been the cherry picking of evidence. ... Disappear a few results, disappear a few studies, alter a couple of givens and what is left can be made to sing your tune. In fact the basis of good science is replicability. A scientist has to outline all the details of his/hers research so that it can be replicated and proven (or disproven).

For example Wayne recently highlighted out some research that suggested

Quote:
1. The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect
2. The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.
Ref: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

But if you go to the paper you'll find that in his conclusion the author is extremely concerned about global warming. To quote

Quote:
The climate system is so rich, complex and still not well understood that the current emphasis on the limited impacts of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic ocean circulation is a serious distraction of effort and resources when many regions of the world face a truly worrying future, even in the near term.

Priorities should shift to :

Subtropical droughts
Summer heat waves
Loss of glacial ice forcing sea levle rise
Severe storms and extreme weather
Water, water, water (and not so much temperature)

Is it honest to accept one element of the research and then totally ignore the entire conclusion?

The last 20 years of scientific research has given us reams of understanding about the changes in climate over the millions of years on earth. Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn. But there is overwhelming evidence that we rapidly heating the earth through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat.

 

[wayneL]

basil

What a lovely example of dishonest cherry-picking so typical of your whole doomsday cult.

Apart from your lack of English comprehension, obviously drawing incorrect conclusions (as is done from the science), my comments must be taken in context with the whole thread. This where you fail in debate and indeed as a human being. Disgraceful.

 

[Sean K]

Stick to something you know about, or prove my statement wrong?
Your choice.

Rob, Rob, Rob....why do you need to go on the attack over such a simple question?

I wasn't questioning whether sea ice or ice sheets were increasing or decreasing, but trying to establish your position. That's all.

And what has that got to do with sticking to something I know about, and trying to prove whatever you said to be wrong? Why would I need to do that?

 

[rederob]

Top dummy spit there basilio.

But that is not what is being said.

Basilio
I tend to agree with Wayne.
He is "suspicious" about the motivations of those advancing the AGW/CC debate, and places Al Gore at the top of his hate list.
The rest of what he says really relates to a stream of cut and paste articles and links that he believes to be true, and/or thinks he understands.
But when push comes to shove, his links are shown to be mostly trivial, off topic or garbage.
Furthermore, Wayne has little capacity to support his articles or links, and certainly has been conspicuous in his efforts to avoid any reasoned debate.

For all that, I do enjoy the peanut gallery. Their occasional fishing expeditions show the disingenuous spirit that characterises their hidden opinions.

 

[rederob]

Rob, Rob, Rob....why do you need to go on the attack over such a simple question?

I wasn't questioning whether sea ice or ice sheets were increasing or decreasing, but trying to establish your position. That's all.

And what has that got to do with sticking to something I know about, and trying to prove whatever you said to be wrong? Why would I need to do that?

If you were keeping up with the thread you would know my position.

And last time I checked, a question actually asked something. You didn't do that; you made a statement, and it closed thus:

Maybe just an error.

I'm happy to debate this theme, or respond to your questions.
However, if you are going to make claims about my position I ask that you back them up.
I trust this is clear.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio
I tend to agree with Wayne.
He is "suspicious" about the motivations of those advancing the AGW/CC debate, and places Al Gore at the top of his hate list.
The rest of what he says really relates to a stream of cut and paste articles and links that he believes to be true, and/or thinks he understands.
But when push comes to shove, his links are shown to be mostly trivial, off topic or garbage.
Furthermore, Wayne has little capacity to support his articles or links, and certainly has been conspicuous in his efforts to avoid any reasoned debate.

For all that, I do enjoy the peanut gallery. Their occasional fishing expeditions show the disingenuous spirit that characterises their hidden opinions.

You're still playing the man boyo. You're still shrill. You're still full of BS. Still irrelevant.

This is the only argument you are capable of, to try and belittle and deny. It says much of the size of your character... small, bitter.

I have more intellectually stimulating discussions elsewhere.

Ciao

 

[rederob]

You're still playing the man boyo. You're still shrill. You're still full of BS. Still irrelevant.

This is the only argument you are capable of, to try and belittle and deny. It says much of the size of your character... small, bitter.

I have more intellectually stimulating discussions elsewhere.

Ciao

No response to my assertions about Morner.
No capacity to explain your understanding of the differences between sea ice and land ice, relative to a warming earth.
No rebuttal of my counter claims on Naomi Oreskes's findings.
No debate.
No idea.
Just more avoidance.
I trust you might add more elsewhere, because here you continue to be a total nonevent.

 

[basilio]

basil

What a lovely example of dishonest cherry-picking so typical of your whole doomsday cult.

Apart from your lack of English comprehension, obviously drawing incorrect conclusions (as is done from the science), my comments must be taken in context with the whole thread. This where you fail in debate and indeed as a human being. Disgraceful.

Ahh. Finally blinded by the right!! I think I have grasped how this thread operates.

When in doubt, deny. When your wrong, simply STATE that your right. When the evidence is too tough, insist it is coming from self interested, conspiratorial UN dominated cabals - or simply ignore it.

But above all keep the BS going so that everyone is too busy "debating" this topic to actually do something about it.

Excellent work Wayne. A plus and High Distinction.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

There are a lot of stirrers from the Warmening side attacking those of us who do not believe in Global Warmening , but who honestly believe it is weather.

One of my grannies used stir porridge and was a terrific stirrer.

She is now dead, died during a cold snap in Madrid of all places.

Let this be a warning to all the warmening stirrers.

Porridge is best supped cool, as is truth.

The truth about this fallacy will only out after we have spent billions trying to avoid something that was never going to happen.

A bit like the Year 2000 Bug.

So be more kind to those of use who use reason as well as empiricism, and do not denigrate those who question your science.

After all science depends on philosophy as much as it does on empiricism.

Have a Popper next time you eat your porridge hot.

gg