Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Well I'll let the others speak for themselves, but after everything I've said in this thread, I have serious concerns for both your cognitive abilities and your language comprehension.

Seriously, I am worried about you.

Well that is reasuring and will pass your idea on to my psychologist. Next apointment is 15 July.

Have you bothered to get "the sixth extinction" from the library. The following a lift from google on it;

So what is the Sixth Extinction? When is it coming? And what is its cause? "It's the next annihilation of vast numbers of species. It is happening now, and we, the human race, are its cause," explains Dr. Richard Leakey, the world's most famous paleoanthropologist. Every year, between 17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet, he says. "For the sake of argument, let's assume the number is 50,000 a year. Whatever way you look at it, we're destroying the Earth at a rate comparable with the impact of a giant asteroid slamming into the planet, or even a shower of vast heavenly bodies." The statistics he has assembled are staggering. Fifty per cent of the Earth's species will have vanished inside the next 100 years; mankind is using almost half the energy available to sustain life on the planet, and this figure will only grow as our population leaps from 5.7 billion to ten billion inside the next half-century. Such a dramatic and overwhelming mass extinction threatens the entire complex fabric of life on Earth, including the species responsible for it: Homo sapiens.

http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

But you really need to read the book. Unfortunately the science is strong overall but subjective when each is taken on its own. These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.

 

[wayneL]

Well that is reasuring and will pass your idea on to my psychologist. Next apointment is 15 July.

Have you bothered to get "the sixth extinction" from the library. The following a lift from google on it;



http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

But you really need to read the book. Unfortunately the science is strong overall but subjective when each is taken on its own. These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.

I'm pleased, because once again you are off at an irrelevant tangent to the current point. You have categorized me (and others) as a climate change denier; I have never denied climate change and even suggested some anthropogenic factors.

Unless you categorize all people outside of the the most extreme (and scientifically unsupported) worst case scenario as "deniers", I suggest that either:

1/ a retraction is in order.

or

2/ try to get an earlier booking.

 

[explod]

I'm pleased, because once again you are off at an irrelevant tangent to the current point. You have categorized me (and others) as a climate change denier; I have never denied climate change and even suggested some anthropogenic factors.

Unless you categorize all people outside of the the most extreme (and scientifically unsupported) worst case scenario as "deniers", I suggest that either:

1/ a retraction is in order.

or

2/ try to get an earlier booking.

I am sorry Waynel and will have another mull over the posts. Apologies to those effected.

He's on holidays in Greek Isles.

 

[Smurf1976]

They have no idea what base load power is all about. Not one clue.

They know very well what reliable baseload electricity is about, that was firmly rammed into their heads 30 years ago in Tasmania and there are quite a few fairly technical books on the subject published in that era, some of them written by environmentalists (The Price of Power comes immediately to mind).

What is commonly misunderstood is that yes, they do know all about electricity. However, they don't want you to be using much of the stuff - to be achieved by a gradual process of deindustrialisation.

As for the issue of violence, well that goes back a long way in the environmental debate too. Plenty of threats against environmentalists, plenty of outright sabotage of construction machinery (grinding paste added to the engine oil works wonders...) and it's no secret that someone did go as far as planning to blow up a major power station at one point. Then came the infamous hoax bombing of the railway bridge whilst others tried to mess with the discharge valve at Serpentine Dam. And of course there's that very often re-run footage of Bob Brown being dragged in all directions at once back in 1986 by loggers. And of course there was that aeroplane that mysteriosly disappeared right at the start of all this 40 years ago...

Both sides have had a fair go at each other in a physical manner over the years.

 

[Julia]

Really?

Perhaps you could list who you think are climate change deniers and let them confirm or deny that accusation.

On this page 17 posts, including yourself I would say 7 against, and the remaining five includes myself probably for the warming camp.

"No names no pack drill."

But thats just my rough opinion. DYOR

Explod, I endorse Wayne's request. I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive. It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.

Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.

Most of us also lack the scientific training and expertise to adequately comment on the whole issue and have noted the many scientists, well credentialled, who disagree with the current phenomenon of blaming human beings for the changes in climate, despite these changes having occurred long before industrialisation.

Further, most of the anger derives from the agreed fact that the proposed carbon tax in Australia will not make any appreciable difference to the climate for more than 1000 years, and even that tiny change if it does occur, would only occur if the major nations like China, India, the US, Japan et al were to introduce a price on carbon as well.

Surely you can see how stupid it seems to be putting in jeopardy the economic well being of Australia, the very existence of coal fired power stations which are our major source of baseload power, for no change in the damn climate? Why would anyone do this?

Perhaps you're happy to fork out for this tax, and perhaps you're also happy to endure blackouts when the power supply fails, but I can tell you I am not, and neither are most of Australia.

So kindly withhold your cliched labels such as 'climate change denier' and just understand that if it had been clearly proven that we are responsible for some catastrophic climate change (which I can't believe even the proposed 2 degrees would be and to which we should easily adapt), and further that if it had been clearly shown how the carbon tax would alter this, then that would be a whole different proposition.

As it is, it seems to most Australians that they are simply being slugged with another tax.
Personally, I'd rather the government just came out and said : 'hey people, after the stimulus payments for the GFC, the coffers are a bit empty, so we need to whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus".

That, at least, would be honest, as opposed to the mealy mouthed hypocritical nonsense they are presently peddling.

 

[ghotib]

Explod, I endorse Wayne's request. I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive. It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" ...

... You have been diagnosed, out of the blue, with a life threatening disease...Do you simply deny to yourself that all this happening? ...

And if you do, wouldn't the simplest and most likely description of you be that you are a denier?

FWIW, I avoid the term denier in the same way as I try to resist attributing motives to people I don't know. But if I did use it, and if I did happen to be thinking of another well-documented issue where a phony debate had been fostered by deliberate obfuscation and lies, that issue would be tobacco smoking, not the Holocaust.

I find the term "pro-AGW" and its variants offensive. Nobody who has a clue about the risks we run by continuing to burn fossil carbon is "pro-" it.

 

[ghotib]

Straw man?

Most of us hide our cognitive biases under a layer of logic, you do no such thing.

And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing.

I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

These difficulties in bringing an overall comprehension of the totallity of all the issues are what allows ratbags such as our estemed Andrew Bolt to capture the stage and cloud the truth in my view.

Er, like asking the most fundamental questions that alarmists like yourself cannot answer, yet preach on about science that doesn't support your ideology in anyway whatsoever

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing.

I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Yet you use poison to avoid answering any questions that demands observed evidence of your AGW faith, then you come back here and try to re-apply your delusional thinking. We're seeing many of the alarmist using similar deflationary approaches to avoid the real discussion here.

 

[sails]

Explod, I endorse Wayne's request. I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive. It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.

Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.....

I agree Julia. I find it offensive and annoying and puts me right off wanting to learn more of their ideas. I am a bigger sceptic now because of these silly attitudes and a nonsense carbon tax (that won't actually do much to reduce co2).

To take a consdending attitude and call people "deniers" simply because they don't agree with you is kindergarten stuff. At least they will continue to put people off their cultish climate religion and that's a good thing. No extremes are healthy and cultish behaviour is often dangerous.

I used to be more open minded about climate science, but when found I was called a "denier" for asking questions (eg not a full on alarmist), I decided that anyone who resorted to such childish and belittling behaviour probably didn't have anything of substance to offer.

If the science is so convincing, let it speak for itself. Surely there is nothing to gain by belittling those who don't agree and, as I said before, it actually has the reverse effect and puts them right off such nonsense.

So carry on, toffee nosed climate alarmists (well we have to call you something in return otherwise you just get away with the bullying). You are doing a great job in building a bigger and bigger wall around yourselves.

And have you warmists / alarmists / or whatever you call yourselves noticed what has happened to Gillard's polls since she threatened the carbon tax? I think most of Australia may become your deniers...lol. But you can continue your little tea parties (mind you would have to be cold tea coz there won't be much power if Gillard gets her way).

Getting late - end of rant...

 

[mexican]

Explod I believe in Climate change...it has changed in the last millions of years and will do so for the next millions of years but CO2 causing Global warming I used to be sitting on the fence but as time goes on I am becoming less convinced that this theory is not the case.
We are looking at the right hand side of the graph, where it is a probability not fact.....fact is on the left hand side of the graph. We prefer certainty rather than thinking in probabilities hence why there is so much of scare tactics from the believers to convince the public to think that the CO2 theory is a certainty.
There is so much of these scare tactics from the Greens, professor's, government and so on that I started to smell a RAT!
If there is no doubt then why is the government using celebraties in ad's, looking at spending $12 million dollars of tax payers money on promoting a tax that will save us, ABC putting fake Deniers in the audience, using the phrase " We only have a minimal time to act", the bullying, "saving our children" to make us feel guilty....the list goes on and on. This is what I find very suspect.
Professor Flannery should have learnt that not all theories are correct after he said (2007) we will never have flooding rains again and our dams will never be full again because of global warming and then we did and the majority of dams are full, he decided to blame the flooding rains on climate change. Again this makes me more suspicious!
I look at this as it should be..... a theory not fact and that is from both sides of the debate but the more time goes by and the scare and bullying tactics used by the Climate change believers I am less inclined to sit on the fence!
All for greener energy and have some money invested in some companies but not the way our government is going about it!! That would be a disaster for Australia!

 

[wayneL]

And most of us at least acknowledge a direct question when it's asked. You do no such thing.

I repeat, do you think a direct threat of violence against individuals is a reasonable reaction to predictions, or even calls, for legal action against groups?

Sorry I missed the question.

Perhaps it was because it was so poorly and exclusively framed. Your question only refers to the lower end of extremist balderdash and dis-includes predictions, or even calls, for violence against groups, such as "forcibly tattooing" or "strangling them in their beds" as has been suggested by alarmists.

In any case I do not endorse direct threats of violence in the first instance, however would advocate vigorous physical self defense against the same, as is anyone's right.

 

[explod]

Explod, I endorse Wayne's request. I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive. It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.

At least Julia you do not talk in riddles. I will not be made to name individuals and in any case the big stick standover tactics are not becoming of ASF in my view and only indicate that arguments are thin on the ground anyway.

Many of us simply do not accept such a gross and exaggerated description, and would classify ourselves as agnostic on the subject.

Most of us also lack the scientific training and expertise to adequately comment on the whole issue and have noted the many scientists, well credentialled, who disagree with the current phenomenon of blaming human beings for the changes in climate, despite these changes having occurred long before industrialisation.

Please clarify for me the gross exaggeration.

We do not understand, agreed but anecdotally with increasing extremes of weather it seems to me that the writings on global worming do have some substance, on that basis we do in my view need to give it our best attention.

Further, most of the anger derives from the agreed fact that the proposed carbon tax in Australia will not make any appreciable difference to the climate for more than 1000 years, and even that tiny change if it does occur, would only occur if the major nations like China, India, the US, Japan et al were to introduce a price on carbon as well.

So it does not matter what happens in a thousand years, excuse me, so the pocket is more important than the future of our human race. There is another thread for the carbon tax, this is about Resisting Climate Change Hysteria. And I am so concerned that perhaps I am right on topic in this aspect.

Surely you can see how stupid it seems to be putting in jeopardy the economic well being of Australia, the very existence of coal fired power stations which are our major source of baseload power, for no change in the damn climate? Why would anyone do this?

You only have the pollies say so on most of this, again we do not know. I do not know if a carbon tax (here getting of topic again) is right or wrong I just feel strongly that we do have to do something about our destruction of the athmosphere. One engine of a jumbo jet uses the amount of oxigen that is used by 100 people for 100 years. With most of the worlds lungs, ie the rain forrest cut down now, how long can this pollution ponzie be kept up.

Perhaps you're happy to fork out for this tax, and perhaps you're also happy to endure blackouts when the power supply fails, but I can tell you I am not, and neither are most of Australia.

Of course I am not happy about the rising costs and I am sure that without the tax power costs are going to be out of the reach of most people soon anyway as we have reached peak oil and when everyone goes gas I am sure it will not last long either. So we need good alternatives. Nuclear will be one and I say that as a Greens member. We are going to have to be practical.

So kindly withhold your cliched labels such as 'climate change denier' and just understand that if it had been clearly proven that we are responsible for some catastrophic climate change (which I can't believe even the proposed 2 degrees would be and to which we should easily adapt), and further that if it had been clearly shown how the carbon tax would alter this, then that would be a whole different proposition.

As it is, it seems to most Australians that they are simply being slugged with another tax.

Well you do seem to express the view that you do not believe in the science of climate change so what is wrong with the term. A number on here are indicating that I am a complete nut case. So what? "sticks and stones..." and the sun is coming up this morning.

Personally, I'd rather the government just came out and said : 'hey people, after the stimulus payments for the GFC, the coffers are a bit empty, so we need to whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus".

Amen

That, at least, would be honest, as opposed to the mealy mouthed hypocritical nonsense they are presently peddling

again we do not really know.

 

[Ruby]

Explod, I endorse Wayne's request. I also find the term "climate change deniers" offensive. It is clearly meant to resemble that repugnant term "holocaust deniers" and implies a moral superiority on the part of those who believe any changes in climate are due to the wicked overconsumption by human beings.
whack another tax on everyone so we can get back into surplus"......

I endorse it too. I had been mulling over how to respond to the charge myself, but cannot add to what has been said - thanks Julia and Sails

 

[explod]

So are you all saying that we do have a climate change problem?

 

[Ruby]

So are you all saying that we do have a climate change problem?

No, we are all saying we recognise we have a changing climate. No-one denies that. Read some of my earlier posts on this and the other thread. However, we dispute (or at least, I do) a lot of the faulty science and propaganda that has been fed to us about the nature of the change and what is causing it.

 

[Logique]

...both the Greens and Labor will not countenance nuclear power, would some of their supporters be kind enough to explain where baseload electricity is going to come from..

So negative of them. No, No, No, that's all they can say The UK is cutting emissions. But they are building nuclear power stations. Which information is conveniently omitted in the telling over here.

 

[Calliope]

So it does not matter what happens in a thousand years, excuse me, so the pocket is more important than the future of our human race. There is another thread for the carbon tax, this is about Resisting Climate Change Hysteria. And I am so concerned that perhaps I am right on topic in this.

As a disciple of Bob Brown you have no choice but to follow his partisan line about saving the world. His motives are much more sinister. You are right, this thread is about resisting climate hysteria. If you want to support climate hysteria you should start another thread. I wish you luck.

 

[Logique]

A bit sus you say Logique........your sneaky suspician serves you well.
http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=113466
Skip the Gillard part

Good find mexican. At 4.00 in the video, a James (Bretany?), who works in community radio, and according to Bolt is a climate alarmist, was the one who asked the 'gravity is just a theory' question on Q&A. What an underhanded phony. If he is a climate change believer or alarmist, he has served his cause poorly here.

 

[explod]

As a disciple of Bob Brown you have no choice but to follow his partisan line about saving the world. His motives are much more sinister. You are right, this thread is about resisting climate hysteria. If you want to support climate hysteria you should start another thread. I wish you luck.

Not at all, in discusions it is looked at all the time, heatedly of course. We are in a democracy. Policy will be tested and moved as needs be over time. Necessity is the mother of invention

Of course some would say that is not keeping a promise.