Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

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.

How do you know the science is faulty ?

 

[Logique]

It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?

Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

"...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."

 

[Ruby]

How do you know the science is faulty ?

Because empirical evidence has proven it so. The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong. Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years. The predicted "hot spot" has not been found. Warming has always preceded increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.

Furthermore, there have been coverups (read about "climategate" - the scandal at Hadley CRU; dissent has been suppressed; we have been lied to (the IPCC tells us that "97% of climate scientists agree...." when in fact that is 97% of a small group of about 75 who responded to a poll)..........

 

[Ruby]

It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?

Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

"...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."

This is the sort of meaningless rubbish written by ignorant journalists trying to sensationalise the issue. All this woman has done is display her pathetic ignorance

Note how it is always the alarmists who write this nonsense with its sinister undertones.

 

[wayneL]

It's getting tough to be a climate realist. Now we must be gassed (how very 'refreshing'), as well as tattooed! That would put an end to our anti-science nonsense! What next...forced sterilization?

Carbon tax sideshow must stop - Jill Singer From: Herald Sun June 22, 2011 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...on-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212

"...put your [climate sceptic] strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."

Such is the diversion from real science the alarmists have ventured and another classic example of them wanting to inflict harm/death on those who disagree.

How about Ms Singer et al putting their strong views to the test and refusing to drive cars, fly in plane, heat and light their home, reproduce, or any co2 emitting activity?

 

[Calliope]

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

It is difficult to decipher what you are going on about. Are you referring to Gillard's lies?

 

[Logique]

The chart is from Bolt's blog, 22 June 2011, ergo 'anti-science nonsense'. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ A link to Prof Sinclair Davidson's analysis is supplied within the article.

The initial replies in the comments section argue furiously against it, so a balance of opinions is presented.

 

[Julia]

Quote Originally Posted by Julia View Post
... 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?

Oh dear, Ghoti, what a dishonest and facile ploy: to take a question I posed to the forum at large on a completely different topic and apply it to me personally on the subject of climate change!
Truly, I expected better of you.

 

[explod]

Because empirical evidence has proven it so. The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong. Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years. The predicted "hot spot" has not been found. Warming has always preceded increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.

Furthermore, there have been coverups (read about "climategate" - the scandal at Hadley CRU; dissent has been suppressed; we have been lied to (the IPCC tells us that "97% of climate scientists agree...." when in fact that is 97% of a small group of about 75 who responded to a poll)..........

You could be wrong and you could be right.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Global warming is a contentious issue because it is very complex. However, almost all serious peer reivewed research suggests that global warming is occuring, though a small percentage of these researchers consider that it may not be human induced. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have stated that it is very likely that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.

There is a huge lag between the burning of fossil fuels and the consequent effects. Countries such as China and India are increasing their fossil fuel emissions, and thus depsite emissions targets, it is likely that the human induced causes of global warming are intensifying.

It is difficult to say whether global warming itself is getting better or worse, because we have been monitoring the effects for a short period of time, and the year to year natural variations can complicate interpretation. However, there are several reasons to believe that global warming will become much worse in the future:

1. current effects are worse than the 'average' predictions that were initially made
2. There are 'sinks' that soak up carbon dioxide (e.g. plants and the oceans) but they can only absorb a certain amount before they become saturated, thus it is expected that we can have large sudden rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide, even if we just continue emitting at the same rate, or even decrease the rate of emissions.
3. Methane is stored as cystals at the bottom of the sea. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. As sea temperatures rise this actually increases the release of methane, making climate change worse. Thus another sudden jump in climate change (temperature increases) can occur.
4. Increased temperatures may reduce vegetation cover in many regions, thus less carbon dioxide is soaked up and stored by plants (further increasing the effect of climate change)

Thus, there is a strong likelyhood that we could have sudden temperature increases, although it is hard to say when. The current sea level is also, in geological times, very low, so it is expected (whether natural or speeded up due to human activity) that sea levels will rise
Source(s):
(worked in climate change research many years ago, when the CO2 concentration was about half of what it is now, and also did some recent research in this area.)
6 months ago Report Abuse

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101228112249AAr9dHK

I iterate that we do not know and I repeat that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that we should be taking some notice of the possibilities and setting things in place now, as the longer we wait, not only may the problem become exponentially worse but the costs will also increase proportionately as well.

And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word denier is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?

Move on and help me (as Waynel does) to try and make a sensible argument of this important issue.

 

[Ruby]

You could be wrong and you could be right.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101228112249AAr9dHK

I iterate that we do not know and I repeat that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that we should be taking some notice of the possibilities and setting things in place now, as the longer we wait, not only may the problem become exponentially worse but the costs will also increase proportionately as well.

Move on and help me (as Waynel does) to try and make a sensible argument of this important issue.

Explod, I have tried to help by giving you some factual information, but you choose to ignore it. You could find it for yourself if you wanted, and were not so blinkered. I have also asked you what you would suggest to help solve the problem as you perceive it, but you have not responded.

I would not give much credence to answers.yahoo.com as a scientific reference

And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word denier is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?

No, I don't think. The word has specific connotations, and is used purposely with those connotations in mind. Furthermore, you are using it incorrectly. A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.

 

[ghotib]

A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.

Not by definition, and AFAIK not in general usage. A denier is a person who denies. I aim to be a chocolate denier for July: that doesn't mean I deny the existence of chocolate, or that chocolate is some kind of abstraction. I think the assumption that "climate change denier" started out as some kind of association with Holocaust denier is at best doubtful. Unfortunately it's been promoted to such an extent that a useful descriptor has become unusable.

Of course, some of us remember when denier referred primarily to pantihose.

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

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

Oh dear, Ghoti, what a dishonest and facile ploy: to take a question I posed to the forum at large on a completely different topic and apply it to me personally on the subject of climate change!
Truly, I expected better of you.

I'm sorry you took it that way. I was trying to demonstrate that "denier" is not necessarily a loaded term and that it doesn't always carry an association with Holocaust denial. I was thinking of something like a group of trainee doctors or nurses discussing different reactions to a difficult diagnosis. "Denial" is a common and understandable reaction. The term "denier" for someone who denies the diagnosis is a natural English usage, IMO

Best wishes,
Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

Ghoti,

In our language, context is everything. For instance how do we know denier is not referring to a measurement of fibres?

By the rest of the words of the sentence in which it is contained, the sentences surrounding that and other accompanying paragraphs; ie the context.

When 'denier' is included in the same passage as "forcibly tattooing", subjecting one to "high concentrations of co2 and co" etc., it would be safe to assume that the context adds another dimension to your innocuous interpretation.

I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.

 

[explod]

I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.

Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.

Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.

 

[wayneL]

Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.

Well I do consider her a far more interesting subject matter.

 

[mexican]

Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.

Nice photo there Waynel, pity I am too old now as you really do look the goods.

Stretched beyond limits by the government and supporters to confuse the debate not by us on this thread.
I can't speak for all of us but I am sick and tired of a finger being poked in my chest..I see this as what it is and thats a massive propaganda to fool the masses.
When ever a well qualified and respected Professor in this field challanges this debate he/she's theory is dismissed as rubbish and with venom by the believers.
We/public have been misinformed on a issue we know little about since day one with scare tactics, lies and propaganda.
I say "look at this with a open mind or you will end up being moved along with the rest of the herd" which is exactly what the government/believers want, which will achieve no change in our climate with a massive cost to our economy!

 

[Ruby]

Rubbish it could have many and varied connotations but on this thread it is being stretched beyond limits as a diversion and to confuse the debate in my view.

So why did you use the term to describe anyone who does not agree with you on this issue?

 

[white_goodman]

A 'denier' is one who denies a proven truth, not someone whose opinion differs from yours on a matter which is not proven.

oh you didnt get the memo... "THE DEBATE IS OVER!"

 

[Julia]

You could be wrong and you could be right.
I iterate that we do not know

So how dare you, therefore, label anyone who simply acknowledges that indeed we do not know as a 'denier'?

And on name calling and nazism, merely because the word denier is used and the association is made is a bit childish, dont' you all think ?

No. The term 'denier' has for now many years been associated with those who deny the holocaust ever occurred. You know this. You have therefore knowingly cast this slur on any of us who decline to accept that 'the science is settled' and who are concerned about the adverse effects on our economy and on individual Australians, via a tax which even your so called experts (e.g. Garnaut and Flannery) have conceded will do nothing to change the climate in the absence of the major emitters doing likewise.

And on this, explod, you earlier said accusingly "so we should do nothing just because no effect will be shown for more than 1000 years", conveniently leaving out the fact that the 'no effect for more than 1000 years" was if the major emitters all fell into line with a similar scheme. They have clearly stated they have no intention of doing this.

Ghoti,

In our language, context is everything. For instance how do we know denier is not referring to a measurement of fibres?

By the rest of the words of the sentence in which it is contained, the sentences surrounding that and other accompanying paragraphs; ie the context.

When 'denier' is included in the same passage as "forcibly tattooing", subjecting one to "high concentrations of co2 and co" etc., it would be safe to assume that the context adds another dimension to your innocuous interpretation.

I have no doubt that 'denier' is intended to have the most vile connotations, as the disgraceful misanthropic sentiments of inflicting humiliation, pain and death are expressed concurrently.

Exactly.

You, and Ghoti, further damage your cause by this transparent sophistry.

 

[explod]

So why did you use the term to describe anyone who does not agree with you on this issue?

I was not aware that I used the term as you say. I do not mean to hit out at those who do not agree with my line.

I repeat, on climate as laypeople we do not know the finite answers or facts. In regards to science there are scientists also I am told who's specific task it is to confuse the issues and to discredit those who do come up with the real facts.

But I do not know, however anectotally from my own experience and with my own eyes I note changes in seasons that are causing some plants and crops to behave as they have not before. And on talking to other older codgers on these direct experiences they are saying the same things.

I suppose the word denier is for those in my view who are adamant that there are no problems at all. And this thread would suggest that there is a lot of concern each way; so yes the word denier may be wrong.

I believe that there may be problems and rather than turn the other cheek we ought in my view try and clarify what they are and what we can do about them. And of course I do not know what more we can do, that is for the experts in these fields. First we need to listen, if needed accept and then to do what we can. We now minimise and sort rubbish, we have water tanks and try to save on power use. I grow vegitables, barter for eggs and check the recycle station for odds and ends before buying conventionally.

Almost daily there are reports now around the globe of massive storms, insurance companies are going to the wall because of it, so I think there may be a problem, and that is not in my view being hysterical or mad.