Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Just realized that the link to the Flawed Science paper wasn't working.

I will be interested to hear in due course the response of forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not play a small part in our climate)

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf
 
basilio said:
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf
Click to expand...

A question of trust

So, it must be recognized that not all research institutions have accepted proper responsibility to maintain the trust which the general public traditionally places in them. In the modern world, many scientific results are extremely
difficult to verify independently. They may be produced by a group of several researchers working for months or even years with vast amounts of data, which have to be calibrated employing especially tailored computer programs.
Often it is practically impossible for an outsider to verify the conclusions. That applies also to the referees, who have to decide on the publication of the work. So, trust is in the short run often all we have to judge the authenticity of claimed new developments. Trust in fellow scientists and trust in research institutions. And, at the Copenhagen conference on global climate the decision makers of the world, must be able to trust the scientific basis which is presented to them. They must be able to rely on it when building a strategy to fend off catastrophic climate developments. So, the scientific community should be careful not to squander this trust.
Click to expand...

Geez, such an easy way out. So they say, it's extremely difficulty or often practically impossible to verify a scientific conclusion. So therefore, we cannot present the raw data to you and you have to just "TRUST US" that we are perfectly right. (and others who don't agree with us are wrong)

And I thought science is about...

"Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions.
Click to expand...

The emails hack certainly show the level of trust with some of those scientists are lacking. :banghead:

Until they release every data to the public and then verified by other independent scientists, it's not exact science. (but of course, they are not going to since they have already admitted they would rather destroy the data than be analysed by the skeptics)
 
basilio said:
Just realized that the link to the Flawed Science paper wasn't working.

I will be interested to hear in due course the response of forum members who read the paper and realise how they have been systematically deceived by the argument that Solar Activity is the major driver of climate change. (which isn't to say that solar activity does not play a small part in our climate)

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf
Click to expand...

I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.
 
It seems to me that many have claimed its man made climate change but failed to prove it.

Isnt that like saying "someone has been murdered and you have to prove you didnt do it?"

Isnt the law innocent until proven guilty? :rolleyes:
 
moXJO said:
I don’t see too many sceptics claiming it’s the sun at all. There are a few, but most seem to concentrate on the lack of evidence that CO2 is the driver.
Click to expand...

So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis?

Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.
 
Knobby22 said:
So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis?

Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...

Nice twist.. but if you are an alarmist arent you meant to be alarming us about something that is FACTUAL?

Yes the climate is changing... FACT.. we both agree..
Man made CO2 is the cause.. FICTION.. until proven..

"So where is the skeptics alternative theory? Where is the bit where they base their denial on a scienctific basis."
However if you want to play that game here goes..

My skeptic alternative theory is that our planet goes through hot and cold cycles continuously.. Now prove to me it doesnt...
 
A simple example I have for debunking some global warming (CO2 and other related) especially in common conversation, is that everyone mentions the recent hot days (especially in VIC) and how it is attributed to climate change.

However, the same set of hot days were recorded for November 80 years ago, did it ever occur to the sceptics that the Earth's climate and weather system are not static entity, there are seasonal trends, 10 year trends, 100 even 1000 year trends. The world has had a changing temperature for thousands of years, and considering it has been dynamic since before mass CO2 production or the 'industrial period'; how is a change in climate instantly attributed to humans?

The sceptics are relying on a single variable in a complex system.
 
Knobby22 said:
Basilio correctly points out that the climate change deniers theories are based on lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...

Basilio, Knobby, et al:

And the pro AGW theories are based on.....? Climategate anyone? :banghead:

Repetition is no substitute for truth, no matter how repetitiously the repetition is repeated.

In fact, when I see such baseless dogma, it is because the debate has been lost on intellectual grounds. All that is left is propaganda.

AGWers have well and truly lost the battle of the century, yet the war rages on. :eek:
 
So the denial camp have a hockey stick too. (All we need is a ball and a good referee :) )

As for the Sun, of course solar activity influences terrestrial climate. After all what other comparable source of energy does the Earth have? Even with the discredited graphs showing a relationship between sunspot activity and climate, these variations occur within the 22/11yr sunspot cycle and the cycles associated with cycle length.

The major heating and cooling cycles of the Earth happen on much greater time scales. It is associated with these cycles that people claim the Earth was X degrees hotter than it was Y million years ago e.t.c. These major climatic changes are not due to the variability of solar activity. They are due to the changes in orbital eccentricity, the axial tilt and axial precession of the Earth. These effect the attitude and distance of the Earth to the Sun and how that solar radiation hits the Earth (just look at the annual temperature variations associated with the seasons).

Cherry picking temperatures whether they be last year, 80 years ago or 1000 years ago is meaningless. Temperatures need to be looked at as weighted averages over significant time periods. They then need to be looked at with respect to the Milankovitch cycles in conjunction with the shorter cycles that exist.

Once these are understood we then need to factor in how humans are altering the planet and how those alterations are effecting the world. If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place.

The Earth's temperature is rising and it is not illogical to see that humans may have quite a hand in it. The question is how are we doing it? Is it CO2? It is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing by relatively significant amounts. It is a possibility. Though, at the same time there may be other things we are doing that have more of an effect. Not something I can answer. But to outright deny any human participation is short-sighted and narrow-minded.
 
Now they're REALLY insulting our intelligence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
Click to expand...
 
derty said:
Once these are understood we then need to factor in how humans are altering the planet and how those alterations are effecting the world. If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place.
Click to expand...

I draw on an analogy from my days as a youth in North West Queensland.

My task was fairly straight forward in that I had to bury the proceeds from the out-house whenever the donations neared the top. Dad had allocated a small plot to accept these proceeds and so in pursuing the role of a good boy I would dutifully dig up the compact dry earth to a nominal depth to bury the out-house proceeds.

Now after numerous ventures into the designated plot, to my surprise I found located within a shovel load of earth, previously buried out-house proceeds. So the moral of the story is -- "Giving a man space is like giving a dog a computer: the chances are he will not use it wisely."
 
"If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place."

Thats your assumption and of course you are entitled to it.

Im sure that planet can handle what man dishes up.It tends to counter balance itself.
Even when meteors that have hit the earth, it has wiped out life but the earth rejuvenates.
So what are you trying to save here? The Planet? Life as we know it? Or the Labor party?
 
lasty said:
"If you don't think we have the ability to change the Earth's temperature then I think you are being very naive. Deforestation, changes in land use, urbanisation, emissions, pollution all will be having effects. There are almost 7 billion people on the earth now. When you fly over the US or Europe at night you realise just how completely we infest the place."

Thats your assumption and of course you are entitled to it.

Im sure that planet can handle what man dishes up.It tends to counter balance itself.
Even when meteors that have hit the earth, it has wiped out life but the earth rejuvenates.
So what are you trying to save here? The Planet? Life as we know it? Or the Labor party?
Click to expand...

Just an aside.
There is a theory that man is only going to get one chance to go to the level of self sufficiancy without fossil fuels. If we fail due to wars, short sightedness etc. to develop an economy that doesn't rely on fossil fuel and collapse. The next lot pf people will be unable to get much past Roman technology as the easily available fuel sources will not exist and they will be unable to develop the manufacturing industry necessary to build efficient solar cells and the like.
 
If we are wrecking the planet's climate then perhaps the road to salvation starts with reducing the amount of advertising material we get.

In the past 24 hours I have had 1.4kg of crap deposited in my letterbox.
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
divs4ever
divs4ever
D
September 2016 Federal Reserve Rate Hike
Replies
0
Views
2K
DeepLearning
D
basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
298K
IFocus
IFocus
Knobby22
Business decisions related to climate change
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
IFocus
IFocus
Top