Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

THE federal government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has celebrated his last day in the job with a stinging rebuke of the Australian media and a swipe at the most recent Liberal government.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...pe/story-e6frfku0-1226085077770#ixzz1QkMWpp6K

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Well sussed out Wayne. I was certain you're eagle eye wouldn't miss the Greenpeace Big Oil connection

Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.

 

[explod]

Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.

A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.

Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06

 

[Ruby]

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...pe/story-e6frfku0-1226085077770#ixzz1QkMWpp6K

From the above link.....

"This is a reform where the costs all come early and the benefits all come later - huge benefits, necessary benefits, if we care about the future generations of Australians."

Did I miss something? I am still waiting for our illustrious leaders to tell me just what the benefits are going to be.

 

[basilio]

Hmmm, that's nice - how's your book developing there Basilio? Not sure what the market looks like for climate fiction atm, perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.

Thanks for the kind thoughts Ozzie. Actually it's shaping up rather well. In point of fact it's a PhD thesis for the Social Psychology of Climate Denial Journal. Still considering the title but at the amount the working headline is

"Dissertation on the Culpability of Climate Scientists for Fostering Climate Hysteria amongst Credulous Environmentalists "

Will probably need some release forms from your good self and other forum participants for using your prescient insights and I'd (respectfully..)ask for a focus group peer -review process to ensure I have accurately represented all the arguments put forward to demolish the current scientific communities mistakes and misunderstandings.

Cheers

PS Hope that wasn't too long for you Ozzie..

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.

Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06

I would agree that ice reduction in Greenland is due to ice melting under increasing temperatures, but whether that is due to "global warming" is a bit harder to swallow.

The ice in Greenland has been to-ing and fro-ing for millenia, that is why it is called The Green Land, it was much warmer in the past.

gg

 

[bandicoot76]

What's this?

"Follow the money" as exhorted by AGW alarmists?

I'm hearing stories of big oil funding of Greenpeace and other green organizations.

DYOR.

i posted info on this very subject previously! the big oil companies made a killing on the european carbon markets! take it one step further & see who owns controlling shareholdings in these greeny supporting 'big oil' companies... the truth shall set you freeeeeeee!

 

[explod]

I would agree that ice reduction in Greenland is due to ice melting under increasing temperatures, but whether that is due to "global warming" is a bit harder to swallow.

The ice in Greenland has been to-ing and fro-ing for millenia, that is why it is called The Green Land, it was much warmer in the past.

gg

Well this report stated "..is due to global warming" but a nice little tip toe there gg

 

[OzWaveGuy]

A US report today that ice reduction in Greenland comfirms continued global warming.

Herald Sun, Melbourne 30/06

Well blow me down Proof at last! Now we just need to find how CO2 has pulled earth out of the previous ice ages

 

[Julia]

perhaps a good dose of evidence is needed? Found anything yet, it's only been 6weeks of asking, no rush.

And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?

 

[ghotib]

I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.

Ghoti

 

[sails]

And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?

You can probably expect a curt PM from Basilio as he sent me when he refused to answer my persistent question as to how much Australia can actually in reduce global emissions when we emit a tiny 1.3%...

Some questions of ours are simply not convenient...

 

[sails]

I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.

Ghoti

Ghoti, that may be so, but I do think the labor government have brought AGW to the surface through the threat of a tax.

Here is an excerpt from the Morgan Poll which shows that many believe humans are responsible for a tiny 1% of global c02 emissions and the majority also believe that the carbon tax will make no difference. Pro AGW people can claim science all they like, but at the end of the day when it comes to a new tax, voters will have the last say and not cherry picked science papers. And I think Aussie voters are becomming more cynical by the day, not only to carbon tax, but also to the AGW excuse being used for it.

A clear majority of Australian electors (67%) are aware that Australia is responsible for about 1% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions and a majority (64%) believes that Australia’s proposed carbon tax will make no difference to the world’s climate. However, 52% of ALP supporters and 67% of Greens supporters believe a carbon tax will make a difference to the world’s climate compared to only 15% of L-NP supporters.

Source: Roy Morgan Poll June 03, 2011

 

[trainspotter]

I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.

Ghoti

Trainspotters Law will take care of that. I can post 50 relevant national and international scientific associations that will negate this furphy.

Do you mean the 97% of scientists (all 75 of them) out of a possible 1800 that responded?

Or do you mean the Al Gore style of "inconvenient truth" ? He owns the company that stands to make billions out of carbon credits?

Or what about the Himalayan Glaciers melting IPCC retraction? LOL

Or are you talking about as recent as basillios John Cook Observation?? Read it and weep

All of which I will not add a link to as I have already done so on previous posts !

Or do you mean with Professor Garnaut stated it will take 1000 years before we reduce global temps by 0.1% by a carbon tax???

Which one is it ghotib??

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I'd like to remind those who doubt that scientific opinion is overwhelmingly that human activity is warming the planet through the emission of fossil carbon that I posted the names of over 50 relevant national and international scientific associations who have issued statements to that effect. That's associations of people who've actually studied the science, which probably gives them an edge over most of us on this board.

Ghoti

I can hear a broken record once again....Ghoti, please keep reminding us as we are forgetting about the big disclaimers that come with these "important" associations who are funded by those that want a tax

Can one enter into a realm of negative credibility? I guess you could call it delusional.

 

[basilio]

And if I could politely request a response to the questions I asked yesterday, if you would be so kind, basilio?

I have become pretty flippant about discussing this issue in this forum because frankly discussions basic on logic and seemingly clear evidence are just swept off the table. But (at the certainty of repeating much of what I have already said ) I will offer a response to your questions Julia.

You rejected my noting the support of 1373 plus publishing climate scientists for AGW versus a handful who are either agnostic or favour another theory. I can't change the figures or your views but surely such an overwhelming preponderance of expert knowledge should give one food for thought ? When a person can summarily dismiss such an overwhelming expert acceptance of a situation what will they accept ?

The risk management argument you raise. Julia IF, for arguments sake, all these scientists are right and the observations of rising temperatures with the threat of much more to come are fulfilled we face an absolute cataclysm. At the very least there will be large increases in sea levels which will destroy most sea side cities In fact there are two separate reports out in the last couple of days which point to rapidly rising melt levels in Greenland and warm water getting under the Antarctic ice fields and threatening to send these into the ocean.

And let's not even look at the clearly predictable consequences of 2-3-4 degree increase in global temperatures. So what is worse on balance ? A rapid re engineering of our worlds energy sources to renewable energy (with the inevitable economic cost that would require ) versus flooding most of the large population centres and turning much of the world into a desert ?

And Julia what were you thinking when you quoted my statement about accepting the integrity and competence of cliamte scientists and then talked about Bob Brown and one world government ? It has no relevance to the discussion and was just a smelly red herring. Are you suggesting that all these scientists are somehow part of a one world conspiracy cabal ? Perhaps it's worth separating the quality of evidence supporting the case for AGW and then "how the hell do we fix it ?". They are two separate questions.

Now to the question of the quality of scientific papers that propose other theories to explain temperature rises or offer data to contradict what is being currently observed. It's actually pretty hard to misconstrue data when they have to go through a peer review process. Essentially the paper has to demonstrate how they arrived at their figures and the assumptions made at each stage. If there are either mistakes, genuine errors or sometimes deliberate errors other scientists in the field can bring them up for attention. These can be corrected or if the error makes the paper a complete farce it won't be published. In peer reviewed science you can't just make up figures and breathtaking assumptions and get away with it.

Again on this topic of peer reviewed papers I just noted how Dr Willie Soon's contributions to the GW debate (as well as other topics) were largely a corrupted set of figures. The fact that he had been paid by Big Oil and the coal companies etc to do this just made it worse. One of the tricks that is done by some scientists is to present seemingly learned scientific papers outside the peer review process and bank on their name to have them accepted by groups who want to believe them. They can say what they like in the public forum and obviously many do.

But it doesn't make it honest or accurate .

It's one of the farces of this debate that GW deniers take a query or a half truth and then thunder forever about the totally baseless claims of climate scientists. For example the "infamous" "hockey stick" debate. Deniers have spent a decade trying to say this was a lie and thus discredit all GW research.

The wiki story on this issue is a detailed and excellent summary of how scientists went about their work and how measurements were checked, improved ,extended and verified. It's interesting to note that one of the first scientists to challenge this data was Dr Willie Soon and that his paper had such a host of errors that three of the research editors resigned. And you can see how deniers used this issue to beat the hell out of climate scientists when in fact - it was all true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

________________________________________________________________-

A bit over a week ago I posted a blog from a long time climate skeptic who decided that the evidence supporting AGW was finally sufficient to persuade him. This was interesting enough but I thought his comments to both parties on how to approach the issue were worth sharing because they offered a constructive alternative. Apart from Waynes derisory dismissal no one else chose to discuss it. Shame. See post 2232, 2233

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hange-sceptics
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/...rming-skeptic/
______________________________________________________________

PS I think I'll take a break from this topic and finish my theseses ..

 

[trainspotter]

LOL ...... you used John Cook to test the veracity of your claims as accurate and he backpedalled in saying the ice is increasing./decreasing LMAO

Just as well you need to take a break

 

[basilio]

Just to reinforce a comment I made previously concerning the bad faith character of scientists who attempted to discredit climate scientists. This refers to the Willie Soon paper which tried to discredit the Michael Mann hockey stick .

The Soon-Baliunas article claimed that the twentieth century was not the warmest century in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. This sham science kicked off a heavy focus by deniers on the “hockey stick” study first done by Michael Mann, later proven sound by numerous other studies, but viciously attacked by deniers regardless.

Mann himself, in an interview, said of the Soon-Baliunas 2003 paper:

"It really was one of the poorest pieces of scholarship that any of us in the climate research community had ever seen… it was clear that there was an effort by some on the editorial board to compromise the PR (peer review) process and allow through this deeply, deeply flawed paper in the professional literature where it was immediately held up by those in Washington opposed to taking action against climate change… as somehow being the dagger in the heart of the case for global warming, when in fact it was just an extremely bad study that never should have published…"

After the Soon-Baliunas article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. Von Storch declared the article seriously flawed because "the conclusions [were] not supported by the evidence presented in the paper." In addition to the resignations, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas had misinterpreted their work.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...lie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

This is why there is peer review process.

___________________________________________________________________

Trainspotter. When anyone actually reads that article they will find out so much more accurately the loss of ice in the Antarctic.

There is no point discussing this topic with you when you reduce the content to one line.

Bye

 

[derty]

Well blow me down Proof at last! Now we just need to find how CO2 has pulled earth out of the previous ice ages

This has been explained to you before in nice easy to understand language. You may recall the explanation followed on from your discovery that there had been ice ages on the Earth in recent geological times. Allow me to refresh your memory about the Milankovitch Cycles:

Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.

I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.

So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?

lol, you spend all this time regurgitating the anti-AGW meme's. Discount out of hand any rational explanation presented to you. All while displaying that you have no real understanding of any of the basic history, cycles and processes of the Earth. No wonder all this stuff you post up seems rational to you.

Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these cold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.

These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.

The Milankovitch Cycles

Ruby you should read the wiki link too, this is the reason CO2 lags the temperature rise during exit from the ice age by several centuries.

 

[Calliope]

You can probably expect a curt PM from Basilio as he sent me when he refused to answer my persistent question as to how much Australia can actually in reduce global emissions when we emit a tiny 1.3%...

Some questions of ours are simply not convenient...

Or in my case, he appealed to the Moderators to shut me down when I dared to criticise his long-winded preaching.