Resisting Climate Hysteria

[derty]

"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?

Well you are not shy of a few assumptions yourself there.

I am well versed in the mass extinctions that have occurred over geologic time. The Earth is a very resilient place over geological periods. The species that inhabit the Earth are not quite so resilient. The Earth does rejuvenate, it has time on it's side. It would be highly unlikely that the human race would rejuvenate following one of these big events.

What am I trying to save? I am not trying to save anything here. Where did I say that I was trying to save something?

• The Earth does not need saving it will do fine. It's biota is the fragile component.

• Life as we know it? What is life as we know it? The snapshot of evolution that we exist in is transient and dynamic. Life as we know it will be vastly different in a mere 1000 years.

• So, because I believe that it is not infeasible for humans to alter their environment on a global scale I am a Labor hack? You might want to pull your pants back up, your paradigms are showing. Neither party would gain my vote at the moment.

What I was saying, was that the Earth is becoming overpopulated. We are not a benign species. As far as effecting our environment we punch well above our weight. With time and an increasing population we will effect our Earth if we haven't started already. The mode/modes of that effect for me is up in the air. It will not be as simple as one overriding cause. The question will be which factor will be the fastest, easiest and cheapest to remedy if and when there is a cause to do so?

Lastly, I'm also sure that the planet can handle whatever Man dishes up. I just don't think that Man can.

 

[lasty]

The curb of Population growth is not on the agenda. Infact it seems the UN want it blossom.
I find it strange how the bleeding hearts want to preserve carbon emissions on one hand and then make poorer nations prosper on the other which will lead to more emissions.
But come judgement day of population curbing it won't be mans decision directly but indirectly via war,disease or natural causes.
I'm not however letting a bunch of hoaxes ruin my lifestyle with some bogus tax.
Australians should wise up and do the same.

 

[noco]

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.

I have advocated for some time now that climate change is a nautural phenomenon created by the intensity of Sun spots and not man made CO2 emissions.

I would suggest to all alarmist who believe the contrary to check out Google and link to "The Sun's effect on Earth". you may just learn something instead of believing in what Rudd, Wong and Turnbull are trying ram down our throats.

 

[basilio]

Quote:
Originally Posted by moXJO View Post
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.
I have advocated for some time now that climate change is a nautural phenomenon created by the intensity of Sun spots and not man made CO2 emissions.

I would suggest to all alarmist who believe the contrary to check out Google and link to "The Sun's effect on Earth". you may just learn something instead of believing in what Rudd, Wong and Turnbull are trying ram down our throats.

And NOCO you might like to check out the report and link I posted this morning which decisively showed that the research which was used to "prove"this assertion was a lie. The main research scientists simply created some clever mathematical lies, added new figures, dropped inconvenient ones and then trotted them out.

See #219

So while we are on the topic of taking out and trashing the reputations of liars consider just how the whole "solar actvity is causing global warming" BS has been a total scam since it's inception.

For years now one of the juiciest red herrings of the GW deniers has been that Solar activity was the big reason for global warming. Not just a small factor but THE factor. Graphs were used in The Great Global Warning Swindle amongst other pieces of rubbish that purported to show this correlation.

Trouble was this was a calculated lie by the relevant scientific researchers that was uncovered many years ago, put into into plain daylight - and then ignored by the body of deniers who simply arn't interested in the truth if it gets in the way of want they want to believe.

If other forum members want to see an overview of just how this fraud was concocted and used to cloud this this issue check out the link. I have attached a few relevant paragraphs.

Of course the fact that this deception was discovered and reported clearly in the scientific world around 10 years hasn't stopped those who won't let reality get in the way of a red herring.

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-conten...HANGE-CPN1.pdf

 

[Julia]

Re link provided by Wayne re hypocrisy of the environmentalist lobby,
are they assuming the vast majority of the population simply accepts the words and doesn't realise these huge hypocrisies?
Just a couple of examples from the link:

There are endless other examples of hypocrisy by green politicos. David Cameron was once photographed virtuously riding his bike to the House of Commons, with his official car behind him, carrying his suit and briefcase. Ken Livingstone, who swore he would make London the world’s greenest city when he was mayor, made scores of arguably unnecessary flights to foreign destinations. The supposedly green Barack Obama had a St Louis chef flown 850 miles just to make pizza at the White House.

At the end of the film An Inconvenient Truth, the unbearably earnest former presidential candidate Al Gore asked his audience: “Are you ready to change the way you live?” His own huge Nashville mansion consumed over 20 times the electricity of an average American home. Indeed, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, it burnt twice as much power in the month of August 2006 than most American homes do in an entire year. Another inconvenient truth revealed that the former senator spent $500 a month just to heat the indoor swimming pool in his lavish domestic establishment. The 100ft houseboat he bought in 2008, on the other hand, was said to be powered by biodiesel.

What I was saying, was that the Earth is becoming overpopulated. We are not a benign species. As far as effecting our environment we punch well above our weight. With time and an increasing population we will effect our Earth if we haven't started already. The mode/modes of that effect for me is up in the air. It will not be as simple as one overriding cause. The question will be which factor will be the fastest, easiest and cheapest to remedy if and when there is a cause to do so?

Lastly, I'm also sure that the planet can handle whatever Man dishes up. I just don't think that Man can.

Good comments, derty. The question of over population is very relevant and points to a further hypocrisy by Mr Rudd. He wants us to participate in his ETS tax to save the planet but insists that it's just all okey dokey for Australia's population to be 35 million in a decade or so.

There is another aspect to the hysteria which names this thread which I notice more and more. That is, the apparent need for self-flagellation by a certain sector of our society. The imposition on all of us of a vast amount of guilt for even daring to breathe. Has anyone else observed this? An insistence that we should all feel abjectly guilty for our unspecified abuses?

And before anyone jumps on me, that is not to say we should not all be more careful about how we use electricity, how much we use our cars etc.

 

[wayneL]

And NOCO you might like to check out the report and link I posted this morning which decisively showed that the research which was used to "prove"this assertion was a lie. The main research scientists simply created some clever mathematical lies, added new figures, dropped inconvenient ones and then trotted them out.

See #219


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-conten...HANGE-CPN1.pdf

Basilio:

Did you not read the lead paragraph?

“My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and
terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole
objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized,
apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.”

Also you present this some ground-breaking revelation that refutes the role of solar activity as a major player in earth's climate. Your diminution is not reflected in Laut's article at all. It merely challenges an interpretation of a data set.

News-Flash: Science is riddled with biased conclusions.

All:

There has been a great set of articles on Pielke Snr's blog recently http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

 

[basilio]

“My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.”

Also you present this some ground-breaking revelation that refutes the role of solar activity as a major player in earth's climate. Your diminution is not reflected in Laut's article at all. It merely challenges an interpretation of a data set.

Let's try it again shall we? No problem with Laut's opening paragraph. It is agreed that solar activity has links to earths climate (as has many other factors) . The point that Laut was making was that these effects had been dramatically overstated by a number of organizations trying to show that solar activity was the principal driver of changes in the earths climate on the basis of fraudulent data interpretation

Not misinterpretation Wayne. Clever arithmetic mistakes, deliberate addition of irrelevant data, deliberate omission of relevant data. The figures were cooked. The rest of the paper points this out with absolute clarity. And Laut makes the point that scientists have been far too civilized in not speaking plainly about the deception played. His opening statement even in it's seeming courtesy points out that "the apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data"

This deception was highlighted from 2000 onwards but it didn't stop those attempting to muddy the waters on what the main drivers for current global warming could be. They still used the same fraudulent papers as proof that there was another non anthropogenic cause for global warming to take the heat off CO2 and related global warming gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Last point. I floated this in response to Wayne's statement about putting the boots into scientists who deliberately fudge data. This is a prime example.

 

[Aussiejeff]

'Climategate' boss steps down after email scandal

From Fox News From: NewsCore December 02, 2009 9:22AM

THE director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

Tony Abbott will have a smile on his face with this embarrassing news for hysterical man-made Global Warming enthusiasts.....


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...er-email-scandal/story-e6frf7jx-1225806022990

 

[wayneL]

Last point. I floated this in response to Wayne's statement about putting the boots into scientists who deliberately fudge data. This is a prime example.

That's completely fair, but I note the unwillingless to lay the size 13s into pro warming book cooking... or to even acknowledge it.

Even George Monbiot has conceded that... grudgingly.

Let us face the facts here. The whole field of climate science is a rancid cesspit of lies, disinformation, misinformation, political agenda and propaganda.

Credibility = -100%

Just today in the NZ version of Pravda (The Dominion Post) misinformation and emotive propaganda was writ large, doomsday claims made without a shred of valid supporting science.

Only the chinless and obnoxious enviro-fascists purport to believe it. Anybody willing to examine the whole debate dispassionately isn't having a bar of it.

 

[Temjin]

Now they're REALLY insulting our intelligence.

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

Ohhh that is just great, now we just have to "trust" them. What else are there to argue then?

 

[Calliope]

I don't think too many people will disagree that the greatest problem facing the world today is pollution.

And I don't think that anyone will disagree that pollution is caused by people.

So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.

And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.

All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.

Anything that comes out of Copenhagen will be just tinkering around the edges.

By the way, it is not just rich countries that have overweight people. Egyptians are 66% overweight.

Some fat stats;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26434989-5003402,00.html

 

[noco]

I don't think too many people will disagree that the greatest problem facing the world today is pollution.

And I don't think that anyone will disagree that pollution is caused by people.

So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.

And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.

All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.

Anything that comes out of Copenhagen will be just tinkering around the edges.

By the way, it is not just rich countries that have overweight people. Egyptians are 66% overweight.

Some fat stats;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26434989-5003402,00.html

Calliope,whilst I believe in climate change created by natural causes such as the Sun, I do not believe climate change is man made.
However, the pollution in some of the large cities such as Bangkok, Manila and Davao City (Philippines) and Beiging for example is a local health hazard and should be controlled for the sake of their citizens.
I cannot see how obesity can be the cause. You don't see a lot of obese people in the cities I mentioned above.

I wonder what % of obesity we have in Australia?

 

[derty]

So it stands to reason that the higher the population - the higher the pollution levels.

And you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the fatter people are, then the more pollution is caused having to feed them, clothe them, transport them etc.

All the drastic measures proposed by the world's climatologists to curb pollution which are to be discussed at Copenhagen, are obviously based on the proposition that nothing can be done to curb population and obesity.

The problem will only get worse. With increasing standards of living we will see more and more fat people in the developing countries. Western nations are having trouble reducing obesity. This will be even more difficult in developing countries. In addition, as these countries become more developed they will be using more energy regardless of the wasitline of the population.

Offsetting this will be the reduction in birth rate seen as populations become more educated (the usual religious caveats applying).

The key issue here is that developing countries have a right to develop and with that they have a right to increase their energy footprint.

At the end of the day one has to be realistic about what can be done. Reducing the rise in global population, per-capita energy use and obesity (for what it is worth) will be difficult if not impossible short of catastrophic circumstances. So all that is really available to us is to modify the energy generation and manufacturing methods so that impacts on the environment are lessened. Some of those impacts are obvious, others are contentious. Though change means money and no-one will want to be the first to dip their hands in their pockets as it will place their nation at a disadvantage to those who choose to drag their feet.

So the end result will be no substantial shift. As Calliope said the edges will be tinkered with. So when the :fan however the :fan things will have progressed to the point where we are along for the ride.

The next century or two will be very interesting. Population and energy use can only expand so far before things begin to crack politically, environmentally and economically.

 

[Calliope]

However, the pollution in some of the large cities such as Bangkok, Manila and Davao City (Philippines) and Beiging for example is a local health hazard and should be controlled for the sake of their citizens.
I cannot see how obesity can be the cause. You don't see a lot of obese people in the cities I mentioned.

I didn't say obesity was the cause. It just makes it worse. In the places you mention over-population is the cause and it is exacerbated by migration to the cities from rural areas.

derty
At the end of the day one has to be realistic about what can be done. Reducing the rise in global population, per-capita energy use and obesity (for what it is worth) will be difficult if not impossible short of catastrophic circumstances. So all that is really available to us is to modify the energy generation and manufacturing methods so that impacts on the environment are lessened. Some of those impacts are obvious, others are contentious. Though change means money and no-one will want to be the first to dip their hands in their pockets as it will place their nation at a disadvantage to those who choose to drag their feet.

So the end result will be no substantial shift. As Calliope said the edges will be tinkered with. So when the however the things will have progressed to the point where we are along for the ride.

The next century or two will be very interesting. Population and energy use can only expand so far before things begin to crack politically, environmentally and economically.

I'm afraid you are right derty. The situation is now out of hand and cannot be reined in and I don't think it ever could have been within the limits of a democratic society. As you say all we can do is go along for the ride. In my case the time is not far off when I will get off.

 

[basilio]

Came across a risk analysis assessment of the current direction our world is going and suggesting why another approach might be in our better interest. Be interested in feedback.

Anyone For a Habitable Planet?

...I am an IT Risk Manager by occupation and therefore assess risk for a living. In this post I will drop the emotional debate, and approach climate change from a risk management perspective.

Whether you believe that human activities are causing the climate to change from the norm we have experience during the last 20,000 years or not, the argument is really about mitigating risk. I will give you four risk scenarios for you to assess;

http://simple-green-frugal-co-op.blogspot.com/2009/10/anyone-for-habitable-planet.html

Gavin offers 4 scenarios to consider. And you don't have to have an overwhelming fear of climate change to decide that we have to change direction very quickly for a constructive future.

 

[wayneL]

Came across a risk analysis assessment of the current direction our world is going and suggesting why another approach might be in our better interest. Be interested in feedback.



http://simple-green-frugal-co-op.blogspot.com/2009/10/anyone-for-habitable-planet.html

Gavin offers 4 scenarios to consider. And you don't have to have an overwhelming fear of climate change to decide that we have to change direction very quickly for a constructive future.

Agree with the sentiment, but once again, focus is on the wrong risk revealing the typical cognitive biases of a propaganda victim.

He equates lower co2 with clean air, whereas we can have co2 back to 280ppm and still have absolutely filthy air. Conversely, co2 was much higher in the distant past and the air completely clear of pollutants.

IMO people should focus on their "pollution footprint" rather than carbon footprint.

 

[lasty]

The muppets at Copenhagen have opened their speeches with one suggesting if we dont act now its too late.. We need to cut CO2 emissions now to bring down temps by 2c by 2050.
Well according to some of the alarmists scientific studies evening if man reduced its CO2 emissions to zero the affect wont be noticed for 100's of years.

They cant even get their own doctored stories straight..

 

[Wysiwyg]

The muppets at Copenhagen have opened their speeches with one suggesting if we dont act now its too late.. We need to cut CO2 emissions now to bring down temps by 2c by 2050.
Well according to some of the alarmists scientific studies evening if man reduced its CO2 emissions to zero the affect wont be noticed for 100's of years.

They cant even get their own doctored stories straight..

A 2 ° C figure for a distant time is ridiculous. Smells like the steamers have started to drop already. :disgust:

 

[Calliope]

Those warmers who are who are making a play based on the promises of India an China to reduce emissions, are on the wrong track. They have promised no such thing.

The have promised to reduce the intensity of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of increase in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.

The Indian Prime Minister is already running into strong political flak. This is in a country whose whole future is based on increased development.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Those warmers who are who are making a play based on the promises of India an China to reduce emissions, are on the wrong track. They have promised no such thing.

The have promised to reduce the intensity of their emissions. What this means is that they will slow down their rate of increase in emissions from 2005 and 2006 levels respectively.

The Indian Prime Minister is already running into strong political flak. This is in a country whose whole future is based on increased development.

Perhaps re-phrase that to "MASSIVE" increased development?