This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
wayneL said:
We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu
Click to expand...
Malthusian daydreaming. '..In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence..' , and '.."Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet..'.

Naturally these postulated 'Green' aliens would have developed an advanced civilization and interstellar travel without ever having had industries, which as we know are carbon producing and hence bad.

Give those 'NASA affiliated' academics a research grant at once. Only this can save the world from the deranged 'Green' aliens.
 
wayneL said:
We have truly entered the realms of the most bizzarre postulations ever.

An who else but the Grauniad would publish this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...roy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu
Click to expand...
It certainly is a hysterical headline.

But the actual work they are cherry picking is simply a hypothetical postulation on the range of possible scenarios that may result from alien contact.

Here is the abstract of the paper:

While it is certainly science fiction the actual work the article is based on is far from crap. have a read.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf
 
Calliope said:
The alarmists scare tactics haven't worked, so now they are enlisting the support of the aliens.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Calliope, the scare tactics aren't having the slightest bit of difference. In fact, they are probably making their cause less believable. Latest Nielsen poll on climate:


http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
 
I thought you said that you couldn't say an experiment conducted in a test tube could possibly show how the atmosphere works. Glad you have changed your mind.

OK, the experiment shows that cosmic rays cause changes to the atmosphere which helps prove that the Suns reduction in output caused the weather to become cooler, great.

So when the Sun returns to normal won't the other effects then kick in and enhance this?

And that guy reporting it has a huge chip on his shoulder, for instance calling Nature a warmist magazine even though they published the paper. Could you find an article from someone who hasn't an axe to grind that spells out the implications. That guy is so busy writing insults between each line that he can hardly think straight and really isn't clear at all.
 

At least he is doing his bit to reduce climate hysteria ("frenzied climatology"), which is what this thread is supposed to be about.
 

Of course you can find an authoritative intelligent assessment of the paper from scientists who actually know what they are talking about. (Just don't expect most of the forum members to bother reading it.)


http://www.realclimate.org/
 
wayneL said:
What understandings?
Click to expand...

The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny. Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.

And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards. The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook.

(The last thread I started on how much CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)
 
basilio said:
The elementary stuff that seemingly most active forum members deride or deny. Essentially that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane (not to forget water vapour) are largely responsible for keeping the earth at a habitable temperature.
Click to expand...

What? What disingenuous and insulting drivvle basilio. Everyone knows and accepts this as it has nothing to do with AGW. This is a very immature comment.

And that in last 200 years and in particular the last 50 years our addition of billions of tonnes of extra CO2 to the atmosphere is a big factor in forcing temperatures upwards.
Click to expand...

How big a factor is the subject of ongoing debate.

The global warming has been clearly measured
Click to expand...

Attempts to measure it have been made, but there are problems... need I mention the missing hot spot and other contradictory data?

and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2
Click to expand...

As above. The chaotic system we call climate contains numerous forcing and science just does not have an adequate handle on that. We are now discussing one of those "forcings" that has put the cat amongst the pigeons. There is no more evidence required than inability of climate models to predict ANYTHING AT ALL.

we will cook.
Click to expand...

Emotive crap.

(The last thread I started on how much CO2 is generated from each tank of petrol had an excellent analysis of the factors in play with our production of CO2 and it's effect on global temperatures.)
Click to expand...

What? The co2 emitted by one tank of petrol is great analysis on the co2 emitted by one tank of petrol, but not much else.
 
basilio said:
The global warming has been clearly measured and, unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook
Click to expand...

Cooking from Alien lasers or cooking the AGW models?

The only thing clear is that your assertions lack complete credibility - as has been the case with almost all your posts as after several months you still cannot point to observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 "cooking" the earth. Sorry didn't hear you? How much will the temperature drop should we reduce CO2 emissions 5% from year 2000 levels by 2020? or 50%? or 100%

Sorry my mistake - I shouldn't be asking such simple questions to such a complex problem.
 
wayneL said:
What understandings?
Click to expand...

Yep, it all seems rather difficult my ole Pal.

3AW snow report on a few minutes ago. Nice cold night up in the hills overnight so the snow machines had a great night prepring for the weekend, and he added "we have done well for the season in one of the warmest winters ever"

Ah well, froth and bubbles.

You do seem rather vehement of late on this topic wayneL, some sort of agenda perhaps? or are things just getting to you?

There is really no proof of anything anymore you know.

Anyway, just good to catch up
 

Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.
 
wayneL said:
Just keeping the thread going Mr Plod.
Click to expand...

Must say I do miss the old froth and bubbles inspections along St Kilda Road.

Lets see how it pans out with Irene. Pretty early in the season for the US; strange this weather we seem to be having.
 
OzWaveGuy said:
Tick-tock-tick-tock

Getting close now. Tim Flannery, William Steffen and Greg Combet have been all Noticed, still waiting for their responses.

Then the fun begins.
Click to expand...

Time's up. No response. The process of law now kicks in. Notices of Default will be sent to each respondent. This matter is res judicata and stare decisis and the Respondent's are in estoppel by Respondent’s failure to respond.
 
The latest nonsense I've heard on climate hysteria is an ABC Radio interview this evening with Ian Hickey of "Beyond Blue" (the site for depression and allied mental illnesses) where the claim seemed to be being made that climate change was causing an increased level of depression, anxiety and other mental illness, essentially based on a concern that no one was doing enough to offset this dire threat to our existence.

The presenter invited listeners to call with their views about this.

I was tempted to phone and agree that, yes, it was indeed causing considerable depression and anxiety, on the basis that we are, via a carbon tax, about to massively disadvantage households already stretched financially, and put an irrational impost on businesses already under strain, whilst making essentially no difference to the climate.

There doesn't seem to be much that the acolytes of climate change cannot manage to attribute to this terrifying phenomenon.
 
Beyond Blue should know better than that, surely. I am appalled.

My daughter has had a long term depression and yet she struggles more in winter and seems to do better in summer. Bring on the warmer weather...

So, even IF AGW has any merit (which I doubt), it certainly isn't making depression worse in my experience.

PS - agree Julia that the potential damage carbon tax could do to this country is quite depressing.
 

I can totally understand your view that concern about climate change causing increased depression is bumpkin.

Your view Julia and Sails and Noco and Wayne and so on seems quite clear. You believe the large majority of climate scientists have just got it totally wrong. Their understanding of the current drivers of climate is hopelessly compromised and whatever global warming is happening is not going to be significant and will have little long term effect on our climate and thus our future.

You would also need to believe that the current warming will be reversed in some way to refreeze the polar ice caps and therefore not cause further significant rises in ocean levels.

If you believe all that (and it comes to pass ) then of course there is nothing to worry about.

But, if in fact this vast majority of scientific research is accurate, if the global warming figures are reflecting the changes that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will bring, then the future doesn't look so good. And seeing minimal real changes in our societies direction that might change the course of history would certainly cause some depression in anyone who has studied climate science and accepts there is a significant chance it is on the mark.

On a more constructive note I just saw another doco which pulls together the range of alternatives that could change our future.

Is the key question "How absolutely sure are you that all these scientists, their research and observations are completely and utterly wrong ? And how much are you willing to bet against it ?"

.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/cop15/bend-the-trend/one-degree-matters-movie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...