Resisting Climate Hysteria

Nice basilio, a brief and grudging doff of the cap to the "presentation of AGW" caused depression, and then a repetitive rant on your views and yet another Pascal's wager type argument.

No new information whatever and ignoring the latest model shattering developments.

The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people. The same thing happened with the ozone hole scare.

Wayne I can’t rewrite the laws of science. I can’t for example decide how little or how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat.

I can’t change the effects of these situation ie. What happens when the volume of greenhouse gases grows faster than the capacity of our planet to absorb them .

I can only reflect on the best evidence and the best science available. Not the most desirable result nor the one that particular interest groups would like to see happen. In effect these are either lies, magical thinking or the work of PR hacks employed to create “new realities” on behalf of their clients.

Your dismissive rant on the role of greenhouse gases in warming the earth suggest you either don’t understand the basic science of greenhouse gases or your simply using the big lie to cover the dismissal of the core of this problem. Obviously other factors also affect our climate but currently we are changing one very important driver with clear consequences.

This new piece of science (the CERN /Cloud experiments) is genuinely interesting . It seems to throw up a hitherto unknown factor in climate forcing’s. No one knows what is causing the different results in the experiments and all scientists, and particularly those involved in climate change, are eager to explore the territory. That is why the Real Climate website was so interested in the research. But it doesn't change what is already known about the role of greenhouse gases in warming the earth

Climate scientists do not want to be” right” in a similar way that oncologists, hematologists or other medical based scientists don’t want to tell a patient they are dying. But of course climate scientists have an even greater interest in finding a way out that allows the “patient” to survive – because they live on the same planet they are seeing in deep trouble.( If you want to look for depression caused by concern about climate change you can start with the scientists who really and truly understand the issue and cannot see a way out.)

I now longer “debate” this issue on this forum. It’s clear from the discussions that those who dismiss current climate science either misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence or simply don’t understand enough about scientific principles to understand the issue. And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists just happen to be right might be a sensible approach. That is called risk management and is the basis of all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.

________________________________________________________________

Perhaps there is another way of looking at the story. Lets for the moment put aside issues about the possibility of climate change happening from the CO2 released by the massive use of fossil fuels.

How long can we continue to use non renewable fossil fuels to keep our society going ? Will it be 20 years, 30 years, perhaps 40 before oil, gas and even coal supplies cannot meet our demands? How long would it take to make the massive changes to go from a carbon based energy economy to a renewable energy system ? And how much carbon based energy will we need effect that change?

These are equally daunting questions and maybe the prospect of ending up with lots of cars, toys and houses but no energy to run them is the right driver to change our direction.

wayneL said:

Nice basilio, a brief and grudging doff of the cap to the "presentation of AGW" caused depression, and then a repetitive rant on your views and yet another Pascal's wager type argument.

Click to expand...

Yes.
Sigh.
Sadly, basilio, I just don't read your posts any more once I get the usual drift.

The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people.

Click to expand...

Not just young people, Wayne. I'm depressed about it, but not for the reasons suggested by Beyond Blue. I'm depressed and angry that this Greens-controlled government is so ruining Australia.

wayneL said:

The truth is the intensive politicizing of climate change and incessant doom mongering by the church of AGW IS causing depression in young people. The same thing happened with the ozone hole scare.

Click to expand...

Indoctrination in schools of the scary nonsense that basilio preaches must have a depressing effect on young minds.

His line; "unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook." sound very similar to the "brimstone and fire" threats of old-time preachers..

Basilio is preaching hell on earth, unless his religion is embraced.

Calliope said:

Indoctrination in schools of the scary nonsense that basilio preaches must have a depressing effect on young minds.

His line; "unless some fantastic new forcing mechanism becomes apparent to negate the effect of CO2 we will cook." sound very similar to the "brimstone and fire" threats of old-time preachers..

Basilio is preaching hell on earth, unless his religion is embraced.

Click to expand...

The recent rain experienced across many parts of New South Wales has been welcome – but it’s also brought an unwelcome threat for many people.

The rain has lead to increased grass growth across many areas and as this grass begins to dry out, there’s an increased risk of grass fires.

Grass fires can be especially dangerous because they can start quickly and spread rapidly, catching people off-guard. They can be very hot and produce large amounts of heat which can kill anyone caught out in the open.

NSW Rural Fire Service

Click to expand...

The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.

ghotib said:

The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.

Click to expand...

Preaching: "To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with."

They are both preaching. Only one is acting in the public interest, and they are not using hysterical terms, like "we will cook" if we don't comply

basilio said:

And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists just happen to be right might be a sensible approach. That is called risk management and is the basis of all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.

Click to expand...

LOL there's Pascal's Wager again! It might be a mildly compelling argument if it wasn't undermined by a hypocrisy of truly epic proportions. You yourself have admitted to doing nothing. Al Bore, Flim Flam Flannery, Hokum Hansen et al live fossil energy intensive lifestyles.

And yet you all have the temerity, the absolute hide to preach Pascal's wager at the rest of us... many of whom are doing their bit to reduce their general impact on the planet.

Very typical of extreme leftist ideologues.

How long can we continue to use non renewable fossil fuels to keep our society going ? Will it be 20 years, 30 years, perhaps 40 before oil, gas and even coal supplies cannot meet our demands? How long would it take to make the massive changes to go from a carbon based energy economy to a renewable energy system ? And how much carbon based energy will we need effect that change?

These are equally daunting questions and maybe the prospect of ending up with lots of cars, toys and houses but no energy to run them is the right driver to change our direction.

Click to expand...

This is an entirely different topic altogether and the very first valid point you have ever made on this forum. This is the subject of energy security and something we should all be thinking about.

ghotib said:

The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.

Click to expand...

Dear Lord! That analogy is so inappropriate, on so many different levels, that it's ridiculous.

ghotib said:

The Rural Fire Service is not preaching. Neither was Basilio.

Click to expand...

as a long serving member of the NSW rural fire service i can say with a measure of authority that your post is irrelevant drivel.

bad bush fires are usually the combination of 2 components: 1) an ignition source... be it lightning, or some A-hole torching a stolen car ...but most of all component no.2) do-gooder green groups not allowing proper fire control measures such as annual hazard reduction burns in state forests/national parks and not maintaining the fire-breaks & access roads in said forests and parks!

to try to link bushfires to AGW is complete nonsense!

Julia said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interesting observation. A number of the younger generation in our families, around the 20 year mark are sufferring depressive symptoms and three have trid to commit suicides, seconf cousins, so I dont' think it is copy cat.

My wife mentioned it to her Doctor a few weeks back, a good Doctor in her late fifties who said that this age group have a high and growing incidence of depression brought on by their view that the world does not offer them a good future. It will of course not be all climate change. A number of these kids are in Uni too so it is not usually parental influence here as they at this stage know more than thier parents (the old cliche). But just maybe the kids do know more about things that many of us cannot accept.

Wayne, Pascals wager has no relation to taking preventative action to avoid a very real earthly event. Temporal risk management is what businesses and governments do all the time. It is the cornerstone of Malcolm Turnballs approach to climate change and the threat it poses.

I'm delighted that you finally found something you could offer agreement on ( depletion of fossil fuels) . Perhaps that is the reality required to decarbonise our economies as quickly as possible.

And how about dropping the nasty, irrelevant and wrong personal jibes ? It doesn't improve the tone of the debate and I believe reflects poorly on you.

basilio said:

Wayne, Pascals wager has no relation to taking preventative action to avoid a very real earthly event.

Click to expand...

Very real? yeah but no but yeah but no. As we have discussed, climate change is real, The Mayans found that out well before the industrial revolution. But as we have discussed, the question still remains whether it is possible to mitigate the change, or mitigate the effects, whether human induced or not.

Temporal risk management is what businesses and governments do all the time. It is the cornerstone of Malcolm Turnballs approach to climate change and the threat it poses.

Click to expand...

Risk management is wise, but it should be based on probabilities rather than model based improbabilties.

I'm delighted that you finally found something you could offer agreement on ( depletion of fossil fuels) . Perhaps that is the reality required to decarbonise our economies as quickly as possible.

Click to expand...

As I have so often pointed out, co2 emission mitigation, whether necessary or not, is a by product of moves towards energy security, so long as it is not about hoarding oil.

And how about dropping the nasty, irrelevant and wrong personal jibes ? It doesn't improve the tone of the debate and I believe reflects poorly on you.

Click to expand...

What personal jibes?

wayneL said:

What personal jibes?

Click to expand...

You are biased, non objective and addicted to them.

We may not sometimes have your finess at expression but you coldy dismiss any idea outside you own square.

explod said:

You are biased, non objective and addicted to them.

We may not sometimes have your finess at expression but you coldy dismiss any idea outside you own square.

Click to expand...

Only if you do not agree.

I could easily direct the same criticisms at you... and basilio.

Julia said:

Yes.
Sigh.
Sadly, basilio, I just don't read your posts any more once I get the usual drift...

Click to expand...

Ditto, Julia. I often wonder if it is just cut and paste from AGW blogs and the like...

wayneL said:

Dear Lord! That analogy is so inappropriate, on so many different levels, that it's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Really? Why?

sails said:

Ditto, Julia. I often wonder if it is just cut and paste from AGW blogs and the like...

Click to expand...

Interesting comment sails. What AGW blogs do you have in mind?

bandicoot76 said:

as a long serving member of the NSW rural fire service i can say with a measure of authority that your post is irrelevant drivel.

bad bush fires are usually the combination of 2 components: 1) an ignition source... be it lightning, or some A-hole torching a stolen car ...but most of all component no.2) do-gooder green groups not allowing proper fire control measures such as annual hazard reduction burns in state forests/national parks and not maintaining the fire-breaks & access roads in said forests and parks!

to try to link bushfires to AGW is complete nonsense!

Click to expand...

I didn't link bushfires to global warming. I quoted a recently issued warning about the risk to life from fast-moving grass fires when the huge pasture growth generated by the wet winter dries off.

A media report is [url="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/inland-nsw-a-tinder-box-say-bushfire-experts-20110828-1jgeq.html]here[/url].

My point is that warning people of potential real-world danger is normal and appropriate behaviour.

basilio said:

And in either case in seems that most forum members won’t even recognise that taking precautionary action in case the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists just happen to be right might be a sensible approach. That is called risk management and is the basis of all business operations. So there goes any appeal to the business logic that normally pervades the way we operate.

Click to expand...

I usually don't respond to your useless "book" posts Basilio since I believe you have an agenda on this forum that demonstrates desperation in trying to convince others, yet you don't act to reduce these "risk" factors using your "precautionary action" assertions. This implies even you do not think the science is settled, hence you believe falling back to precautionary arguments keeps you in good standing. It doesn't. Your standing is poor. You can't answer simple questions on observed evidence.

The purpose of my post is not to comment on your ineffective assertions Basilo, but to point out to others that this whole CO2 agenda and resulting Tax structure is about business. For those who are anxious about the proposed Tax, you don't need to be (even if it gets in). The Government are a business, they need you in order to make the cogs turn, they contract with you, you don't realize it, but they presume you consent.

The reality is: they are all public servants, they serve you, they are afraid, they aren't comfortable to talk to you in public, everything has a disclaimer, like a slick car salesman - they advertise to sell you something you don't want.

You are the creditors in this equation, you are the authority, you are the administrators and the government is the trustee. They just presume it's the other way around. You just need to set them straight.

Having said that, an update on my lawful notices: I have several climate "experts" in default and they have tacitly told me that CO2 does not drive temperatures and Climate science is full of corruption. Notices of default go out in the next few days.

The next step is the Tax Commissioner. I will ask what % of my tax goes into the corrupt climate science and funding. Since Tim Flannery and Greg Combet admit it's corrupt, then I will instruct the public servants at ATO that I will not pay for corruption in the public service. Failure to disclose the % by the Tax commissioner will create a default since it's an admission of public funds being used unlawfully. I will then not pay any tax.

l will have standing in court of a competent jurisdiction as I will have legal acceptance from all parties with a full certified paper trail and un-rebutted affidavits. I will have won before stepping in court (otherwise I'd be foolish to go)

This is just my way of telling the public servants that I am the administrator. My 2c

Perth has just had the 2nd warmest daily average for Aug on record its all good folks.