Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

Climate Change Act
Main article: Climate Change Act 2008

On 26 November 2008, after cross-party pressure over several years, led by environmental groups, the Climate Change Act became law. The Act puts in place a framework to achieve a mandatory 80% cut in the UK's carbon emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), with an intermediate target of between 34% by 2020 which would have risen in the event of a strong deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

The above is from the UK's climate change policy. I recall that this policy had a 'get out' clause which said such a target would be moderated if the rest of the world did not act similarly by a particular date. Sorry, can't now remember when but think it was 2013.

Today ABC Radio broadcast an item which says this policy has already been substantially moderated, now being that the UK would do "no more or no less" than other like nations. The program presenter suggested this would represent max of 20%.
Just the first step in wiping it entirely perhaps, to bring the UK in line with the US and other trading competitors.

 

[basilio]

Well it seems clear that the next piece of legislation we need is to wipe out Climate Change itself. I don't think anyone sees an extra 2-3-5 degrees of warming as improving the planet (although Siberia will probably become more habitable ) so if we intend to not reduce CO2 emissions we should undertake a clear, co ordinated international legislative approach to ban CC.

I think we have a few creative lawyers in our midst ? Could you come up with a draft for strong, practical legislative framework than can abolish CC ? It would certainly come in useful for the Liberals and Nats next election platform and I'm sure it would be far more popular amongst voters than the bloody carbon tax.

 

[Julia]

Your sarcasm is duly noted, basilio.
What would probably be more useful, however, is a plan to deal with any difficulties resulting from climate change, regardless of its cause, in other words adaptation.

Re Siberia becoming more habitable, I expect it would take an increase in temperature of more than a couple of degrees to make it pleasant. Dozens of countries which, imo, would be a hell of a lot more pleasant if they were five degrees or more warmer, my home country of NZ being just one.

 

[basilio]

I don't quite think it was meant to be sarcasm Julia (although I can see where you are coming from)

Basically if most of the other contributors to this forum can wave their hands and dismiss CC why can't I join in the fun?

As far as adapting to whatever changes might occur ? That might not be as easy as it sounds.... One would have to do some research about where we could be heading and somehow work out a "plan".

By the way. Almost all the evidence suggests that an average of 5 degrees rise in global temperatures would leave very little land inhabitable by people. I much prefer the legislative approach.

http://www.theclimatehub.com/topics/the-problem/climate-models/impacts-by-degree?resource=overview

 

[Calliope]

Well it seems clear that the next piece of legislation we need is to wipe out Climate Change itself. I don't think anyone sees an extra 2-3-5 degrees of warming as improving the planet (although Siberia will probably become more habitable ) so if we intend to not reduce CO2 emissions we should undertake a clear, co ordinated international legislative approach to ban CC.

I think we have a few creative lawyers in our midst ? Could you come up with a draft for strong, practical legislative framework than can abolish CC ? It would certainly come in useful for the Liberals and Nats next election platform and I'm sure it would be far more popular amongst voters than the bloody carbon tax.

You obviously don't know the difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. Climate Change is a natural process. Global Warming is a figment of the imagination dreamed up by fundamentalist crazies like you, to frighten the uninformed into believing the end is nigh. Why stop at 2-3-5 degrees? Why not 20-30-50? I remember you saying that we would cook. Th Basilio barbeque.

Salvation can only be achieved by accepting the Gospel according to Saint Basilio.

 

[basilio]

You obviously don't know the difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. Climate Change is a natural process. Global Warming is a figment of the imagination dreamed up by fundamentalist crazies like you, to frighten the uninformed into believing the end is nigh. Why stop at 2-3-5 degrees? Why not 20-30-50?

Salvation can only be achieved by accepting the Gospel according to Saint Basilio.

Thank you Calliope for those kind words. But I certainly can't take any credit for 30 years of research by many thousands of scientists across almost all disciplines. You'll have to check their Gospels because I only read them, not write them.

And you did inspire me to offer a strong legislative approach to abolishing CC or GW as the best way to tackle the issue. Any ideas ?

 

[wayneL]

....30 years of research by many thousands of scientists across almost all disciplines. You'll have to check their Gospels because I only read them, not write them.

But like like those pro AGW "scientists", you suffer the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.

Pielke Snr - Comment On The Quality Of The 2007 IPCC WG1 Report In Response To A Post On Climate Etc

In Judy Curry’s post on Climate Etc titled

Laframboise on the IPCC

she wrote

“Does the problems with the IPCC mean that WG1 science is incorrect? Not necessarily, but I agree that a “new trial” is needed. WG2 and WG3 reports pretty much belong in the dustbin, as far as I can tell.”

WG1 is incorrect because it suffers from “sins of omission”. I documented this in the Appendix to my Public Comment

and

To this list, based on new knowledge, including what is presented on Judy’s weblog, the role of natural climate variability, even in terms of global averages, needs to be elevated in importance.

The 2007 IPCC WG1, in my view, was a failure in the assessment of the understanding of the human role in the climate system, as well as the extent to which the natural forcings and feedbacks influence the climate.

And for a damning expose' on the machinations of the IPCC

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken As The Worlds Top Climate Expert

From just one review from Amazon.com

...Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line.

Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda.

They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists!

The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents.

So basilio, what you appear to have taken as gospel is from very shoddy politically motivated non science.

 

[Calliope]

And you did inspire me to offer a strong legislative approach to abolishing CC or GW as the best way to tackle the issue. Any ideas ?

Yeah. Neither you nor Bob Brown nor Al Gore can abolish Climate Change. You will have to go back to the Old Testament for that one. I seem to remember that you are a Creationist.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

By the way. Almost all the evidence suggests that an average of 5 degrees rise in global temperatures would leave very little land inhabitable by people. I much prefer the legislative approach.

In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).

As usual Basilio your assertions lack conviction and credibility. Again I ask, are you paid to be posting on this thread or are you a member of a AGW extremist group? Nothing wrong with spilling a little truth for once to the folks here.

 

[macca]

Have we all noticed that now that "The Tax" has been slapped on us poor suckers that we are flooded with AGW alarmist reports from all the cheer squads.

Like Copenhagen all over again, they must save these things up until they get the signal to flood the media, the sillier and shriller the better

 

[sails]

Have we all noticed that now that "The Tax" has been slapped on us poor suckers that we are flooded with AGW alarmist reports from all the cheer squads.

Like Copenhagen all over again, they must save these things up until they get the signal to flood the media, the sillier and shriller the better

ahha - that explains the nasty attacks on Bolt's private life 25 years ago - apart from two court cases during his journalistic career of probably thousands of articles, they are now digging into his young personal life in a seeming effort to discredit him.

I wonder if it had anything to do with him allowing three professors recently on his TV show who gave some useful information on why we don't need this tax.

If so, it shows nothing but sheer desperation to try and get the public to accept this nonsense tax. And trying to discredit people unfairly rarely works. It often ends up backfiring.

 

[basilio]

But like like those pro AGW "scientists", you suffer the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. Wayne

So basilio, what you appear to have taken as gospel is from very shoddy politically motivated non science. Wayne

Mighty big jumps you have made there Wayne..

I introduced the Berkley study which promised to check every climate record available and once and for all put to rest the concerns of people who thought the urban heat island effect was distorting our measurements of climate change . It was in effect a detailed, overarching, independent recheck on the range of temperature graphs that have been attached by those who don't accept the results of climate scientists to date.

And the result is that in fact the Berkley study confirmed the validity of the original figures. The urban heat island effect was a furphy. (because in fact they had been acknowledge and accounted for) The only way to show that the climate is not warming is to find a whole new set of worldwide data over the last 40 years with lower figures than actually exist.

And you want to call this confirmation bias ?

With regard to the beating up of the IPPC. In the end they can only report on the total findings of climate scientists. I can't see any honest dissection of climate scientists research that shows they are wrong. Perhaps that would be a good place to start rather than trying to destroy the credibility of the organisation that is essentially the messenger for the scientific community

What I have seen have been dissections of Mr Moncktons lectures where it has been show over and over again that the man lies through his teeth when pulling graphs and information from the work of cliamte scientists.

I have seen Professor Bob Carters work similarly dissected with scores of serious mistakes identified with regard to his research and maths.

If you want to find evidence of politically motivated non science then the work of Moncton and Carter are first hand examples.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-2-green-jobs.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-3-surface-temperature-record-cherries.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/carter-confusion-1-anthropogenic-warming.html

 

[wayneL]

Basilio

Obviously you have not bothered to read the several rebuttals of the Berkely study.

Firstly, (and to repeat this point yet again) nobody questions that climate changes. What is questioned is:

1. The measured extent of climate change and subjective adjustments
2. The extent to which anthropogenic co2 emissions have affected climate and what effects may occur in the future, as opposed to completely natural effects
3. Policy responses to the above

...amongst other things

The Berkeley study does nothing to address these points, but merely, in effect, concludes that yes, climate has been changing.

Well Duh!

 

[wayneL]

Larry Pickering:

 

[basilio]

Basilio

Obviously you have not bothered to read the several rebuttals of the Berkely study.

Firstly, (and to repeat this point yet again) nobody questions that climate changes. What is questioned is:

1. The measured extent of climate change and subjective adjustments
2. The extent to which anthropogenic co2 emissions have affected climate and what effects may occur in the future, as opposed to completely natural effects
3. Policy responses to the above
   
   
   
   

...amongst other things

The Berkeley study does nothing to address these points, but merely, in effect, concludes that yes, climate has been changing.

Well Duh!

1) We have increased average temperatures by .8c in 40 years and look set to go to between 3 and 5 degrees in the next 40-100 years


2) Scientists have long identified the extra CO2 that humans have emitted into the atmosphere is accumulating and trapping the extra heat thus causing the above documented warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

3) 20 years ago when scientists were first pretty clear that extra human produced greenhouse gases were warming the atmosphere we had some realistic options to decarbonise our economy and avert the worst of the global warming outcomes.

10 years ago we may have had some chance of turning the tide.

But those options are now past. I can't come up a realistic Plan C.

With regard to the Berkley re examination of climate data information. As I remember it very clearly it was established to attempt to prove once and for all that the scientists were actually accurate in measuring the degree of global warming.

We have had to endure for years the confident misrepresentations "the urban heat islands were distorting the figures" that "the hockey stick was a lie" . Well it is now clear that the climate scientists had been honest and accurate all along and that Spencer, Watts and the various other proponents of the urban heat island effect were just blowing smoke. ( But I won't wait for all those statements to be retracted .)

 

[wayneL]

Oh basilio!

Must we go through this all again?

No, you will never desert your faith, even if hell freezes over.

It is so obvious you refuse to consider dissenting science.

That's fine, but forgive me for the multiple rolley eyes

 

[Smurf1976]

1) We have increased average temperatures by .8c in 40 years and look set to go to between 3 and 5 degrees in the next 40-100 years


2) Scientists have long identified the extra CO2 that humans have emitted into the atmosphere is accumulating and trapping the extra heat thus causing the above documented warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

3) 20 years ago when scientists were first pretty clear that extra human produced greenhouse gases were warming the atmosphere we had some realistic options to decarbonise our economy and avert the worst of the global warming outcomes.

10 years ago we may have had some chance of turning the tide.

But those options are now past. I can't come up a realistic Plan C.

With regard to the Berkley re examination of climate data information. As I remember it very clearly it was established to attempt to prove once and for all that the scientists were actually accurate in measuring the degree of global warming.

We have had to endure for years the confident misrepresentations "the urban heat islands were distorting the figures" that "the hockey stick was a lie" . Well it is now clear that the climate scientists had been honest and accurate all along and that Spencer, Watts and the various other proponents of the urban heat island effect were just blowing smoke. ( But I won't wait for all those statements to be retracted .)

Trying to be balanced here...

1. Is 40 years a sufficiently long enough period to identify a trend? I'd say probably yes in terms of practical use for infrastructure planning etc (eg water supply), but I'm not sure that it's really long enough in terms of a scientific approach to climate. Haven't there been natural variations in the past which lasted 40+ years?

2. Agreed with the CO2 theory. I've heard claims that it was understood as long ago as the 1880's, and I know that at least one Australian electricity utility had come across it by the 1950's. I've done my own experiments and, in the lab at least, the theory works. How well the theory matches reality in the real atmosphere is the big question...

3. Agreed that there is a long lead time to shift away from fossil fuels. That said, the easiest option I can think of 20 or 30 years ago is pretty straightforward - no globalisation. It would have fixed a few other problems too.

4. Heat islands are well accepted as fact and easily able to be demonstrated. Go to the outskirts of any major city and measure the temperature on a still day. Measure it also in the CBD of that same city and you'll find that the CBD is warmer. That said, in some cities (eg Sydney due to the harbour and Adelaide due to the parks) local factors will lead to some natural cooling of the CBD which complicates things somewhat. But the principle does seem to be fairly widely accepted, including outside of the climate change debate. It makes sense of course - cities generate massive amounts of heat so logically you would expect them to be a bit warmer than surrounding areas, likewise airports also tend to be relatively warm.

 

[basilio]

The point about the Berkley study is that a huge slab of the "dissenting" science was clearly killed.

The point about the gross lies and misrepresentations of Monkcton and Carter was that when one examines the "dissenting science " it proves to be lies.

I havn't seen any credible dissenting science that will demonstrate the current warming is going to slow down and that we will not see rapid increase in global temperatures in the forseeable future.

It has nothing to do with "faith". Thirty years ago if a scientist had suggested that rising CO2 levels would cause increasing temperatures the support for him/her could be based on faith that they were accurate in their analysis. When 30 years later the predictions are coming true we are dealing with irrefutable evidence.

( Oh yeah. 30 years ago there was a peer reviewed scientific paper that identified CO2 as causing increased temperatures and that if it continued to increase there would be increases in global temperatures)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-hit-a-home-run.html

 

[wayneL]

Excuse me?

The Berkeley study did nothing of the sort.

 

[basilio]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx