Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

Yes, it amazes me why there are no straight forward answers to such a simple question and the warmists wonder why so many people are not accepting their wierd theories.

Basilio didn't like this from Wiki which shows just how little Australia contributes to global c02. I finally got a curt PM...

 

[basilio]

Wayne I offered an analysis which simply destroyed the created graphs put up by the Daily Mail journalist. The analyst was done by the mathematicians and scientists who work in this field. It is interesting to note that Dr Pat Micahels, a noted climate science skeptic, rejected use of this technique because it was so easily disproved.

Statistically flawed

Because it relies on looking at temperature behaviour over only short periods of time, the argument that "global warming has stopped" has been labelled statistically flawed.

In 2008, the Associated Press (AP) gave four statistical experts global temperature data which had been 'anonymised' so the analysts wouldn't know what the data represented.

According to AP:

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

One of the experts, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina, concluded:

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect."

This argument has even been rejected by Dr Pat Michaels, one of the most prominent US climate skeptics. In this video, he urges the audience at a skeptic conference not to use the argument that global warming has stopped, because it is so easy to disprove it undermines their credibility.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/has-global-warming-stopped

Incidentally this lie that somehow the last 10 years has shown a stop in global warming has been explained quiet clearly. The clever part in this little run was trying to debase the BEST analysis and using Judith Curry as a the stalking horse for the effort.
________________________________________________________________

What is Ozzie saying now ? I can't be certain because I have put him on permanent ignore. However on the basis on past experience I reckon theres a 99% probability is asking the same or similar question I have repeatedly answered.

I can't help his belief that all traditional climate scientists are propaganda mouthpieces. I can't change his rudeness. But if he is simply trying to bait me he is behaving like a troll. If this forum is trying to keep some standard of behavior then this badgering needs to stopped.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, it amazes me why there are no straight forward answers to such a simple question and the warmists wonder why so many people are not accepting their wierd theories.

Yes, but when it is compared on a per person basis, we are the highest! China uses it against us at the UN.

How can we lecture other countries (like we appear to want to) about green energy ect. when we are the worst in the world??

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Now that Basilio has asserted all "Traditional Scientists" (whomever they are) agree man is indeed heating the earth, then it should be a simple matter of finding the elusive paper all these "traditional" folks are using that clearly provides the observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 contribution driving that crazy 5 degrees the alarmists here keep banging on about.

Perhaps Basilio's Traditional Scientists are those same traditional ones from the 1970s claiming humans were cooling the earth so significantly that they banged on about a new ice age and of course the standard "transfer of wealth" to "cure" this cooling problem.

Like then, these "traditional" alarmist are being paid a thriving packet by us in order to establish a link between climate variability and humans. This simply demonstrates how the gullible alarmist simply repeats what they are told, or are paid to repeat.

 

[ghotib]

Now that Basilio has asserted all "Traditional Scientists" (whomever they are) agree man is indeed heating the earth, then it should be a simple matter of finding the elusive paper all these "traditional" folks are using that clearly provides the observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 contribution driving that crazy 5 degrees the alarmists here keep banging on about.

For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper. There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm. The Skeptical Science site provides explanations and links to hundreds of those papers. Do some reading for yourself and you might actually learn something.

Perhaps Basilio's Traditional Scientists are those same traditional ones from the 1970s claiming humans were cooling the earth so significantly that they banged on about a new ice age and of course the standard "transfer of wealth" to "cure" this cooling problem.

.
For instance, you might learn that global cooling was a scare in the general press and scientists never claimed the earth was heading into a new ice age. In the scientific community it was part of the ongoing discussion about what factors affect global climate, to what extent, and how they interact.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper.

Utter rubbish ghotib. You're not an expert - so don't pretend to be one. A large portion of the alarmist argument initially claimed a "hot spot" signature would develop in the atmosphere from CO2, yet they cannot find one. So all we see now is dozens of papers saying the earth heats up, the seas will rise and the ice will melt. Well, look around, the temperatures do change all the time - now we're on a cooling trend.

If there is such overwhelming evidence of the 3% of CO2 driving temperatures - then prove it. Don't link to time wasting sites that claim everything is to do with CO2 because one of the dozens of models from alarmist claim it is so. It's debunked.

Anyone notice the infamous Mann hockey stick is no longer front page advertising for global warming, the ultimate "proof" was a scam and totally debunked.

Now about that observed evidence of man's CO2? It shouldn't be that hard to find, there must be a tight cluster of papers that prove it, somewhere in amongst the paid "traditional" scientists the alarmists here must certainly know about - somewhere a missing hotspot perhaps?

The alarmist position in this thread is utterly laughable and degrades this quality of this forum. Evidence thanks!

 

[wayneL]

There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm.

Ghotib that is not the argument.

The argument is to what degree and whether there are other forcings that make this component relatively significant of insignificant.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Some background of Basilio's "traditional scientists" or at least climate "experts" perhaps?

The high stature of IPCC authors

The IPCC constantly claims its scientists are pre-eminent, world-leading specialists.

The reality:

Richard Klein, with a Master’s, became an IPCC lead author at the age of 25, after a stint as a Greenpeace campaigner.

Laurens Bouwer in 1999-2000 was an IPCC lead author even before getting his Master’s in 2001. Although a specialist in water resources, he was lead author for the chapter on Insurance and Other Financial Services. Why? Apparently because during part of 2000, he was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance. It was not till a decade after his IPCC lead-authorship, that he finally got his PhD.

Closer to home, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monash in 2008, and got her PhD in 2009. Yet in 1999, a decade earlier, the IPCC had anointed her a contributing author (2001 report) and later, she became a lead author for the 2007 report.
​

Are these part of the "4000 scientists running around in white coats measuring things" as Rudd had once asserted?

The ‘rigorous’ IPCC review processes

The IPCC’s supposedly rigorous “Review” processes involve thousands of experts but is toothless and uninquiring.

The IPCC reviewers do not check papers underlying data – and one reviewer who sought a paper’s raw data, was threatened with the sack.

If a reviewer points out a flaw in a lead author’s summary, the lead author, as judge and jury of his/her own case, can simply respond, “Rejected”. There is no independent referee. (The Himalayan-glacier howler did get picked by IPCC reviewers at draft stage but the IPCC authors let the text stand.)

The UK published the contentious Stern report after all IPCC deadlines for the 2007 report had expired. Stern nonetheless got 26 references across 12 chapters of the IPCC report, subject neither to scientific peer review nor even IPCC reviewer review.
​

But of course the alarmists in this thread will never subject themselves to questioning such corrupt methods - the headline of warming with some charts is all that is needed to keep them aboard the global warming tax train.

Plenty more to read at the link

 

[Timmy]

Here's something for everyone

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

I'm grateful to Matt Ridley for allowing me to post the text of his Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.

 

[IFocus]

Ghotib that is not the argument.

Argue that one with OWG.......dare you

 

[Ruby]

Here's something for everyone

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

This is a great article. All those fanatically arguing the case FOR climate change catastrophe (and have not yet produced one shred of observed evidence to support their claims) should read it. It is very balanced, rational, non-hysterical, and full of plain common sense. do yourselves a big favour - READ IT!

 

[sails]

Nothing from our alarmist posters about the recent IPCC report?

But it adds: "Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared with natural climate variability over this timeframe

Read more from the Australian: Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report

and

FOR extremes in climate change we often need not look at thermometers and rain gauges, but rather to the various elements of the global warming debate. Activists and politicians too often oscillate between those who deny any human impact on climate and those who deliberately engender alarm

Read more from the Austraian: Climate change science highlights uncertainties

And more on the IPCC and how it lines up with past predictions here: What say Gore, Flannery and Brown now?

 

[wayneL]

Climategate MkII coming at ya....

See usual sites.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Nothing from our alarmist posters about the recent IPCC report?

........
And more on the IPCC and how it lines up with past predictions here: What say Gore, Flannery and Brown now?

Perhaps Basilio has some additional information that we are yet to see that explains and confirms via observed evidence the 5 deg rise in temperatures that has been asserted in this thread. Of course this assertion isn't supported by the IPCC, so over to you Basilio to properly inform us all of the hysterical dangers.

 

[trainspotter]

This thread is in danger of becoming hysterical ...... no wait ..... it is already there !!

The earth has warmed 5 degrees celsius just from the electricity used to power the computers to drive this thing and not to mention the endless kettle boiling to keep the caffeine intake up to the punters. LOLOLOL

 

[sptrawler]

Would this qualify as climate hysteria. LOL,LOL,LOL

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ise-without-emission-cuts-20111129-1o53h.html



''This is intended as an early warning of practical changes that will be needed in preparedness, in funding and disaster recovery,'' Professor McMichael said.

The head of the commission, Tim Flannery, said the report was not intended to alarm people but to give them the best information on which to plan, fund and organise healthcare.

Tim just trying to keep his funding on the bubble.IMO

 

[spooly74]

Ideology and climate change: How to silence journalists

The moral of the story is not very encouraging - because Rahmstorf has had considerable success. The move that led to the article being withdrawn by the FR made it onto the front page of the New York Times, as Rahmstorf, obviously rather gratified, tells his readers in his blog of 25 May. His initiative is mentioned in the New York Times as one of several successful attempts by climate researchers to publicly correct grossly distorted or false reports. In some cases this may be justified. In this particular case, it is nothing less than a demonstration of how to try and suppress unwelcome interpretations using an authoritarian concept of truth and with the help of a media conspiracy theory based solely on isolated cases and thus basically void of empirical substance

 

[sails]

Interesting article by Nils-Axel Mörner on the sea levels scam - there is a copyright notice on the page, so have a read. He has studied many of the low-lying regions in his 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data, conducted six field trips to the Maldives, trips to Bangladesh and Tuvalu and he believes there is no need to fear rising sea levels. His impressive qualifications as follows:

Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003).

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml


The Maldives is of interest as a young 13 year old boy spoke at Durban who is from the Maldives pleading with other nations to save his country from rising seas due to AGW. Why do emotions have to be mixed in with science? If the science is so good, it shouldn't need these sorts of tactics, imo. And, as much as he looks a very bright kid, imo a 13 year old would only know what he has been taught.

Monyombo Nomphelo, 13, speaks at the UN Climate Change talks in Durban

Image source and more from the Daily Mail UK

and this is the Maldives which sits around one and a half metres above sea level according to Wiki:

 

[sptrawler]

Hopefully I will be there next March, if it's underwater I will let you know. Also will be really annoyed.

 

[So_Cynical]

Interesting article by Nils-Axel Mörner on the sea levels scam - there is a copyright notice on the page, so have a read. He has studied many of the low-lying regions in his 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data, conducted six field trips to the Maldives, trips to Bangladesh and Tuvalu and he believes there is no need to fear rising sea levels. His impressive qualifications as follows:



http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml

That's an interesting read sails...thanks

How ever it looks like Nils-Axel Mörner is a denier and has an opinion not endorsed by the organization he is quoting.. INQUA is the International Union for Quaternary Research...now in the linked article he calls that organization experts in the field of sea level study...quote below.

The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC.

Now ill quote the home page of the INQUA web site and link.

The Quaternary Period in Earth History:

The Quaternary Period spans the last 2.6 million years of the Earth's history.

The Quaternary is an interval with dramatic and frequent changes in global climate. Warm interglacials alternated with cold ice ages. The Earth is right now entering a time of unusually warm climate. Significant and potentially rapid environmental changes could pose major challenges for human habitability.
The expertise of Quaternary scientists is to interpret the changing world of the glacial ages and their impact on our planet's surface environments. Quaternary palaeoclimatic investigations play a key role in the understanding of the possible future climate change on our planet.

http://www.inqua.org/

So INQUA think that the climate is warming...mmm.