Resisting Climate Hysteria

cynic said:

Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.

Click to expand...

+1

It is obvious that whenever someone gets hooked on the Global Warming teat, common sense flies out the window.

Calliope said:

+1

It is obvious that whenever someone gets hooked on the Global Warming teat, common sense flies out the window.

Click to expand...

A good point, common sense.

A number of us have iterated that we are not scientists and that we do not really know. The evidence is in the realms of probability.

Many of the signs that some of us as laypersons observe lead us to believe that we have a problem with too much co2 going into the atmosphere.

Then of course we have the three way conundrum, should we have acted sooner, now, or when the signs are proven to be fact when it may be far too late.

There is a lot of technology already in place and producing cheaper cleaner energy so why do we need to wait and perhaps gamble with the future of our generations to come.

Very dumb I may be wayneL and do gladly accept the tag. In fact being from such an esteemed one (and so constantly) I take it as an endearing compliment.

There is no axe to grind at my end, just concern for the future of this fragile planet.

A good point, common sense.

A number of us have iterated that we are not scientists and that we do not really know. The evidence is in the realms of probability.

Many of the signs that some of us as laypersons observe lead us to believe that we have a problem with too much co2 going into the atmosphere. Plod

Click to expand...

This is probably the essence of the climate change debate.

Lets accept that absolute certainty is very rare in almost any field. However if there is probable evidence that allowing CO2 emissions to increase will disrupt our climate shouldn't common sense dictate taking preventative action ?
____________________________________________________________

Cynic when the evidence shows that polar ice caps are melting even faster than the IPCCs highest predictions it doesn't mean they wrong.

In laymans terms it is the equivalent of a doctor saying you have 6months to live after diagnosing you with cancer and then falling off the perch at 3 months because the cancer has accelerated.

cynic said:

Excellent. We've finally reached some agreement on the inaccuracy of IPCC reports and projections. This does of course lead me to wonder why climate change proponents keep citing IPCC findings given their unreliable track record.

Why is it that every time someone chooses to confess their own ignorance, they always seek to include the entire human population as a party to their misconception?

Click to expand...

+1. Great post, cynic.

The graph that Andrew Bolt claims indicates that Arctic sea ice is back to normal actually shows that that all values for the last 5 years are well below the 30 year averages. If you set even this absurdly short series into chronological sequence they show a pattern of lower highs and lower lows. A longer series shows the trend more clearly. Would you buy a share with a chart like that? Maybe, and you might do well with it if you had a lot of background knowledge about the company or the industry. Or you might do your money if you were irrationally exuberant, or if you'd been conned by a plausible fraudster. Either way, if you thought that chart showed anything but declining values you'd be wrong.

Click to expand...

Well put ghotib.

wayneL said:

Fishb

Satellite data is not very old. The big questions are 'what is the long term ice extent?' and what factors other than temperature affect ice extent?'. If satellite data starts at a high (of which there is evidence that it did), we get an inaccurate picture of 'normal'.

Your other points take the alarmist line and can be effectively argued.

"Projections" are just models and likely wrong.

But I agree we need to act on the environment, but as I've consistently pointed out, the focus on CAGW is incorrect and detracts from the actions humans should be taking to preserve the environment.

Once CC alarmism dies the miserable death it deserves, the environmental movement will be irreparably damaged and all other concerns will be regarded simply as another scare campaign whether bone fide or not.

Click to expand...

Agree Wayne. I do believe that this "crying wolf" over co2 is likely to have a massive voter swing against anything to do with the environment for a long time. There are environmental issues that surely deserve far more attention than co2.

Overpopulation would surely be a bigger issue and yet our government continues to pay all and sundry unlimited baby bonuses. No wonder boat arrivals come here and then possibly produce like rabbits. IMO, it should be restricted to perhaps two per mother or, at least, a declining amount with each subsequent child.

When there is a money grab by governments (or anyone for that matter), one always needs to look at motive. It seems that carbon tax has very little to do with the environment and everything to do with money.

I had a phone call a couple of weeks ago with someone trying to flog their latest 25% or maybe it was 50% return stock market wares. I felt exactly the same saying NO to him as I do to saying NO to carbon tax. They both look like a ripoff, quack like a ripoff and waddle like a ripoff.

And "Fishb" - I love it. Especially when said fish makes rude personal comments...ROFL

cynic said:

...Until the climate change proponents demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the various ecological processes in play, I shall continue to treat their misinformation and claims with the utter contempt that is so clearly deserved, and will encourage others to do likewise.

Click to expand...

You raise some excellent points - thanks for an excellent post, Cynic...

I am actually happy with the agreement of the more conservative members here.
It backs my theory, so I will make a prediction.

Originally the argument was that the earth wasn't warming, now it is the scientists can't predict it. There is an out clause!

My prediction is, as tornados, floods and droughts increase that - in around 8 years -a Republican Presdent will declare war on global warming (they always declare war) and suddenly the Murdoch Press and other behaviour controllers will be on side and the Democrats will be blamed for not doing more. And these people above will be influenced the other way.

Its how the world works.

Remember when it happens that I predicted this!

Knobby22 said:

I am actually happy with the agreement of the more conservative members here.
It backs my theory, so I will make a prediction.

Originally the argument was that the earth wasn't warming, now it is the scientists can't predict it. There is an out clause!

My prediction is, as tornados, floods and droughts increase that - in around 8 years -a Republican Presdent will declare war on global warming (they always declare war) and suddenly the Murdoch Press and other behaviour controllers will be on side and the Democrats will be blamed for not doing more. And these people above will be influenced the other way.

Its how the world works.

Remember when it happens that I predicted this!

Click to expand...

Eh? The world has been warming since the mini ice age. The argument has been on the observed extent (sans "adjustments").

I predict your prediction will go the way of most alarmist predictions... down the shyte shute.

Oh and your working the Murdoch press into your post... entirely predictable. :::

Eh? The world has been warming since the mini ice age. The argument has been on the observed extent (sans "adjustments").

Click to expand...

Wayne

Really Wayne ?

In fact the increase in world global temperatures has been concentrated in the last 40 years and the main reason according to the scientific community is the explosion in human produced CO2 that is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere. The last point of course is the problem

And the little quip about "adjustments" ? Total rubbish. For years some people have tried to argue that naughty scientists have been adjusting the graphs to deceive us or using information from weather stations that are affected by changes in local conditions

To address the above issue the BEST investigation last year took every scrap of temperature records and after careful perusal agreed with the climate scientists that the temperature graphs were real and not "adjusted". But they didn't come up with the right result did they ?

Of course your welcome to still ignore their work and create your own version of science. It's done every day of the week.

I have to take the Arnage up to Cairns from here in Townsville, over the weekend for a service.

If all this modelling is so good, can anyone here predict how many points of rain will fall between the Bohle River and the Barron River from midnight tonight, until midnight on Monday, when I am due to return.

I am afeared of rising creeks.

Or is it all weather?

And should I bring an umbrella?

gg

basilio said:

Wayne

Really Wayne ?

In fact the increase in world global temperatures has been concentrated in the last 40 years and the main reason according to the scientific community is the explosion in human produced CO2 that is trapping extra heat in the atmosphere. The last point of course is the problem

And the little quip about "adjustments" ? Total rubbish. For years some people have tried to argue that naughty scientists have been adjusting the graphs to deceive us or using information from weather stations that are affected by changes in local conditions

To address the above issue the BEST investigation last year took every scrap of temperature records and after careful perusal agreed with the climate scientists that the temperature graphs were real and not "adjusted". But they didn't come up with the right result did they ?

Of course your welcome to still ignore their work and create your own version of science. It's done every day of the week.

Click to expand...

BEST?

We've dealt with the BEST nonsense bas.

All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................keep up the faith fingers in ear, eyes closed and screaming nah nah nah nah nah nah

Gee lucky we built de-sel plants we would be screwed other wise................

Keep up the good work bagging those scientists we don't need any of that knowledge crap...........blissful ignorance is the new wave, please shut down those institutions of rubbish called universities pumping out science degrees blogs is where the truth is the rest is a conspiracy .

IFocus said:

All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................

Click to expand...

And yet Brisbane had quite a cool summer with temps below average. How does that fit in with global warming?

It sounds far more like normal weather cycles to me.


http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/qld/brisbane.shtml

Good to see Basilio and Knobby in good form once again with Plod as winger...I can testify the more you 3 spout nonsensical rubbish the more people can see the true ambition of the AGW "elite".

Basilio's presentation of Tim Flannery as an elite scientist was brilliant. A man who has got it so wrong for so long, preaches gaia, buys oceanfront and a liability to AGW lap dogs - yet behold, Basilio presents him as an "elite" scientist for the "cause", brilliant.

Yet still no evidence of man's 3% of CO2 driving these "crazy" temperatures that haven't ultimately changed for 15 years. No Atmospheric hotspot as claimed by AGW extremists but instead plenty of rain and snow that our children would never see.

Is there an elephant in the closet with you and the faked models Basilio? Perhaps the well named skeptical science blog has more answers.

Maybe the 3 stooges should look at becoming climate realists in order to better damage the skeptics of the AGW scam since you're all doing a brilliant job for the AGW cause. Perhaps they are in fact paid by skeptics in order to damage the AGW elite - again a brilliant strategy.

Still waiting for real observed evidence from real scientists - 1 year and counting. Pls post some more skeptical science material, hopefully we can work together to convert more AGW extremists from the rubbish posted

Garpal Gumnut said:

I have to take the Arnage up to Cairns from here in Townsville, over the weekend for a service.

If all this modelling is so good, can anyone here predict how many points of rain will fall between the Bohle River and the Barron River from midnight tonight, until midnight on Monday, when I am due to return.

I am afeared of rising creeks.

Or is it all weather?

And should I bring an umbrella?

gg

Click to expand...

Typical warmist socialists, nobody gives a stuff whether or not my Arnage and I get washed away by an inundation at Damper Creek, or some other croc infested waterway in the morn.

I want some modelling.

Or should I just look out the door at the sky, as my ancestors have done for millenia.

gg

OzWaveGuy

Still waiting for real observed evidence from real scientists

Click to expand...

The sources are pasted up but you take no heed of it.

And yet Brisbane had quite a cool summer with temps below average. How does that fit in with global warming?

Click to expand...

Explanations and sources of extremes of weather with global warming but no heed of it either.

But then this is the Resistance after all.

And I suppose that "ignorance is bliss"

explod said:

And I suppose that "ignorance is bliss"

Click to expand...

Then I guess you and basilio are blissful.

Basilio's presentation of Tim Flannery as an elite scientist was brilliant. A man who has got it so wrong for so long, preaches gaia, buys oceanfront and a liability to AGW lap dogs - yet behold, Basilio presents him as an "elite" scientist for the "cause", brilliant.

Click to expand...

You nailed it OWG. I think she has a crush on Tim and this impairs her judgment.

IFocus said:

All good guys Perth to break the heat wave record this week end....................keep up the faith fingers in ear, eyes closed and screaming nah nah nah nah nah nah

Gee lucky we built de-sel plants we would be screwed other wise................

Click to expand...

Actually Perth rainfall hasn't been bad at all over the last 6 months. Way above average since September. Our dams aren't faring that well, but there are other factors than climate, such as increasing demand from an increasing population. I do agree that the de-sal plants are a good insurance policy. These are the rainfall stats:

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/R/rainfall.cfm

ghotib said:

Projections for the effects of a warming planet go out to 2100 and beyond, and they depend on how quickly humans stop releasing fossil carbon. We're less than 15% into the 21st century, and already there's a clear rise in catastrophic weather events, whether you define catastrophic in physical or financial terms.

Click to expand...

What figures are you looking at re the above (my bold) for the clear rise in both physical and financial terms?
Is this global, domestic, or both?

Below is a graph from Munich Re which seems to contradict your statement, particularly for the 21st C.


Here is a blog post relevant to the US.

An Embarassment of Riches
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/embarassment-of-riches.html

Climatewire reports uncritically a claim coming from Swiss Re that "the financial toll of global weather disasters amounts to between 1 and 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product annually." This totals $160 billion to almost $2 trillion.
Reality Check: The actual number for global losses as a percent of US GDP is closer to 0.1%, with the maximum about 1.2% in 2005. The total cost of all hurricanes since 1900 in normalized dollars is about $1.4 trillion. The media (in general) rarely question numbers given to them from the reinsurance industry and on disasters and climate change have a strange aversion to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Innumeracy.

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving.

Swiss Reinsurance and the Reinsurance Association of America teamed up yesterday with a few US Senators to call for the US government to adopt policies to protect their industry from extreme events resulting from climate change. They also ite the NOAA billionz analysis and explain via press release ""From our industry's perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear," said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America."
Reality Check: The ability of the reinsurance industry to accurately reflect the state of the science of disasters and climate change has long been questionable. The industry is currently awash in money, a condition that Guy Carpenpter characterized just a few months ago as "the reinsurance sector remains adequately capitalized with a significant excess capital position" (PDF). In such a context, when reinsurers ask the government to take on some of their risks justified by "climate change," you should hold tight to your wallet. Conflicted.

Regarding natural disasters, I came across this interesting (and very large) PDF titled "A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events" from James A. Marusek (a retired nuclear physicist & engineer).
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

It covers the period 2 A.D. thru to 1900 A.D.

Interesting reading, looks well researched and may dampen the enthusiasm of those who believe that we are seeing "something terrible" is about to happen.