Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Knobby22]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730092544.htm

It appears that the figures quoted earlier in this thread have been "adjusted" as have the tornado figures (to take into account poor reporting, political needs etc.) The US weather bureau won't even provide the unadjusted figures. Hmmm

btw last years record breaker tornados are also interesting.
Here is a scientific paper showing "unadjusted" tornado frequency. Again differs markedly from the "official govenrnment source which shows no increase "after adjustments"

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange02/tornado/website/tornado.html

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Lesson 6. Use AGW material from those that are paid large grants to support greater Government control and taxes. Do not question the IPCC even if there is clear indication of corruption of the scientific method. Believe Al Gore, believe the Mann made hockey stick, believe in Models, believe in the cause, don't worry about the AGW "leaders" owning multiple houses, dozens of cars and bikes, jets and boats.

Skeptics: You should now be close to displaying and regurgitating AGW propaganda....only a few more lessons left, including how to avoid answering basic questions on observed evidence.

 

[Knobby22]

Skeptics: including how to avoid answering basic questions on observed evidence.

Your good at that.

I have some other stuff to come but haven't the time at this stage.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Lesson 7. Never put into perspective the CO2 facts otherwise it will damage the AGW propaganda campaign and never ever describe to people the real amount of CO2 emitted by humans v's nature. Instead, ensure you use tax payers funding to create TV ads that show sooty clouds and black smoke plumes from abandoned power plants.

 

[Logique]

Another run at The Science Is In. "..well known and almost certainly.." "Contrarians" are "desperate", "ignorant", or "fossil fuel lobbying". Note to school students, save a copy of this article, you'll do well in your science exams.
I think we know who's desperate.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/sceptics-case-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html
Sceptics' case melts more - Gerard Wynn -SMH -April 7, 2012

A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans.

The reports, published in various journals in recent weeks, add new detail to the theory of climate change and by implication cast contrarians in a more desperate light.

To be clear: there's nothing wrong with doubting climate change; but doubts based on ignorance, a political bias or fossil fuel lobbying don't help.

The basics, well known, are that rising greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly responsible for raising global average surface temperatures (by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 1980-2010), in turn leading to sea level rise (of about 2.3 millimetres a year from 2005-2010) and probably causing more frequent bouts of extreme heatwaves and possibly more erratic rainfall.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-melts-more-20120406-1wg35.html#ixzz1rIjIPZqr

 

[basilio]

Duplicate post . Deleted

 

[basilio]

Logique many people have seen that article. It brings together a sweep of recent scientific papers that have clearly sharpened the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

The point about the conversations in this forum is the refusal/inability of many people to acknowledge the capacity of scientists to be honest and accurate about the work they do in this field. So you simply dismiss it out of hand.

You can't have a sensible conversation win people who have their hands over the eyes and keep shouting la,lal la to drown out anything they don't want to hear.

____________________________________________________________

And Ozzie regarding that piece of absolute rubbish you posted on the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere using grains of rice.

Do you realise that even Monchton and Lindzer acknowledge that CO2 does change the climate through the processes that every scientist understands from high school studies? It is that simple.

The video is pure dishonest crap. Anyone with 2 neurones in communication would understand that simply using the relative smallness of a chemical is no indication of its potency or effect. Consider nerve gas, botulism, plutonium dust for example.

All the video does is eloquently demonstrate how dishonest the presenter is and how willing some people are to grasp any imaginary figleaf they can use to justify rejecting the clearly accepted facts of basic science understandings of chemical processes.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Well it is now doona time her in North Queensland. It was 20 degrees last night, a bit of a shock to the system and I had a doona ready but did not need it. Some pleasant light showers last night. We expect a high of 30 today.

Spring moving towards winter as one would expect.

I think these alarmist warming people need to get a life.

This is as it has always been.

gg

 

[basilio]

GG do you ever consider events that don't happen outside your front window ? Or are they just too far away to be significant

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

GG do you ever consider events that don't happen outside your front window ? Or are they just too far away to be significant

gg

 

[basilio]

Major re evaluation of Global Warming study.

Quite significant discussion on Real Climate website discussing a significant breakthrough in climate science. Offers much food for thought.

‘Wrong sign paradox’ finally resolved?
Filed under:

Climate Science

A group of colleagues has all but solved one of the greatest remaining puzzles in climate science. But the story is not one of scientific triumph – rather, it is so embarrassing that we had controversial discussions in our group whether to break this to a wider public at all.

The puzzle is known amongst climatologists as the “wrong sign paradox” – our regular readers will probably have heard about it. Put simply, it is about the fact that a whole number of things in climate science would fit very nicely together, if only the sign were reversed. If only plus were minus.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/#more-11329

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Thanks for that lesson Basilio.....

Lesson 8. Play the man, not the facts.

Always obfuscate any issue brought forth by skeptics and claim AGW "traditional scientists" know best. Real scientists and experts who do not support AGW and alarmism are not climate "scientists". Try to use the "97% of scientists" agree propaganda to support said belief of the cause.

At this point mindset change to AGW alarmist should almost be complete. This will help drive the AGW fraud and help raise taxes.

 

[basilio]

And it was good to see that respondents in the Real climate website recognised the value of openly acknowledging reassessments of data

I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/

 

[Logique]

Logique many people have seen that article. It brings together a sweep of recent scientific papers that have clearly sharpened the evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.

 

[Knobby22]

Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.

Near term that is correct, but the truth will win out long term.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

 

[explod]

Near term that is correct, but the truth will win out long term.

(1809 - 1865)

Long term will be to late.

One may need to be bold, but with caution.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Hi Basilio. At page 166 of this thread, I can't recall any posters crossing the floor, hands up anyone who has. So we're dealing with entrenched attitudes all round. For the near term, the ballot box will dictate where we're headed with this.

Please refer to my lessons for skeptics - this will guide you in crossing the floor to a new and wonderful mindset and a new utopia of sustainable consensus.

 

[spooly74]

Major re evaluation of Global Warming study.

Quite significant discussion on Real Climate website discussing a significant breakthrough in climate science. Offers much food for thought.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/#more-11329

And it was good to see that respondents in the Real climate website recognised the value of openly acknowledging reassessments of data

I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this./QUOTE]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/wrong-sign-paradox-finally-resolved/

Personally, I liked this one

Amazing, I made it all the way to the line about solar activity and ran right smack into the words ‘coincides with the deepest solar minimum’ when I realized the paradox was the relationship between the science outlined in the article and the time segment on a per anum scale

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It's a beautiful evening in Townsville. The sun is setting. It is a bit overcast. Temperature is 26.4 , so I won't need the doona tonight. There is a light breeze. The honeyeater has returned to it's perch on a black cane plant near the back door, it's head under it's shoulder prepared for the night. I wonder if it is aware of all this kerfuffle over weather? It is much as it has been here for some hundred of years.

gg

 

[wayneL]

Long term will be to late.

One may need to be bold, but with caution.

Long term the sun WILL turn into a red giant and engulf the earth... that will be real global warming.

What do the greens propose to do about that?