Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio · 4 November 2012

That was an excellent post you found Wayne. I read it all and it was very illuminating.

I can see the writers analysis regarding how much impact global warming was having on the strength of hurricanes. I'll be interested to see other views on that but it's worth throwing into the mix.

But I also noticed that he seemed quite confident that global warming was a real issue and certainly something to be concerned about.

Or did you miss those particular comments ? I really hope he is correct in believing that stronger hurricanes might not be as big a problem as we thought.

SUMMARY

My point is far from casting doubt on climate change and humanity’s role in increasing greenhouse gases. My point is that while there are a lot of very good reasons to be concerned about climate change, notably heat, drought and rising sea levels, an increase in “super” storm activity at present is not yet detectable, and science tells us it won’t be until the middle of the century at least.

basilio · 5 November 2012

Saw that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has come out in support of President Obama based in a large part on the need for decisive action on climate change..

He doesn't agree with everything Barack Obama does but he has put the issue of tackling CC on the agenda.

His argument is not about certainty regarding global warming; it is about managing a clear risk.

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods -- something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

spooly74 · 5 November 2012

basilio said:
Saw that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has come out in support of President Obama based in a large part on the need for decisive action on climate change..

He doesn't agree with everything Barack Obama does but he has put the issue of tackling CC on the agenda.

His argument is not about certainty regarding global warming; it is about managing a clear risk.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

So would mitigation or adaption be better suited to New Yorks case? or both?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloa.../section_3f_coastal_storm_hazard_analysis.pdf

Mayor Bloomberg's Deft Climate Politics

....

Yet, Mayor Bloomberg is also an elected leader. What is he going to do about the fact that his city was less prepared than it should have been for a disaster that was expected and one of a sort will certainly recur, climate change or not?

If the media devotes 10% of the energy to this topic that it is devoting to the climate change connection, New Yorkers will be well served.

basilio · 5 November 2012

Good story Spooly.

There is no doubt that New York is vulnerable to extreme climate events (in fact all coastal cities are by definition also venerable to storm. flood etc to a larger or smaller degree)

The mitigation or adaption question is also raised by climate scientists. The current projections for increasing temperature as a result of global warming would see all coastal cities under threat of flooding. Doing nothing about GW would, if we accept the current climate science, result in runaway warming and effectively catastrophic scenarios within 100 years.

At this stage the science is saying we need to reduce GG emissions drastically to minimise temperature increases as well as considering the changes necessary to adapt to a warmer world with higher oceans levels and larger weather extremes.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/nov/01/hurricane-sandy-warning-science/

spooly74 · 5 November 2012

basilio said:
Good story Spooly.

No more than your usual diatribe

basilio said:
There is no doubt that New York is vulnerable to extreme climate events (in fact all coastal cities are by definition also venerable to storm. flood etc to a larger or smaller degree)

and ....?

The mitigation or adaption question is also raised by climate scientists. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Whats your opinion in New Yorks case?
Again.

basilio · 6 November 2012

Whats your opinion in New Yorks case?
Again. Spooly 74

Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper

Business warned to prepare for catastrophic impacts of climate change

New climate change report from PwC says radical action needed to decarbonise the global economy and warns investors to consider negative outcomes on certain investments

Investors in coastal cities and low-lying regions (New York...) need to consider more pesimistic scenarios, warns a new report from PwC. Photograph: Jenny E Ross/Corbis

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the world's largest professional services firm, is not known for scaremongering. So it is worth paying particular attention to its latest annual low carbon economy index.

Behind the understated language, it points to a catastrophic future unless radical action is taken now to combat climate change.

"Business leaders have been asking for clarity in political ambition on climate change," says partner Leo Johnson. "Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world – not just 2C, but 4C or even 6C."

The trigger for its dire warning comes from the failure of the global community to reduce carbon emissions by anywhere near the amount needed to restrict temperature rises.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml

explod · 6 November 2012

basilio said:
Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml

Well I give a damn Basilio, particularly for my eight Grandchildren.

And the noise of concern is certainly gaining momentum now.

As I said a few weeks back, you are not going to win this one Wayne.

wayneL · 6 November 2012

explod said:
Well I give a damn Basilio, particularly for my eight Grandchildren.

And the noise of concern is certainly gaining momentum now.

As I said a few weeks back, you are not going to win this one Wayne.

Win what?

There is only truth. The truth is that it was a storm. Storms happen. Statistics reveal something about frequency and intensity perhaps and the truth is there is no trend.

Plod the truth will win eventually unless we truly do enter a "Nineteeneightyfour" era, a more scary proposition that actual climate change. This is what I would fear for your grandchildren plod.

spooly74 · 6 November 2012

basilio said:
Who gives a damn what my opinion is ?!! Perhaps a better organization to listen to is PwC - Price Waterhouse Cooper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainab...climate-change-reduction-business-investments
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml

Pretty straightforward question given the effects from Sandy were not unusual and in NYC it could get a lot worse with nothing to do with ACC.

Don't stress your noodle though.

spooly74 · 6 November 2012

basilio said:
Roger Pielke is just playing with words.

Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish.

wayneL · 9 November 2012

basilio said:
With regard to my "hobby horse". Firstly I didn't think this was a forum on CC . Was there a need to drag it in here ? But you have chosen to make it a criticism - my seemingly endless "paternalistic proselytizing" which I force on everyone... so I'll respond

Lets consider another perspective. On this forum I am one of the very few people left who can articulate and also supports the evidence presented by the overwhelmingly majority of scientists on this topic.

We have already gone a million times over the problems with your purported evidence for the catastrophic worst case scenario... it is simply a religious observance, a moronic and untenable extrapolation from actual empirical data which show more benign outcomes

The consequences of being wrong on CC are the biggest our civilizations will ever face. But most other other people in ASF who agree the problem is real have stopped beating their heads against the repeated abuse from the usual suspects.

Abuse? When did disagreement of an hypothesis become abuse? This is not religious dogma here, we are not discussing infallibility doctrine here. I rather think Armageddon fantasists have disappeared as the case for climate apocalypse crumbles.

I've chosen to stay in the conversation. Obviously no amount of evidence or analysis is capable of changing the minds of Wayne, or Noco, or White GoodMan or the usual suspects. So clearly I'm not directly addressing them.

But I'm hoping my contributions can inform other readers who have an open mind, can follow URls and are prepared to learn more on the topic.

How noble of you. </sarc>

I'll not speak for the others, but basilio I won't stand for your unscrupulous mendacious misrepresentation of my views. In fact my understanding has metamorphosed a great deal in the last twenty years and continues to do so

If your goal was to inform, you would present argument, but what you present is advocacy... big difference there lady.

basilio · 9 November 2012

I'll go back to the facts Wayne.

1) The temperature on earth is a lot warmer in the past 30 years than it has been for 10's of thousand of years.

2) There is scientific certainty that green house gases like Co2 and methane (and others) trap heat in the atmosphere. Historically this has given earth a habitable environment

3) The amount of GG gases in the atmosphere has increased from 280 PPM to 390 PPM since the start of the industrial revolution in 1800's.

4) There is overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that this increase in GG gases plus the increases that will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuel will be the dominant factor in our climate causing temperatures to continue to rise. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=96

5) There is absolute certainty that as temperatures rise a number of ecosystems will release even more GG gases which will speed up the process. Melting of the tundra, warming of oceans which will release CO2 and about 12 others

6) We can see and measure the effect of relatively small increases in temperature across the world. Plants , animals and ecosystems are rapidly changing.

If you want to see the evidence that backs up these points check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

_______________________________________________________________________________________

But they are all wrong arn't they Wayne ? The vast majority of the scientific community in this field, the biologists, physicists, have just misunderstood or made up a fanciful story to keep themselves in grants and take us on the path to a world global government.

spooly74 · 9 November 2012

Troll.

explod · 9 November 2012

spooly74 said:
Troll.

What sort of content is that?

Rubbish.

Being part of a farming family, concerned about effects of weather back to 1870, the anecdotal evidence is clear and Basilio's post spot on.

spooly74 · 9 November 2012

explod said:
What sort of content is that?

Rubbish.

Being part of a farming family, concerned about effects of weather back to 1870, the anecdotal evidence is clear and Basilio's post spot on.

The conversation has clearly moved on from basilio's last post.
Basilio continually misrepresents other posters views on the topic and bleats on with the same catastrophic mantra while refusing to answer direct questions on-topic.
My content is undeniable.
Basilio is a troll.

Whats you farming anecdotal evidence and what's it evidence for?

explod · 9 November 2012

spooly74 said:
The conversation has clearly moved on from basilio's last post.
Basilio continually misrepresents other posters views on the topic and bleats on with the same catastrophic mantra while refusing to answer direct questions on-topic.
My content is undeniable.
Basilio is a troll.

Whats you farming anecdotal evidence and what's it evidence for?

Well the changes are catastrophic for a start.

Basilio backs up all of his statements with references of fact, whether you want to believe them, or read them all properly with an objective mind or not.

My anecdotal observations are built on the observations and thoughts of hundreds of farmers over more than 60 years. And have you read the very good book backed up by scientific facts "The Sixth Extinction" It sure has all happened before but not in this way.

Actually one of the very big problems is the release of old stored Co2 from the ice caps (mentioned above) and the depletion of snow cover which used to help reflect heat back off the earth surface. One could go on but an objective read over this thread reveals it all if one wants to see.

basilio · 9 November 2012

spooly74 said:
Troll.

What a sublimely, magnificent riposte!! No need for any overthinking of the issue, in fact... any thinking at all..

I'm sure it got thunderous applause from the gallery

________________________________________________________________________________________

I actually thought I brought the discussion back to the basic scientific facts and left enough references to let anyone who cares check them up. Anyway I choose to read other peoples references (in full) and then make a further comment.

Thought it was interesting that the PwC report on how global warming was unfolding was studiously ignored. If you want to see catastrophe thats a good place to start.

basilio · 12 November 2012

Better understanding about Antarctic Sea ice and Arctic sea ice

Poles apart: satellites reveal why Antarctic sea ice grows as Arctic melts

US military satellite data exposes complexity of climate change and impact of changing wind patterns on polar regions

Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 November 2012 18.01 GMT

The mystery of the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica, at the same time as global warming is melting swaths of Arctic sea ice, has been solved using data from US military satellites.

Two decades of measurements show that changing wind patterns around Antarctica have caused a small increase in sea ice, the result of cold winds off the continent blowing ice away from the coastline.

"Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon using computer models," said Paul Holland at the British Antarctic Survey. "Our study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change.

"The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming."

The extent of sea ice is of global importance because the bright ice reflects sunlight far more than the ocean that melting uncovers, meaning temperature rises still further.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/11/poles-scientists-antarctic-sea-ice

spooly74 · 12 November 2012

explod said:
Well the changes are catastrophic for a start.

Basilio backs up all of his statements with references of fact, whether you want to believe them, or read them all properly with an objective mind or not.

Is that a joke? because Basilio cant tell the difference sometimes?

My anecdotal observations are built on the observations and thoughts of hundreds of farmers over more than 60 years.

What are some of the specific observations then?
What area of the country?

And have you read the very good book backed up by scientific facts "The Sixth Extinction" It sure has all happened before but not in this way.

LOL
No wonder your grandkids are ****ting themselves.

7 Billion people on the planet now.
I can't think of anything capable of wiping out the entire human race in the next 2 hundred years. After that, nothing will.

basilio said:
Thought it was interesting that the PwC report on how global warming was unfolding was studiously ignored. If you want to see catastrophe thats a good place to start.

That's a private company FFS.

Logique · 5 December 2012

Miranda Devine on the CSIRO, where she once worked. All too true I'm afraid, and not only at CSIRO.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/
...With the Kyoto protocol due to run out on December 31 we are witnessing the desperate last roll of the dice from climate alarmists who have cried wolf once too often...

Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio

basilio

spooly74

basilio

spooly74

basilio

explod

explod

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

spooly74

spooly74

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

basilio

spooly74

explod

explod

spooly74

explod

explod

basilio

basilio

spooly74

Logique

Investor

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

explod

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

explod

explod

Investor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency