Resisting Climate Hysteria

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

I appreciate how we are conducting this discussion WayneL, thank you.

wayneL said:
No single study, in and of itself, is compelling. Some of those on the list are not compelling at all, others more so.

This is rather like pro warming studies.

Agreed.

wayneL said:
However, these things must be considered in toto; both sides considered and a balanced view decided upon.

The original post that prompted me to ask was this.

wayneL said:
From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.

There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.

I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.

I started doing a review of the topics in the list, the authors, etc and making sure I reviewed the rebuttals to criticism section. It was a good read, thank you.

I find the criticisms about authors in the list who were funded by Exxon etc as convincing as the arguments used on this forum about academics and funding so we can agree that we can set aside where funding is coming from in future discussions? I did find it problematic that the same names kept appearing but that doesn't matter as long as they can demonstrate their ideas.

I chose one paper at random to check it out. In what should make us both happy, the resulting information showed that the concept had been heavily debated and contested in the relevant scientific community. It would appear that they are not being ignored, only that the thesis in this example was not not considered persuasive by others.

Science in action

If we are to count papers from scientists in all fields and older papers going back to 1955, how many peer reviewed articles support AGW? I don't have the number immediately at hand but I could look it up?

burglar · 13 January 2013

Some Dude said:
... If we are to count papers from scientists in all fields and older papers going back to 1955, how many peer reviewed articles support AGW? I don't have the number immediately at hand but I could look it up?

Would you go to a GP for surgery? No! You would go to a Surgeon.
Would you go to "scientists in all fields" re AGW? No! You would go to C_L_I_M_A_T_O_L_O_G_I_S_T_S.

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

burglar said:
Would you go to a GP for surgery? No! You would go to a Surgeon.
Would you go to "scientists in all fields" re AGW? No! You would go to C_L_I_M_A_T_O_L_O_G_I_S_T_S.

I concur entirely. But the 1,100+ list that WayneL provided contained geologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. Would you like me to pare the 1,100+ list provided by WayneL back to only climatologists?

sails · 13 January 2013

Knobby22 said:
Creationists and flat earthers ignore the science. I can't make it any clearer than that. Anyway going to play golf. See you later. I'll just post this again as a reminder that the earth is warming. Based on measurements.

"The number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-1...hfires/4461960

Scientists on government payrolls who are using computer modelling to project the scaremongering. Yeah right! What about Flannery's alarmist claims about no more dam filling rains in Qld a few years ago?

I think that forecast was the result of computer modelling.

You don't need scientists on government pay rolls to try and change what history has shown us perfectly well - and that is weather/climate runs in cycles. Extremes are part of our weather. There is nothing new.

In any case, Australia's massive $23 carbon tax isn't going to make much difference as we only contribute about 1% of global co2. And so many are being compensated for political purposes, many are not going to change their electricity use anyway. Seems a pretty stupid way to fix a problem even IF it did actually exist.

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

sails said:
Scientists on government payrolls who are using computer modelling to project the scaremongering.

Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?

Calliope · 13 January 2013

Some Dude said:
Obviously that explains why I try to identify a single point to discuss and reach agreement about before moving onto the next one.

Would you like me to pare the 1,100+ list provided by WayneL back to only climatologists?

Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?

Why not...if that's what turns you on.

sails · 13 January 2013

Some Dude said:
Can we also use that as a method for discounting research and researchers paid for by fossil fuel industries?

If there is a conflict of interest, I would agree. I see a huge conflict of interest from scientists on government pay rolls whom the government then uses to whack us with a tax to supposedly fix a projected problem (that might not actually exist).

And what is this tax actually going to do? It does seem to be more about taking more money from the people than actually doing anything much at all about the environment.

Here is an article written by one such scientist:
http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Garth Paltridge on the consensus.pdf

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

Calliope said:
Why not...if that's what turns you on.

Could you clarify?

Are you acknowledging the problem reconciling the Gish Gallop with my desire to where possible, politely ask someone to identify a single point to focus on?

Or are you agreeing with me that the 1,110+ list starts to look very slim when the non climate scientists are removed?

Or are you agreeing that that 1,100+ list gets even smaller when you remove those with a potential conflict of interest from fossil fuels?

I'm unsure from your multiple selection of conversations I am having with different people.

Calliope · 13 January 2013

Knobby22 said:
It would be nice if you had some humour in your posts.

Will this do? Actually I think it is Tony Abbott's fault.

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

sails said:
If there is a conflict of interest, I would agree. I see a huge conflict of interest from scientists on government pay rolls whom the government then uses to whack us with a tax to supposedly fix a projected problem (that might not actually exist).

I understand your concern. If a Coalition government were to win power, as seems likely in future, does the same thing concern you? What I mean is if a government that you believe is not interested in whacking us with a tax becomes convinced of the issue, is that when your view would on this topic would change?

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

Calliope said:
Will this do? Actually I think it is Tony Abbott's fault.

View attachment 50412

That's gold

sails · 13 January 2013

Some Dude said:
I understand your concern. If a Coalition government were to win power, as seems likely in future, does the same thing concern you? What I mean is if a government that you believe is not interested in whacking us with a tax becomes convinced of the issue, is that when your view would on this topic would change?

SD, my view would remain the same as now and be as upset with them as I am with labor. I was relieved to see Turnbull go for this very reason. I was also relieved to hear Gillard promise "no carbon tax" before the last election but sadly it seems she didn't mean a word of it.

Without the money grabbing, it would give more credence to the possibility of AGW, but the greedy money grabbing removes much credibility, imo.

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

sails said:
SD, my view would remain the same as now and be as upset with them as I am with labor. I was relieved to see Turnbull go for this very reason. I was also relieved to hear Gillard promise "no carbon tax" before the last election but sadly it seems she didn't mean a word of it.

Without the money grabbing, it would give more credence to the possibility of AGW, but the greedy money grabbing removes much credibility, imo.

Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume

Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.

What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.

noco · 13 January 2013

Some Dude said:
Ok, got me there. I thought I understood the primary mechanism for your objection. That will teach me to assume

Do you mind if I ask a large picture hypothetical question? if not, no problem.

What would be a scenario, or group of scenarios, that would convince you that AGW is real? I'm not trying to change your mind. I am seeking to understand on what basis and how you as a person make your determination about whether it is real or not.

Now listen here Junior, AWG is not real!

It is politically motivated tactic to extract a tax that nobody wants or believes it will do anything to reduce the essenetial carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This was all started in the United Nations where by the Secratary General who is a GREENIE[/COLOR ]through and through.

Kevin Rudd is also on the so called UN Climate Change committee of which we contribute 10% of all the carbon tax collected, in Australia, to the UN.

Climate Change has been going on for millions of years and nothing and I mean nothing will change what we are going through now or 70 years ago.

I hope you read and absorbed my post #3987 on this thread.

Some Dude · 13 January 2013

noco said:
I hope you read and absorbed my post #3987 on this thread.

I read your post #3987 and the first thing that came to mind when you said:

noco said:
So you know what those so called scientist can do with their modelling and predictions? They can shove it up where the sun don't shine.

Was the Monty Hall Problem.

Wikipedia said:
The problem was originally posed in a letter by Steve Selvin to the American Statistician in 1975 (Selvin 1975a) (Selvin 1975b). One well known statement of the problem was published in Marilyn vos Savant's "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade magazine in 1990 (vos Savant 1990a):

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Vos Savant's response was that the contestant should switch to the other door. If the car is initially equally likely to be behind each door, a player who picks door 1 and does not switch has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the car while a player who picks door 1 and does switch has a 2 in 3 chance, because the host has removed an incorrect option from the unchosen doors, so contestants who switch double their chances of winning the car.

Many readers refused to believe that switching is beneficial. After the Monty Hall problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming that vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Decision scientist Andrew Vazsonyi described how Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until Vazsonyi showed him a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).

The Monty Hall problem has attracted academic interest because the result is surprising and the problem is simple to formulate.

MrBurns · 13 January 2013

Love the way the "climate commission" comes out saying global warming is upon us and this is a taste of whats to come if we don't act .....because we've had a week or 2 of hot weather in Summer.

They must have been chatting with their master Gillard, any opportunity no matter how vague to prop up their theory.

basilio · 13 January 2013

MrBurns said:
Love the way the "climate commission" comes out saying global warming is upon us and this is a taste of whats to come if we don't act .....because we've had a week or 2 of hot weather in Summer.

Maybe it's been more than a week or 2 of heat weather and more like a nation wide hot spell that has shattered all previous records.

Maybe it's because the normal northern summer monsoons that break up the inland heat just havn't arrived yet.

Maybe it's because this is January and the really hot times in summer usually come around February.

And looking at climate change around the world? Care to check out what is being said in USA.

US scientists in fresh alert over effects of global warming

US National Climate Assessment reveals that severe weather disruption is going to be commonplace in coming years

Global warming is already having a major impact on life in America, a report by US government scientists has warned. The draft version of the US National Climate Assessment reveals that increasing storm surges, floods, melting glaciers and permafrost, and intensifying droughts are having a profound effect on the lives of Americans.

"Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers have observed changes in their local climate that are outside of their experience," states the report.

Health services, water supplies, farming and transport are already being strained, the assessment adds. Months after superstorm Sandy battered the east coast, causing billions of dollars of damage, the report concludes that severe weather disruption is going to be commonplace in coming years. Nor do the authors flinch from naming the culprit. "Global warming is due primarily to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels," it states.

The uncompromising language of the report, and the stark picture that its authors have painted of the likely effects of global warming, have profound implications for the rest of the world.

...The report highlights, among other things, that 13 American airports have runways that could be inundated by rising sea levels, and that billions of dollars will be needed to repair Alaskan roads, pipelines, sewer systems, buildings and airports where melting permafrosts are disrupting the landscape. These are problems that will not just affect the US. They will be repeated across the planet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/12/us-scientists-effects-global-warming

MrBurns · 13 January 2013

basilio said:
Maybe it's been more than a week or 2 of heat weather and more like a nation wide hot spell that has shattered all previous records.

Maybe it's because the normal northern summer monsoons that break up the inland heat just havn't arrived yet.

Maybe it's because this is January and the really hot times in summer usually come around February.

And looking at climate change around the world? Care to check out what is being said in USA.

You don't make statements about global warming based on one summer and the scientists in the US are the same as here, seeking funding by whipping up a scare.

Thr climate will/has changed and will continue to do so over time but the juries out on whether humans are responsible.

burglar · 13 January 2013

We had a hot day in Adelaide last week.
I mean a stinker!

I became a believer!

I don't know if it was a record or not.
I don't watch news, weather or current affairs.

But today I awoke to an orchestra of snare drums beating on the tin roof.
It drizzled slowly for hours!
My neighbour assured me it was 10 millilitres.

It's cool again.
Now, I am resisting hysteria once more.

Calliope · 13 January 2013

burglar said:
We had a hot day in Adelaide last week.
I mean a stinker!

I became a believer!

I don't know if it was a record or not.
I don't watch news, weather or current affairs.

But today I awoke to an orchestra of snare drums beating on the tin roof.
It drizzled slowly for hours!
My neighbour assured me it was 10 millilitres.

It's cool again.
Now, I am resisting hysteria once more.

You once told me you didn't worry about things you couldn't do anything about.

I think you were worried there for a while about the hotapocolypse.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency