This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Just to bring the conversation back to the topic - CC.

I mentioned earlier that climate scientists are still uncertain about how much forcing CO2 levels will have on global temperatures.

I came across a good (but very detailed analysis) of the climate scenarios we might face with different CO2 forcings.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
 
My basic objection to all of this Climate Hysteria, is that it is just that.

Hysteria.

Looking in to the future on the basis of modelling.

Science is science.

The Climate mob basically have decided that we will warm and are hell bent on modelling to prove their point.

This is unscientific.

They ignore and denigrate the contra evidence/findings.

gg
 
thanks for the compliment, Explod...


From the link I provided earlier about claims of the science being settled:



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074

Quantum physics had its detractors/deniers leading to the famous following quote from renowned scientist Max Planck.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

It is good to see that Nick Minchin is retiring. One less opponent. One less old man who can't get his mind around it. Good riddance.
 

Nice sentiment there Knobby... We have all noted the alarmists desire to kill and imprison skeptics. :frown:

Problem is, there are a great deal more skeptics than the self-serving bunkum of "the overwhelming majority" ficton suggests.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

 
It depends on definition as the article states.

And don't try to put words in my mouth and practise your spin.
I don't want the skeptics like Nick Minchin imprisoned, I just want to see him fade into irrelevance as the new overtakes the old.

A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".

I personally find it amusing. Goodbye Nick!!
 
A generation from now, people will laugh at this, just as they do now when people look back at the Quantum Theory "skeptics".

I googled Quantum Theory Skeptics and found an interesting posthumous interview here.

 
This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.

She must be somebody's goyle.


gg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This dopey anchor asked an astroscientist if Global Warming had anything to do with the Asteroid crashing in Russia.

She must be somebody's goyle.


gg

I came across that on the Michael Smith Blog and some of the people who commentated said that it was taken out of context. Apparently the previous segment was about climate change and some of the warmists were blaming everything and anything on it.

When the new segment started, this announcer was really asking tongue in cheek whether the meteorite was also the result of GW. More of a dig at the warmists rather than a dumb question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The data sets they are using for their models is publicly available. My understanding is there are 3 data sets based on different ways to read the temperature.

There's nothing to stop those who question GW from doing their own modelling / analysis of the data sets.

All I ask is they don't cherry pick small subsets of the data but go back as far as the data will allow them.

Considering how competitive academics are I'm sure there'd been at least one by now who would have submitted a peer reviewed article claiming that GW was wrong and be willing to have his model and conclusions pen to be analysed by anyone willing to take the time.

You are showing the signs of someone who believes there is a conspiracy of glabal proportions, far larger than the lunar landings even, that only gets bigger each time there's an investigation / review that shows GW is happening.

I'm happy to admit that some of it is probably the natural variation in the climate, but you have to consider the fact that models used over a decade ago are starting to have their predictions come true now. Advances in weather and climate understanding are only make the forecasts more accurate.

As an example, now there is a better understanding of how much extra moisture is int he atmosphere, and this is now showing up in a lot of US states where they get more extreme snow falls pre and post winter when the air is warmer and able to hold a lot more moisture.

The beauty of science is being able to argue the facts and data. A lot of those against the idea of GW rarely base their case on the facts, or at best cherry pick the data that supports their view.

If the public was more aware that roughly 97% of scientists believe the data points towards GW, I wonder how that would affect public perception???
 

1) you musn't look very hard
2) despite it being toxic to an academics career there is still a large amount of peer reviewed studies with findings not conforming to the alarmist case
3) you severely underestimate a humans ability to rationalise when the game of self interest is being played
 

So how come there are so many arguments about the validity of the AGW evidence ?


http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763
 
Cuummoorn there Pal, some more explanation of dismissal for us dummies needed here ?

It uses political logic and hypocrisy... IOW is plainly illogical to the logical. It also uses the discredited 97% figure.
 
How was it and who discredited the 97% figure?

And the hypocrisy ?

You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.
 
Cahnnel 24 at the moment, former UK Govt expert backing up all that us Hysterians have been putting forward
 
You see there is no point going through this all over again. You just haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Hint... you won't find these things in the propaganda pieces you read.

Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.

And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem. And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.

Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs. Would like to know your experience of these things.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...