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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Perusing the last few days posts in this thread I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri's admission that the world hasn't warmed over the last 17 years-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

In another admission, rare for a pro warming advocate, he is quoted "People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning," Dr Pachauri said. TRUE but rarely mentioned in Australia, (remember Kevin 07 stating "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"so setting the agenda for scientists who wished to receive Govt grants).

While he says that it would take 30-40 years pause in temp increases to change the overall warming, it will be interesting to see if the next IPCC Report modifies their extravagant temp increases based on a 17-21 year pause.

Meanwhile, another leading Pro Warmist, Dr James Hansen, in a talk on Feb 21 2013 in Santa Fe, carried on regardless as reported here by Robert W. Endlich-

"One item after another struck me as being completely at odds with measurements. For instance, Hansen claimed Earth’s energy balance is out of balance, and we are warming rapidly, but recent global surface temperatures of land and water have not increased and in fact many measures show cooling over the past 17-19 years. In the US, there has not been a new state maximum temperature record set since 1995, and in spite of the claims to the contrary, July,1936, is still the warmest month on record, set when CO2 was less than 300 parts per million. CO2 is now 395 PPM ".

http://climaterealists.com/index.php

PS Read Endlich's expanded article and draw your own conclusions on the worth of Hansen's claims.
 
Always fascinating to see what Malcolm Roberts is up to in his quest to expose the perfidy of warmists. (Malcolm is the guy who is so extreme that Andrew Bolt distanced himself from his world wide conspiracy theories. But Malcolm is still a great friend of Alan Jones.)

Malcom has decided that the CSIROh is an integral part of the Circle of Deception. So as his patriotic duty demands he has completed an extensive investigation. forwarded his results to people of importance and demanded their immediate response.

Fascinating.

http://conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Enjoy !!
 
Further to the first Malcolm Roberts post I found a reply from Ben Cubby a SMH journalist who recieved one of hos letters of demand.

Great fun.


http://www.readfearn.com/2013/02/climate-change-new-world-order-malcolm-roberts-ben-cubby/
 
Seems ever-increasing numbers of Polar Bears are relaxing on the banana lounge with a seal sanga - 'what global warming bro?' How could our Climate Commissioner have missed this?

Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears -2013
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf
Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology and is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. She is the author of Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species.

 
It is presently 24 degrees centigrade here, in Townsville, with a soft rain falling, which is slowly increasing.

Much as it has been in recorded memory.

When will the alarmists desist?

We often get quite a wet Easter, and Anzac Day can be cold and wet at the Dawn Service.

gg
 
The UK is currently freezing its nuts off with blizzards etc.

Anything to do with Climate Change/Global Warming ?

Absolutely



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ic-sea-ice-loss?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=SOCNETTXT8763I
 
Bas

Have averred to these understanding for a number of years on this thread.

And no names, but me ole Pal will come on and laugh at me again with some dim link to a petro scientist.

We will see, problem is it is catastrophic and too late to stop.
 
Thankyou Bas.
A very good video. It explains a lot for me also.
It's obviously been taken by students at their Professor's lecture.
The meandering effect is very interesting. We are going to see a lot more weird weather hitting the northern hemisphere. I feel sorry for England, Russia and North America.

I would love to see a Southern Hemisphere analysis. Why is Victoria getting amazingly hot weather while Queensland is getting increasing wet weather? I know the off the cuff theories but a proper scientific theory like the Professor produced above would be very useful. The tornadoes on the NSW/Victoria boarder were also a bit weird.

The effects of global warming are only small at this stage. By 2030 the effects will become more obvious and discernible. The truth is the world will do nothing (due to the petrochemical money) so we should be looking at how this will affect us in the investment sense. If a trend can be caught then real money can be made.

By the way it is 32 degrees here and 34 degrees tomorrow! In Melbourne and its practically April!!! Amazing.
 

Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.
 
Perhaps you should show a little more respect to folks who have shown you a bit of sympathy recently.

Duplicitous.

It was really great Wayne for all of us to support Explod through the difficult times his family had faced.

But unless you have completely and utterly changed your views I don't see how his comment was not a fair reflection of what you would say. It wasn't duplicitous just accurate.

Do you want to share your view on the scientists observation of how climate change is affecting European climate ?
 

Ma'am, I utterly disagree with your appraisal, but TBH expect no better.

IMO, this debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science in toto, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable. Ergo, conversation here is an exercise in futility and regresses to ad hom.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the argy bargy... when running on all twelve ( something you, as an intellectual lawnmower engine, will never experience). But there are times I can do without it.

The likes of the duplicitous and two faced Plod (redundancy an' all)... and those blithely unaware of their cognitive biases such as yourself, use have used the good nature of forumites to score the cheapest of cheap points; capitalizing on our good nature's.

This is low.

So, I have tried to gracefully withdraw from this discussion, on the grounds that it could be damaging to those on a vulnerable emotional state, unbeknowns(?) to myself or others. But you of the moral nether regions come out fighting dirty at the first opportunity.

What a so very bad show.
 
Unbelievable Wayne. Just xxxxing unbelievable...

I agree with you that the debate has become too acrimonious and polarized to be productive. I too have generally decided to give it away.

However I did decide that the evidence presented by meteorological scientists on how the melting of the Arctic ice caps was affecting the climate was worth posting. It adds a factual content to the discussion.

There is no need to yet again turn this into another personal attack complete with the sniff of of burning martyr.
 

What cognitive biases do you have? If any of course.
 
I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but there are a number of factors that influence the cycles of weather on earth from the miniscule such as earth's polarity slowly changing and contentinal shift to more significant changes in solar flare activity.

I think aligning all these factors, cycles and cycles within cycles goes a long way to explaining the cyclical changes we are experiencing, rather than just global warming. For me the last couple of years of hot steamy wet weather is reminicant of the 1970's.

This chart also aligns with long range forcasts I've seen, especially for southern Australia, for very wet seasons in the mid 2020's to 2030ish.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
 

Attachments

  • predictions3_strip.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 78
You might also be interested in the work of Kevin Long (Mech Engineer and lifelong weather observer - The Long View): http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html

Kevin is very interested in sunspot activity, which he also sees as declining in the near term, and he predicts a colder, dryer climate for 2010 - 2028.
 
But we have been in a period of low sunspot activity that's only really started increasing now (and is lower than last century) and yet the temperatures keep increasing. If there is an effect from solar activity, and there most probably is, it appears to be swamped by other effects. When the little ice age occurred there was similar low activity that occurred however the recent very low activity that has taken place over the last 20 years did not really see a major drop off in temperatures, just some flattening of the ever increasing temperature rise.

This from the NASA website that also shows the solar activity over time: Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions so the effect it will produce will be by magnetic disturbance of the upper atmosphere.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

If the effect is greater than thought then as we are entering a new sunspot phase we could see more massive temperature rises than normal. Logique, that site you posted tries to get out of it by saying the temperature rise that occurred was a delay from the previous sunspot cycle. It looks suspiciously like they couldn't get the figures to match so they just re-arranged the facts to suit themselves.
 
I have pretty much the same as everyone, but am aware of them and try to account for them.

A very sensible disposition.

How about you?

As indicated previously, I think that irrational thought and thus cognitive bias is our natural state.


So in this context, I am pondering this premise:

On the alarmist side, there is no regard for science in toto, and no budging from a philosophically extreme position which is intellectually untenable.

Is there any of any cognitive bias in that premise?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...