Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Agentm]

so mickel , is this going to be the hottest Nov on record for Sth Aust?
what about this summer? - is it gonna be another disaster for the people and wildlife of Victoria?

You seem pretty sure you know it's all gonna be ok - "settle down people! - no need to do anything! - just go home and turn the aircons up! - relax!"

say, if you're wrong - can we send you the bill?

cant you post without being condescending? i thought this forum was against this type of posting?


the weather patters in australia have changes, el nino and others, all relate to the ocean temperatures, and there is no link to the increase of carbon to the rising of the sea temperatures..

one thing that is evident, when you look at the regions where sea temperatures change and sea currents weaken, its directly effecting australian climate, including your reference to the recent hot week in south autsrlaia, and your neglected reference to the wettest month in NSW last month..

that high that sits out in the tasman, its the guy that gives you the dry air from the north after expelling its moisture over the great dividing range and turning south and really raising hell in victori and south australia.. that high sat there for months on end last summer.. and delivered massive rainfalls to the divide and huge bouts of dry air to the southern states..

please explain the connection of carbon to el nino?

lets see it demonstrated please?

imho the carbon issue is a byproduct of global warming, the real reason for global climate change is extremely obvious, but always totally ignored..

and it zero to do with carbon emmissions..

 

[Sdajii]

My background is biology, I studied climate modelling in the context of species distributions which my honours thesis centered around. No, I'm not claiming to be a climate change expert by any stretch of the imagination. I primarily looked at what would happen to species distribution IF climate change occurred, so obviously I have studied a bit about the mechanisms of climate along the way, but it was never my main focus.

My experience has been very interesting and telling though.

Biologists are (generally) very much convinced that climate change is the big devil which will surely destroy us all. They laugh at the stupidity of economists for thinking it is a trivial issue or a beneficial one (Biology being my background, I have been exposed to a lot of this mentality).

Economists are (generally) very much convinced that the climate change believers are 'alarmists', either fraudulent or stupid, and that the reality is climate change either does not exist, is of negligible importance, or is actually beneficial (economics being one of my interests, I am exposed to a lot of this mentality).

What the above (yes, slightly exaggerated to illustrate the point) has demonstrated to me so incredibly clearly, is that people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to. If they aren't particularly biased, they just believe whoever is most charismatic or whoever is most skilled at debating. This is probably familiar to all of us from many areas of life.

I have studied physics (only as elective subjects in biology courses - I am no expert and will point out I am not making that claim) and worked loosely with people who really are experts in terms of climate change. Interestingly, those people have mixed opinions, but the ones who say 'climate change is going to wipe us all out' get more attention. I would be a fool to claim I can understand what is going on with climate, as would most if not all of the members of this forum. How many people here are experts in the area? Do any of you who are making confident predictions actually think you know what you are talking about? Even the genuine experts on the topic don't agree, because it's just so difficult to work out. Unfortunately, by the time information gets from the scientists to the television screen, internet terminal or newspaper, it doesn't really represent the findings of the scientists. The reality is, we are just bickering like naive idiots when we say we know what we are talking about with climate change. The only thing we can be certain of is that we really don't know.

We know the climate has been changing massively for millions of years, and it has been colder and warmer many times before. We only have documented weather data for the last few thousand years, and it has only been properly documented for something in the vicinity of the last 100-500 years (depending on what you call proper documentation). Imagine trying to analyse a million-year pattern based on few hundred years of data! It is like trying to analyse decade long trends in a share price based on a few minutes of trading data. "I my god! It just went up 0.8% in two minutes! At this rate my $1,000 investment will make me the most wealthy man in the world by the end of the year!" or alternatively "The price hasn't changed for a few minutes, I suppose in 10 years it will still be the same".

It is very possible that climate change could wipe out most of the human population within the next 20 years. It is also possible (going by what we know) that nothing terribly noteworthy will happen in the next few thousand years.

 

[wayneL]

cant you post without being condescending? i thought this forum was against this type of posting?

It is. If you see a post you think is off, you can report it via the report post icon on every post.

 

[Calliope]

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your curriculum vitae.

 

[Knobby22]

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your curriculum vitae.

I think this comment from Sdajji is the important one.

What the above has demonstrated to me so incredibly clearly, is that people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to.

 

[Agentm]

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your curriculum vitae.

i thought it was obvious myself, i dont agree with all the points

i liked the contribution..

biologists have a view also, as do all, and its valid..

why not add comment and clearly spell out your qualification, i disagree with the post that you cannot self research it and have a valid opinion,

some people here may have interests in it after having studied meteorology.. you can never tell

i have a logical mind, and if you want associate global weather patterns changes in with meteorolgy and then with carbon emmissions, then clearly do it, present the science..

carbon tax, reducing carbon, is pure guessing,, is just a form of revenue raising, and scaremongering

if global warming is happening, and we cannot dissassociate climate change from global warming, and somehow hook carbon as the root cause,, then how will taxing a carbon emmissions do zip for anyone?

imho there is too much confusion, too much associations with normal climate change to global warming and absolutely no common sense given to some of the most severe global impacts that really need to be addressed..

 

[Mr J]

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your curriculum vitae.

In addition to what Knobby has said, Sdajii is pointing out that very few really know anything about it, and those that do (the experts) do not seem to form a concensus at all.

 

[noco]

Thanks for the lecture, Sdajji. I have no idea of what you are trying to say, except, perhaps, trying to present your curriculum vitae.

I believe what he is trying to get through to us is the fact, nobody really knows what lies ahead of us.

The so called experts in climate change are basing thier facts on very short periods for modelling as with his comparison to the stock market short and long term.

On the other hand the deniers of climate change caused by CO2 emissions, are basing their facts on what has happened over the last 2000-3000 years ago and more recently in the past 500 years.

I recall a visit to Adelaide in 1985 when temperatures were 38/39 degrees for the 3 days of our duration. Yes it was hot, very dry but bearable. The tropics can have 33 degrees and 80% humidity and it is very depressing.

 

[wayneL]

Even the genuine experts on the topic don't agree, because it's just so difficult to work out. Unfortunately, by the time information gets from the scientists to the television screen, internet terminal or newspaper, it doesn't really represent the findings of the scientists. The reality is, we are just bickering like naive idiots when we say we know what we are talking about with climate change. The only thing we can be certain of is that we really don't know.

If only bodies like the IPCC would be honest enough to put it across like this (and the other side for that matter), people would probably be more willing to embrace caution on co2 emissions.

If only bodies like the IPCC would be more holistic on a range of issues, more environmental problems would be addressed.

If only bodies like the IPCC would lay off the alarmist propaganda, there would be less reactive anti-propaganda, less suspicion of an ulterior political agenda.

If only the likes of Gore weren't massively profiteering from CC fear, ordinary folks might get behind efforts to reduce co2.

Still, the exclusive focus on co2 I maintain is extremely wrong headed and counterproductive. Let's deal with more demonstrable and easily provable human induce climate change factors, such as land use and general pollution.

As it stands, ACC is a religion. It is no longer a subject of proper science.

 

[Calliope]

In addition to what Knobby has said, Sdajii is pointing out that very few really know anything about it, and those that do (the experts) do not seem to form a concensus at all.

Australia's leading alarmist is also a biologist. Unlike Sdajji, Tim Flannery knows all the answers.

Sorry if I seem to be unfair to Sdajji. Perhaps it is because he tried to rubbish me on another thread on a topic on which he is not an expert.

 

[Sdajii]

Yes, the point is, people just believe what they want to believe. I might have gone into enough personal detail to be painfully tedious, but the point was that I have fairly heavily mixed in two circles of very opposing sides, and each has an overall point of view which represents what they want to believe, or what they want everyone else to believe (economists want people to believe what will make them money, biologists want people to believe what will protect biodiversity). It has virtually no relation to what the facts actually are.

You can disagree with me if you like, but I don't think peoples' opinions are worth much if anything when it comes to highly complex issues they are not educated in (I count myself in the group of people who don't deserve a voiced opinion on climate change, even though I have studied the topic more than most, as it is still so little compared to what the experts have done).

When people discuss something I do know a reasonable amount about, such as genetics, I will see them fumble around with wrong assumptions and misinterpretation, then cringe at the certainty they have with whatever ideas they come up with. I am sure that anyone who was an expert in climate prediction would cringe at the silly attempts being made on online forums like this. Are people really able to kid themselves into thinking that after a little bit of personal research they are able to know better than those who have dedicated decades of their lives researching the matter? Is it just coincidence that (biased) economists and biologists happen to be on opposite sides of the fence while the meterologists are divided?

To satisfy Calliope and anyone else who thinks that any discussion of a topic is meaningless unless you hold an opinion you want to try to convince others of... the best I can say is that I believe (without doubt) that climate change is a normal part of the world. I believe (with reasonable certainty) that the world was heating up before humans started to have any significant impact on the planet - there is a lot of solid evidence for this. Humans are making some pretty massive changes to the planet, but how much we are changing the climate and in what way is not easy to calculate. We don't have a control planet to compare against, so we can not know exactly. It is quite likely that we were not too far away from a major ice age before humans started mucking around, and I would prefer problems due to a nice warm planet than a planet frozen solid, so we might have actually changed things for the better (but this part is of little more valuable than speculation).

Whatever it would have been like without human intervention, it looks like we are facing a time of fairly rapid climate change over the next few decades, and human influence has probably been a major cause of what will happen. Whatever the new steady state of the planet's climate turns out to be (it may be better or worse than current), the changeover will probably be very messy (for example, if rain stops falling in one area and starts in another, the existing infrastructure becomes useless and the required infrastructure is not there). During a change in the planet's climatic state, extreme weather events are likely, and that isn't good for anyone.

The above paragraph could be called my 'opinion', but I don't hold it with firm certainty or claim it is highly informed (though probably it is more informed than most others here, and I am more certain of it than anything else I have read in this thread).

 

[Sdajii]

Australia's leading alarmist is also a biologist. Unlike Sdajji, Tim Flannery knows all the answers.

Sorry if I seem to be unfair to Sdajji. Perhaps it is because he tried to rubbish me on another thread on a topic on which he is not an expert.

It's a lot easier to work out whether or not a dam should go ahead than to predict what the climate is going to do over the next few decades, and certain outcomes of the building of that dam are absolutely certain.

If you think I tried to rubbish you, and are carrying that grudge as you appear to be, you probably have a complex or ego issue you need to address.

On a far less mature note "Aww, diddums, are you upset because Sdaji rubbished you in another thread? Awww"

 

[Calliope]

Whatever it would have been like without human intervention, it looks like we are facing a time of fairly rapid climate change over the next few decades, and human influence has probably been a major cause of what will happen. Whatever the new steady state of the planet's climate turns out to be (it may be better or worse than current), the changeover will probably be very messy (for example, if rain stops falling in one area and starts in another, the existing infrastructure becomes useless and the required infrastructure is not there). During a change in the planet's climatic state, extreme weather events are likely, and that isn't good for anyone.

The above paragraph could be called my 'opinion', but I don't hold it with firm certainty or claim it is highly informed (though probably it is more informed than most others here, and I am more certain of it than anything else I have read in this thread).

In other words your opinion is that things may get better or they may get worse. No argument there. The only thing I find contentious is that your opinions "are more informed than most others here." I see no evidence of this.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. I am not rubbishing you...just making fair comment.

 

[Sdajii]

In other words your opinion is that things may get better or they may get worse. No argument there. The only thing I find contentious is that your opinions "are more informed than most others here." I see no evidence of this.

I do not claim that they are. I haven't seen anyone else here saying they have studied much into the topic, it seems most here are primarily interested in other things, particularly the economy, and are interested in climate change in terms of what it might do to their primary interest (stock trading). I am not claiming to be an expert on the topic, I have clearly stated otherwise, and I am not trying to push my ideas about what is going to happen to the climate. I think I made a valid point about how people form their opinions, and point out that we shouldn't be too certain about our predictions. That is all I was trying to do.

Most people seem primarily interested in convincing other people of their predictions, while others, such as yourself, seem primarily interested in conflict.

 

[Calliope]

On a far less mature note "Aww, diddums, are you upset because Sdaji rubbished you in another thread? Awww"

:topic Incidentally Sdajji, it wasn't your criticism that I objected to on the other thread. It was your sarcasm. You are right.. it is not mature.

 

[derty]

Well said Sdajji. At the end of the day both of the extremes in this argument end up being the "squeaky wheels".

When those of us who have science backgrounds find it hard to comprehend and understand the issue I find it amusing that those who have little or no scientific education can form such steadfast and concrete views on climate change and it's causes. Basically this argument has largely come down to one of dogma and ideology.

I'm sure no one here has an in-depth knowledge of the processes, data collection, interpretation and interdisciplinary collaboration required to begin to form a concrete conclusion. Therefore it comes down to faith in the proclamations of the "squeaky wheel" of your choice. Everyone is essentially a "repeater" (thanks Snake for bringing the term to my attention). As few people understand the issue, the side of the fence one stands on largely seems to be decided by ideology, which is easy to see in the slights thrown in the threads here at ASF. Anti AGW proponents claim the other side are alarmists, socialists, liberals e.t.c. While the Pro-AGW camp call the other side deniers, right wing conservatives e.t.c.

At the moment this argument is akin to; Does God exist? There currently is no way to definitively prove that AGW is happening. People choose their side and dogmatically fight it out.

The is a consolation that within a few decades it should be apparent if AGW is fact. I'm sure God will still be fought about.

 

[Calliope]

I find it amusing that those who have little or no scientific education can form such steadfast and concrete views on climate change and it's causes. Basically this argument has largely come down to one of dogma and ideology.

I agree. Common sense has gone out the window.

 

[Sdajii]

Derty: Exactly! Both sides yell their message loudly and people choose the message they like, or are already prone to believing for whatever reason. Only a tiny percentage of all people are capable of actually understanding the situation or making a meaningful judgement, almost certainly none of us here, and quite likely, no human alive today.

I like the idea of calling it religion or philosophy rather than science, but we do have some evidence to work on.

In issues like this, we have an extremely complex situation and no easy way to explain it, which is why there are people on both sides. If there was a clear answer, we would have found it, we would all accept it, and threads like this wouldn't exist. For the next few decades, until our technology allows a clear answer or the climate actually changes in an utterly extreme way, people will bicker and argue. A tiny few people will research it properly and the rest of the world will argue based primarily on who debates best, who yells loudest, and which message people most want to believe.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Thanks Derty.

When those of us who have science backgrounds find it hard to comprehend and understand the issue

When the official story is so concrete - that which comes from alarmists and scaremongering - it is no wonder people are screaming and extremely suspicious, even non scientists.

 

[Julia]

Basically this argument has largely come down to one of dogma and ideology.

At the moment this argument is akin to; Does God exist? There currently is no way to definitively prove that AGW is happening. People choose their side and dogmatically fight it out.

The is a consolation that within a few decades it should be apparent if AGW is fact. I'm sure God will still be fought about.

Great post, derty. Sums it up perfectly.