Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

Er, sheep and climate change?
What date is it?

I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.

 

[trainspotter]

Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping. Only 1–2% of global methane emissions come from livestock flatus.

Since New Zealand produces large amounts of agricultural product it is in a unique position of having high methane emissions livestock compared to other greenhouse gas sources. The New Zealand government is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and therefore, attempts are being made to reduce greenhouse emissions. To achieve this an agricultural emissions research levy was proposed, which promptly became known as a "fart tax" or "flatulence tax". It encountered opposition from farmers, farming lobby groups and opposition politicians.

In Fresno, California, a system to harvest methane by-product from dairy cattle and convert it to usable bio-gas is being used, in a partnership with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and BioEnergy Solutions, in which BioEnergy Solutions sells the methane harvested from cows to PG&E, who then converts the methane to usable bio-gas, which is very similar to natural gas.

In June 2009 Paul McCartney and other celebrities launched a "Meat Free Monday" campaign in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the world's livestock.

Thank you Wikipedia !

 

[Julia]

I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.

Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!

 

[basilio]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
I'm afraid basillio that your April Fool's Day skit was too long and convoluted to be an attention grabber. Full marks for trying though.

Julia

Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!

Yeah. Couldn't let today go by without a little levity.

By the way there was a brilliant little piece in The Guardian which announced that Gordon Brown was going to go agro in the run up to the next election to get the alpha male votes. Clever bit of work- and the scary part was you could actually see the spin doctors nodding their heads.

 

[Knobby22]

Well, I'll admit to reading most of the first paragraph thinking, "heavens, Basilio has had a conversion to the dark side", before waking up!

You mean the light side

The scientific program Catalyst (ABC) was good tonight. A part of it was how glaciers have retreated massively throughout the world over the last 150 years. Quite fascinating.

 

[sneak'n]

Post April Fool's Day a protagonistic retrospective of the thread is handy (comments in blue):

Basilio, Knobby, et al:

And the pro AGW theories are based on.....?Based on the science, as proven month after month, year after year and decade after decade. Moreover, there is no reputable rebuttal.Climategate anyone? As the "climategate" inquiry revealed last week, there was no evidence that the scientific argument was diminished, although there was a need for greater transparancy.

Repetition is no substitute for truth, no matter how repetitiously the repetition is repeated. In this matter I agree. The problem is that climate change deniers continue to bandy around baseless and discredited "facts", and the likes of Monckton give them an air of credibility.

In fact, when I see such baseless dogma, it is because the debate has been lost on intellectual grounds. Certainly unproven in this thread, and the contributions of this poster demonstrate both the previous point and the inability of deniers to present a cogent case. All that is left is propaganda. This is an example of twisting a scientific case into a media circus whereby the poorly and illinformed are dripfed on information and events that purportedly represent what is really happening. Dull and boring scientists are not interested in the media spotlight, nor can they easily present years of complex research to lay audiences that pine for definitive one line explanations.
AGWers have well and truly lost the battle of the century, not that there is any evidence of this but, as repetition is no substitute for truth, it will resonate with deniers yet the war rages on. Actually, the science continues, and the findings each year give added to the strength to the theory of human-induced global warming

 

[wayneL]

Post April Fool's Day a protagonistic retrospective of the thread is handy (comments in blue):

Ahhh like the VI AGW community, the duplicitous rederob never gives up. The fact that you deny your identity, even when busted, is revealing.

Once again the straw man argument of me as a denier is re-repeated. One would have thought that rederob as one with sufficient IQ to grasp the simple point of my challenges with the Gorist/IPCC presentation of climate science.

Alas, no! Unless the the goal is in fact to promulgate IPCC propaganda.

Your problem rederob, is selective consideration and biased interpretation of climate science... for what reason one can only speculate. However it is not lost on those capable of balanced consideration of data presented that such people as yourself are notably leftist.

Prime example is the recent case of the presentation of the disappearance of New Moore Island in the Bay of Bengal as due to AGW, viz, sea level rise. This was laughable as readers comments in the link show.

Meanwhile disciples of the AGW religion continue to be lost around the world as intelligent folk evaluate both sides of the debate.

Meanwhile, as I've stated at least a hundred times on here, the real, measurable and mitigable human influences on climate and the ecosystem are ignored; and peoples trust of real science is compromised making it ever more difficult for community action.

No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.

 

[Knobby22]

No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.

Leftists! Don't bring that political crap into the argument.
Many of the right are worried.

I give you an example - Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arbon-neutrality/story-e6frg6n6-1111113507477

 

[wayneL]

Leftists! Don't bring that political crap into the argument.
Many of the right are worried.

I give you an example - Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...arbon-neutrality/story-e6frg6n6-1111113507477

Murdoch is neither left nor right and plays both ends against the middle for his own advantage, he is a mercenary. In the UK, he sees advantage in supporting the left.

Somehow, Murdoch sees money in this.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Its starting to cool at night again in Townsville , as one would expect for this time of year.

I read that the Arctic ice is reforming.

I do wish these religious nuts on Warming would get some new beliefs worthy of at least a rational if not empirical argument against the conservative view of the world.

All the lefties, all jump, at the same time on to every softbrained theory to deny that the world is a better place under intelligent rational progress and rigid review of evidence.

gg

 

[sneak'n]

Once again the straw man argument of me as a denier is re-repeated.

Why not demonstrate your grasp of the science rather than repeat ad nauseum posts in reply that totally lack substance.I have raised many points against your assertions that remain unchallenged or unsubstantiated. The tried and proven tactics of deniers seem to be your stock in trade.

Alas, no! Unless the the goal is in fact to promulgate IPCC propaganda.

Again a demonstration of the denier's stance that the IPCC has not produced a report that stands on its science but, rather, some spin. Yet there is no evidence that this is the case.

Like most deniers you present information that the media has latched onto, which has little or nothing of merit from a scientific perspective:

Prime example is the recent case of the presentation of the disappearance of New Moore Island in the Bay of Bengal as due to AGW, viz, sea level rise. This was laughable as readers comments in the link show.

In a twist of logic, deniers accuse those who trust the science as being zealots, disciples and the like, while themselves latching onto a cohort that spins quasi-scientific information in the name of climate science:

Meanwhile disciples of the AGW religion continue to be lost around the world as intelligent folk evaluate both sides of the debate.

Then Mr L searches for legitimacy by going back to his roots:

Meanwhile, as I've stated at least a hundred times on here, the real, measurable and mitigable human influences on climate and the ecosystem are ignored; and peoples trust of real science is compromised making it ever more difficult for community action.

Certainly our ecosystems are compromised, and in some nations nothing at all is done. But in relation to measurable and mitigable influences on climate, the main protagonist is carbon, and we need to move forward on ETS, CPRS, EITe and POI to get emissions under control.
It seems that some think that we cannot act on all fronts simultaneously to improve our collective lot. The reality is that we mostly are, but at some point priorities kick in.

No, the leftists won't abandon their agenda without a fight, but at least the battle can be fought in the relative light after the expose' of dodgy science of recent months.

Finally, Mr L uses language that denies the science, and cannot produce evidence to support his case.
Mr L may believe this about left and right ideologies, and he may use language to sway you to his view. His case lacks a sound base, is fraught with emotion, and is deficient in its science.

 

[brty]

GG,

The alarmists conveniently overlook what is CURRENTLY happening to sea ice. A couple of years ago the smaller area of sea ice was all the rage with the albedo (or lack there of) effect going to accelerate GW.

It is strange how the increase in ice doesn't seem to have the opposite effect

Of course more ice, especially in Antarctica, is just another example of GW, go figure.

brty

 

[sneak'n]

GG,

The alarmists conveniently overlook what is CURRENTLY happening to sea ice. A couple of years ago the smaller area of sea ice was all the rage with the albedo (or lack there of) effect going to accelerate GW.

It is strange how the increase in ice doesn't seem to have the opposite effect

Of course more ice, especially in Antarctica, is just another example of GW, go figure.

brty

Hysterical deniers keep dragging this up, yet evidence of sea ice volumes and extent corroborates the warming case.
As Mr L eloquently points out, "repetition is no substitute for truth".
In relation to Antarctica, others have posted numerous explanations as to its difference from the Arctic region.
While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time, Antarctic sea ice has mostly tracked its 20-year average and remained well within two standard deviations.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hysterical deniers keep dragging this up, yet evidence of sea ice volumes and extent corroborates the warming case.
As Mr L eloquently points out, "repetition is no substitute for truth".
In relation to Antarctica, others have posted numerous explanations as to its difference from the Arctic region.
While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time, Antarctic sea ice has mostly tracked its 20-year average and remained well within two standard deviations.

Good on ya sneak'n, for a bloke with less than 50 posts you have jumped right in to the spirit of ASF. You do sound like another poster of some time back though, my syntaxonometer thinks so anyway.

Now re hysteria, you so far in your posts would be a provider of more dough to the ole Freud were he still in practice than any engaging in argument with you since your debut on the forum.

Your post has a religious tone to it, calling people "deniers" who don't agree with you, why not call them "infidels" or "unbelievers" and blow em up or burn em at the stake.

The Koranobiblical evidence you quote is just that, a set of beliefs. Science continues in the face of that, never really sure of the exact truth, experimenting, collating and sharing information.

Please don't sneak off though, you sweet little newbie you. I enjoy your posts.

gg

 

[brty]

Sneak'n,

This is a classic example of the alarmists attitude....

While Arctic sea ice extent has been outside two standard deviations and below its 20-year average for some time

That is just plain wrong.

The current anomaly in sea ice area for the Arctic from the average over the last 30 years is 1.38%. Also there is as much sea-ice now as there has been at any stage in the last 6 years, and more than for most of that time.

sea ice volumes

The effect on albedo of volume is what??

Us sceptics think area may be more important here, but then again perhaps I have missed something here.
According to IPCC data Antarctica sea-ice is growing at 1% per decade, but that doesn't fit the models or the science, so by using the cutoff point of late 2005 for data we can call the increase not statistically significant and ignore more sea-ice, and albedo effect etc etc.

bye

 

[Calliope]

In a twist of logic, deniers accuse those who trust the science as being zealots, disciples and the like, while themselves latching onto a cohort that spins quasi-scientific information in the name of climate science:

Twist of logic? As one who trusts "The Science" you have forfeited any credibility in this debate by being in denial that you are a resurrected version of Rederob even to the extent that you have referred to your alter ego in the third person.

I realise that you have enmeshed yourself too deeply in this tangled web of deception to extricate yourself, but your preaching now has the smell of hypocrisy.

 

[sneak'n]

Sneak'n,
This is a classic example of the alarmists attitude....

That is just plain wrong.

The current anomaly in sea ice area for the Arctic from the average over the last 30 years is 1.38%. Also there is as much sea-ice now as there has been at any stage in the last 6 years, and more than for most of that time.

If you cite your references I will be pleased to reply in detail.

The effect on albedo of volume is what??

Albedo has no volumetric impact on sea ice as it measures "reflection". Furthermore, as the sun does not shine at either of the polar regions during the winter high points for sea ice, there is no albedo effect.

Us sceptics think area may be more important here, but then again perhaps I have missed something here.
According to IPCC data Antarctica sea-ice is growing at 1% per decade, but that doesn't fit the models or the science, so by using the cutoff point of late 2005 for data we can call the increase not statistically significant and ignore more sea-ice, and albedo effect etc etc.

Different parts of Antarctica are experiencing opposite impacts, such as the Antarctic Peninsula, which is experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.

 

[wayneL]

Ahhh rederob! In an attitude reminiscent of young earth creationists. You're so 2008, so behind the curve on revelations in the CC arena.

I was going to fisk your fisking, but it's like trying to rationalize with some sort of mad mullah - futile.

Those folks capable of logical and balanced discernment have already, or soon will realised they have been scammed via all the Gorist/IPCC nonsense. A certain number of faithful will stay trapped in the Gorist twilight zone, even as we enter a new cooling cycle.

C'est la vie, que sera sera, etc etc

 

[WaveSurfer]

...people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to....

One of the better posts in this thread. And that sentence about sums it all up in a nice little package.

This immediately came to mind:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php

Oh we're a naïve primitive race aren't we? Considering this "revelation" that drastically changed science was only 150 years ago, we've still got a very long way to go before we can call ourselves informed

I'm not on either side of the argument, nor on the fence. I'm in my own paddock, doing my own thing. Because in the end, no-one really has the slightest clue at this stage. Everyone likes to have a stab in the dark though. And quite a wild one at that :

Someone come and get me when the next "Pasteur" proves it as fact or fiction.

 

[brty]

Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm

Oops the models got that one wrong..

Sneak'n..

If you cite your references I will be pleased to reply in detail.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Only the 'official' stats that everyone uses.

Furthermore, as the sun does not shine at either of the polar regions during the winter high points for sea ice, there is no albedo effect.

So there is no albedo effect in summer either?? please do better.


brty