Resisting Climate Hysteria

[SirRumpole]

I guess you must be one of those naive people who has full confidence in Tim Flannery and Al Gore.

Intelligent examination???...more like an intelligent CON job....The evidence and logic is rhetorical propaganda starting from the UN Secretary General down the line through to the Fabians, Tim Flannery and Al Gore and backed up by the ABC, Fairfax, the Guardian and GETUP....It is a pity those cronies didn't tell the truth......They could not lie start in bed.

Good old noco, information minimum, insults maximum.

I doubt if the new year will bring any improvement.

 

[noco]

Good old noco, information minimum, insults maximum.

I doubt if the new year will bring any improvement.

OMG is that the best you can do?...you must be desperate.

 

[bellenuit]

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

 

[noco]

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.

If you are an alarmist you will believe one thing...If you are a skeptic, you will believe in something else.

One is right and one is wrong.

Some believe in God because others have convinced them into believing there is a God whether you have proved it or not and there others who don't believe in God because there is no proof that God exists

There will always be those who are convinced they are right and will always try to persuade others to think like them and it is the same as alarmists and skeptics....It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...

 

[basilio]

.It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...

Well put Noco. As you would have noticed from reading the article that is an excellent summary of Dr Soons work on climate change. He was paid by the fossil fuel industry to produce scientific papers that would dispute the causes of global warming.

He was paid around $1.2m for these papers. Even when they were completely debunked on the basis of flawed data and interpretation climate deniers still routinely quoted Willie Soon.

The Hockey Stick

In 2003, Dr. Soon and his colleague at the SAO, Sallie Baliunas, published a now thoroughly debunked study in Climate Research’ "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years," in the first of a number of denier challenges to Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ study. This study was republished [pdf] by the (then ExxonMobil funded) George Marshall Institute in 2003

For complete details of Mr Soons career check out the following URL

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Of all the climate deniers, one scientist has been particularly closely involved in the campaign against the climate science consensus for the majority of his career: Dr. Willie Soon.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STU

______________________________________________________

Additional background on Dr Willie Soons science activities

http://www.polluterwatch.com/willie-soon

 

[Knobby22]

I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.

Says it all really for the common man....every untrained person in science from the Prime Minister down meets that description. As Dr Spock from Star Trek said, humans don't act logically.

 

[wayneL]

Never mind the science, this is what I find disturbing and what every one should be resisting. IMO

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3WmDbWilu
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

[Knobby22]

Good to see you back Wayne. Thought you had turned into a hippy reading that other thread.

Anyway, real article follows.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-b...he-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Note she never said her aim was to destroy capitalism, but I knew this as soon as I saw the denier term "warmist" in the original article. (sigh)

Transforming the economic model does not equate with destroying Capitalism.

Hottest year ever last year!

 

[wayneL]

There seems to be conflicting results from different datasets, the interpretation depending whetehr one sides with libertarians or Orwellians.

One simply cannot seriously ignore the political influence upon that.

See woodfortrees.org

 

[Knobby22]

Very nice site. Love to see a bit of Fourier analysis. If only we had a longer data set.

 

[pixel]

I can't get my head around this:

For close to a Billion years, increasingly complex life forms have captured the sun's energy and converted part of it into carbon compounds against the trend of entropy. Some of these compounds were then buried under sands and water, accumulating a store of Gazillions of Megawatts.

And then humans discovered the secret of liberating the stored energy, using processes that create a small percentage of power and a large amount of heat: a direct consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Doubters, see http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/

Since the onset of the Industrial Age, humans have been converting the stored sunshine of fossil fuels into heat at an ever increasing rate, using air and water as agents to transport excesses away from the point of heat generation into the Earth's Biosphere where it accumulated and continues to heat the environment.

What I fail to understand: How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle? A process that took hundreds of Millions of years to absorb heat is now reversed within a couple of human generations, releasing the stored heat into the environment. How can the result not be called man-made?

Forget farting cows, belching volcanoes, and fluctuations in sun cycles. Those are natural phenomena that have been happening since the dawn of life, and the mass of oceans and atmosphere has buffered the impact in cycles of Thousands and Millions of years. Human industry is the one factor that's now different, polluting the Earth's Biosphere at a rate that exceeds Earth's capacity of absorption. Whether industrial pollution adds two degrees or ten to the general warming is a moot point. Fact is, it does add at an increasing rate. If that rate is not reversed and the effects neutralised, Earth won't have a Biosphere much longer.

 

[basilio]

Excellent post Pixel. A very critical summary of how we are liberating gigatons of stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 where it is capturing more and more heat from the sun.

You pose the rhetorical question of How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle? Hell Pixel many intelligent people still insist that the earth is not significantly warming and that tens of thousands of climate records are misleading or wrong or altered.

Many intelligent people also insist that the tens of thousands of earth scientists, climate scientists, natural scientists, geologists, who explain what is happening to the cliamte and the effects on our planet are completely mistaken if not deliberate liars.

And finally many very intelligent people can make bucket loads of money selling stories, in many cases creative to ficticious, to the masses, politicians, investors whoever. I appreciate that is a very broad statement which can be interpreted in many ways. But the key point is when one can make far more money selling stories rather than acknowledging more objective truths our society will go for the money.

 

[basilio]

Very interesting website woodfortrees.org. Good value.

 

[wayneL]

Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.

The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment. In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.

The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science. This is the crux of the sceptics case, not denial as is attempting to be portrayed by some.

Then there are the obvious political agendas polluting proper discourse.....

 

[basilio]

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.

Is that perhaps because we are not at 2100 yet ? In any case "the worst case scenario" is catastrophe. An earth that is an average of 6C hotter than currently and incapable of supporting 99% of the current ecosystems and certainly not humans.

There are lesser scenarios. 4C warming. Perhaps 2C warming. These are are barely acceptable scenarios spelt out IF. IF we somehow manage to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate future.

This isn't an academic exercise where being a little off track just means we have to wipe down the whiteboard and recast some figures.

The sad part about the situation is that putting climate change aside we should be moving to a renewable energy based economy and sustainable resource use simply because we will run out of material resources at the rate we are going.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-worstcase-warming-scenario.html#.VSdXSfDKr1E

______________________________________________

There is a paper that examines and analyses the impacts of projected global warming scenarios and the likelihood of averting these outcomes.

Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission
scenarios for a new world

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html

 

[Knobby22]

Bas

We can also stop thermal runaway.
A few strategically placed nukes, a bit of nuclear winter (not too much) and she'll be right.
I believe there are powerful people in the USA also looking at other less drastic methods.

 

[pixel]

Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.

Wayne, I wasn't talking CO2, I was talking anthropogenic waste heat that is directly increasing the temperature of air and water in addition to all the heat that Nature keeps producing.

The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment. In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.

Lucky for us that it hasn't. But the folks on Vanuatu may have different thoughts about that.
My question in that context is: Can we afford to risk the worst-case scenario when there are clear and feasible alternative options.

The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science.

On this, I have to disagree: Thermodynamics is not a faith. It's Science. Yes, there are many possible outcomes. All are bad within one or two human lifetimes, some are catastrophic much sooner.
But irrespective of the magnitude of potential consequences, I condemn the attitude displayed by politicians and representatives of Industry, who are continuing to pollute the environment to the detriment of current and future generations.

 

[basilio]

The question that Pixel raises on why intelligent people can't/won't accept clear evidence on a particular issue gets a going over in the current issue of New Scientist.

STATE OF DENIAL

From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them? In this special feature we look at the phenomenon in depth. What is denial? What attracts people to it? How does it start, and how does it spread? And finally, how should we respond to it?

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

Cheers

 

[So_Cynical]

Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.

The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment. In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

The issue isn't how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix, the issue is that what pixel described is an absolute fact, a simple historical and scientific fact, and many usually smart people seem to want (looking at you) to dance around this.

Also please lets not forget Methane, its not all about co2.

 

[wayneL]

Nice ad homs there fellows, dressed up a bit, but just ad hom.

Pixel,

I don't think the laws of thermodynamics apply as you think they do. Can you elaborate on this.

Anyhooz from woodfortrees.org



In addition there is the problem of extreme weather events... or lack thereof.

This all points to a scenario playing out, other than the alarmist worst case scenario.

By the way, every time anyone invokes the "D" word - you lose.