Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

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.
Mr Gumnut
I could use longhand and each time refer to one or any number of people who "deny" that there is any substance to the science that supports human-induced global warming theory, or I could call them "deniers"; the latter being my preference.
You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.
I find that most deniers simply regurgitate falsehoods and myths that abound the popular media. A lesser number look at the evidence, don't understand it, and come to wrongheaded conclusions. If their beliefs are poorly based, it is possible they might change. On the other hand, there are some who quite deliberately choose information to obfuscate the facts and mislead. It would be an error of judgement to call them infidels or unbelievers as they have a special agenda. Do you wish to elaborate yours?
 
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
Is there a point in time when you will substantiate your claims?
 
Mr Gumnut
I could use longhand and each time refer to one or any number of people who "deny" that there is any substance to the science that supports human-induced global warming theory, or I could call them "deniers"; the latter being my preference.
You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.
I find that most deniers simply regurgitate falsehoods and myths that abound the popular media. A lesser number look at the evidence, don't understand it, and come to wrongheaded conclusions. If their beliefs are poorly based, it is possible they might change. On the other hand, there are some who quite deliberately choose information to obfuscate the facts and mislead. It would be an error of judgement to call them infidels or unbelievers as they have a special agenda. Do you wish to elaborate yours?

I don't have any real agenda, I enjoy life and the earth. I leave shopping trolleys back where they should go, and I don't litter and I grow vegies and fruit, and work, try to be nice within the limits of my personality and believe in a strong and independent Australia.

So I am just an ordinary garpal.

I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.

I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.

I am not a scientist and am as entitled to voice my opinion on this as much as the next garpal particularly when my country is led by an Alabama hating nerd who had a bald minister who wasted millions of my taxes on this stupid, stupid nonsense by electrifying little old ladies ceilings.

All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.

gg
 
Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing, NASA Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329132405.htm
Oops the models got that one wrong..
This reference has little to do with Arctic/Antarctic sea ice extent, and proves nothing - from the article itself: For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

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

Only the 'official' stats that everyone uses.
As others will see from your attached reference (below chart), cherry picking data is not a useful way to demonstrate a multidecadal trend. In recent years the decline in sea ice extent has neared 20% of the 30 year average.
As a point of note, my data clearly stated a different time series, and a different outcome, and were derived from the National Sea Ice and Data Centre: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
 

Attachments

  • seaice_anomaly_arctic.png
    seaice_anomaly_arctic.png
    41.5 KB · Views: 32
I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.
You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness. Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.
The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.

I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.
I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.
 
...as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.

That would be true if climate science was truly evidence based, but it isn't.

Politics is involved ab initio, right from the funding stage. In fact funding is only available for scientists seeking to confirm the politically driven IPCC AGW hypothesis.

Climate science cannot be divorced from politics at this point and I find it incredible that you naively believe it is.
 
That would be true if climate science was truly evidence based, but it isn't.

Politics is involved ab initio, right from the funding stage. In fact funding is only available for scientists seeking to confirm the politically driven IPCC AGW hypothesis.

Climate science cannot be divorced from politics at this point and I find it incredible that you naively believe it is.
Please substantiate your claims.
 
You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness. Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.
The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.

I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.

I guess we'll have to differ as I honestly cannot understand where you are coming from and you equally cannot understand my point of view.

I will continue though as I said above to oppose your views until all the evidence is in, one way or the other, it is too important to have politicians from the New Left and scientists in their pay deciding the future of Australia.

gg
 
All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.
gg

You probably realise that trying to have a rational debate with sneak'n is an exercise in futility. He has a fundamentalist belief in man-made global warming and his acceptance of "the science" is as fixated as a creationist's belief in the old testament.

This is a clear case of common sense and fundamentalism being not compatible.
 
You probably realise that trying to have a rational debate with sneak'n is an exercise in futility. He has a fundamentalist belief in man-made global warming and his acceptance of "the science" is as fixated as a creationist's belief in the old testament.

This is a clear case of common sense and fundamentalism being not compatible.

I realise that, thanks , Calliope.

All his charts look like five minute stock charts, he has no idea that you work back from longer term charts in technical analysis and I don't buy any of them as there is a huge data void. i presume it is true in weather analysis as well.

gg
 
You do know this anyway, and simply wish to stir the pot, as I see is your want.
Oh dear, Rederob, despite your woeful tendency to discredit those who disagree with you, I usually take pleasure in your posts because they are literate.
You have let yourself down here, sadly.
"As I see is your want", should be "as I see is your wont": "wont" meaning habit.
So disappointing from one of your sensibilities.

I don't have any real agenda, I enjoy life and the earth. I leave shopping trolleys back where they should go, and I don't litter and I grow vegies and fruit, and work, try to be nice within the limits of my personality and believe in a strong and independent Australia.

So I am just an ordinary garpal.

I do have a detestation of humbuggery and a lack of evidence for this Weather nonsense, as all that I have read does not lead me to conclusively believe in it.

I also find that those who push the Climate change line are the same old lefties who over the years have come up with objection after objection to progress.

I am not a scientist and am as entitled to voice my opinion on this as much as the next garpal particularly when my country is led by an Alabama hating nerd who had a bald minister who wasted millions of my taxes on this stupid, stupid nonsense by electrifying little old ladies ceilings.

All this stupidity has to stop and if I can do just one little bit to stop it by commenting as I do, I will continue to do so, as long as I draw breath.

gg
:D:D:D:D

You have confused two matters in belief and conclusiveness. Belief does not imply a demand of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard climate science is pointing us towards probabilities rather than definitive near term outcomes.
Hence the logic of taking a position of agnosticism.


The problem we have is that in this realm of probabilities there is a likely tipping point: A point where the physics takes over and our beliefs are left in its wake.

I can't share that view as evidence based decision making is devoid of politics.
How is your conclusion 'evidence based'? If it were, there would be no room for disagreement. Your final sentence is in opposition to your earlier comment.
You are indulging in pure sophistry, Rederob. I'd have expected better.
 
How is your conclusion 'evidence based'? If it were, there would be no room for disagreement. Your final sentence is in opposition to your earlier comment.
Your inference is not valid. Mr L would accuse you of constructing a straw man argument.

If you and others wish to discuss climate science I am pleased to do so. If you and others wish to pursue rederob, I would be grateful if that chase occurred elsewhere.
 
Your inference is not valid. Mr L would accuse you of constructing a straw man argument.
No I wouldn't, because it isn't.

If you and others wish to discuss climate science I am pleased to do so.
Climate science is important to discuss, but as this thread is about resisting climate hysteria, it is secondary in this thread. It is evident in a thousand other places, and particularly in light of recent revelations that pro co2 based AGW "science" is mostly junk.

If one wishes to discuss climate change, that's fine, but it is irritating when those such as yourself toe the party line so faithfully in denial of the full range of information out there. An analysis of the science reveals that much of it is constructed to achieve a desired result and/or leaping to conclusions not backed by the data.... a scientific non-sequitur.

As above, politics is intrinsic to the discussion.

If you and others wish to pursue rederob, I would be grateful if that chase occurred elsewhere.
Well, we all realise that you would be grateful if we ignored your previous ASF incarnation. But the syntax of your postings, the not so subtle hint in your new user name, and on obvious grudge are so marked, that it betrays your true identity faithfully.

Don't forget that we are traders, we have trained to see patterns.
 
Don't forget that we are traders, we have trained to see patterns.

Global warming induced by the continued population explosion will not go away. Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.
 
Global warming induced by the continued population explosion will not go away. Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.

Excuse me?

You seem to have acquired rederob's disgraceful habit in misrepresenting my statements. When did I say there is no climate change? My point is over causation and I have repeatedly stated that there are both manmade and natural causes. My dispute is over the role of co2 and the misrepresentations of the Gorist/IPCC agenda.

Learn to read and comprehend buddy so-as not to appear so intellectually compromised.
 
No I wouldn't, because it isn't.
As I made no such remark, and could draw no conclusion, Julia simply created an argument of her choosing to respond to.


Climate science is important to discuss, but as this thread is about resisting climate hysteria, it is secondary in this thread. It is evident in a thousand other places, and particularly in light of recent revelations that pro co2 based AGW "science" is mostly junk.
The hysteria is where?
Media outlets desperate for storylines choose the least probable of possible scenarios and blow them into the headlines. The science is very conservative.
You keep saying the science is mostly junk, yet you cannot prove it, and I have yet to see that you have a grasp on it.


If one wishes to discuss climate change, that's fine, but it is irritating when those such as yourself toe the party line so faithfully in denial of the full range of information out there. An analysis of the science reveals that much of it is constructed to achieve a desired result and/or leaping to conclusions not backed by the data.... a scientific non-sequitur.
What is the party line?
I have kept my comments to the science.
Perhaps a difference is that I review the science that other scientists review, rather than what hits the media.


As above, politics is intrinsic to the discussion.
Only because you believe this. The scientific forums where peer reviewed material is presented are devoid of politicians, and the politics is more about who is next Chair.


Well, we all realise that you would be grateful if we ignored your previous ASF incarnation. But the syntax of your postings, the not so subtle hint in your new user name, and on obvious grudge are so marked, that it betrays your true identity faithfully.
Tilling your wonted ground to no avail! There is no "grudge", and there is barely a debate when it comes to your posts as there is nothing to progress. Dare I ask again that you add something of substance?
 
Global warming induced by the continued population explosion will not go away. Patterns maybe, but the obvious trend you seem to miss Champ, and science or no science.

But where is the indisputable scientific evidence to support this? That's all that any sceptic is asking for. And damn rightly so. Given the history of mankind's lies, deceit, corruption, manipulation and most of all mistakes, it's hardly no wonder why people will continue to question any half-baked theories.

What if it's just a natural cycle? What are the dire consequences of getting it all wrong? Considering we can't adequately predict what the weather will do in 3 days time, I find it very hard to comprehend that they know what's going to happen in 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

Science is about finding the truth. Something a lot of scientists seem to have forgotten about since they left University (it's the very first thing that they teach you).

I take my hat off to those who continually question, in order to find the truth. If we believed and acted on every single half-baked theory that scientists manifest, god help us all.
 
The hysteria is where?

The rest of your comments are repeat points that you seem incapable of grasping, so will leave you to your faith.

However the above is a good question.

The word hysteria is perhaps a tad hyperbolic as not many are running around in circles in the street. But we live in a culture where hyperbole is so common, so overused, any diminutive would seem inappropriate. The entire debate has been framed in hyperbole, mostly from the Gorists.

However when I speak to young people indoctrinated by the education system into thinking we we all be crowded onto mountain peaks, surrounded by swirling, boiling oceans and daily cyclones by this time next year (That is again hyperbole, rederob), then we have entered a hysterical phase. Those affected are without hope, angry, depressed etc.

So let us continue in a hyperbolic vein.

When there are protests against climate change, we have entered hysteria.

When the press blames every weather event on GW, it is hysteria.

When an island disappears in the Bay of Bengal due to normal dynamic and is blamed on rising sea levels, it is hysteria.

When encroaching seas due land subsidence are attributed to rising sea levels, it is hysteria.

When an unnecessary and ineffective carbon tax is proposed and accepted by ordinary folk, it is hysteria.

When people like you and explod distort the very words on the page in front of your face do satisfy your cult like and undiscerning adherence to the Gorist agenda, it is hysteria.

It is ultimately counter productive. The public are starting to realise they have been scammed, they are losing belief in AGW in large numbers; no because of some oil money based campaign of denial, but because the Gorist agenda has been exposed as fraudulent and inevitably lost credibility.

This is unfortunate, because the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater and other environmental issues are cast with doubt as well... things I have mentioned often on this and other threads.

Hysteria? No, not in the literal sense, but in the above sense, certainly.
 
I actually think the hysteria is on either viewpoint.

It seems that the media more and more cannot describe a balanced view but instead brings out the (usually discredited) extremists on both sides of the argument and completely misses the original ground.

I notice the skeptics are now using political argument i.e. stating you are left wing if you believe man is having an effect on climate change. So much so that it is used as a form of abuse. This is of course gone the other way as well.

The truth is in between, there are the facts, there are theories and in my view there is no giant scientific conspiracy.

There is no real point arguing. The people (sheep) are being coerced by political agendas and am generally unable to understand the science. Scientist are being attacked like never before but the truth will win out.

Give it 5 years and the heat will all be gone out of this argument as the resulting climate change or lack of it will be obvious.

Most of the world is taking it seriously and modifying their economies.
Places like Australia will follow eventually.
 
Top