Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

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.

5 years will prove nothing either way.

 

[WaveSurfer]

Watching the Discovery Science channel a few weeks back, I saw a program that claimed to have the solution for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. They were building large wave pump funnels, placed in the Atlantic ocean that went down below the surface of the ocean to a certain depth where photosynthesis was not occurring (1000 or so feet I think it was). They funnelled up the minerals phytoplankton were derived from to produce more phytoplankton. This then absorbs the CO2 and takes most of it down to the bottom of the sea bed.

Oh here ya go, just found it. This should explain it
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/project-earth-hungry-ocean.html

There you go. Scientists acting on half-baked theories with absolutely no idea about what sort of consequences these sort of actions would have.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
Sir Isaac Newton

This was only very briefly mentioned at the end of the program. They may as we'll of said, we're acting now and we'll think about it later

 

[sneak'n]

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.

There is only probability thus far in relation to the theory. Since the last IPCC report the "evidence" has not gone the other way but, rather, has favoured the theory and increased the probability.

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.

That is not a clever way of looking at the problem. Imagine you were at the opposite end of a large fish tank that was being heated to boiling point. It would be possible for you to avoid the heating trend for some time, and within cycles you could find cooler water from time to time, although the water was incrementally heating at a net level. The addition of CO2 to our atmosphere, in conjunction with relatively stable solar radiation, has an analogous impact in that at some point things are going very uncomfortable (though not "boiling").

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).

If that was always the case there would be much better science from those who do not regard CO2 as a major concern.

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.

So do you believe that human induced climate change is half baked? If so, what science informs you?

 

[sneak'n]

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

In other words your grasp of the science remains in doubt.

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.

I would be grateful if you can present what I have distorted. Your position seems to acknowledge that man has a role in warming, but how do you quantify that component?

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 your mantra. If anyone is being scammed it is they who have no idea of the complexity of climate, and can believe the media because they are credible!

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.

This is because climate change advocates are most vocal from the green movement (or the left as some prefer), and the conservative/right oppose their every motive. There is a cost to keeping things clean and environmentally friendly and capitalism works best by avoiding those costs. The quid pro quo for keeping businesses local is to transfer incidental costs the taxpayer. This will see an ETS in place whether we like it or not.

 

[sneak'n]

Watching the Discovery Science channel a few weeks back, I saw a program that claimed to have the solution for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. They were building large wave pump funnels, placed in the Atlantic ocean that went down below the surface of the ocean to a certain depth where photosynthesis was not occurring (1000 or so feet I think it was). They funnelled up the minerals phytoplankton were derived from to produce more phytoplankton. This then absorbs the CO2 and takes most of it down to the bottom of the sea bed.

Oh here ya go, just found it. This should explain it
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/project-earth-hungry-ocean.html

There you go. Scientists acting on half-baked theories with absolutely no idea about what sort of consequences these sort of actions would have.


This was only very briefly mentioned at the end of the program. They may as we'll of said, we're acting now and we'll think about it later

It's not a half baked theory as phytoplankton has been largely responsible for keeping CO2 levels as low as they are. A cheaper option would be to treat the oceans as large paddocks, and scatter minerals that grow phytoplankton from planes.
The problem with the idea is that our oceans are getting too acidic, and adding to it does not tally with common sense.

 

[Calliope]

I would be grateful if you can present what I have distorted.

Your identity. This is a gross distortion. I notice you are still referring to rederob in the third person.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive"

 

[WaveSurfer]

That is not a clever way of looking at the problem. Imagine you were at the opposite end of a large fish tank that was being heated to boiling point. It would be possible for you to avoid the heating trend for some time, and within cycles you could find cooler water from time to time, although the water was incrementally heating at a net level. The addition of CO2 to our atmosphere, in conjunction with relatively stable solar radiation, has an analogous impact in that at some point things are going very uncomfortable (though not "boiling").

That's not a clever way of looking a the problem either. The question you failed to address is why is it heating? A natural process or a man-induced process. A simple question that "sceptic scientists" are asking today.

If that was always the case there would be much better science from those who do not regard CO2 as a major concern.

Huh? Extreme excesses of CO2 is well known to be of concern. That is a known fact. CO2 is toxic - any basic chemistry 101 book will tell you that. I believe you meant - those who do not regard the current levels of CO2 to be of major concern.

So do you believe that human induced climate change is half baked? If so, what science informs you?

No science whatsoever informs me of this. The lack of it however does

As I said before, I'm not on any side. Past history has shown it's ludicrous to take a side and act upon that assumption without first determining all of the facts.

If scientists can't agree on what's really going on, no assumptive posts on a public bulletin board are going to convince me otherwise. I'm more of a realist, not a sheep. I was given a brain and I'm going to use it to make my own mind - not be lead by propaganda.

 

[WaveSurfer]

It's not a half baked theory as phytoplankton has been largely responsible for keeping CO2 levels as low as they are. A cheaper option would be to treat the oceans as large paddocks, and scatter minerals that grow phytoplankton from planes...

You ain't gonna feed words into my mouth pal.

Read what I said again

Scientists acting on half-baked theories

I never said the solution was half-baked.

 

[sneak'n]

That's not a clever way of looking a the problem either. The question you failed to address is why is it heating? A natural process or a man-induced process. A simple question that "sceptic scientists" are asking today.

I have repeatedly indicated the probability lies with CO2 emissions exacerbated by humans.

No science whatsoever informs me of this. The lack of it however does

Given the debate is centred on the science, your position is best established by having some view of it. There is certainly no "lack of it" unless you simply wish to be dismissive.

If scientists can't agree on what's really going on, no assumptive posts on a public bulletin board are going to convince me otherwise. I'm more of a realist, not a sheep. I was given a brain and I'm going to use it to make my own mind - not be lead by propaganda.

Climate scientists do agree - a significant majority - and their views are in the public domain because of the probable dire (long term) consequences of not acting soon.

 

[sneak'n]

I never said the solution was half-baked.

You might then care to explain what is half baked.
If, as you say, the solution is not half baked, your post implies the theory is.
Or are you somehow able to claim neither is or was?

 

[WaveSurfer]

blah blah blah...

Dude, you can mix words all you like. I ain't gonna buy into your half-baked argument.

Oh, here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:half+baked

Cherry pick anything you want from there and forward any response to

someone@whocares.com

 

[sneak'n]

Dude, you can mix words all you like. I ain't gonna buy into your half-baked argument.

Oh, here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:half+baked

Cherry pick anything you want from there and forward any response to

someone@whocares.com

It goes to your credibility.

You clearly had little idea of albedo impacts, chose to use the best possible data on sea ice extent (ignoring long term trends), and now don't have the capacity to defend your own words.

It's a bit like Mr Pliskin earlier raising "red herrings" and "logic", and never being seen again to defend his words, or like Julia suggesting I use sophistry when it is she creating and defending a case of her own making.

Then there is Mr L who relies on some history at this forum for his reputation and standing. Perhaps it is good elsewhere, but apart from an excellent piece on hysteria earlier on, his scientific base appears without a foundation in this thread.

The hysteria from the deniers' camp is palpable.

 

[Smurf1976]

This is because climate change advocates are most vocal from the green movement (or the left as some prefer), and the conservative/right oppose their every motive. There is a cost to keeping things clean and environmentally friendly and capitalism works best by avoiding those costs. The quid pro quo for keeping businesses local is to transfer incidental costs the taxpayer. This will see an ETS in place whether we like it or not.

As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close and (2) as a "backdoor" measure to keep those wanting an ETS happy, we're going to get a lot more renewable electricity generation instead.

So, the plans to directly lower CO2 from power generation especially are being filed away whilst the plans to build all forms of new large scale renewable generation have been quickly dusted off and are now under financial review by potential developers. Meanwhile the small scale generation industry, which is mostly about politics rather than actual power generation or emissions reduction, seems to have grabbed a lifeline.

The big problem though is there's a lot of "gun shy" people at the moment given all the on again, off again, on again, off again nonsense from government in a very short space of time. Few are willing to take risks in this environment, hence there's a lot of caution.

 

[WaveSurfer]

It goes to your credibility.

Like I said, send your replies to someone@whocares.com

You clearly had little idea of albedo impacts, chose to use the best possible data on sea ice extent (ignoring long term trends), and now don't have the capacity to defend your own words.

HUH? Dude, wash the diarrhoea dribbling from your chin.

Scientists are in general consensus that the climate is changing. Duh! Like it hasn't been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years.

What they can't agree on is why it is changing... You have provided absolutely no evidence either

If you can shed some light on why, and obtain consensus between scientists, then do so. Don't procrastinate and put words into mouths in here chump.

My points were simple. They don't know why, yet they are coming up with solutions to a potential natural phenomenon. Solutions to a problem based on a half-baked hypothesis in the first place.

The globe is warming - yes it appears so.
Why is it warming? WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE'LL TRY AND STOP IT ANYWAY.

Typical human naivety.

The hysteria from the deniers' camp is palpable.

I don't deny or agree, I thought I made that pretty clear. If you can't fathom that, it's clearly your problem not mine.

 

[explod]

Like I said, send your replies to someone@whocares.com



HUH? Dude, wash the diarrhoea dribbling from your chin.

Scientists are in general consensus that the climate is changing. Duh! Like it hasn't been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years.

What they can't agree on is why it is changing... You have provided absolutely no evidence either

If you can shed some light on why, and obtain consensus between scientists, then do so. Don't procrastinate and put words into mouths in here chump.

My points were simple. They don't know why, yet they are coming up with solutions to a potential natural phenomenon. Solutions to a problem based on a half-baked hypothesis in the first place.

The globe is warming - yes it appears so.
Why is it warming? WE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE'LL TRY AND STOP IT ANYWAY.

Typical human naivety.



I don't deny or agree, I thought I made that pretty clear. If you can't fathom that, it's clearly your problem not mine.

The word DUDE we getting a bit warmer there ole Champ.

Depends a lot on the scientists, of course agricultural scientists, and those in the coal industry and those young scientists who need guvmint grants to survive are going to say what big business and government wants them to say. But if you want to listen to the correct science then we may have some trouble and it is certainly not half backed.

Have you read a book called the Sixth Extinction, the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it. This book is well documented with footnotes to all evidence presented.

 

[Knobby22]

As someone who follows the energy industry pretty closely, I'll simply observe that (1) the probability of an ETS or similar direct action to limit CO2 emissions seems to have essentially collapsed recently - it's not dead but it's damn close and (2) as a "backdoor" measure to keep those wanting an ETS happy, we're going to get a lot more renewable electricity generation instead.

So, the plans to directly lower CO2 from power generation especially are being filed away whilst the plans to build all forms of new large scale renewable generation have been quickly dusted off and are now under financial review by potential developers. Meanwhile the small scale generation industry, which is mostly about politics rather than actual power generation or emissions reduction, seems to have grabbed a lifeline.

The big problem though is there's a lot of "gun shy" people at the moment given all the on again, off again, on again, off again nonsense from government in a very short space of time. Few are willing to take risks in this environment, hence there's a lot of caution.

Agreed. The government could make major reductions just by weaning us off Victorian Brown coal onto gas. Ceramic fuel cell units could be encouraged and solar power stations built in places like Broken Hill.

It wouldn't take that much to achieve some impressive greenhouse gas reductions without going through the painful ETS route.

Maybe Australia will come up with something better! It wouldn't be the first time (e.g. our health care system compared to UK and USA).

 

[WaveSurfer]

If I was a palpable denier, why would I have done my part? I'm guessing more than most too. So far, I have:

Installed solar hot water
Insulated my house to hilts
Installed a solar power grid - I sell green energy back to the power company.

Was "climate hysteria" the reason for my actions. Ha! Not a chance.

I did it to save money - turns out I get ROI from the choices I made. My last bill was a cheque from the power company. There's a good chance that my next bill will be a cheque payable to me too.

So what are you doing about it hysterics? Apart from dribbling diarrhoea on a public forum

 

[sneak'n]

Wavesurfer

You are totally misrepresenting the science and the scientific consensus.
Climate scientists are very much of the view that CO2 is the principal ingredient of concern and postulated a theory which was presented in great detail in the last IPCC Report.

The degree of certainty that the theory will hold hold true has improved as years pass. The many forums and hundreds of scientific papers since IPCC3 continue to validate the theory.

What we do know is that CO2 concentrations will increase over the next 10 years (possibly until 2025) irrespective of any action likely to take place in the near future. The theory will be falsified if, within a reasonable cyclical timeframe, our earth demonstrably cools.

Rather than present views which are mischievous and baseless, you might like to try and come to grips with some realities. Or you might try to learn more of the science.

 

[bunyip]

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.

Rederob is back?? Surely not!

I still smile when I think of how I sent him limping away with his tail between his legs when he tangled with me in the aboriginal debate a couple of years back!

 

[WaveSurfer]

...But if you want to listen to the correct science then we may have some trouble and it is certainly not half backed.

Who said I don't listen? And how does a layman distinguish between the correct and incorrect science? I'm all ears.

Have you read a book called the Sixth Extinction, the evidence in that text indicates strongly that the change this time is heading to the greatest calamity the planet has ever faced since living things existed on it. This book is well documented with footnotes to all evidence presented.

That may be the case. I doubt it will rival the asteroid that struck Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. But hey, who really knows? I certainly don't and I'm not going to put my life on hold in anticipation of what may or may not occur.

As they say, life goes on with or without you.