This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria


Re Hansen https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

Re Moonbat. I realize I have insulted your poster boy, your butthurt is palpable, but really all he does is regurgitate the most extreme of alarmist propaganda.

I also realize your lot fantasizes about the arrest and execution of critical thinkers who have arrived at the moderate case, but that ain't happening without a fight.
 
Re Moonbat.

Luv ya name call'n.... is there a latin phrase for that?

How does the school yard jibe go?
'Sticks'n stones may break my bones But whips and chains excite me'????

Gobsmacking is we only have to go back a couple of weeks in this thread to a post by a 'waynel' that still questions CO2 as a causation of Global Warming; from #6715

That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.


Just quietly between you and me before you cause yourself any further embarrassment, there is no argument about causation. Except of corse in 'certain circles'.
 
Ermmmmm yeah ... "luna bat"

Read ,,, understand ,,, digest ,,, comprehend ,,, process ,,, cognitive ,,, response ... in that order
 

Does bug eyed inbred Lord ring any bells for you, orr has your bias blinded you to the monumental hypocrisy of the alarmist group?

I see no reason to be embarrassed about being open to causation. For the record (and I am on the record) I do believe anthropogenic emissions are responsible for some degree of change, I also believe there are other anthropogenic factors, land use etc. There are also, unquestionably, natural factors.

So yes orr, there is still discussion on causation "except" in certain circles.
 
Climate change denier looking for conspiracies.
lol
 

Attachments

  • Tony abbott head arse.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 69
Julie bishop taking it seriously ...


http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2015/jb_mr_151205.aspx

The rest of the country ... NOT !

 
How does one respond to the total self delusion of climate change deniers when they rabbit on about "Models not being data". I suppose the the figure people with their heads up their xrses is the most eloquent.

Lets look at the reality of CC in the UK. There are currently ginormous floods up and down the country. Thousands of homes flooded, roads and bridges swept away etc, etc.

And is this "unusual" ? A "Once in a Century" event as the deniers would have us believe ?

Rubbish. Try every second year in the UK since 2005.

The Guardian is pulling the pieces together and the big picture is exactly what climate scientists told us 30 years ago. More intense weather events, rising sea levels, and the evolving picture of a world that is radically different from our recent experience.


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...britains-floods-the-reality-of-climate-change
 
Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

Let's just say that UKPravda is being very selective.

And by the way, your continued use if the word "denier" to tag moderates and observers of data, tells me everything I need to know about you:

Advocacy>science
Obfuscation>enlightenment
Belief >fact
 

Don't be worrying about Ol' Mother England matey boy. Have a look in your own backyard ... Like Brisbane for example.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/qld-floods/

Models are not data basilio ... comprende amigo?

 
Basilio I have a hard copy of the entire flood record of parts of southern England which goes back hundreds of years.

t

A good run down on those figures would not raise your fading horn of the wilderness much but may help.

Have been following the banter here with interest. Scientist on all sides are inconsistent and often wrong in world change that we have NOT seen on such a scale before.

The reasons for effects that would appear to nullify the rapid changes are either being ignored or overlooked.

The slight warming at the poles is shifting cooler conditions outwards. As well it is causing more cloud and thereby further increasing cooler conditions away from the poles. The sceptics jump on this. In the winters therefore we have increased snow and ice falls which of course shows up on the satellite photos to indicate all is well. "gee look how big the ice sheet in Antarctica is this year!!!" But as summer comes it dissipates faster each season and in fact new shipping lanes are opening up across the arctic as never before.

I could go on much further in regard to the loss of permafrost ice, escaping methane and very visible receeding glaciers but the sides to the debate have shifted to the global warming reality and problems.

The hysteria so called is the fading horn.

I note Ikea and Aldi are preparing to have solar panels installed atop all of thier buildings.
 


Really Wayne ? You have some fantastic data which somehow moderates/explains/ justifies away the last 10 years of extreme weather events in UK ? Makes all them all seem like part of a normal process that shouldn't be considered a cause for concern perhaps evidence of significant changes in climactic conditions? Completely destroys any suggestion that serious CC events are unfolding ?

Really interesting...Just confirms to me that your "observation of data" is so ridiculous it has no credibility. It can't be believed. It's just BS.

In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth.

They are up the Nile.
 
In that context when people start to sprout "data" that isn't real, that is cherry picked, tortured and misinformed they are not serious seekers of the truth.

And so sayath the Lord ... Amen ! There's that HYSTERIA rising again
 
TS what an interesting way to present the figures for the changes in temperature over the past 120 years.

Yep when you make the Y axis nice and big you can minimise the apparent changes in temperatures. In fact the really special people in this field ( the really crazy deniers) start at 100 below and finish at 100 above. At that scale, man, you can't see any change at all !!

The trouble is that in the real world, that 1 degree of increase in temperature is very significant. It is outside the range of most of the last 10,000 years and has resulted in marked changes to habitats, local geography and local climates.

And it is still increasing at a rate unprecedented for thousands of years.




Now the problem is that data like this that shows what has happened to the worlds temperature and is accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tells the wrong story for those who want another version of reality.

So we then get creations along the lines of the following graphs


and



Interesting isn't it ? Just how did the 98% of the world's climate scientists make such obvious mistakes ?
Or perhaps the people producing these graphs wern't quite telling the truth.

If anyone is interesting in discovering how the second graph was constructed and why it is so wrong check out the following url

 
basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

My favourite part ....


There I feel better now
 
Hmmnn TS . A two year article from The Telegraph as a contribution to partially questioning the accuracy of the IPCC reports. Truth be told their overall history on reportage of this topic is somewhere between The Herald Sun and The Australian ie complete BS and plausible rubbish.

But to be fair I wouldn't put that story into that category.

What still surprises me about your contributions is the way you somehow throw up graphs and information that are either misleading or completely wrong. Why use that such clearly deceptive information unless you are trying to minimise what is happening as a result of CC ?
 
basilio - Yet again you have missed the point both WayneL and myself are trying to make. RESIST THE HYSTERIA





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

My favourite part ....



There I feel better now

Don't put too much faith in the IPCC, figures often averaged down to comply with thier political support/survival.

As well the figures are based on those up to and prior to thier reporting period. So most often the are six years old. A lot may have (and has dramatically from myview) changed in tgat time.

Have quoted this with references over the years here. Main one from the book "climate wars" forgot the auther and have loaned the text
 

But but but you can quote the Guardian as gospel because it fits your agenda

So the IPCC was NOT wrong and they DID NOT claim in the IPCC AR4 predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 ?

Oppenheimer, Hansen, Holdren, Gore, Maslowski, Viner all making predictions about CC and ALL of them WRONG

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Page 4 says it all for mine ....


As has been pointed out repeatedly there is no doubt that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend ...


https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.
 
What is happening basilio is that you are witnessing what has been going on for millions of years. Yes anthropogenic is a partial cause of this warming. To attribute all of it to man and Co2 is alarming.
TS

Is that the core of your argument TS. ? As I understand it you are saying that this changing of climate has been going on for millions of years. You are also saying that humanity has had an effect on the change in climate . ( I presume by that you mean increasing the CO2levels, widespread removal of tree cover perhaps other influences.

And finally you are saying that attributing it all to man and CO2 alone is just not true.

I can agree with all those statements. The climate has been changing for millions of years. Obviously humanity had no part of those changes for almost all of that period. Intense research by climate scientists has identified the different climates we have experienced and started to understand the many different elements that have affected our earth's environment.

The argument by climate scientists is that humanity's effort at rapidly increasing Greenhouse Gases is having a large and rapidly increasing effect on our climate. The evidence for that statement is the sharp increase in global temperatures in the past 130 years (and particularly the last 45 years) as well as the understandings of how much extra energy GG gases will trap in the atmosphere. In fact scientists are saying that our impact on climate has become the dominant driver. (But not the only factor.)

As for the future ? All depends doesn't it .
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...