Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

The question which bugs me is this: why, when it seems so obvious that men like Monckton, Morner and Taylor have serious issues with reality, are so many people prepared to follow them?

I think the answer is simple. Many people form a belief and then try to justify that belief. I know someone who believes that the ozone layer is still be destroyed and scientists have failed. He has taken this belief from the 1970s to today and I have shown him the facts and he just says it is lies. It is amazing to what lengths some people will go to hold onto their beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance - people are good at it. Especially people who are not scientifically trained.

That has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance.

It is a cognitive bias however. Most everyone is afflicted to some degree, particularly zealots.

 

[Knobby22]

I would love you to watch Catalyst this coming Thursday Wayne and Julia.

The last 10 minutes is on climate change. (half hour program).

 

[Smurf1976]

Also, many Republicans are stating climate change is false while they invest their public fortunes in industries such as solar panels and electric cars.

People will say one thing but do another. That (surprisingly) gives me heart.

Then maybe I am an optimist.

I would argue that the case for solar panels, electric cars and the like has more to do with the near term threat to oil supplies than a more distant threat of climate change.

Oil is an issue here and now. It costs the USA and others a fortune to defend supplies militarily. It bankrupts poorer importing nations and transfers vast wealth to a few. It starts wars and it wrecks the environment in far more ways than simply messing with the climate. And based on the (lack of) available data, it seems that we probably have a lot less of the stuff than we'd need to carry on business as usual anyway.

Personally, I'd rate moving away from oil as priority number 1 for the developed world, followed by moving away from gas and coal. That fixes an awful lot of problems, climate change being one of them, wars and national finances being another.

Get the wealthy countries off oil first, stop fighting over the stuff and drop the prices (due to lack of demand) such that poorer nations can afford to keep the lights on. Then direct the fortune saved into a transition away from gas and coal, something we'll have to do anyway as finite fossil fuel reserves inevitably deplete.

I've often thought that the push to do something about CO2 is at least partly a justification for action over peak oil and peak gas, without needing to alarm the population by telling them the truth. Tell them we need to act now for the sake of their children and the planet and they might be convinced it's worthwhile. Tell them that we're facing a near term energy abyss in terms of oil supply, and there will be panic...

 

[wayneL]

Personally, I'd rate moving away from oil as priority number 1 for the developed world, followed by moving away from gas and coal. That fixes an awful lot of problems, climate change being one of them, wars and national finances being another.

Get the wealthy countries off oil first, stop fighting over the stuff and drop the prices (due to lack of demand) such that poorer nations can afford to keep the lights on. Then direct the fortune saved into a transition away from gas and coal, something we'll have to do anyway as finite fossil fuel reserves inevitably deplete.

I've often thought that the push to do something about CO2 is at least partly a justification for action over peak oil and peak gas, without needing to alarm the population by telling them the truth. Tell them we need to act now for the sake of their children and the planet and they might be convinced it's worthwhile. Tell them that we're facing a near term energy abyss in terms of oil supply, and there will be panic...

I've often thought the co2 based AGW ruse is more about peak oil and energy security.

If so, and IMO, it's the wrong way to go about it because of arguments over the science. I prefer the truth... "folks we're running out of oil and we need to fins new ways of powering the planet". I might be wrong, but I don't think there would be panic. Rather, a more cohesive effort to do something.

 

[Julia]

I would love you to watch Catalyst this coming Thursday Wayne and Julia.

Why? How does it matter what I think? I'm in no way qualified to make informed judgements and said just a few posts ago that I'm not all that interested. Whatever happens will be at the hands of people whom I can never influence, even if I had a clear view.

Try this, Knobby: I have only so much, um, 'worry space' in my head.
It is presently full of stuff that has more immediate relevance to me.

Also, many Republicans are stating climate change is false while they invest their public fortunes in industries such as solar panels and electric cars.

Perhaps they are simply being pragmatic and investing in what they believe will, rightly or wrongly from their own philosophical point of view, be the next profitable venture. I find poker machines repugnant, but have held shares in the company which makes them. If that makes me unprincipled and unethical, that's OK. Can't be high minded about everything.

If so, and IMO, it's the wrong way to go about it because of arguments over the science. I prefer the truth... "folks we're running out of oil and we need to fins new ways of powering the planet". I might be wrong, but I don't think there would be panic. Rather, a more cohesive effort to do something.

Agree. Oil - and peak oil - is understood by most people. A simple approach such as you describe above would probably provoke a positive and co-operative approach from most people, unlike all the gobbledegook currently peddled.

 

[Calliope]

Why? How does it matter what I think? I'm in no way qualified to make informed judgements and said just a few posts ago that I'm not all that interested. Whatever happens will be at the hands of people whom I can never influence, even if I had a clear view.

Try this, Knobby: I have only so much, um, 'worry space' in my head.
It is presently full of stuff that has more immediate relevance to me.

I like that concept Julia. My only fleeting worry about the climate is in putting on the right clothes when I go out. This has nothing to do with age. My grandchildren also are not concerned with CO2 levels despite being indoctrinated at school.

Their main concern is having a good time and helping to fill the "worry space" space in their parents' heads.

 

[bellenuit]

Being Irish myself, O'Leary makes me cringe every time I hear him speak. He may be a good businessman, but why the constant foul language. Does he think it makes him seem cool. IMO his knowledge of the science seems to be based on superficial catch phrases of those who oppose the science rather than any serious study of the subject.

Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html

I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.

O'Leary "There's absolutely no link between man-made carbon – which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions, most of it is naturally emitted – [and] climate change."

Dr Shuckburgh "Vast amounts of carbon are exchanged each year back and forth between the land, oceans and atmosphere – some 200 GtC/yr [GigaTons of Carbon per year] are naturally emitted and 200 GtC/yr are naturally reabsorbed. Man is now emitting more than 8GtC/yr, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. The impact has been significant. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppmv [parts per million by volume]. Man-made emissions have increased that to nearly 390ppmv".

My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?

 

[noco]

Being Irish myself, O'Leary makes me cringe every time I hear him speak. He may be a good businessman, but why the constant foul language. Does he think it makes him seem cool. IMO his knowledge of the science seems to be based on superficial catch phrases of those who oppose the science rather than any serious study of the subject.

Global warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair boss O'Leary

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html

I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.



My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?

This is what the Chinese think of man made AGW. A must read for the Greens and all AGW alarmist. Global warming (aka Climate change) is and has been for millions of years a natural phonomenon created by the Sun and the movement of the Earths axis just as the moon is a dominant factor on our tides and the periodic variations in sea levels.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...nese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/

 

[nioka]

Climate change is more than Global warming. Climate change is also air polution. To this there can be no argument whatsoever. As someone that has enphysema (and never smoked) I can assure you that there is plenty of polution of the land, water and sea that has been man made. Global warming or no global warming makes no difference to the fact that polluting everything around us has to stop. So stop thinking about temperature and think start thinking about cleaning up the enviroment to the best we can possibly do without living in a cave as hunter gatherers.

It will also be insurance against the possibility that there is also a global warming problem.

 

[noco]

Climate change is more than Global warming. Climate change is also air polution. To this there can be no argument whatsoever. As someone that has enphysema (and never smoked) I can assure you that there is plenty of polution of the land, water and sea that has been man made. Global warming or no global warming makes no difference to the fact that polluting everything around us has to stop. So stop thinking about temperature and think start thinking about cleaning up the enviroment to the best we can possibly do without living in a cave as hunter gatherers.

It will also be insurance against the possibility that there is also a global warming problem.

Having travelled to many parts of the world, I will agree with you there are cities with high pollutuion from vehicle CO2 emmissions which has a disatrous effect on the citizens of particular cities such as Bangkok, Manila, Davoa City in the Philippines. Hong Kong was also bad back in the 80's but have now cleaned up their act. Beijing is another example of a highly polluted city. However, these are local problems and yes nephysema can result and yes it can be controlled.
I can't recall and major problems in Europe and Great Brittain.

You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.

Do you have a link to substantiate this statement?

Don't put too much reliance on any Green propaganda. The Greens are a world wide organiastion with Al Gore as their patron. The Greens have a marxist heart and an environmental skin.

 

[Smurf1976]

How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.

Prepare to face the same scenes in other states eventually if we go down the carbon tax / ETS track. Whilst that isn't the cause in Tasmania, the cause is other historic actions of environmentalists combined with the failed ideology of breaking up the industry into separate parts, the outcome will be the same.

On a positive side, the Premier of Tas seems to have opened the door to what we all know makes sense. Going back to a single, state-run power authority that has as its' purpose the supply of cheap power, a concept that worked rather well in the past. A single authority that does everything from generation through to reading meters and sending out bills.

As for carbon, we're pretty much locked in to whatever happens nationally there although away from mainstream politics, the debate is certainly back on amongst the general population. Some rather interesting views from some surprising sources. Interesting times ahead me thinks...

 

[Julia]

How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.

Yes, I've been attempting to draw attention to the plight of people on low incomes for some time, even without an ETS, in the face of rapidly rising electricity charges.

The zealots couldn't care less. They are almost all well paid academics or other left devotees in professional occupations and a rise in their electricity a/c won't mean a thing to them. Likewise Mr Kloppers who is emphasising that BHP should still have any costs of engaging in an ETS or carbon tax fully rebated, and on whose multi million dollar salary will hardly be concerned about a few hundred more in his electricity costs.

One would hope that if the Greens really are about equality, they will insist on subsidies for low income earners if their climate change policies are enacted.

 

[nioka]

.

You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.

Do you have a link to substantiate this statement?

QUOTE]

The best link I have is enphysema. The next best link I will see tomorrow when I travel to Brisbane for treatment and leave the clean coastal air for the traffic fumes and pollutive dust. I will see another link as I see the roadside rubbish that will end up in stormwater drains and the sea around me. Last week I saw another link when I was fishing, caught nothing as the river here is near to death as far as fish stocks go. I see a link every time the wind is from the west and we aren't getting clean sea breezes. I see a link whenever I see scenes on telly of the smog in cities around the world. I see a link everytime I sit on the beach. I see a link when I catch fish that are covered in ulcerated flesh.

What links do you want to see. What links aren't you prepared to see ?. Do you see it but you dont believe it.

 

[ghotib]

<snip>http://www.independent.ie/business/...-bullst-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html

I would be interested in comments from those who know more about the science than I regarding one of the rebuttals at the end. I also heard the same rebuttal last week on SBS's Insight.

My question is why do the natural (non-man made) emission and absorbsion exactly balance themselves out? Is it purely coincidental and only so say for the last few hundred years, or is there some self righting mechanism that causes the balance?

I'll have a go at this, but it's most definitely a case of "Do your own research".

The balancing is a result more than a mechanism. The earth - land+sea+air - has a fixed amount of carbon which gets moved around. Most of it moves very slowly. For example, limestone, coal and oil contain carbon that's been stuck in rocks for millions of years. Some moves quite fast. Atmospheric carbon close to the ocean or land surface might be bouncing around between lungs, blood, plants and air over a couple of weeks.

The term "carbon cycle" (worth a Google) is used to describe this system of movements, but in layman's terms it's not just one cycle, it's many cycles working on different scales in space and time. So, for example, if the biological carbon cycle gets out of balance - carbon emitted to the atmosphere is substantially greater or less than carbon absorbed - then the balance is restored by a geological process over geological time.

That's how coal and oil got into the ground; they're a carbon sequestration project for a 65 million year old of atmospheric carbon.

In effect, the industrial age rate of burning coal and oil is forcing the biological cycle to deal with carbon from the geological cycle. I suppose it's a bit like a GFC affecting the price of bank stocks: a huge jolt that is part of the system but outside the normal trading cycle. In the long run things balance out, but the short and medium run are very uncomfortable and not everyone survives the upheavals.

Hope that goes part way to answering your question. Also hope it's accurate

I know of two particularly good videos about the carbon cycle. One is on the Web as a presentation and a podcast at http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/videos.php. There's a stack of interesting stuff there, but the one I'm thinking of is the Bjerknes lecture, given by Dr Richard Alley, entitled "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Climate History". The second one is "Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil", which is on the Web at http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/. I have this on DVD but I can't remember where I bought it - probably from an ABC shop?

Google turns up plenty of discussions of the carbon cycle. Here's one that I've found helpful: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95

Cheers,

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

How very, very sad to see ordinary Australians literally in tears over the cost of electricity at a public meeting in Hobart last Friday. Ordinary families, ordinary pensioners etc who just can't afford to keep paying skyrocketing bills and who have been left with no choice other than to go without heating and, in some cases, hot water as well.

Prepare to face the same scenes in other states eventually if we go down the carbon tax / ETS track. Whilst that isn't the cause in Tasmania, the cause is other historic actions of environmentalists combined with the failed ideology of breaking up the industry into separate parts, the outcome will be the same.

I didn't see this reported in the big island press. Maybe that's evidence that ordinary people are having to choose between rent and food, power and transport, all over the nation and it's therefore not news. Maybe it's too close to mainstream experience and people are afraid to acknowledge it.

But I don't see how it helps anyone to conflate the effects of rising power prices with actions to reduce rising carbon emissions.

First, power prices are going up anyway. There are different reasons in different places, but they include ageing generators, overdue maintenance, increasing demand for power, and privatisation. Those things have to be addressed whether or not there's a price on carbon emission.

Second, putting a price on carbon does not mean that the price has to be paid wholly by those who are already struggling. That depends on how the pricing scheme is designed and introduced, and as a nation we have choices about that.

I don't want to go into that on this thread - there are plenty of political threads here that IMO are more appropriate. But I do want to say here that we have no choice about how the warming planet will affect us as a nation. We don't know where the superstorms will land, just that there will probably be more of them. We don't know when the next Black Saturday will be, just that the conditions for it will probably become more common. We don't know what the cost of repair and recovery from more, and more frequent, extreme weather events will be, just that it will be substantial. We don't know which staple food crops will fail, just that wider weather extremes make crops less predictable and farming ever harder.

Those costs will emerge somewhere, whether or not we put a price on carbon, and chances are that they'll hurt the poor most.

On a positive side, the Premier of Tas seems to have opened the door to what we all know makes sense. Going back to a single, state-run power authority that has as its' purpose the supply of cheap power, a concept that worked rather well in the past. A single authority that does everything from generation through to reading meters and sending out bills.

As for carbon, we're pretty much locked in to whatever happens nationally there although away from mainstream politics, the debate is certainly back on amongst the general population. Some rather interesting views from some surprising sources. Interesting times ahead me thinks...

An ALSer supporting government monopoly? Interesting times indeed

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

But I do want to say here that we have no choice about how the warming planet will affect us as a nation. We don't know where the superstorms will land, just that there will probably be more of them. We don't know when the next Black Saturday will be, just that the conditions for it will probably become more common. We don't know what the cost of repair and recovery from more, and more frequent, extreme weather events will be, just that it will be substantial. We don't know which staple food crops will fail, just that wider weather extremes make crops less predictable and farming ever harder.

Ahem! We actually don't know any of these things.

 

[wayneL]

What do people think about this? Has anyone heard about it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/urgent-a-call-to-action-for-the-wuwt-community/#more-25023

Please read this whole story and consider if you can help. WUWT readers may recall this story: Death of a Feedlot Operator …in which the anal-retentive government of West Australia has “licensed” a family farm out of operation due to some shonky science and arbitrary application of the “sniff test”. Yes that’s right, cattle farms smell, so do pig farms, as does any farm. But now it’s reason to shut one out due to baseless complaints from the local greens. And, it all started when Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly......

 

[ghotib]

Ahem! Sorry. Those of us who are watching are observing those things.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

Ahem! Sorry. Those of us who are watching are observing those things.

Ghoti

Observations should be holistic and impartial. Conclusions should not be drawn from incomplete and/or biased data.

There is a hypothesis, but we don't "know" any of these things. In fact, some observations are the contrary to what you think "we" know.

 

[noco]

.

You say you can assure me there is plenty of pollution on land, water and sea.

Do you have a link to substantiate this statement?

QUOTE]

The best link I have is enphysema. The next best link I will see tomorrow when I travel to Brisbane for treatment and leave the clean coastal air for the traffic fumes and pollutive dust. I will see another link as I see the roadside rubbish that will end up in stormwater drains and the sea around me. Last week I saw another link when I was fishing, caught nothing as the river here is near to death as far as fish stocks go. I see a link every time the wind is from the west and we aren't getting clean sea breezes. I see a link whenever I see scenes on telly of the smog in cities around the world. I see a link everytime I sit on the beach. I see a link when I catch fish that are covered in ulcerated flesh.

What links do you want to see. What links aren't you prepared to see ?. Do you see it but you dont believe it.

Nioka, are you sure you haven't been watching some news clips from India or Vietnam because if you have travelled to various parts of the world you will have a deep appreciation of Australia when you return home for comparison.

As for the incurable disease of Emphysema, smoking is a high contributor to this problem, but there are also other causes such as repeated exposure to asbestos or other chemicals that are harmful to the lungs, especially over a substantial time period. I have a friend who was exposed to asbestos and who never smoked. He suffers from Emphysema and has always lived in the country. So I would say your argument is a little lop-sided.