Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio · 19 July 2016

Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by Wayne, Cynic TS and co.

It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".

If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of "corrupted" meteorologists.

If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past - again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.

If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics) that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many metres... Well that just isn't going to happen is it ?

And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.

cynic · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by Wayne, Cynic TS and co.

It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".

If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of "corrupted" meteorologists.

If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past - again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.

If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics) that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many metres... Well that just isn't going to happen is it ?

And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.

Basilio , with all these materials at your disposal and your immutable faith in same, why are you unable to furnish answers to the questions that have been raised by those that you have chosen to vehemently rebuke?

basilio · 19 July 2016

cynic said:
Basilio , with all these materials at your disposal and your immutable faith in same, why are you unable to furnish answers to the questions that have been raised by those that you have chosen to vehemently rebuke?

I have laid out the case for the cause, effects and likely future consequences of human propelled global warming ad nauseam. Just go back over my posts on this forum. ( I remember being particularly careful in my earlier posts. )

Repeating them again to the same people who simple refuse to accept the credibility of the science and the scientists behind these comments is a waste of time.

Smurf1976 · 19 July 2016

trainspotter said:
OR engineers will design and contractors will build tidal surge barriers, wharves, water displacement canals, sea barriers and dykes etc.

The issue there is cost. Sure, we can design and build things, no question about that. But looking at the likely cost, well it makes all recent debate about things such as the NBN, health funding etc seem rather trivial.

Australia might be able to afford to do it in Sydney if we all share the cost. Then we've also got to spend $ tens of billions in Tasmania too. And a few more $ billions in SA. Another few $ billion in Melbourne. More $ billions in towns along the NSW coast. Heaven knows how many hundred $ billion in Qld but it will be an outright fortune for sure. More $ billions for WA and more for the NT too.

Ends up being a significant % of GDP diverted each and every year. Some will be happy, others not so happy, about that. Realistically, increased taxation is the only way we'll pay for it, the question being how to apply a substantial new tax raising $ billions each year without killing the economy in the process.

Switching to alternatives is largely a capitalist response, those who create the problem incur the cost of fixing it and do so directly.

Adaptation is in practice almost certainly ends up as a socialist response. A tax on everyone to pay for the engineering works etc regardless of whether someone personally benefits or not. That's the most likely outcome, simply because those who need it can't afford to pay the full cost (and largely aren't the ones who caused it in the first place).

Macquack · 19 July 2016

luutzu said:
If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.

Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be.

By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?

You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.

By Jesus, I love you work luutzu.

All your stuff is gold and you can take the piss out of yourself to boot.

If you have ever seen the comedian Jim Jefferies, you could write some awesome material for him. Stuff that questions the norm, can be extremely funny and biting at the same time.

cynic · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
I have laid out the case for the cause, effects and likely future consequences of human propelled global warming ad nauseam. Just go back over my posts on this forum. ( I remember being particularly careful in my earlier posts. )

Repeating them again to the same people who simple refuse to accept the credibility of the science and the scientists behind these comments is a waste of time.

If that's the case then why do recent questions challenging your case remain unanswered?

And if posting here is such a waste of time, then why do you do so much of it?

basilio · 19 July 2016

Probably the main points I have ever wanted to get across are

1) The role of Risk Analysis. No one, no one ever has all the information upon which to make a decision. In business, personally, as a country, as an engineer we weigh up the best of our current knowledge and attempt to assess what risks we might be running with certain actions. As a concrete example an aeroplane designer will allow only the smallest risks of failure in his engineering and almost certainly will have multiple failsafe measures in place to ensure a plane doesn't fall apart.

On all current knowledge CC is real and already creating demonstrable effects. The risk and consequences of even more dangerous future outcomes should be sufficient to create the case for full scale preventative action. It would certainly be the case in any other field of endeavour.

2) Taking no regret actions. There are a score of actions society can take or mandate that would create a better and safer future in their own right. These actions would also act to reduce GG emissions. But so what ? Why not just decide we wanted to improve our world in the following ways

a) Embark on a world wide effort to move to clean, renewable energy sources. These would clean the air, dramatically reduce the toxic effects of smoke and particle inhalation. It would ensure long term energy security dramatically reducing the risk of a whole of society failure when fossil fuels inevitably run down.

b) Restore vast areas of land to forests (not monoculture) . Trees are the lungs of the earth and the forests the source of an infinite variety of life. Why not recreate such valuable resources especially if they can cool the earth and reduce our CO2 levels.?

c) Protect the areas of forests currently remaining. Why are we allowing rainforests to be destroyed at rates threaten to change entire climates in South America and Asia ? It's just madness.

d) Encourage simplicity of lifestyle. Our economic world, our economic model is based on relentless, mindless consumption. Does more and more stuff make people any happier ? What are the effects of this relentless obsolescent consumerism on the environment? I suggest such a paradigm change would improve the quality of peoples lives and make a huge difference to the environment (as well as reducing GG emissions)

I'm sure others could add some similar thoughts on changes of direction that would certainly improve the quality of peoples lives ( and make an impact on CC)

CanOz · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
Probably the main points I have ever wanted to get across are

1) The role of Risk Analysis. No one, no one ever has all the information upon which to make a decision. In business, personally, as a country, as an engineer we weigh up the best of our current knowledge and attempt to assess what risks we might be running with certain actions. As a concrete example an aeroplane designer will allow only the smallest risks of failure in his engineering and almost certainly will have multiple failsafe measures in place to ensure a plane doesn't fall apart.

On all current knowledge CC is real and already creating demonstrable effects. The risk and consequences of even more dangerous future outcomes should be sufficient to create the case for full scale preventative action. It would certainly be the case in any other field of endeavour.

2) Taking no regret actions. There are a score of actions society can take or mandate that would create a better and safer future in their own right. These actions would also act to reduce GG emissions. But so what ? Why not just decide we wanted to improve our world in the following ways

a) Embark on a world wide effort to move to clean, renewable energy sources. These would clean the air, dramatically reduce the toxic effects of smoke and particle inhalation. It would ensure long term energy security dramatically reducing the risk of a whole of society failure when fossil fuels inevitably fun down.

b) Restore vast areas of land to forests (not monoculture) . Trees are the lungs of the earth and the forests the source of an infinite variety of life. Why not recreate such valuable resources especially if they can cool the earth and reduce our CO2 levels.?

c) Protect the areas of forests currently remaining. Why are we allowing rainforests to be destroyed at rates threaten to change entire climates in South America and Asia ? It's just madness.

d) Encourage simplicity of lifestyle. Our economic world, our economic model is based on relentless, mindless consumption. Does more and more stuff make people any happier ? What are the effects of this relentless obsolescent consumerism on the environment? I suggest such a paradigm change would improve the quality of peoples lives and make a huge difference to the environment (as well as reducing GG emissions)

I'm sure others could add some similar thoughts on changes of direction that would certainly improve the quality of peoples lives ( and make an impact on CC)

I'm all for that, I'm totally with it!

basilio · 19 July 2016

Stable and Radiocarbon Isotopes of Carbon Dioxide
The Data: The Story Told from CO2 Samples
A Mosaic of Stories

Different sources of carbon dioxide have their own, unique isotopic fingerprints. However, the story of a sample of carbon dioxide becomes more complex when carbon dioxide from many different sources mix together in the atmosphere. While carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels does not have 14C, and carbon dioxide from terrestrial plants has less 13C than from the ocean, an air sample contains carbon dioxide from all of these sources. The story becomes even more complicated because the ratio of isotopes in the mixture also reflects how much atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up from different sinks. Therefore, an air sample will show the effect of all these different components–each with their unique characteristic isotopic fingerprints.

Just keep reading to see the point.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html

cynic · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
Just keep reading to see the point.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html

I have already examined that site and raised several questions regarding the conclusions drawn from changes to the isotopic carbon ratios.

To date none of the alarmists on this thread has bothered to furnish an answer!

Are the correlations between isotopic carbon ratio change and their causation a one to one relationship?

trainspotter · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by Wayne, Cynic TS and co.

It doesn't matter how many research studies, measurements or observations are offered ; if they don't cast doubt on global warming they are summarily dismissed as part of the "corrupt, self serving cabal of climate scientists".

If one quotes the summary of thousands of temperature records from around the world to prove that temperatures are indeed rising and at quite spectacular rates - these are dismissed as the reconstructed works of "corrupted" meteorologists.

If glaciologists offer studies of the million year history of temperatures and C02 levels from eons past - again if they lead to the wrong conclusion they have to wrong.

If glaciologists examine the effects of the last 50 years of global warming on ancient ice sheets and come to the conclusion (based on the laws of Physics) that these ice sheets are rapidly being destabilised and will collapse raising sea levels by many, many metres... Well that just isn't going to happen is it ?

And anyhow if it does we'll just cope with it.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion on scientific issues around Climate Change with people who reject the work of the overwhelming body of scientists in that field.

Still waiting ...

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP basilio !

trainspotter · 19 July 2016

Smurf1976 said:
The issue there is cost. Sure, we can design and build things, no question about that. But looking at the likely cost, well it makes all recent debate about things such as the NBN, health funding etc seem rather trivial.

Australia might be able to afford to do it in Sydney if we all share the cost. Then we've also got to spend $ tens of billions in Tasmania too. And a few more $ billions in SA. Another few $ billion in Melbourne. More $ billions in towns along the NSW coast. Heaven knows how many hundred $ billion in Qld but it will be an outright fortune for sure. More $ billions for WA and more for the NT too.

Ends up being a significant % of GDP diverted each and every year. Some will be happy, others not so happy, about that. Realistically, increased taxation is the only way we'll pay for it, the question being how to apply a substantial new tax raising $ billions each year without killing the economy in the process.

Switching to alternatives is largely a capitalist response, those who create the problem incur the cost of fixing it and do so directly.

Adaptation is in practice almost certainly ends up as a socialist response. A tax on everyone to pay for the engineering works etc regardless of whether someone personally benefits or not. That's the most likely outcome, simply because those who need it can't afford to pay the full cost (and largely aren't the ones who caused it in the first place).

It is already working in other parts of the world so why not here?

MOSE (MOdulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico, Experimental Electromechanical Module) is a project intended to protect the city of Venice, Italy, and the Venetian Lagoon from flooding. The project is an integrated system consisting of rows of mobile gates installed at the Lido, Malamocco and Chioggia inlets that are able to temporarily isolate the Venetian Lagoon from the Adriatic Sea during high tides. Together with other measures such as coastal reinforcement, the raising of quaysides, and the paving and improvement of the lagoon, MOSE is designed to protect Venice and the lagoon from tides of up to 3 metres (9.8 ft).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project

Bueller ... Bueller ...

trainspotter · 19 July 2016

basilio said:
Really how can anyone actually offer any scientific response to the diverse dribble proffered by Wayne, Cynic TS and co.

Answer the questions I have posed GODDAMMIT !!

basilio · 19 July 2016

trainspotter said:
Answer the questions I have posed GODDAMMIT !!

I have TS. You just don't like the answers mate..

__________________________________________________ ___________________

Found an interesting video from Judith Curry called "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster."

All very interesting and I even found some points to agree with. There were however observations she made that didn't sit right with most other climate scientists.

There was a comment which in my view summed up the presentation and the discussion.

You know this uncertainty argument is very misunderstood. One thing Curry never talks about is the risk magnitude. Yes there are uncertainties on how bad it can get, how fast it can get bad, or simply can it even get bad at all. Here's the deal there Ms Curry. You have to 1st consider the potential magnitude. If we were talking about the possibility of G.E. blenders blowing circuits then we could relax and wait for 100% certainty. But when the possibility is mass extinction, then you take no chances at all. Even if certainty(probability) is only 1 percent that catastrophic impacts could happen cuz of human behavior, then humans, being the most intelligent species in the known universe, should do what ever is possible to change that behavior. Simple common sense..

cynic · 19 July 2016

Yikes! The boogey man has changed its name!

Run for the hills everyone or the "uncertainty monster"'s gonna getcha all!

Smurf1976 · 19 July 2016

trainspotter said:
It is already working in other parts of the world so why not here?

Cost.

We've got a huge area versus relatively few people so the cost per person is almost certain to be larger than most other countries.

Also we've got a bit of a focus on balanced budgets in Australia that's not going to sit too well with spending this sort of money.

wayneL · 20 July 2016

For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf

cynic · 20 July 2016

wayneL said:
For your perusal http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf

It's interesting how the centuries examined have oscillated between warmer and colder extremes. Could it be that there is a larger natural cycle in play, one that features an alternation between colder and warmer centuries?

Naturally more than 4 centuries of data would be required to thoroughly test this angle, but it will be interesting to see if the 21st century turns out to be colder than the 20th.

trainspotter · 20 July 2016

basilio said:
I have TS. You just don't like the answers mate..

__________________________________________________ ___________________

Found an interesting video from Judith Curry called "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster."

All very interesting and I even found some points to agree with. There were however observations she made that didn't sit right with most other climate scientists.

There was a comment which in my view summed up the presentation and the discussion.

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh ignorance is bliss in basilios world ... I am off to the bottom of the garden to play with the fairies ...Tra la la tra la la la, tra la la, tra la la la, tra la la tra la la la.

I have noticed in this modern age that the way to respond to something is to just ignore it in the hope it will go away. You know when the dog craps in the room behind the couch and everyone can smell it but no one wants to deal with it you just ignore it kind of thing and spray air freshner around.

And then change the subject ... well played basilio you are fitting my profile of you like a glove.

Still have not answered a single Q that has been posed. You got confused with your own HYSTERIA and started spouting opposite views to your mandate. When pulled up on it you FLIP FLOPPED at first, then ignored it and now you have changed the subject.

10/10 for confirming my position on your views of HYSTERIA bordering on MANIA.

trainspotter · 20 July 2016

Smurf1976 said:
Cost.

We've got a huge area versus relatively few people so the cost per person is almost certain to be larger than most other countries.

Also we've got a bit of a focus on balanced budgets in Australia that's not going to sit too well with spending this sort of money.

Ermmm not down with that Smurf1976. The high coastal population we have is very intensified in very small pockets compared to most parts of the world which have cities, villages, towns, burros etc to protect in low lying areas (think Netherlands)

It is amazing how fast a human can pump a whale gusher when the boat is sinking

TRANSLATION

People will pay anything to save their own necks

I don't think we would have to protect this part for a start and it makes up nearly a 1/4 of our coastline ....

or this part either ...

Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio

cynic

basilio

Smurf1976

Macquack

cynic

basilio

CanOz

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

basilio

cynic

trainspotter

trainspotter

trainspotter

basilio

cynic

Smurf1976

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

cynic

trainspotter

trainspotter

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency