Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

What a xxxxing appalling promo ! Just cannot fathom how that idea and it's execution (sic) got put onto you tube.

I think the 10/10 concept was/is really great. But not like this... It should be titled

"How to self destruct in 3 minutes"

Indeed.

There is nothing wrong with the message even if motivated by a religious delusion.

But there are no surprises that this video was supported by the pious and sanctimonious pastors of the GW sect at The Guardian... and most of their congregation actually thought it was funny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

Unbelievable.

They dipped their cards and if their hand wasn't already very obvious, it is now.

 

[basilio]

Indeed.

There is nothing wrong with the message even if motivated by a religious delusion.

But there are no surprises that this video was supported by the pious and sanctimonious pastors of the GW sect at The Guardian... Wayne L

Actually reading the comments I thought the majority of people believed it was a stupid, counterproductive piece - even when they agreed with the idea.

I would really like to hear the argument that says this was a funny clip which gave an edge to the issue. I just can't see it..

 

[So_Cynical]

Actually reading the comments I thought the majority of people believed it was a stupid, counterproductive piece - even when they agreed with the idea.

I would really like to hear the argument that says this was a funny clip which gave an edge to the issue. I just can't see it..

Comedy is very much about taste and sensitivity, i didn't think the clip was funny either, counterproductive i doubt it....the deniers believe what they want, the ad is trying to grab the attention of people who don't have an opinion, climate agnostics or apathetics.

Climate has always changed. I learned in school about the carbon cycle. It goes round and round, but carbon in = carbon out. We're not making new carbon. But of course, I was forgetting, the science is 'decided'.

LOL i think the issue is that the 'carbon out' part of the cycle is in unprecedented overdrive....carbon has been cycling into storage for a couple of hundred million years and you think its ok to release all that stored carbon over a couple of hundred years? because the release of that stored carbon is just a natural part of the carbon cycle...right???

 

[wayneL]

..counterproductive i doubt it....the deniers believe what they want, the ad is trying to grab the attention of people who don't have an opinion, climate agnostics or apathetics.

Grab their attention? By threatening to kill them?

Meanwhile, Franny has admitted she has increased her carbon footprint massively and most of the pious AGW clergy live it large with massive footprints.

It's grabbed their attention alright. It has actually woken many of these people up in a way they never intended.

 

[Logique]

... and you think its ok to release all that stored carbon over a couple of hundred years?

Cheers So_Cynical, and quite right about the GF replay= bad idea.

Release all that stored carbon...you mean like a volcano, or a giant bushfire? Or a comet impact? Did Mt St Helens cause climate change, or centuries earlier Mt Etna?

Do you know what runs this website? Coal-fired power stations. Do you know what your house frame is made from? Timber from native forests. Go into a greenie's house, do you know which timber they're featuring? It isn't plantation softwood!

All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.

The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue?

Let's ask Tasmanians shall we.

 

[So_Cynical]

Release all that stored carbon...you mean like a volcano, or a giant bushfire? Or a comet impact? Did Mt St Helens cause climate change, or centuries earlier Mt Etna?

Ok so you get where im coming from...however 1 or 2 volcanic eruptions a year is common and a natural phenomenon, giant bush fires (most of the carbon released is actually not really stored carbon, its the fines that burn not the timber that locks up the bulk of the carbon in a forest, also something like 20% of the carbon in a old forest is stored underground) even carbon stored in timber is only really short term storage...unlike carbon stored in coal/oil/gas that's carbon that 10 of millions of years old.

All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.

The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue?

Com on...20 years ago it was a few power stations, today we have unprecedented dirty power station development and the future projections are staggering, world consumption of energy will double over the next 20years...with the vast majority of that addition consumption using carbon that's been in storage for 10's of millions of years.

Clearly we are in uncharted waters, truth is everybody's guessing what will or wont happen...denial is never an answer, solutions don't come from closed minds, yes the greens have an extreme agenda...all-ways have had, just look how there trying to kill the Thorium revival, look at how they helped kill the CPRS.

The greens are no real danger as they only ever appeal (long term) at the fringes of the political spectrum...IMO its the combination of the deniers, greens, vested interests (oil/gas/coal/nuke) and the status quo that are the real danger....there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, just the 2 extremes pulling the centre apart so that nothing changes and nothing gets done.

 

[noco]

There seems to be a definte amount of uncertaintity relating to so called scientific evidence of Global Warming or Climate change created by man. Climate change is real, but doubt is mounting as to the cause, particularly from CO2 emmissions.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...facts-on-climate/story-e6frg71x-1225933016966

 

[nukz]

climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.

 

[Smurf1976]

Do you know what runs this website? Coal-fired power stations. Do you know what your house frame is made from? Timber from native forests. Go into a greenie's house, do you know which timber they're featuring? It isn't plantation softwood!

All-powerful Mother Gaia seems terribly concerned about a few coal-fired power stations. Here's what would keep atmospheric carbon from increasing: hydro-electric and nuclear power stations.

The clear and present danger is not climate change, it is Green dogma. How many pensioners, warming themselves by a roaring candle, will it take to appease the voracious Green demagogue?

Let's ask Tasmanians shall we.

It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of non-fossil fuel electricity production globally is from nuclear and hydro which collectively account for close to 40% of total generation.

It is also a reality that with present technology, intermittent renewables are an alternative to fossil fuels only in conjunction with hydro. Without that, they are limted to merely supplementing what necessarily remains a predominantly fossil or nuclear system.

That said, if we continue pursuing constant growth on a finite planet then we could dam every last creek on the planet, build thousands of nuclear reactors and still end up with rising CO2 emissions. Growth is the real problem here, only after that is fixed is there any hope of really reducing emissions with nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, solar etc.

As for Tasmanians, a few observations:

1. Public support for large scale hydro construction was almost absolute for many decades, before declining to about 54% amidst the great dams debate of the early 1980's. It hovered around 70% through the 1990's until recently when (anecdotally) it seems to have moved upward again.

All that said, there is no current proposal to build any large dam for power generation in Tas and the Hydro no longer has any construction machinery or a construction workforce, all of that being sold off or made redundant as construction on the last two schemes wound down in the early 1990's.

2. The vast majority of greens I have met in Tas burn wood for heating at home. That is to the point that one prominent green went into business manufacturing wood heaters during the dams debate era. The official line from the greens at the time was that Tasmanians should switch to wood heating rather than electric, noting that a major shift away from oil-fired heating was underway due to rising oil prices and was in fact the reason the controversial dam was proposed in the first place. A decade later, Tasmanians were fed up with smoke filled air and embraced electric heating, which now has 70% of the home heating market (conventional firewood 25%, gas 3%, oil 1%, wood pellets 1%).

3. There wouldn't be too many people in the entire state who think that the overall goings on in the power industry have worked overly well. That's to the point now of power workers being abused on the street, such is the level of community frustration over rising prices. Sales of solar power and solar hot water systems are booming that is for sure, although they are still only used by a minority at this stage.

As for Smurf, well I don't agree with the greens. But I'm far less keen on "dam the lot" than you might think. Halt growth first, then there would be a point in considering new dams, nuclear etc. But if we keep going with growth then we'll burn all the coal anyway, in which case we might as well have a few nice rivers and some uranium left for future generations.

 

[Julia]

Clearly we are in uncharted waters, truth is everybody's guessing what will or wont happen...denial is never an answer,

With respect, that's a really silly thing to say.
First you say "everyone is guessing" and then you add "denial is never an answer". Contradictory.

IMO its the combination of the deniers, greens, vested interests (oil/gas/coal/nuke) and the status quo that are the real danger....there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, just the 2 extremes pulling the centre apart so that nothing changes and nothing gets done.

So if all the above are 'vested interests' even including the passionate Greens, who exactly is left?
You are presumably excluding all on the conservative side of politics, business in the form of energy companies who of all people should surely have a say in this whole thing, and then at the other end you don't like the Greens either.
Just leaves the dreaded Labor Party as far as I can tell.

 

[So_Cynical]

With respect, that's a really silly thing to say.
First you say "everyone is guessing" and then you add "denial is never an answer". Contradictory.

Everyone is guessing, in that there's no definitive answer...some believe this and some believe that, some are in denial that there's even a valid question...some think the question is valid but the science is dodgy, some groups pushing for change have a purely political agenda, while individuals in those groups go along protecting there positions (Turnbull comes to mind)

Denial for many is just an easy way to deal with a complex or difficult truth/ question...much like the Germans post WW2, the modern Catholic church and the UN during the Rwandan Genocide.

I don't see any contradiction. :dunno: meanwhile the Kyoto 1990 baseline targets have come and gone, COP this and COP that, Copenhagen etc etc...20 years of in action, denial, protecting the status quo, maybe 2 or 3 billion dollars wasted world wide and nothing of any real value to show for it.

 

[derty]

There seems to be a definte amount of uncertaintity relating to so called scientific evidence of Global Warming or Climate change created by man. Climate change is real, but doubt is mounting as to the cause, particularly from CO2 emmissions.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...facts-on-climate/story-e6frg71x-1225933016966

Sails also linked to an article discussing the Royal Society document a couple of days ago.

The uncertainty that was being discussed was with respect to the predicted temperature changes, some of the proposed effects of climate change and the limits of some datasets and observations. An emphasis was placed on outlining those predicted extreme scenarios that have a lower confidence. As for uncertainty in predictions; of course there is a definite amount of uncertainty as all scientific predictions are made within calculated error bounds.

The document does not state that doubt is mounting as to the cause - the document states" There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."

Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth’s warming has been caused largely by human activity. It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.

Here is the Royal Society report, it is quite interesting: http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294972963

 

[derty]

climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.

Thanks for providing quite a good example of the issue as I see it.

Most people do not under stand the science or the scientific process, let alone the basic mechanisms that drive and buffer climate variation at the various time scales. Most people do not consider rates of change, historic absolute minima and maxima are directly compared to current conditions with no consideration of context.

What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong.

The scientists have been plodding along, gathering evidence and building a case and improving certainties. The issue enters the realms of politics, there is talk of taxes and economic pain and then big oil and other vested interests wades in and the discreditation campaign commences and now climate science is built on the work of dishonest money hungry charlatans.

There are vested interests that want the carbon economy, there are vested interests that want to maintain the status-quo and in the centre is the science. Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.

 

[noco]

climate change is a load of crap, its just the next money maker for the super wealthy people like the Rothschilds have been involved in this movement for years before it became global.

Don't forget Al Gore! He is the Patron of the world GREEN movement.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.

LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play. The corruption in the consensus "green movement" is rife, with $80B being spent to build the AGW case since the 1980s in the US alone.

The consensus science is no longer "plodding" along building a AGW case, in fact their case continues to dissolve as more and more real scientists analyze the "consensus" data. At the same time, the politicians are back to playing sneaky games to ram thru a carbon tax and build a global governance structure - not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet.

Wake up

 

[So_Cynical]

LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play....not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet.

Wake up

OWG :bonk: care to walk us thru how this global governance play would work out....this conspiracy stuff really intrigues me, perhaps we should all start posting in code...there probably monitoring everything that goes on here.

 

[derty]

I'm not a necessarily a supporter of the political movement that has arisen on the back of the science and the scaremongering that has accompanied this - I just think the science regarding the warming and our part in it is close to the mark. The vested interests are another matter.

You do in your reply however, further support my thoughts with respect to the ideological bias against the science (bolds my emphasis)

LOL....You've misrepresented the facts significantly....it is no longer a "fringe debate" as you've put it. People are more aware of the issues being put forth and want more facts v's pictures of polar bears, broken hockey stick graphs and a copenhagen agreement that was a global governance play. The corruption in the consensus "green movement" is rife, with $80B being spent to build the AGW case since the 1980s in the US alone.

The consensus science is no longer "plodding" along building a AGW case, in fact their case continues to dissolve as more and more real scientists analyze the "consensus" data. At the same time, the politicians are back to playing sneaky games to ram thru a carbon tax and build a global governance structure - not to reduce life giving Carbon Dioxide but to tax the life out of every person on the planet.

Wake up

 

[IFocus]

Thanks for providing quite a good example of the issue as I see it.

Most people do not under stand the science or the scientific process, let alone the basic mechanisms that drive and buffer climate variation at the various time scales. Most people do not consider rates of change, historic absolute minima and maxima are directly compared to current conditions with no consideration of context.

What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong.

The scientists have been plodding along, gathering evidence and building a case and improving certainties. The issue enters the realms of politics, there is talk of taxes and economic pain and then big oil and other vested interests wades in and the discreditation campaign commences and now climate science is built on the work of dishonest money hungry charlatans.

There are vested interests that want the carbon economy, there are vested interests that want to maintain the status-quo and in the centre is the science. Temperatures are increasing, the confidence that it is human induced is increasing to the point where now it is a fringe debate, regardless of how the media and blogosphere portray it. The climate takes no notice of ideology.

Nice summary on the competing interests

 

[explod]

Nice summary on the competing interests

Is that a bit of a fence sit there Ifocus?

Seems to be a good take that money wins over common sense, but common sense wants the money to have the bread and all the other good things as those had before them.

It lets the hysteria balloon down and points out a real problem. A good post derty.

 

[wayneL]

OWG :bonk: care to walk us thru how this global governance play would work out....this conspiracy stuff really intrigues me, perhaps we should all start posting in code...there probably monitoring everything that goes on here.

Well here it is (sugar coated) from Ban Ki Moon , secretary general of the UN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html.

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed.

and again http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16

We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this

The term is being regularly used in enviro-political circles. If you remember, the greenie's favourite villain Christopher Monckton, exposed this as a documented item on the Copenhagen agenda.

In fact, it is regularly used outside of environmental debate. http://www.google.co.nz/#q=global g...s:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=73cb38aecb923674

SC, if using the straw man tactic in an attempt at ridicule, it would be wise to get your facts in order first so-as not to look so ridiculous yourself.

Perhaps in your haste to label people you have indulged in a bit of denial yourself?