Resisting Climate Hysteria

SirRumpole said:

OK I'll have to assume that you can't read and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

And the same applies to your good self.

Even the IPCC have admitted their prediction of Global Warming has been exaggerated.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/08/the-pause-is-driving-down-the-long-term-warming-trend/

luutzu said:

Ted "Carpet Bomb 'em" farking Cruz. That's the "sceptic" you're asking people to listen to?

The smarter guy there told Cruz that by "not open to debate" he meant the issue is settled by scientific evidence. That is, it is clear from research and data that Climate Change will first kill poor minority community.

How can you not see through the political spin Cruz did there? What are you saying Mr Smarty Pants, that we can't debate your hysteria?

No, Ted! You can debate it, but the results are quite clearly evident that when the shiet storm hits, those in poor areas will get stuffed while those in richer areas will get rescued and properly looked after by both the insurers and the high grounds and the welfare state.

That when famine hit, the poor will not be able to afford food or medicine or a jet plane ticket out of the country.

I guess that kind of common sense from any idiot with two eyes and a grey cell is just too much for some people.

Let's bring on Rex Tillerson on Climate Change; or Ryan what's his face on Healthcare.

Click to expand...

From the contents of your post, it appears you are siding with the alarmist views as expressed by the Sierra Club. Irrespective of the fairness (or lack thereof) of Senator Cruz's approach, there is no question, that this incident highlighted a lack of integrity in the "scientific" conduct of the Sierra Club.

There are many other instances of people raising doubt about the integrity of the "science". Would you like me to provide some more examples so that you can also "shoot those messengers"?

Surely if the "science" were truly settled, as alarmists like to claim, they shouldn't have too much to fear from open debate. Their reluctance alone, gives ample cause for suspicion about the integrity of the "science".

cynic said:

From the contents of your post, it appears you are siding with the alarmist views as expressed by the Sierra Club. Irrespective of the fairness (or lack thereof) of Senator Cruz's approach, there is no question, that this incident highlighted a lack of integrity in the "scientific" conduct of the Sierra Club.

There are many other instances of people raising doubt about the integrity of the "science". Would you like me to provide some more examples so that you can also "shoot those messengers"?

Surely if the "science" were truly settled, as alarmists like to claim, they shouldn't have too much to fear from open debate. Their reluctance alone, gives ample cause for suspicion about the integrity of the "science".

Click to expand...

The thing about Science is that no theory or findings are ever closed to debate. So for a sell out moron of a politician like Cruz to twist a simple fact into some "Sierra Club" hysteria and denial of scientific facts... that's a bit much mate.

As discussed previously, a very simple study counting how many peer-reviewed climate science studies concludes that CC is happening, is substantially caused by human activity... it found that 97% of those studies came to that conclusion.

But ey, those are UN backed commies, greenies hoaxes. Unlike the honorable Ted Cruz not at all in the pocket of the Kochs and fossil fuel industry's pocket. At least Cruz is a bit more glib than some other idiot US Senator who said that global warming cannot be happening because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again. That and if it is God's plan that the Earth be flooded, who are we mortals to go against His wishes.

I guess if the water does rise and wash away poor people's homes, they can call up God to complain about forgetting His promise to Noah.

Dealing with the effects of Global Warming

One of the very tangible consequences of global warming is the steady retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas and the collapse of reliable ice melt to villages below. One brilliant engineer from India has tackled the problem by simply creating artificial ice packs at ower mountains levels.
This is seriously good.

The ice stupas of Ladakh: solving water crisis in the high desert of Himalaya
An ingenious idea to build artificial glaciers at lower altitudes using pipes, gravity and night temperatures could transform an arid landscape into an oasis



An ice stupa created by the innovative engineer Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh, India. Photograph: Courtesy of Sonam Wangchuk

Shares
1209

Comments
91
Michael Safi in Delh

Saturday 22 April 2017 18.30 AEST Last modified on Saturday 22 April 2017 18.32 AEST


The idea crystallised in his mind one morning as Sonam Wangchuk was crossing a bridge in the Indian Himalayas.


The engineer from Ladakh, in the Jammu region of north India, was already a famous problem solver: a Bollywood film loosely based on his life had grossed a billion rupees in its first four days.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g-water-crisis-in-the-high-desert-of-himalaya

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/21/rivers-vanishing-thin-air-climate-crisis

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/ecjr-ngr033117.php

http://forward.com/culture/369744/t...hange-is-partially-responsible-for-the-syria/

luutzu said:

The thing about Science is that no theory or findings are ever closed to debate. So for a sell out moron of a politician like Cruz to twist a simple fact into some "Sierra Club" hysteria and denial of scientific facts... that's a bit much mate.

As discussed previously, a very simple study counting how many peer-reviewed climate science studies concludes that CC is happening, is substantially caused by human activity... it found that 97% of those studies came to that conclusion.

But ey, those are UN backed commies, greenies hoaxes. Unlike the honorable Ted Cruz not at all in the pocket of the Kochs and fossil fuel industry's pocket. At least Cruz is a bit more glib than some other idiot US Senator who said that global warming cannot be happening because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again. That and if it is God's plan that the Earth be flooded, who are we mortals to go against His wishes.

I guess if the water does rise and wash away poor people's homes, they can call up God to complain about forgetting His promise to Noah.

Click to expand...

Like the Sierra Club, other alarmists are having problems embracing this thing called reality. My understanding is that the claims to the existence of the 97% consensus have been thoroughly debunked.

Dr. Judith Curry had some interesting things to say:

cynic said:

Like the Sierra Club, other alarmists are having problems embracing this thing called reality. My understanding is that the claims to the existence of the 97% consensus have been thoroughly debunked.

Dr. Judith Curry had some interesting things to say:

Click to expand...

Well... your understanding is wrong.

Mate, a few scientists goes through the entire published body of work on CC, did a simple count of their conclusions, add them up to work out a percentage of nay or yay.

Somehow that's turned into "consensus seeking", stifling research and shutting down debate.

But those sciences aside, let us lay person do our own research shall we... using gut feeling.

Say we go into our house, close all doors and windows, turn up the heat... it get hot soon enough; turn on the A/C, it get cold. Oh look, human can cause changes to their environment.

Now, let's chop down most of the world's rainforests - The Earth's lung - then burnt literally hundreds of millions of bbl of oil, tonnes of coals, other chemical from industries. Do that everyday for a hundred year or two... nope, nothing, no impact.

Does that make sense to you man?

But here's the kicker... that kind of "common sense" does not pass the scientific test. Hence, all those minute research to eventually built to a body of work - 97% of which show a correlation between human activities and CC.

Scientific enquiries tend to test one variable at a time, right? Independent and dependent variables... to show the probably of one causing the other. That it is not by chance.

Anyway, a tree in your backyard looks dangerous so that's terrible and something should be done about it. Fair enough. But an overwhelming body of scientific research showing catastrophic climate events, potentially killing hundreds of millions... meehhhh... show me how freak weather ever kill people and I'd be convinced.

Mudslides; drought causing famine causing wars; rising sea level; record heatwaves and snowtorms killing the poor and the homeless... mehhhh...

In other news, apparently the lead poisoning piplelines in other American cities don't just kill poor people... the rich who aren't rich enough to buy all bottled water are also poisoned. Maybe now it's going to fixed ey. In those parts of the city where rich people live first, of course.

luutzu said:

Well... your understanding is wrong.
...

Click to expand...

My understanding of your very first comment, is that you believe that you somehow know my understanding to be incorrect.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

Do you have any concrete scientific evidence to back up your statement, other than the bogus claims to the existence of that consensus?

Do you believe Dr Judith Curry is misinformed in her assertions?
If so, on what basis?

(I should hope by now, that you realise that I am most definitely not disputing the known harmful impacts of pollution from heavy metals such as lead, mercury etc.

I happen to believe that those issues are genuine cause for some concern and warrant mankind's attention. I am however unaware of any significant causal relationship between that form of pollution and the matter of climate change. As such, I consider the discussion of same, to be out of accord with the topic of this thread.)


The rest of your post strikes me as akin to an evangelist preacher, standing on the corner of a busy thoroughfare, telling everyone they're damned if they don't repent!

cynic said:

My understanding of your very first comment, is that you believe that you somehow know my understanding to be incorrect.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

Do you have any concrete scientific evidence to back up your statement, other than the bogus claims to the existence of that consensus?

Do you believe Dr Judith Curry is misinformed in her assertions?
If so, on what basis?

(I should hope by now, that you realise that I am most definitely not disputing the known harmful impacts of pollution from heavy metals such as lead, mercury etc.

I happen to believe that those issues are genuine cause for some concern and warrant mankind's attention. I am however unaware of any significant causal relationship between that form of pollution and the matter of climate change. As such, I consider the discussion of same, to be out of accord with the topic of this thread.)


The rest of your post strikes me as akin to an evangelist preacher, standing on the corner of a busy thoroughfare, telling everyone they're damned if they don't repent!

Click to expand...

Only the poor will be damned if we richer folks don't repent. So no, humanity won't all be doomed. Not at once.

See, the poor goes first, then we second. The uber rich will get into their giant yachts in the Himalayas then repopulate the world, creating useful industries like finance, derivative tradings or just being regal. A good way to start any new world order, it seem.

Mate, if 97% of the world's climate science research fail to convince you, my brain farts ain't going to do it. I know my limits.

How do I know Dr Curry is misinformed? hmm... maybe the fact that 97% of studies in her supposed field of expertise came to a different conclusion than hers. All else being equal, unless she discover a direct proof that human activities have no impact on the climate... she's just another incompetent idiot.

I mean, any idiot can tell you it's hard for them to know or see evidence proving human activities and CC so they're sceptical. That doesn't make them some sort of genius, them being stupid and incompetent also explains their lack of knowledge.

To knock people's socks off, she'd need to maybe, I don't know, go prove that others research are wrong, reached the wrong conclusion. To shrug and say "i don't know"... that just doesn't have the same level of credibility, does it? My dog can tell you the same thing.

So unless she's the modern day Galileo while all her scientists are cranks and religious nuts... oh wait, you've been saying all along that that's the case.

luutzu said:

Only the poor will be damned if we richer folks don't repent. So no, humanity won't all be doomed. Not at once.

See, the poor goes first, then we second. The uber rich will get into their giant yachts in the Himalayas then repopulate the world, creating useful industries like finance, derivative tradings or just being regal. A good way to start any new world order, it seem.

Mate, if 97% of the world's climate science research fail to convince you, my brain farts ain't going to do it. I know my limits.

How do I know Dr Curry is misinformed? hmm... maybe the fact that 97% of studies in her supposed field of expertise came to a different conclusion than hers. All else being equal, unless she discover a direct proof that human activities have no impact on the climate... she's just another incompetent idiot.

I mean, any idiot can tell you it's hard for them to know or see evidence proving human activities and CC so they're sceptical. That doesn't make them some sort of genius, them being stupid and incompetent also explains their lack of knowledge.

To knock people's socks off, she'd need to maybe, I don't know, go prove that others research are wrong, reached the wrong conclusion. To shrug and say "i don't know"... that just doesn't have the same level of credibility, does it? My dog can tell you the same thing.

So unless she's the modern day Galileo while all her scientists are cranks and religious nuts... oh wait, you've been saying all along that that's the case.

Click to expand...

Firstly, please take care not to misconstrue what I, and others, have "been saying all along".

From your response, it appears that you're also claiming to know that Dr. Curry is wrong, and that your opinion is formed from your faith in the existence of the purported consensus, and upon an absence of disproof, from its detractors, of the associated ACC claims.

I note your liberal usage of the word "fact" throughout your postings. What you seem to have overlooked in all of this, is that your beliefs, like mine, are based upon your opinions on what the facts are. The objective (as opposed to subjective) facts may turn out to be quite different to those opined. As such, I consider it unwise to mistakenly represent opinions as facts.

I happen to hold a quite different opinion to yourself on the integrity of the purported consensus, and of those claiming to its existence.

One fact, of which I am quite confident, is the fact of my expressed opinion differing from yours!

A further fact, of which I am similarly confident, is that having a different opinion to yourself doesn't automatically make me wrong!

How is one justified in insisting that everybody accept another's opined (and unproven) fact as true, based solely upon the absence of disproof of said opinion.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?(i.e. first prove the opined fact to be actually true, or at the very least demonstrate that it has a reasonable level of merit.)

Failing this, in the absence of the ability to disprove the existence of Lucifer, we may all have to accept the evangelical preacher's dictates to repent lest we be damned for all eternity!

cynic said:

Firstly, please take care not to misconstrue what I, and others, have "been saying all along".

From your response, it appears that you're also claiming to know that Dr. Curry is wrong, and that your opinion is formed from your faith in the existence of the purported consensus, and upon an absence of disproof, from its detractors, of the associated ACC claims.

I note your liberal usage of the word "fact" throughout your postings. What you seem to have overlooked in all of this, is that your beliefs, like mine, are based upon your opinions on what the facts are. The objective (as opposed to subjective) facts may turn out to be quite different to those opined. As such, I consider it unwise to mistakenly represent opinions as facts.

I happen to hold a quite different opinion to yourself on the integrity of the purported consensus, and of those claiming to its existence.

One fact, of which I am quite confident, is the fact of my expressed opinion differing from yours!

A further fact, of which I am similarly confident, is that having a different opinion to yourself doesn't automatically make me wrong!

How is one justified in insisting that everybody accept another's opined (and unproven) fact as true, based solely upon the absence of disproof of said opinion.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?(i.e. first prove the opined fact to be actually true, or at the very least demonstrate that it has a reasonable level of merit.)

Failing this, in the absence of the ability to disprove the existence of Lucifer, we may all have to accept the evangelical preacher's dictates to repent lest we be damned for all eternity!

Click to expand...

You write very well. Gotta start learning some critical thinking skill to make the most of it though.

The 97% of climate scientists and their research does not agree with Dr. Curry. Does that make her wrong? To a lay person like me, yes it does. Will she ultimately be proven right... well, what is she right about, really? From that video clip, all she said was she weren't sure about human impact; maybe climate change doesn't exist at all.

errmmmm.... You know how Darwin proposes a theory on the evolution of species? He kinda show his line of reasoning, show "evidence" to support his claims, came to a conclusion. Our Dr. Curry here just shrugs and said she couldn't find any definitive answer, that she's not sure... well fark me, how can you prove anyone's wrong when they didn't say anything or know anything?

What's two plus two? I don't know. Wrong! The answer is not "I don't know".
Well, I'm sceptical about what two plus two is.
But you're wrong because the answer is four!

Can't say the person is wrong when they are "sceptical", can you?


As to my or your opinion... I'm no climate scientist so let's listen to the expert shall I?

luutzu said:

You write very well. Gotta start learning some critical thinking skill to make the most of it though.

The 97% of climate scientists and their research does not agree with Dr. Curry. Does that make her wrong? To a lay person like me, yes it does. Will she ultimately be proven right... well, what is she right about, really? From that video clip, all she said was she weren't sure about human impact; maybe climate change doesn't exist at all.

errmmmm.... You know how Darwin proposes a theory on the evolution of species? He kinda show his line of reasoning, show "evidence" to support his claims, came to a conclusion. Our Dr. Curry here just shrugs and said she couldn't find any definitive answer, that she's not sure... well fark me, how can you prove anyone's wrong when they didn't say anything or know anything?

What's two plus two? I don't know. Wrong! The answer is not "I don't know".
Well, I'm sceptical about what two plus two is.
But you're wrong because the answer is four!

Can't say the person is wrong when they are "sceptical", can you?


As to my or your opinion... I'm no climate scientist so let's listen to the expert shall I?

Click to expand...

When there exists so much disagreement between the experts, how exactly does one determine whom to believe?

Should one give more credence to the expert humbly confessing to areas of uncertainty and recommending further investigation, or should one simply submit to the dictates (and apocalyptic threats) of those claiming that their findings are indisputable?

Which of those experts poses the greatest threat to the progression of science?

Which allows the freedom and enhancement of mankind's ability to accumulate and validate information?

I can recognise from your postings the type of "expert" you have chosen to heed.

Whilst I believe that everyone has the right to make their own choices about what to believe, I confess to having great difficulty respecting those choosing to side with tyrannical religions. Especially when those religions deny outsiders the right to freely choose whether or not to partake.

cynic said:

When there exists so much disagreement between the experts, how exactly does one determine whom to believe?

Should one give more credence to the expert humbly confessing to areas of uncertainty and recommending further investigation, or should one simply submit to the dictates (and apocalyptic threats) of those claiming that their findings are indisputable?

Which of those experts poses the greatest threat to the progression of science?

Which allows the freedom and enhancement of mankind's ability to accumulate and validate information?

I can recognise from your postings the type of "expert" you have chosen to heed.

Whilst I believe that everyone has the right to make their own choices about what to believe, I confess to having great difficulty respecting those choosing to side with tyrannical religions which deny outsiders the right to freely choose whether or not to partake.

Click to expand...

How does 97% of climate scientist making the same conclusion show "there exist so much disagreement between the experts"?

In case you don't know, those 97% weren't conducting the one single research paper. They didn't study the same variable either

I don't know if you've ever done anything close to a scientific research, but from the little attempt I did for my little thesis, peer-reviewed, scientific research studies a very small part of any field you care to mention.

That is, each study only ever focus on one or two variables. Collect the data, do their analysis and at the end of all that hard work, concludes whether their indepdendent and dependenable blah blah happen by chance or have a high probability of not being accidental.

So they'd study Arctic ice, say, measure the rate at which it melt over the seasons, the years, the decade. Then see if such rate are the normal cycle of Arctic ice melt. If not normal, if not random, why? Maybe the temperature in the Arctic are abnormally high... why are they so high... other research conducted by so and so point to it being caused by x, y, z.

So of all of these kind of independent research and studies into Climate Science... that 97% count came from a mere... tabulation [I know big words too, see?]... of each paper's conclusion. Result shows that 97% concluded that CC is real, human activities play a big azz major part in it.

If Dr. Curry want to be taken seriously, she better go ahead and disprove those individual papers, their data, their analysis and their conclusion. That or do her own research proving that CC does not exist because God intended this Earth and all its resources to be use else he won't have put it here, under all those oceans and rocks and granite.

----

Let's put that 97% another way.

Say there's a tree in someone's backyard.

One group of arborist was given a sample of its roots; another a sample of its trunk; another its bark; another its core drill sample; another its this and all that.

97% of the arborist's findings, after examining just the sample that was given to them, concludes that the tree definitely dead or dying.

Then there's this other 3% who can't work their microscope or were given a fresh sample... concludes that their finding is inconclusive or they just don't know.

Then all those report were presented to the Council and the Councillor, who is not at all bribed by the Greenies with money or else be crucified after a Spanish Inquisition show trial, concludes that meehhhh... tree's still standing so it must be alive because 3% of the studies can't prove it's dead or dying.

I bet you'd love that kind of decision mate.

97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...97%...

The GREENIES cracked record....They just hammering away hoping some naive galahs believe it.

97% of 79 scientist in the UN Climate Change Committee = 77....Well and truly hand picked to suit the UN requirements.

These idiots say the debate is over......Says who?

Models have been rigged and exaggerated....Even the IPCC have admitted to their errors.

33,800 scientist say it is crap.

Plenty of past posts to back it up.

luutzu said:

How does 97% of climate scientist making the same conclusion show "there exist so much disagreement between the experts"?
....

Click to expand...

The purported 97% consensus wasn't derived from climate scientists arriving at the same conclusion!

It was derived from an analysis of diverse research paper abstracts!

A Washington Journal article, highlighting concerns about the derivation of the purported consensus, has been reproduced in the linked blog:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

Would you purchase "a pig in a black sack" based upon the assurances of the author of this email:
http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/Cook31July.png

It seems that many climate alarmists are quite eagerly doing so!

Since opinions seem to somehow be getting more attention, within this debate, than objective data, why not allow consideration of the information presented in the following opinion piece?:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#726c3419485d

cynic said:

The purported 97% consensus wasn't derived from climate scientists arriving at the same conclusion!

It was derived from an analysis of diverse research paper abstracts!

A Washington Journal article, highlighting concerns about the derivation of the purported consensus, has been reproduced in the linked blog:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

Click to expand...

I've read the original paper that 97% came from dude. Have talked about it before on this forum.

You know what's in the abstract? It's an executive summary detailing the key literature review, the method of the research, and the conclusion with suggestion on further studies and application.

So it pretty much summed up what each author of the research find and conclude.

So yes, like I said, if Dr. Curry doesn't believe it, she can go through each of those papers and show where those scientists and their methodology and conclusions are wrong.

Remember too that that 97% paper did ask the original researcher/s whether or not they agree with the paper's classifying their conclusion as either Yay or Nay.

cynic said:

Would you purchase "a pig in a black sack" based upon the assurances of the author of this email:
http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/Cook31July.png

It seems that many climate alarmists are quite eagerly doing so!

Since opinions seem to somehow be getting more attention, within this debate, than objective data, why not allow consideration of the information presented in the following opinion piece?:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ing-97-percent-consensus-claims/#726c3419485d

Click to expand...

My dear friend, no matter what you throw in the face of the Geenies they will still hammer this false claim of 97% every day until the cows come home........Say it often enough and the naive will believe it.

Well firstly Luutzu congratulations on continuing the conversation with Cynic and Noco on what are the most rock solid basics of CC
1) It's real, it's currently overwhelmingly caused by human produced greenhouse gases and it's going to get much worse
2) This reality is acknowledged by the overwhelmingly number of scientists who study the climate and the effects of climate change on our eco systems.

The last pages of pseudo scientific rubbish and outright denial from Cynic and Noco just demonstrate the cognitive impairment that has happened to millions of people as result of a determined disinformation campaign. Yet not a single word of this rubbish will alter the consequences of global warming.

But I'm equally sure that whatever happens in our real world, melting icecaps, record temperatures, collapsing ecosytsems, rising sea levels, the same litany of denial will be rinsed and repeated. If the proponents of this misinformation were ever accessible to demonstrated facts and even the principles of managing perceived risk this "argument" would be long gone.