Resisting Climate Hysteria

Why do heads of government need to fly in and out of conferences?
Whats wrong with zooming like we have had to do over the past two years.
And why do we need people like Bezos, Gates, Soros etc?
And why the hell do we have to listen to a n18 year old girl who has not even finished school yet, much less got any world experience.
it does not matter what the elites do in Glasgow.
They have to convince the suckers back working for a living to go on with them.
It is no surprise that the most vocal on the bandwagon are those who are well off enough to not be adversely affected by the decisions.
You only have to look at the last federal Election to see how voters do not take to the say one thing do another syndrome.
Right now , they are failing miserably because of their "let them eat cake syndrome".
And the biggest failing is weak response to China, the biggest carbon emitter of all.
Australia could become carbon neutral tomorrow , and would make the barest of difference to the human induced climate change problem.
And that is not some right wing conspiracy crap, its plain fact.
So why are we as Australians being beaten around the head over not setting a 2030 net zero position when the Increase in China's emissions in a year is equivalent to all of pours?
Why, because its about the politics.
The climate is just the medium to do the beating.
Micki

Is there a critical CC problem or not Mull ? Are the CC scientists correct when they say our greenhouse gas emissions have already raised global temperatures by 1.2C and if left to business as usual we will create a world that humans and most of our current ecosystems will not survive. ?

Like most others, I believe that the climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.
I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.
Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.
I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.
I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.
The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation causation.
Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.
The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced.
The rest is politics.
Mick

mullokintyre said:

So why are we as Australians being beaten around the head over not setting a 2030 net zero position when the Increase in China's emissions in a year is equivalent to all of pours?

Click to expand...

Because it gives our media something to write about. ?
Why are we going on about the P.M upsetting France because we cancelling a contract to buy fossil fueled subs, which would be absolutely useless?
Instead of just saying well maybe it could have been handled better, but the outcome is really a better outcome for Australia and it was a business decision?
Because the media are having a field day.

Why isn't the media still going on about when Andrews cancelled an East West road in Melbourne and forked out heaps of money, because people probably really didn't give a $hit, that's what happens when circumstances change business decisions change compensation is paid and things move on.

Why don't the media mention the lack of tact France is showing with regard the U.K leaving the E.U and France demanding fishing rights in U.K waters and even going to the extent of impounding a U.K fishing boat? It's a bit rich the French having their feelings hurt when they trample over others feelings.

What about the Rainbow Warrior incident? I mean sinking a ship in a New Zealand harbour, during a time of peace? I mean really.
It's about time Australians stopped pizzing on themselves and took a spoon of concrete, to harden up.

The time for this media induced inferiority complex needs to come to end, every time a known identity comes to Australia the first thing they get when they step foot on the tarmac, is the media asking "what do you think of Australia? what do you think of how we are doing things? oh please tell us we are good and doing well, tell us you like us, please, please".

We have become a country full of insecure whimps, being led around by the nose by the media, seeking everyone else's approval because we don't have enough patriotic pride in our countries ability and judgement and a media that encourages that lack of self worth.

China has shown how much effect continually grovelling to appease other countries has, once you step out of line and stop grovelling, they just cut you off at the knees with embargoes.

Maybe Morrison should apologise to Macron and buy both lots of subs the useless French ones and the U.S ones, then everyone's is happy.
We just need to grow up and grow a pair, oh sorry please forgive me, I can't say that please don't send me to the naughty corner. ?
My rant for the week.

Ok Mull. That makes sense.

Your an intelligent person. If on seriously reading the work of climate scientists around the world you can't recognise what is happening to our climate and why it has happened then clearly you really don't see a problem. In that sense all this COP 26 stuff is just hot air from
"the elites" who are "hypocrites". I can see from your talking points the places you get your information from.

By the way. No one talks about "climate denial" anymore. The talking points now are now pretty much what you have said. 'We don't really know" "Climate has always changed " "Warming could be good for some" "We don't know what has caused it ". In the end it means the same thing. Don't do anything and don't worry.

If you want to refresh your understanding of what is happening with CC the NASA website offers a clear analysis.

basilio said:

Ok Mull. That makes sense.

Your an intelligent person. If on seriously reading the work of climate scientists around the world you can't recognise what is happening to our climate and why it has happened then clearly you really don't see a problem. In that sense all this COP 26 stuff is just hot air from
"the elites" who are "hypocrites". I can see from your talking points the places you get your information from.

Click to expand...

Bas, you keep putting words in my mouth that I never utter.
Where did I say I did not see a problem?
The issue is trying to work out the
I can see lots of problems, but a hot air political gabfest is not going to solve too many.

By the way. No one talks about "climate denial" anymore. The talking points now are now pretty much what you have said. 'We don't really know" "Climate has always changed " "Warming could be good for some" "We don't know what has caused it ". In the end it means the same thing. Don't do anything and don't worry.

Click to expand...

No one talks about climate denial? really,
So what does this statement of yours from post #9997 look like?

Ha Ha.. Argument 101 in the well thumbed Climate deniers handbook of disinformation..

Click to expand...

I could put up URL's about climate change as well, but I suspect your response would be that they come from the sort of sources you may not approve of.

Kinda pointless really.
Mick

It's nice being blocked by Bas, just sayin'.

Mick if you can find an analysis of climate change that refutes all the evidence presented on the NASA website I'm all ears. I choose that site because it simply summarizes the main issues, evidence and solutions to the problem. Your welcome to check it out and then come back with another analysis that you believe is credible.

I didn't put "words in your mouth" Mick. You chose to run off a stream of talking points all intended to trash the process creating a world wide solution to a world wide problem. The fact that you made no effort to even acknowledge there was a serious problem said everything else. Your recent post with "don't really know" "climate is always changing" "is human CO2 the problem " ( there is clear proof that human produced CO2 is the problem) "some places will be better off" confirms your views.

Years ago one presenter came up with an excellent argument of why we had to take CC seriously. It was based on the premise that if there was only a small chance all the scientists were right then the consequences letting CC going unchecked would be disastrous. Essentially it was "How lucky do you feel ?" in ignoring the wealth of scientific understanding of what was happening to our climate.

The world works on this principle. Engineers would never consider building a dam with a 5% chance of failure. Or a plane or a power station or a bridge for that matter. So why are people so willing to disregard or undermine evidence of a situation that poses far bigger threats? 20-30 years ago the reality of CC consequences might not have been obviously apparent. But in 2021 we know we have a 1.2 C warmer world and we can see the consequences to date. Is it smart to ignore what is now obvious ?

Perhaps CC is boring ?

Let's look at the logic:

mullokintyre said:

Like most others, I believe that the climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.

Click to expand...

That is not a reasoned response to AGW's potential to have dire consequences for the global economy, environment, or humanity. Those impacts are already starting to play out.

mullokintyre said:

I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.

Click to expand...

Most action is based on probability, or "most likely" explanations as science has no role in certainties. All you are saying is you do not believe the evidence, and you have a personal basis for maintaining your belief. At what point would you believe the many world leaders at COP26 who made unequivocal statements about the urgent need for action? The point here is that your need for certainty is not relevant to the real world issue of their being a problem.

mullokintyre said:

Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.

Click to expand...

This is a fallacious position based on an illogical equivalence. For example, the fact catastrophic bush fires provide work for firefighters is not equivalent to the suffering of victims.

mullokintyre said:

I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.

Click to expand...

Neither do climate scientists. They can only provide the scientific explanations that give rise to a greenhouse effect, and show with data high confidence that this is what is happening, why, and the likely trend.

mullokintyre said:

I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.

Click to expand...

There is a scientific explanation to what is happening that has a 200 year genesis. If you are reading about "arguments" then you are discounting knowledge.

mullokintyre said:

The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation causation.
Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.

Click to expand...

That would only be true if you were not reading about climate science. If a scientist cannot differentiate correlation from causation then they have no basis for any finding.

mullokintyre said:

The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced.
The rest is politics.

Click to expand...

If renewables had a carbon footprint then nuclear would be an option, especially as it has the capacity to generate massive amounts of energy - 1 g of uranium or plutonium is the energy equivalent of 3 tons of coal - for millions of years, and would solve the AGW issue. But renewables are actually the most economic solution and continue to get cheaper, while the opposite is the case for FF.

The politics is about what individual countries do to bring forward the mass scale implementation of renewables to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Economics is likely to win out over politics, except it may be too late to prevent the capped 1.5 degree rise that is aimed for.

mullokintyre said:

Like most others, I believe that the climate has changed in the past, and most likely will continue to change into the future.
I have no certainty as to whether there is a critical CC problem or not.
Firstly, because what is bad for some is good for others.
I also have no certainty that whatever climate change has occurred, it is completely due to carbon emissions pertially due to carbon emissions and partly due to natural causes, or purely due to natural causes.
I try to read all sides of the argument, and most sides put up compelling evidence, some are just emotive talk.
The problem is, I have always made a distinction between correlation causation.
Its a distinction so much of the climate debate ignores or dismisses.
The reason for moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources is precisely in the deffiniton: We will eventually run out of fossil fuels, therefore they have to be replaced.
The rest is politics.
Mick

Click to expand...

Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.

IFocus said:

Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.

Click to expand...

Why are the protagonists still flying around in private jets then?

IFocus said:

Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.

Click to expand...

Or even just the executive summaries of each section.

I presume you mean This one , the September 2021 which was the latest I could find?
I admit to only reading the summary.

IFocus said:

Mick if you get the chance read the latest IPCC report, its compelling along with the data.

Click to expand...

Look I tried to read some of it, but the bloody thing is huge.
Bas has suggested reading the executive summaries, but I am only interested in the data and "the science", and its very hard to get to the bottom of it.
There are a number of authors (some of them actual scientists) who will dispute some of "the science" and the conclusions drawn from them.
People like Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Stephen Macintyre, Wills Eschenbach have a different interpretation that they can argue with some good logic and data.
I am not saying they are right and IPCC is wrong, but I think its important to read both.
I can guess that someone will chime in and say that all of these have been debunked.
And therein lies the problem.
Saying that something is debunked or fake news, or part of a right wing/leftwing/no wing conspiracy org just shuts down legitimate debate.
Mick

mullokintyre said:

I presume you mean This one , the September 2021 which was the latest I could find?
I admit to only reading the summary.

Look I tried to read some of it, but the bloody thing is huge.
Bas has suggested reading the executive summaries, but I am only interested in the data and "the science", and its very hard to get to the bottom of it.
There are a number of authors (some of them actual scientists) who will dispute some of "the science" and the conclusions drawn from them.
People like Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Stephen Macintyre, Wills Eschenbach have a different interpretation that they can argue with some good logic and data.
I am not saying they are right and IPCC is wrong, but I think its important to read both.
I can guess that someone will chime in and say that all of these have been debunked.
And therein lies the problem.
Saying that something is debunked or fake news, or part of a right wing/leftwing/no wing conspiracy org just shuts down legitimate debate.
Mick

Click to expand...

In simple terms you seem unable to work out what the unequivocal data shows.
Judith Curry, who you mentioned, said this in an interview earlier this year:

Climate systems are complex but at the end of the day the number that counts is energy gain. It cannot get hotter without mechanisms that either increase heat retention or separately raise atmospheric temperature (or both). Curry and other will have us believe that this "host of other things" remain unknown factors that cast doubt on IPPC conclusions. That's a curious proposition because climate is cyclical, meaning her "host of other things" has many times been factored in since the Industrial Revolution.

Curry, who actually is a credible climate scientist, unlike the others you named (Tisdale for example has no idea about energy conservation), seems not to understand the logical bind she created for herself. If, as she notes, manmade emissions gave rise to the signal, then we have at least one causal factor and a start date. Curry has never been able to explain how her "host of other things" has been able to contribute to our 1.2 degree temperature rise, as distinct from predicable cyclical variability.

Given that science works on its explanatory basis, if you want to give credibility to people who can offer no credible alternative explanation to AGW then what is there to debate?

How can you talk about energy conservation?
The earth and its atmosphere is not a closed system.
Mick

mullokintyre said:

How can you talk about energy conservation?
The earth and its atmosphere is not a closed system.
Mick

Click to expand...

Tisdale's contentions relate warming to ENSO events, specifically heat transfers from ocean to atmosphere.
If the oceans are losing energy to heat the atmosphere, how come the oceans are still warming?
We also know Tisdale's ENSO events cannot be modulations returning temperatures to equilibrium as if that were the case the modulations should lead to incrementally decreasing changes in temperature, whereas in fact the opposite is the case.

It's true that energy flows to and from Earth, but these fluxes have constantly rebalanced over billions of years such that energy transfers between the atmosphere and oceans can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales.

rederob said:

It's true that energy flows to and from Earth, but these fluxes have constantly rebalanced over billions of years such that energy transfers between the atmosphere and oceans can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales.

Click to expand...

Says who? Another model?
What proof do you or anyone that it is valid to approximate the earth and its atmosphere can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales?
The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.

Mick

mullokintyre said:

The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.

Mick

Click to expand...

It IS a chaotic system, that much is indisputable.

Donald Rumsfeld described it best in relation to something completely different:

Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown unknowns

mullokintyre said:

Says who? Another model?
What proof do you or anyone that it is valid to approximate the earth and its atmosphere can be treated as a closed system at decadal scales?
The one thing that has become obvious is that the Atmosphere is and its relationship to earth and the solar system is extremely complex.
Indeed , many argue that it is a chaotic system, and as such is incapable of being modelled.

Mick

Click to expand...

If you want to quote Tisdale as having a viewpoint worth considering then you should also understand what would make it credible.
So rather than obfuscate, explain how ENSO is contributing to global warming as Tisdale claims.

While you say "I am only interested in the data and "the science" you are offering nothing. Or should I say you play from the copybook of climate science denialism?

Putting aside political views about her, her background as an industrial chemist gave her the foundation to understand the science unlike many other politicians since.