This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
wayneL said:
FYI

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1
Click to expand...
Cheers wayneL, that was a good read. Hopefully Judith Curry has some success in bringing at least a little rationality to the debate. Although I won't hold my breath. It seems a lot of the scientific community see her actions as treasonous when I feel she seems to be trying to advance the issue. And conversely there are are lot of sections in the Scientific American article alone that can be cherry picked in isolation to be used by the anti-AGW crowd. Just by reading some of the comments you can see that there is quite a tug-of-war over her views.

There is a link to her blog site in the comments: http://judithcurry.com/ I will bookmark it and have a look every now and then when I get a moment.
 
Scientific American is running a poll re the Judith Curry Saga.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

The results are very interesting and must be disturbing the the consensus dogmatists. http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

But what is even more interesting to me (and many others) is the design of the survey, with many of the questions exposing a dogmatic bias and the multiple choice answers lacking objective choice.

Also her blog that derty posted http://judithcurry.com/ is an interesting read.
 

Yep. Very useful story. Brings up some of the uncertainties of knowing exactly how quickly and how disastrous climate change will be for us. ...

Because in the end that is what this story and the whole issue is about. Judith is not suggesting human induced climate change is anything less than a screaming reality. The edges may be be blurred. It would be great to have more knowledge of what is happening but the fundamentals are in place for a climatic change to everything that currently keeps us the earth in balance.

The sheer bs comes from the loonies like Monckton who just makes up whole packs of lies and recycles proven falsehoods to destroy the integrity of what is observable science - the effects of rising human produced greenhouse gases on climate. It's joined by the chorus of self interested PR liars employed by the fossil fuel industry to defend their private wealth. And finally we have the rest of us who just don't want to think about the possibility we are destroying our world and will gratefully accept any possible reason to ignore the evidence and continue with the one way trip we are currently taking.

I'm sure there are some genuine scientists who can find fault with some aspects of climate change modeling. But if this thread is a reflection of the "mainstream" skepticism all we will see is a rehash of the brazen lies and total rubbish that has been the mainstay of deniers around the world. Go back to start of this post. Judith Curry is in no way saying climate is not real, not human induced and not potentially catastrophic. Do you want to hear that message again or is too uncomfortable with your breakfast?

Or is a Royal Commission into reality required ?
 

Hah! A stunning irony there basilio. LOL

The whole point of highlighting the Judith Curry saga was to point out that there should be a scientific dialogue between the AGW hypothesizers and others who disagree with the hypothesis; and that that dialogue should be devoid of politics or policy considerations.

IOW back to the science.

She is to be highly commended for taking that position whether or not one agrees with her view of the hypothesis.

She has certainly won my respect whether I am for or against her position.

Yet faced with the above, you immediately revert to kindergarten style attitudinally polarized sniping.

Bad form.
 

You can scream all you want, but you're deliberately turning a blind eye to all the corruption, propaganda and false information that's been pumped out by the consensus crowd - the AGW consensus movement is running out of steam, hence the level of religious hysteria is increasing.

Just so there's some context on Judith Curry:
"She reserves her harshest criticism for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For most climate scientists the major reports issued by the United Nations–sponsored body every five years or so constitute the consensus on climate science. Few scientists would claim the IPCC is perfect, but Curry thinks it needs thoroughgoing reform. She accuses it of “corruption.” “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC,” she says, “because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.”​

Replace "Monckton" in your post above and replace with "IPCC" - then there would be a sense of reality.
 
Read and weep..

I once entered the debates on this topic in this Forum with some idea there was logic and perhaps good faith in some other points of view. And there well may be . But the introduction of Judith Curry's contribution and the interpretation put on her comments reminds me not to waste my time.

I repeat Judith Curray as a highly competent climate scientist totally agrees with the main thesis that human induced climate change is very real and potentially catastrophic. She chooses to engage in debate with some parts of the skeptical scientist field about some elements of the field

No problem with the expanding our knowledge of science in the field of climate change. Trouble is - as usual - the premise of deniers is that climate change can't possibly be happening as a result of human induced activity so lets just take these comments and twist them to repudiate the whole body of science on climate change that exists and continue to delay any action that attempts to deal with it.

Over and out of here.
 
I think all that poll shows is that it is terribly written and the WUWT crowd swarmed it.

There is nothing more you can take from it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/take-the-scientific-american-poll-on-judith-currry/
 

I think this needs to be bumped in case people missed it.

Also, scientific consensus is bull****. Only one person needs to be right. Science is fact, not agreement among scientists or scientific panels. This sort of bull**** (along with the climategate scandal and other politics within science and academia) is the reason I quit university two weeks ago. **** a PhD, in a few years it will be worth as much as a degree in homeopathy. So now, does anyone have a job for an unemployed former math student with no marketable skills?
 

It is interesting the characters who refuse to budge from their sanctimonious pomposity, all the while belying the conviction of their words with their actions.

Examples - Al Bore with his energy hungry Tennessee mansion, David Suzuki (who spoke so much about overpopulation) with his five children, 10:10 Franny with her world travel, the whole IPCC with their frequent junkets to exotic locations etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Over and out of here.
Click to expand...

Indeed I would lay low to save face too, if I were you.
 
derty said:
I think all that poll shows is that it is terribly written and the WUWT crowd swarmed it.

There is nothing more you can take from it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/take-the-scientific-american-poll-on-judith-currry/
Click to expand...
Well, there is really.

It gives a good indication of who is winning the propaganda war...

...and that is what we have. There is very little balanced argument. Those who try (e.g. Pielke Snr.) are regarded as heretics... a point made by Curry

This is a shame because I believe there are extremely negative consequences if either extreme "wins".
 
Carbon trading project a world first

Here is one of the key goals from the Global Warming policy morons that's been quiet for awhile...now operating just off our coast as a "trial"


A WORLD-FIRST trial of a personal carbon trading scheme that will also target obesity, is to be conducted by Southern Cross University on Norfolk Island.

The three-year project will involve giving everyone on the island a card loaded with carbon units, according to the man leading it, Garry Egger.

“Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power – and from the second year their food – it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units they are given for free at the start of the program,” Professor Egger said.​

And...

The SCU project is the first of its kind to be held in a “closed system” island environment and has been made possible by a $390,000 Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council.​

and...

“You can measure everything that goes in and out.”

If the trial was a success, it could be scaled up to a country level and ultimately to a world level, Professor Egger said.

This is a project for looking at reducing climate change and obesity in the one hit​

Our tax dollars hard at work to make people less fat and for others to invade your privacy and "measure" everything that goes in and out. Notice the article also mentions people can cash in their credits if they don't use them. I suspect this trial will be made to look "successsful" by using key incentives.

The goals of the whole climate change strategy are becoming clearer.
 
Happy Climate Fools' Day

James Delingpole provides some context of what the AGW policy crowd are trying to achieve just in the UK with billions in funding (eg Tax).

The first picture below shows two green barrels stacked together that represents the CO2 produced by the industrialized countries v's all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - water vapor (in blue) being the predominated greenhouse gas.

The second picture shows the amount of money in 50 pound notes represented in pallets (yes, if you look closely there's a red person standing next to the mountain of money) that the UK will be spending to reduce a very very small portion of CO2 in those green barrels.

With all this money flowing to reduce AGW, just an additional quarter of a blue barrel of water vapor would wipe out the trillions being spent globally over several years that aims to reduce CO2.

Take all the gravy train money away - and the Climate change movement will dissolve overnight.

You just couldn't make this nonsense up

A Royal Commission is needed.
 

Attachments

  • delingpole-last-460.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 97
  • delingpole-wheres-ed.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 123
What utter ***** nonsense. Surely the good citizens of Norfolk Island are not about to have this on?

Just another demonstration of the absolute craziness of the alarmist religion, and they wonder why the general population isn't prepared to go along with their zealotry.

If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.
 
How to determine who in Parliament is pushing what agenda

Bumped into this site today http://www.openaustralia.org

It allows you to search what has been said in Parliament

Is this the whole of Hansard?
Not quite. This is everything in the Hansard for the House of Representatives and the Senate excluding written questions, petitions, and the divisions (voting) and so far goes back to the beginning of 2006​

For example you can search to see who's pushing for "climate change" and "Global Governance" - No surprises there:


or "New World Order"


Perhaps those people who believe the world revolves around Channel 9 news and the rest of the MSM can get their fingers off the remote control and actually press a search button to check the real discussions going on across Government.
 
Here's an interesting extract that's one month old:

http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-09-29.4.2&s="global+governance"#g9.3

"Labor will continue to meet the economic challenges outlined by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in his recent visit to Australia. These include recovering from the global financial crisis, addressing global imbalances, creating a more stable global financial system, creating a new global reserve system, creating a new global financial regulatory system, addressing the problems of global warming and devising a better system of global governance. If we do not deal with these issues, it will not be the billionaires and millionaires in Australia who will suffer the consequences; it will be ordinary working families battling to put food on the table and educate their kids who will face the problems of further global financial crisis. So it is absolutely essential that we deal with that. Professor Stiglitz identified some of the key problems in the international economy. He argued that before the crisis global growth was supported by bubbles, the largest in the United States. Financial innovation had allowed the bubbles to grow bigger and bad assets to be spread around the world."​

Get the feeling Labor is simply an extension of the UN...it was only a few years ago that Australia was deemed by the powers at the time to be well insulated from the GFC, now if we don't accept the Global Agenda we can't feed our kids. How about we cut all the funding to AGW grants and UN programs, that should free up $10B or so every year.
 
Julia said:
If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.
Click to expand...
The great tragedy of this debate is that it is diverting much needed attention from all other environmental issues, many of which are demonstrably real. Those plus the very real issues of oil supply, poverty, disease and countless others.

As for what the Australian population thinks of it all, I don't have figures at hand but I do know that sales of "greenpower" are in steep decline in this country. Whether or not they believe in climate change, Australians clearly aren't prepared to pay in order to deal with it.

Meanwhile the NSW government has just scrapped the major incentives to use solar energy, apparently because doing so is now perceived as a way to gain votes whereas not too long ago the reverse was true.

Judge for yourself, but to me it looks very much as though the Australian population is not at all convinced there's a problem here. Either that or they think there's a problem but have accepted that local action is pointless in the face of surging emissions globally.
 

As the second worst country per capita it appears it will be international pressure, not pressure from the populace that will one day force us to act.
Until then c'est le vie. I have decided to just go with the flow.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita
 
These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
12K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...