Resisting Climate Hysteria

[rederob]

The Earth’s getting greener. Even NASA tell us that.

That is relevant to what point, exactly?

I was happy to use the term ‘catastrophists’ which I think adequately and more politely describes people who are gluing themselves to roads and I’ll stop using the term climate clowns when the ‘scientists’ stop calling skeptics or people want to question the science, ‘deniers’.

Scientists have no problem with skepticism. The problem they have is where the science has no reasonable counter and there is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or lie about what can be known.

I personally, or even the whole population of Australia, can not do anything that will stop global warming, if the theory is correct.

That is poor logic. Sure, if nobody ever does anything then the status quo prevails. However, the fact is that much of the western world has done something, and collectively our efforts can achieve a continuation of trend to reduce per capita CO2 in the industrialised world, while simultaneously assisting the developing world to minimise its CO2 footprint. In this latter regard Australia had an opportunity to assist it regional neighbours, but was instead more intent on reducing overseas aid. Then again, Australia has been a policy backwater for the last decade, so maybe the Coalition's ignorance was a plausible fallback position.

It’s out of our hands. Now that we know GHG emissions are causing the warming, every country must act and the biggest emitter going into the future is China. So, it’s now China’s responsibility to stop its emissions but it has a free pass till 2060. But, by the Warmists calculations this is way too late. So, what is it? Is it a problem, or not? You are arguing that it’s not.

More poor logic.
We knew what CO2 could do to global temperature in the 1800s, and data in the early 20th century was confirming this. Over 40 years ago Jim Hansen was largely responsible for driving international action on climate, culminating in establishment of the IPCC.
But true to form you want to continue blaming China, the country leading the world in renewable energy and electrification generally. As I said earlier, there's another 5 billion people in the developing world that make China's role incidental, but to you they seem not to count! There's other options.., how about the western world instead learn to live at India's per capita CO2 output, and we let China continue to produce most of the world's manufactured goods more efficiently so we can still enjoy the mod cons we want? That option will, no doubt, be unpalatable to you, as why should we suffer just because we caused the problem and, anyway, there's another scapegoat in the offing.

China is quite clearly the greatest threat to the human species at the moment.

Another opinion backed up by other opinions no doubt.
I gave up trying to count the your contributions to this thread that offer zero science.

The IPCC's reports outline what needs to be done to have a chance of keeping global temperatures as low as possible into the future. Why some people think it cannot be achieved is pure defeatism. Then again, given we can sink $80B into submarines to secure our eroding coastlines... oooops, maybe our priorities need revisiting.

 

[Sean K]

That is relevant to what point, exactly?

Scientists have no problem with skepticism. The problem they have is where the science has no reasonable counter and there is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or lie about what can be known.

That is poor logic. Sure, if nobody ever does anything then the status quo prevails. However, the fact is that much of the western world has done something, and collectively our efforts can achieve a continuation of trend to reduce per capita CO2 in the industrialised world, while simultaneously assisting the developing world to minimise its CO2 footprint. In this latter regard Australia had an opportunity to assist it regional neighbours, but was instead more intent on reducing overseas aid. Then again, Australia has been a policy backwater for the last decade, so maybe the Coalition's ignorance was a plausible fallback position.

More poor logic.
We knew what CO2 could do to global temperature in the 1800s, and data in the early 20th century was confirming this. Over 40 years ago Jim Hansen was largely responsible for driving international action on climate, culminating in establishment of the IPCC.
But true to form you want to continue blaming China, the country leading the world in renewable energy and electrification generally. As I said earlier, there's another 5 billion people in the developing world that make China's role incidental, but to you they seem not to count! There's other options.., how about the western world instead learn to live at India's per capita CO2 output, and we let China continue to produce most of the world's manufactured goods more efficiently so we can still enjoy the mod cons we want? That option will, no doubt, be unpalatable to you, as why should we suffer just because we caused the problem and, anyway, there's another scapegoat in the offing.

Another opinion backed up by other opinions no doubt.
I gave up trying to count the your contributions to this thread that offer zero science.

The IPCC's reports outline what needs to be done to have a chance of keeping global temperatures as low as possible into the future. Why some people think it cannot be achieved is pure defeatism. Then again, given we can sink $80B into submarines to secure our eroding coastlines... oooops, maybe our priorities need revisiting.

You’re in the wrong thread Rob but I’m enjoying the fishing.

 

[wayneL]

This is really interesting

 

[basilio]

You’re in the wrong thread Rob but I’m enjoying the fishing.

Your quite right. It is waste of time and pixels attempting to engage logically or with evidence on this thread.

Troll on !

 

[Sean K]

Your quite right. It is waste of time and pixels attempting to engage logically or with evidence on this thread.

Troll on !

? ?

The irony is killing me.

I’ve tried to be rational through this thread and have only gone ad hom when attacked myself. The thread intent is to point out how NUTS climate clowns are, and we’ve seen plenty of evidence of that. It’s obviously a personal attack against religious beliefs to suggest the catastrophic predictions of the alarmists simply haven’t come true.

(The contraction of you and are is you’re. I’m sure I’ve made such simple dumb grammatical errors myself. I’ve probably made a spelling mistake here that ChatGPT missed)

 

[rederob]

I’ve tried to be rational through this thread and have only gone ad hom when attacked myself.

Your posts consistently used pejoratives, never backed your claims, failed basic logic, and did not demonstrate you grasped the issues you wrote about. What makes that "rational"?

The thread intent is to point out how NUTS climate clowns are, and we’ve seen plenty of evidence of that. It’s obviously a personal attack against religious beliefs to suggest the catastrophic predictions of the alarmists simply haven’t come true.

This thread was based on an article written with an exceptionally skewed presentation of the science surrounding climate change, and a view that urgent mitigation action was an hysterical overreaction.
Some 14 years later with an even stronger scientific basis, plus corroborating data, the international calls for action grow increasingly more urgent.
The scientific basis for not needing to act relies on obfuscation alone as there is not a single credible scientific paper in the past 30 years identifying how the planet will cool - let alone stabilise - while GHGs continue to rise.
It has been many times documented where the support for climate inaction comes from, and just as millions of Americans believe Trump really won the 2020 presidential election, there remain bolted on believers that climate change is an artefact, but have no evidence.

As your responses, and those of @wayneL plus a few others show, the real hysteria lies with those who have to cherrypick, exaggerate claims, misrepresent science, and present baseless opinions. You seem unwilling to accept there are scientists, not clowns, contributing to our body of knowledge that shows that climate change is a solid theory. On the other hand you have the like of Tom Nelson and Ralph Ellis (post #10283 above) presenting alternative views, which was akin to watching flat earthers pat one another on the back for their sound ideas.

When @basilio asks, "What evidence would one require to reassess their view on global warming and the need to take urgent remedial action ? " we hear the great wall of silence from those who refuse to accept there is an existential problem needing to be fixed.

 

[Sean K]

How long before the earthquake in Turkey and Syria is blamed on global warming?

 

[Sean K]

How long before the earthquake in Turkey and Syria is blamed on global warming?

One day.

 

[basilio]

Congratulations Sean . I see your deep sea trolling has landed you a big one..

You know Sean, scientists have been speculating for years that the massive changes brought about by Global Warming could trigger more/stronger earthquakes. There is plenty of historical evidence that the break up of previous Ice Ages triggered earthquakes as immense pressure was released from compressed earth

Mind you CC is already causing enough havoc without adding another string to the woe. But I wouldn't worry myself if I was you Sean about the possibility of GW causing any more problems than its (not) causing at the moment...

https://www.livescience.com/7366-global-warming-spur-earthquakes-volcanoes.html

Could a Changing Climate Set Off Volcanoes and Quakes?

A British scientist argues that global warming could lead to a future of more intense volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And while some dismiss his views as preposterous, he points to a body of recent research that shows a troubling link between climate change and the Earth’s most destructive...

e360.yale.edu

 

[Sean K]

Congratulations Sean . I see your deep sea trolling has landed you a big one..

You know Sean, scientists have been speculating for years that the massive changes brought about by Global Warming could trigger more/stronger earthquakes. There is plenty of historical evidence that the break up of previous Ice Ages triggered earthquakes as immense pressure was released from compressed earth

Mind you CC is already causing enough havoc without adding another string to the woe. But I wouldn't worry myself if I was you Sean about the possibility of GW causing any more problems than its (not) causing at the moment...

https://www.livescience.com/7366-global-warming-spur-earthquakes-volcanoes.html

Could a Changing Climate Set Off Volcanoes and Quakes?

A British scientist argues that global warming could lead to a future of more intense volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And while some dismiss his views as preposterous, he points to a body of recent research that shows a troubling link between climate change and the Earth’s most destructive...

e360.yale.edu

Thanks mate, only too happy to oblige.

Can you tell me what page earthquakes are mentioned here?

Thanks.

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Summary for Policymakers

.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[basilio]

Thanks mate, only too happy to oblige.

Can you tell me what page earthquakes are mentioned here?

Thanks.

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Summary for Policymakers

.

www.ipcc.ch

God knows where ! In fact I reckon it might be a footnote somewhere.

My "tongue-in-cheek" comment about being more concerned about the multiplicity of the many other effects of global warming comes into play. Realistically the theoritical problems that could occur through more/stronger earthquake activity is not one that should be taking up much if any attention - at this stage.

I have rarely gone beyond the Summary sections of IPPC reports. The fact that it is noted for policy makers suggest the detail the go into that is realistically the bread and butter of land planners, agricultural organizations, health bodies and so on.

 

[basilio]

Some pretty cool graphs in that report.

 

[Sean K]

God knows where ! In fact I reckon it might be a footnote somewhere.

My "tongue-in-cheek" comment about being more concerned about the multiplicity of the many other effects of global warming comes into play. Realistically the theoritical problems that could occur through more/stronger earthquake activity is not one that should be taking up much if any attention - at this stage.

I have rarely gone beyond the Summary sections of IPPC reports. The fact that it is noted for policy makers suggest the detail the go into that is realistically the bread and butter of land planners, agricultural organizations, health bodies and so on.

I‘ve read every page of the last two reports. One of the things that seems to transpire from the detailed science through to the reports for policy makers is that the ‘low confidence’ stuff gets filtered out and the ‘high confidence’ stuff makes front pages of The Guardian, etc. I do treat the IPCC reports as authority, but also take into account the science from those who don’t make it to the table, because it might disagree with the ‘consensus’. There seems to have been a lot of that going on the past 20 years. Funding of the CAGW narrative to universities might be an issue.

 

[Sean K]

Some pretty cool graphs in that report.

View attachment 152877

The oldest and least corrupted temperature graph is the Central England Temperature set. It looks like it’s generally going up, but we’re actually pretty close to the mid 1700s. And, how can anyone explain the jump from 1700 to 1740? 2 degrees? Back when we were burning bung to heat our homes. There’s lots of other scientific graphs that refute the Hockey Stick. They tend to go back a bit longer, add in the MWP, and the fact we’re in the Holocene, one of the few times the Earth is not completely covered in ice. We should be better preparing for the next ice age, not for boiling oceans.

 

[IFocus]

The oldest and least corrupted temperature graph is the Central England Temperature set. It looks like it’s generally going up, but we’re actually pretty close to the mid 1700s. And, how can anyone explain the jump from 1700 to 1740? 2 degrees? Back when we were burning bung to heat our homes. There’s lots of other scientific graphs that refute the Hockey Stick. They tend to go back a bit longer, add in the MWP, and the fact we’re in the Holocene, one of the few times the Earth is not completely covered in ice. We should be better preparing for the next ice age, not for boiling oceans.

View attachment 152895

Come on Sean there are always variations perhaps the current trend is one that's broken out, looks like a good trade to me ...eh.

 

[wayneL]

Come on Sean there are always variations perhaps the current trend is one that's broken out, looks like a good trade to me ...eh.

It's a typical head fake.

 

[basilio]

Well Sean reading every page of the last two IPCC reports is really special. Well done.

It does lead me to the question of why you seem to have so little regard for the what is happening with the rapidly increasing temperatures ? You say you take the IPCC reports as authority but nonetheless chose to believe a very small group of people who don't accept what is happening as serious.

I found this graph of CET temperature that highlights the temperature movements since figurse were first kept.
The other reference explores the impact of the Little Ice Age in England

Britain's Little Ice Age: When Was It And What Happened? | HistoryExtra

The Thames turned to ice, gales flattened communities, and famine killed peasants in their thousands. Brian Fagan describes the climatic calamities that beset Britain from the 14th to 19th centuries as it shivered through the Little Ice Age

www.historyextra.com

 

[Sean K]

Come on Sean there are always variations perhaps the current trend is one that's broken out, looks like a good trade to me ...eh.

I‘d be buying this break out, if it found some support and bounced. Although, I have a feeling that some big banks are manipulating the price and could short it soon. Much like the period 1945-1975, where they somehow manipulated the price down while economic activity exploded. I think we need to hedge this one a little bit to make sure the lights still come on.

 

[Sean K]

Well Sean reading every page of the last two IPCC reports is really special. Well done.

It does lead me to the question of why you seem to have so little regard for the what is happening with the rapidly increasing temperatures ? You say you take the IPCC reports as authority but nonetheless chose to believe a very small group of people who don't accept what is happening as serious.

I found this graph of CET temperature that highlights the temperature movements since figurse were first kept.
The other reference explores the impact of the Little Ice Age in England

Britain's Little Ice Age: When Was It And What Happened? | HistoryExtra

The Thames turned to ice, gales flattened communities, and famine killed peasants in their thousands. Brian Fagan describes the climatic calamities that beset Britain from the 14th to 19th centuries as it shivered through the Little Ice Age

www.historyextra.com

View attachment 152913

You‘re not really picking up what I’m putting down, but ok. Yes, that’s a much better graph of the CET. Pretty wild isn’t it. The LIA was in the 1800s wasn’t it? Sorry, don’t have time to Wiki it. Although, Wiki have been tampering with the info they allow posted, so who knows. I’m betting that a major ice age is probably of more concern to the human species than boiling oceans and loss of a few Polar Bears. Oh, hang on, another catastrophic prediction proven false. Just when are we going to turn our billion dollar white elephant desal plants on, on the east coast? If we had have built the Bradfield and a few extra dams, no need. I digress. Thanks for your sincere compliments for me reading the Leftard political tome of the UN IPCC. One of the largest and most largesse hypocritical self licking gravy trains in existence.

 

[Knobby22]