Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Woodsy58]

If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...

 

[Wysiwyg]

If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP had (has?) a passionate interest in the nuclear topic.

Maralinga

I come from a land of wide open spaces
Where the world turns around us and we just follow suit
There's heat in the air and peace reigns supreme
Got white flags on the clothes lines and the deals are new

In the wind, the ashes fly
The poison crown, the charcoal ground

And if you can't see the smile in me
That's where I want to be

 

[lasty]

If we are going to talk about vested interests in relation to the climate change lobby then lets not leave out the nuclear power industry...

Not if the anti "Blue sky mining company" has anything to do with it.

Hair will grow on his head before a reactor will be put on Terra Australis.

Infact he has had fallout once.. he doesnt want it to happen again !

 

[Calliope]

Clive Hamilton, the Greens candidate for Higgins takes the Hysterical award for the week;

CLIMATE deniers deserve greater moral censure than Holocaust deniers because their activities are more dangerous. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.

Perhaps Clive has a "Final Solution" in mind for the deniers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rmarry-a-sceptic/story-e6frg6zo-1225799031692

 

[Julia]

There should be an emoticon for a heavy sigh and a yawn in response to pronouncements by Clive Hamilton.

The Dear Leader comes pretty close in terms of levels of hysteria.

 

[basilio]

World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century, scientists say

* Charles Miranda
* From: Herald Sun
* November 19, 2009 10:02AM


THE world is spinning toward a catastrophic worst case climate change scenario with temperatures now certain to rise by 6 degrees by the end of the century.

That's the view of a leading international team of scientists who yesterday predicted the change in climate would now certainly have irreversible consequences rendering large parts of the globe inhabitable.

The scenario was first made public by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 but then it was made only as a worst case scenario.

But according to Professor Corinne Le Quere from the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University, that worst case was now all but inevitable.

"We're at the top of the IPCC scenario," she told Nature Geoscience.

Her study - backed by 31 top researchers from seven countries including Australia involved in the Global Carbon Project - found there had been a 29 per cent rise in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels between 2000 and 2008, with an annual increase of 3 per cent compared with 1 per cent the previous eight years.

She said there was no doubt carbon dioxide emissions from transport and industry and deforestation were squarely to blame for warming the atmosphere which would be 6 per cent higher around the world including near the poles; the EU had hoped to keep the rise to 2 per cent.

What absolute rubbish !! And how dare The Herald Sun give credence to these pointy headed geeks who are obviously hysterical and just havn't followed Andrew Bolt's clear and obvious denunciation of this scare mongering. Why are we supposed to believe 31 of worlds top researchers from around the world and their thousands of studies versus the considered, intellectual climate analysis of The Herald Suns own spinmeister ? Just doesn't make sense does it? Any minute now and some hysterical alarmist clown will start talking about heat records being smashed ( as distinct from slightly broken) in Southern Australia. Sad really...

And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise

 

[Calliope]

And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.

Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.

 

[Mofra]

Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.

Agree, almost as leftist as the Herald-Sun is right-wing.

 

[basilio]

Quote:
Originally Posted by basilio View Post
And for forum members who may appreciate a more detailed and slightly less alarmist interpretation of the same press release check out The Guardian.
Ah! The Guardiian!... the Manchester Pravda!, for those who prefer Leftist spin.

Calliope I'm just staggered... I pull up one of most challenging scientific reports on where we are going with global warming .... which is basically to hell with no return ticket.

I use a tabloid paper like the Herald Sun as the nominal messenger. I throw in an aside that the Guardian actually offers more detailed information on the report (and in fact highlights some possible criticisms) and your response is to simply bag The Guardian?

Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on? Or do you simply agree with my comments about trashing the pointey headed geeks and accepting Andrew Bolts carefully considered climate analysis ? (and yes there is touch of sarcasm in those comments)

 

[Calliope]

Calliope I'm just staggered... I pull up one of most challenging scientific reports on where we are going with global warming .... which is basically to hell with no return ticket.

I use a tabloid paper like the Herald Sun as the nominal messenger. I throw in an aside that the Guardian actually offers more detailed information on the report (and in fact highlights some possible criticisms) and your response is to simply bag The Guardian?

Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on? Or do you simply agree with my comments about trashing the pointey headed geeks and accepting Andrew Bolts carefully considered climate analysis ? (and yes there is touch of sarcasm in those comments)

I am sorry Basilio that I have staggered you. That was not my intention. Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics. Naturally the Guardian is your choice of newspaper with your view that we are bound for hell, unless we take their advice. That seems a bit hysterical, and this thread is about resisting hysteria.

Incidentally I don't read the Herald Sun. I have an aversion to tabloids.

 

[lasty]

Of course there is a leftist hidden agenda.
In Australia's case its $7 billion towards Rudd's new career path at the UN.

Of course the "socialists" will think they have won however it will be the capitalists who will inevitably get hold of this via the ETS and screw them to the wall.

In the end it will turn out that the planet was going through one of its warmer cycles like history has told and man made contributions were not the cause but once again the poor man gets screwed and the gap widens even more.

 

[Beej]

In the end it will turn out that the planet was going through one of its warmer cycles like history has told and man made contributions were not the cause but once again the poor man gets screwed and the gap widens even more.

And you know this how?? Did you read this part of the posted article:

But according to Professor Corinne Le Quere from the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University, that worst case was now all but inevitable.

"We're at the top of the IPCC scenario," she told Nature Geoscience.

Her study - backed by 31 top researchers from seven countries including Australia involved in the Global Carbon Project - found there had been a 29 per cent rise in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels between 2000 and 2008, with an annual increase of 3 per cent compared with 1 per cent the previous eight years.

She said there was no doubt carbon dioxide emissions from transport and industry and deforestation were squarely to blame for warming the atmosphere which would be 6 per cent higher around the world including near the poles; the EU had hoped to keep the rise to 2 per cent.

Perhaps you could perform a peer review of Professor Corinne Le Quere's work? Or maybe publish your own paper pointing out the flaws in her research/science/conclusions that none of the other 31 qualified and experienced researchers supporting the work were able to find?

If you were diagnosed with a brain tumour would you start lecturing your neurologist on how their MRI machine is a load of junk and that your head-aches and seisures are just a normal part of the human aging cycle????

Beej

 

[basilio]

Is there anything about the actual report and the research upon which it is based that you would like comment on?

Calliope (et al) , regardless of which media format carries the report do you have any comment on the report and the research that lies behind it ? It appears that your response to the report is to simply ignore it.

And it seems that you justify this position because you are a climate skeptic and therefore any information that may not support your position is not worthy of reading... Is that a fair summary of your position or have I missed something ?

 

[Mofra]

Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics.

That's an impossible view - you are actually suggesting that people form a viewpoint before knowing any facts, then choose reading material to suit their uninformed viewpoint?

Not exactly an enlightened view IMO

 

[Calliope]

Calliope (et al) , regardless of which media format carries the report do you have any comment on the report and the research that lies behind it ? It appears that your response to the report is to simply ignore it.

And it seems that you justify this position because you are a climate skeptic and therefore any information that may not support your position is not worthy of reading... Is that a fair summary of your position or have I missed something ?

If I see any reports of interest I post with very little comment. I let others form their own opinions. I am not into preaching. I have long learned that you can't change minds by preaching on this on any other thread. You may have made some conversions, if so, good luck to you. Sorry you are confused but I can't help you there.

 

[Calliope]

That's an impossible view - you are actually suggesting that people form a viewpoint before knowing any facts, then choose reading material to suit their uninformed viewpoint

No you got that the wrong way round.

 

[lasty]

And you know this how?? Did you read this part of the posted article:



Perhaps you could perform a peer review of Professor Corinne Le Quere's work? Or maybe publish your own paper pointing out the flaws in her research/science/conclusions that none of the other 31 qualified and experienced researchers supporting the work were able to find?

If you were diagnosed with a brain tumour would you start lecturing your neurologist on how their MRI machine is a load of junk and that your head-aches and seisures are just a normal part of the human aging cycle????

Beej

If I had a brain tumour I wouldnt be isolating a "mobile Phone" as the cause and condemning Nokia either.

 

[lasty]

Greenland has been the focal point on climate change.

"From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[6] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as Brattahlið, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[7] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years ”” which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly."

Its a shame the professor Corrinne le Querre and her 31 disciples cant work out WTF happened here and perhaps correlated whats happening today rather than jumping to conclusions.

 

[basilio]

I’ve been thinking about this “Climate Hysteria” thread and the way it has been kick started by Professor Lindzen and others with their in step protestations about the “hystericalness" of those who are deeply concerned about global warming.

As I see it, it is firstly a very artful way to categorise and destroy the credibility of those who are arguing that we do face a very serious problem. We commonly use the word hysteria to denote a totally irrational, crazy person (often a woman..) who needs a slap in the face, a bucket of cold water or a bex and a good liedown. These are the general responses people would have to a “hysterical person”.

The most benign view would be considering the hysteria of a person who has just been through a totally traumatic situation. Horrific incident or accident, funeral of their only child, sudden loss of all assets. At least in this case we would acknowledge the reasons for the loss of control and deep emotion and hopefully support then through the situation.

But I don’t think the benign view is the context that Lindzen et al are using to depict those who find the evidence of climate change more and more disturbing.

Let’s consider some thought experiments. It’s a lovely day on sunny Townsville. All calm, all bright. Then there is a cyclone warning stating that a category 5 hurricane is bearing down and that in 48 hours all hell will break loose. You hear this and scurry outside to make sure that the town is on hurricane alert. After all everyone has got the same message.

But then person after person just laughs at you , points up at the blue sky and says “Stop being hysterical . This is just a trumped up load of rubbish designed to get you out of town so the looters can come in “ Or whatever. At what stage would one become just a bit agitated about this seeming stupidity ? First person, second person, 100th ?

Try another thought experiment. I’m on the beach at Townsville again and slowly but surely the sea starts to ebb away. Just keeps going out.

Wowee !! Look at all those fish caught in pools. Gotta get one of those! And look at old wreck that we can suddenly see. Quick let’s have a squiz.

If we understand our science and what is happening we know with absolute certainty that there will be monstrous tidal wave coming in a very short time. “For gods sake let’s get the hell out of here. And we don’t have time to argue !!!” Yes it might sound hysterical as well particularly if whole troops of people just don’t know or want to believe the wave is coming.

Last thought experiment. I am a British shipowner in 1840 with my 30 year old cargo boat. I have a particularly big load of metal I want to ship so I load and load the boat until it is settling rather looow in the water. In fact real low. But the weather is fine, I have excellent insurance and that is that.. (And of course this is a number of years before we had to worry about those pesky Plimsoll line laws . damn socialists !!)

I wave goodbye to the captain (who is busily writing his last will and testament) , my ship duly struggles off into the sunset and 2 days later it capsizes and sinks with all hands after a small swell roughs up the sea.

“Oh what bad luck . Just couldn’t see that” I say as I fill out my insurance claim and send a bunch of flowers to the ships captains wife.

So where are we going here? On all the mounting evidence from our scientific community we have plenty to worry about with global warming. And yet despite this case the evidence is routinely denied and the people who use the evidence to explain their concern are dismissed as hysterical - as if they don’t make sense and clearly shouldn’t be listened to.

That is the clear message sent out by Profesor Lindzen and others. And all against a backdrop of the most recent analysis of what is happening and where we are going which is summarised by

“World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century”, scientists say

Isn’t this just crazy ? Are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community, the millions of observations about rapidly melting glaciers, increasing temperatures, escalating changes in plant and animal behaviour are all just wrong and that

everything is going to all right …..
because it just has to…

 

[lasty]

I’ve been thinking about this “Climate Hysteria” thread and the way it has been kick started by Professor Lindzen and others with their in step protestations about the “hystericalness" of those who are deeply concerned about global warming.

As I see it, it is firstly a very artful way to categorise and destroy the credibility of those who are arguing that we do face a very serious problem. We commonly use the word hysteria to denote a totally irrational, crazy person (often a woman..) who needs a slap in the face, a bucket of cold water or a bex and a good liedown. These are the general responses people would have to a “hysterical person”.

The most benign view would be considering the hysteria of a person who has just been through a totally traumatic situation. Horrific incident or accident, funeral of their only child, sudden loss of all assets. At least in this case we would acknowledge the reasons for the loss of control and deep emotion and hopefully support then through the situation.

But I don’t think the benign view is the context that Lindzen et al are using to depict those who find the evidence of climate change more and more disturbing.

Let’s consider some thought experiments. It’s a lovely day on sunny Townsville. All calm, all bright. Then there is a cyclone warning stating that a category 5 hurricane is bearing down and that in 48 hours all hell will break loose. You hear this and scurry outside to make sure that the town is on hurricane alert. After all everyone has got the same message.

But then person after person just laughs at you , points up at the blue sky and says “Stop being hysterical . This is just a trumped up load of rubbish designed to get you out of town so the looters can come in “ Or whatever. At what stage would one become just a bit agitated about this seeming stupidity ? First person, second person, 100th ?

Try another thought experiment. I’m on the beach at Townsville again and slowly but surely the sea starts to ebb away. Just keeps going out.

Wowee !! Look at all those fish caught in pools. Gotta get one of those! And look at old wreck that we can suddenly see. Quick let’s have a squiz.

If we understand our science and what is happening we know with absolute certainty that there will be monstrous tidal wave coming in a very short time. “For gods sake let’s get the hell out of here. And we don’t have time to argue !!!” Yes it might sound hysterical as well particularly if whole troops of people just don’t know or want to believe the wave is coming.

Last thought experiment. I am a British shipowner in 1840 with my 30 year old cargo boat. I have a particularly big load of metal I want to ship so I load and load the boat until it is settling rather looow in the water. In fact real low. But the weather is fine, I have excellent insurance and that is that.. (And of course this is a number of years before we had to worry about those pesky Plimsoll line laws . damn socialists !!)

I wave goodbye to the captain (who is busily writing his last will and testament) , my ship duly struggles off into the sunset and 2 days later it capsizes and sinks with all hands after a small swell roughs up the sea.

“Oh what bad luck . Just couldn’t see that” I say as I fill out my insurance claim and send a bunch of flowers to the ships captains wife.

So where are we going here? On all the mounting evidence from our scientific community we have plenty to worry about with global warming. And yet despite this case the evidence is routinely denied and the people who use the evidence to explain their concern are dismissed as hysterical - as if they don’t make sense and clearly shouldn’t be listened to.

That is the clear message sent out by Profesor Lindzen and others. And all against a backdrop of the most recent analysis of what is happening and where we are going which is summarised by

“World temperatures to rise by 6C by end of the century”, scientists say

Isn’t this just crazy ? Are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community, the millions of observations about rapidly melting glaciers, increasing temperatures, escalating changes in plant and animal behaviour are all just wrong and that

everything is going to all right …..
because it just has to…

I enjoyed your read.
The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.A trend that should be monitored.