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
Wysiwyg said:
Trouble is, one human takes a fair bit of earth to live simply. Let alone living a lavish life with the cars, boats, planes and mod. cons.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows how quickly mice breed. So I decided to try a bit of an experiment in the mouse house.

I let the food run out for half a day before adding more, occasionally I'll leave it for a full day. Sometimes I fill the bowl full, other times I don't.

There's only one exercise wheel for all the mice. And only one water supply too (I don't let that run out but they have to queue for a drink). And when I give them special food for a treat, I make sure there's always one piece too few such that one mouse misses out.

And so I have a mix of male and female mice with no breeding over the past few months since the resource constraints became apparent. Prior to that, population was booming.

Now, if a few mice can work this stuff out then you'd think humans would "get it" too? Apparently not...
 
Try opening your eyes GG. It's amazing what a difference that makes.

Look ( ), until you recognise that climate and weather are not the same thing you won't even start to make sense on the subject of climate change. And until you actually look at what climate science predicts you can't even start to critique the predictions. The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change.

Hanrahan wasn't rooned, but his great great grand children are facing much greater challenges.

The best performance of Hanrahan I've ever heard was at the end of year concert of a 4-teacher country school, where second class gave a group recitation. Some of those kids are now at the forefront of the fight to prevent coal mining under prime agricultural land. Like I said, greater challenges.

Ghoti
 

I can't resist...This is such a bizarre statement. The Gaia followers use the "consensus" term in an attempt to silence critics and convince the general population of the need to worship their god (as the AGW "experts" and priests are doing). However ghotib, on this thread I expected you to exhibit more common sense - many of the folks here aren't having any of the AGW "consensus" BS.

Anyone can go back to see what type of AGW propaganda was peddled to the masses. I can only assume you are affilated or work for a AGW organisation who must defend the new "religion" at all costs...

Here's some AGW alarmists propaganda consensus, they are all priceless:

1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

6. “If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.

7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fsh.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
 

It's simple, there's plenty of people across the world (and as demonstrated in this particular thread) who cannot think for themselves, but instead demonstrate an uncanny abilty to blindly follow a so called "expert" or group with a title. It's simply a herding instinct, exactly the same as found in the financial markets. In fact there's a strong correlation to this AGW "group think" and the market itself occuring in optimistic and pessimistic extremes at different time scales. I have some interesting charts that show this that I'll post later.

These Groups or NGOs (as well as GOs) are well funded to generate propaganda and extend the "group think" to unsuspecting public. It was done in the early 70's for the global cooling "scare" and again for the warming "scare" in the 80's til now. The next generation will see the same warming "scares" in approx 30yrs once all the voices - yep, you guessed it, have stopped singing about global cooling.
 
With climate having much variability and long range unpredictability, it is obviously difficult for scientists to gauge via comparison. Atmospheric conditions may have to become non-conducive to life before everyone is convinced.
 
Funding is usually readily available for the latest "fear tactic", we have had global cooling, Y2k, Global warming and now weather that keeps changing.

If you are a researcher with no desire to actually have to produce anything but pieces of paper, then naturally you go where the money is.

East Anglia Uni in the UK, (the one that misled the IPCC with false data) actually fessed up in court that he changed the data, why ? for money, $14mill in 10 years, good wages for altering a few numbers.

Interesting that the next committee to be started by the Federal Govt, applications just closed I think, but you are only welcome to apply if you already believe that the climate is changing
 

There is not a shadow of doubt that the climate changes and has done so for centuries. Most people believe in climate change with a few believing it is man made. Those believers who are pushing for a price on carbon, particularly the Federal Government, are using it purely for revenue raising and will do nothing to prevent climate change.
Why can't these particular people be honest in their endeavours and give the real reason for a price on carbon.
 

They will never give up. They are like "ticks" attached to a live animal, sucking blood for their very existance. In our case sucking taxes from the taxpayer in an attempt to balance a budget( which never happens.)
When these people go to Canberra, I am sure there is a room where they all get together and it called "Screw the Taxpayer".

Cheers.
 
wayneL said:
Now you're really taking the p!ss ghoti.

Here is one recent example from the Argo program where the "consensus" appears to be in a spot of bother. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

But thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...
I do wish you'd be more precise about your jokes Wayne. What consensus do you think might be in a spot of bother from this paper?

It's part of the ongoing attempt to understand one of the most obscure parts of the climate system, circulation and heat transfer in the oceans (my words). The fact that these processes are not well understood means, by definition, that consensus on what they are is yet to emerge. That has no effect on the consensus understanding that greenhouse gases are continuing to increase in the atmosphere and the oceans because of human activity, and that the planet is getting hotter in response.

Two additional points about this paper:
1. It deals with 5 years' worth of data. That is not sufficient to establish trends. From the Argo website http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html

2. The trends identified in the paper are smaller than the uncertainties.

There's still an enormous amount to learn about the oceans. I suppose there might be some unknown process out there that will somehow bring the planet back to where civilisation has grown and flourished, but to date there's no sign of it. It's nice that you can get a laugh out of that. I find it desperately sad.

Ghoti
 

Priceless indeed OzWG! APart from most of them being before computers were actually able to provide anywhere near the computing power to provide reasonably accurate climate models...and the 70s, man they were probably all taking acid at the time I do agree though that this particular aspect of science, eg climate science, has had some ridiculous claims/predictions made over the years about what the likely outcomes "will" be, only to be squished by the actual outcomes haha


Yep, Penny Wong is FOS as are many of the labour front bench...as much as I hate to say it as I voted them in 4 years ago, although changed to the libs last year to no avail. It is beyond belief that we put up with such blatant incompetence in our politicians...anyone keen for a riot or two to stir things up??

However, this masks the fact that the last decade has in fact been the warmest on record, so I'm not sure where Bolt gets his data from on that front...the ocean data though, would be interested to see the data from the last 20 years, although ARGO hasn't been in that long

Wysiwyg said:
With climate having much variability and long range unpredictability, it is obviously difficult for scientists to gauge via comparison. Atmospheric conditions may have to become non-conducive to life before everyone is convinced.
Click to expand...

haha good call Wys Is that like the DOW had to fall through 10000 before everyone believed the top was in


This beggars belief really - how much money can government waste in pursuit of their own agenda...some university researchers should be shot (though I do appreciate what a lot of them achieve in improving our quality of life)

I'm not sure what the upshot of all that is, apart from the fact that I still think increasing atm CO2 levels at the rate that we are will have a negative impact on the global system - whether that is temperate increase, or ocean acidity, or some other effects.

A question - do Wayne, GG, noco, etc dispute that we are increasing atm CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels? If so, what data do you have to back that up? If not, then what response do you have to the fact that increased atm CO2 levels will lead to increased odean acidification with the associated effects?

Just for interests sake
 
ghotib said:
I do wish you'd be more precise about your jokes Wayne.
Click to expand...

Ghoti,

This is what had me literally laughing out loud, as per quoted at the time

ghotib said:
The weather of the last couple of years, all over the globe, has been consistent with the consensus understanding of climate and of climate change
Click to expand...

As per your habit, you have run off at the wrong tangent.

The ARGO paper is just one small example that shows how the "consensus" is incorrect. There are plenty of other examples.
 

Did you see this Wayne?
 
The thing that really peees me off is that I believe we really are Polluting the earth way to much. If all of this money and drama was directed at reducing pollution using sensible methods I do think that is worthwhile.

Don't just tip into the river, catch it and treat it. Don't just pump chemical residue in the air, catch and recycle etc etc It is far easier to do, so will be accepted as reasonable and it is clearly visible for all to see. When the river or sea is yellow/brown/red whatever it can't be argued that it ain't the way it used to be.

This carbon thing just doesn't make sense to me, CO2 is a by product of heat decomposing matter, not the other way round. An excellent example is in all our kitchens, we have fridges to keep food matter cold so that it doesn't decompose too quickly.

When it warms up it starts to decompose faster, yet the GW advocates swear it is the other way round, the matter is decomposing and that is warming the earth, maybe they don't have fridges to test the theory ?

We are always going to get hotter/cooler decades, even in our short recorded history there are many examples of areas that used to be farmed then failed after 20-30 years. Lots of examples of wet decades then dry decades.

I might as well chuck in here a bit on sea temperatures, I have read that virtually all old records of sea temps were taken from the inlet valves of navy vessels. This water is pumped through the engine area to keep it cooler, the inlets are all beneath the surface of the water, some as deep as 5M below the surface.

These days temps are taken a Lot closer to the surface and not surprisingly the sun heats the water and so the sea temp is read as warmer.

Just because we decided to record all the data doesn't mean the Earth has to toe the line and repeat itself, it is going to keep on doing whatever it wants to do.

Mankind has been adjusting to the variables for a very long time and will need to keep doing so in the future
 

jonojpsg said:
Did you see this Wayne?
Click to expand...

This should be entertaining.
 
I'd like put forward a different angle.

If global warming is not man made, and we go to all the trouble of making everything 'green', then at worst we will have created clean air for our cities, lots of new jobs and technologies. We have also reduced our dependence on arab states for greatly diminishing oil supplies. The only downside is cost.

So even if it's just natural cycles occurring, it's still of great benefit to make everything low carbon emission.

If on the other hand the warming is man made, then we've covered our risk side of the equation.
 
Plus massive non-CO2 impacts on the natural environment.

Prior to the CO2 issue, environmentalists spent their days opposing nuclear and hydro (which just happen to be the ONLY significant non-fossil energy sources we have today) for this reason.

Cut CO2 we could. But we're going to create an awful lot of other damage in order to do it since, on any realistic assessment, the way forward is more transmission lines, more big dams in the wilderness, nuclear power and to a lesser extent coastal wind farms. Everything else just doesn't cut it if we're going to do it now - it might work in 20 years time but it's not an option if we're demanding a shift away from coal in the near future.

I can't see environmentalists being too keen on any of that except in the context that it reduces CO2. Go back to the 1970's and there was strong opposition in Australia to hydro, nuclear and gas for power, favouring coal (specifically brown coal) as environmentally superior. It was amongst this, soon followed by issues of mining and literally saving the trees, that Australian environmentalism was effectively created.

Our present level of CO2 emissions is itself partly a consequence of prior environmental "victories". We use less gas and more brown coal. We used less hydro and more coal. And we don't use nuclear power at all.

If we simply had the world average % of energy from nuclear and hydro then we wouldn't be having much of a debate about CO2 right now. And no, there is no technical limitation stopping that from being achieved, it is purely a political decision to favour coal, ironically because doing so kept environmentalists happy (arguably with good reason) in the 70's and 80's.

ALL power pollutes. ALL of it. All we get to chose is what we wreck, where, and in what manner. But if the lights are on then there's an effect on the natural environment somewhere. Even solar comes at a cost to the environment larger than most realise.

All that said, agreed that we ultimately do need to stop burning fossil fuels. What I'm worried about is that we adopt flawed "solutions" (eg nuclear fission) due to a perception that the change is urgent when waiting longer would give rise to far better alternatives. The perception that it is urgent really leaves us with no choice other than to dam the lot and nuke the rest - not what I'd call "green" by any means.
 
Well you know that corny line about ass-u-me

I'm not affiliated to anyone except my spouse and I don't work for anyone except myself. Unless you count the week b4 Xmas, when I delivered flowers for a local florist - didn't think to ask what their religion(s) might be. Oh, and today I picked up a possible ironing client, but I didn't ask her religion either. Myself, I don't have one.

I bravely assume that you're not serious about a list of unsourced, out of context, alleged quotes by Fox news.

Cheers,

Ghoti
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
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
11K
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...