Resisting Climate Hysteria

orr · 11 January 2011

Has there been any detailed critique, or discussion of, in this thread of "Merchants of Doubt"(how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming)
the radio national science show, for a current lecture from the writer

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/01/ssw_20110108.mp3

I've looked for negative reviews and would be interested to be directed to any of this book. If there there, there hard to find.
The arguments outlined define the manipulatory tools to debunk the science, out of an ideological fear, born out of old Cold War Warriors and their fellow travellers that; the 'Reds' are reforming yet again and are poised for a take over. Themes taken up by contributors to this thread and 'McCarthyists' within our political class.
I suggest that if you want to create a society with pressure for socialist forms equity you might develop one that puts the combined wealth of the bottom 90% in the hands of the top one percent, 20% of your population under the poverty line and burgeoning unemployment. Any particular global super power coming to mind? If I was in that top one percect I might be seeing reds every where to. Unless I was George Sorros.

tothemax6 · 11 January 2011

Smurf1976 said:
If we are not affected by increasing global population then what on earth are spending time on this thread for?
Due to billions of people in China, India etc adopting a "first world" standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to soar no matter what Australia, the US or any other "developed" country does. Now, either you are worried about CO2 or you are not - where it comes from makes no difference whatsoever to its impact.

Because this thread also concerns political action related to climate change and CO2 emissions. This is a big issue, because as I have said, Australian politicians are more than happy to clamp CO2 emissions, even though it will do nothing in the global scheme of things, and will only hurt Australia.

Smurf1976 said:
If we are going to leave it to the market then I have no real problem with that. But face reality - the market has chosen coal and gas as the means to generate electricity.

As I say, no the market has not chosen this, since nuclear is banned from the marketplace. And it is all very well to say that 'it couldn't compete anyway', but this is the same as saying to the Wright brothers that we won't allow planes to compete with cars and boats in the transport industry 'because they are unsafe, not economically viable, boats and car transport are cheaper etc'. The market has not had a chance to pass its verdict.
But yes the market likes coal for now, and so be it. I'm just saying nuclear needs the right to compete - and you have to admit the traveling-wave reactor is impressive.

I think you missed an important point that Smurf keeps making is the move of large in fact very large populations want of 1st world living standards I remember a number of that's about 7 earths resources..................

Yes but they can't access 7 earths of resources. They will hit upper limits, and it will be up to them to address their culture so as to reduce their birth rate. The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation.
Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.

wayneL · 11 January 2011

jonojpsg said:
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

On Ocean "Acidification" have a read of this and tell me what you think http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/

Garpal Gumnut · 11 January 2011

ghotib said:
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.

Ghoti

Climate: The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

Weather: In Spain, the rain falls on the plain, as it does, when it rains.

gg

IFocus · 11 January 2011

tothemax6 said:
Yes but they can't access 7 earths of resources. They will hit upper limits, and it will be up to them to address their culture so as to reduce their birth rate. The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation.
Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.

I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war

IFocus · 11 January 2011

A bit about the cold temps lately from Jon Mauldin forecast for this year

“Basically, both the Pacific and Bering plates are subducting (sliding beneath) under [the Kamchatka Peninsula] and each other. Just as fenders crumple during a car wreck, so the Kamchatka Peninsula surface is buckling with mountain ranges. When the ocean plates sink deep enough, portions are melted by the intense heat generated within the mantle, turning the solid rock into molten magma. The magma bubbles up through the crust, ultimately bursting to the surface and forming volcanic eruptions.
“As a result of all this geological activity, Kamchatka tends to be somewhat active – but recently it has been ridiculous! Since late November, Kizimen, Sheveluch, Karymsky, and Kliuchevskoi have been erupting almost constantly. Most of the eruptions have ranged from 2-10 km (1.2-6.2 miles) high. While the smallest eruptions have caused only minor local disruptions, the larger ones have entered passing fronts, cooling temperatures, altering air pressure, and increasing precipitation.
“Volcanic ash screens out incoming temperature, cooling the air below. This lowers air pressures which, in turn, changes wind patterns. In particular, in polar regions it appears to weaken the Arctic Oscillation winds. When the Arctic Oscillation turns negative, that is, when the winds weaken, the cold air normally trapped around the North Pole surges south.”
She was writing months ago about the weather that we see today, so when she tells us that it’s possible we’ll see a repeat next year, I pay attention. This could further exacerbate food costs and force emerging-market central bankers to fight inflation by allowing their currencies to rise. Weather makes a difference.

Smurf1976 · 11 January 2011

IFocus said:
I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war

I strongly suspect you are right.

The odds of either "free market" economics or socialism deciding the allocation of resources in a peaceful manner are pretty slim in my opinion. The "free market" types will want the resources, but they won't want to pay the going rate for them. Meanwhile the socialists control much of the key resources and won't want to sell to the free market crowd on anything other than terms highly favourable to the socialists.

Hence we end up with war.

Smurf1976 · 11 January 2011

tothemax6 said:
As I say, no the market has not chosen this, since nuclear is banned from the marketplace.

There are plenty of countries where nuclear is not banned, indeed governments are quite keen on it. And yet investors still aren't overly keen on it in those countries. If you look at those who are building nuclear, then they aren't exactly champions of the free market...

But if you want nuclear to be able to compete in the Australian market then I have no objection to that. Provided, of course, that the operators of any such plant pay all the costs of doing so and are not bailed out with my taxes.

The only concern Australians should have is looking out for Australians - we cannot worry about the whole world, they certainly don't worry about us. That said, Australia's main risk in the future is, unfortunately, protecting itself from the outside pressures that will result from this situation.
Our clamping CO2 can only hurt us, and it cannot help the world.

Strongly agreed on that point. I would love to do something about the situation, but I long ago accepted that the best I can hope for is that Australia successfuly deals with the consequences - we've got no chance of stopping the problem as such.

tothemax6 · 12 January 2011

IFocus said:
I suspect the division and distribution of resources will be decided by war

It will to a large extent, yes, unfortunately. Even the CIA has stated this will be the case. However, not any time soon.

Smurf1976 said:
The odds of either "free market" economics or socialism deciding the allocation of resources in a peaceful manner are pretty slim in my opinion.

Well the line between the market and the nation-state is always blurry. Britain was the best case in point (back when it was capitalist and imperialist) - free markets within the empire, with the empire constantly expanding by military force.

Smurf1976 said:
But if you want nuclear to be able to compete in the Australian market then I have no objection to that. Provided, of course, that the operators of any such plant pay all the costs of doing so and are not bailed out with my taxes.

+1. We have reached an agreement .

OzWaveGuy · 12 January 2011

Explains the AGW alarmists logic perfectly...

drsmith · 12 January 2011

When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.

The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.

Global warmimg was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.

Wysiwyg · 12 January 2011

drsmith said:
When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme climate event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.

Ironically the Government of Queensland will be wanting the coal mines to start up and export coal to fill the coffers. Large tax dollars from coal exports and coal at its highest price per tonne ever.

explod · 12 January 2011

drsmith said:
When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.

The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.

Global warmimg was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.

Blah blah blah. To counter that it has been documented by scientists since the 1970's (and no I am not bothering to provide the link, Google does that) that global warming would cause more moisture to rise, in turn causing increasingly heavy rain at times. That the increasing extremes of hot and cold air would increase storm acitivities.

Floods, bushfires and droughts are now everyday news events. Anecdotaly years ago such reports were now and again.

Yeh I know, its all happened before, blah blah blah

So you would say we do nothing. We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.

sails · 12 January 2011

explod said:
...So you would say we do nothing. We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.

I have heard that, even if we are carbon taxed to the max, it will have little actual impact on carbon.

Like trying to empty the river with a teaspoon. Will help a little but won't achieve anything worthwhile.

So why hurt the people with more taxes?

drsmith · 12 January 2011

So you would say we do nothing. We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.

It's unfortunate that advocates reduce the debate to two options, 100% faith in the religion or heresy, with no room for the in between.

It is this that has held human civilisation back at times in the past and threatens to do so again in the future.

explod · 12 January 2011

drsmith said:
It's unfortunate that advocates reduce the debate to two options, 100% faith in the religion or heresy, with no room for the in between.

It is this that has held human civilisation back at times in the past and threatens to do so again in the future.

Not infering an extreme at all. Let just all work out a way for more of us to agree that there may in fact be some problem so that a lot more of us can start to do something to curcumvent the possibility that nature is mucking up and we may have to start taking some alernative pathways for solutions. Solutions that may in fact not be counter to progress either.

But like the alco, we may need to admit we may have a problem and that we may be it.

drsmith · 12 January 2011

explod said:
Solutions that may in fact not be counter to progress either.

Fire away.

macca · 12 January 2011

explod Floods said:
The reason we have more bushfires, well in reality, less bushfires, but Much more devastating bushfires is that the Greens have influenced policies and the windfall, scrub and weeds are no longer burnt off in winter months.

This allows fuel to accumulate and when the fire eventually happens, be it from an arsonist or lightning, we get these horrendous holocausts that kill everything in there path.

That is why a very high number of bush fire fighters have resigned, why should they risk their lives for the stupid moralising idiots who live in the cities.

explod · 12 January 2011

macca said:
The reason we have more bushfires, well in reality, less bushfires, but Much more devastating bushfires is that the Greens have influenced policies and the windfall, scrub and weeds are no longer burnt off in winter months.

This allows fuel to accumulate and when the fire eventually happens, be it from an arsonist or lightning, we get these horrendous holocausts that kill everything in there path.

That is why a very high number of bush fire fighters have resigned, why should they risk their lives for the stupid moralising idiots who live in the cities.

Since we settled Victoria about the 1830's we have cleared 80% of the bush. The 1939 bushfire actually destroyed much more across Victoria than the recent one (not including deaths of course, but the extent of the blaze .

Your answer is a bit simplistic and little more than green bashing that is not going to help us all get our attitudes together for constructive change.

As a youngster I used to help my Dad with the local firebirgade burning off along all of the two chain roads. Later in big fires I witnessed them jump these breaks as if they were not there. A lot of people living in the bush is the idea that is wrong. The bush is for farming, not for lifestyle in my view.

Bushfires are not the problem with weather change. Almost everyone having a motor car may be though.

tothemax6 · 12 January 2011

drsmith said:
When the political discussion of the Queensland floods gets under way, it will be portrayed as an extreme weather event due to climate change and hence further justification for a carbon tax.

The reality however is that we are experiencing a La-Nina of similar magnitude to the summer of 1973/74. That's the summer to which this flood is being compared.

Global warming was supposed to result in an increasing trend towards El-Nino's.

Exactly what I was thinking yesterday - Yes they will. Any extreme weather event can now be pinned on carbon emissions, and the source of peoples suffering can thus be funneled into political will to tax carbon. Just like in the old days, when bad weather meant that gods were angry - and this was to be blamed on leaders.

Explod said:
So you would say we do nothing. We will just take a punt that everthing is normal and fine.

Order of magnitude better than doing 'something', given that the 'something' is "smash Australia's economy by strangling its main source of energy with a tax". As an Australian, it is not rational for you to be pro-"smash Australia's economy".

Resisting Climate Hysteria

orr

tothemax6

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

tothemax6

OzWaveGuy

drsmith

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

explod

explod

sails

drsmith

explod

explod

drsmith

macca

explod

explod

tothemax6

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

You are arguing with a Galah

You are arguing with a Galah

Everyone wants money

explod

explod

explod

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency