Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Vizion said:
31,700... How about a link to where you got this amazing fact.?

I work in the science's, & honestly, I cannot believe I missed such an important document in all the hysteria that is going on. Do please post the link, so I can see which of my colleagues broke ranks with our all powerful masters. My god, they are going to be in such trouble when they get found out. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org
 
noco said:
The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org
Click to expand...
That's too funny noco - have you had a look to see what the OISM is and how it functions?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."
Click to expand...
The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects...The Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body...
Click to expand...

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. ...

...Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer...

..."The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago....

Notwithstanding ... the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

...Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data,"...

...In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign...

...OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature: "Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing."...
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Sdajii said:
Regardless of climate change, we are 'yeast people', and sooner or later the 'sugar' will run out. If significant climate change events happen when we are close to exhausting our sugar supply, the number of people who are caught out and starve to death will be far greater, it could potentially kill most people on the planet. If they happen afterwards they probably won't matter too much. If they happen before, well, it might be beneficial. Then again, it might just turn out that we don't get any significant impact from climate change at all.

Either way, we, the yeast people, are still going to run out of sugar. Enjoy it while we still have a bit left!
Click to expand...
Consider how just about everything depends on oil and that, regardless of how much actually exists, oil is a finite resource that will eventually run out (and in my opinion we'll see demand exceeding supply a lot sooner than most are expecting - within 3 years).

Our way of life is unsustainable no matter what issues there may be with the climate.:2twocents
 
Vizion said:
Sorry Wayne, but he cherry picks like anyone else.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/

I am very familiar with his work, In fact I have followed his work for 20 years. I have been saddened to see some of the recent postings he has made. He is just as biased towards his work as the irrational alarmists are to theirs.
Click to expand...

Allegations of cherrypicking from cherrypickers. Interesting.

FYI Here are Pielke's responses to that blog

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/02/re...ke-sr-to-the-real-climate-weblog-more-bubkes/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/05/real-climate-permits-the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/06/re...inued-presentation-of-misinformation-part-ii/

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/14/fa...the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/

Vizion - You don't seem to have followed this through. Pielke has clearly ripped Schmitt a new on in this exchange.
 
It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...

"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."​

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
 
noco said:
The petition signed by 31,478 scientists from around the world was conducted by OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) who all agreed Climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.

www.petitionproject.org
Click to expand...

A 12 year old can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All they need is a heat lamp a couple of bottles of soft drink and 2 temperature gauges.

Oh and nice fail with the OISM.

You lot make me laugh :D
 
OzWaveGuy said:
It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...

"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."​

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
Click to expand...

Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!

Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-

www.anelegantchaos.org

www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.

If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!!!!!!
 
Thank you Wayne I had already read his responses.

Let me start by saying, I don't believe I have posted one article in any thread that has not admitted fully, that there is multiple variables at work & that NO ONE has the full answers. Climate science is not exact, & there are still large variables at work that NO ONE understands.

You on the other hand, have been putting forward his research as the defining truth on this subject. All the while by the sin of omission, rubbishing or ignoring a very large body of work. From other extremely well respected & admired people in the fields of oceanography, climatology & physics to name just a couple of the disciplines this work crosses over.

I have admitted to an admiration for, & to have followed Pielke's work for over 20 years. I doubt you can say the same. I also doubt you have read his work in the raw. I am telling you, that he is JUST as prone to bias as ANYONE who has taken a stance. It is the nature of man to defend a position. It is also the nature of science to alter as facts become clearer. Pielke's opinion on this subject has changed in the last 20 years.

You can accuse me of cherry picking all you like, if you work in science you develop a thick skin :D I repeat... you DO NOT know with certainty that co2 is NOT the major forcing agent ANYMORE than ANYONE else studying climate.

This is your OPINION. You are entitled to an opinion, I have enjoyed reading & agree with some of your opinions, but it is still ONLY your opinion.

Someone asked me what counted as hard research. Distilled blogging's I do not consider research. I have posted some links to sites with simplified findings as they are not as "dry" as what I read at work & to further my own knowledge.

On a side note, I find it amusing in the extreme, that people on here. Will rubbish the findings from a body such as NASA, yet agree with someone else's position, based on NASA's data if they are able to use it to point to their own opinions. (I am not talking about you here Wayne, but to someone else who has already been lampooned by another forumite)

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf

The link above is an example of what I consider hard data & good research. I would welcome comment.


mccarthy.jpg

Dr. James J. McCarthy from Harvard. Who currently holds the chair of AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/

I would be thrilled if you all read some of his papers. It will definitely give you a broader understanding of the Earth's workings. You could also note their current stance & the wording they use to describe their position. We can all learn something from it. :rolleyes:
 
From Paul Kelly's article in The Australian today titled-

Decision shaping up as one for the purists

"Beneath an increasing dogmatism on both sides are several core benchmarks. First, what is Rudd's justification for insisting on his legislation before Copenhagen? In truth, this argument has collapsed, given Copenhagen will not finalise any agreement.

Second, how urgent is the need for Australian action? The case has weakened precisely because the rest of the world has faltered, a reality Australia's media seems reluctant to report. This gives the Liberal critics their strongest case, with Minchin saying it is "idiotic of this country to legislate an ETS before the US Congress does so". He argued that with Australia responsible for only 1.4 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, nothing this country does can make the difference but the economic damage would be real: "Passing this law would condemn Australia to lower living standards for absolutely zero environmental gain." "

Whatever your views on Climate Change, there is clearly no logical case for Australia (or New Zealand) to legislate an ETS this year. If we can take the hysteria out of the Government's push to do so, we have progressed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-for-the-purists/story-e6frg6zo-1225800731482
 
The new President of the EU has used the term "global governance" in his acceptance speech His proposal that the "global management of our planet" is needed to combat climate change is a worry.

Rudd recently accused GW sceptics of scaremongering when they raised concerns on this issue. Having lived through an age where dictators had the same idea, I am more scared of "global governance" than I am of the dire fate that Mr Rudd has predicted for the world, if we don't accede to his demands for the control of GW.
 
Then you can toss this lot into the 'melting' pot...

CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region's representatives say.
Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-in-climate-debt/story-e6frf7k6-1225801565274

Wonder how much they reckon Oz should be stung for?

This is just the beginning, folks..... :angry:
 
noco said:
Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!

Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-

www.anelegantchaos.org

www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.

If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Noco, who or what is 'anelegantchaos.org'? I had a look at your link and it appears to be just a post from a blogger.
 
Mr Rudd said;

“I’m constantly stunned. It’s as if we’re back into the trial of Galileo or something and they’re simply arguing somehow that the science is fiction and that they alone in their own prejudiced universe occupy fact.

“I mean, we are back almost in a medieval court.”
Click to expand...

So in order to attack the climate sceptics in the Opposition, Kevin Rudd enlists the help of probably the most famous scientific sceptic in history, who was eventually shown to have been right all along
Click to expand...

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=1518
 
Vizion said:
Thank you Wayne I had already read his responses...

...You on the other hand, have been putting forward his research as the defining truth on this subject. All the while by the sin of omission, rubbishing or ignoring a very large body of work. From other extremely well respected & admired people in the fields of oceanography, climatology & physics to name just a couple of the disciplines this work crosses over.
Click to expand...

We've been through this on climate threads and you're not the first to unilaterally redefine my views on the fly.

Anyone who has known me on these boards knows me as someone who admires balance and tries to cut a road between extremes as best I can without agenda (apart from smashing extremists).

As you rightly say, we humans are intrinsically cognitively biased, but at least if aware of that fact can at least mitigate some of the preposterous self delusion most are prone to.

This is why I admire Pielke et al as being someone with the best chance of interpreting the vast swathes of science out there as he manages (IMO) to travel the middle road more successfully than nearly everybody else.

You can try to create a straw man by portraying me as as some sort of anti AGW extremist or denier, but those that know me know that isn't true... apart from alarmists that is, who will consider me an apostate heathen, but that just reveals them as religious zealots.

In other words, your criticism doesn't stick. Nice try, but no cigar. ;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzWaveGuy View Post
It will be interesting to see if this headline "Climate Centre hacked, Thousands of files leaked on internet" is validated. Why, because a couple of the leaked documents imply the data is deliberately changed to show warming...

"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...atestissue.pdf
Well, it sure looks like the GENIE is out of the bottle. It just confirms what I recently posted, "it's amazing what these so called scientfic experts can do on a computer just to prove a point for their masters". One big fiddle!

Their is 65 blogs on Google covering this scam also go to the following links:-

www.anelegantchaos.org

www.anelgantchaos.org/cru/emails.php

Further info on Andrew Bolts Courier Mail blog.

If does not open a can of worms with the Global Warming (sorry Climate Change) Alarmist, I don't know what will!!
Click to expand...

Real climate website has acknowledged the authenticity of the files and has opened a discussion on what is meant by the the exchanges.

As for this explosive revelation already cited - the word "trick" here is a common word used to describe some neat mathematical process that a scientist would use to complete an operation. Quite straightforward and explained in detail on the blog.

By the way the extensive responses are quite interesting. There are at least 20-25% critical comments which are responded to by either Gavin Schmidt , blog writer or other participants.

If you want a condensed anlalysis of the main exposes go to post 293.

Cheers

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
 
Vizion said:
[/I]http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf

The link above is an example of what I consider hard data & good research. I would welcome comment.


mccarthy.jpg

Dr. James J. McCarthy from Harvard. Who currently holds the chair of AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/

I would be thrilled if you all read some of his papers. It will definitely give you a broader understanding of the Earth's workings. You could also note their current stance & the wording they use to describe their position. We can all learn something from it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
 
noco said:
Julia, if you go to www.couriermail.com.au and link to Andrew Bolts blog:-

"HOW TO SEARCH INSIDE THE WARMIST CONSPIRACY", THE SEARCH LINK WAS CREATED BY READER ANELGANTCHAOS.
Click to expand...
Noco, I find it difficult to regard Andrew Bolt as in any way objective.
He is so absolutely rusted on to the Right as to be incapable of finding any validity in anything the government might suggest. e.g. if Mr Rudd were to suddenly declare anthropogenic climate change to be a myth and assert there was no need for an ETS, Mr Bolt would find something to challenge and criticise in that. In this instance, I agree with him to a large extent, but believe his objections to be just as much motivated by his political convictions as by any evaluation regarding climate change.

Gamblor said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up - the views held by many around here are nothing short of dogma. Scientific research is only valid to them if it supports what they want to be told.
Click to expand...
A comment which could quite equally be directed toward yourself.
You are clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges your currently held view.
Nothing surprising in that. But please don't level that criticism as just applying to "the other side".
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
divs4ever
divs4ever
D
September 2016 Federal Reserve Rate Hike
Replies
0
Views
2K
DeepLearning
D
basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
298K
IFocus
IFocus
Knobby22
Business decisions related to climate change
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
IFocus
IFocus
Top