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
Nice work Derty. Good to see some of the misinformation that is being picked up and promoted clarified.

The statement by Plimer that volcanoes are the major emitters of greenhouse gases was, as you point out, one of the most easily provable errors in his book. Shame it keeps getting passed around.
 

And the cause of the medieval warming period? Ah, that's right it was replaced by the Hockey Stick.....


As for Mann's hockey stick, if it was just the tree ring proxy data that displayed it then there might be a case. But as the hockey stick anomaly is supported by multiple non-tree ring proxies it does tend to throw weight behind it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's so credible that it's splashed up everywhere I look. Oh, except for the department of climate change that took it down off their website when the hockey stick was discredited. Yup, plenty of weight behind it.

Sorry Derty, there's been so much obvious corruption in pushing the AGW agenda as a cash and control grab that neither you - a complete non-expert or even the so-called gravy train AGW "experts" have any credibility left. Hence, you simply don't need to be an expert in climate science to see how corrupt the AGW pushers are.

Nice post btw, not confrontational and trying the softer side of AGW alarmism. Perhaps in your next post you could also call out the corruption in the AGW "science" to provide some real substance to your views and perhaps offer some ideas how to bring back credibility to Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption (or whatever is the current politically correct term).
 

you are correct i am surprised that you agree with that presentation. maybe i miss-interpret your posts, to me they come across in the al gore-ish "the sciene is settled there shall be no dissent" theme, perhaps i am being over-reactionary but i shall leave you with a quote from US senator Ron Paul that sums up my feelings exactly:

"[radical enviromentalism]has created such a poisoned atmosphere of political correctness that any questioning or dissent on the science used to support [their] position is ridiculed and written off as crazy talk. even reputable scientists who question the assumption and data used are not afforded the slightest respect regardless of the authenticity of their challenges"

i am not a scientist, i started out with an open mind on the CO2 debate but have found that to me the evidence doesnt stack up to prove significant AGW! i draw my objections to the theory from my own observations having travelled extensively both domestically and internationally, from talking to ppl from these places and hearing their local knowledge, from reading every bit of information i can lay my hands on from both sides of the debate and analizing it using my practical engineering background thought processes, from my family's records that show the hottest period by far in this area to be the 1940's, and from the devious, manipulative and dishonest behavior of the climate change gravy train including gore, mann etc...

any smart investor knows the quote "beware the hard sell" well carbon tax/ trading etc is being sold hard.... and dirty!
 

Very interesting in deed.

How do we send a copy to Gillard and Combet.

Kevin 11 is also tied up with the UN on Climate Change and corruption in the UN is rife. A relation of mine has been involved with the UN for over twenty years and the stories he told me just last week is mind bogling.

There is little doubt the UN want a world Government and they are trying to attain their objectives by devious means and Climate Change (GLOBAL WARMING) is high on their agenda with support from the GREENS.
 
Knobby22 said:
Yep, corruption is a problem in this debate. Follow the money!

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
Click to expand...

Hah! Greenpeace has just lost its charity status here as it has been (correctly) deemed a political organisation.

Follow the money indeed. Your inference here is analogous to claiming that only the Liberal party receive donations from vested interests. A laughable and astonishingly naive stance to take.

Yep! Follow the money.
 
Yep! Follow the money.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right Wayne old boy. Absolutely bloody right.,

And if you actually decided to have a look at what Greenpeace has discovered we could all recognise the wonderful job that the myriad of sock puppet organisations do dancing to the tune of the Koch brothers and their partners in planetary rape and pillage.

"Wonderful" of course if we accept that repeated lies and misinformation in the cause of of destroying appropriate responses to the very real problems identified by the broadest scientific community over the past 20 years is a good thing.

That is the crux of the issue Wayne et al. If you throw enough oil money you can certainly find some scientists and plenty of sociopathic PR hacks who will blow dust in your eyes and come up with either imaginary, distorted or in some cases real issues with the vast majority of research done by climate scientists. But if you had a serious illness and 98 doctors said you needed immediate surgery to deal with problem but 2 say "nay, it'll go away next year" how willing would you be to take the word of the last 2 ?

It's worth quoting a little of what Greenpeace has found out about the Koch brothers financing the scores of sock puppet sites that promote the distortions that are regularly paraded in these forums.

The page details 39 organizations that the Koch brothers have funded since 1997 with a view to discrediting the work of climate scientists and challenging actions intended to reduce pollution or other environmental damage to protect their multi billion dollar investments.


http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
 
basilio said:
The page details 39 organizations that the Koch brothers have funded since 1997 with a view to discrediting the work of climate scientists
Click to expand...

Thank God someones on the ball, and also counter Greenpeace propaganda.
 
Basilio,

My point went straight over the top of your head exposing a raging cognitive bias.

I can accept that there is oil money involved in the debate... of course there is. But there is stacks of money exclusively for supporting the AGW hypothesis.

This is a point you seem unable to accept.
 
Simple Wayne et al. Oil money supports misinformation, lies and distortion to protectr it's considerable interests. Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment. It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting

We saw all this for 50 years when the tobacco industry funded it's own pet liars to discredit the evermounting evidence of smoking based deaths. We see it whenever one of the pet liars funded by the oil industry throws up a piece of drivel that has been comprehensively proven to be wrong. The most recent example on this forum of course was the comment about volcanoes being the major source if greenhouse gas emissions.
 
basilio said:
Simple Wayne et al. Oil money supports misinformation, lies and distortion to protectr it's considerable interests.
Click to expand...

Basilio,

Misinformation is easily exposed as such. It is counterproductive to the case being promoted as it destroys it's own credibility.

Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment.
Click to expand...

That's what it is supposed to do, but in too many cases this is not what is happening. Experiment/model design skewed to obtain a particular result and/or biased conclusions are drawn to ensure continued funding.

Science has lost its integrity and ergo, the trust of the public... deservedly, tragically.

It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting
Click to expand...

It has been well documented that this purported "cross checking" has in fact been found wanting. Peer review is now viewed with suspicion.


A superb case in point. The tobacco industry trashed it's own reputation by playing those games.

The oil industry will do damage to the integrity of scientific debate by running interference. But the oil industry is merely the flip side of the coin to Gore, Hansen, Basilio, et al which is damaging the integrity of scientific debate as well.

As a result we now have a political debate with scientific soundbites thrown in, rather than a purely scientific debate. Your own rigid one sided and cognitively biased diatribes being fairly typical of this.
 
Science research offers evidence based information that is actively seeking to discover and explain what is happening to our environment. It has to be cross checked by other scientists in the field. It needs to be verified or else found wanting
Click to expand...

Wayne, I have requoted my statement with the important bits bolded.

The scientific research on global warming is closely monitored by other scientists. If there are problems with the figures or the reasoning then peer reviews are there to pick up anomalies.

It is also an evolving field with extra information being added all the time. I don't think anyone would say everything is known.

But what is believed at this stage with a very high degree of certainty is that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of excessive man produced greenhouse gases (CO2 and others) And extrapolating from that the extra warmth is going to severely degrade the quality of current life which has evolved to live in certain climatic parameters.

I have watched this evolving knowledge and debate since the 90's. Over that time the global warming science has filled in more and more of the gaps, learnt more about past climatic records and measured temperature increases and changes around the world. It appears that almost all this information is confirming the original hypothesis that extra CO2 is warming the earth (in exactly the same way as the original CO2 created a warmer earth)

On the other side of the discussion I can identify a wide range of strategies to dispute the Global Warming hypothesis. "It's the sun" " CO2 is good for us - it can't possibly be harmful" "Volcanoes are the problem" "The weather stations are badly sited".

Then there will be preposterous fabrications like Lord Monckton who simply and literally makes up statements that have absolutely no factual basis and with a supremely confident swagger tries to pull off bare faced lies. There is Plimer who writes books again with clear factual errors (volcanoes being only one) and still manges to be endlessly believed and quoted. (Basically because a swath of oil funded sock puppets will quote him endlessly to say absolutely anything they can to create uncertainty)

I agree with you Wayne that this has now become a "political" issue. What that means it seems is that victory for an idea will be won or lost on the pressure and noise that can be brought to bear on the argument rather than an accurate appraisal of evidence. And we don't get much bigger money or pressure than the fossil fuel industry.

But in the end nature bats last.

____________________________________________________________________

And by the way lets be clear about what the tobacco industry was doing for 50 years. They were totally aware smoking was addictive and caused cancer. They just were not prepared to loss a very lucrative business just because it was killing people and did whatever it took in the way of lies and misinformation to stop public acknowledgment of these facts. There were always liars and killers peddling addictive cancer sticks.
 
basilio said:
The scientific research on global warming is closely monitored by other scientists. If there are problems with the figures or the reasoning then peer reviews are there to pick up anomalies.
Click to expand...
How can we have complete confidence in this when many of the so called peer review publications simply refuse to accept opinions which contradict the popular ideology?
 

And this is the crux of the matter. The most reasonable scientific opinion agrees that additional GH gases will cause warming, but that it has been grossly overstated/exaggerated.
 
This may be a silly question...but, have the folks on this thread that preach AGW to the rest of us actually changed their lifestyle in order to reduce CO2 "pollution"?

It's a simple question, but I wonder if the answers (if any) will be honest?

For example..

Do you still use Heating in winter and cooling in summer?
Do you still use a motor vehicle?
What changes in your diet have you made? Do you still consume meat?
What powers the PC you use to connect to the Internet?
Do you invest in only so called "Green" Companies?
Any other changes you have personally made?
How do these changes impact you and the rest of your family?

The reason I ask is because I see so many "idols" of the AGW movement with multiple methods of transport including private jets and owning multiple large homes. Therefore are warmists simply telling us what we should do without actually doing it themselves?

And yes, if you have solar, then you can mention that - even though it's the taxpayer that has actually funded the subsidy.

Interested to specifically hear from Knobby, Basilo, Derty etc
 
What is certainty to Bazzo is usually just propaganda to those who don't share his fundamentalist beliefs.

But what is believed at this stage with a very high degree of certainty is that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of excessive man produced greenhouse gases (CO2 and others)
Click to expand...
 
 
Calliope said:
What is certainty to Bazzo is usually just propaganda to those who don't share his fundamentalist beliefs.
Click to expand...

agreed!!.... the world is rapidly warming? hmmm didnt talking-head AGW zealot tim flannerry just come out and say something along the lines that the warming wont be felt for another thousand years and then only 0.07%? (i cant remember if that was the exact comment as i only saw a snippet of the interview on tv a few nights ago so please feel free to correct me if im wrong)

the posturing of mr flannery is one of the reasons i am an AGW skeptic, one minute hes saying AGW is causing drought & the murray basin wont have rainfall because of CC, then when the drought breaks, NSW & QLD have widespread rains thus flooding so he's saying its AGW/CC is causing these floods...totally negating his previous "murray dustbowl" statement... now because the data shows no significant warming for the decade his position changes again to 'wont affect anyone for another 1000yrs' its this duplicity & manipulation of facts from idiots like gore, flannery, garnaut etc that re-inforce the fact AGW/CC advocates cant be trusted!
 
Okay so how we we come to agreement on
The most reasonable scientific opinion agrees that additional GH gases will cause warming, but that it has been grossly overstated/exaggerated. Wayne
Click to expand...
or
How can we have complete confidence in this when many of the so called peer review publications simply refuse to accept opinions which contradict the popular ideology? Julia
Click to expand...

My point of reference is the 98% plus research from climate scientists that with a very large degree of agreement sees the climate change models producing between 2-5 degrees of warming in the next century. On the here and how the measurements of global warming as shown in ocean temperature rises, increase in average temperatures changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures see us on track for these changes. In fact there is a whole new review of global temperatures (partially funded by the Koch brothers !) that appears to be confirming these results.

I'm sure we can find some people who will offer a more comforting scenario. But unfortunately almost all other scientists in the field seem to have evidence that contradicts their view.

With regard to current scientific journals that won't accept contrary opinions.. The point about peer review is that the presented paper need to stack up in terms of its internal logic and the replicability of its research. My comments about the brazen lies of Lord Monckten are worth repeating here. When a person attempts to present material where he/she has falsified data or tried to change the basis on which science is currently known to work then it will be impossible to accept the material.

With regard to my own lifestyle. I don't wear a hairshirt . I keep warm in winter and stay out of the sun when it gets hot. There is no way I live as sustainably as I believe we all need to. But we are getting there.

There are real contradictions in this field. From a current real science perspective it appears almost impossible to stop the effects of runaway global warming. We are just too far down the wrong road. I feel we are left with doing the best we can right now. It is certainly not conducive to a good frame of mind to continually focus on the next wave of research on global warming.

The most constructive approach I can think of is undertaking the best no regrets actions that can reduce our overall environmental impact (realising that peak oil is well and truly here ) and improve the current quality of our lives without creating more greenhouse gases and destruction. And maybe we could try to repair some of the world we have trashed ?

I will offer some references for my comments. (But if they contradict what you believe or would like to believe will you take any notice ?)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

Perhaps this book is one of the references used to say that global warming is not actually happening at anything like the rate almost all other climate scientists are saying.The review and the comments which cover the whole spectrum of the discussion are worth a look.

 

lol.... nice post! if they follow the actions of their beloved spokesman al gore obviously not, gore was grilled by senator inhofe and it was interesting to see him squirm!... ok i'll try to find a link for you'se
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming032207.htm its not the youtube video i wanted, i cant seem to find that link
 
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
24
Views
1K
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...