Resisting Climate Hysteria

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

bandicoot76 said:
\ and it scares me a little that the remnants of the eugenics movement are up to their eyeballs in the AWG movement as well!

Wow!!! Who?? Love to know.

Also

What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??

bandicoot76 · 20 May 2011

Knobby22 said:
Wow!!! Who?? Love to know.

Also

What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??

maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ian r crane, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!

i dont follow english politics, the political system and politicians in general disgust me actually! i dont believe in the L vs R paradigm 'football match' style that politics in the west has degraded into...

actually football match is too good...maybe WWF wrestling match would be more apt! anyhow my stance on politicians from both party's is the same...at the end of the day they all feed from the same trough!

bottom line is i dont really care what the torys think about climate change, why would anyone?

bandicoot76 · 20 May 2011

Knobby22 said:
Wow!!! Who?? Love to know.

Also

What do you make of the English conservative parties stance on climate change??

if you want an english perspective (other than political) on climate change heres an article i found while researching the eugenics/AGW link :

This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.

Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.

Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.

Of course, the alarmists continue to argue””as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal””that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.

Like the UK parliamentary committee, which issued a report claiming that Phil Jones and the CRU’s scientific credibility remained intact after a rigorous one day hearing which featured no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice. After the release of the report, the committee stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by climategate and Phil Willis, the committee chairman admitted that the committee had rushed to put out a report before the British election.

Or the Oxburgh inquiry, chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International, an NGO-funded climate change legislation lobby group. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. Unsurprisingly, it found the climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct.

In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.

In December of that year, the UN’s Copenhagen climate talks broke down when a negotiating document was leaked showing that–contrary to all opininon- it would be the third world nations bearing the brunt of a new international climate treaty, with punishing restrictions on carbon emissions that would prevent them from ever industrializing. The document, written by industrialized nations, allowed the first world to emit twice as much carbon per person as the third world, and was widely seen as an implementation of a eugenical austerity program under a “green” cover. This agenda was further exposed by the influential Optimum Population Trust in the UK, which began arguing that same month that rich westerners offset their carbon footprints by funding programs to stop black people from breeding.

In January 2010, the United Nations’ much-lauded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began to fall apart as error after error began to emerge in this supposedly unassailable peer-reviewed, scientific document asserting human causation of catastrophic climate change. That month it was revealed that a passing comment to a journalist from an Indian climatologist that the Himalayan glaciers could melt within 40 years found its way into the much-touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report on climate change via a World Wildlife Fund fundraising pamphlet. When IPCC defenders tried to pass the universally derided prediction off as a legitimate mistake, the coordinating lead author of that section of the report admitted that the IPCC knew that the report was based on baseless speculation in a non-peer reviewed work, but included it because “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Also in January, the UK Information Commissioner ruled that researchers at the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with Freedom of Information requests, but that no criminal prosecution would follow because of a statute of limitations on prosecuting the illegal activity.

In February, the UK Guardian revealed that a key study co-authored by Phil Jones that purported to show there was no such thing as the well-researched Urban Heat Island effect was found to have relied on seriously flawed data. This, according to the Guardian, led to “apparent attempts to cover up problems with [the] temperature data.”

In September, John Holdren, the man who had previously advocated adding sterilizing agents to the water supply to combat the overpopulation problem which he thought would ravage the Earth by the year 2000, and who currently is the Science czar in the Obama White House, advocated a name change for global warming to “climate disruption,” further affirming the theory’s non-scientific status as an unfalsifiable prediction that anything that ever is due to manmade carbon dioxide.

Later that month, Britain’s prestigious Royal Society rewrote its climate change summary to admit that the science was infused with uncertainties and that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future…”

In October, a carbon reduction advocacy group called 10:10 released a video to promote its campaign in which those skeptical about participating in the program are literally blown up.

And just this month, Scientific American, a publication that has been noted for publishing increasingly alarmist reports about the reality and the dangers of manmade-2 induced global warming, a poll of its own readers that found over 77 believe natural processes to be the cause of climate change and almost 80 responded that they would not be willing to pay a single penny on schemes to “forestall” the supposed effects of supposedly-manmade global warming (warming that even climategate scientist Phil Jones now admits is no longer taking place).

The reports undermine the data, its sources, the scientific processes used, the scientists themselves, and their conclusions. It shows that the main temperature records that are used to determine the highly-problematic concept of the global mean temperature are in fact in the hands of scientists like Phil Jones and James Hansen with a direct stake in the continuation of the alarmist scare. When these scientists are questioned on the sources of their data they advocate deleting emails and even deleting data itself. They admit that key data underlying their calculations has already been deleted.

And yet, with all of this, they have the audacity to continue to suggest that there is overwhelming concensus on the “science” of global warming. They call for public debates with skeptics who they invariably accuse of being funded by Big Oil, and then, when those debates are actually organized, they then back out of those debates, and They will once again pretend that inflicting severe austerity on the third world in the name of greening the earth is anything other than eugenics by another name.

bandicoot76 · 20 May 2011

bandicoot76 said:
maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ian r crane, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!
QUOTE]

ian r crane is not a eugenicist, my typo! i was going to include a statement by ian r crane on the link between eugenics and AGW but decided it was too inflamatory and decided to remove it, but left ians name up... my mistake.

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

bandicoot76 said:
prince philip,

?

Hell, I didn't know he believed in either climate change or eugenics. You don't think his position on Eugenics may have changed over 60 years?

(maybe he did have a bigger influence on Prince Charles than I thought)

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

bandicoot76 said:
bandicoot76 said:

maurice strong, prince philip, john holdren, ia, just to name a couple off the top of my head, google it its not hard nor hidden!
QUOTE]

Click to expand...

This is what I found on Maurice Strong.

"Four years later, the U.S. government, in a document called NSSM 200, called for a covert depopulation policy included in its American foreign aid program. At the U.N. conference in 1991 the national delegates, influenced by Maurice Strong, secretary general of the Earth Summit, supported a policy consistent with the notion that the
presence of human beings on the earth and the health of the planet were incompatible."

It doesn't really say how this was to be achieved -I think the principle is good but is it being done by birth control and education or some other insidious method. It ws a catholic site I got this from so they wouldn't be happy either way. Is it really eugenics as under that it involves better breeding not reduced breeding.

As an aside, DEVO, the band, on their devolution theory says we in the west are devolving due to worse breeding as the survival of the fittest no longer applies and breeding seems to be more prevalent among struggling people while the successful have fewer children.

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

John Holdren in 1977 said somw way out things - forced abortions, mass sterialisation through infecting the water etc. A real kook and extremist. I'll give you that one. He would probably say that he is older now , hass a family and wouldn't agree but that stuff is awful and the stain is huge.

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

Just found out the Holdren thing is a right wing lie. Should have known. It amazes me that the far right in the US will lie to such an extent to convince the population - I reckon they should have suing laws like in Australia so Holdren could fight back. Disgusting.

http://chimprefuge.com/2009/07/20/another-right-wing-lie-holdren-favors-eugenics/

I am not looking up anymore bandicoot. I suggest you check your sources. I think they are lying and twisting the truth.
I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail. Be careful what you are told.

OzWaveGuy · 20 May 2011

Another model predicting another catastrophic outcome and gains $115M in doing so....perhaps a stolen leaflet out of the IPCC playbook. Although the IPCC are trying damn hard to improve their image

basilio · 20 May 2011

OzWaveGuy said:
Another model predicting another catastrophic outcome and gains $115M in doing so....perhaps a stolen leaflet out of the IPCC playbook. Although the IPCC are trying damn hard to improve their image

Confabulating an "end of the world tomorrow" religious cult with climate change discussions makes Fonzie jumping the shark look like an outstanding career decision.

Have a think about what you are saying.

Garpal Gumnut · 20 May 2011

Knobby22 said:
Just found out the Holdren thing is a right wing lie. Should have known. It amazes me that the far right in the US will lie to such an extent to convince the population - I reckon they should have suing laws like in Australia so Holdren could fight back. Disgusting.

http://chimprefuge.com/2009/07/20/another-right-wing-lie-holdren-favors-eugenics/

I am not looking up anymore bandicoot. I suggest you check your sources. I think they are lying and twisting the truth.
I know that article you published from an unknown site (would you mind naming it) has some inaccuricies that I am aware of without even chasing the detail. Be careful what you are told.

We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.

You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.

All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.

gg

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

Garpal Gumnut said:
We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.

You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.

All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.

gg

Here's the answer to that one if you can be bothered reading it. Avagoodweekend.

http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html

Garpal Gumnut · 20 May 2011

Garpal Gumnut said:
We have started to get our winter rains today here in Townsville. This is just as one would expect for this time of year.

You Climate Alarmist jokers really need to get a hold of yourselves.

All of your statistical data interpretation excludes the null hypothesis, so to describe it as science is a bald faced lie.

gg

Knobby22 said:
Here's the answer to that one if you can be bothered reading it. Avagoodweekend.

http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html

I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.

No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.

It is crap.

No null hypothesis, no science.

It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.

gg

Knobby22 · 20 May 2011

Garpal Gumnut said:
I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.

No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.

It is crap.

No null hypothesis, no science.

It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.

gg

That was written by a scientist. I don't think you understand how science works.
You are the one being religous, you are so certain in your "faith". No doubt at all.

basilio · 20 May 2011

Garpal Gumnut said:
I have been to the "blog" you mention, and I have never read such unscientific crap in all my born days.

No wonder Tony Abbott describes it as crap.

It is crap.

No null hypothesis, no science.

It's a religious conviction she states, not a scientific argument.

gg

The article makes complete and logical sense Garpal. It is certainly worth reading to understand the basis on which science experiments are undertaken and the inevitable limitations of dealing with a real life earth.

You're the one who is full of crap.

Garpal Gumnut · 20 May 2011

basilio said:
The article makes complete and logical sense Garpal. It is certainly worth reading to understand the basis on which science experiments are undertaken and the inevitable limitations of dealing with a real life earth.

You're the one who is full of crap.

Well then post it and let's dissect it.

I would not waste a click on it, so if you believe in it, post it's content.

gg

basilio · 20 May 2011

Done..

The proof of climate change

Where is the proof that climate change is real and that humans are at fault? Climate sceptics love to pounce on the fact that scientists cannot prove that humans are the cause of climate change. Tony Abbott has said previously that climate science is “absolute crap”. More recently he has clarified that he meant to say the science of climate change is not yet “settled”. These comments presumably refer to climate scientists’ inability to prove that the climate is warming and that humans are contributing to it.

The concept of “proof” in science relates to the way in which scientists form and test hypotheses. But, as discussed by Massimo Pigliucci in his book Nonsense on Stilts, the way scientists go about testing these hypotheses depends on the complexity of the system they are trying to explain.

For example, a chemist in the laboratory may be trying to determine whether some compound “A” causes a particular reaction “B” to occur. To test this hypothesis, the chemist would probably set up an experiment to test whether reaction B occurred in the presence of A, and compare this with what happened in the absence of A. The chemist can follow this particular line of inquiry because they have the ability to manipulate and control most or all of the different factors that could affect the outcome of the lab experiment. An experiment is highly repeatable in controlled conditions, meaning that if the experiment is repeated over and over, the same results can be obtained consistently. Thus, predicting the behaviour of a system becomes very accurate when most of the variables are accounted for.

But imagine now that the chemist now has to perform their experiment out of the lab. The temperature and light intensity now fluctuates, and a little dust or dirt gets into the reaction. A little of compound A blows away in the wind before the chemist can add it to the reaction. Reaction B does not occur. The frustrated chemist repeats the process and this time reaction B does occur. Another repeat of the experiment produces a negative result. Once a system moves outside the lab and into the real world where some variables cannot be controlled, the system becomes less predictable.

Now consider an atmospheric scientist, who, like the chemist, wants to know whether compound A causes reaction B to occur in the atmosphere. In this situation, the atmospheric scientist cannot perform an experiment to change the concentration of compound A in the air - that would be impractical and irresponsible. Instead, the atmospheric scientist has observed that the concentration of compound A has increased in the atmosphere over the last few decades. Furthermore, the rate of reaction B has also increased during the same time period. Is the atmospheric scientist able to confirm or refute their hypothesis that compound A causes reaction B to occur in the atmosphere? Given that an experiment in the atmosphere is not feasible, is the current evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis? Or is the question just unanswerable? Is the science just “crap”?

Not all streams of science are able to test hypotheses by conducting a controlled experiment. While the outcome of a controlled experiment is highly repeatable, the results of the experiment have limited relevance in the real world, where conditions are impossible to standardise. On the other hand, it is difficult to conclusively demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships in natural systems because there are so often multiple factors that determine the outcome. Streams of science such as ecology and climate science often rely on making observations to identify trends and links between potential causes and effects. But scientists in these fields must report these results using sufficiently cautious language, using phrases such as “the evidence suggests…” and “our results may mean…”

Pigliucci argues that this does not make the science “crap” but instead reflects the limitations that scientists face in answering questions about complex systems. Unless we have a spare planet earth that we could observe, subject to exactly the same conditions as our own, except devoid of human life, proving in a scientific sense that climate change is human-induced is an impossible task and a foolish endeavour.

Scientists studying these complex systems are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to communicating their work. The philosophy of science is such that definite conclusions are made only when hypotheses are tested in controlled experiments. The strict peer-review process, in which published science research is scrutinised by other experts in the field (I’ve discussed this in a previous post), effectively discourages scientists from making outlandish, unfounded claims. In contrast, those in business and politics want to see strong definitive results from science research, particularly when deciding whether to make a monetary investment in a discovery or when making government policies based on the results of a study.

But in some situations, as is the case with climate science and climate change, another aspect needs to be taken into account. With the climate data we have and the trends we have identified, we need to weigh up whether the price of inaction outweighs our need for a controlled experiment to prove our hypothesis. With this in mind, and considering that a controlled experiment to test the hypotheses is not feasible, I think we need accept that we are as close to proof as we are going to get, and we to act now.

Author is

Bridget Murphy
Too often, news of our scientific discoveries never makes it outside of the laboratory. And when it does, the true meaning of the science is often lost or distorted on its way to the news desk. This leaves the general public sceptical about well-executed but poorly-communicated science. I am passionate about making science assessible to a broad audience without compromising its meaning. I am currently completing a PhD at the University of Sydney, studying the reproductive biology of Australian lizards. I was a Fresh Scientist in 2010 (www.freshscience.org.au) and I have taught biology to TAFE students and to first-year university students.

http://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html

wayneL · 20 May 2011

The article discusses the limitations of science in complex systems and the difference between this and controlled experiments.

Then she takes the leap of faith and says we must act now.

Yet all these "we must act now" folk never have the courage of their convictions and act not. (eg basilio)

Why is that?

What actions should we take? A tax that nobody believes will alter the climate?

Buy Toyota Piouses? Eco(not) bulbs?

Guys, yes we must act now for the sake of energy security, I'm all for that. But as I've said ad nauseum, AGW is the wrong focus and (as is proven by the current stalemate and collapsing credibiltiy of the AGW lobby) ultimately extremely counter-productive.

basilio · 20 May 2011

Wayne what Bridget actually says is

PHP:
With the climate data we have and the trends we have identified,

PHP:

we need to weigh up whether the price of inaction outweighs our need for a controlled experiment to prove our hypothesis. With this in mind, and considering that a controlled experiment to test the hypotheses is not feasible, I think we need accept that we are as close to proof as we are going to get, and we to act now.

And guess what ? In the real world everyone with a half a brain accepts that we go on balance of probabilities, acceptable risk scenarios ect. If there is a perceived risk of a disastrous outcome well we tell people to get out of hurricance areas and so on. It is not a leap of faith just practical common sense.

And what are the best ways to reduce this risk ? That could be debated but it would be a good start to respect reality and the risks we are taking and not just heap scorn on the mountain of corroborative evidence with misdirected comments about Null hypotheses, or some fraudulent drivel as per Oz Wave Guys random quotes.

Garpal Gumnut · 20 May 2011

wayneL said:
The article discusses the limitations of science in complex systems and the difference between this and controlled experiments.

Then she takes the leap of faith and says we must act now.

Yet all these "we must act now" folk never have the courage of their convictions and act not. (eg basilio)

Why is that?

What actions should we take? A tax that nobody believes will alter the climate?

Buy Toyota Piouses? Eco(not) bulbs?

Guys, yes we must act now for the sake of energy security, I'm all for that. But as I've said ad nauseum, AGW is the wrong focus and (as is proven by the current stalemate and collapsing credibiltiy of the AGW lobby) ultimately extremely counter-productive.

Thanks wayne, I cannot put it better myself.

It is not science as it is known, it is belief and faith, abetted by weak leaders addressing the wrong concerns.

gg

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

bandicoot76

bandicoot76

bandicoot76

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

OzWaveGuy

basilio

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

basilio

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

basilio

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

basilio

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Ross Island Hotel

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Ross Island Hotel

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency