Resisting Climate Hysteria

[It's Snake Pliskin]

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.

You obviously don't know what critic means.

 

[wayneL]

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.

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".

Indeedy!!! lol

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate.

Could you answer just one question?

Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen? Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis? After all it's apparently a global problem.

Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?

The more I watch the ETS debate, and listen to Rudd, the more I feel it is his agenda.

He is using the prime ministership of this country and the negative impact on the future health and wealth of our children, as a stepping stone to being head of the United Nations.

I have spoken to many Labor people who know Climate Change is a load of bo****x, but are too scared to say so lest the "Little Emperor" banish them from the Court of Fools.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Ron Liddle writing in the Weekend Australian Magazine sums up my position as to why I am sceptical about the alarmist position on Global Warming.
(The bold emphasis is mine)

I am a little sceptical of man-made climate change because, for me, the raw statistics do not quite add up, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. And I also reckon that most of the stuff urged upon us in order to address climate change makes sense for other environmental reasons anyway.

But this is not good enough; this makes me a climate-change denier - you will note the implication of such a phrase, its implied resonance - and that's not on.

Because one is no longer allowed to question climate change; it is a fact, and there's an end to it. And to the believers the "fact" of climate change is a "fact" to be held sacred and never challenged.

And all the while you feel that these people actually want the earth to be heating up, the polar bears to die, and the floods to engulf us so that we will all burn, starve or drown.

If somehow it could be proved tomorrow that climate change was a huge con, these people would't be relieved - they'd feel robbed of something intrinsic to themselves.

 

[Gamblor]

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".

Absolute rubbish

I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?

I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.

To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.

So here are my thoughts,

1. In terms of what causes global temperature change, co2 is quite low on the list at the moment (although it becomes more important the higher the concentration, so it will be bumped up the list in the future) Solar radiance is the major determining factor, and it's obviously not a constant where we can state; X amount of energy will hit the earth year X. This is just one of the reasonsn why climate modelling is almost impossible to get accurate.

2. The ETS is a bad idea in it's current form, not to mention there is no global agreement which renders it useless.

3. Kevin Rudd is as full of it as Andrew Bolt and many on this forum. Just this week Rudd claimed that last weeks hot weather was proof of climate change. So if next week is cooder than average is that proof that the globe is cooling?

4. There is plenty of good science that suggest the globe will actually cool over the next decade. The anti AGW crowd will jump on this as proof but at the same time they will ignore those same scientists that also model mean temperature over the next 50 years rising.

The fact remains that most on this forum are not interested in science unless it confirms their dogma.

I stand by that and know I'm not in that camp, can you say the same for yourself?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?

I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.

To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.

Epistemic arrogance.
Give the dogma word a rest.

 

[Julia]

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

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.

Absolute rubbish

I base me views on science, plain and simple. If you're referring to my view that co2 is a greenhouse gas, then yes, I think it is - not because of some politcal agenda but because I've seen and done experiments that overwhelmingly suggest it is. Have you got a science degree? or are you another one of the mental giants on this forum that base their views on web blogs/sites and articles by people like Andrew Bolt and Robert Gottliebson?

Your above posts are supercilious and sneering.
You may have earlier set out what actually you believe (or have proven for yourself) and I have missed it. If so, I apologise for concluding your above expressed contempt was all you were offering.

I've spent the better part of a decade at university and you've got the nerve to accuse me of being "clearly unprepared to consider anything which challenges my currently held view" science is not based on views - views should be based on science, based on research and being able to prove a hypothesis, gathering data - continually evaluating new and old data and making informed judgements based on this research. Above all else it means evaluating all research that has opposing findings to your own. Read that last scentence again incase you missed it.

To accuse me of dogma proves you have no clue - but maybe this is my fault. The truth is I find the dogma around here so frustrating that I can't be bothered responding to it with anything more than a scentence or two.

I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults. Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis". Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?
And isn't that why so many express concern and doubt about the government's current zeal to institute an ETS?
(Btw I've never expressed any thought that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and don't recall anyone else on this forum doing so either.)

So here are my thoughts,

1. In terms of what causes global temperature change, co2 is quite low on the list at the moment (although it becomes more important the higher the concentration, so it will be bumped up the list in the future) Solar radiance is the major determining factor, and it's obviously not a constant where we can state; X amount of energy will hit the earth year X. This is just one of the reasonsn why climate modelling is almost impossible to get accurate.

2. The ETS is a bad idea in it's current form, not to mention there is no global agreement which renders it useless.

3. Kevin Rudd is as full of it as Andrew Bolt and many on this forum. Just this week Rudd claimed that last weeks hot weather was proof of climate change. So if next week is cooder than average is that proof that the globe is cooling?

4. There is plenty of good science that suggest the globe will actually cool over the next decade. The anti AGW crowd will jump on this as proof but at the same time they will ignore those same scientists that also model mean temperature over the next 50 years rising.

OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.

It seems you are bringing your learned perspective essentially alongside of those of us who are not happy about Mr Rudd's messianic determination to force Australia into an ETS, regardless of the decisions of the rest of the world. This is really all many of us have been saying, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're so irritated at the expression of a concern which seems similar to your own.

 

[Timmy]

Epistemic arrogance.

What does that mean please?

 

[Gamblor]

Epistemic arrogance.
Give the dogma word a rest.

Cut too close to the bone did I?

 

[wayneL]

Gamblor,

A degree does not preclude one from being dogmatic and may even be a precursor of in in some people.

Some of the most spectacularly dogmatic people in fact come from the ranks of the "learned".

Don't forget some of the most ludicrous hypotheses in all areas of science comes from.... scientists. These are people who purportedly spent much time in universities as well.

To claim exemption from dogma on this basis is one of such cognitive bias that it takes my breath away.

Like Julia, I find your stated views alongside your appalling disrespect of agnostics very confusing as well, your arguments based on the straw man caricature of doubters rather than our actual considered views.

It seems you've shot yourself in the foot really.

 

[Gamblor]

Your above posts are supercilious and sneering.
You may have earlier set out what actually you believe (or have proven for yourself) and I have missed it. If so, I apologise for concluding your above expressed contempt was all you were offering.




I don't intend to engage in an exchange of insults. Just one point above interests me and that is "being able to prove a hypothesis". Isn't this what the 'modelling' has been unable to do in terms of CO2 being the cause of climate change (which we no longer call global warming because it isn't)?
And isn't that why so many express concern and doubt about the government's current zeal to institute an ETS?
(Btw I've never expressed any thought that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and don't recall anyone else on this forum doing so either.)


OK, thank you for this which it would have been good to have originally in place of the pejorative comments.

It seems you are bringing your learned perspective essentially alongside of those of us who are not happy about Mr Rudd's messianic determination to force Australia into an ETS, regardless of the decisions of the rest of the world. This is really all many of us have been saying, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're so irritated at the expression of a concern which seems similar to your own.

The models aren't inconclusive, they show that co2 is causing a problem, it's the projected temperatures I have a problem with - too many variables in place for people to claim it will be X degrees hotter in 2050. Plus it's very possible some places will get a lot colder while the global mean increases. That's why global warming is not the best term for it.

I don't have anything against you, sorry if that's how it ended up, you seem quite moderate compared to many around here.

 

[Gamblor]

Gamblor,

A degree does not preclude one from being dogmatic and may even be a precursor of in in some people.

Some of the most spectacularly dogmatic people in fact come from the ranks of the "learned".

Don't forget some of the most ludicrous hypotheses in all areas of science comes from.... scientists. These are people who purportedly spent much time in universities as well.

To claim exemption from dogma on this basis is one of such cognitive bias that it takes my breath away.

Like Julia, I find your stated views alongside your appalling disrespect of agnostics very confusing as well, your arguments based on the straw man caricature of doubters rather than our actual considered views.

It seems you've shot yourself in the foot really.

Really? Did looking at both sides and making informed judgements loose you somehow. I don't have any borderline religious belief that climate change does or does not exist - I'll go with what I can gather from the science, when the science changes I'll be changing my mind with it.

I've got no disrespect for agnostics, I think it's the best place to be unless you're knee deep in the research. Clearly there are many here that are not agnostics though. Seriously, if you're trying to claim to be agnostic then you don't no the meaning of the word. I've read many of your posts trying to rubbish AGW.

 

[Gamblor]

wayneL, I'll just add that if I've misunderstood the intention behind a lot of your posts around here then I appologise.

 

[lukeaye]

Here is my late engagement in the debate.

Firstly, when i debate something, or make a judgement on something i will try to learn as much as possible about the topic before i pass my judgement.

I actually read quite a few books on climate change as i thought it was an interesting topic, and something that would be talked about alot in the future. ( I read these books about 5 years ago.)

Now there are some very very compeling arguements from both sides. But i have issues believing the books i have read.

On one side i read a book from a "scientist" outling why the particular gas that supposedly causes the greenhouse effect, escapes from our atmosphere regardless of the amount of it. In lamens terms, if you imagine a fly screen, almost nothing can get through it, though there are a few exeptions, such as air, water, so on. Think of the Gas as air that can readily pass through the flyscreen, no matter how much there is it will always get through. This is mainly due to the elementary attributes of the gas and the atmosphere which i wont go in to.

Now i am not a scientist, not even close, i did year 12 chem and got a B+ so i have no clue as to the specifics of this. The book i read i have to take at face value as being correct? How do i not know that an oil company hasnt paid off a scientist to write this report? I don't?

On the other side, we have another group of scientist professing the end of the world? We have all seen the reports on 60 minutes. The evidence is very very compeling. BUT, How many times have you seen a report about how good everything is? Fear and tragedy sell? Good news items dont.

So how do i know these scientists arent just trying to get paid as well? I don't?

How do we know its not all part of the natural cycle? I don't? So how can any of us pass a judgement as to what is right and what is wrong? We cant?

Even if you have a PHD in the area, you still can't know? We all study the markets and make probable calls, but we never know what is going to happen, what call is right what call is wrong?

So I say er on the side of caution? But unfortunately the governments have seen there oppurtunities and made completely uselss carbon taxes, which help solve the problem none.

I reserve my opinion because i am not qualified to make a statement.

 

[Vizion]

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.

This is an absolute nonsense & non sequitur. A fascinating use of extreme language, to try to make it look like I said something I clearly did not. All the while completely ignoring the actual science. Please point out where I called you an AGW extremist or denier... So if I knew you, I would agree with you because If I don't I'm obviously an alarmist. You I have apparently placed into the AGW camp, (instead of me or others just thinking your a decent man with concerns who is mistaken) That is one hell of a circular argument you have going there.

Roger Snr manages to point out a statistically insignificant data set, based on erroneous data, collected in part from the Argus net, which has been admitted to having some radical data errors in it. While failing to include seasonal variations in computations. This he then asserts makes it statistically significant. All the while ignoring the rises of the decades before. This is such a blatant cherry picking of data it beggars belief.

He prefers to address local and regional problems on time scales measurable in hours, weeks and months. This is mesoscale myopia. Since Roger Snr is actually a meteorologist & has only recently moved into climatology, his assertions are somewhat short sighted to put it mildly. No one in climatology actually thinks in these time frames.

Roger Snr (Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.)
This argument is inane. Essentially, anyone who doesn’t support my arguments are stupid or dishonest. Hrmm sounds familiar...

It is amazing to see someone who wrote papers such as the one he wrote on the 2002 Colorado drought, descend into such emotive & biased language.

As I have pointed out before, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how it is based. You appear to be trying to tread a moderate line based on your understanding of the science. That understanding if it is based on Roger's blog, is unfortunately very narrow.

Let's look at an example of his use of cherrypicked data. The first half year of 2008 were strongly influenced by a La Nina episode which suppressed the surface temperature from Co2 warming. Additionally, the sun had reached the very bottom in its 11 year solar cycle. (for the sake of simplicity I will not even factor in the Milankovitch cycles) So it will only start to significantly supplement greenhouse warming in a couple of years from now as ITS . So we have had a very short period when "cooling" phenomena have coincided. That's measured in the surface as well as tropospheric temperature records. So its not a big surprise there has been a flattening effect on sea temps. The data shows it is still rising, at a reduced rate admittedly. Yet it is still inline with the predictions. A fact Roger Snr has omitted.
If he is genuinely interested in how the Earth's surface temperature responds to greenhouse warming, he would be trying to make a trend from the fact there are some temperature variations in & around a couple of months or years. So it has cooled a little at times due to seasonal fluctuations. So what? In another couple of years the rise in the solar cycle which has been eerily quite for a good number of years, (while temperatures have continued to rise in line with the predicted CO2 models), will be supplementing the greenhouse forcing rather than opposing it as in the last few years.

How about you read these papers to start with, to get a better understanding of what's being discussed, instead of relying on Roger Snr to get it right.

W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453

Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.

You put your faith in this man to make sense of the complexities of climate when he himself has stated.

Roger Snr
(Our examples lead to an inevitable conclusion: since the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable)

& then...

(Hence, it appears that one should not rely on prediction as the primary policy approach to assess the potential impact of future regional and global climate change. We argue instead that integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability …offer the best solution, whereby risk assessment and disaster prevention become the alternative to prediction.)

So we should all wait till it all breaks down before we attempt to fix it?

To make these statements he must ignore, the know decay rates & interaction of CO2 in atmospherics, chemistry, radiative forcing, ITS, physics, astrophysics, signal to noise in climate models & a whole plethora of reasonably well understood feedback systems & their dynamic interactions. Doing all this in favour of this notion, that some things in climatology are too complex. therefore we can't know enough to make a policy decision.

There is example after example that I could give that shows his bias & use of cherry picked data.

You go right ahead & think what you like though, he's obviously the man for the job. A web-blog I might add he does not allow comments to be posted on that. I wonder why...

Oh & no is that there has been no comment on the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to climate? That should have started a rip-snorter of a discussion. Plenty to argue about in that...

 

[Gamblor]

Oh & no is that there has been no comment on the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to climate? That should have started a rip-snorter of a discussion. Plenty to argue about in that...

I'm out of here - have fun folks.

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics

 

[wayneL]

This is an absolute nonsense & non sequitur. A fascinating use of extreme language, to try to make it look like I said something I clearly did not. All the while completely ignoring the actual science. Please point out where I called you an AGW extremist or denier... So if I knew you, I would agree with you because If I don't I'm obviously an alarmist. You I have apparently placed into the AGW camp, (instead of me or others just thinking your a decent man with concerns who is mistaken) That is one hell of a circular argument you have going there.

Well that was a pretty impressive diatribe Vizion. Touché.

You nearly had me convinced. Unfortunately, like the worst case CC scenario it falls down when the facts are dispassionately examined. Nonsense and non sequitur? I think not. It was obvious you were unilaterally altering my views, your premise fails from then on. Good effort though.

Re Pielke & cherrypicking: We could argue about what is and what isn't cherry picking of climate data ad infinitum. But it must be pointed out that the Climatesci blog, as one of it's main focuses, is about cutting through biased interpretation of the science. If I could be bothered, I could present a list biased conclusions of truly humungous proportions that makes total fools of the IPCC. But that's been done over time on Pielke's blog and elsewhere.

I'm sure this will be conveniently ignored however.

It all boils down to your earlier point of nobody having a clue. Your's and other's criticisms of Pielke et al may also be a result of bias, and so-on it goes. Being Home Sapiens, I have no doubt that the group suffers from the same human failings as any other.

It still does not detract from the sense of their argument when compared to the alarmists and outright deniers, even if formed from the chaotic fog of climate science. Alongside the religion like zealotry of the alarmist mob, they (the alarmists) seem almost like new earth creationists attempting to prove that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever.

They also address something which can be thought about more tangibly and addressed in far more concrete and effective terms.

Less bias, better hypothesis.

It goes to my consistent point about wrong problem, wrong solution.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Its in this morning's Australian that a mob of pommy and yankee Climate Change Scientists were using dirty tricks to denigrate those who did not believe in the Gospel according to Gore.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...se-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912

They also wonder how their prrof is not fitting the data!!!!

In one email, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research, who supports the theory of man-made climate change, says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Dr Trenberth says data published last August "shows there should be even more warming . . . the data are surely wrong."

A piece of advice.

Get the data correct first, then postulate. Not the other way about.

It is a bloody religion not science.

gg

 

[donkeykong]

I’m probably going to be banging my head against a brick wall here but anyway....

Even if there isn’t a direct link between co2 commissions and climate change there are so many other reasons to decarbonise our economies. Coral bleaching, ocean acidification, health impacts of highly polluted air (anyone been to Jakarta, Beijing or LA). Even if you couldn’t care less about the environment there is only so much oil/coal/gas in the ground. Even if there is 100 years worth of fossil fuels, then what? Considering the amount of economic knowledge there is on this forum surely people can see what impact situations such as peak oil will have on the world.

That being said rudds ETS is pretty much useless, there should be a broader push to develop alternative energy manufacturing industries investing in projects such as high speed train lines up and down the east cast that would greatly reduce the need for domestic air travel which is one of the most inefficient uses of fossil fuels.

 

[moXJO]

Gotta love hackers

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26386792-401,00.html

COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain's leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists.

The messages – more than 2000 emails and 3000 documents – lay bare bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.

In one email, the head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is "cheered" by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.

The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to "prove" man-made climate change.

Based on science my ass