Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.

Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.

Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor David Karoly.

Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are.

http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html

 

[trainspotter]

How long has Alan Jones been a recognised CO2 scientist? He is a vox pop and nothing more.

http://www.co2science.org/data/temperatures/temps_plot.php

Click on this link for a database of temperatures globally since 1880 to present day. Evidences NASA and GHCN ground temps as well as MSU and Radiosonde satellite temps.

Interesting to note ground temps have slowly increased (probably due to urbanisation) whilst the satellite temps are remaining slightly negative??

 

[moXJO]

I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.

Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.

Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor David Karoly.

Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are.

http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html

I'm not exactly a Jones fan, but wasn't sure which figures you were talking about at first

31 May 2011 4:21:24pm

Prof Karoly’s letter to 2GB initially agrees with AJ. Quote: He correctly said that Australian emissions are about 1.5% of the 3%, or about 0.045% of the total annual production of CO2 going into or out of the atmosphere. However further on in his letter, he drops a zero, changing 0.045% to 0.45%. Hence Prof Karoly's final figure of 0.00018% is exactly the same as AJs, with just one zero less – purely due to his change of mind on that 0.045%.

Reply Agree (0) Alert moderator

Pete the gibberer :
01 Jun 2011 9:29:05am

John, I initially agreed with you. But Karoly is talking about a cumulative figure, rather than an annual figure. That is why he drops the zero.

Just to clear up what they were talking about (from the responses)

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The alarmists still cannot answer the simplest question of all yet the entire case is based on it: Where is the observed evidence that CO2 by man drives temperatures? Sorry, snippets from propaganda sites don't cut it.

"Houston we have a problem"

And the alarmists can't understand why so many have questioned the blind faith and to reveal the scam.

For such a minute amount of man made CO2 occupying apporx 0.00108% of the atmosphere, the alarmist predict with "models" the end of days for humans. In the same breath cannot produce observed evidence, yet they chatter on.

Basilio, Knobby, Derty - Feel free to start an alarmists chatter thread, perhaps when you produce the actual hard evidence you can return with some credibility. :

 

[moXJO]

What happens when there is a volcanic eruption like the one in Iceland in regards to carbon emissions and how much CO2 it produces?

Similarly Australia in regards to bushfires/ back burning?

I see a lot of figures thrown around in arguments at the moment, hence the interest.

 

[spooly74]

With the human contribution being so small, is there or has there any thought been put into sequestering natural CO2?

Can it be done?

 

[wayneL]

I was wondering why we were suddenly getting such excited comments on the vanishingly small amount of CO2 Australia produces and why this just doesn't matter in the slightest.

Turns out that Alan Jones has been producing his own brand of hyperbolic BS with completely fantasy figures of CO2 in the atmosphere, Australia role and so on.

Media watch did an excellent dissection of this complete load of toxic drivel as well as replaying the abuse he heaped on Professor David Karoly.

Another excellent article from a science reporter also showing just how dishonest his argument is and how dishonest his figures are.

http://abc.gov.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...t-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html

1/ Have you considered the irony in your comments here?... Nah, obviously not.

2/ Do you think there may be a any reason why mediawatch has never (to my knowledge) reported on dodgy alarmist propaganda in the media?

 

[sharezum]

And the alarmists can't understand why so many have questioned the blind faith and to reveal the scam.

For such a minute amount of man made CO2 occupying apporx 0.00108% of the atmosphere, the alarmist predict with "models" the end of days for humans. In the same breath cannot produce observed evidence, yet they chatter on.

Basilio, Knobby, Derty - Feel free to start an alarmists chatter thread, perhaps when you produce the actual hard evidence you can return with some credibility. :

If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up. Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.

 

[wayneL]

If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up. Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.

{Sigh}

All sides have pretty much agreed that a carbon tax will do nothing to mitigate climate change, whether or not, or to what extent it is caused by man.

Doing nothing always impacts profit in a changing world, so business should be ready to adapt to changes, including possibly climate... and that include cooling as well as warming, as well as change with no cooling or warming.

However, doing "something" that is inappropriate and that will only export carbon dioxide production (AKA productive manufacturing) to SE Asia is really quite dumb. And that is what will happen with a carbon tax.

It won't save the world... it won't save a goddam thing; and hands economic hegemony to China on a silver platter.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

If you look at the Media Watch program referred to above it is explained that the Alan Jones '0.00008%' number was made up. Don't be afraid that doing something about climate change will reduce profits be afraid that not doing anything will reduce profits.

Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists: Sharezum, Everyone agrees that the climate changes - just point to the observed evidence that CO2 gas from humans changes the worlds temperatures.

I'm not afraid of helping to tackle a real problem - just show me the observed evidence and the impact to worlds temperatures by undertaking initiatives to stop it changing.

So far, I've heard nothing but alarmist muttering about nothing of any substance.

It's such a simple request, or maybe not.

 

[Knobby22]

Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists.

I thought that deceit was by Alan Jones:

 

[sharezum]

Here we go, it's this obvious mixing of words that's the deceit by alarmists: Sharezum, Everyone agrees that the climate changes - just point to the observed evidence that CO2 gas from humans changes the worlds temperatures.

I'm not afraid of helping to tackle a real problem - just show me the observed evidence and the impact to worlds temperatures by undertaking initiatives to stop it changing.

So far, I've heard nothing but alarmist muttering about nothing of any substance.

It's such a simple request, or maybe not.

There are many reports that show there is climate change and that we are responsible - I don't think I can reproduce them all on this forum.
The trouble is you want a couple of paragraphs that proves it.
By the way it is not just the impact on worlds temperatures - it's the instability. Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms. These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.

 

[IFocus]

Herd size control will come one way or another. Shutting down the biosphere will do this.

Succinctly put, given the seemingly over whelming numbers here who appear to support "do nothing" its pretty much a given.

 

[wayneL]

Succinctly put, given the seemingly over whelming numbers here who appear to support "do nothing" its pretty much a given.

Although I agree herd control will be a reality sooner or later also, I don't think it's fair to say the majority advocate doing nothing at all.

I could be wrong, but I think the general thrust is that the general consensus here of your "do nothings" is "do nothing about stuff that doesn't need anything done about it".

 

[basilio]

All yours

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

Oz you asked this question earlier. I have offered this reference which details at least 10 fingerprints of human activity on current observable climate change. (In fact there are many more but they couldn't make them neatly fit on a pretty table) The scientific papers that provide evidence for this are cited.

You demand a short simple one paragraph answer. That is about as practical as wanting a simple answer to proving that cigarette smoking causes cancer, or asbestos causes lung disease. Any short answer would be simplistic and grossly inadequate. It's has taken 20 years of research by hundreds of different scientists across many fields to build the picture of the different drivers of climate.

And you want it summed up on the back of postage stamp.

I'll repeat the relevant quote at the bottom of the reference.

Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.

But in the end all the scientific research and analysis in world is totally useless if people choose to routinely dismiss the credibility of 99% of climate scientists , don't even know enough about the way science works to appreciate what they don't know and then substitute whatever trumped up version on "commonsense" they are presented by Alan Jones and co in place of reality.

 

[white_goodman]

Oz you asked this question earlier. I have offered this reference which details at least 10 fingerprints of human activity on current observable climate change. (In fact there are many more but they couldn't make them neatly fit on a pretty table) The scientific papers that provide evidence for this are cited.

You demand a short simple one paragraph answer. That is about as practical as wanting a simple answer to proving that cigarette smoking causes cancer, or asbestos causes lung disease. Any short answer would be simplistic and grossly inadequate. It's has taken 20 years of research by hundreds of different scientists across many fields to build the picture of the different drivers of climate.

And you want it summed up on the back of postage stamp.

I'll repeat the relevant quote at the bottom of the reference.



But in the end all the scientific research and analysis in world is totally useless if people choose to routinely dismiss the credibility of 99% of climate scientists , don't even know enough about the way science works to appreciate what they don't know and then substitute whatever trumped up version on "commonsense" they are presented by Alan Jones and co in place of reality.

this is where you lose all credibility

 

[basilio]

this is where you lose all credibility

Which of course is exactly what Alan Jones was saying to Professor David Karoly. And Alan Jones is just an abusive, lying shock jock who has been proven he will promote any product or point of view if he is paid enough money.

 

[spooly74]

Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms. These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.

Earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions? Seriously.

 

[Ruby]

There are many reports that show there is climate change and that we are responsible.

Sharezum, there are many reports that show there is climate change. None has proven we are responsible. Our degree of responsibility (if any) is as yet unknown.

By the way it is not just the impact on worlds temperatures - it's the instability. Hav'nt you noticed the floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by temperature inversions as the sea warms. These may have been happening over the previous thousands of years but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.

Climate change and instability is a feature of the world's cycles. It has always been there and is not as cut and dried as you like to depict. No, we probably can't do much about it. Another unknown. Do you seriously think we can 'manage' things like volcanic eruptions and tornados? The more that climate scientists learn about our climatic cycles, the more they realise how much we still don't know about it.

If we are going to live here we have to learn to adapt - to warming and to cooling, because both are going to happen.

 

[trainspotter]

Which of course is exactly what Alan Jones was saying to Professor David Karoly. And Alan Jones is just an abusive, lying shock jock who has been proven he will promote any product or point of view if he is paid enough money.

This would be the same Professor David Karoly who is a member of the IPCC? This is the same IPCC that claimed the glaciers would have melted by 2035? The same 2500 climate scientists that were "peer scrutinized" that turned out to be about 20 writers and only a handful of them actually scientists for the IPCC ??

google ..... "IPCC DISCREDITED" for the answer here

or click here http://www.heartland.org/full/26934/IPCC_Discredited_Evidence_of_Scientific_Fraud_Mounts.html

I especially liked this part

IPCC’s supporting documentation, however, shows IPCC based its assertion solely on a paper published by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) environmental activist group. WWF in turn had based its assertion on conversations with a single scientist who admits he was only speculating about Himalayan glacier retreat, never mentioned the year 2035 as a potential melt date, and did not base his speculation on any formal research.

So what else are they not telling the truth about?