Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

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

It is interesting how to the extent that alarmists try to claim credibility, they highlight their lack thereof.

 

[Knobby22]

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

Just because there was a mistake in a massive document does noot mean the whole document is wrong.
Not like Alan Jones - opinions are for hire.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/an-overview-of-ipccclimategate-criticism.html

“Glaciergate"

The section of the 2007 IPCC report that deals with climate impacts, called Working Group II, included a statement in its chapter on Asia (see p. 493) that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other glaciers on Earth and “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” That statement was challenged by an Indian government report released late last year that suggested, qualitatively, that “many” Himalayan glaciers were instead growing in size and that others were stable. (The report’s conclusions were first widely publicized in a November story in Science, and the flimsy basis for the “very high” statement in the 2007 report is detailed here, in a letter to Science by a Canadian expert on glaciers.

IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri at first defended IPCC, calling the Indian government report “voodoo science,” opening up a row with scientists in his country’s government.

But on 20 January, IPCC’s leadership, after examining the issue, issued a statement expressing “regret” over “the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.” Op-eds followed: The Australian slammed the error, as did journalists and bloggers pointing out that the reporter who wrote the November story for Science, Pallava Bagla, told Pachauri about the error in late 2009, but it took the IPCC 2 months to issue a correction.

RealClimate sought to put the error into context, linking to several studies that make clear how much danger the Himalayan glaciers face

 

[trainspotter]

I repeat ...... Alan Jones is a paid shock jock and not a climate scientist.

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who should know better

Not only was there a "mistake" but the "mistake" once found out and the "REAL" science was released then there was the attempt to discredit it by calling it "voodoo science"

The Himalayan glaciers are in danger of what exactly? The next report was lambasted as well.

"The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is riddled with errors at least as egregious as this one," said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and coeditor of Climate Change Reconsidered, an 800-page critique of the IPCC's latest report. "The revelations will continue until the entire house of cards collapses."

 

[OzWaveGuy]

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. :

This is getting comical. Can any of the alarmists point to a real study that proves without doubt that man made CO2 causes global warming? Links to propaganda blogs that have "finger print" reports is a joke. I would expect the report to: be peer reviewed and real climate scientists from all sides have agreed with the contents and it shows there is indeed a man made CO2 hot spot "finger print".

Surely none of you would walk into a court room with this "chicken little" show we've seen so far? Ah, sorry forgot - there's a legal disclaimer on all alarmist content.

 

[sharezum]

Well when something major happens that can't be ignored you doubters can all say 'why weren't we told'!

 

[trainspotter]

Well when something major happens that can't be ignored you doubters can all say 'why weren't we told'!

Is that you Weatherbill?

 

[bandicoot76]

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".

F*CKING "HERD CONTROL?!?! am i reading this correctly???? are we a bunch of cattle to be culled on a whim now? and if so who chooses who lives and whos off to the slaughterhouse? its a slippery slope your teetering on ppl! its been aproached many times before in history under many guises...

eugenics is the milder "people friendly" fluffy bunny version... consisting mainly of family planning based on genetics and social castes,eg the 2 child policy, the snip snip & tie tie of the undesirables in the community (again tho, who makes the decision?)...

but followed to its logical conclusion 'herd control' means genocide... the termination of human lives (albeit in the belief its for the 'greater good'!) thats what your so dispassionately discussing here!

you ppl who support this theory better start thinking very carefully on where the practical realities of this train of thought may lead, or in the future you may just become listed in the same catagory of "population reducer's" such as hitler, stalin, mao & pol pot...

if you hold this belief that the worlds population needs to be so drastically & urgently reduced then perhaps you should step up and lead by example!!!!! sick bastards!

 

[wayneL]

F*CKING "HERD CONTROL?!?! am i reading this correctly???? are we a bunch of cattle to be culled on a whim now? and if so who chooses who lives and whos off to the slaughterhouse? its a slippery slope your teetering on ppl! its been aproached many times before in history under many guises...

eugenics is the milder "people friendly" fluffy bunny version... consisting mainly of family planning based on genetics and social castes,eg the 2 child policy, the snip snip & tie tie of the undesirables in the community (again tho, who makes the decision?)...

but followed to its logical conclusion 'herd control' means genocide... the termination of human lives (albeit in the belief its for the 'greater good'!) thats what your so dispassionately discussing here!

you ppl who support this theory better start thinking very carefully on where the practical realities of this train of thought may lead, or in the future you may just become listed in the same catagory of "population reducer's" such as hitler, stalin, mao & pol pot...

if you hold this belief that the worlds population needs to be so drastically & urgently reduced then perhaps you should step up and lead by example!!!!! sick bastards!

Excuse me?

Herd control (as referred to here) will be administered by mother nature.

Chill out man!

 

[bandicoot76]

Excuse me?

Herd control (as referred to here) will be administered by mother nature.

Chill out man!

if herd control is administered through natural means then so be it, sad but un-avoidable...

however having read much on the subject though i am very wary of people who seem to want to give 'mother nature' a lil nudge to hasten things up!

you would be considerably 'un-chilled' if you read the writings of ppl like john holdren, science 'czar' of the clinton administration, or maurice strong formerly of the un, or even dear old doctor death prince phillip... its scary that climate change in its most radical form is being presented as a case for population 'control' ... very scary stuff! no not science fiction nor conspiracy clap-trap...

get a copy of the DVD 'codex alimentarius' by ian r crane and it will blow your mind... a scene showing a university audience giving a standing ovation for a lecturer who advanced the notion that sceintists should be working on developing airbourne ebola super bugs to wipe out millions of ppl still makes me feel sick to the stomach!!

 

[derty]

Is it me or are the alarmists in this thread trying to write a book with "fact" packed posts? Er, anyone awake, still no credibility, you can't answer a simple question...

And the question: And the observed evidence that the tiny % of human CO2 raises temperatures can be found where? (Sorry IPCC models aren't observed evidence)

One line will do, no books required. Please CC Ross Garnut and Tim Flannery they're still looking.

Your question is akin to providing a simple answer to prove Evolution, The Big Bang Theory or the Standard Model of particle physics.

You wont get a one sentence answer OWG, as there is no simple answer to your question. As you well know (that is an assumption). If the issue was that simple that it could be answered in one sentence, or one paragraph, the discussion would be over and the wiggle room to sow doubt would not exist.

As has been explained before, there are multiple lines of evidence that when taken as a whole indicate that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a significant portion of the observed warming that has taken place to date and by extrapolation will cause warming in the future. If you take one of those lines of evidence in isolation it is not proof in itself. The science is not based on one gotcha breakthrough, it is formulated through thousands of observations and analysis within hundreds of often very specific and tightly focussed thesis. It is through the weight of these conclusions and the weight of the conclusions built on these that the science is built.

I know you won't accept that as an answer and will claim it as further evidence that "alarmists" have no credibility. And really, I'm not sure why I bothered to type this answer.

Most people in the community have no real scientific education and the scientific process and high level science is outside their understanding. It's a bit like magic. Opinions are not based on understanding. There is only so far you can simplify many scientific ideas before the loss of detail renders the explanation meaningless.

Anyway I'm over this, I have expended enough time here. The same discredited and inane meme's just keep getting presented time and time again regardless of how well they are addressed. It's like ground-hog day with creationists. Over and out.

 

[bandicoot76]

heres a link about the above post
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/doctor_doom_eric_pianka_receiv002118.html

p.s i think i got the wrong DVD with this scene in it. too much research too little memory space! lol

 

[OzWaveGuy]

You wont get a one sentence answer OWG, as there is no simple answer to your question.

Ah, now we have the typical misrepresentation...nobody is asking for a one line answer....I thought I made myself perfectly clear - A real study that proves the case once and for all - A link is perfectly fine, but it must be credible (eg no links to propaganda blogs - basilio) and there is agreement by all climate scientists that the study has merit as it should prove there is a atmospheric hot spot from man made CO2 (eg CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas).

Usually the AGW extremist here respond quickly with "book" postings, charts and various magical material - Let's be really clear, this is the most basic request since the whole AGW CO2 case depends on this 1 answer. Alarmists have spent upwards of $80B in the last 20+ yrs, surely the observed evidence is in? Isn't it?

 

[IFocus]

Very pretty OZzie. You must have been quick reading through all those papers on how/why man produced CO2 is a critical factor in climate change.

Obviously pretty pictures are more interesting. Do you think you should share your observations with all those dimwits who write that xhit on the effect of CO2 on climate ?

Its an old argument here is another example that wont then stack up

Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide.

For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...ge-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O75sZnQ4

 

[wayneL]

heres a link about the above post
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/doctor_doom_eric_pianka_receiv002118.html

p.s i think i got the wrong DVD with this scene in it. too much research too little memory space! lol

I completely understand your sensitivity on this subject. I am with you 100%

 

[Julia]

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.

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.



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.

Ruby, you've beaten me to this response.
But in addition, with respect to this bit:

but now they are effecting us and the difference is we can do something about it.

this is the part that so gets me, and it's repeated everywhere by the alarmists, despite even the government's chief promoter of Climate Change , Tim Flannery, saying it would be about 1000 years for any appreciable difference to occur in climate even if the major emitters China and the US et al, were to participate in any carbon abatement scheme.

So for anyone to imagine Australia introducing a carbon tax, whilst China, the US, Japan and other major emitters have clearly stated they will not be doing anything, is actually "doing something about it" is facile.

Anyone who thinks otherwise must have scant regard for the effect on the loss of competitiveness for our businesses, not to mention the added impost for households.

 

[ghotib]

This is getting comical. Can any of the alarmists point to a real study that proves without doubt that man made CO2 causes global warming? Links to propaganda blogs that have "finger print" reports is a joke. I would expect the report to: be peer reviewed and real climate scientists from all sides have agreed with the contents and it shows there is indeed a man made CO2 hot spot "finger print".

Surely none of you would walk into a court room with this "chicken little" show we've seen so far? Ah, sorry forgot - there's a legal disclaimer on all alarmist content.

If by "propaganda blog" you mean Skeptical Science, it provides links to over 4000 of the "real studies" that, in combination, now prove without doubt (a) that "man made CO2" has exactly the same effects as any other kind of CO2 and (b) that by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the level of approximately the last 14,000 years humans are responsible for the current trend of global warming.

If you don't have time to critically read and evaluate over 4,000 studies, you would be grateful to the following bodies which have done it for you. They all find that human activity is responsible for the current global warming trend and that if the rising trend in fossil carbon emissions continues then global warming will generate massive disruption and loss of human life:

The National Science Academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, the Caribbean, China, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, the United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Leopoldina of Germany

The Inter Academy Council, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Network of African Science Academies

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the European Science Foundation

The European Geosciences Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of London, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the American Geophysical Union

The European Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanograpic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), The World Meteorological Organization

The American Quaternary Association, The International Union for Quarternary Research

The American Statistical Association, The Institution of Engineers Australia, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand


That list is taken from Wikipedia, which provides information about the content of the statements and the links you need to examine them for yourself. I have not included all the organisations listed, and I am aware of recent reports that are not included.

Finally:

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases.

Hope this helps,

Ghoti

 

[OzWaveGuy]

If by "propaganda blog" you mean Skeptical Science, it provides links to over 4000 of the "real studies" that, in combination, now prove without doubt (a) that "man made CO2" has exactly the same effects as any other kind of CO2 and (b) that by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the level of approximately the last 14,000 years humans are responsible for the current trend of global warming.

Thanks for the irrelevant book post. So now if you would be kind enough to post just one link to the study that contains the observed evidence of man made CO2 driving global temperatures, identifies the critical atmospheric hot spot and is accepted as a worthy study containing hard observed evidence by climate scientists from all sides.

Once we have agreement on the observed evidence, the next step will be to understand how much global temperatures will be reduced by cutting man made CO2 that is 3% of all CO2 gas.

Please, to all alarmists - no more hysteric book posts, nobody cares about your non-expert opinion on climate hysteria. People want hard facts.

 

[trainspotter]

Anyone heard of the Oregon Petition? This topic is just like the Y2K scaremongering tactics. Planes will fall out of the sky, massive computer shutdowns etc etc. Polar ice caps will melt and flood the world, animals will disappear ad infinitum.

According to this pack of noobs (sorry meant scientists) KIDNEY STONES will be the new black.

An unanticipated result of global warming is the likely northward expansion of the present-day southeastern U.S. kidney stone “belt.” The fraction of the U.S. population living in high-risk zones for nephrolithiasis will grow from 40% in 2000 to 56% by 2050, and to 70% by 2095. Predictions based on a climate model of intermediate severity warming (SRESa1b) indicate a climate-related increase of 1.6–2.2 million lifetime cases of nephrolithiasis by 2050, representing up to a 30% increase in some climate divisions. Nationwide, the cost increase associated with this rise in nephrolithiasis would be $0.9–1.3 billion annually (year-2000 dollars), representing a 25% increase over current expenditures. The impact of these changes will be geographically concentrated, depending on the precise relationship between temperature and stone risk. Stone risk may abruptly increase at a threshold temperature (nonlinear model) or increase steadily with temperature change (linear model) or some combination thereof. The linear model predicts increases by 2050 that are concentrated in California, Texas, Florida, and the Eastern Seaboard; the nonlinear model predicts concentration in a geographic band stretching from Kansas to Kentucky and Northern California, immediately south of the threshold isotherm.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9841

 

[sharezum]

It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.

 

[trainspotter]

It's world Environment Day. Oz, Trainspotter and others - go and find your own hard facts.

I can't ....... I have a kidney stone and am waiting for the NBN to rollout past my house so I can get on ASF quicker. Look ........ there goes a unicorn .......

I will be doing my bit for World Environment Day and collecting street kerb RUBBISH and recycling it.