Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

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

You can really see why this thread has attracted the hysterical alarmist - all they have been doing for years here and in other threads is regurgitating useless and factually incorrect studies about such things as no more snow, 100m sea level rises, 50M climate refugees etc etc etc etc. So excuse me for asking about observed evidence.

It's easy to see why this country is degenerating into a mess with the billions wasted on such rubbish.

 

[Knobby22]

I have had enough too.

 

[spooly74]

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

lol, how about you back some of yours up first.
How are tsunamis and earthquakes caused by temperautre inversions and ocean heat content?

OzWave,
I think you know such a study won't be found.
We cannot be 100% certain that the human addition of CO2 is responsible for all the warming, but you can't deny that it's addition is sufficent to cause all the warming we see.

 

[Calliope]

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 are talking common-sense, which is an anathema to the warmists and the hysterics. We will adapt to climate change, as long as we realise that there is nothing we can do to influence it.

 

[Ruby]

Thank you Calliope. I have to admit I was once a 'climate change alarmist', and then I started doing a lot of reading - on both sides of the argument. I really think that everyone who has a strong view - either way - could benefit by doing the same thing (with apologies to those who have already done so.)

It is important to remember a few other things:- This issue is a very hot political football, and scientists are no more honest than anybody else. If a scientist has a pet theory he wishes to pursue, and a government with a particular agenda and a bottomless purse offers to fund his research with the expectation he will produce a particular result........ then what is to stop a little manipulation of results here and there? And before any of you start jumping up and down and crying 'foul!' - just read about the East Anglia 'Climategate' scandal. To give credit, these same scientists may believe so passionately in what they are doing they become a little bit blind and see only the results they want. Sometimes it may depend on how data is interpreted. I don't know the reasons for it.

What is undeniable is:- Our climate is changing. To date scientists cannot agree on the reasons for this. More and more scientists who were once in the 'alarmist' camp are defecting to the other side. Data has been manipulated. In the past, warming has preceded increased CO2 emissions (so what is the first cause?). The world has experienced higher temperatures before. Following WWII we had a 30 year period of cooling at the same time as CO2 emissions were increasing markedly.

There is still a lot scientists don't know about our climate, and while this remains the case there will never be consensus.

The big problem in my view is that governments have certain agenda they wish to pursue, and then truth is always the first casualty.

 

[spooly74]

Forum: Is Extreme Weather Linked to Global Warming?

In the past year, the world has seen a large number of extreme weather events, from the Russian heat wave last summer, to the severe flooding in Pakistan, to the recent tornadoes in the U.S. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, a panel of experts weighs in on whether the wild weather may be tied to increasing global temperatures.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Analysis Section.
Yes, undoubtedly. The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities.

Andrew Watson, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.
My answer to this question as posed is no.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not just wrong, but wrongheaded — every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove climate change.

Kerry Emanuel, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Program in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate.
There is some evidence that hydrological events are becoming more extreme. This is not so easy to estimate, because rainfall is often quite local, so a good network of observing stations is required.

Judith Curry, chair of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing.

Laurens Bouwer, climate scientist at Vrije University, Amsterdam.
Even more important is that other processes determine the impact of extreme weather events — principally the way humans modify their environment and often settle in locations where natural hazards occur.

Gabriele C. Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.
Individual weather extremes can generally neither confirm nor dispute the role of humans in climate change. The only meaningful approach is to estimate changes in the probability of events of the kind observed, and then see if human influence has changed this probability.

William Hooke, director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program.
Teasing out long-term changes in the relationships linking the extremes and the averages merits concerted and sustained scientific attention, but will remain a multi-year aspiration.


Snippets of answers provided. Link

 

[Calliope]

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Analysis Section.
Yes, undoubtedly. The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities.

Andrew Watson, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia.
My answer to this question as posed is no.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not just wrong, but wrongheaded ”” every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove climate change.

Kerry Emanuel, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Program in Atmosphere, Oceans and Climate.
There is some evidence that hydrological events are becoming more extreme. This is not so easy to estimate, because rainfall is often quite local, so a good network of observing stations is required.

Judith Curry, chair of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing.

Laurens Bouwer, climate scientist at Vrije University, Amsterdam.
Even more important is that other processes determine the impact of extreme weather events ”” principally the way humans modify their environment and often settle in locations where natural hazards occur.

Gabriele C. Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh.
Individual weather extremes can generally neither confirm nor dispute the role of humans in climate change. The only meaningful approach is to estimate changes in the probability of events of the kind observed, and then see if human influence has changed this probability.

William Hooke, director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program.
Teasing out long-term changes in the relationships linking the extremes and the averages merits concerted and sustained scientific attention, but will remain a multi-year aspiration.


Snippets of answers provided. Link

And don't forget;

Dr Bob Brown, eminent Australian messianic figure with a strong cult following, said that coal miners were to blame for the Queensland floods;
"It's the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...wn/story-e6frfku0-1225988806619#ixzz1OApaDPYD

 

[basilio]

Very interesting and useful contribution to the thread Spooly.

The full statements by the various authors adds a lot more value to understanding the full picture. As you would have noticed I think every author agreed that global warming was happening but it was unrealistic to say that a particular event was directly caused by this.

There was also another good discussion on that site which explores the role of global warming in current extreme weather events.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/whats_with_the_weather_is_climate_change_to_blame/2388/

 

[sails]

Oh Basilio, you are back. You still haven't answered my question as to what is the point of Australia risking the economy for a carbon tax when Australia emits 1.35% of world CO2?

Here's the first 27 countries from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

The top five countries emit around 70% or world CO2 emissions. Even if there is a problem, it is extremely doubtful that Australia will achieve little, if anything, to reduce emissions with a carbon tax. If so, it puts carbon tax being more about a money scam than science.

Regardless of which side might be "right" and which side might be "wrong" is not the point. Will carbon tax actually do any good for carbon emissions? If the answer is a resounding "yes", then perhaps it's time to look at the controversial "science". But if we are not sure that carbon tax will reduce emissions, then what's left is likely a money grab where apparently 10% will go to the UN for whatever.

IMO, you have wasted pages and pages of bandwidth here at ASF stating your view of the "science" - could you please now answer my practical question now that it is clear that Australia emits this tiny fraction of world co2?

Or will you rudely continue to ignore such a practical request???

 

[basilio]

I responded at length to your request on post 1888 , Sails.

Over and out.

 

[sails]

Australia's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Firstly the issue is a whole world problem.... That is what the Kyoto agreements were intended to do. But as we know America refused to ratify it and Australia followed. That reduced the impact markedly....It is also not accurate to say that other countries are not doing anything significant. ...

Well, thank you for finally responding.

Above is the reference to your post 1888 and some excerpts from that post. Might be over and out for you, but not for thinking Australians who realise that the majority of the world's biggest polluting countries obviously do not agree with you either.

From SMH: Kyoto deal loses four big nations

What's the point of bleating on and on with your side of "science" when other scientists do not agree with you either? There is a book called "The Science of Getting Rich". Just because something is called science doesn't mean it is fact. It may be a scientific theory but it isn't necessarily fact. And even more so when scientists do not come up with the same conclusion.

Goodness, medical "science" once told us eggs were bad for us and now they are good for us. Science is theory and can change as more knowledge is gained.

And why waste your time here with your version of the "science"? Is it to promote carbon tax? Because with about 50% of co2 emissions comming from countries who are not going to join a new Kyoto agreement, there is little point for Australia, imo.

And how do we know that carbon tax will actually reduce our emissions one iota? Carbon tax makes no sense. But I expect you will carry on with long, boring posts which back up your theory, but make absolutely no sense for Australia, imo. Some of the tiny emitting countries are doing something, but what they are achieving would be no more than a spit in the ocean I would think. Again, more likely because their governments are looking for more revenue.

 

[Calliope]

What's the point of bleating on and on with your side of "science" when other scientists do not agree with you either?

Because there are souls to be saved and time is running out.

"He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:20

 

[sails]

Because there are souls to be saved and time is running out.

"He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--Jas. 5:20

lol - but who is the sinner? I think the alarmists are the sinners and obviously the alarmists think the realists (they call us deniers), but I think they've got it badly wrong...

It is just like any good theological argument where neither side will ever agree. But each side will continue to argue lest the bystanders think the other side is right.

I think this whole climate / carbon tax cult is very much like an extreme religion where common sense goes out the window and, at the end of the day, it's all about money and power (and in cultist religion usually sex as well).

Good analogy, Calliope...

 

[bandicoot76]

not a bad review of the whole AGW "debate":


When Is it Appropriate to Challenge the "Consensus"?


Casey Luskin March 19, 2010 10:10 AM | Permalink



Discovery Institute senior fellow Jay Richards has an excellent piece at The American titled, "When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'," that gives 12 criteria to help us decide whether it's appropriate to doubt a particular "consensus." Richards of course notes that the very term "consensus" is often used to shut down scientific debate--but that hardly means the scientific "consensus" is necessarily wrong. Indeed, some wrongly challenge the consensus when it ought to be affirmed. Richards threads this needle carefully, explaining why we must carefully examine the scientific, sociological, rhetorical, and political dynamics of a debate to determine if the consensus deserves our assent, or our skepticism:


Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the "power of the paradigm" often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.
We shouldn't, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there's someone somewhere--easily accessible online--that thinks it's all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they're just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.

So what's a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, "between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?" Are we obligated to trust whatever we're told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don't know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific "consensus," whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it's wise to be suspicious.
Many of Richards' criteria are clearly applicable to the debate over intelligent design (ID) and neo-Darwinism. For example, Darwin's defenders make heavy use of personal attacks, and Richards suggests we ought to consider skepticism "When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate." Likewise, Richards' criteria of "When scientists are pressured to toe the party line" or ""When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish" also have immediately obvious relevance to the ID-evolution debate.

But what about Richards' first criterion: "When different claims get bundled together"? Does it apply to the ID-Darwin debate? According to Richards:

Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt.

Finally, it's worth noting that Richards final criterion -- "When we keep being told that there's a scientific consensus" -- is perhaps the most important one. The late Michael Crichton would agree. As he eloquently observed, "The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. ... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ... Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

 

[OzWaveGuy]

No observed evidence, insignificant amount of man made CO2, -ve growth, rising cost of living, new taxes - what is this Government's agenda, nothing happens by accident.

Alan Jones talks to Professor Bob Carter about climate change and a carbon tax.

 

[mexican]

No observed evidence, insignificant amount of man made CO2, -ve growth, rising cost of living, new taxes - what is this Government's agenda, nothing happens by accident.

Alan Jones talks to Professor Bob Carter about climate change and a carbon tax.

Enough said really Oz!!
A public debate Carter and co vs Flannery/Garnaut....it would be a slaughter and Flannery and Garnaut know it!!!!
It would be great if it did happen............how can we get the ball rolling Oz?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Mexican, I doubt a debate will ever happen --- too much deceit from alarmists that they know cannot be used in a debate with experts. Even non-experts like Jones and Bolt rip apart the alarmists with the simple questions that cannot be answered. Alarmists are resorting to deceitful PR campaigns that they too refuse to debate, as Bolt found out this weekend...all in the first 3mins...



The answer is very simple - don't pay a tax built on deceit and corruption.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Enough said really Oz!!
A public debate Carter and co vs Flannery/Garnaut....it would be a slaughter and Flannery and Garnaut know it!!!!
It would be great if it did happen............how can we get the ball rolling Oz?

Prof Carter is up for a debate, Flannery is silent, Garnaut, let's not go there.

gg

 

[sails]

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence...

THE international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $US1.5 billion of them traded last year - the lowest since the system opened in 2005, says a report from the World Bank.

A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States also declined, and only the European Union's internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $US120 billion. However, leaked documents appear to show that even the EU's system is in danger.

Full article from SMH and written by Fiona Harvey: Carbon credits market at point of collapse

 

[Logique]

A polemistic 'attack dog' like George Monbiot is the nearest approach to a 'scientist' the Left will nominate to go up against the likes of Profs Carter and Plimer.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...6NXSDw&usg=AFQjCNEaSODohaFjWSTcmYaE2VvbUXkeXQ ..-Climate Realists
Reply to article from Lord Monkton: Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk by John Abraham - Friday, June 4th 2010

"...ONE of the numerous artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate-extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics..."

"...One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian. What is Monbiot’s qualification to write about climate science? Well, like Abraham, he a “scientist”. Trouble is, he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialism has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham, who nevertheless presents himself as having scientific knowledge relevant 'in the area'.

...Monbiot made the mistake of pretending that he understood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which he had plainly not previously heard...."