Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK29Dj01.html

Not only puts the current heating situation in perspective but also addresses questions the other day on peak oil, gas etc.

 

[sails]

... Go and have a BEX and a good lie down, in or about the late 50's.

Haha - now what did I do to deserve such a swipe??? Sounds like you are deliberately trolling to flame emotions.

But I laugh at the desperation of the left who resort to personal attacks. It seems you guys have nothing left to defend!!!

SD wasn't offended by my question, so why should you be?

 

[sails]

Well, fortunately for you, I am not the teacher, and macca isn't your grandchild ...

So true - I will leave it to Macca...

 

[sails]

Haha - now what did I do to deserve such a swipe??? Sounds like you are deliberately trolling to flame emotions.

But I laugh at the desperation of the left who resort to personal attacks. It seems you guys have nothing left to defend!!!

SD wasn't offended by my question, so why should you be?

Oh and I should add that when you have full time care of two young grandkids due to circumstances beyond your control and have to help care for their mother with numerous doctor appointments, sometimes you are just so dog tired at night the last thing you need is to try and help an upper primary school child with learning problems with these sort of assignments.

So, before you criticise, perhaps you should stop to think that the other person's circumstances might not be the easy life that you might have...LOL

 

[Calliope]

This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:

It is not too late to attend remedial English classes.

Use it next time your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work/indoctrination?.

I hope you confine "your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work" to indoctrination Please don't attempt to help them with English. Maybe they could help you.

 

[sails]

It is not too late to attend remedial English classes.



I hope you confine "your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work" to indoctrination Please don't attempt to help them with English. Maybe they could help you.

Good pick up on the indoctrination thing there, Calliope. It's the school that is indoctrinating on climate change and they teach it as FACT even though it is not proven. It is a hypothesis as far as I can ascertain and there are many who don't believe it is fact at all. It is still controversial.

Rather than indoctrinating my grandkids, I try to teach them to have an open mind. And yes, they are told that not every one agrees with what they are taught at school on this issue and that they should keep an open mind, look at both sides of the argument and learn to weigh things up for themselves.

Orr, how is that indoctrinating??? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word?

 

[Some Dude]

It is a hypothesis as far as I can ascertain and there are many who don't believe it is fact at all. It is still controversial.

Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.

 

[white_goodman]

Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.

weve got a fair amount of threads rolling around the internet saying its controversial, look at smh commentary everyday there's a pro or anti AGW story.. few govts/politcal parties around the world that have been rolled for supporting the case might find it a controversial issue

i think the climate change debate is up there with athiest v religion debates in terms of people getting riled up

*controversial issues arent just topics you disagree with

 

[Calliope]

Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.

Instead of asking silly questions, do you own research. Obviously if you don't think it is controversial, then George Monbiot of the Guardian is your man and of course basilio. They have no doubts and will reinforce your lack of skepticism.

 

[sails]

Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.

You might have to read a bit more, SD...

I passively used to accept AGW as fact a couple of years or so ago, but after reading the threads and both sides of the argument, I realised it probably wasn't as cut and dried as I thought.

Then, when asking genuine questions here at ASF, one smart AGWer called me a "denier"... Silly person - that got my shackles up as that approach was way too cult-like, imo. However, that dumb statement really made me sit up and think that this was probably more of a cult than being realistic.

So, I started to research both sides with more interest and decided that the AGW and "climate change" seems to be more about taking money from people than actually doing anything for the environment. And, I haven't noticed any real change in weather in my 60+ years on the planet.

The media are all carrying on about a heat wave here in Qld, and I agree it's hot, but I have known it hotter. My second child was born two months before the 1972 heat wave - now that's a heat wave with temps soaring above 110 degs for almost two weeks without a cloud in the sky and on the sunshine coast (not out west where temps can climb even higher under normal conditions). We were giving extra water to the baby and bathing every couple of hours. No air cons either! That was 40 years ago so I do have trouble buying into the propaganda that we are experiencing something worse than we have had before.

 

[Some Dude]

You might have to read a bit more, SD...

I passively used to accept AGW as fact a couple of years or so ago, but after reading the threads and both sides of the argument, I realised it probably wasn't as cut and dried as I thought.

Then, when asking genuine questions here at ASF, one smart AGWer called me a "denier"... Silly person - that got my shackles up as that approach was way too cult-like, imo. However, that dumb statement really made me sit up and think that this was probably more of a cult than being realistic.

I'd be very happy to accept reading direction to anything that you find conclusive. As you and white_goodman note, there can be a cult or religious like nature to these discussions with the potential for a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. To mitigate this, I try to identify one point at a time and address that before moving onto the next. I want to be sure I have understood the point and what informed you about that point.

I have zero expectation of changing minds on these matters but I do hope to be able to hold discussions with people on these forums about what they believe and why.

So, I started to research both sides with more interest and decided that the AGW and "climate change" seems to be more about taking money from people than actually doing anything for the environment. And, I haven't noticed any real change in weather in my 60+ years on the planet.

The media are all carrying on about a heat wave here in Qld, and I agree it's hot, but I have known it hotter. My second child was born two months before the 1972 heat wave - now that's a heat wave with temps soaring above 110 degs for almost two weeks without a cloud in the sky and on the sunshine coast (not out west where temps can climb even higher under normal conditions). We were giving extra water to the baby and bathing every couple of hours. No air cons either! That was 40 years ago so I do have trouble buying into the propaganda that we are experiencing something worse than we have had before.

Stipulated that you believe AGW is based on propaganda and that you have done your research. I felt a dsicussion on the big picture would be too large of a topic to handle, especially on a forum, hence I try to focus on one point at a time. In this case, how we determine that something is controversial in the context of AGW.

If that will be too annoying, I'm happy to let it go without comment as we have had good discussions previously about the difference in the level of details we operate at and is why I asked whether you minded first instead of just jumping in.

 

[sails]

...If that will be too annoying, I'm happy to let it go without comment as we have had good discussions previously about the difference in the level of details we operate at and is why I asked whether you minded first instead of just jumping in.

thanks SD...

I would suggest you read through this thread and follow up on the links by both sides. Honestly this subject has been thrashed to death here and I don't want to get into in-depth discussions on it. There are others here with far more knowledge than myself and, much as a jury are selected for trials, the average Aussie voter will weigh up both sides and come to their own conclusions without having to be an expert. I fit more into that category than being able to argue as an expert. There are experts on both sides and I think they have been mentioned in this thread.

I do find the calling names such as "denier" to people who hold a different opinion as being unnecessary if they a rock solid case. Also, the calling for "skeptics" to be put to death is unbelievable and does the cause no good, imo. The implementation of an unwanted tax that will see billions of our hard earned go off shore and to the UN doesn't bode well as a being something authentic. It seems to be far more about the money and little, if anything, to do with the environment - at least how I see it at this point in time.

Jurors don't have to be experts to come to decisions. Voters are much the same and look for arguments that stack up, they look for truthfulness. Many voters are older and know, like I do, that our weather extremes are no worse than in our life time. History tell us extreme weather has always been with us.

 

[Calliope]

A little common sense is needed.

In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane. While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ther-its-climate/story-e6frg71x-1226552318601

 

[Some Dude]

Honestly this subject has been thrashed to death here and I don't want to get into in-depth discussions on it.

Any thoughts on why people keep posting comments then? I'm responding to what gets posted now as opposed to rehashing the past. Obviously I don't understand the rules well enough

 

[sails]

Any thoughts on why people keep posting comments then? I'm responding to what gets posted now as opposed to rehashing the past. Obviously I don't understand the rules well enough

I don't know why people keep posting - perhaps it is because there are still two sides to this thing and, because of the carbon tax, it has heated the debate more. It if were really a settled and proven fact (one way or the other), this thread would probably slip into the archives without notice.

 

[Some Dude]

A little common sense is needed.

In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane.

I agree. Would you agree that the modelling performed and projections by climate scientist are based on time frames beyond a decade?

While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.

I assume they are referring this New Scientist article?

And the temporary cooling would be deceptive. Due to the greenhouse effect, the planet as a whole would still be accumulating heat - it's just that vast amounts of heat would be going into melting ice and warming water. "It's a redistribution of heat energy," says Daniel Sigman of Princeton University, who studies the end of the last ice age and was not involved in Hansen's work.

...

Most climate scientists think the "freezer door" will remain firmly shut this century, but not Hansen. He has longed warned that there could be a huge rise in sea level this century and, with colleagues Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, he recently simulated the possible effects. Hansen included a brief summary of some of the results in an analysis of Greenland ice loss released in December. He told New Scientist a full paper is being prepared for publication, but would not discuss the details.

...

Other climate scientists are reluctant to comment before seeing the full details, but Sigman points out that climate modellers have long done experiments looking at the complex effects of melting ice sheets. These experiments also typically show regional cooling, but in Hansen's simulation the effect is much greater. The likely reason for the difference is because his simulation assumes a much more rapid acceleration of ice loss, doubling every 10 years.

About the author.

On public policy, Hansen is critical of what he sees as efforts to mislead the public on the issue of climate change. He points specifically to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's commercials with the tagline "carbon dioxide””they call it pollution, we call it life", and politicians who accept money from fossil-fuel interests and then describe global warming as "a great hoax." He also says that changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries. He was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change. Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

I find what The Australian wrote to be misleading of the New Scientist article, let alone the unpublished paper, wouldn't you? The deliberation and debate is about the extent of the damage. I'll read the published paper and post back here if you would like? I'd also be happy to discuss the Met Office story mentioned in the editorial? That is another fascinating story

 

[Smurf1976]

In my opinion the reason it has been done to death, and will be done to death for quite a while yet, is because it is essentially a religious and political issue rather than a scientific one.

Political subjects, particularly it seems those involving energy and resources, have a tendency of hanging around forever. It may not be front page news these days, but you'd be very wrong if you thought that issues such as exporting natural gas, uranium mining and building hydro-electric dams were "settled".

There are many who are concerned about the export of natural gas, noting that we are essentially selling off a key industrial feedstock and our future supply of automotive fuel at a bargain basement price. The re-industrialisation of parts of the US on the back of cheap gas adds weight to the argument.

Same goes for uranium. We export the stuff but there are many who are uncomfortable with this. Likewise practically any opinion poll shows that the community is deeply divided over the question of nuclear energy being used in Australia.

And then there's dams, the issue which lead to formation of what is now the Greens. Even today, mention of energy inevitably prompts a few "dam the Franklin" calls in Tasmanian newspapers - that issue certainly hasn't died as such and I suspect it never will. There's no firm proposal now, but if the CO2 issue turns out to be serious enough or is taken as such (ie increasing carbon price) then you don't need to be Einstein to foresee that we'll re-run the debate about SW Tasmania once again at some point in the future. Various opinion polls over the years also show that the community remains divided over the dams question (not referring to any specific dam or river) although support for hydro is stronger than for nuclear.

It's the same with things like ideas of bringing water from Northern Australia to the southern parts. The idea has been around over a century and it will always be around unless either it becomes obsolete (climate change makes it pointless or cheap desal gives us plenty of water) or something is actually built. Likewise the various railway proposals that never seem to go anywhere - they won't die in peoples' minds.

Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.

If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.

 

[Calliope]

I find what The Australian wrote to be misleading of the New Scientist article, let alone the unpublished paper, wouldn't you? The deliberation and debate is about the extent of the damage. I'll read the published paper and post back here if you would like? I'd also be happy to discuss the Met Office story mentioned in the editorial? That is another fascinating story

To tell you the truth I find the whole issue very boring. Maybe we can blame basilio with his long winded proselytising for this.

I thing Smurf has got it right;

Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.

If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.

 

[wayneL]

...............If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense.

I agree with all but this.e.

From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.

There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.

I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.

..... I feel like a broken record.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I agree with all but this.e.

From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.

There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.

I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.

..... I feel like a broken record.

No you are not a broken record, I agree totally with your comments and this nonsense needs to be resisted.

From the 50's onwards religion began to be questioned in the west and science overtook it as a new faith, with verifiability and Popperism being it's golden tenets.

In the 80's and 90's science began a slow descent in to the religious dissonance, abandoning Popper's tenets.

Scientists now rely on modelling or predictions far out in to the future while ignoring events far in to the past. At least they have improved on the religious who hold to both.

It is driven by funding and self-interest , as religion was for centuries.

Spin has now taken over the Weather Global Warming ( Used to be Cooling) cabal.

The British Met Office released a variation to their warming predictions on Christmas Eve, probably to conceal it in the festivity news.

The University of East Anglia has been discredited over collusive emails some years ago.

There are a whole priestly hierarchy in our universities with rich political believers funding this new religion.

I have no doubt that industrialisation has had an effect on the environment, but their gloomy predictions fit in more with a heaven and hell scenario, than rigid science.

And they call those who question them " Deniers " as the religious used call people " Heretics " , and the former find it difficult to get even junior posts in universities, the new religious seminaries.

I shall buy a scuba tank to escape death or burning when I am thrown in the pond by these clerical "scientific" fanatics.

gg