wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,610
- Reactions
- 14,339
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
Just some deniable facts. Damn scientists always puting their oar in. Should be left to common sense.
Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission
The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change.
It says the number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960
Ice sheet warming faster than thought: study
Map: Antarctica
A study of temperature records over more than half a century shows the west Antarctic ice sheet is warming nearly twice as quickly as previously thought.
A re-analysis of temperature records from 1958 to 2010 revealed an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius over the period, three times the average global rise.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-24/antarctic-ice-sheet-warming-faster-than-thought-study/4442722
Climate models yield confidence question
Grand statements about climate change impacts are all very well for scientists - a global average temperature rise of so many degrees Celsius, a global change in precipitation of such-and-such percent.
But no-one lives on the global average. We all have a home - and what might be very useful, be you a farmer or a city-dweller, would be some precise indications of what the future holds for your farm, your street, your village.
It's precisely what many people here at the UN climate talks are worrying about.
A couple of years ago, the UK government, using science from the Met Office and elsewhere, published a detailed study of likely climate impacts across the UK itself.
The idea was to tell authorities, businesses and communities what they could expect in decades to come in terms of rainfall changes and other parameters important when planning the future.
The project came in for a kicking from some climate modellers who said it was simply impossible to make localised projections with any kind of confidence, given the current state of modelling science.
Now, on the fringes of the UN talks, the Met Office - at the government's request - has published a new study plotting likely climate impacts on 24 countries around the world.
Twenty-one computer models of climate were quizzed for answers on issues such as vulnerability to floods, rainfall changes and suitability for growing crops.
And you can interpret at least some of the findings, again, as an exercise in the unfeasible.
The UK is actually one of the best-studied countries in the world owing to a tradition of weather measurements that dates back centuries.
So the findings for the UK are among the most definite in the report.
As the Daily Telegraph put it, "good news for farmers" - virtually all of the UK's farmland is set to become more productive.
As the Guardian reported it - "millions more at flood risk".
When you look at the figures a little more, however, you see distinct differences in the confidence associated with each of those conclusions.
In calculating the proportion of UK farmland likely to become more fertile, the models' answers ranged from 60% to 99% - pretty firm stuff - and only one projected any losses in any parts of the country.
The flooding picture, however, is different, with estimates ranging from a 56% reduction in flood risk to a 180% increase.
Looking into other countries, even bigger discrepancies materialise.
The change in flood risk to Bangladesh - surely one of the most flood-prone countries in the world even without climate impacts - ranged from -59% to 557%
Dry Egypt could be better off by 100%, or worse off by 206%.
And an eagle-eyed colleague spotted that the proportion of Peruvians likely to be under more serious water shortages was calculated to be a round 0%.
The Met Office team explained that the impacts of melting glaciers were not included in their modelling - and that's set to be a serious issue not only in Peru but the much more populous nations around the Himalayas.
When quizzed about these figures, one of the Met Office scientists said that many other projections were based on single computer models.
Putting the range of uncertainty in the public domain from this large suite of models was, she said, "intellectually honest".
Fair enough. But the exercise also surely gives you an insight into the limits of current modelling when the various models, each of them supposed to be "state-of-the-art", reach such divergent conclusions.
As a policymaker, as a business leader, as a citizen, would you make decisions on the basis of these models?
Just some deniable facts. Damn scientists always puting their oar in. Should be left to common sense.
But you know, religion has often attacked science as Galileo would agree.
Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission
The report - Off the Charts: Extreme Australian Summer Heat - warns of more extreme bushfires and hotter, longer, bigger and more frequent heatwaves, due to climate change.
It says the number of record heat days across Australia has doubled since 1960 and more temperature records are likely to be broken as hot conditions continue this summer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960...]
And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse. Again, what is your point?
I think Knobby is having a touch of climate hysteria. A few hot days will do that to impressionable people. A cold shower could help.
... Should be left to common sense. ...
... to stay cool at night is to have a cold shower. ...
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;
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.
And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse. Again, what is your point?
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.
And hasn't China just had record cold, so what is your point?
I asked the same of IFocus but he has ignored it...
We have had heatwaves before - I have known worse. Again, what is your point?
I could take this up if you like?
...I'd suggest anyone who see climate change as left win propaganda is to back your belief with some hard cold cash and buy some coastal property. If you're right you should make a lot of capital gains, if you're wrong, well you can see what coastal erosion and storm surges are all about.
Could you cite some of those valid peer studies you refer to?
Resisting climate hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen
July 26, 2009
A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
Link- http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
... We live on waterfront...lol
And so does your AGW promoter, Flannery....
It would seem he has no fear of waters rising.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?