Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
So wayne you now accept/embrace a Peer reviewed paper as acceptable scientific evidence?

Thats a turn up for the books isn't it ? I mean you have spent the last umpteen years trashing the rest of the climate research world despite the thousands of peer reviewed studies exploring the evidence behind global warming. Somehow they were always dodgy and totally unacceptable.

And you are so uncritical in your rush to sprout this dribble that you manage to swallow Christopher Moncktons conclusion that, in fact, only .3% of papers on the subject support the consensus.

Taking Consensus Denial to the Extreme

One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education. The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog. Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).

The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process.
Click to expand...

Does this sort of statement remotely pass the common sense test ? I also wonder how on earth a peer review process managed to allow such a distortion to pass.

And was there something you missed about the credibility of Willie Soons writings on Global Warming ? the part where his 2003 paper was dismantled by 13 scientists because he misrepresented the figures etc ?

Anyway keep your head in the sand Wayne and your eyes firmly closed. You'll never have to be concerned about any of this stuff will you you ?
 
basilio said:
So wayne you now accept/embrace a Peer reviewed paper as acceptable scientific evidence?

Thats a turn up for the books isn't it ? I mean you have spent the last umpteen years trashing the rest of the climate research world despite the thousands of peer reviewed studies exploring the evidence behind global warming. Somehow they were always dodgy and totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You see this is the sort of fallacious argument that makes you such an objectionable little clown.

By your comments below, you tacitly admit that peer review has some problems and then accuse me of hypocrisy. This serves to highlight your own hypocrisy. No, I do not believe peer review is a perfect process. Your own oft quoted journal of all things liberal (in the commie pinko sense) highlights the problem in this article http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

However, there is enough in the paper, along with analysis from other climate (etc) scientists that expose Cook's survey as a cooked book. The whole SkS site is run on the same lines - advocacy, rather than pure science and therefore not authoritative.

And you are so uncritical in your rush to sprout this dribble that you manage to swallow Christopher Moncktons conclusion that, in fact, only .3% of papers on the subject support the consensus.

Does this sort of statement remotely pass the common sense test ? I also wonder how on earth a peer review process managed to allow such a distortion to pass.
Click to expand...

The paper does what it set out to do, and that is expose rubbish. Whether we take that particular slant on the stats does not matter, that the methodology is totally septic and intellectually putrid is beyond doubt

And was there something you missed about the credibility of Willie Soons writings on Global Warming ? the part where his 2003 paper was dismantled by 13 scientists because he misrepresented the figures etc ?
Click to expand...

Previous writings are not relevant to this point. What is relevant is the topic at hand

Anyway keep your head in the sand Wayne and your eyes firmly closed. You'll never have to be concerned about any of this stuff will you you ?
Click to expand...

Can you possibly be any more detestable. Can you be any more mendacious in misrepresenting people.

Mate, in light of your support for a carbon tax vis a vis substantially higher energy prices (with no net effect on emissions), your support of the extreme scenario in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary and the failure of the catastrophic scenario to eventuate, I have developed a theory about you.

I thought you were just a zealot replacing some or another fundamental deity based religious adherence, for another - some deep psychological need for an apocalypse to believe in.

But I think it's something else, perhaps a pecuniary interest. I'd like to know what you do for income and whether it relies on high energy prices and/or the fear of high energy prices, zealously perpetuated in your own greedy self interest.
 
Wayne were are certainly getting better at vigorous debate arn't we ! Not to mention a searching analysis of the qualities of "Peer reviewed papers".

So because somehow Soon et all managed to get their paper past a peer review process you believe this gives them the star of approval as quality science.

On the other hand you deny that "star of approval" to the thousands of other papers that have routinely shown that

1) Climate Change is real
2) It is having a multitude of effects around the world
3) That on all the best evidence the biggest factor in our current climate change is excess human produced CO2 (plus other greenhouse gases)

Lets be clear - you repeatedly defamed the leading scientists in the field ; you routinely ignore any reference to papers that quote their work ; you selectively quote from a range of material that has almost never seen a peer review process.

The science around climate change is not based on a single paper or even a hundred. The reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge the reality and cause of current climate change is the breadth and depth of the research. That is the 12,000 plus papers that Cook et al worked through.

Cook and co (like the 3 other researchers before them ) found that when one examines the scientific literature the overwhelmingly majority of scientists agree withe the reality and probable cause of our our current warming.

That simple wayne.

Yet somehow you choose to believe a single ridiculous paper from a number of discredited scientists/fake commentators that tries to discredit the overwhelming consensus of the rest of the scientific community.

And finally you stand under the banner of "peer reviewed science" to back up your argument.

Give us a break go have a Bex and a good lie down.
 
Further to my last post-

By GAUTAM NAIK
CONNECT

The area of Arctic sea ice was nearly 30% greater in August than a year ago, according to recent satellite data, though projections based on longer-term trends suggest the sea ice will continue its decline over time.

Arctic sea ice covered 2.35 million square miles in August, up from 1.82 million square miles a year earlier, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC, in Boulder, Colo. The level recorded last year was a record low.

Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and re-forms in the winter. "It's been much colder in the Arctic this summer, so not much ice has melted," said Julienne Stroeve, climatologist at NSIDC. The measurements were based on data obtained from U.S. weather satellites. The nearly 30% year-to-year increase partly reflects the extreme low level of sea ice in August 2012.

"If you get a record one year, you don't expect another record the next year," said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London. He also noted that data on the area of sea ice doesn't capture the whole picture, because it doesn't include the thickness””and therefore volume””of sea ice. Scientists say they need to obtain better data to gauge changes to Arctic ice volumes.

Arctic sea ice will be a key issue addressed in an October report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is expected to reiterate a long-term declining trend in Arctic summer sea ice. NSIDC data show that monthly August ice extent in the Arctic declined 10.6% a decade from 1979 to 2013. Estimates for further declines vary, but some models suggest that the Arctic will lose its August ice cover entirely by 2060, according to Dr. Stroeve.

The primary significance of this year's increase is that "the narrative of the 'spiral of death' for the sea ice has been broken," according to Judith Curry, climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen."

Scientists are continuing to debate the cause of the decline in the rate of warming over the past 15 years. A significant contributing factor seems to be associated with a shift in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns.

Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.naik@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared September 11, 2013, on page A5 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Arctic Ice Grows Almost 30% After Record Melt in 2012.
 
Such reports are based on airial observations, surface snow/ice and not vulome.

In the bigger scheme they mislead the public. A few metres of changing surface snow/ice is vastly different to ice blocks 100s of metres thick sliding into the ocean due to temperature rising underneath them.
 
Its a fair report, I don't see how you could say that doesn't support the science, Mikei. Of course it is a complex dynamic system so we can't understand all the variables.

Climate is not weather.

We are getting a general increase in temperatures but weather is highly variable and changes from day to day and year to year. You can still expect hot years and cold years, however the direction is that the climate is warmer overall and so the mean of the weather temperatures is increasing.

If what happened in the previous year happened again then there would be little ice left. If this had of occurred we all would have been surprised and worried that possibly the climate models were wrong and climate change was accelerating instead of being linear as what has occurred over the last 30 years.

I notice they mentioned the Pacific. Something's happening down here with that. Records are just tumbling in Australia at present.
 
Note, they use Judith Curry to try to soften the overall report.

Here's some information about her.

Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler.

Some other stuff she's been wrong about:
Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4]
The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5][6]
(From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[7]
Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.

Of course she is probably being paid by the Heartland Institute. There is heaps more embarrassing stuff on her if you wish to look.
 
;):rolleyes:Knobby can you please attribute that passage.

Also, I am disappointed you didn't find to big tobacco, big asbestos, CFCs, the Bildebergers, reptilian aliens or the Yakuza.... Or News Corp
 
On Catalyst (ABC 1) tonight palaeontologists stated that parts of Australia were 12 degrees hotter some millions of years ago. This is hugely more than climate scientists are predicting over the next 50-100 years (ie 4 to 6 degrees).

My view is that significant anthropogenic global warming is yet to be proved and most of the modelling of such is flawed.
 
A few billion years back before that, the earth was just a ball of molten rock. So you could argue that we are in a cooling phase:rolleyes:
 
It is all weather as has been proven by independent scientists.

Climate is too long term to be modelled with data over such a short time span.

It is all weather.

gg
 
moXJO said:
IPCC admits it got it wrong with its temperature predictions?
Click to expand...


UN's mild climate change message will be lost in alarmist translation -


ON September 26, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will present the summary of its most recent assessment report, the fifth in 23 years. Although the IPCC is not perfect -

it famously predicted that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 2035, when the more likely year is 2350 - its many experts generally give us the best information on the fractious issue of global warming. Because of extensive leaks, the report's contents are mostly known.

And, because we have done this four times already, how the report will play out politically is also mostly known. But because 20 years of efforts to address climate change have not amounted to anything serious, it might be worth exploring a different strategy this time.

The new report's fundamental conclusion will be that global warming is real and mostly our own doing. Much will be said and written about the fact that the IPCC is now even more certain (95 per cent, up from 90 per cent in 2007) that humans have caused more than half of the global rise in temperature since 1950. But this merely confirms what we have known for a long time - that burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, which tends to warm the planet.

As climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University tweeted: "Summary of upcoming IPCC report: 'Exactly what we told you in 2007, 2001, 1995, 1990 reports' " More specifically, the report's June draft shows "similar" temperature rises to the earlier reports, about 1C-3.7C by the end of the century. For sea-level rise, the IPCC now includes modelling of glacier responses of 3cm-20cm, leading to a higher total estimate of 40cm-62cm by century's end - much lower than the exaggerated and scary figure of 1m-2m of sea-level rise that many environmental activists, and even some media outlets, bandy about.

Similarly, the IPCC has allowed for lower temperature rises by reducing the lower end of its estimate of so-called climate sensitivity.

It is also less certain that humans have caused hurricane and drought events since 1950. The 2007 report was more than 50 per cent certain that they have; now it is less than 21 per cent certain. Yet these sensible and moderate findings will be met with a predictable wall of alarmism. Many will mimic the blogger Joe Romm, who has declared that "this ultra-conservative and instantly obsolete report ignores the latest science", and continues to claim 5C temperature rises and six-foot (1.83m) sea-level rises. Romm and many others made similar arguments following the release of the 2007 IPCC report, claiming that the latest, much more alarming, research had been left out.

The bigger problem for the IPCC is that global temperature has risen little or not at all in the past 10-20 years. To be clear, this slowdown does not mean that there is no global warming - there is; but it does call into question how much.

To its credit, the IPCC admits that "models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years". This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt. Compared with the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159 per cent.

A new Nature Climate Change study shows the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the past 15 years by more than 300 per cent. Several studies from this year show that the slowdown could be caused by a natural cycle in the Atlantic or Pacific that caused temperatures to rise more in the 1980s and 1990s but that has slowed or stopped global warming now. Global warming is real, but it has probably been exaggerated in the past, just as it is being underestimated now.

This highlights the fact that the IPCC has always claimed only that more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans, although in public discussion it has usually been interpreted as all. As the IPCC emphasises, climate change is a problem. But the report contains none of the media's typical apocalyptic scenarios, no alarmism, and no demands from natural scientists to cut emissions by X per cent or to lavish subsidies on solar panels.

All of this is almost certain to be lost in the hullabaloo from lobbyists clamouring for action and media hungry for bad news. Indeed, though the IPCC, according to its own principles, is a policy-neutral organisation, its head, Rajendra Pachauri, will feed the frenzy by insisting that "humanity has pushed the world's climate system to the brink", and that we need to complete a "transition away from fossil fuels", maybe with some kind of "price of carbon". As a result, the likely outcome of the report's release will be more of the same: a welter of scary scenarios, followed by politicians promising huge carbon cuts and expensive policies that have virtually no impact on climate change. Maybe we should try to alter this scenario. We should accept that there is global warming.

But we should also accept that current policies are costly and have little upside. The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05C. The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources.

To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in R&D to reduce green energy's cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming - without the angst. Bjorn Lomborg directs the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. -

See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-fni1hfs5-1226719580947#sthash.JlUXceru.dpuf
Click to expand...
...
 
Here's a good post from the ABC web site that miraculously got published.:D

The adults are now marching through Canberra removing all the deadwood and dismantling the boondoggle bureaucracy that was a hallmark of the Rudd-Gillard-RuddII triumverate.

More amusing is watching the couch experts in the Greens and the ACF squealing as the iconoclastic toe-cutters move through the crowd of climate carpetbaggers and rentseekers cleansing the country of this combined cabal of crooks and their enablers
Click to expand...
 
(As usual) just can't believe how quickly people want to to jump on and promote papers that are trying to guess and downgrade what the IPCC report will say.

Is it so obvious to point out that what you are seeing and promoting is the spin from those who want to diminish the essence of what is happening to our climate ? Regardless of what the report will say in its entirety these slanted stories are intended to destroy the full picture. Just ask yourself :

"When was the last time The Australian published an analysis of global warming that coincided even vaguely with the reports of the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists ?


Thats right. The last blue moon.

Lets see what what the bare facts are.

1) Excessive CO2 production (fossil fuel burning) is and will cause increases in global temperature

2) We are are not yet certain of how hot it will get but we already have .8C and we are on the path for at least another 1 to 3.7 C by the end of the Century

3) Given that we are on a steeply rising trajectory of increases in CO2 because of current fossil fuel policies (burn everything in sight) there seems no way we will stop at the bottom end of the projections.

4) If/when we do go over 2-3 degrees C temperature increase we will have a climate that cannot support the overwhelmingly majority of ecosytems we currently enjoy. Simply speaking kiss goodbye to most of the environment that currently supports us and consider what might replace it. ( Hint check out Central Australia with floods.)

But don't worry folks. By then we will have rockets ready to take us boldly to Mars and beyond ... or perhaps some cosy mountain tops in Siberia ?

If somehow cliamte sensitivity to CO2 turns out to be lower than current estimates it just means it will take a few decades longer to reach these higher temperatures ie when CO2 levels reach 5-6-700 PPM.

Don't worry. At the current accelerating rate we seem likely to reach 900-1000 PPM by 2100. So just how warm will it be then ?

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate
 

Similar threads

bigdog
4 reasons why the ASX 200 will struggle in September
Replies
8
Views
609
DannyB0000
DannyB0000
ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
25K
ducati916
ducati916
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
14K
ducati916
ducati916
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
2K
divs4ever
divs4ever
ducati916
July 2025 DDD
2 3
Replies
45
Views
7K
ducati916
ducati916
Top