Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Annual seasonal snow ice is totally unrelated to the original perma ice, which is currently dissappearing off the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica.

What is really (actually) happening is continually twisted by the scepticle oil coal brigade.

 

[noco]

Annual seasonal snow ice is totally unrelated to the original perma ice, which is currently dissappearing off the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica.

What is really (actually) happening is continually twisted by the scepticle oil coal brigade.

Oh dear, oh dear me......you just cannot accept reality no matter how much contradiction is thrown up to you.

What is now real is the untruths told by Al Gore, Tim Flannery and the Green UN...These people have been proven wrong over and over again......More and more people are now being converted....Perhaps you should join them.

This farce and scam will soon stop.

 

[noco]

Here is more information to digest about the myth of Global Warming or Climate Change.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...onal-sovereignty/story-e6frg6zx-1227387305726

The one thing that is settled in climate science is that if you deviate from the officially sanctioned scripture, you will be severely dealt with.

Take the University of Western Australia’s withdrawal of its offer to establish the Australian Consensus Centre because it failed to conform to global-warming orthodoxy. The founder, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the basic tenet of man’s role in global warming but differs on how to respond. In the totalitarian world of eco-catastrophism, competing views must be silenced.

Surely this bullying is wearing thin. For nearly 50 years we have been assailed with dud predictions of man-made climate disasters — first cooling, then warming.

It was always problematic that a trace gas which represents 39/1000ths of one per cent of the atmosphere could be the dominant driver of climate, and no surprise, after 18 ½ years of stasis, that more than 95 per cent of the IPCC’s climate models we have long been assured prove global warming’s link to CO2 emissions are in error.

Now please read the rest of the link.

 

[noco]

Here is more fallacies, myths and mistakes made by the IPCC and their so called scientist.

When are the alarmist going to cease with their stupidity on Global Warming?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ifa-is-to-soccer/story-e6frg6n6-1227388635773

Given our deference to experts in these technocratic times, it’s troubling how often they get it wrong. Take Matthew England, an expert on global warming, who on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 warned that the Antarctic was “losing ice at an alarmingly fast rate.”

“There’s a net mass loss of such a scale that Antarctica’s actually contributing as much today to sea-level rise as the Greenland ice sheet,” he told the ABC’s Lateline.

Five-and-a-half years later the continent remains stubbornly frozen. The sea-ice record has been broken for the third year running and fuel is being flown to Mawson base by helicopter because the icebreakers can’t get through.

England and his colleagues believe they have an explanation. Greenhouse gas has changed the wind pattern and Antarctica is stealing Australia’s rain, claims Robert Mulvaney, a co-author with England of a report on the subject last year. “As greenhouse gases continue to rise we’ll get fewer storms chased up into Australia,” Mulvaney claimed.

Yet when storms hit NSW in April, England saw a sign of things to come. “All around the world we’re seeing the return period of storms, heatwaves ... the return periods are shortening,” he said.

“It’s consistent with what we’re seeing with global warming.”

It’s on the strength of this unsettled science that Australia and other nations are being asked to channel a trillion dollars a decade to the developing world and cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 per cent. By agreeing to these measures at a conference in Paris later this year, the theory goes, we can limit this century’s rise in global temperature to 2C.

As we know, however, the guesstimate is a fickle friend. For two-and-a-half decades, the planet has been defying the experts’ expectations. At the 1988 Toronto conference experts warned temperatures would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2050. With 27 years gone and 35 to go the rise is barely a quarter of a degree. The world had better roll its sleeves up.

The global warming thesis is resistant to discordant evidence. The hockey-stick graph adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a totem in 2001 has been abandoned; the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 has been declared a mistake; global temperatures have levelled over the past 15 years, a hiatus the IPCC did not predict and cannot explain. Yet the catastrophism will not abate.

No one expects experts to be perfect, but as Robert Watson — a former IPCC

 

[basilio]

Paying for the Climate denial (mis)information.

Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years

Funds allocated to organisations lobbying against Obama’s climate bill and working to undermine rules to reduce carbon pollution, tax records show


Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson

Tuesday 9 June 2015 21.26 AEST
Last modified on Tuesday 9 June 2015 22.21 AEST

The secretive funders behind America’s conservative movement directed around $125m (£82m) over three years to groups spreading disinformation about climate science and committed to wrecking Barack Obama’s climate change plan, according to an analysis of tax records.

The amount is close to half of the anonymous funding disbursed to rightwing groups, underlining the importance of the climate issue to US conservatives.

The anonymous cash flow came from two secretive organisations – the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund – that have been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the conservative movement.

The funds, which when channelled through the two organisations cannot be traced to individual donors, helped build a network of thinktanks and activist groups. These worked to defeat climate bills in Congress and are mobilising against Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants which are due to be finalised this summer. In many cases, the anonymous cash makes up the vast majority of funding received by beneficiaries – more than comes openly from the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

 

[luutzu]

Paying for the Climate denial (mis)information.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

Heard they're also channeling money into schools in the US - to provide "fair" and balance teaching about global warming. Kinda like Creationism can be scientific.

 

[noco]

Heard they're also channeling money into schools in the US - to provide "fair" and balance teaching about global warming. Kinda like Creationism can be scientific.

The good old Guardian commo paper, one sided as always.

Read the comments.

Paul Moulton
1h ago
3 4

A few obvious points:

1) one sides information is the others disinformation
2) activists whining about activism is hypocritical
3) skeptic funding is peanuts to warmist funding
Reply
Report

palindrom Paul Moulton
1h ago

6 7

1) False symmetry.
2) Huh?
3) Bull****. Real research costs real money. Wingnut welfare is derp-cheap.
Reply
Report
John Samuel Paul Moulton
1h ago
5 6

Science funding is science funding.

Denialist PR funding is many times larger than realists PR funding.

FIFY.
Reply
Report
james rust
2h ago
3 4

The money funneled to groups promoting abandoning fossil fuel use is in the tens of billions per year--some funded by Putin. Why not do an article looking at these expenditures.

James H. Rust , Professor
Reply
Report

palindrom james rust
1h ago

4 5

Why would Putin fund groups devoted to abandoning fossil fuel use, when Russia depends on fossil fuel exports for a very large portion of its revenue?
Reply
Report
Paul Moulton palindrom
1h ago
1 2

Because fracking competes with Russian gas perhaps.
Reply
Report





leftAlready
2h ago
1 2

And by contrast, in 2011, the US spent $4 billion on climate research. For those of you not very good at maths, that's 96 times the spend on 'contra' research.
CERN, the European theoretical physics research centre, spends 50% of it's budget on 'contra' research. Why? Because when it publishes papers, it wants to ensure that the findings are sound.
As it is clear to see from the catalogue of errors coming out of the IPCC and others (temperature hiatus, lack of deep ocean warming, increase in antarctic ice), they are not being held accountable for their poor performance . The IPCC 'scientists' have been clamouring over the last few years to refute or 'explain' these deviations from their models and yet still expect the population to believe the future predictions of the same models!
It should be fairly clear to all that the 'contra' scientists should have their funding increased to help promote 'good' science. Currently, climate 'sceptics' are like Galileo and the Renaissance church and the science being produced by the IPCC virtually unchallenged by the 97% of scientists that want part of that $4 billion pot of gold.
It is also clear, from recent apathy and voting trends, that the voting public are not convinced either. If something is really to be done about climate change, get the science right and, for the love of good science, bring back a balance; 97% of scientists believing in a climate model smacks, to me at least, of the voting patterns in a banana republic.

 

[luutzu]

The good old Guardian commo paper, one sided as always.

Read the comments.

Paul Moulton
1h ago
3 4

A few obvious points:

1) one sides information is the others disinformation
2) activists whining about activism is hypocritical
3) skeptic funding is peanuts to warmist funding
Reply
Report

palindrom Paul Moulton
1h ago

6 7

1) False symmetry.
2) Huh?
3) Bull****. Real research costs real money. Wingnut welfare is derp-cheap.
Reply
Report
John Samuel Paul Moulton
1h ago
5 6

Science funding is science funding.

Denialist PR funding is many times larger than realists PR funding.

FIFY.
Reply
Report
james rust
2h ago
3 4

The money funneled to groups promoting abandoning fossil fuel use is in the tens of billions per year--some funded by Putin. Why not do an article looking at these expenditures.

James H. Rust , Professor
Reply
Report

palindrom james rust
1h ago

4 5

Why would Putin fund groups devoted to abandoning fossil fuel use, when Russia depends on fossil fuel exports for a very large portion of its revenue?
Reply
Report
Paul Moulton palindrom
1h ago
1 2

Because fracking competes with Russian gas perhaps.
Reply
Report





leftAlready
2h ago
1 2

And by contrast, in 2011, the US spent $4 billion on climate research. For those of you not very good at maths, that's 96 times the spend on 'contra' research.
CERN, the European theoretical physics research centre, spends 50% of it's budget on 'contra' research. Why? Because when it publishes papers, it wants to ensure that the findings are sound.
As it is clear to see from the catalogue of errors coming out of the IPCC and others (temperature hiatus, lack of deep ocean warming, increase in antarctic ice), they are not being held accountable for their poor performance . The IPCC 'scientists' have been clamouring over the last few years to refute or 'explain' these deviations from their models and yet still expect the population to believe the future predictions of the same models!
It should be fairly clear to all that the 'contra' scientists should have their funding increased to help promote 'good' science. Currently, climate 'sceptics' are like Galileo and the Renaissance church and the science being produced by the IPCC virtually unchallenged by the 97% of scientists that want part of that $4 billion pot of gold.
It is also clear, from recent apathy and voting trends, that the voting public are not convinced either. If something is really to be done about climate change, get the science right and, for the love of good science, bring back a balance; 97% of scientists believing in a climate model smacks, to me at least, of the voting patterns in a banana republic.

Would you take prescriptions from a Witch Doctor? Or take herbal medicine if you're seriously ill?

So what's the other side of the Global Warming debate? That it's the weather and weather changes? That they say it's getting hot but it's only hot over there while over here it's really cold? That there's historic droughts in places they haven't seen for literally 1200 years, but there's plenty of rain and flooding at other places?

And let say it's just the Mother Nature being moody... wouldn't alternative, clean, energy be good for the world?

Cleaner air, less illness and lung cancer; in some places people could actually start to see blue skies again.

Then there's the wildlife, less pollution, more innovative research into alternative sources - ensuring greater energy security and diversification... who knows, might lead to discovery of alternative energy sources that could lead to future discoveries to cost effectively power the human race to other planets.

But keep things are they are, what's the worst that could happen right?

Heard a recent heatwave in India killed some 1700 people. But if we're rich enough we'll just stay indoor, turn on the aircon - problem is, billions of people in the world couldn't do that, and could just truck in water or order in their groceries.

anyway... with the billions that's been thrown around to dilute the debate, I'm not surprise it will get to some people.

 

[basilio]

If you want to trade comments from The Guardian article try this one for size Noco. Sums you up to a T.

JJRichardson JohnJohnJohnJohn
3h ago
5 6

You are wilfully uninformed.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
And, https://www.climatecommunication.or...es-and-climate-change/heat-waves-the-details/

WiningPom JohnJohnJohnJohn
3h ago
5 6

'EVERYBODY should be questioning global warming alarmism.'
Thousands of scientists do question it and keep coming up with the same answer.
You should go and sit in a greenhouse and think.

 

[wayneL]

They all keep coming up with the same answer basilio?

And you accuse others of being wilfully misinformed?

Mon Dieu!!!

 

[basilio]

They all keep coming up with the same answer basilio?

And you accuse others of being wilfully misinformed?

Mon Dieu!!!

Exactly what sort of BS are you sprouting now Wayne ? The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists research shows we have a very significant change already happening to our climate and ecosystems ? It's a funny thing but whenever mathematicians add up the same series of numbers the answer is always the same. Doesn't make it dodgy - just right. And besides which the physical evidence of changes in ecosystems as the climate warms is quite clear.

You have to be very, very deliberate to ignore the wealth of evidence that shows what is happening in the real world.

And you have to be particularly picky with half truths, outright lies and misinformation to manufacture a case that there is nothing seriously wrong.

__________________________________________________

Still like to see any significant analysis of the recent study which demonstrates there has been no hiatus in global warming in the past 17 years. I would have thought "the usual suspects" would have something to say bynow?

 

[trainspotter]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

The "hockey stick" graph was prominently featured in a report the IPCC issued in 2001. The image immediately became a powerful tool for people who were trying to raise public awareness of global warming ”” to the regret of some seasoned climate experts who recognized that, like all science at the point of publication, the graph was preliminary and uncertain.

Warmer ... getting warmer.

 

[wayneL]

J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.

There are points of broad agreement and points of disagreement amongst scientists. Surely you cannot deny that...... unless you only inhabit SkS, Romm et al sites?

 

[basilio]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm



Warmer ... getting warmer.

That was a very interesting site TS. Did you notice the paragraph a bit further on discussing the Mann Hockey stick graph ?

Any lingering doubts were quashed in 2012-2013 with the publication of two definitive studies. One study, signed by 78 authors in a massive collaboration, used tree rings and other proxies in seven continental areas to check the findings of Mann's team. They found that the world at the opening of the 21st century was unquestionably warmer than at any time in the past two millennia. The other study used a variety of climate proxies from sea-floor sediments, plus some terrestrial ones, to get highly accurate data far into the past. Their graph showed a rise at the end of the last glacial period, fairly steady temperatures to around 4000BCE, and then a gradual decline ”” until the abrupt rise in the 20th century, shooting back to the level of the warm period around 9000-4000 BCE and on track to climb beyond.(48b)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

 

[basilio]

J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.

There are points of broad agreement and points of disagreement amongst scientists. Surely you cannot deny that...... unless you only inhabit SkS, Romm et al sites?

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Is that broad enough for you Wayne?

My point and that of the vast majority of scientists in the field is that the evidence is in that we have significant human caused global warming and that on all understandings to date this will continue and in fact could very well accelerate as a number of climate tipping points come into play.

If this overall picture is understood and accepted as one of broad agreement amongst scientists well and good.

On the disagreements? Well Climate models are not perfect by any means. Thats why they have bands around future temperature projections. They reflect upper and lower levels of climate sensitivity and are also there to reflect possible changes in how we behave as community.

Simply put : If we can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and even pull some CO2 from the air via carbon capture or sequestration we might stabilise temperatures at 2-3 C above historical levels.

If on the other hand we allow GG to rip then all current understandings of climate scientists is that global temperatures will increase by 5-6C plus with all the consequences that will follow.

 

[trainspotter]

That was a very interesting site TS. Did you notice the paragraph a bit further on discussing the Mann Hockey stick graph ?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

Yeah it was one of the more "balanced" missives I have read in a long time explaining that the scientists jumped the gun a bit on their modelling as they really had no clue as to what they were actually observing. This is why they are having a tough time now pushing their barrow as the information they let loose to the public was full of factual errors. Now that they have more of a grasp of what they are studying they are finding that nature is a very tricky BIATCH indeed !

 

[wayneL]

There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community.

Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.

 

[explod]

J'accuse basilio my shrill friend.

No need to be nasty ole pal, but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality

 

[trainspotter]

No need to be nasty ole pal, but typical of the deniest camp who are concerned about what may be the emerging reality

MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY:-

shrill
verb \ˈshril, especially Southern ˈsril\
: to make a very loud, high-pitched sound

: to say (something) in a very loud, high-pitched voice

The principle of Net Neutrality calls for equal treatment to be accorded to all Internet traffic, without discrimination or priority for any person, entity or company.

“There has to be democratic debate. It’s a debate that is waiting to happen. Shrill voices do not win debate. Cool-headed reasoned arguments on both sides are need of the hour,” Mr. Khullar said.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-win-net-neutrality-debate/article7118961.ece

I am not sure if you have been paying attention but wayneL is NOT in the "deniest camp". He has repeatedly suggested that the science is not settled and that cherry picking data and laying claim to the high moral ground under the disguise of "science" may not necessarily lead us to the path of enlightenment when it comes to observing "weather" (spelling and pun intended) or not man made greenhouse emissions are contributing to this "phenomenon" we as a human race are experiencing on this planet at the present time.

Just went out onto my balcony ... 30 degrees right now at 5.22pm and not a breath of wind. Must be Global Warming as this is the 10th day of winter and it should be 18 degrees and a hooking Southerly blowing dogs off chains

 

[noco]

There is no broad agreement on those points basilio. Not in the scientific community.

Politics yes (it is useful for a particular agenda), source of funding yes, acceptance in the hierarchy of academia yes, actual science not so much.

Wayne, unfortunately some people can see through a key hole with both eyes.

You will be wasting your time if you think you could have even the remote chance of converting any rusted on alarmist....The clear thinkers have woken up to the misinformation banded around these so called Climate Change scientists and have now realized that climate change is a natural phenomena allied with the Sun and the removal of man made CO2 will have little or no affect on the Earth's temperature.

It is all political with the UN right behind in their endeavors for World Government.