The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It's official! Climate alarmists are now even more alarmed… > Comments

It's official! Climate alarmists are now even more alarmed… : Comments

By Barry York, published 6/11/2014

As for 'sustainable development' has there ever been a finer oxymoron? How does development happen without change to that condition which preceded it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
So what your source.....
The "science" journal Don was writing breathlessly about.
Alan Jones talk aback radio callers.
American Heritage foundation.
World net daily
Whatswhatwiththat
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 6 November 2014 9:54:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I were about to board an aircraft surrounded by 100 extremely concerned flight engineers, 98 of who said it was in no condition to fly, would I be well advised to ignore their advice, or be comforted by two dissenting opinions!?
What has changed is a formerly permanently frozen tundra now melting and releasing millions of tons of methane, into an already critically loaded atmosphere!
As for coal being irreplaceable; that's just patent garbage.
And coal left in the ground would likely be a much more valuable option than selling at cost to an already oversupplied world, and one seriously looking for other more credible options!
Anyhow, selling a lot less for much more a little later, makes better commercial sense! And look, tobacco never ever hurt us either did it!?
We have other options like cheaper than coal thorium, (more than a thousand years worth) which if rolled out coupled to micro grids, would at least halve the cost of industrial energy; but particularly if rolled out as sound public projects.
I'd imagine a falling dollar and energy sourced at half price, would force the car industry to not only pause and reflect recent decisions; but reverse them and indeed, send much more or their manufacture here.
Particularly left hand drives/electric vehicles intended for Asia!
A completely revitalized manufacturing industry is likely to supply and support more permanent jobs and their continuing creation, than coal mines being continually mothballed or permanently closed!
No amount of smug smiling by a do nothing PM is able to prevent any of that, or save so much as a single industry!
If you can't help, then just get out of the way and allow those who can to get on with it!
Preferably before a coal dependent economy completely collapses!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 6 November 2014 10:05:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article, well-written.

Even though I do not share the author's values such as progress and humanity, his logic is perfect for anyone who does share those values.

Just because I'm not interested in progress, doesn't mean that I need to say 'Yes' to this stupid cult of "global-warming". Following their dictates would indeed hamper human progress, but besides being dishonest it would also introduce an unacceptable range of side-evils.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 6 November 2014 11:50:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Development that leaves future generations worse off may be "Progress" but it's not genuine progress – we'd be far better off without it. Try looking at the truth instead of the propaganda – if more attention had been paid to sustainability, the problems of radioactive pollution in Siberian rivers could have been avoided.

What "iconic use of tidal waves" in media coverage are you referring to? I don't recall it ever been claimed that global warming would have that effect. Are you confusing it with the danger of a mountain face collapse in the Canaries or the Azores? That could affect New York, as could tsunamis from underwater landslides closer to America, but it has very little to do with climate change. And while climate change could potentially cause hundred metre sea level rises in a few centuries, its more immediate consequences are a serious threat.

Just because we have 85 years left in the timeframe considered by the IPCC doesn't mean we have that long to "adapt to even the worst changes" How long we have to adapt depends on how soon we implement our adaptations – the more we do now, the less time we'll have in future.

I completely agree that we should develop energy sources that are cheaper than coal. And despite it running counter to your idea of Progress, wind is one. Meanwhile, coal isn't as cheap or efficient as you seem to think it is, and the problems increased CO2 in the atmosphere tend to hit the poor the hardest.

Nuclear power certainly has a future, but it doesn't make much economic sense in Australia due to our low population density. As for fusion, I don't see the left opposing it, but it's still decades away from commercial viability.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 6 November 2014 12:15:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Repost with error corrected]

Development that leaves future generations worse off may be "Progress" but it's not genuine progress – we'd be far better off without it. Try looking at the truth instead of the propaganda – if more attention had been paid to sustainability, the problems of radioactive pollution in Siberian rivers could have been avoided.

What "iconic use of tidal waves" in media coverage are you referring to? I don't recall it ever been claimed that global warming would have that effect. Are you confusing it with the danger of a mountain face collapse in the Canaries or the Azores? That could affect New York, as could tsunamis from underwater landslides closer to America, but it has very little to do with climate change. And while climate change could potentially cause hundred metre sea level rises in a few centuries, its more immediate consequences are a serious threat.

Just because we have 85 years left in the timeframe considered by the IPCC doesn't mean we have that long to "adapt to even the worst changes" How long we have to adapt depends on how soon we implement our adaptations – the less we do now, the less time we'll have in future, as we'll eventually have to do more to counteract the effects of our earlier inaction.

I completely agree that we should develop energy sources that are cheaper than coal. And despite it running counter to your idea of Progress, wind is one. Meanwhile, coal isn't as cheap or efficient as you seem to think it is, and the problems increased CO2 in the atmosphere tend to hit the poor the hardest.

Nuclear power certainly has a future, but it doesn't make much economic sense in Australia due to our low population density. As for fusion, I don't see the left opposing it, but it's still decades away from commercial viability.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 6 November 2014 12:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the more the funding dries up the more alarmist gw religion needs to become. Hysterical really!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 November 2014 1:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep they're alarmed all right. Alarmed that their carefully built house of cards, built to help assert UN control in as close to one world government as possible, is collapsing, because the planet & sun are no longer cooperating.

It is going to get even harder for them to keep the public on side, even the greenies, as the cold increases.

Even a greenie has to admit, some time, that global warming can't keep making it colder for ever.

The UN have tried a switch to acidification to try to keep their scam going, but that is just too much a stretch even for non scientific folk to swallow. Those who desperately want UN control, the hard left & most academics will try, but it is over. They have lost. All we have to wait for now is the surrender.

Interesting, surprising & pleasing to find a fairly hard lefty who does not go along with the fraud.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 6 November 2014 1:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am an unrepentant moderate lefty from way back. Like everyone in the baby-boomer generation we were propagandized into believing that unlimited material "progress" was the new normal state of affairs.

Sunday night Disneyland was probably the archetypal example of this propaganda meme.

When you really examine this myth it is effectively a (now) world-wide cargo cult. Not really that much different to the naive Cargo Cults that appeared in the islands around New Guinea.

The modern shopping malls are the temples (or really bright-shiny Cathedrals) of this now world-wide cult of unlimited shopping - the credo being "I Shop Therefore I Am" and/or Shopping As Therapy.

A new one was opened just recently in one of the Gulf states. It was of course built with what was effectively SLAVE labour.

All the faithful would-be-shoppers stay faithfully tuned to their TV sets which advertise the arrival of the latest bright-shiny-colorful cargo. They thus get in their cars, go to the magnificent mall/cathedral, buy/collect their bright-shiny-colorful cargo, and go home to perhaps enjoy the momentary pleasure/thrill of their new cargo - until boredom sets in again a day or two later.

Of course we are never told about the shadow side of this Cargo Cult. All the blood sweat and tears involved in the production of this shiny cargo. Or about the world-wide destruction of the environment and the biosphere. Or about the connection to the never-ending oil and resource wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

In short we are never told that perhaps/maybe our Cargo Cult way-of-life is quite literally killing us.

We firmly believe as George Bush indicated in response to September 11, that our Cargo Cult way of life is not negotiable - and/or can go on for forever and a day.
And as a corollary to that naive belief that our "culture" and "civilization" is the most advanced form of human life that has so far appeared on the planet.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 6 November 2014 2:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty, your analogy is invalid because you cannot provide evidence for 98% of climate scientists believing the situation with climate change is catastrophic - akin to an aircraft that is in no condition to fly. The 98% figure is based on eight studies and surveys this century - I have reviewed them all. The alarmists and media in general have been very misleading and possibly dishonest in the way they use these surveys. All that can be said from the surveys by Bray and Von Storch, Oreskes, Harris Interactive, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, Anderegg et al, John Cook et al and James Powell is that 98% of scientists agree with the IPCC's two conclusions: that the planet has warmed over the past 140 years and that human activity is an important or significant factor. If you know of a study or survey that says 98% of scientists believe the situation is catastrophic - akin to an aircraft being in no condition to fly - then present a source for it. Or STOP using a totally invalid analogy. You can read my piece on the 98% here: http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/what-exactly-do-the-98-of-climate-researchers-believe/
Posted by byork, Thursday, 6 November 2014 3:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I didn't make that link byork, but now you've raised it, lets stick specifically to bona fide climate scientists, as apposed to so called scientists like say, Lord Muncton?
And if some say there's 98% agreement, then I don't need a link, or propose to provide one at this point.
Better I should wait until the usual suspects have gone out on the proverbial limb and made complete fools of themselves.
Moreover, I'm not here to do anyone else's research for them!
Things that I propose, like a progressive conversion to thorium, (1950's technology) actually enhance our economic performance, rather than harm it. Or even better performing scrubbed, bladder stored biogas, linked feeding onsite ceramic fuel cells.
Which as a combination produce an energy coefficient of 80%, the best in the world; meaning energy created onsite, is 75% less costly than wholesale coal fired power, and the endless free hot water, is an excellent costless boon.
I'm always surprised by the mindless or stubborn resistance to these ideas.
Anyone might be forgiven for believing some people really did want to pay more for their energy and everything that relies on it, like say food processing, clean potable water and transport!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 6 November 2014 4:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Rrhosty, you made a claim via an analogy that was invalid and I'm not letting you 'move on'.

Similar analogies are used frequently by people like Tim Flannery. If it's not engineers and a plane crash, it's medical specialists and some life-threatening illness. The analogy is meant to be a trump-card in debate - but it's not, because it's false.

The onus is on you to back up your claim that 98% of scientists regard the climate situation as potentially catastrophic - because you made the claim through your analogy.

In fact, the surveys reveal that 98% of scientists merely think the world has warmed (by less than 1 degree, according to IPCC) since 1880, and that human activity is a significant factor. That's it! So, either provide evidence for your false claim or stop using an invalid analogy.

I don't understand why journalists do not challenge Flannery et al every time they use the false 98% analogy. It is clearly invalid. But then again, journalists are so uncritical these days.
Posted by byork, Thursday, 6 November 2014 4:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was it 30,000, 32,000, or 39,000 scientists that signed that partition to say they did not believe in the scam of global warming?

Regardless of how many, & how many of the 56 authors of the IPCC bit of bumph, claim the signers were not all scientists, it sure proves more don't believe than do.

Don't worry folks, the whole thing is on it's last legs, soon to whither away for ever, a bit like the belief of 99.99% of medical people, who believed stomach ulcers were caused by worry. We should never forget how subject to group think our academics are. They get lonely without a group.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 6 November 2014 4:53:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork
If you got on a plane and 2 out of a hundred engineers said it was unsafe would you be happy to fly? Personally a risk of 1 in 50 is not a risk I would take. Regardless of the actual proportion of scientists who agree with the concept of dangerous climate due to excessive levels of GHGs, the risks associated with ignoring the issue, are much greater than the risks associated with moving to a low carbon emission economy.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 6 November 2014 9:17:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, don't be too quick to discount the link between stomach ulcers and stress. Although they are primarily caused by bacteria, those bacteria are present in more than half the population without a problem. Stress does greatly increase the risk of stomach ulcers developing in those who are infected.

byork, I think a more accurate analogy would be if those 98 engineers said there was a fault in the plane. They don't actually specify that it's unsafe to fly, but some of them point out that the fault has been implicated in at least one previous catastrophic crash.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 6 November 2014 11:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article Barry.

You could have pointed out that the IPCC also said:

"Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed on all continents.

If left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.

However, options are available to adapt to climate change and implementing stringent mitigations activities can ensure that the impacts of climate change remain within a manageable range, creating a brighter and more sustainable future."

The Synthesis Report confirms that climate change is being registered around the world and warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

"Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."

The report expresses with greater certainty than in previous assessments the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The more human activity disrupts the climate, the greater the risks.

Continued (increasing) emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of widespread and profound impacts affecting all levels of society and the natural world.

Barry, the IPCC's latest Synthesis Report is alarming - it is not alarmist.
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 7 November 2014 6:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, if you look at the actual surveys on which the 98% analogy is based, you will find - as I said before - that they share the consensus of the IPCC that global warming has happened and that human activity is a significant driver of it. There is no attempt in any of the surveys to ascertain whether the experts regard the situation as positive or negative, catastrophic or beneficial, neutral or whatever.

Any analogy that tries to create any degree of alarm is therefore invalid.

I would love to see a major survey undertaken to ascertain whether climate scientists regard the consequences of warming as likely to be catastrophic, slightly damaging, beneficial, slightly beneficial, or neutral on balance. However, the alarmists would have no interest in supporting such an undertaking.
Posted by byork, Friday, 7 November 2014 6:45:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps this then, Barry?

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

"In contested arenas, such as climate change, the Dunning-Kruger effect and its flow-on consequences can distort public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs.

To illustrate, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from our economic activities are altering the Earth’s climate.

This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction, 97-98% of publishing experts in the area.

In the present context, it is relevant that research has found that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

Guess who, then, would be expected to appear particularly confident when they are invited to expound their views on TV, owing to the media’s failure to recognise (false) balance as (actual) bias?

Yes, it’s the contrarian blogger who is paired with a climate expert in “debating” climate science and who thinks that hot brick buildings contribute to global warming."

It goes on but I'm sure you see the relevance.
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 7 November 2014 7:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, the bottom line is that the 95% or 98% consensus says nothing beyond the fact that human activity is a significant or principal driver of the 0.8 degree warming since 1880. If you have evidence that 95% of scientists believe the consequences will be catastrophic, then please present the source.

The IPCC synthesis summary contains elements that might be cause for alarm and other elements that negate alarm, such as the admission that 111 of the 114 models failed (ie, overstated the warming). And, of course, the report acknowledges the 'hiatus' that was not meant to happen according to the great majority of simulations.

A 2 millimetre per year sea level rise is neither alarming nor alarmist. The media has a lot to answer for in its sensationalism, as do non-climate scientists like Tim Flannery who promote alarmism and engage in incredible hyperbole.

Were I to be convinced that the situation is urgent and potentially catastrophic, I'd be advocating for nuclear power as that is the best available method of reducing CO2 emissions while not reducing our standard of living and not keeping the poor of the world poor.
Posted by byork, Friday, 7 November 2014 8:21:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh please Barry, don't you start too.

You have written a good article, and I responded in kind.

Your response seems to give credence to the article in The Conversation. Are you disagreeing with it?

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

No where, I repeat ... no where, have I claimed "catastrophic" as you appear to infer.

There is a way to transition to alternative forms of energy - but it will take time.

Many people would stand idly by like frogs in a pot of slowly heating water. More rational frogs would take proactive measures.

For what it's worth, no scientist claims "the science is settled" but some things are more certain than others.
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 7 November 2014 8:39:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote
“I would love to see a major survey undertaken to ascertain whether climate scientists regard the consequences of warming as likely to be catastrophic, slightly damaging, beneficial, slightly beneficial, or neutral on balance. However, the alarmists would have no interest in supporting such an undertaking.”

Actually the the result of such a survey would be meaningless because first you have to define what level of warming you are referring to, and in any event it is really a question that requires a scientific answer which has in fact been extensively studied.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts

As I understand the situation.
A temperature increase of 1 deg C over present levels would create serious problems and would be expensive to adapt too. Above 2 deg C we enter the realm where we would be unable to fully adapt to the new climate leading to a fall in global living living standards. At 3 degs C civilization would be at serious risk of collapse. Beyond those figures we start to consider the extinction of 90% of all life forms and the extinction of humans.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Posted by warmair, Friday, 7 November 2014 8:41:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<There is no attempt in any of the surveys to ascertain whether the experts regard the situation as positive or negative, catastrophic or beneficial, neutral or whatever>>

The warmer the better, for their pockets, because they make a living out of it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 7 November 2014 11:07:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, I could also start my reply by borrowing your phrase: "Oh please David, don't you start too!". But I won't - because I'm not into condescension of others.

We would agree, I think, that scientific progress and technological advancement are good things, and that there should be greater investment in R&D to develop more efficient and affordable energy sources. We would probably disagree as to which alternatives should be funded. I'd certainly favour scrapping entirely any government support for wind power. It would be better spent by Australia joining international efforts on nuclear fusion - or pretty much anything else.

I'm not sure how you think the linked article is relevant to our discussion. You need to explain that, rather than just provide a link.

I agree that there is a consensus on climate change - but it is definitely not one based on the kind of catastrophic scenarios propagated by alarmists such as Tim Flannery - nor on the idea that we are akin to frogs boiling ourselves to death. Nowhere did I previously infer - or even 'appear to infer' - that you are in that category. (BTW, I love the phrase "appear to infer"). However, I now have doubts, in light of the frog metaphor
Posted by byork, Saturday, 8 November 2014 5:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barry "I'm not into condescension of others."

Yes you are, Tim Flannery a case in point. However, I agree with you - he is "alarmist".

AGW requires a suite of adaptive and mitigation measures from all governments, captains of industry, businesses, organisations and individuals alike.

More strident progress is required.
Posted by DavidK, Saturday, 8 November 2014 7:54:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK,

Latest post at my blog, 'C21st Left', may be of interest: http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/breaking-the-climate-deadlock-with-rd
Posted by byork, Saturday, 8 November 2014 8:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK,

Fancy running into you on another "skeptic" article thread written by a person who doesn't possess scientific training or expertise on climate science.

Here's some good news (not)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inhofe-an-epa-foe-likely-to-lead-senate-environment-committee/2014/11/05/d0b4221e-64f4-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

"Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee"

How weird that science, which has led us so far, is now doomed to play second fiddle to ignorance and profit....so much for civilisation.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 November 2014 10:11:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had a look at the article on
http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/breaking-the-climate-deadlock-with-rd

The article at C21 concentrates on wind and solar which while making a significant contribution is only one of a long list of possible low or no carbon sources of energy. It fails to mention hydro power which accounts for 12 of the 20 largest power stations in the world, the balance is 6 nuclear, 1 fuel oil, 1 natural gas, and 1 coal (at no 18).
The Three Gorges dam has the largest capacity followed by the Itaipu producing the greatest amount of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_world

For a couple of interesting developments see the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/first-island-to-be-powered-solely-by-wind-and-water-140428.ht
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 8 November 2014 3:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Byork,

While our politics don't align, we at least agree on an objective review of the "climate science".

From what I understand reading the analysis in New Scientist, Scientific American, etc, is that:

1 CO2 emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperatures,

2 There are thousands of variables and factors that will either accelerate or slow warming, and the interaction of these factors is extremely complex. The modelling of the warming effects requires an allocation of the importance of each of these factors, which due to a lack of historical data is a best guess scenario. This why the range of predicted outcomes is so large.

3 The results so far of warming compared to the models, show that the warming, sea rise etc falls either at the very lowest of the predictions or even lower.

4 Life on earth on earth is adaptable and has existed even with CO2 levels as high as 2000ppm

5 The only country in the world with C)2 emissions that are falling is France who generates most of it power from nuclear.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 9 November 2014 6:42:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

"Life on earth is adaptable and has existed Even with CO2 levels as high as 2000 ppm"

The last time you were harking so knowledgeable on the resilience of "life" amidst a high atmospheric level of CO2, you were alluding to a time when the morre complex "llife" was in the seas and all that existed on land was a microbial crust.

You do understand, that human civilization has been possible in tiny niche of climate largesse for the blink of an eye in a geologic timeframe - and just because the trilobites thrived once upon a time when the atmospheric CO2 was high, doesn't mean our civilization will fare as well.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 November 2014 7:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Shadow Minister's point is valid. The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm.

Perhaps you might like to try and argue a case (for whatever it is you actually believe) rather than just assert your sense of superiority.
Posted by byork, Sunday, 9 November 2014 10:25:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork,

"...The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm."

Do they also have a permissible exposure limit for an ecosystem...or a civilisation?
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 November 2014 11:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Poirot.

Yes, I was not surprised that Barry York didn’t (want to) see the relevance of his ‘on-line opinions’ to the following link at the Conversation:

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

After all, the article by Professors Pancost and Lewandowsky very aptly describe the unfortunate paradox of Barry York’s reasoning/behaviour, and provides yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Ergo; Barry York distorts public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs.

For example:

“Shadow Minister's point is valid. The Occupational Safety and Health Admin in the US, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists place the permissible exposure limit for worker safety at 5000 ppm.”

Your response: “Do they also have a permissible exposure limit for an ecosystem...or a civilisation?” is spot on.

Barry York is either deliberately under-playing the significance of the enhanced Green House Effect, or is just plain ignorant.

My guess: he is not ignorant.

To illustrate further:

“There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from our economic activities are altering the Earth’s climate. This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction: 97-98% of publishing experts in the area.”

“In the present context, it is relevant that research has found that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

“Guess who, then, would be expected to appear particularly confident when they are invited to expound their views …? Yes, it’s the contrarian blogger who is paired with a climate expert in “debating” climate science …”

Guess who blogs fervently as c21stleft?
Check out the blog roll!

Senator Inhofe is a joke in scientific circles, much like our own Environment Minister Hunt.
Posted by DavidK, Sunday, 9 November 2014 12:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK,

I asked you to explain why you saw your link as relevant because it was not clear to me.

You cannot point me to a source that establishes that 98% of scientists share an alarmist view. The evidence in the surveys of scientific opinion show that the great majority share the IPCC conclusion that the planet has warmed and that human activity is the main driver of the 0.8 degree warming since 1880.

As for Poirot's point, I am not a scientist and do not know enough to know what effect 2000 ppm would have on the eco-system or civilisation. It struck me that if humans can be comfortable in a work environment at 5000 ppm, then it is possible we could adapt - change things through geo-engineering for example - at 2000 ppm.

My personal view is that there is good reason to move on from fossil fuels regardless of climate alarmism. Nuclear will be the best intermediate option but whatever source we adopt will have to maintain our living standards while enabling the poor world to alleviate poverty - the greatest moral issue of our time - and allow for further progress.

Greater funding is required for R&D into alternatives that fit the above bill.

You guys seem upset that the public has a say in the decisions about what is to be done. Well, we do. It's called democracy. I rather think the arrogant tone of your responses indicate frustration that you're no longer having it all your own way.
Posted by byork, Sunday, 9 November 2014 4:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork,

It's not just about what a human being can stand in an isolated scenario - it's about an extremely complex system which up until now , has favoured human civilisation.

"For all the alarmism, greater alarmism and even greater alarmism, our two billion brothers and sisters who are hungry and do not have access to clean water will not do what some in the 'first world' would tell them and opt for less efficient and more costly forms of energy. In the industrialising and modernising countries of Africa, for instance, people will be lifted from extreme poverty – as the rest of us were...."

Check out India's Green Revolution for how not to "develop sustainably". You'll find massive groundwater depletion, soil degradation on a massive scale, farmer debt and suicides through corporations controlling fertilisers, pesticides and now controlling the seed market. Where once farmers saved and shared seed, they are now forced to buy F1 hybrids from the likes of Monsanto and Cargils...and people are still gravitating from rural areas to shanty towns on the outskirts of cities because they have lost their autonomy and can no longer subsist in traditional ways.

Or this:
http://time.com/3558344/china-pollution/

"China’s Pollution Problem Killed 670,000 in 2012, Study Says

"You guys seem upset that the public has a say in the decisions about what is to be done. Well, we do. It's called democracy. I rather think the arrogant tone of your responses indicate frustration that you're no longer having it all your own way."

In the West, we now have a massive propaganda exercise funded by fossil fuel backers to give scientific kudos to people who have no scientific training...tell me when that has happened before?

Human scientific advancement until now, has relied on peer review for it's success.

Now we have oodles of print and articles written decrying conclusions reached by climate scientists which are given serious consideration. Most are written by people who first insert the (now infamous) disclaimer "I'm not a scientist".
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 10 November 2014 6:54:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork,

Just to clarify...I'm not suggesting that you are backed by fossil fuel interests to write skeptical articles on this subject.

However, much of the prevailing dialogue in the media and on blogs is funded that way - and rests on the premise that climate scientists and their conclusions are all part of a massive scam.

There is so much contrarian material out there, resting on nothing but fresh air and abuse, that it has now become mainstream to query the "credibility" and "integrity" of scientists on this issue.

Some even refer collectively to scientists who possess training and expertise, and who are merely doing their jobs, as "alarmists".... how's that for an arrogant tone?
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 10 November 2014 7:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Barry,

A well balanced article, thanks.

The 98% mantra to support the alarmism is sounding increasingly desperate. I guess there’s not much else to cling to?

The aircraft analogy is plain silly, who would fly an aircraft that was built on “consensus” rather than on proven physics?

The accusations often leveled at commentators that they are not “real scientists” beggars belief. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman is a former railway engineer and soft porn writer and the entire SPM panel does not have a single scientist on it! Err, hello?

If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions. We would have a replacement for Kyoto, there would be a vibrant global renewable industrial market, but the RENIXX index collapsed in March 2013. There would be emissions trading markets, but Al Gore’s Chicago Exchange went bust in December 2012 and the EU market is down from 34.9 Euros in 2008 to just 3 Euro’s now.

The “science” has been unable to retain any of the global infrastructure that was built to service it in the first place.

The EU is the last bastion of global alarmism and is paying a devastating economic price. U.S. natural gas is at $1.95 to Europe's $11.42? EU industry is moving to the USA in order to try to compete, even VW’s latest plant is moving the Washington State.

Swiss banking giant UBS says the “carbon emissions trading scheme has cost EU consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact".”

Germany alone is building 25 new coal fired plants, 9 of which will burn lignite and seems likely to postpone nuclear plant closures, Japans new government looks set to spool up their most modern reactors and the USA seems likely to approve crude exports, build the XL tar sands pipeline and cut their $12m funding to the IPCC.

The global glut of fossil fuels is again powering economic prosperity, unless you live in the EU? Oops!

Can’t wait for the Paris gabfest next year.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 10 November 2014 8:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc, there seem to be some serious gaps in your understanding:

"The aircraft analogy is plain silly, who would fly an aircraft that was built on “consensus” rather than on proven physics? "
Nobody suggested a consensus was a substitute for physics. NOBODY would design an aircraft without basing it on physics! But a consensus, based on observations as well as physics, is still needed to determine whether it is safe to fly passengers.

"The accusations often leveled at commentators that they are not “real scientists” beggars belief. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman is a former railway engineer and soft porn writer"
Are you claiming he isn't suitably qualified? If so, what qualifications do you think should be required for the job.

BTW I hadn't heard him described as a "soft porn writer" before, so I checked on Wikipedia and found he'd written one romance novel. Do you really think that's of any significance?
"and the entire SPM panel does not have a single scientist on it! Err, hello?"
What is your source for that claim?

"If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions."
That comment rests on two false assumptions: firstly that the politicians are aware of the facts, and secondly that they care more about it than staying in power.

"The 'science' has been unable to retain any of the global infrastructure that was built to service it in the first place."
Because the politicians have stuffed up the economy so much that people are currently more concerned with that, and because other countries are reluctant to take any action while Australia does nothing.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 November 2014 2:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Aidan,

You're new to this topic are you not? I suppose you think ignorance is some sort of mitigation for not knowing anything and have to resort to Wikipedia?

You are welcome to consensus on the wing lift properties of a modern airliner, I've no idea where consensus comes into it, other than the choice of passenger cabin decore, get real.

The issue of the chairman of the IPCC as a railway engineer or writer of novels or soft porn is not material, what is relevant is that he is definitely not a scientist of any description. As for the SPM, if you don't know that they are all politicians you have no right to talk on this subject.

So the next time you bag out a commentator for not being a "scientist" you might wish to consider doing some research on the topic to avoid being noted as an idiot.

Don't ask me for links you lazy git, do your own homework then get back with an apology.

As for the loss of global CAGW infrastructure, the people who destroyed it are alarmists like you and not politicians.

Well done and thank you.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 10 November 2014 4:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What timezone are you in, spindoc?

The topic of climate change I'm not at all new to. The finer details of the IPCC itself I'm far less familiar with. Observation has shown Wikipedia to be far more reliable than its reputation suggests, and definitely suitable for this type of discussion. But neither it nor the things I've previously read say the SPM panel doesn't have any scientists on it, so it is reasonable to ask for a source.

I'd expect any professional engineer with a PhD and an interest in the subject to be as capable at that sort of work as a scientist. Scientists and engineers do have a lot of skills in common.

BTW I'm not the one bagging commentators for not being scientists.

As for aircraft, I don't know where you got the absurd idea that I was referring to the wing lift properties. I was referring to safety considerations, such as the recent debacle with the batteries on the Boeing 787.

"As for the loss of global CAGW infrastructure, the people who destroyed it are alarmists like you and not politicians."
How so?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 November 2014 7:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Aidan,

Now that we have established that I have "gaps in my understanding" and that I'm on " different time zones", all you have to do is show that I'm wrong.

What are the climate science, or any scientific qualifications of the chairman of the IPCC, who are the members of the SPM panel that are not politicians and that ignorance and alarmism have enhanced the cause of CAGW and you can walk away with at least some shreds of credibility?

As for observation showing that "Wikipedia is more reliable than its reputation suggests". What observations? What reputation? And where does it support your assertions?

Keep digging Aidan, rock bottom is hard yakka but your cred is at stake!
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 10 November 2014 10:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I work for a living and have domestic chores after work, I cannot easily keep up. However, I will respond to Poirot's two comments from yesterday. I may have to disengage soon, from this thread.

There is such a thing as 'alarmism' and some scientists engage in it. They're the ones with a political/philosophical position - which is their right. But once they move into that realm, one does not have to be a scientist to challenge them. DavidK at least acknowledges that Flannery is alarmist.

I come from a 'red left' tradition and while I now look back on a 'mixed bag', I still adhere to the notion that progress occurs through human beings' mastering nature. Marxism 101. I still like Mao's revolutionary slogan: "Man must conquer Nature!". This horrifies the green alarmists of the world, who are essentially reactionary and conservative.

Anyone who disagrees with Poirot among the scientists who are qualified is, of course, part of the global conspiracy by the fossil fuels industry. A glaring problem with this, apart from the fact that it avoids the need to engage with such scientists, is that one could also argue that "In the West, we now have a massive propaganda exercise funded by multi-billion dollar Big Green backers to give scientific kudos to people who have no scientific training (Al Gore anyone?)...tell me when that has happened before?" One might add "backed by individuals whose big salaries and comforts depend on toeing the line". But what a pathetic way of arguing. It leads nowhere. Poirot doesn't seem to know better.

I have probably exceeded the word limit so will continue in a separate comment.
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 5:10:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
India is a good case in point against 'sustainability'. The Indian people are lifting themselves out of poverty through development, not keeping things as they are, and thus far are not falling for alarmism. Of course, there will always be this or that piece of fine rhetoric, or a village or even city that goes 'green', but they can only do that on a small scale, reliant on the rest of the energy supply which will remain based on fossil fuels for many years yet.

The more the alarmists intensify their scenarios, the more compelling becomes the case for nuclear power. Again, India is a model in that regard, and leading the world in expansion of nuclear energy. Australia should assist India by selling them uranium.

As a socialist, I have always opposed private ownership of seeds and fertilisers, etc. These are wonderful things that should be - and one day will be - socially owned and then used on a much grander scale, and developed much further, than under the capitalist system of ownership.

The environmental problems that will continue to emerge as a result of India's economic and social progress can be solved through scientific and other intervention on the ground because they are evidence-based and not computer-modelled.

The IPCC's recent summary acknowledges that nearly all of its computer models have been proven wrong - that they overstated the warming. Or... am I not permitted to make that point because I do not have a degree in a climate science
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 5:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Barry,

I just want to check whether you indeed mean what you wrote, because it sounds sinister:

"As a socialist, I have always opposed private ownership of seeds and fertilisers, etc."

So if the farmer is not allowed to keep the seeds from the previous year, then they have to beg the state when it's time to sow - or starve! - which means that the farmer is forced to comply with the government and whatever its idea of what progress consists of, for example that "Man must conquer Nature!".

Monsanto does the same, but at least in theory one is allowed to have nothing to do with them (... not so in practice).

Socialism (and Monsanto) is thus denying people the freedom to be left alone - I see no greater evil than that!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 8:07:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"So if the farmer is not allowed to keep the seeds from the previous year, then they have to beg the state when it's time to sow - or starve! - which means that the farmer is forced to comply with the government and whatever its idea of what progress consists of, for example that "Man must conquer Nature!".

Monsanto does the same, but at least in theory one is allowed to have nothing to do with them (... not so in practice)."

Monsanto has come in and taken over at the behest of govt...so now farmers have no autonomy. They have to buy these hybrids every planting.

And as for the stupidity of "Man must conquer Nature" - where is the wisdom in that? That sort of thinking has denuded the soil in India and depleted the groundwater. The soil in many places is dead because of pesticides. Soil is supposed to be alive with microbes - not dead.

So monoculture, corporations, pesticides and fertilizers have usurped traditional farming practices in places like India with the loss of much ancient knowledge and traditional farming practices.

None of it is "sustainable" - meaning serially damaging your environment to such an extent as to render it non-productive without regular massive (and expensive) injections of non-organic matter - is the height of madness.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 8:49:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barry York, you say;

“The IPCC's recent summary acknowledges that nearly all of its computer models have been proven wrong - that they overstated the warming.”

Here is the link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

You really don’t have to make stuff up, Barry.

“Or... am I not permitted to make that point because I do not have a degree in a climate science”

The below article/video pertains as much to you Barry as it does to Sen James Inhofe (Rep):

http://www.inquisitr.com/1600031/stephen-colbert-slams-climate-change-deniers-im-not-a-scientist-argument-video/

Or indeed, any other "I'm not a scientist but..."

Barry, your blog site is ideologically driven.
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 11:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

I fully agree, but the argument of sustainability is somewhat weak and I've read valid challenges to its objective correctness.

So I prefer not to get into it, because even if "progressive" policies are sustainable, we pay dearly with the quality of our life and with our personal freedom - which I consider more important than merely being able to keep our bodies surviving.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 11:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

What's "weak" about a farmer being able to save and share his seeds, co-operate with his neighbours, feed his soil with manure and other organic materials, and engage in biodiverse practice to nourish his community?

That's "sustainable" practice - it's also "freedom"...all follows from a healthy environment.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 12:15:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting how DavidK cannot consider that I may be mistaken rather than dishonest.

Anyway, this is the part of the IPCC synthesis summary (long report) that acknowledges the great majority of the models were wrong - they overstated the warming:

"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface
warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this
difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate
variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming
trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations
show a smaller warming trend than observed)".

It continues:

"Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of
short trends for long-term climate change. The difference between models and observations may also contain
contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some
models, from an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing
(the latter dominated by the effects of aerosols). {WGI 2.4.3, 9.4.1; 10.3.1.1, WGI Box 9.2}"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 1:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Barry, you were mistaken.

Apology accepted.

Can I ask what your 'day job' is?

Why?

Too many "I'm not a scientist" types keep telling real scientists they don't know what they're talking about?

Why?

They're typically ideologically driven (imho)

Have a good night.
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 3:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But DavidK, I was not telling any scientists they don't know what they are talking about. Why would I do that? I was quoting from the IPCC's synthesis long report. The report, like the summary for policy makers, is out there for the intelligent public not just for the scientific community.

This, from the IPCC report, does seem to me to be indicating that 111 of 114 models were wrong and, as I said, exaggerated the warming.

Once more: "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface
warming trend larger than the observations".

I would no more seek to argue about climate science with a climate scientist such as yourself than I would with a climate scientist like Roy Spencer.

But I can read and understand an IPCC report that is released for the public. And I can have a view about climate alarmism.

Surely you are not suggesting that only scientists should decide what is to be done about the increased CO2 emissions and the 0.8 degree warming since 1880?
Posted by byork, Tuesday, 11 November 2014 4:15:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barry, quote from the IPCVC all you like but please just don’t cherry pick. Even the intelligent public knows that 1998 was one of the warmest years on record due to a larger than normal El Nino event.

Even a non-scientist like yourself, who has been following the ‘public debate’ about global warming, should know that if you picked 1997 or 1999 as the start date for a 15 year time series statistical analysis, then you would get a completely different set of results.

If you can, try it yourself: analyse the trend starting in 1992 till 2006. You will find that the trend line is about 50% larger (faster) than the average.

If you could conduct the analysis , you would also find that ‘natural variability’ had a ‘dampening’ effect from (say) 1997 but amplified human induced global (surface) warming from 1992.

Barry, the point is, it is easy for a non-scientist to quote things out of context – many so called ‘sceptics’ do this unintentionally. However, many others do it deliberately to push their own ideological gambit. I’m sure you would understand why.

Barry, please try and understand this, also from the report:

“The long term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend. There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g. 1998 to 2012).”

I know Roy Spencer, and I empathise with him. For someone so religious I can understand why he would try so fervently to disprove Man’s influence in global warming, much preferring it to be the domain of God.

Barry, you also say you “can read and understand an IPCC report that is released for the public.”

Sorry, no you can’t – you take things out of context. Whether you do this deliberately or not is beside the point.

cont'd
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 8:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Barry, you go on to say;

“Surely you are not suggesting that only scientists should decide what is to be done about the increased CO2 emissions and the 0.8 degree warming since 1880?”

No, I’m not saying that at all - tacky that you would suggest it, but there you go.

One more thing; I can have a view about 'climate alarmism' too.

From my perspective, it comes in two forms: from people like Flannery and Gore, and from ignorant and pernicious 'nay-sayers'.
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 8:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, the quote from the IPCC report establishes that I was not 'making stuff up'. I was not cherry-picking, as I was not making any claim about warming or otherwise but rather establishing that the IPCC itself acknowledges that its models got it wrong.

The significance of 1998-2012 (and presumably why the IPCC report specified that period in part of its report) is that the experts, drawing on the models, had been telling us that the planet would continue to warm at rates greater than eventuated.

Your dismissive remark about climate scientist Roy Spencer does you no credit. Anyone interested can read Spencer's website here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ He argues that natural variation is the principal factor not CO2 emissions.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "ideologically driven". If you are suggesting that I have to see things in a certain way - am wedded to a position - then you are wrong.

My blog attempts to offer a Marxist-influenced left-wing perspective against pseudo-leftism and that includes opposition to the green world outlook.

As for "nay-saying", if you are applying that to me, then again you have it wrong. To challenge and to question is not "nay-saying" which implies a definite final position.
Posted by byork, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 7:51:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions...."

Oh really?

Like this you mean?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/china-and-us-agree-on-ambitous-gas-emissions-targets/5886200

"China and the United States have agreed on a set of ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, with Beijing setting a goal for its emissions to peak "around 2030".

It is the first time China, the world's biggest polluter, has set a date for its emissions to stop increasing, and the White House said China would "try to peak early".

At the same time the US set a goal to cut its own emissions of the gases blamed for climate change by 26-28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2025."

How bloody embarrassing that Australia under the Abbott Govt has been in full-revved reverse on this issue.....out on a limb all by themselves with their science denying buddies, Canada.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 9:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork

Deny it all you want ... but you were cherry picking, taking IPCC stuff out of context.

(psychologists and behaviourists have a term for those excuses)

Re Roy, your gullibility is not so astounding.

Goodbye.

...

Poirot,

You forgot to mention NZ, but stay tuned.
Posted by DavidK, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 9:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

Nothing is weak about farmers doing the good old and proper thing - that's ideal!

However, there are claims that a centralised, mass-produced industrial/technological scheme can ALSO be sustainable - and they could be credible on that account. What they argue is that technology could sustain even an increasing human population, indefinitely.

So if you tell them, "That's unsustainable", they would answer - "Yes it is, and will show you numbers and diagrams to prove that claim, including bringing energy and minerals from other planets and eventually reaching the stars.

What I wrote to you is therefore, "don't go that way". Even if centrally-planned sustainable growth is possible, it would produce a nightmare in which life is possible, but not worthwhile.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 12 November 2014 9:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, were I to reply in kind, I'd say that you are denying the failure of the IPCC models as acknowledged by the IPCC.

But I won't because I don't like the use of the term 'denial' in the climate context, especially given its Holocaust connotation. It suggests dishonesty, as well as lack of moral judgement.

As for the psychological reference: is this how professors argue these days?

Readers may like to check out climate scientist Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/02/how-urgent-is-urgent/

Au revoir.
Posted by byork, Thursday, 13 November 2014 5:07:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
byork,

"....I don't like the use of the term 'denial' in the climate context.... It suggests dishonesty, as well as lack of moral judgement."

Nice bit of hypocrisy that.

From the author of an article titled "It's official! Climate alarmists are now even more alarmed"

You apparently don't harbour a similar aversion to employing the words "alarm"..."alarmed"...."alarmism"...."alarmist" in reference to climate science and scientists - peppered no less than 11 times throughout your article (including the title).
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 November 2014 8:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And this...

http://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148

"US-China climate deal: at last, a real game-changer on emissions"

"Australia snookered

Nevertheless, this announcement means that laggard states like Australia can no longer hide behind the fiction that major developing economies like China are unprepared to make serious efforts to cut their emissions.

It further embarrasses Australia in its attempt to keep climate change off the agenda at the meeting of the G20 next week.

It increases the pressure on Australia to bring substantial target commitments to the table in Paris in 2015 – something the Abbott government is presently resisting vigorously.

And it strongly suggests that the Abbott government’s longed-for coal export boom will, as many have predicted, turn out to be an illusion."
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 November 2014 8:24:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy