The Forum > Article Comments > Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong > Comments
Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong : Comments
By John Robertson, published 23/4/2015Man-made? Yes, Mr President. Man's release of CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels is a significant factor in current climate change.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:58:17 PM
| |
Professor Judith Curry’s Testimony to the US House of Representatives Hearing on “The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge”
“Major points: Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change: • The hiatus in global warming since 1998 • Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide • Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution: • The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. • Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. • Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution • It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.03o C in warming by 2100. The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed: • We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. • Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.” Read or watch the testimony here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 7 May 2015 6:09:20 PM
| |
When are you people going to wake up?
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/08/climate-change-un-hoax-end-democracy-abbotts-chief-business-advisor-says I tried to tell you all, but you wont believe it even when its right in front of you. Oh no we can't allow ourselves to listen to the crazy conspiracy theorists.. Well news flash - We were right, and you can't even get your peanut brained heads around it, so you ignore it and go back to your comfort zones instead. How about this? http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/08/un-using-climate-new-world-order When will you listen? Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 8 May 2015 8:32:17 PM
| |
Armchair, I'll listen when they have something worth listeninng to. But when one of Tony Abbott's advisors is clearly in tinfoil hat territory, I think you're the one who needs to wake up.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 10 May 2015 12:23:24 PM
| |
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!
After, therefore because of it! That’s the logical error that John Robertson is using here. The global population grew, life expectancy grew, and grain production and many other things grew. All completely irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing, and whether or not that change WILL be more devastating in the future! It’s as if I’m claiming that smoking cannot hurt people because I’ve been smoking for years, but lead poisoning has decreased in Australia. Umm, what? Are the 2 even related at this point? John Robertson: the WHO already estimates that climate change kills something like 300,000 people a year. Not only that, while Antarctic and Arctic sea-ice coverage might expand, tell us all about its depth will you? It’s a bit telling that you omit multi-year Arctic ice depth! Why not also tell us about the Antarctic Ross Shelf where huge amounts of ice are below sea level or at sea level, and currently melting because of the estimated additional 4 Hiroshima bombs per second we’ve added to the global atmosphere, and most of this extra heat going into our oceans? Drawing our attention to the height of inland Antarctica is like yelling, “Look, bright shiny thing over there!” while our house burns down. Hmm, not impressed with the ‘logic’ on display here. I guess you believe the world’s climate community are all in on some huge conspiracy? Was the Moon Landing faked as well? Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 10:02:01 PM
|
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
and some Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389827.htm
R0bert