SOMETHING IS HAPPENING OUT THERE.....

579

"The thing is something is happening, nature is not happy."

Nature has never been "happy", hence religion and pseudo-science.

The priest, the climate astrologer, the armchair alarmist, the worried well, etc - have carved a niche for themselves by promising to make her "happy", in this case by creating a Goldilocks climate just right for us.

Change is what climate does, and has done ever since the Earth acquired an atmosphere. There have been, some say, unexplained 15C swings across the geological time. Why?

Today’s eco-mantra - “All change is bad; all stasis is good” – indicates an irrational refusal to acknowledge the constantly evolving, constantly changing, character of life – and climate.

Climate change is morphing into another name for God, or at least His eco-archetype, Gaia. Like Him or Her, it is present everywhere, and arguably just as incomprehensible.

If so, conserve your energies, folks. Heretics, nota bene, this debate could run for another two millennia. You guys could be in for some rough patches up ahead.

Alice (in Gaialand

maaate
Why not just say "heretics" and have done with it?

"Why not just say "heretics" and have done with it?"

What, and feed your "hard done by" persecution complex? Dream on.

Why don't you entertain us with a rendition of "Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam"? Here, have a tissue champ....

maaate is showing once again that after the warmists' appeal to absent authority is questioned, they descend immediately into personal argument, because those two fallacies are all they have.

The science isn't settled, the religion is being agitated, that is all.

As a layman I think I have every right to be very dismayed at the contradictory messages about climate change – whether it is man-made, what, if any sea level rises I should expect. Living in an area which is low-lying and near the sea I am concerned. However, in canvassing the opinions of the local residents it seems that the disputes between various climate ‘experts’ has had an effect of making them into complete sceptics on the subject of climate change. Yes, they say, climate has changed and always will. As for sea level rises, they have seen no evidence of it – erosion after storms, yes, but no discernible change in high tide levels over the past 10 years.
Moreover and far more importantly, the local government authority concurs with this sceptical outlook. The Council (FCRC) has recently written to the state government department of infrastructure and planning (DIP) asking that certain land excluded from future residential development be allowed to proceed. The FCRC’s plea on behalf of a developer was in respect of wetland with AHDs varying from zero to 2 metres and less than 200metres from a steadily eroding beach. Show a FCRC councillor the various reports showing forecast sea level rises for 2100 varying from 50 cm (IPCC 2007) to over 200cm (Grinstead et al, 2009) and eyes go glazed. What is more important? Development, of course. It creates employment, houses the people needed to help us along to the 50 million target population, it helps small business and augments the Council’s rateable value. Why worry about things which may never happen? Somebody, please tell me. And if any of those published forecasts of sea levels are really verifiable, please tell the FCRC.

Bonmot - Rich3.. congratulations! Particularly to Bonmot, who had the right link. The 1990 IPCC report was impossible to find in late 2009 when I researching this stuff.. sceptics at the time noted that it had been removed from the IPCC site.. and assumed it had been withdrawn because it had been shown to be wrong. So it must have been put back, which is very foolish of the IPCC but there it is. So I have learned something from you guys.
Here is a key passage.

"Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years."

So its saying mid range 0.6 degrees C by now and a minimum of 0.4. Its wrong. the increase has been well under 0.2 degrees.. Look at the graphs at the Hadley Centre or the more reliable satellite data published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville..
Bad forecasts should be recognised for what they are..