Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Final Siren]

It existed in so much as some computer OS needed to be altered.

It was overwhelmingly overstated and exaggerated in every sense as a potential threat to society.
Consensus on the dire dangers prior to the event was almost unanimous amongst IT professionals, publicly.

Well, first of all, it extended well beyond operating systems. It potentially affected pretty much every kind of software you can imagine running on every kind of hardware.

Second, it absolutely would have caused major disruption and economic loss had it not been addressed in time.

Now, did some people go overboard about it? Probably. You had journalists writing stories about technology they didn't understand, and a public who became gripped by the idea of planes falling out of the sky. Did some organizations overspend? Probably. Plenty used the opportunity to overhaul entire systems, which wasn't strictly necessary, but would have had to be done sometime. Some, I guess, might have spent money that wasn't needed at all.

But it's lunacy to say Y2K was a hoax. It wasn't.

I am a programmer and worked for Hewlett-Packard in the late 90s.

 

[Pie eyed]

Well, first of all, it extended well beyond operating systems. It potentially affected pretty much every kind of software you can imagine running on every kind of hardware.

Second, it absolutely would have caused major disruption and economic loss had it not been addressed in time.

Now, did some people go overboard about it? Probably. You had journalists writing stories about technology they didn't understand, and a public who became gripped by the idea of planes falling out of the sky. Did some organizations overspend? Probably. Plenty used the opportunity to overhaul entire systems, which wasn't strictly necessary, but would have had to be done sometime. Some, I guess, might have spent money that wasn't needed at all.

But it's lunacy to say Y2K was a hoax. It wasn't.

I am a programmer and worked for Hewlett-Packard in the late 90s.

A hoax no.
It was massively over stated as a threat.

The point being made in the context of the current Global Warming discussion.
and concerns that many have that the long term scenario is overstated, that the effects, even if they are as forecast, are also overstated and that the benefits of the actions we are being advised to take in any event are also vastly overstated.

I make the point about Y2K in "that" context.

Just as the various Oil Crises I have lived through, the world paper shortage, the environmental Armageddon in the Gulf of Kuwait after Saddam was sent packing etc etc have all been vastly and in some cases ridiculously over stated, generally but not exclusively by the "experts" in the various fields.

 

[Final Siren]

the long term scenario is overstated, that the effects, even if they are as forecast, are also overstated and that the benefits of the actions we are being advised to take in any event are also vastly overstated.

That's a fairly reasonable position. What's actually been argued in this thread, though, is that climate change is a "lie" and the Y2K bug was "mythical."

 

[Chops_a_must]

Translation of the above post:

McVeigh agrees with Dan26.

You do realise, McVeigh, that agreeing with me, and actually listening to the evidence doesn't make you a right-wing voter.

YOU CAN STILL BE A LABOR VOTER AND BE A SCEPTIC.

That's what you and these other left-wing warmist alarmists don't understand.

Well, you better start understanding it, because this make believe consensus that you think exists, doesn't exist at all.

Switch sides. It doesn't mean you are switching politcal beliefs, it just means you aren't religiously adhering to a flawed, politically driven science, sponsored by the extreme left.

Do you even know what a sceptic is?

Do you actually know the history behind scepticism?

For the record, I'm a sceptic and global warming is a real, demonstrable phenomenon. Did that blow your socks off?

A sceptic is not a contrarian.

A sceptic is not an obscurantist.

A sceptic is not someone without logic.

Scepticism is founded on sound logic and evidence. And most actual sceptics would understand the empirical evidence for global warming as we are experiencing it.

I do not understand how people with absolutely no scientific knowledge, no logic, no testable hypothesis, can be called sceptics. How people can even identify as sceptics in such a manner is beyond me.

It pains me that language is hijacked and manipulated in such a way for use by people that simply don't know what they are saying.

If I had the time, I would love to do an ethnographic study on people such as yourself for the benefit on linguistics in scientific theory, as to what you think scepticism actually is.


I would prefer it if "sceptics" in the global warming debate identified as something more appropriate. Because sceptics you aint.

I think in Aristotles time, you would be branded, "women". Have a think about that.

 

[Chops_a_must]

And for the record, China has in operation hundreds of MBIs for various pollution problems - including for atmospheric pollutants.

 

[Monniehawk]

But it's lunacy to say Y2K was a hoax. It wasn't.
I am a programmer and worked for Hewlett-Packard in the late 90s.

Quite correct.
I'm not a programmer, but was testing P.O.S. software databases during the Y2k fiasco.
The 'bug' was inherited from the early DOS system where the date stamp (6 digits) did not take into account the new millennium (requiring 8 digits). Virtually every piece of software accessed the date format and it had the potential to cause havoc. Consequently, all software had to be 'recalled' to correct the error.
Of course the horror stories were over-stated, but most of that came from the ignorant periphery around the s/w industry. It could have been handled with greater calm, but too many in the sector were also head-in-the-sand denialists. I guess that made the others yell louder. It really was a genuine issue, though, and hysteria from the extremes just turned it into a farce.

Do you even know what a sceptic is?

Head, wall, bang!, Chops.
Tried to explain to him/her earlier on. Pearls/swine scenario.

Like they say, you can tell a zealot a mile away.

Up close, you can't tell them a bloody thing!!

 

[Ron The Bear]

For the record, I'm a sceptic and global warming is a real, demonstrable phenomenon.

It depends how you define 'global warming'. Yes, global temperatures have risen since 1977. No, they have not increased in the past decade and a bit. Many - probably most - experts agree that temperatures are likely to decrease in coming decades, regardless of their stance in the debate.

Still skeptical.

 

[Chops_a_must]

It depends how you define 'global warming'. Yes, global temperatures have increased since 1977. No, they have not increased in the past decade and a bit. Many - probably most - experts agree that temperatures are likely to decrease in coming decades, regardless of their stance in the debate.

Still skeptical.

Well, your opinion flies in the face of the recorded data.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Well, your opinion flies in the face of the recorded data.

Here, argue with NASA (and they're pro-alarmist).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

 

[Chops_a_must]

Here, argue with NASA (and they're pro-alarmist).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

But yeah, they have increased in the last decade. Just not peak to peak. The trend is still in tact, but it hasn't risen as much as what it has previously.

As evidenced by:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...eniable-2000s-were-warmest-decade-on-record/1

The trend is still very much in tact.

 

[nicky]

I actualy personaly know some peoples who contributed greatly to envioremental movements as far as back a the 70's when Global warming was just a far flung theory that australain scientists were involved in...

In the 80's that theory came apparant

In the 90's a problem.

In the naughties destructive.

I'd love for you show me who co opted and/or set up these people over 30 years ago, if that is your belief.

Just the other day I went to a talk of a professor of astrophysics at unimelb - who has devoted a large portion of the last 20 years of her research to climate change. She gave up potential notoriety in her field because as a scientist climate change was too important.

For people to claim that scientists advocating climate change are "alarmists" etc is absurd.

 

[Ron The Bear]

But yeah, they have increased in the last decade. Just not peak to peak. The trend is still in tact, but it hasn't risen as much as what it has previously.

As evidenced by:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...eniable-2000s-were-warmest-decade-on-record/1

The trend is still very much in tact.

A vague populist article from USA Today? Please. Quote me a source with some scientific credibility showing global temperatures have risen since 1998. Britain's Met Office says they haven't.

CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have not risen in recent years.

As is to be expected of a field in its infancy, much of the science is uncertain. So far there have been theories and predictions, then alternate theories as to why the predictions haven't come to pass. The latest theory as to why the climate models have come a cropper is that global temperatures are more strongly tied to Pacific Decadal Oscillation (currently entering a minimum) than was first believed.

I'm not totally recalcitrant on this subject (purchased an Enviromower last week ). There was a time when I wanted to believe in it. I don't trust big business to do the right thing by the environment any more than I trust the hippie-mentality 'save the planet' anarchists. I simply believe that many highly intelligent and well-meaning people are foisting theories upon the public which are nothing more than that - uncertain theories.

My position can be summed up as follows:

Has man contributed to the long-term global increase in temperatures?
Highly likely.

Are we facing an imminent threat of catastrophe?
No.

Could 'greenhouse' accretions pose a serious threat in the longer term?
Possibly.

Do I support globally-united efforts towards further research into earth's climate, and smarter and more environmentally harmonious processes for industry?
Absolutely.

Do I support the Australian government taxing its constituents into submission with an imposition that will produce no noticeable effect on climate?
No.

 

[Chops_a_must]

A vague populist article from USA Today? Please. Quote me a source with some scientific credibility showing global temperatures have risen since 1998. Britain's Met Office says they haven't.

CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have not risen in recent years.

That is simply incorrect. From the British Met Office:

"We know from global temperature records that the Earth has warmed by about 0.75°C in the last century. From the 1970s to 1990s warming was faster than over the century as a whole, but the rise has slowed more recently."

It says exactly what I did. The rise has slowed, but it is still rising. Even the graphs from your NASA link prove my point. If you want to look at 1 year averages - yeah cool. Good for you. But it is hiding the information.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That is simply incorrect. From the British Met Office:

"We know from global temperature records that the Earth has warmed by about 0.75°C in the last century. From the 1970s to 1990s warming was faster than over the century as a whole, but the rise has slowed more recently."

When I look at the chart, I see a cessation of the upward trend c.2000. What do you see?

If you want to look at 1 year averages - yeah cool. Good for you. But it is hiding the information.

There are observations and then there are trends. It's the Met that is hiding information by summarising using convenient 10-year spans.

"What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850."

It's spin like that which gives statistics a bad name.

The Met said this back in 2008...

These same forecasts also predict we will experience continued and increased warming into the next decade, with half the years between 2009 and 2014 being warmer than the current warmest on record, 1998.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2008/global-warming-speculation

...which is not being borne out.

Met Office global forecasts too warm in 11 out of last 12 yrs

I'm with the Global Warming Policy Foundation - let's watch the next three years and see whether the models are totally blown out of the water.

 

[medusala]

That is simply incorrect. From the British Met Office:

"We know from global temperature records that the Earth has warmed by about 0.75°C in the last century. From the 1970s to 1990s warming was faster than over the century as a whole, but the rise has slowed more recently."

It says exactly what I did. The rise has slowed, but it is still rising. Even the graphs from your NASA link prove my point. If you want to look at 1 year averages - yeah cool. Good for you. But it is hiding the information.

The Met chaired by Robert Napier an environmental activist? The Met with its not so great long term forecasting record?

As you admit whether you argue temps are still rising or not depends on what moving average you use.

 

[Monniehawk]

The Met chaired by Robert Napier an environmental activist?

Odd. Why would that compromise the Met?
Because Napier has no science background? ...... is an environmentalist? Or is it because he is a successful businessman?

Would it be more practical if he had a background in, say, the Classics.... or journalism... or claimed membership of the House of Lords?

 

[Mcveigh]

Translation of the above post:

McVeigh agrees with Dan26.

You do realise, McVeigh, that agreeing with me, and actually listening to the evidence doesn't make you a right-wing voter.

YOU CAN STILL BE A LABOR VOTER AND BE A SCEPTIC.

That's what you and these other left-wing warmist alarmists don't understand.

Well, you better start understanding it, because this make believe consensus that you think exists, doesn't exist at all.

Switch sides. It doesn't mean you are switching politcal beliefs, it just means you aren't religiously adhering to a flawed, politically driven science, sponsored by the extreme left.

Case. In. Point.

You are soooo far off the mark it's actually impressive a brain can function this way. I'm flabbergasted.

My view has NOTHING to do with politics.

 

[nicky]

@ Dan26, what does the extreme left gain by making up global warning?

What does the extreme right have to gain by denying it's existence?

 

[medusala]

Odd. Why would that compromise the Met?

The Met has been a huge advocate of AGW. Having someone associated with the WWF as their head has further tarnished their already poor reputation.

It would be like putting a delusional individual like Flannery in charge of a government body and expecting people to think it was both credible and indepedent.

what does the extreme left gain by making up global warning?

It allows them to implement their "alternative" economic model, one which they know very few people would ever embrace without such a tale of impending armageddon.

 

[Chops_a_must]

It allows them to implement their "alternative" economic model, one which they know very few people would ever embrace without such a tale of impending armageddon.

Do tell.

 

[Pie eyed]

@ Dan26, what does the extreme left gain by making up global warning?

What does the extreme right have to gain by denying it's existence?

One thing which stands out is that the varying stances manufactures a "difference"to enable the voter to make a choice based on his/her own leanings.
If they both agreed, on any subject then how would we differentiate?
Apart from the differences, they are all the same animal.

 

[Dan26]

@ Dan26, what does the extreme left gain by making up global warning?

What does the extreme right have to gain by denying it's existence?

This isn't about left or right. Nicky. It's about the truth.

And the fact is there is NO empirical evidecne that human C02 emisiions cause dangerous warming. None. Search all you want on the internet for that one peer-reviewed paper the alarmists wish exists that proves that humans are dangerously warming the planet. That paper doesn't exist.

Global warming alarmism is the left's religion. Despite all the evidence showing it is exaggerated, they believe it. After all, you can justify any abhorrent behaviour when you are "saving the world", right? (climate-gate, exposed the fraud for the world to see)

Also, the "right" (or any scientist for that matter, left or right in their politcal views) doesn't "deny" global warming. C02 has a warming effect. We know that. Humans are putting more C02 into the atmosphere. We all know that. Ergo, humans are having some sort of warming effect on the planet.

None of that is in dispute and no sceptic like myself would deny those basic facts.

The debate is HOW MUCH warming? Is it dangerous? Might it even be good (C02 is plant food after all, and the more of it there is, the more plants grow and the more food is produced) and is it cost effective to do anything about it, even if the alarmist predictions were true, which of course they are not as Tim Flannery embarrassingly knows all too well.

Who from the left gains, you ask?

Well, whether they are from the left or not, have a look at who gains: Financial institutions stand to gain billions of dollars from trading carbon credits. Uselss bits of paper. Government funded scientists have been paid to find a link between C02 and dangerous warming. All of the funding on the alarmist side is from big government. Thousands stand to lose funding. And the Greens gain to push their totalitarian ideology on the rest of the planet.

Click on the below link for a brilliant laymans terms explanation of many of the facts people don't know about the money side of the debate.

CLIMATE MONEY

And I repeat: there is NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissiosn cause dangerous warming. All of the models have been either wrong, exaggerated, or in some cases flat-out manipulated.

And you think there is a consensus Nicky? There isn't. You have no doubt heard the famous phrase "97% of climate scientists agree" That number is a total fabrication:

97% Of Climate Scientists Are In Consensus, Is A Lie
"The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.

Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

As a side note, in order to assure an initial high survey percentage, the two researchers did not ask major segments of the scientific world to participate. Those would be the segments that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."

I can name 30,000 scientists, including 9,000 PHD's who are sceptical of the alarmism.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

[Monniehawk]

This isn't about left or right. Nicky. It's about the truth.

[/B]

Your extreme left-leaning political views totally corrupt your view. You know this is true. Just admit it. You're totally corrupted.

Yep, all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No political expedience here.

Typical of the extreme bias of the ABC. Why would a left leaning militant warmist stick up for this mob, after they have been exposed like this.

Can you bring yourself to seek out information on the other side of the argument yet? I did.

Our faux leftie imagines himself once again.
Really!!

But that's the difference between the religious fervour of the left with their global warming religion and the sceptics, most of who used to be alarmists but changed their opinion as the evidence (or lack of it) piled up.

Truth?? "most of who used to be alarmists"?
Deluded, irrational or just a desperate lie?

...you would think you would be curious to look at the science for once and not believe what government funded, politically motivated totalitarians think.

Banjos?

It's so typical of the left to ignore to evidence and attack the person.
.... don't be a typical totalitarian warmist leftie, and instead tell me what you think about the evidence in the video, and the transcript on the link provided.

The left is totally intimidated by Monckton. They try to discredit him because they are petrified of him. That's what the "left" do - they attack the person, not the subject matter.
The facts are that people like you rayven are lefties. And you THINK tat means you havs to be a cliamte alarmist.

But people like you (clearly a left-wing voter. I can tell tem a mile away because they refuse to accept the truth, and and are closet totalitarians) can't accept this. You think accepting this is akin to voting for the Coalition.
That's because you are a fool.

That's what you and these other left-wing warmist alarmists don't understand.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Dan.

 

[Ron The Bear]

One thing which stands out is that the varying stances manufactures a "difference"to enable the voter to make a choice based on his/her own leanings.

Western society has (ostensibly at least) recoiled from the 'greed is good' mentality of the 80's and run smack into the arms of the leftists, kind of like a pale, drawn out imitation of the 60's peace and love movement. I think the tide is beginning to turn again, in this country at least.

 

[Mcveigh]

Thank you monniehawk for pointing out that Dan is ONLY in this "debate" for the politics, he seems to think that only one side can "win".