Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Grin]

Are there more protests on atm?

They seem to be really upset at some prepubescent girl and wish her harm. Have the poor dumb *ers formed a linch mob?
They're very easily offended these ant science nutters. But they're fun to point and laugh at.

 

[Snake_Baker]

As if I'd rely on the dailies for climate information. Yesterday the HS hit the panic button and claimed there were terrifying storms on the way. I got a light sprinkle of rain for half an hour about 7pm. They're at it again this morning.

"There’s no end in sight for Victoria’s wild weather, with more thunderstorms and heavy downpours set to ravage the state throughout the day... The storms will not subside until early Wednesday according to BoM."

The narrative is in full swing.

If you're a "denier" (i.e. someone who questions the veracity of left wing hysterics) then you must have arrived at this position via the propaganda of Murdoch etc., as there's simply no other way in these minds of the morons that you could have arrived at a contrary conclusion any other way.

It's a full scale propaganda war in their eyes. Science doesn't enter in to it. Their needle is stuck in the groove. They are literally brainwashed.

 

[Grin]

If you're a "denier" (i.e. someone who questions the veracity of left wing hysterics) then you must have arrived at this position via the propaganda of Murdoch etc., as there's simply no other way in these minds of the morons that you could have arrived at a contrary conclusion any other way.

It's a full scale propaganda war in their eyes. Science doesn't enter in to it. Their needle is stuck in the groove. They are literally brainwashed.

I like you mate, but your stuck on the wrong side of history, and the science is established. He's been for years. The anti science campaigners look ridiculous these days, like the idiots who were conned into thinking that cigarettes are a health product, asbestos is harmless and vaccines don't work.
Common amongst all of this anti science nutters is a quasi religious beliefs is conspiracy theories where scientist are either capitalists or socialists bent on world domination.
Also in common is that the science always turns out to be correct. But the conspiracy theorists just never learn, and as soon as they've been proven woefully wrong on something, they move straight onto the next silly paranoid conspiracy theory. That's why I find it amusing sometimes to point and laugh at them and enjoy their silly retorts about them knowing much more about the science than the scientists because youtube.

 

[Deliverance]

As if I'd rely on the dailies for climate information. Yesterday the HS hit the panic button and claimed there were terrifying storms on the way. I got a light sprinkle of rain for half an hour about 7pm. They're at it again this morning.

"There’s no end in sight for Victoria’s wild weather, with more thunderstorms and heavy downpours set to ravage the state throughout the day... The storms will not subside until early Wednesday according to BoM."

The narrative is in full swing.

Oh dear. There were destructive storms yesterday in parts, but yes, your one experience in one tiny area means the BOM is conspiring against us all. Ron. I think it's time for you to hibernate.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I like you mate, but your stuck on the wrong side of history, and the science is established. He's been for years. The anti science campaigners look ridiculous these days, like the idiots who were conned into thinking that cigarettes are a health product, asbestos is harmless and vaccines don't work. Common amongst all of this anti science nutters is a quasi religious beliefs is conspiracy theories where scientist are either capitalists or socialists bent on world domination. Also in common is that the science always turns out to be correct. But the conspiracy theorists just never learn, and as soon as they've been proven woefully wrong on something, they move straight onto the next silly paranoid conspiracy theory. That's why I find it amusing sometimes to point and laugh at them and enjoy their silly retorts about them knowing much more about the science than the scientists because youtube.

1) I AM a scientist (a real one, not an ecologist/psychologist/sociologist/script kiddie with a laptop computer), are you?
2) There's a very simple way to cut to the chase here. Do you agree with NASA & many others that the prediction models are seriously flawed or not? Yes or no?

 

[Deliverance]

Climate change alarmists news.com are at it again.

Mammal on the ‘brink of extinction’

One of Australia’s most-loved mammals, the platypus, is being pushed towards the “brink of extinction” by climate threats and habitat destruction, researchers say.

www.news.com.au

Seriously though. I love platypuses as an animal, so unique. Would be a real shame if humans were the cause of their extinction. Once again, climate change is one of the mitigating factors.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Oh dear. There were destructive storms yesterday in parts, but yes, your one experience in one tiny area means the BOM is conspiring against us all. Ron. I think it's time for you to hibernate.

It's amazing the way you can flip flop from anal retentive to ambiguous, when it comes to correlations with your political beliefs.

..........and that's all "climate change" is to you.............a political belief.

 

[Grin]

1) I AM a scientist, are you?
2) There's a very simple way to cut to the chase here. Do you agree with NASA & many others that the prediction models are seriously flawed or not? Yes or no?

Yep. No climate scientists though so I defer to the expert opinion. Like my father who pioneered the study of the atmosphere in Antarctica in the 60s and 70s and went on to work at CSIRO division of atmospheric physics for decades.
In my area of science which included 11 years of study and training, I often come across non experts who think they know more about it than me. In fact the less they know the more they think they do. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. And we see it in climate science, where all of those who specialise in climate science agree (apart from a handful of non-experts who represent themselves as experts), but Alan Jones knows better.

 

[Deliverance]

It's amazing the way you can flip flop from anal retentive to ambiguous, when it comes to correlations with your political beliefs.

..........and that's all "climate change" is to you.............a political belief.

Great scientific rebuttal. Go you scientist.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Climate change alarmists news.com are at it again.

Mammal on the ‘brink of extinction’

One of Australia’s most-loved mammals, the platypus, is being pushed towards the “brink of extinction” by climate threats and habitat destruction, researchers say.

www.news.com.au

Seriously though. I love platypuses as an animal, so unique. Would be a real shame if humans were the cause of their extinction. Once again, climate change is one of the mitigating factors.

There are enough Australian animals like the platypus for every day of the year.

In the battle for funding, my species is more important than your species.

 

[romeohwho]

I like you mate, but your stuck on the wrong side of history, and the science is established. He's been for years. The anti science campaigners look ridiculous these days, like the idiots who were conned into thinking that cigarettes are a health product, asbestos is harmless and vaccines don't work.
Common amongst all of this anti science nutters is a quasi religious beliefs is conspiracy theories where scientist are either capitalists or socialists bent on world domination.
Also in common is that the science always turns out to be correct. But the conspiracy theorists just never learn, and as soon as they've been proven woefully wrong on something, they move straight onto the next silly paranoid conspiracy theory. That's why I find it amusing sometimes to point and laugh at them and enjoy their silly retorts about them knowing much more about the science than the scientists because youtube.

Yep.One positive that will come out of these bushfires (and other events) is that the financial impact/cost is going to be enormous and once the hip pocket really starts kicking in big business will respond and start making serious changes. So the BF and other duffers will ultimately have no negative impact and will simply be left behind.

 

[Mofra]

'Off the charts': Scientists sound alarm over Greenland ice melt

Scientists say the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at an "unprecedented" rate.

www.sbs.com.au

Arctic ice cap melting at worrisome rate

Global warming is causing the polar ice cap to melt at an alarming rate, NASA scientists said on Thursday, with satellite images showing the ice cap continuing to shrink.

www.sbs.com.au

It's not just 'climate modelling' which is giving voice to a concern, it's the current observable effects.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Oh dear. There were destructive storms yesterday in parts, but yes, your one experience in one tiny area means the BOM is conspiring against us all. Ron. I think it's time for you to hibernate.

The dangerous storms were reportedly coming to the north east, east and south east of Melbourne. I'm in the north east and didn't get enough rain to get wet. I heard some thunder, though.

 

[Corpuscles]

...
2) There's a very simple way to cut to the chase here. Do you agree with NASA & many others that the prediction models are seriously flawed or not? Yes or no?

Is there any climate scientists (including IPCC) that do not acknowledge such serious flaws?
The main ones being the ability to accurately model cloud cover, limited ability to accurately model the suns variance and exact impact, and lack of complete detailed understanding of heat movements in oceans both cycles and heat transfer to depth.

Not to mention, the variation of temperature measurement techniques and data over longer time periods, and this "calibration of results" (measurements) that are input into such models.

Many, or perhaps even most, think the planet is gradually heating up to some extent.

 

[Crankitup]

The most educated and researched opinions overwhelmingly believe in climate change.

Oreskes 2004 Study??

ROFL

Did you know she's a "science historian"??

I thought you only listened to peer-reviewed CLIMATOLOGISTS??

Did you realise that a couple of weeks after her original 'Science' journal article was published a number of errors were pointed out to her by David Appell. Did you also know that on 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay.

And yet years later people are still being directed people back to her original flawed study.

She may be a science historian, but she's obviously never understood the need to LEARN from history.

Benny Peiser further exposed that bogus consensus study in 2005. Initially they put their fingers in their ears and refused to listen. Here's his original letter to Science magazine in 2005 that they refused to publish.

From: Benny Peiser
To: Science
Web Submission ID: 56001
Submitted: 4 January 2005


First Author Name: Benny J Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Henry Cotton Campus
Liverpool John Moores University
15-21 Webster Street
Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM

E-mail: b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk

Phone: 0151 231 4338
Fax: 0151 231 4353

Type: Letter

Letter Details:1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004

Letter text:

On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

METHOD

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position

2. evaluation of impacts

3. mitigation proposals

4. methods

5. paleoclimate analysis

6. rejection of the consensus position.

7. natural factors of global climate change

8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.

Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.

34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".

44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

DISCUSSION:

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.

Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus view' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:

"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8)

This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, that there is no such thing!

In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.

References

1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/con

2. ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)

3. http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm

4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405

5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.

6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67

7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.

8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471

 

[Deliverance]

The dangerous storms were reportedly coming to the north east, east and south east of Melbourne. I'm in the north east and didn't get enough rain to get wet. I heard some thunder, though.

We'll, if there was no storm in one isolated area, climate change is solved. Huzzah!

 

[Corpuscles]

Yep.One positive that will come out of these bushfires (and other events) is that the financial impact/cost is going to be enormous and once the hip pocket really starts kicking in big business will respond and start making serious changes. So the BF and other duffers will ultimately have no negative impact and will simply be left behind.

Romeo

Please tell me (us)
1. That you do not think the bushfires, particularly the deliberately lit ones, were a good thing?
2. That you did not start any, or endorse anyone that did or does endorse it (other extremist looney mates)?


Big business only survives where there is a market demand for their product or service. Whilst that demand exists or increases, they will try to be as efficient and cost effective as possible! All rely on reliable energy sources and will generally chose the cheapest available.

In Australia in recent times .
A carbon tax was rejected.
Shorten (Labour Party) lost, an almost unloseable election , in part due to obsessive ridiculous climate change policy and opposition to coal mining, rejected by the majority of Australians (including " BF and other duffers")
As another poster put it "any change (climate change action) will not occur by fiat"!

You're dreamin!

 

[Ron The Bear]

We'll, if there was no storm in one isolated area, climate change is solved. Huzzah!

I was promised a storm. I demand my storm!

 

[romeohwho]

Romeo

Please tell me (us)
1. That you do not think the bushfires, particularly the deliberately lit ones, were a good thing?
2. That you did not start any, or endorse anyone that did or does endorse it (other extremist looney mates)?


Big business only survives where there is a market demand for their product or service. Whilst that demand exists or increases, they will try to be as efficient and cost effective as possible! All rely on reliable energy sources and will generally chose the cheapest available.

In Australia in recent times .
A carbon tax was rejected.
Shorten (Labour Party) lost, an almost unloseable election , in part due to obsessive ridiculous climate change policy and opposition to coal mining, rejected by the majority of Australians (including " BF and other duffers")
As another poster put it "any change (climate change action) will not occur by fiat"!

You're dreamin!

Haha. Its called clear thinking corpy. The inability of climate deniers to make the links between cause and effect is quite the stumbling block for you lads. You need to make those links between fossils fuels and global warming, between warming temperatures and murre die offs and here again you need to work out that a terrible financial impact will ultimately lead to positive actions.
You have backed the wrong horse here but really, who cares? The changes will come.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep. No climate scientists though so I defer to the expert opinion. Like my father who pioneered the study of the atmosphere in Antarctica in the 60s and 70s and went on to work at CSIRO division of atmospheric physics for decades.
In my area of science which included 11 years of study and training, I often come across non experts who think they know more about it than me. In fact the less they know the more they think they do. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. And we see it in climate science, where all of those who specialise in climate science agree (apart from a handful of non-experts who represent themselves as experts), but Alan Jones knows better.

So nothing?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is there any climate scientists (including IPCC) that do not acknowledge such serious flaws?

It all depends on what you call a "climate scientist". The area is infested with charlatans.

Without accurate cloud factors, the models are bullshit.

 

[Corpuscles]

Haha. Its called clear thinking corpy. The inability of climate deniers to make the links between cause and effect is quite the stumbling block for you lads. You need to make those links between fossils fuels and global warming, between warming temperatures and murre die offs and here again you need to work out that a terrible financial impact will ultimately lead to positive actions.
You have backed the wrong horse here but really, who cares? The changes will come.

So you are not prepared to explicitly confirm that you did not any light fires or deny endorsing those who did!?
That is NOT clear thinking , you hysterical vegan turnip!

From Crankitups post # 5673

Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).

Try to educate yourself a little.

 

[Tyler Durden007]

Really?

Sick comeback bro...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Camberra: January/2020

 

[JackOutback]

View attachment 808514

Just when I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself further.

Replace climate denier with anti-vaxxer. They do their 'research' too. That's where you sit.