Select to expand quote

Rupert said.. What has this got to do with "Crying Wolf over Climate Change" peter?
As for your link as soon as i opened it I recognised the name "Malcolm Kendrick" and didn't bother going any further.
You have dragged another quack out of the pond to support a conspiracy totally unrelated to the thread you are posting in.

petermac33 said..
Their data has been gotten to on many different fronts.

Good to see you're trying to stay on topic for a change Rupert.

Select to expand quote

Rupert said..Are you really this stupid or are you the best troll in internet history?

Judging by your reaction to being trolled, I'd say you might be onto something.

I do agree though, climate change deniers come in all forms.

Some pretend to know something the rest of us don't - like for instance the assertion that NASA, the BOM, the Met Office, the IPCC and just about every respectable university and meteorological office in the world are in on some big green swindle, or those like pm33 who are certain it's a huge conspiracy organised by THEM.

Both scenarios are very similar, except only one of these groups pretends to be legitimate with very clever semantics and disinformation that appears plausible and the other group quotes utter lunatics.

I don't think there are that many people left who still dispute AGW, but what we are seeing is deeper questioning of those who say they have the answers. What is getting exposed is that the so-called "renewables" industry is in fact, surprise surprise, no better than the fossil-fuel industry when it comes to distorting facts and cynical exploitation of the populace as it feeds off the public teat.

One of the central myths they like to propagate is that if you're not on board with "renewables", you must be a "climate denier", and therefore deserve deserve no platform. You get cancelled. Its not unlike if you question the motives of BLM organisers, you must be a "racist".

Select to expand quote

AUS1111 said..
I don't think there are that many people left who still dispute AGW, but what we are seeing is deeper questioning of those who say they have the answers. What is getting exposed is that the so-called "renewables" industry is in fact, surprise surprise, no better than the fossil-fuel industry when it comes to distorting facts and cynical exploitation of the populace as it feeds off the public teat.

One of the central myths they like to propagate is that if you're not on board with "renewables", you must be a "climate denier", and therefore deserve deserve no platform. You get cancelled. Its not unlike if you question the motives of BLM organisers, you must be a "racist".

Questioning is good, but that doesn't mean that the science, which is extremely rigorous, is suddenly in significant dispute as Paradox misleadingly claims.

It doesn't mean that renewables are a negative and we should stop investing in them.

What does intrigue me, is why anyone would be surprised in a capitalist system that people would try to make a buck out of products like renewables. I mean blown me down. That's like saying money is bad, let's stop using more of it.

The "central myth" you refer to is a myth about a myth, but it's not propagated by proponents of renewables, it's imagined by paranoid proponents of the status quo or proponents of centralised energy technologies like nuclear power.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

AUS1111 said..
I don't think there are that many people left who still dispute AGW, but what we are seeing is deeper questioning of those who say they have the answers. What is getting exposed is that the so-called "renewables" industry is in fact, surprise surprise, no better than the fossil-fuel industry when it comes to distorting facts and cynical exploitation of the populace as it feeds off the public teat.

One of the central myths they like to propagate is that if you're not on board with "renewables", you must be a "climate denier", and therefore deserve deserve no platform. You get cancelled. Its not unlike if you question the motives of BLM organisers, you must be a "racist".

Questioning is good, but that doesn't mean that the science, which is extremely rigorous, is suddenly in significant dispute as Paradox misleadingly claims.

It doesn't mean that renewables are a negative and we should stop investing in them.

What does intrigue me, is why anyone would be surprised in a capitalist system that people would try to make a buck out of products like renewables. I mean blown me down. That's like saying money is bad, let's stop using more of it.

The "central myth" you refer to is a myth about a myth, but it's not propagated by proponents of renewables, it's imagined by paranoid proponents of the status quo or proponents of centralised energy technologies like nuclear power.

OK, you really need to stop misquoting me and then arguing an irrelevant point. If my points are too hard for you to respond to accurately then dont respond at all.

I am not disputing the science. Science is a process of interpreting observed facts. All I am doing is disputing those that promote an extreme interpretation of the facts. No one is arguing there has not been an observed increase in global temperature and no one is arguing that at least some of that increase is due to human activities, including CO2 influence. What I am saying (again) is that we dont know enough to know how much is human contribution and how much is natural and no amount of rightous zealot indignation will alter that fact.

The theroetical science on CO2 influence cannot on its own explain the warming we have observed as its "greenhouse" properties are not strong enough to expain it. So this in itself is enough to suggest there is natural variance also at play. Simple observance of past temperature movements also suggest that what we have seen can be explained by natural variance. However as I keep explaining, very few believe its all natural and that humans have not contributed to it to soem degree.

As for those expouting gov agencies that I am supposedly saying are saying differently, you need to go read those sites. few if any state outright that humans are the predominant cause of observed warming. Many use language to make it sound like that but don't actually say it. Words like "likely" "probably" or vague terminology are used. That is not scientific language.

The other point being made by those like Schellingberger is that the warming we are seeing is not cause for alarm, even if it turns out we are responsible for a lot of it. There is very little evidence that a warmer planet is a bad thing, but increasing evidence that it could be a net positive thing and the negative effects are easily dealth with and outweighed by the positive.

Bottom line is climate change was one massive lie

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..
Bottom line is climate change was one massive lie

Nah, the bottom line is that you're climate change denier in a nutshell.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..I am not disputing the science.

Yes, you are. Science includes drawing a conclusion and it is that which you dispute.

The level of dispute in the field is trivial and it is you who have exaggerated this dispute to some sort of parity with the international scientific community's conclusion at large.

Stop misleading people.

Paradox - not a good idea to debate a cultist

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..I am not disputing the science.

Yes, you are. Science includes drawing a conclusion and it is that which you dispute.

The level of dispute in the field is trivial and it is you who have exaggerated this dispute to some sort of parity with the international scientific community's conclusion at large.

Stop misleading people.

Bono Groucho Adriano I mean HG I don't think your in a position to accuse people of being misleading

Is Adam Bandt being truthful or deceptive when he refers to "climate bushfires" and "coal fuelled bushfires", in the wake of Australia's sixth-worst fire season?

Select to expand quote

AUS1111 said..
Is Adam Bandt being truthful or deceptive when he refers to "climate bushfires" and "coal fuelled bushfires", in the wake of Australia's sixth-worst fire season?

Agreed. The Greens spew nonsense all the time.

So does Paradox. He's fake news.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..I am not disputing the science.

Yes, you are. Science includes drawing a conclusion and it is that which you dispute.

The level of dispute in the field is trivial and it is you who have exaggerated this dispute to some sort of parity with the international scientific community's conclusion at large.

Stop misleading people.

Bono Groucho Adriano I mean HG I don't think your in a position to accuse people of being misleading

I have to green thumb that, just for the amusement factor

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
I'd be hesitant to believe a word from the WWF or the BCRF or any other "charity" that has a CEO sitting comfortably on six figures while maybe five percent of donated funds go to the actual cause.

That's pretty alarmist!

Financial Performance Metrics for WWF

Program Expenses 73.1%
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)

Administrative Expenses 6.5%
Fundraising Expenses 20.3%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.21
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.29
Program Expenses Growth 3.4%
Liabilities to Assets 27.7%

Select to expand quote

"...sitting comfortably on six figures."

More alarmism.

I know many a tradie sitting comfortably on six figures, as do you.
Hell, you're halfway there on unemployment benefits at the moment.
It's nothing special, and perhaps worthy of a position like this.

I've been a member of WWF since they did a fundraiser in milo tins, circa 1980.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..I am not disputing the science.

Yes, you are. Science includes drawing a conclusion and it is that which you dispute.

The level of dispute in the field is trivial and it is you who have exaggerated this dispute to some sort of parity with the international scientific community's conclusion at large.

Stop misleading people.

Wait, I'm misleading people and giving fake news....??? I might point out you are sounding very Trumpish there...

OK, so lets look at my very clear statement that we really don't know with any certainty the level of contribution of CO2 and other human influence to observed warming.

Your response is that there is no debate or dispute on this figure and that I am exaggerating the clear scientific message. ie it is firm and certain that Humans and mainly CO2 is the majority cause of observed warming. Please feel free to adjust your view if I have not clearly stated it from your comments.

I will provide this quote on the issue from the latest IPCC report. I will assume the IPCC is suitably invested in promoting human caused climate change for you to trust thier statements.

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}"

This statement lumps extremely likely with dominant cause. In other words to paraphrase, "we are pretty sure that in combination, all human contributions are causing more than 50% of the observed warming"

Coming from an organisation whose summaries are known to exaggerate and overstate wherever possible, that is a whole lot of hedging that scientifically amounts to "its possible, but we really can't say for certain" and it ties no firm % to CO2 whatsoever. In fact it clearly omits mentioning CO2 as a dominant contributer with all the rest. Hedges on uncertainties.

Which was exactly my point. We don't really know.

So lets see your backup for claiming my view is fake news and misinformation? I am even backed up by the IPCC, who I have no scientific regard for.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

IPCC said
"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}"

Hedging a few bets there...if you can even figure out what the sentence means.

The scientists showing least concern are the geologists. The past swings in climate are written all over the rocks. I'm reading "A geological guide to the Capes region of southwest WA. by John A Bunting" Page 5.105 headed "Why are the Fossil Corals at Foul Bay Important " makes some interesting points.

ie.(I've condensed it a bit) The fossils indicate the waters in Foul Bay were 2 degrees warmer than present 125,000 years ago. ie. well within the 800,000 year time frame during which we had "acceptable" Co2 levels.

Sea level was 2.5 metres above present back then.

The waters then dropped by 130 metres in the next intervening glaciation and started rising at the beginning of the current interglacial 10,000 years ago . The rising waters overshot the current high tide mark by 3 metres at only 5,000 years ago before settling to the current level.


In other words an awful lot of climate change has occurred during that 800,000 years of stable levels of atmospheric Co2

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..

psychojoe said..
I'd be hesitant to believe a word from the WWF or the BCRF or any other "charity" that has a CEO sitting comfortably on six figures while maybe five percent of donated funds go to the actual cause.

That's pretty alarmist!

Financial Performance Metrics for WWF

Program Expenses 73.1%
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)

Administrative Expenses 6.5%
Fundraising Expenses 20.3%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.21
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.29
Program Expenses Growth 3.4%
Liabilities to Assets 27.7%

"...sitting comfortably on six figures."

More alarmism.

I know many a tradie sitting comfortably on six figures, as do you.
Hell, you're halfway there on unemployment benefits at the moment.
It's nothing special, and perhaps worthy of a position like this.

I've been a member of WWF since they did a fundraiser in milo tins, circa 1980.

I wish to rescind some of my earlier comments. Just so sick of charities asking for money, and then when I ask for a breakdown of expenditure they either don't know or it's around five percent. Even one of my favourite charities is guilty of lavishing workers with funds that were clearly intended to help those in need

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

IPCC said
"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}"

Hedging a few bets there...if you can even figure out what the sentence means.

The scientists showing least concern are the geologists. The past swings in climate are written all over the rocks. I'm reading "A geological guide to the Capes region of southwest WA. by John A Bunting" Page 5.105 headed "Why are the Fossil Corals at Foul Bay Important " makes some interesting points.

ie.(I've condensed it a bit) The fossils indicate the waters in Foul Bay were 2 degrees warmer than present 125,000 years ago. ie. well within the 800,000 year time frame during which we had "acceptable" Co2 levels.

Sea level was 2.5 metres above present back then.

The waters then dropped by 130 metres in the next intervening glaciation and started rising at the beginning of the current interglacial 10,000 years ago . The rising waters overshot the current high tide mark by 3 metres at only 5,000 years ago before settling to the current level.


In other words an awful lot of climate change has occurred during that 800,000 years of stable levels of atmospheric Co2

Right, but 5000 years ago there were not 200 million Bangladeshies living virtually at sea level.

Theory, observations and experiments support the fact that humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, leading to greenhouse warming, higher sea levels, displacement of populations and on average a less hospitable climate. There's a lot of risks in doing that on it's generally considered a good idea.

Therefore, even if it does natuarally occur every few thousand years, why do we want to artificially do it as well?

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..

psychojoe said..
I'd be hesitant to believe a word from the WWF or the BCRF or any other "charity" that has a CEO sitting comfortably on six figures while maybe five percent of donated funds go to the actual cause.

That's pretty alarmist!

Financial Performance Metrics for WWF

Program Expenses 73.1%
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers)

Administrative Expenses 6.5%
Fundraising Expenses 20.3%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.21
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.29
Program Expenses Growth 3.4%
Liabilities to Assets 27.7%

"...sitting comfortably on six figures."

More alarmism.

I know many a tradie sitting comfortably on six figures, as do you.
Hell, you're halfway there on unemployment benefits at the moment.
It's nothing special, and perhaps worthy of a position like this.

I've been a member of WWF since they did a fundraiser in milo tins, circa 1980.

Your post looked so impressive I decided to Google it for myself

One day, like many stars in the big system, the sun will extinguish as nothing left to burn.
Will that cause climate change?
Another consideration as the sun slowly burns up it's fuel and cools a bit will that cause climate change?
The chance of that anytime soon is beyond our comprehension but it will happen.

My opinion is we should all put aside the fighting over the causes of climate change & start looking forward towards climate management or we will become extinct fighting over the reasons why it's happening .
We are very fragile organisms & the sooner we realise we must regulate our biosphere for continued life the better.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
My opinion is we should all put aside the fighting over the causes of climate change & start looking forward towards climate management or we will become extinct fighting over the reasons why it's happening .
We are very fragile organisms & the sooner we realise we must regulate our biosphere for continued life the better.

Exactly. For example, only people on the fringe fight over Evolution of the Species.

All who accept science as an independent process accept evolution of the species as a fact, and almost all accept that Natural Selection as the most probable mechanism.

It's the same for environmental sciences like atmospheric science.

Only those with an agenda question the science. Their number one trick is to create doubt, to reduce certainties and to avoid any scrutiny of their own.

Never mind providing any evidence for their claims. All they do is use words.

"Oh there's debate" they say. Sure there's debate, but not all points in a debate carry equal weight

How to regulate biosphere:
Stop volcanoes erupting...Check!
Stop tsunamis... Check!
Set thermostat on the sun... Check!
Displace moon to stop tides... Check!
That was easy

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
How to regulate biosphere:
Stop volcanoes erupting...Check!
Stop tsunamis... Check!
Set thermostat on the sun... Check!
Displace moon to stop tides... Check!
That was easy

Oh come on! You forgot the equally intelligent flat earth problem.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Only those with an agenda question the science.

Absolute and utter twaddle.

Select to expand quote

AUS1111 said..
I don't think there are that many people left who still dispute AGW

Thankfully a decent percent of the population do not just regurgitate what we have been led up the garden path to believe by the mainstream media.

There seems to be a great divide now between between the mainstream media regurgitators and those dubbed the conspiracy theorists.

There are not many these days that sit in between the cultists and the truthers.

In the words of George Bush - you are either with us or ........

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

AUS1111 said..
I don't think there are that many people left who still dispute AGW

Thankfully a decent percent of the population do not just regurgitate what we have been led up the garden path to believe by the mainstream media.

There seems to be a great divide now between between the mainstream media regurgitators and those dubbed the conspiracy theorists.

There are not many these days that sit in between the cultists and the truthers.

In the words of George Bush - you are either with us or ........

In the words of George Bush - you are either with us or ...... are a stupid conspiracy theorist?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..Absolute and utter twaddle.

holy guacamole said..
Only those with an agenda question the science.

OK, So is gravity questionable, or real?

What about F = ma? Is that in question?

Laws of Thermodynamics? Shall we throw those out and go back to shamanism?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
OK, So is gravity questionable, or real?

What about F = ma? Is that in question?

Laws of Thermodynamics? Shall we throw those out and go back to shamanism?

Apples and oranges. You're making an argument from authority about a complex collection of systems and backstopping it with simple science.

Science is a way to understand things, not the final destination.

There are still many, many things we are learning about gravity, Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics and the rest of it.

People questions science all the time, because that's good science.

And yes, questionable. It was in fact questioned, even though "the science was settled" and we were brought to a new and deeper understanding of gravity and Newton's laws of motion by Einstein and Relativity.

Newton's Second law (that you quoted there) is an approximation and increasingly fails at higher relativistic speeds, for example.

Any good scientist would say that the laws of thermodynamics have served us well -- so far ... and yet remain open-minded to investigating claims that they've been falsified. Like, the Third Law and black holes.

Falsifiability -- that's science. Claiming that you can't argue, investigate or even question something is not science, it's dogma.

Oh, snap.

We can regulate our atmosphere we have already done it with the banning of CFC & this has reduced the ozone hole .
I'm not suggesting stupid things like pshycojoe.
We can tackle the plastic problems.
There has been a machine invented that will not only remove carbon from the atmosphere but also produce protein as a by product .
All we need is the political will & that's never going to happen while people play the blame game .
What is to stop us increasing carbon extract if a volcano erupts ?
Absolutely nothing.
The question I think everyone should ask of themselves is would I rather argue about the cause of the problem or do something to fix it so my children or there children don't face extinction.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
The question I think everyone should ask of themselves is would I rather argue about the cause of the problem or do something to fix it so my children or there children don't face extinction.

Good point.

But muh BRRM BRRIM