Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
Send Topic Print
Climate Change Discussion and Questions (Read 37762 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #105 - Nov 3rd, 2009 at 1:36pm
 
I am reading Booker and North's Scared to Death. One reviewer has this to say about/a propos it:

Many of us who were involved in the early days of environmentalism, because of the disgusting and dangerous state of our post-war air and rivers, and had good reason to be satisfied with the progress that had been made, became distressed when the movement was suddenly hijacked by a new force. It seemed to be motivated by a hatred of industry and economic progress. Instead of relying on actual measurements of pollution, it began to extrapolate by means of theories and models. It developed the threat of the New Ice Age. Industrial pollution would block out the sun and plunge the world into an appalling frozen future. In Britain it was irrelevantly defeated by the searing summer of 1976, an isolate statistic that could have no bearing on climate and, though it caused ridicule, was nevertheless a portent of things to come. We innocently assumed that they would withdraw, but they simply did an about turn. Almost without pausing for breath, they converted the threat of an ice age to one of catastrophic global warming. Digging up old papers by the likes of Arrhenius and Callendar, and without a trace of embarrassment, they switched from accusing industry from freezing us to death to claiming that it would roast us. At the time most of us in science treated it all as a joke that no one could possibly take seriously. How wrong we were! We simply could not see that profound changes were taking place in society, that even science and its methods would come under a devastating threat.

If there is one area in which your reviewer takes a view that is divergent from that of these authors, it is in the role that Britain played in the Mother of all Scares. Sir Crispin Tickell and Margaret Thatcher just get a passing mention. Tickell, a history graduate and diplomat, closely involved with the European Commission and later permanent representative to the United Nations, author of Climatic Change and World Affairs, 1977, was a close advisor to Thatcher, who, with the unique authority of being a political leader and a science graduate, under the influence of Tickell launched Global Warming into the world political domain. If there is a “Typhoid Mary” that spread the contagion of global warming around the world it can only be Tickell; he was closely involved with the very international institutions that promoted it. Thatcher was at war with the Miners’ union and the oil sheiks and was determined to press the case for nuclear power. As so often happened, her tactical manoeuvres defeated her strategic aims. She fostered the creation of a movement that opposed everything she stood for. Revisionists deny that she was all that enthusiastic in the promotion of global warming. Take it from one who sat it the front row at a major speech she made, this is not so; or, failing that, take it from her then loyal lieutenant, Nigel Lawson. She established the Hadley Centre, designed to manufacture evidence for global warming, at the expense of funds diverted with great damage from real science, and subverted the Royal Society by putting money on the table for the same purpose. The Hadley Centre became a main engine for the UN IPCC, which imposed the global warming religion on the world.

Global warming is the scare that is the climax  of this book. It is both unique and typical. It is unique in that economic failure is not just a by-product of the scare, it is the whole raison d’ętre. It is promoted by interests who oppose everything that would enhance the economic well-being of mankind (for example, realistic sources of energy as opposed to those that are intermittent, impracticable and only sustainable by grotesque levels of subsidy). It is typical in employing all the manoeuvres that have sustained the previous, less durable scares; i.e. selecting favourable data while ignoring more credible adverse data, practising overt and covert censorship, mounting ad hominem attacks on opponents, recruiting “scientists” to serve its purposes with public funds, while without evidence gratuitously accusing critics of receiving handouts from hated industrial sources, putting the frighteners on ill-informed ordinary people and so on. Scientifically this scare is dead in the water, even the measurement evidence of any warming occurring at all fades away on examination, but the weaker their case becomes the more fervently the faithful cling to their belief and the more bitter the bile they direct at infidels.




That last word is apt. If warmists are not talking like Leninists, they tend to sound like mad mullahs and their followers  on the offensive against the Greeat and Little Satan.  
Then to point out the fact that Gore and Monbiot are the public faces of 'warmingism' is to almost put an end to the argument.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #106 - Nov 3rd, 2009 at 3:30pm
 
Does "Scared to Death" comfort and re-assure you that there's nothing to worry about?  Wink

When faced with blatently obvious lies, it's not surprising that some people lose their cool. Maybe that's one objective of the pseudo-sceptics.

When people get to the stage where they don't even listen, or bother to reply to perfectly sound arguments, that's when it becomes obvious that they have been brain washed by some very seductive publicity campaigns. People love conspiracy theories.

Fortunately we have a critical mass in world governments. Apart from maybe the Czech republic, which, let's face it doesn't matter too much, most governments will do the right thing. (Stephen Harper's Canada is a bit of a worry though)
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #107 - Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:55pm
 
muso wrote on Nov 3rd, 2009 at 3:30pm:
Does "Scared to Death" comfort and re-assure you that there's nothing to worry about?  Wink


No, but it does demonstrate the political dimentions of warmism and shows how consent was manufactured. It succeeds in discrediting Gore, the IPCC and its works and traces the seeds of the whole 'movement'. It shows who the bullies are and how they do it.

And it is readable. With stacks of refernces. Booker has a regular column in the London Telegraph. Give Monbiot a rest and check him out. He is neither a paid lackey nor a party hack nor someone who used to be the next prez.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #108 - Nov 3rd, 2009 at 11:08pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2009 at 1:36pm:
If there is one area in which your reviewer takes a view that is divergent from that of these authors, it is in the role that Britain played in the Mother of all Scares. Sir Crispin Tickell and Margaret Thatcher just get a passing mention. Tickell, a history graduate and diplomat, closely involved with the European Commission and later permanent representative to the United Nations, author of Climatic Change and World Affairs, 1977, was a close advisor to Thatcher, who, with the unique authority of being a political leader and a science graduate, under the influence of Tickell launched Global Warming into the world political domain. If there is a “Typhoid Mary” that spread the contagion of global warming around the world it can only be Tickell; he was closely involved with the very international institutions that promoted it. Thatcher was at war with the Miners’ union and the oil sheiks and was determined to press the case for nuclear power. As so often happened, her tactical manoeuvres defeated her strategic aims. She fostered the creation of a movement that opposed everything she stood for. Revisionists deny that she was all that enthusiastic in the promotion of global warming. Take it from one who sat it the front row at a major speech she made, this is not so; or, failing that, take it from her then loyal lieutenant, Nigel Lawson. She established the Hadley Centre, designed to manufacture evidence for global warming, at the expense of funds diverted with great damage from real science, and subverted the Royal Society by putting money on the table for the same purpose. The Hadley Centre became a main engine for the UN IPCC, which imposed the global warming religion on the world.



I love the sweet irony, apparently lost on environmental activists, that they are, in the final analysis, nothing more than Thatcherites.

That's funny. Grin






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #109 - Nov 4th, 2009 at 8:00am
 
Soren,

Ok, maybe I am a Leninist Thatcherite whatever that is. Do you want to add Hitlerite or Husseinite while you're at it. Go on - add Maoist if you like, and why not add Stalin to that assorted list of political name -calling. He was probably the biggest bogeyman of them all.

This is all very droll and immature, but I'm not here to play politics. My training tells me that the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is correct. My training is based on basic scientific principles. We just don't accept mantras and articles of faith. I don't memorise formulas unless I understand their basis first. There must be rigorous science behind each conclusion. I tend to read Scientific papers rather than watered down press reports, and I read each paper with a necessary degree of scepticism.

My scientific training also tells me that the likes of Plimer and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama are presenting a thin veneer of credibility that works for the general public, or perhaps even scientists outside the fields of Atmospheric physics and oceanography, but even a shallow dig will reveal that they offer nothing but deliberate confusion and astroturfing.

There is good reason that none of them have had peer reviewed papers published in the field.  The fact is that they know better than to try, because they know that what they present is farcical. It doesn't have to be factual because they are not actually trying to win any arguments. If they lose an argument, they go silent like you do Soren, then deny the fact and bring up even more regurgitated nonsense. As long as they spread confusion, they are winning.  

The more that mainstream scientists are appalled by this dereliction of duty for accurate reporting and the blatently obvious fraud that is being perpetrated, the more it works to their advantage.  The more we react, the more they can say - Look! They are obsessed with their ideology. They are zealots. And all the time, they are laughing through their teeth and flashing their bankrolls at us. Perhaps honesty doesn't pay in the short term, but eventually karma will catch up with them.  

Sometimes, I wonder if it's even worth speaking out against it. Maybe I should just do my job and let the technical lawyers take over when they get the chance, because the more I say, the more it just adds fuel to the fire.  

They are like the court jesters of old. Because they are owned by a king, the jesters can utter whatever obscenities they want as long as the king is there to protect them and laugh at how they send up his opponents.

I can understand how people without a grounding in science can't have the same perspective, and the last thing I would ask is to accept anything on faith. I am just trying to provide some simple facts to help those without a scientific training understand some of the basic science.

This issue is not about politics.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 4th, 2009 at 10:44am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained
Reply #110 - Nov 5th, 2009 at 11:08pm
 
Have you heard about the icecaps melting on Mars?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Must be all that CO2 Big Martian Oil and Coal are pumping into the atmosphere over there, making it mostly CO2 by now.  Bastards.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained
Reply #111 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 7:47am
 
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2009 at 11:08pm:
Have you heard about the icecaps melting on Mars?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Must be all that CO2 Big Martian Oil and Coal are pumping into the atmosphere over there, making it mostly CO2 by now.  Bastards.


OK - Here's a video that addresses this particular 'crock' quite well. So I'm not even going to waste my own energy writing a response.

This particular zombie lie is so old and tired that they even had a chance to remix the video. I think it originated around 2002, at a time where perhaps the polar icecaps on Mars was showing signs of shrinkage.

Soren, get the popcorn out:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-crock-weekmars-attacks-remixed


Why don't you give me something to sink my teeth into - maybe some more nonsense about Climate Models?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 6th, 2009 at 7:56am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained
Reply #112 - Nov 5th, 2009 at 3:10pm
 
How about this graph Muso. Of course the starting point of a graph can effect the apparent trend (often used against the 'no warming since 1998 claim):



Back to top
 

climate.jpg (42 KB | 34 )
climate.jpg
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #113 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 8:04am
 
Damn, I forgot to lock the Sticky topic.

How is a graph of temperatures in Central England remotely relevant to the topic of Global Warming? As I've said before, regional temperatures can vary enormously from global averages.

As you can see from the animated globe on the post you're referring to, I could easily select a part of the globe that is showing no warming trend, or I could select the Arctic Region and claim that the effect is greater than it actually is.

Let's stick to what's relevant here. Regional temperatures are not.  
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
skippy
Ex Member


Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #114 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 8:51am
 
Quote:
Soren,

Ok, maybe I am a Leninist Thatcherite whatever that is. Do you want to add Hitlerite or Husseinite while you're at it. Go on - add Maoist if you like, and why not add Stalin to that assorted list of political name -calling. He was probably the biggest bogeyman of them all


You left out Marxist, and loony bloody lefty.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #115 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 8:54am
 
LOL - even though it's not relevant, I just wondered what would happen if I extracted the data and subjected it to some analysis.

The nearest thing I could find on that URL on the graph to what it was claimed to be was "Seasonal_HadCET_mean.txt (1659 on)"

First of all the data is broken down into seasons, so I converted the file to a csv, using search and replace to convert the white spaces to commas. Then I calculated the mean temperature for each year and finally calculated running averages over each 10 years so that we can make some sense of the trends.

Guess what? My graph looks nothing like the graph on your post, pjb. It shows a remarkable increase in temperatures in recent times.

Now why does that not surprise me?  Grin

I'm starting to wonder if they actually used any of the data on that site, and if so, which data set did they use?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 6th, 2009 at 9:03am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #116 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:24am
 
Quote:
Quote:
Soren,

Ok, maybe I am a Leninist Thatcherite whatever that is. Do you want to add Hitlerite or Husseinite while you're at it. Go on - add Maoist if you like, and why not add Stalin to that assorted list of political name -calling. He was probably the biggest bogeyman of them all


You left out Marxist, and loony bloody lefty.


ANd now a member of a persecuted religious minority:

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-s...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #117 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:43am
 
I wondered how long you would take to come up with that one, Soren. You seem to be very adept at clutching at straws.  Roll Eyes

It doesn't alter the fact that the Scientific basis is quite sound.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 6th, 2009 at 3:36pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained
Reply #118 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:44am
 
muso wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 7:47am:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2009 at 11:08pm:
Have you heard about the icecaps melting on Mars?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Must be all that CO2 Big Martian Oil and Coal are pumping into the atmosphere over there, making it mostly CO2 by now.  Bastards.




Why don't you give me something to sink my teeth into - maybe some more nonsense about Climate Models?



Just sink your teeth into that article on the NASA website.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained
Reply #119 - Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:55am
 
Soren wrote on Nov 6th, 2009 at 10:44am:
Just sink your teeth into that article on the NASA website.



Grin Grin Grin I should have actually  read that link. It makes your claim even more hilarious.

Soren, a Martian year is approximately 2 earth years. Sorry, I'll try to compose myself here.

You didn't even link to the usual article about receding polar ice cap over 6 years. LOL. I can't believe that anybody could be so stupid.  Grin Grin Grin

Er,  Look Soren, this article is talking about seasonal changes on Mars. Please read your own link and be very embarrassed:

Quote:
Don't wait too long to look, though, because the ice will soon be gone.
Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."


Now would you like to find the correct link, or do you want me to find it for you?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
Send Topic Print