Australian Politics Forum - Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21622
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #45 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:27pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

You must ask why cherry-picking a timeframe to support an argument by starting at an extremely warm year in any way supports the non existence of AGW.

And yet we have 2 similar 30 year periods in the 20th Century that show similar slope. One before CO2 emissions are blamed by IPCC and one after. 30 years according to IPCC is climate trend.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #46 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:32pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

In some ways I agree with you Longy......Some scientists have made wild predictions and exaggerated claims that have been proven to be false, which has damaged their credibility and allowed opponents of ACC the opportunity to discredit the whole scientific community over this issue.

Where I remain sceptical is the opponents of climate change only have to provide evidence of errors 0.1% of the time to discredit the whole scientific research process yet climate scientists must be correct 100% of the time or they are discredited as liars and frauds by those whom deny the existence of AGW.

It is interesting you use the word faith to describe those who accept the science of AGW to imply that there is no credible evidence to support the science and it required faith to believe. The same argument could be used to describe those who believe in God which is based on a book written over 2000 years ago that attributed natural events to the existence of an all powerful being who was controlling our lives and created the universe. To accept there is a God requires faith without any supporting evidence to prove Gods existence, not a single miracle or proven fact has been provide since this book was written to support the existence of any God, yet faith provides the basis of your whole belief system. This is hardly the position any true sceptic would adopt which is why I question your belief you are in any way a true sceptic who requires evidence to believe anything.

Why I remain sceptical of those who support the denial of AGW is the vested interests behind the "denialist movement", such as the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute which where all funded by the fossil fuel industry until their involvement was exposed and they withdrew their funding. This funding was of course replaced by vastly wealthy and profoundly conservative foundations like Scaife and John M Olin as well as foundations managed by Charles and David Koch who are profoundly conservative, deeply ideological anti-socialist, anti-regulation, anti-statist, low-tax libertarians.

Huh

Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

best response yet Phil - not that the bar is set that high. I do however call into question your 0.1% usually by a very large margin.

in 2012 the graph that showed there had been no warming for 17 years was denied, repudiated and mocked by climate activists despite being their own data. and now of course, this pause is undeniable. my point is that it was NEVER undeniable. but the fact that they continued to deny it revealed that their agenda was anything but science. the term 'denialist' most appropriately belongs to climate activists who deny the facts of our climate and instead live on their predictions and ideology.

You must ask why cherry-picking a timeframe to support an argument by starting at an extremely warm year in any way supports the non existence of AGW. Global surface temperatures have risen, for instance, if you started at 1999, 1996, or any year before that the trend would show an increase in global temperatures. At least 12 of the last 15 years have been the hottest on record, to cherry pick the hottest year on record and ignore the trend shows a deception of its own. I am sure other people have provided graphs showing a long term trend in the increase of global temperatures over a much longer period which "denialists" chose to ignore. To accept one flawed statistic over all other trends shows you are prepared to only accept you preconceived position of denialism over statistical evidence that shows a completely different situation. You have no more credibility than those you condemn for only accepting evidence that supports their ideology!!!

Huh

Phil... you are brighter than this. the point isn't about ABSOLUTE temperature but about trends. the trend over the last not insubstantial time period of 17 years is NO CHANGE. if you take it back a few years then you actually get a DROP in temperature.

the statistic isn't flawed at all but it is certainly inconvenient. the most telling point in this whole debate is the refusal for so long by so many to even accept that this pause has happened. it proves nothing and no one is saying it does. it could be temporary and more warming to follow or it could be the top of the trend and cooling is to follow. no body knows. the only thing we can know for sure is that that refusal to accept that his pause even happened is a savage indictment on the integrity of so many people and organisations.

in the end, we have to trust people with expertise in areas we have little or no experience. But how do you trust people who lie so easily and are so ignorant of the obvious - if inconvenient - truth?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #47 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:34pm

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

[quote author=philperth2010 link=1406331506/43#43 date=1406341091]You must ask why cherry-picking a timeframe to support an argument by starting at an extremely warm year in any way supports the non existence of AGW.

And yet we have 2 similar 30 year periods in the 20th Century that show similar slope. One before CO2 emissions are blamed by IPCC and one after. 30 years according to IPCC is climate trend.[/quote]

LOL it used to be 15 years to show a trend. now it is 30 years and why??? because th outcome is inconvenient.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

fezz

Senior Member

Offline

Where's my red hat?

Posts: 280
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #48 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 1:05pm

What has global warming done since 1998?...the most common year to cherry pick of late.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=277&&a=11

This Step Function trend is why a year such as 1998 should not be cherry picked to confirm or refute AGW.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=54

Back to top

I would rather be poor and produce nothing than be an arsehole and conquer the world

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #49 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 3:25pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

In some ways I agree with you Longy......Some scientists have made wild predictions and exaggerated claims that have been proven to be false, which has damaged their credibility and allowed opponents of ACC the opportunity to discredit the whole scientific community over this issue.

Where I remain sceptical is the opponents of climate change only have to provide evidence of errors 0.1% of the time to discredit the whole scientific research process yet climate scientists must be correct 100% of the time or they are discredited as liars and frauds by those whom deny the existence of AGW.

It is interesting you use the word faith to describe those who accept the science of AGW to imply that there is no credible evidence to support the science and it required faith to believe. The same argument could be used to describe those who believe in God which is based on a book written over 2000 years ago that attributed natural events to the existence of an all powerful being who was controlling our lives and created the universe. To accept there is a God requires faith without any supporting evidence to prove Gods existence, not a single miracle or proven fact has been provide since this book was written to support the existence of any God, yet faith provides the basis of your whole belief system. This is hardly the position any true sceptic would adopt which is why I question your belief you are in any way a true sceptic who requires evidence to believe anything.

Why I remain sceptical of those who support the denial of AGW is the vested interests behind the "denialist movement", such as the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute which where all funded by the fossil fuel industry until their involvement was exposed and they withdrew their funding. This funding was of course replaced by vastly wealthy and profoundly conservative foundations like Scaife and John M Olin as well as foundations managed by Charles and David Koch who are profoundly conservative, deeply ideological anti-socialist, anti-regulation, anti-statist, low-tax libertarians.

Huh

Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

best response yet Phil - not that the bar is set that high. I do however call into question your 0.1% usually by a very large margin.

in 2012 the graph that showed there had been no warming for 17 years was denied, repudiated and mocked by climate activists despite being their own data. and now of course, this pause is undeniable. my point is that it was NEVER undeniable. but the fact that they continued to deny it revealed that their agenda was anything but science. the term 'denialist' most appropriately belongs to climate activists who deny the facts of our climate and instead live on their predictions and ideology.

You must ask why cherry-picking a timeframe to support an argument by starting at an extremely warm year in any way supports the non existence of AGW. Global surface temperatures have risen, for instance, if you started at 1999, 1996, or any year before that the trend would show an increase in global temperatures. At least 12 of the last 15 years have been the hottest on record, to cherry pick the hottest year on record and ignore the trend shows a deception of its own. I am sure other people have provided graphs showing a long term trend in the increase of global temperatures over a much longer period which "denialists" chose to ignore. To accept one flawed statistic over all other trends shows you are prepared to only accept you preconceived position of denialism over statistical evidence that shows a completely different situation. You have no more credibility than those you condemn for only accepting evidence that supports their ideology!!!

Huh

Phil... you are brighter than this. the point isn't about ABSOLUTE temperature but about trends. the trend over the last not insubstantial time period of 17 years is NO CHANGE. if you take it back a few years then you actually get a DROP in temperature.

the statistic isn't flawed at all but it is certainly inconvenient. the most telling point in this whole debate is the refusal for so long by so many to even accept that this pause has happened. it proves nothing and no one is saying it does. it could be temporary and more warming to follow or it could be the top of the trend and cooling is to follow. no body knows. the only thing we can know for sure is that that refusal to accept that his pause even happened is a savage indictment on the integrity of so many people and organisations.

in the end, we have to trust people with expertise in areas we have little or no experience. But how do you trust people who lie so easily and are so ignorant of the obvious - if inconvenient - truth?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #50 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 4:11pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

In some ways I agree with you Longy......Some scientists have made wild predictions and exaggerated claims that have been proven to be false, which has damaged their credibility and allowed opponents of ACC the opportunity to discredit the whole scientific community over this issue.

Where I remain sceptical is the opponents of climate change only have to provide evidence of errors 0.1% of the time to discredit the whole scientific research process yet climate scientists must be correct 100% of the time or they are discredited as liars and frauds by those whom deny the existence of AGW.

It is interesting you use the word faith to describe those who accept the science of AGW to imply that there is no credible evidence to support the science and it required faith to believe. The same argument could be used to describe those who believe in God which is based on a book written over 2000 years ago that attributed natural events to the existence of an all powerful being who was controlling our lives and created the universe. To accept there is a God requires faith without any supporting evidence to prove Gods existence, not a single miracle or proven fact has been provide since this book was written to support the existence of any God, yet faith provides the basis of your whole belief system. This is hardly the position any true sceptic would adopt which is why I question your belief you are in any way a true sceptic who requires evidence to believe anything.

Why I remain sceptical of those who support the denial of AGW is the vested interests behind the "denialist movement", such as the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute which where all funded by the fossil fuel industry until their involvement was exposed and they withdrew their funding. This funding was of course replaced by vastly wealthy and profoundly conservative foundations like Scaife and John M Olin as well as foundations managed by Charles and David Koch who are profoundly conservative, deeply ideological anti-socialist, anti-regulation, anti-statist, low-tax libertarians.

Huh

Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

best response yet Phil - not that the bar is set that high. I do however call into question your 0.1% usually by a very large margin.

in 2012 the graph that showed there had been no warming for 17 years was denied, repudiated and mocked by climate activists despite being their own data. and now of course, this pause is undeniable. my point is that it was NEVER undeniable. but the fact that they continued to deny it revealed that their agenda was anything but science. the term 'denialist' most appropriately belongs to climate activists who deny the facts of our climate and instead live on their predictions and ideology.

over a much longer period which "denialists" chose to ignore. To accept one flawed statistic over all other trends shows you are prepared to only accept you preconceived position of denialism over statistical evidence that shows a completely different situation. You have no more credibility than those you condemn for only accepting evidence that supports their ideology!!!

Huh

Phil... you are brighter than this. the point isn't about ABSOLUTE temperature but about trends. the trend over the last not insubstantial time period of 17 years is NO CHANGE. if you take it back a few years then you actually get a DROP in temperature.

the statistic isn't flawed at all but it is certainly inconvenient. the most telling point in this whole debate is the refusal for so long by so many to even accept that this pause has happened. it proves nothing and no one is saying it does. it could be temporary and more warming to follow or it could be the top of the trend and cooling is to follow. no body knows. the only thing we can know for sure is that that refusal to accept that his pause even happened is a savage indictment on the integrity of so many people and organisations.

in the end, we have to trust people with expertise in areas we have little or no experience. But how do you trust people who lie so easily and are so ignorant of the obvious - if inconvenient - truth?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

do you remember all those NASA scientients complaining how NASA had moved from being a science group to a climate hysteric one? every year NASA says it is the warmest yet and despite that, every year it fails to get warmer.

in 2007 they announced that temperatures were a little cooler that year than previously. there was so much publicity for this that they CHANGED their statement and said it was warmer instead.

and you wonder why even groups like NASA have so little credibility in the eyes of the public any more?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21622 Gender:	Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change Reply #51 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 4:20pm fezz, thanks for the laugh. The cycles shown by Cook should not be even, they vary. But then again satire is a cartoonists best friend.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change
Reply #52 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 6:49pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:00am:

Grendel wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:12am:

Interesting post, longy, since we've just lived through the hottest June on record. Which followed the hottest may on record.

http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/8a143ff7-8290-4824-a4e1-95d73a02ac4a_320x180.jpg

If you posts stuff at least know what it is you are posting...
Hottest since when?
Hottest where?
What about those cooler spots eh?
What about the truth?

Global and since we began recording temperatures.

http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/8a143ff7-8290-4824-a4e1-95d73a02ac4a_320x180.jpg

Still ignoring the FACTS I see... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Climate Change Reply #53 - Jul 26^th, 2014 at 6:59pm The more I read the alarmist crap here, the more I think it is getting to be exactly like "The Onion" satire piece.
Back to top	IP Logged