It is easy for simpletons and politicians to classify a complex issue into ‘yes and no’ or ‘true and false’ or some other variety of the black and white argument.  But life is never that easy and very few serious and complex issues are ever so easily and so conveniently classified.  Climate Change is certainly just such an issue. For starters, most people cannot even easily define the issue.

Just using the term ‘climate change’ is pointless since it is quite obvious that climate changes and always has.  Even adding ‘Anthropogenic ‘ (human caused) to the front doesn’t help much since it is a basic understanding of science that since we form part of the earth’s bio-system we inevitably affect it.  The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is the word  ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).

CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable and should be the core of the debate.  But CACC is where you lost me.

CACC essentially believes we are all going to fry, starve, drown or die in mass numbers unless we all do the IPCC’s bidding and spend hundreds of trillions of dollars changing our lives and lowering our standard of living.  Conveniently, the bulk of that money apparently needs to go to poor third-world countries. It wouldn’t be the UN if it didn’t involve criticising the West and doling out huge amounts of aid to African dictators and other left-wing dictatorships!

But is that C really all that credible?

I am naturally a cynic.  It is my personality trait.  Rather than viewing it as a failing, it is indeed very helpful in business, allowing me to see through the marketing hype and over-optimistic predictions to see the truth.  I don’t fall for scams because I always ask myself ‘where are the facts’ and the pertinent questions. Being a cynic means you don’t trust easily.  Faith isn’t your first resort, but rather your last and blind faith is simply asking too much, period.  So naturally, the word ‘catastrophic’ aroused my instant suspicion. To be honest, I’ve heard it all before.  Blah, Blah Blah.

We had the post World War 2 fear that we would all die in a global nuclear war.  Then we had the pollution global scare of the 1970s where we all expected to die in mounds of rubbish, breathing toxic air and drinking deadly acidic water.  Then we had Y2K, that truly embarrassing example of global hysteria and now, we have CACC.  Originally, we just had Global Warming, but apparently that wasn’t sexy enough and probably too easy to confront so it was renamed CACC.

I’m not a denialist - which is a truly offensive term - but rather a cynic, demanding evidence and proof.  I don’t blindly accept the CACC position and so I ask ‘prove it’.  And that is where we part company.

The default position is always that climate is not heading towards catastrophe and as support for that I refer you to tens of thousands of years of human history where we were not destroyed by climate change. This of course is not proof that we aren’t heading towards catastrophe, but it remains the default position that CACC proponents have to debunk.  As a cynic, I don’t have to prove anything, not a single solitary thing. Rather, it is the job of CACC proponents to prove their case and to be honest, it has been an epic fail.

A 0.89 degree rise in over 100 years doesn’t really concern me and I’m not sure why it should concern anyone.  It clearly hasn’t harmed us in any way and there are good arguments that it has actually been a good thing. When I see that that global warming has stabilised and has for the last 17 years I again question the hysteria over warming.  After years of doom-and-gloom predictions that the poles would melt, they have resolutely failed to do so and even now are increasing in size again. The predicted six metres of sea level rise is closer to 6mm.  The UN’s prediction of 50 million climate refugees by last decade has been off by... fifty million.

But still the hysteria rages unabated and hasn’t it gotten personal? Anyone who has ever debated or argued at length knows that once the debate gets personal you know the other side has lost. Superior, evidence-supported argument doesn’t need personal attacks.  So now I am a ‘denialist’., considered a criminal by some and a fool by many in the CACC crowd, all because I don’t accept on faith a belief that has no support from either history or science.

I’m not a fool.  I’m a cynic.  If you want me to be a believer then you need to prove your case and to date, the CACC crowd have not even gotten close.  The one-time ‘gold standard’ Hockey Stick Graph which once adorned the IPCC reports and backdrops at news conferences is now generously described as bad science, although fraud is a better word.  The Climategate scandals have shown that people are willing to game the system to maintain the momentum of CACC.  But even such reprehensible behaviour doesn’t comprehensively negate CACC, although it certainly severely damages its credibility.  The real nail in the coffin of CACC is climate itself.

The world’s climate is stubbornly refusing to follow the IPCC’s predictive models.  Temperature refuses to rise.  Ice caps refuse to melt.  Glaciers refuse to disappear.  Extreme weather remains at the same level as it has for centuries and in some areas lower.  Sea level rises are in millimetres, not metres. Reservoirs and dams continue to fill, even in dry countries like Australia

Why is it that the use of the word "catastrophic" in relation to climate change, is usually only used by those on the denial side of the fence?

Why?
Moving the goal posts?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 9:48am:


By who?
A sh!t load of those like you who deny the science.
But apart from those, I can't say I've ever seen a scientific article that supports ACC that uses the term "catastrophic".
Okay, I've seen some green stinking hippy types use the term, but nobody that actually knows what they're talking about.

Care to provide an example or two?

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 9:52am:


deny what science? the hypotheses that are wrong EVERY TIME? or the predictions based on these hypotheses that are wrong EVERY TIME.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

yet another lie...
People like Plimer and Carter et al, have been called denialists and worse...  but they do not deny Climate Change or Warming at all...  the Thermageddonsists continually lie and slander and libel these people who merely dissent fromtheir opinions re AGW.

Grendel wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:05am:


onion news can be so awesome.  they use biting satire to great effect.  the trouble is that with the limited IQ of many on here (eg skippy or bobbY0 they would assume it is a genuine news report.

Quote:


Quote:
.

Quote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26824943

Even if you dont believe in climate change, the continued burning of fossile fuels is just not viable for the future of the human race.   Already, since the start of the industrial evulotion, our planet's biodiversity had been decreasing sharply.   the rate of extinction is now approach if not greater than of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.   In the past, it was caused by catastrophic events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions.  But we are living in between ice age period, life supposed to be prosper rather than dying out. 

All over the Earth, you can see natural environments like forests, sea beds, farmable lands gave ways to large mines.  And with increasing population, even a primary school student can see that this cannot go on forever. 

We have to reduce our blueprint on this planet.  We have to start seriously turn away from our dependence on non renewable energy to clean and renewable ones.  Even if you dont belief in climate change, then you should still agree with this sensible transformation.    Our ancestors survived many cycles of extinction through luck, and the ability to adapt.  Well, if we want to advance our civilization to the next level, then we need to adapt and change again.  Dont be the weak link. 

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

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?

I'll stick with the worlds respected experts in the field who submit peer reviewed papers...the opinions of shock jocks, ultra conservative pollies and right wing forum junkies are less than worthless.

Quote:


And thats a common ground that we can all work towards.   

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:24am:


The slowing rate of increase surface temperatures has happened before, and will again, you can't single out a period and claim the average global temperatures are not rising.

In any case "slightly wrong" isn't anything near "dead wrong".

It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

Kytro wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:52am:


it isn't a 'slowing rate of increase'. it is the total ABSENCE of increase. it is also a pause complete unpredicted in the climate models.  this pause in warming is the death knee to the models.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:04am:


The oceans are warming, longy and the atmosphere is catching up. When the El Niño comes, those who have been ignoring the oceans and cherry picking dates to construct a statistical pause are going to be outed as the propagandist they are.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:22am:


the oceans are warming???  haven't you noticed those inflammatory graphs of ocean warming never use degrees but instead use joules?  that is because the warming is to date 0.0002 degrees and even that is arguable.

my problem with you position is that you don't even accept the current pause in warming which is an established fact.  how can you be taken seriously when you adopt that posture?

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.

So while I remain sceptical I also understand the vested interests involved on both sides of the argument that are pulling us in different directions. I also understand that most Scientists and Governments believe some action is required to curb AGW and provide renewable energy that does not rely on fossil fuel to deliver the energy our modern society now relies on so heavily. To be a sceptic is to question everything without believing one thing or the other but there is more reason behind the AGW argument than the 0.1% of evidence being supplied by the "denialist movement" and the vested interests driving their beliefs.

Do I believe in AGW beyond any doubt, no I do not. However I am also not convinced there is no merit to the vast peer review science that has been presented to support the need to curb our greenhouse emissions. If faith is required to believe in AGW it requires faith to deny its existence. Do we put our faith in the fossil fuel industry or the vast majority of scientists and Governments who believe there is reason to act???



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

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


best response yet Phil - not that the bar is set that high.  I do however call into question your 0.1% error claim.  the entire point is that the error margin is massive and the rate of error, 100%  the CACC crowd gets every prediction wrong and 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.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:42am:


Y2K was a global embarrassment due to the mass hysteria it generated.  the IT industry was well aware of the problem and had been for many years prior. I too was working on the problem and it was something we generally laughed at how the world was getting sucked into the hype.  The problem was real, the problem was fixed.  the hysteria however was a global embarrassment and as usual, the biggest noises were the least qualified to speak

enter Al Gore stage left...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

Without people being aware of a potential problem then there is every chance the problem will be ignored.  It's as simple as that.  It isn't hysteria as you put it, it's awareness of the issue, the possible outcomes if the issue is not addressed, and the push for solutions as a result of this awareness.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:47am:


he predicted Adelaide would run out of water 3 years ago.  the BoM predicted a dry warm winter.  amazing how so much education and so much funding can still deliver outcomes that couldn't be worse if they tried.

It has been the coldest winter in 10 years and once of the wettest as well.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:53am:


except there is no warming and the warming prior to the last 17 years was a minute 0.,89 degrees for a world that is still coming out of a mini ice age.

and you still wont say there has been no warming even tho your climate hysteric friends have begrudgingly said exactly that.

For those that love a good trend...as we know trends don't lie...with the exception of the base information of course.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php

Kytro wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:20am:


When temperatures  are measured in 1/10 degrees, it is only when we average them that we get an 'accuracy' of 1/100 of a degree.

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


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?

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

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


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?

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

Still ignoring the FACTS I see...