Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:27pm

If you will excuse the pun, the climate debate has started to hot up again in recent months. It is hard to put your finger on why, but then again, this is one debate that has long since divorced itself from the reality of facts, figures and science.

Both sides of the debate have been… hang on! Why must there only be two sides and why must there only be two camps? Surely there is room in the middle and across the spectrum, right? Well, in short, the answer is no. The nature of any debate that gets hijacked by ideology and faith is that it very quickly polarises into the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps and no alternative positions are allowed. It is he death knell for serious discussion. Now back to my original sentence…

Both sides of the debate have not exactly done themselves proud. The rhetoric, the personal abuse and the arrogance of some of the loudest voices has been obscene, that is when it hasn’t been laughable and error-filled.

Al Gore probably kicked things off with his once-lauded and now much-derided movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which was lumbered with so many factual errors, exaggerations and outright lies that the name of the movie has been the punchline to many a joke. The much hyped and much publicised ‘hockey stick graph’ has fared little better. Once proudly displayed by the IPCC to all and sundry, the graph and its underlying methodologies have now been reduced to being generously described as ‘bad science’ or less politely, outright fraud.
Not that the other side can hold its head up all that high. Self-styled Lord Monkton has been a running sore and embarrassing global joke for some years now and self-respecting people try to ignore his ravings. And then there are the conspiracy theorists always ready to muddy the waters of any otherwise, sensible discussion.

Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the ‘denialists’… Sorry, let’s digress yet again. ‘Denialists’? A term like that is rather harsh and extremely derogatory and speaks volumes about those that use it – none of it good. The fact that Queensland University even has a course to help people counteract (largely throw insults) anti-climate-change viewpoints ie denialism is a disturbing state of affairs. So back to Graeme Richardson…

Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the Climate Change Critics had taken over the majority opinion because ‘no one has engaged them. Wrong Graeme. That’s not the reason. Not even close. Politicians of all stripes love to consider the average person as some kind of gullible mug who will swallow whatever message is the loudest. While sadly there may be some truth to that, most people retain sufficient intelligence and experience to work out what is a truth and what is a lie, especially when it is rather obvious. The world has been told for three decades now that we are all going to drown, fry, starve or die in other ways because of ‘out of control, catastrophic climate change’ and yet, nothing much has changed at all. Any Australian with a few decades of life to refer to has experienced drought, flood, heat, cold and extreme weather events. And not one of them is historically remarkable.

When Tim Flannery came along claiming that Adelaide will run out of water, Sydney will never fill its dams and we are all going to burn up from uncontrolled heat, experience and scepticism caused most people to ignore that prediction. The subsequent flooding rains and decommissioning of desalination plants due to full reservoirs pretty much put paid to such predictions. Except it didn’t. Even in the face of near 100% failure of climate predictions, the same people keep making the same claims and with the same results.

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: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #1 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm

The reason the significant majority of average people reject the notion that climate is out of control and we are all going to die is the complete and total failure of any of these prophecies to be fulfilled even in small measure. While NASA and NOAA might trumpet loudly (and some would say hysterically) their claims that 2014 was the ‘hottest year ever’, they are talking about hundredths of a degree alongside error margins of tenths of a degree. People are not stupid or at least not that stupid. It is a bit like predicting a St Kilda premiership each and every year. After 20, 30, 40 years of disappointment, you quickly learn to treat such predictions as the wishful thinking they are.

The Pro-climate-change groups have orchestrated some truly appalling actions in pursuit of publicising their venture. While the Al Gore movie could be dismissed as just an embarrassment, the Climategate scandal cannot. Professional scientists colluding to ‘hide the decline’ and hiding data that did not support their central hypothesis. The Hockey Stick fiasco and the continued support for a graph that had literally been proven wrong showed up some people and groups’ motivations to be extremely suspect. But the absolute killer statement was…

‘The science is settled’

Perhaps the silliest thing said of a scientific discipline since the infamous statement by late 1800s physicists that ‘we know pretty much all there is to know about the atom’. No science is ever settled and certainly not climate science which is a relatively young discipline. At least when Rutherford discovered the subatomic structure, physics moved on. The same cannot be said for the loudest voices in Climate Change groups.

For a while we were subjected to the screams that 97% of Climate Scientists agree with Catastrophic Climate Change only to find out later that it wasn’t even remotely true and that now, a detailed and substantial survey concludes that the majority have no such opinion at all. Instead, most claim they have no idea of how much humans are involved in warming or how much more warming there will be – if indeed any. And that is before we even ask the question as to why consensus even has a place in scientific endeavour. The majority of significant scientific advances are actually achieved while debunking the current consensus opinion.

But all jokes aside, it has now started to get serious. Sea level increases have been predicted to be anything from 6 metres to 100 metres by 2020 while the actual rise is mere centimetres. NOAA has decided to ‘rework’ the sea level data and surprise, surprise, when they had done so, the results 100% mirrored IPCC predictions. Yes, 100%. Not just close but perfect. This is a very serious development. Historical revisionism like this is the stuff of totalitarian governments, not scientific bodies. If a scientist is afraid of making mistakes or being wrong then he is definitely in the wrong game. And now, NASA and NOAA reworking together to rework the temperature data and early reports indicate that they have managed to eliminate the near 18 year long pause in temperature change.

The indisputable 18 year pause in warming has been a major thorn in the side of the pro-climate change activists. It is a major deviation from predictions. It took years to even get major bodies to admit the truth of this, even after ClimateGate where this fact (no warming) was what they were trying to hide. And watch them eat their own!

University of WA was planning to bring in an overseas academic with impeccable credentials to manage a Climate Centre, but the academic and activist pushback was so severe they pulled out of it. The furore was so intense that you would think they were inviting Lord Monkton to run the place. Instead, it was an academic who thoroughly subscribes to the Catastrophic Climate Change theory.

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: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #2 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

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

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #3 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm So, in short, the title is misleading. Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #4 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

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

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #5 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:46pm 'indisputable pause' Yep, this belongs in the 'extremist exposed' section.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #6 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #7 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

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

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #8 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #9 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:58pm DRAH, yet again, proves he is off his meds.
Back to top	IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #10 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:59pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:52pm:

It seems kind of funny to be (in a ludicrous sort of way) that the whole climate change debate has (in my opinion) been deliberately built up and beaten up specifically in order to take our eye off the ball...

Deforestation is most certainly a big part of the problems future generations will face.

Our bloody minded and belligerent attachment to pumping gross levels of pollution into the very environment that humanity relies on TOTALLY are also problematic. Yet, whilst "experts" blather on back and forth trying to win the political debate - our industrious practices are systematically destroying our environment. Oh but hang on, I just have to correct someone about a comment on climate.... Clearly by correcting what others say we can fix the environment.

Well, news flash, we are not smart enough or responsible enough to save the planet and, guess what? The planet does not need us to save it - however, it would seem that we do need to have some consideration to saving ourselves. At least, that is, if we think our species is worth it. Frankly, given our behaviour surrounding the environment, resources and towards other species and our own species would seem to hint that doing nothing is our best option. Sure our species will go under because of that, but, how much better will that be for everything left behind? The correct answer (in case you're struggling here is HEAPS!).

Obviously, we should avoid deforestation - will we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should avoid poisoning our atmosphere - will we? Demonstrably not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our water sources - are we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our oceans, seas, lakes etc - are we? Obviously not.

Yet, we have endless debates about the climate...

Clearly climate is a part of the issue with regard to human survival. Whilst the idiot brigade (from both sides) maintain the rage about the minutiae - the forests, waterways and the atmosphere are being systematically damaged. At some point this will inevitably become beyond repair. It's ok though, a few very very self important people will have made heaps of money from their trails of destruction. I am certainly convinced that, in the long run, the massive profits will be what will sustain our species beyond the destruction of our only home....

The is no

PLAN

et B...

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21590
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #11 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:01pm

Greens_Win, you can't have read my post yesterday on how the IPCC (all Hail), view the 'pause', 'hiatus'.

[quote author=leeforward link=1437468949/17#17 date=1437534607]'Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c).'

It means the change in the trend, which is now completely different from the trend 1979-98.

You mean the 'extremist' is the IPCC?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #12 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #13 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

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: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #14 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

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