. "Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made. As Mark Lawson explains in this book, in layman’s language, this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy. On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions." Mark Lawson is a senior journalist on the Australian Financial Review. He has a science degree from Melbourne University, and has been a science writer, editorial writer and Perth bureau chief for the Review. https://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=135 .
One should not be too surprised that it is published by Connorcourt. After all, this is the same bunch of right-wing, catholic zealots that publish both Ian Plimer and Garth Paltridge's works of fiction. I see they publish George Pell, too. Another one that lives in fantasy land. Must be your favourite place to shop, FB?
econdo, are you talking about the publishers of books or the person who wrote the quoted text above, there is a difference, and my opinion this climate stuff all conjecture based on unprovable bunkum (if you can't see it then it aint there, read h c andersons "the emporers new clothes" says it all), all in their minds using their parameters. for those believers i'll ask again, how much pain should we endure through not being able to afford food, fuel, water and electricity before this gossamer suit is fixed. how long must we endure this centuries millenia?? if they are going to bring fixes in that will cost the lowest common denominators poor people, then surely they must have an end date?? repair and replant the habitat that will change a lot of local climate issues which is what we realy have. trees instead of windmills. len
What... the Financial Review ? Mark Lawson is a senior journalist on the Australian Financial Review. He has a science degree from Melbourne University, and has been a science writer, editorial writer and Perth bureau chief for the Review. .
G'day Len No 'difference'; the authors and the publishers all hold the same flawed belief structure: Anthony Cappello is the co-director of Connor Court Publishing, and board member of the Centre for Faith Ethics and Society at The University of Notre Dame, of which the stated 'mission' is to promote "...the study of Catholic intellectual tradition and moral tradition, with a particular focus on faith and ethics and their application and integration into the broader life of society". Source: Centre for Faith Ethics and Society - Our Mission Connor Court draws on the tradition of the Catholic Church in publishing works of fiction that support the suppression of free thought. The C20 fictional author, Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964), together with the C17 Dutch economist and 'father' of the capitalist creed known as 'free competition', Pieter de la Court (1618-1685), are the derivatives of its very name. Source: Connor Court - About Us As mentioned previously, Conner Court publishes works by Plimer (director of three mining companies), Paltridge (former director of the Environmental Executive of the Institute of Petroleum), and Pell (Cardinal, no less). Source: Sourcewatch - Plimer, Connor Court - Paltridge, and the Archdiocese of Sydney - Pell The only reason why these authors have published under the house of Connor Court is simply because no other publisher will go near them with a ten foot pole. Church, science and capitalism make for uneasy bedfellows. Cheerio, Markos.
FB and gardenlen, My friends, it is very disappointing to hear that you both are not taking climate change seriously. Although I am a permaculturist, I am also a scientist. I am doing my master's degree in science for sustainable development at the moment (my specialization is climate, energy, and recycling), and I can tell you that the science behind climate change is very real indeed. In fact, it is not at all a stretch to say the science is overwhelming -- to the same degree that the science behind evolution and gravity is overwhelming. As permaculturists, I have a great deal of respect for both of you, and I urge you to rethink your stance on this issue. One of the principles of permaculture is to create no waste. But when we burn fossil fuels and deforest large tracts of land we are indeed creating a great amount of waste in the way of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Think about it for a moment. Do you really believe that this will have no effect on natural systems? Natural systems are of course well equipped to handle pollutants, but not to the degree that we are subjecting them to. When we are constantly adding significantly more carbon into the atmosphere than is being taken out of the atmosphere through natural processes, it is only common sense to understand that this is very problematic indeed. I am surprised the article listed Mr. Lawson's "credentials" as though they give any clout to what he is saying. What exactly is "a science degree" anyway? For all you know it could be a bachelor's degree in psychology or anthropology (both are technically sciences). It is very easy for someone who has no academic training in a particular field to criticize the work of scientists in other fields merely because he finds their conclusions inconvenient to his worldview. I am not trying to say that anyone without a degree is stupid or irrelevant (indeed they are often some of the wisest people), but certainly when they claim "expert status" in a field not their own and make wild claims, it is only natural to take what they say with a grain of salt. I am an atheist and an extremely skeptical person by nature, so I can definitely relate to what you are saying here. I question everything, and take absolutely nothing as gospel. I have the greatest amount of respect for others like yourself who also think this way. But science makes no claims about being able to prove anything, and from a philosophical point of view, nothing can be proven outside one's own existence. Science is not the new world religion as some seem to think it is. It is nothing more than a tool to expand our logical capabilities, an extension of our own senses. But to dismiss the evidence of science, especially when such evidence is so overwhelming, is folly indeed. Let me ask you this: Do you believe gravity does not exist? After all, it is something you cannot see, completely unprovable. The process of climate change might not be something that you can see by just looking up at the sky, but its effects are indeed quite observable. "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a poor analogy here, because the scientific evidence in that case would overwhelmingly support that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. I think a much better fit for the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy would be the insistence from vested corporate interests (oil executives and the like) that climate change is NOT caused by human actions. We can see through science that climate change is occurring and is caused by human actions, so their statements are simply laughable. Only their massive wealth and power allows them to continue spouting such nonsense. So I urge you to see that climate skeptics are indeed the ones without any clothes, and to stop listening to their rubbish.
Hmmm, ...now just what is a "climate skeptic" eh Adam ?... is that somebody who doubts there is any climate ? perhaps they be sceptical of climate though believe in the weather ?... perhaps they are weather sceptics as well, yer never know... weathered sceptics wondering weather or not to be sceptical in a climatic way about the weather hysteria.... .
I showed you the respect of addressing the content of your post, whereas you chose not to do the same for me. You know very well what I meant by 'climate skeptic' (= short for "climate change skeptic", meaning someone who is skeptical that climate change is occuring and/or human-induced). If you want to really talk about the issue, I would be happy to engage you. The choice is yours.
G'day Adam Reading this might help (but I doubt it): How does one converse with a denier of human-induced climate change? Cheerio, Marko.
My apologies on that one, FB. I can definitely see how you would take offense to that. I was trying to refer to the climate skeptics who claim to be experts on the matter and have published materials and are the ones making all these wild claims, like Mark Lawson. Those are the ones I believe have no clothes. I didn't mean to lump in ordinary people who are skeptical of climate change into that category, but I didn't make that at all clear with the words I chose. I didn't mean any disrespect to you.
thanks adam, your analogy between gravity and climate change is quiet bizzare realy like asking me do i believe in water(like saying i'm a dimwit or something and you lording above me), and also possibly trying to cloud the issue, it's the science that is trying to sell us this unaffordable gossamer suit, no one else, of course the climate is changing but not mostly for the reasons science in their lust for wealth are chasing. i asked some questions in my earlier post, i have asked these questions before and guess what i have never gotten any sort of answer, they get glossed over. those questions refelect real concerns, as this whole dabakle pushes us toward nuclear power (too expensive right now so lets make coal power less affordable for no other reason than some carbon fluff and to mainpulate the masses), then to even less affordable renewables. all the time ignoring the fact of massive loss in habitat and the real effect on the climate. the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is conjecture derived from sciences self made parameters (science makes its own parameters to fit their various stories into, and they judge their own works[peer review], and change parametes when the story no longer fits) not from any sort of hard copy history book, or even cave drawing. it can't be proven in real time only in the minds of those who believe for whatever selfish reason. len
" to the same degree that the science behind evolution and gravity is overwhelming " ah yes, the old backing up the weak story with references to other grander stories.... well, ah think Darwin is fairly correct and gravity i see in action when i drop something. " the science behind climate change is very real indeed " Adam, from what i see the science may be "real" though the understanding of why the world climate changes seems unresolved. Something that made me first notice the limited understanding scientists have for why climate changes is the Hocky Stick graph which was one of the 'proofs' used by the IPCC. Just to recall, the famous hocky stick graph showed the global average temperature record for the last thousand odd years as a fairly flat line with a dramatic raise in temps after the Anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the atmosphere - Hense the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) needed to be removed to get that nice flat line on the graph prior to modern times... bit inconvieniant if a graph trying to show doom and gloom because of global heat increases shows a prior warmer period before humans added much CO2 to the atmosphere. The MWP has been very well documented and generaly accepted by scientists for over a hundred years now and i regularly use MWP references from a book written over 60 years ago. ( The book even has references to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere and possible effects ) Why the need for some scientists to remove the MWP ? weak science, limited understanding of climate, or out right corruption... ? Garth Paltridge comments... " There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why. We live in an age where common sense and tolerance are supposed to be the basis of our system of education, but where there is very little of common sense and absolutely nothing of tolerance in the public argument about the climate change business. Perhaps it is that people simply have a basic need for fairy tales and doomsday stories. " Quote via the book, “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research .
just to add the the hypothesis, where are they in the world wide records of higher and higher temperatures or colder and colder temperatures, where world wide have people lost land to rising sea waters? not individual cases of a new high here or a new low there, if this is a world catastrophy then why isn't it reflected in daily weather records, it's all happened before. something i need to say! once again my personality or what i may or may not believe in has been bought into a debate, once again as i understand debates each individual has the right of reply or to post their ideas, no one has the right to attack any of those individulas at a personal level, i don't do it and never have. it has happened in PRI forums before in the past those people have recognised what they did wrong and taken appropriate action. as far as i am aware there are no contributers in this thread who could remotely be called a troll(s). and individual beliefs has nothing to do with the subject matter. any persons beliefs, creed cultures are not an impedement to them partaking in a debate, and their beliefs certainly do not belittle their standing in this community or any other for that matter. sad realy len
G'day Len The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term thus: troll, n. Computing slang. A person who posts deliberately erroneous or antagonistic messages to a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response. Also: a message of this type. Cheerio, Mark.
Sooo... this insulting thread https://forums.permaculture.org.au/...with-a-denier-of-human-induced-climate-change were started by a troll ... .... meanwhile, back at the thread subject... .
G'day Len Being a very sceptical person myself, I think it is great that you ask questions. With regards to your latest: I offer the following in response: Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2. You can read the full paper here: What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
