State of the Climate Australia

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Michaelangelica, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you read the report FB?
    Most data is from the 1960s-1970s.?

    At this stage even if you had absolute proof your ego would not let you accept the scientists' warning.

    And the CSIRO is about a good a bunch of scientists as you get in Australia
     
  2. Michaelangelica... many scientists are warning that we have a problem in the climate science itself. What we have is BILLIONS of dollars being spent to find a predetermined answer - the scientist will find an answer to support the carbon trading scam or there will be NO FUNDING, i.e., NO JOB....

    "...another significant aspect of the affair - the attempt by a number of scientists - who are known to be both alarmist and influential in advising on climate science policy - to stifle the results of a research paper that disagrees with their belief.

    Those attempting this censorship include some with strong links to the IPCC, for example Phil Jones of the CRU and Michael Mann of hockey-stick notoriety, and remember that it is on the IPCC’s advice that the Rudd government relies in setting Australia’s national global warming policy. As the British press highlighted during January and February this year, it is a story of no small substance when corrupt, inaccurate or deliberately misleading advice emanates from the official United Nations advisory body on climate science or from scientists who are associated with it. Remember, too, that according to CEO Megan Clark no fewer than 40 CSIRO scientists have associations with the IPCC.

    Few stories in science come bigger than deliberate censorship..."

    https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/bob-carter-john-mclean



    Agreed, most are. Though we do have a few miss-guided ones around...
     
  3. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I postulate that modern science is a little misguided in and of itself. I think we have become far too reliant on it to the detriments of our minds and lives.

    It seems to me that many of the problems science is being employed to overcome are the result of science in the first place.

    The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
     
  4. permasculptor

    permasculptor Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day fellow cosmonauts of the good ship Planet Earth

    What is science? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

    The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.

    What is permaculture? Holmgren defines it as:

    Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs. People, their buildings and the ways in which they organise themselves are central to permaculture.

    I don't believe you can have the latter without the former. For me, "Consciously designed" means that we have to at least be conscious, as I don't know of anyone who can unconsciously design anything. Further for me, to be conscious means to be aware; to have "knowledge". By its own definition then, permaculture must incorporate science; and all permaculturalists are scientists.

    Of course, permaculture is much more than just pure science (on its own, still an amazing thing), it is applied science. And with applied science comes imagination, and through imagination comes art, and with art comes bullshit, hence the term: bullshit artist. So, when a bullshit artist enters our little forum here with the intention of not making us laugh by pointing out how silly we all are in the broader scheme of things, but rather with the intention of furthering the corporate, Earth-defiling tactic of denying the pure sciences that support permaculture, I no longer attempt to debate with that kind of individual. Rather, I merely use knowledge to expose them for what they are.

    In light of the above, you will note that with very few exceptions I have not attempted to use knowledge to expose the myriad of 'bullshit artists' that grace our spaceship. There is a very good reason for this. Most bullshit artists are genuinely good and kind people, and serve a purpose which is far greater than pure science alone. Mandala Town would be a boring place without a few 'jesters' and a couple of 'village idiots'. They make us laugh, cry, think, dream, etc. Bullshitting for the good of the community is a great thing. However, when the bullshit defiles good science for the benefit of very few at the expense of many, then it's time to act.

    Thanks for reading my bullshit, Marko.
     
  6. LOL, Looks like ecodharmamark has been romancing a good bottle of red... :) ..."benefit of the few", perhaps he just discovered the reality of the Al Gore scam...

    ....back to the thread - State of Oz climate -


    The Climategate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had been saying for years.

    They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.

    They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted.

    That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced firing.

    They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top‐tier journals.
    The Climategate emails confirmed that journalists were likewise threatened with boycotts if they didn’t play ball.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.

    The Climategate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from countries around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

    The scientists at the heart of the Climategate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, messages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others. This is the data that we have been relying on to tell us if the globe has been warming or not. This same data is then used by virtually everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures....


    cont. - https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/put...n-perspective/





    .
     
  7. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. Kardella

    Kardella Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me get this straight FB. Are you saying that there is this giant cabal of scientists (many thousands at last count) who have contrived to develop a conspiracy of man made global warming so that they can get their grubby hands on some research funds? Give me a break!

    The scientific community that we are referring to here comprises climatoligists, glaciologists, botanists, oceanographers, zoologists, paleontologists, etc., etc. These are people who have devoted their lives to exploring the natural world using rigorous scientific method. In the vast majority of cases, they are not reliant on funds relating to proving or disproving global warming. It is the data that they gather in the pursuit of their science that leads them to conclusion that there will be serious consequences if we continue to pollute the atmosphere as we are currently doing.

    I would also like to point out that in contrast to the transparent allocation of funds to research, the money used to support the 'think tanks' and the climate change denialists groups is anything but clean.

    Finally, on a positive note, as a practising permaculturalist I am pleased that you are doing your bit to off-set global warming through carbon capture and storage. Whilst CCS is probably unlikely to be a successful strategy for coal fired power stations, it is demonstrably successful in Permaculture and it would be wonderful to see this approach adopted more widely within the agricultural industry.
     
  9. Bad 'Gaia' (karma) from climategate

    ...Oh, dear... :D

    ...Lovelock, who 40 years ago originated the idea that the planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory – added that he has little sympathy for the climate scientists caught up in the UEA email scandal. He said he had not read the original emails – "I felt reluctant to pry" – but that their reported content had left him feeling "utterly disgusted".

    "Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said. "I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards."


    https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change


    ...Its late, so nuff for now.


    .
     
  10. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh dear, indeed...

    Seems like Lovelock is not the only one who does not read (my emphasis):

    The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures:

    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

    The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.


    Source: What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

    Must be cherry-picking season?

    Marko
     
  11. LOL, i think your fairly new to this subject eh, ecodharmamark... :)






    .
     
  12. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Learning about the subject of denialism has indeed been a relatively new experience. However, I now understand the phenomenon to a much greater degree. Thanks largely to your input, 'Flying Binghy', multiple examples from all of the following characteristics of climate science denialism have been collected and are now in the process of being studied:

    1. Conspiracy theories

    Conspiracy theories have been growing in strength in recent months as personal attacks on climate scientists have intensified. In particular, there has been accusations of manipulation of temperature data with the result that "the surface temperature record is unreliable" has been the most popular argument over the last month. This is distracting people from the physical realities of global warming manifesting themselves all over the world. Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. Spring is coming earlier each year. Animal breeding and migration are changing in response. Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations. Global sea level is rising. When one steps back to take in the full body of evidence, it overwhelmingly points to global warming.

    2. Fake experts

    A number of surveys and petitions have been published online, presenting lengthy numbers of scientists who reject man-made global warming. Close inspection of these lists show very few qualifications in climate science. On the contrary, a survey of climate scientists who actively publish climate research found that over 97% agree that human activity is significantly changing global temperature.

    3. Cherry picking

    This usually involves a focus on a single paper to the neglect of the rest of peer-review research. A recent example is the Lindzen-Choi paper that finds low climate sensitivity (around 0.5°C for doubled CO2). This neglects all the research using independent techniques studying different time periods that find our climate has high sensitivity (around 3°C for doubled CO2). This includes research using a similar approach to Lindzen-Choi but with more global coverage.

    4. Impossible expectations

    The uncertainties of climate models are often used as an excuse to reject any understanding that can come from climate models. Or worse, the uncertainty of climate models are used to reject all evidence of man-made global warming. This neglects the fact that there are multiple lines of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming .

    5. Logical fallacies

    Strawmen arguments abound in the climate debate. Often have I heard skeptics argue "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" which every climate scientist in the world would wholeheartedly agree with. A consideration of all the evidence tells us there are a number of factors that drive climate but currently, CO2 is the dominant forcing and also the fastest rising. Logical fallacies such as "climate has changed before therefore current climate change must be natural" are the equivalent of arguing that lightning has started bushfires in the past, therefore no modern bushfire is ever started by arsonists.
    [/B]

    Source: Cook, J. (2010) The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

    I will leave you now with a final word from John Cook:

    Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

    This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it's certainly not advocating attacking peoples' motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive.


    Once again, thank you.

    Marko
     

  13. Hmmm,... i've always found it difficult to discuss anything with religeous fundamentalists. When i piont out the obvious fallacy of their belief that they are trying to impose upon me they turn to the personal attacks.

    ....oh well, on ah plods...
    :cool:





    .
     
  14. Where did the climate crisis go?

    Back to the thread...

    An interesting observation -

    Peter Costello is amazed that climate alarmism can be switched off and on at will:
    Last year, we were told, the most important issue for the country - for the planet - was greenhouse gas emissions. This meant the Senate had to pass the government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.
    It was so urgent it had to be legislated before the end of the year, and before the summit in Copenhagen… Kevin Rudd declared climate change ‘’the great moral and economic challenge of our time’’.
    Now the legislation has become less important.... https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun...sun/comments/where_did_the_climate_crisis_go/





    .
     
  15. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think people are tired of banging their heads against a denialist brick wall.
    You can only put up with so much pain/stupidity.

    What does it cost you to think that mitigating CO2 emissions might be a good idea?
     
  16. Hmmm, just for starters - the Climategate corruption doesnt worry you Michaelangelica ?





    .
     
  17. On Hold...

    Nice wage if ya can get it...

    "...THE Rudd Government has transferred its entire emissions trading team into the strife-prone household insulation program, putting plans for carbon trading this year on the backburner.
    The team of 154, which has been costing taxpayers an average of $370,000 each planning for the non-existent emissions trading scheme, will be put to work on sorting out the problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program that left four people dead and has been implicated in 120 house fires up to March 24..." cont. -
    https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/carbon-trading-on-backburner/story-e6freon6-1225849223899






    .
     
  18. Kardella

    Kardella Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dear Flying Binghi,

    You clearly have a significant concern about the reality of human induced global warming. What evidence would convince you that global is occurring and that it is very likely to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels?

    Regards,

    Kardella
     
  19. Kardella, from the research and forum debates i have been involved in over the last couple of years, ah have nil concerns about AGW. I do have concerns about the economic damage that will be done in the miss-guided attempts to stop a fairy tale.



    Evidence... show me some. Even this dumb hill farmer me with less then eight years of school has been able to debunk some of the so-called AGW 'evidence' ..., so, show me some 'evidence' of AGW...






    .
     
  20. Kardella

    Kardella Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Flying Binghy

    You have 'answered' my question with another question........ which is clearly not an answer.

    I'll repeat the question: What evidence would you need to convince you that global warming is occurring and is very likely caused by humans burning fossil fuels? If you are unable (or unwilling) to answer that question, there can be no dialogue because you could conceivably NEVER be convinced.

    Kind regards,

    Kardella
     

Share This Page

-->