Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOldie

Thanks Mark.

Its astounding when others assume we are all lay people.

Unless you are so how better informed than 97% of 1,372 respected climate science experts who endorse the IPCC and the claims of human induced climate change. Then you are an ignorant lay person.

I'm sorry but people should have the humility to defer to those who know what they're talking about. If the debate is settled in the climate science community - then little Mr pleb who gets his information from the mass media - is not somehow granted authority to reopen it. You can bitch and moan about how it gets used to drive policy but you do not have the right to question the settle science - deemed so by the majority of the science community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

Unless you are so how better informed than 97% of 1,372 respected climate science experts who endorse the IPCC and the claims of human induced climate change. Then you are an ignorant lay person.

I'm sorry but people should have the humility to defer to those who know what they're talking about. If the debate is settled in the climate science community - then little Mr pleb who gets his information from the mass media - is not somehow granted authority to reopen it. You can bitch and moan about how it gets used to drive policy but you do not have the right to question the settle science - deemed so by the majority of the science community.

" I didn't include you in my verbalised internal (perhaps ill-thought) sigh."



I have not made any claims but you did and then had to back peddle.

As you say " people should have the humility to defer to those who know " .

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOldie

" I didn't include you in my verbalised internal (perhaps ill-thought) sigh."



I have not made any claims but you did and then had to back peddle.

As you say " people should have the humility to defer to those who know " .

The statement was ambiguous - it wasn't targeted or wholly inclusive. I didn't have to back peddle at all.

And as you didn't make a position statement - you're initial remark was really of no consequence.

I do defer to those i just mentioned - the climate scientists. I'm not about to ask a local GP's advice on complicated neurosurgery - i'm going to talk to the specialists. But apparently some people are happy to take advice from anyone who happens to carry the title of doctor and equate it as equally valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

The statement was ambiguous - it wasn't targeted or wholly inclusive. I didn't have to back peddle at all.

And as you didn't make a position statement - you're initial remark was really of no consequence.

I do defer to those i just mentioned - the climate scientists. I'm not about to ask a local GP's advice on complicated neurosurgery - i'm going to talk to the specialists. But apparently some people are happy to take advice from anyone who happens to carry the title of doctor and equate it as equally valid.

The statement was aimed at all those who had posted before you made your usual condescending smug comment as you often do. Otherwise you would have torn apart the relevant post/poster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOldie

The statement was aimed at all those who had posted before you made your usual condescending smug comment as you often do. Otherwise you would have torn apart the relevant post/poster.

I was actually too lazy at the time, so i just shot an arrow up in the air. I was dishearten at the incredulity of the thread. I mean really, what will it take...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

If the debate is settled in the climate science community - then little Mr pleb who gets his information from the mass media - is not somehow granted authority to reopen it. You can bitch and moan about how it gets used to drive policy but you do not have the right to question the settle science - deemed so by the majority of the science community.

But this is where lay people of the non-sceptic variety show their ignorance of science. Science is never "settled". Experiments are done, observations are made, and then a theory is built around those observations. Other scientists then take that theory and try to repicate, disprove or extend it. But a theory is never considered set in stone because at any time some new piece of data could come along and completely change everything. So it would be quite normal and a healthy part of the scientific process if some climate scientists did put on their skeptic hats and question the current theory.

In regards to climate change, I'm definately no climate scientist, but certainly in the biological sciences the tired old cliche is true - correlation doesn't prove causality. And as bascia2 pointed out, the earth's climate is controlled by a complex interplay of mechanisms, not unlike a living organism, so I can't see why the same wouldn't hold true. I don't know enough about climate science to know what evidence there is to to back up the theory, but if the main evidence is the temperature and CO2 measurements, then it really doesn't have a robust evidence base. And given the complexity of climate, it does seem just a tad simple.

Again, although not a climate scientist, I am involved in modelling. The validity of a model is only as strong as the data you have to populate it with and the assumptions you make regarding missing or unknown data. Now I would imagine that, as man made climate change is a first-time concept, that the climate change models are based on a lot of assumptions, the first and primary one being that atmospheric CO2 levels have and will continue to change the earth's climate. Now, given that the theory de jour in the climate science community is that CO2 levels are influencing climate, it's not out of the realms of possibility that the modellers made assumptions which were favorable to the outcome they were expecting. I'm not suggesting intention fraud or any other misconduct, but any modeller will make assumptions that favour their preconceived ideas and find evidence to support those assumptions (I know, it's one of the biggest parts of my job).

Fair call - 'settle(d)' was the wrong word. I meant to imply consensus.

[quote=tricky28;334947]So many words...

Quote:

You cannot prove climate change from weather events. Climate and weather are separate things.

Well I consulted my dictionary at home...

================================================== ============

Climate: The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind. On Earth, climate is most affected by latitude, the tilt of the Earth's axis, the movements of the Earth's wind belts, the difference in temperatures of land and sea, and topography.

Weather: The state of the atmosphere at a particular time and place. Weather is described in terms of variable conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation, and barometric pressure. Weather on Earth occurs primarily in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, and is driven by energy from the Sun and the rotation of the Earth. The average weather conditions of a region over time are used to define a region's climate.

================================================== ============

They are not mutually exclusive and relate very much to eachother so you first statement seems to fall short there.

Quote:

What they do say is that climate change will make weather more erratic and weather events more frequent and severe. Intensified heatwaves, droughts, flooding, blizzards, etc. So your headlines are a testament to this claim.

We live on a volatile planet with intense natural forces. As the poem once said around the early 20th Century, "I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains. I love her far horizons, I love her jewel-sea, her beauty and her terror - The wide brown land for me!" A nice reminder of how unpredictable this country's weather/climate can be and has been for many generations, without having dug up old weather reports of extreme heat from The Argus (it is available online...I suggest you go look for it)

Quote:

And if you had of been less discerning with your headlines, you might of also included the prolonged heatwaves of Europe last year.

So you're telling me that it gets really hot in summer and really cold in winter. Right? Something that we learned in our early school years.

Quote:

Or the pleas to the UN from the President of the Maldives seeking countries to take the people of his nation as the first climate change refugees in preparation for the rising sea levels.

The Maldives and Tuvalu...you mean the coral atolls that are unstable land masses as they are? Would be good tourism dollars for them, "come and see it before it sinks." So is the President of the Maldives (Mohamed Nasheed) a climate scientist? Is he certain of this hypothesis being fulfilled? Or is he after a handout from wealthier nations? Just asking.

Quote:

And even if i was a scientist, that was an expert in climatology, had a history and ongoing recent academic publication, and i happened to stand against 97-98% of my fellow peers. Who would you be more likely to deffer to?

Yes well Galileo Galilei spoke out against the majority in relation to a scientific fact of the earth revolving around the sun while the rest of society thought that the earth was the centre of the solar system. Turns out he was correct and funnily enough was not in the majority.

In fact his father had some choice words relating to the brow-beating of others by those in higher positions in the first long post (which you seem to have failed to address)

"It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth." -- Vincenzo Galilei

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudeboy86

So many words...




Well I consulted my dictionary at home...

================================================== ============

Climate: The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind. On Earth, climate is most affected by latitude, the tilt of the Earth's axis, the movements of the Earth's wind belts, the difference in temperatures of land and sea, and topography.

Weather: The state of the atmosphere at a particular time and place. Weather is described in terms of variable conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation, and barometric pressure. Weather on Earth occurs primarily in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, and is driven by energy from the Sun and the rotation of the Earth. The average weather conditions of a region over time are used to define a region's climate.

================================================== ============

They are not mutually exclusive and relate very much to eachother so you first statement seems to fall short there.

Mark Twain said: "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get."

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudeboy86

So you're telling me that it gets really hot in summer and really cold in winter. Right? Something that we learned in our early school years.

No... I said weather events get more extreme and frequent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudeboy86

The Maldives and Tuvalu...you mean the coral atolls that are unstable land masses as they are? Would be good tourism dollars for them, "come and see it before it sinks." So is the President of the Maldives (Mohamed Nasheed) a climate scientist? Is he certain of this hypothesis being fulfilled? Or is he after a handout from wealthier nations? Just asking.

Well they are already setting aside money in their budget for the perceived inevitable. Is that step necessary for a political stunt? I'm sure a head of state, who has a responsibility to their people and ensuring their security - took the decision to stir panic and incite fear for alledgedly specious reasons in the hope it might engender money lightly. They are just sinister opportunists looking to shake down the innocent developed world.

A brazen characterisation of an entire nation.

I guess we just ignore the concerns of the ones who will be the most vulnerable. And write it off to whatever is more suitable for us to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudeboy86

Yes well Galileo Galilei spoke out against the majority in relation to a scientific fact of the earth revolving around the sun while the rest of society thought that the earth was the centre of the solar system. Turns out he was correct and funnily enough was not in the majority.

In fact his father had some choice words relating to the brow-beating of others by those in higher positions in the first long post (which you seem to have failed to address)

"It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth." -- Vincenzo Galilei

He spoke out against the church NOT highly educated, rational, science minded peers. Your comparison works better when Galileo is liken to the climate scientists and the Church (who dominated society) to the establishment (corporate media, industry etc).

OMG we are all going to die. Im depending on the trannies to save us all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bascia2

The material I presented was from a seminar given recently by the leading Palaeoclimatologist in Australia and in discussions conducted by the other scientists present (including me).

Ian Plimer?

The late Professor Stephen Schneider (climate adviser to 7 US presidents) rebuffed his assertions on the SBS's Insight. In which he fielded answers from 57 skeptics.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...02#watchonline (from the 9.45 min mark). The whole program is worth watching. A very emanate authority on climate science who is able to communicate quite effectively to the concerns/misinformation held by people .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

He spoke out against the church NOT highly educated, rational, science minded peers.

However back then it was the Church who dictated how things were and no form of questioning the authority of the Church was allowed. Not too dissimilar to the way in which nobody is allowed to question the IPCC.

You still have left out any response to the paper published by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research ("The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change"). You have also not responded to the matter of Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT) and the Galileos who seem to hold an opposing and educated view on the line pushed by the [Church of the] IPCC who won't allow itself to be questioned in any way shape or form unless those who dare to do so are ok with having their funding cut and ostracised by the tyranny of the majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

Church (who dominated society) to the establishment (corporate media, industry etc).

I dare you to look at the IETA link** which shows some of the "biggest polluters" on the membership list of the International Emissions Trading Association who have been behind the failed push for a new Carbon Tax because they stand to make a lot of money in what would be the subsequent rise in the resources price and utilities bills.

The following companies I have listed come from the membership board of IETA and should save you some time in looking at the vast list.

The Banksters:
=================================
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Citigroup
Deutsche Bank
Goldman Sachs International
JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
Standard Bank

The Oil and resource companies
=================================
BP
Chevron
China Oil (Hong Kong) Corp. Ltd.
Gazprom
Shell International Ltd
Total
Rio Tinto

** http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option...168&Itemid=136

Quote:

Originally Posted by badamj2000

OMG we are all going to die. Im depending on the trannies to save us all.

I blame all the dinosaurs with their excessive flatulance.......they should all be euthanized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

I think your comparison to the erosion of rock to the potential imbalance of climate with global temperatures rising and its implication for ecosystems, severe weather events, extinctions, crop failures, is a somewhat disingenuous exercise.

And people live in earthquake zones because we have 6 billion people on the Earth and we aren't growing anymore land. In fact a lot of people die in wars over land. I know you were being flippant but to seriously pose - "why aren't people 'doing something' about it" is truly cynical.

My allusion to erosion and plate tectonics is that they are, like climate change, natural events whose impact on the human race can be mitigated with a bit of thought applied. With all the media presentation of global warming and sea level change why are we still allowing people to build canal estates? Why do we still let people build on the fore-dunes of the beach when we know they are at risk from erosion? Why do people still build structures in earthquake-prone areas that are inappropriate for those conditions? Why do people remain living under active volcanoes? Its all about identifying risks then mitigating against them. This is the same for climate change. What should we do to prevent extinctions, crop failures, ecosystem damage and severe weather events? Should we not be looking at these possible scenarios and devising methods to mitigate the problems instead of arguing about "is the climate changing or not" or "is global warming caused by human activity"? We waste so much valuable time, money and and effort on arguing and so little on mitigating the risks.

Also we seem to fail to remember the studies done by Charles Darwin on coral attolls showing that they grow and recede and expand again over time which technically means that the Maldives and Tuvalu are quite safe...

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...id=14&Itemid=1


Ummmm....WOOPS!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...03/2916981.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tricky28

Ian Plimer?

The late Professor Stephen Schneider (climate adviser to 7 US presidents) rebuffed his assertions on the SBS's Insight. In which he fielded answers from 57 skeptics.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...02#watchonline (from the 9.45 min mark). The whole program is worth watching. A very emanate authority on climate science who is able to communicate quite effectively to the concerns/misinformation held by people .

No not Ian Plimer. The particular speaker felt that Ian has not got things quite right. I will see if I can get the details for you. It was a few weeks ago now. The talk was just looking at scientific evidence relating to the more recent geological record of climate variations. It was not a talk about global warming. The idea is to gather evidence of what things were happening before man came along, do the math and project the model forwards to incorporate current measurements. The fact that current conditions (regarding CO2 concentrations compared to the past) are anomalous and coincide with the advent of agriculture and continue from there was quite clearly demonstrated. The impacts of continued elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere however is less than clear other than to support the instability of global weather systems.

Cooling, warming, changing CO2 levels and sea level changes are all quite common events in geological time frames. The problem with geology is that it tends to lack fine resolution. All we really see is a blur of the past with bits missing. This speaker was looking at evidence from the very recent geological past which is a lot less blurry and combining it with "current" measurements.

Same Same Media Player

Pt 9/9 High Anxieties The Mathematics of Chaos - YouTube

Same Same Media Player

The Rice Video - Carbon Dioxide in perspective by The Galileo Movement - YouTube

I feel somehow responsible...

local warming is less expensive.