Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

Questioning science is fine if it’s informed by expert knowledge. Reactive rants and diatribes are just bizarre and have zero agency.

---

... said the Pope 1000 years ago!

Reactive rants and diatribes were punishable by torture, and finally death by fire!

Great to see the course that climate science is choosing to follow.

So then define "expert knowledge".
Obviously that's not going to be us mere uneducated mortals.

Is expert knowledge defined as 'the guy that 30 years ago predicted a 1° increase in temp in 30 years time'.

Now with benefit of 30 years of collected data, we specifically measured a 0.3° increase in temp from 1988 to 2018.

may as well have been Nostradamus predicting the change in temp for that period 500 years ago!

If you stop to smell the roses, the current trend in the alarmist camp is what's causing the uneducated masses to ignore the science, not the science itself.
The increasing bad will towards those questioning the data vs the predictions posed and then defending those inaccurate predictions is doing more harm than the actual issue itself.
The major issue is that it's hard to find the sensible scientist that explains global warming, and the easy to find senastionalist is 'everywhere'.

Only person that I can recall(the name of) that explained global warming has been (Prof)Brian Cox. His explanation was succinct and meticulously crafted.
Something along the lines of we think this is the most likely probability of what we expect to happen.

Read my earlier post with the quote from NASA scientists: 95 probability that this is going to happen.
Possible 1° increase .. the real scientist will forecast probabilities, not sensationalist consequences.

The recent classic example of this in a monumental moment of stupidity was Trumps choice to pull out of the Paris accord.
Because the alarmist Pope's .. oops! I meant the climate scientist's! .. message has been taken for gospel by the extremist environmentalist, this method of reaching the general population will always meet with resistance.
The stronger the message, the stronger the reactive resistance.
Hence Trump appealed to those that resisted the extremist environmentalist, in a manufactured manner. Trump will support whatever cause is the popular peoples mindset.
His position on climate change is not his own, it'll change depending on what the majority of the voting public thinks.
That's how he got elected.
And because he's a natural born anti everything ape, well poof goes the agreement that ensures the worlds worst polluting nation does something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

... said the Pope 1000 years ago!

Reactive rants and diatribes were punishable by torture, and finally death by fire!

Great to see the course that climate science is choosing to follow.

---

Exactly which climate scientists are torturing and burning denialists alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

That's simply not true - climate scientists debate and argue amongst themselves - but what's not in doubt is that the earth is warming.

......

---

Never doubted the data that the earth has warmed. I don't think anyone (or sound mind) has.
The issue is the mindset of the scientists that make predictions that don't eventuate, and then revise said predictions(or make excuses) .. and we're just expected to believe their new predictions.

This is the issue, not that we're experiencing a warming climate.
It's the output, not the input that's in question here.

Almost all climate scientists use the point that while the globe has experienced warming in a historical sense, that this one is different because it's so rapid.
Now that we have the capability to capture this form of data, this is easy to say, and impossible to prove that in past times, it hasn't rapidly warmed(or cooled).
They believe that it hasn't rapidly warmed as it is currently, but there is no way to prove this unless they can travel back in time to actually capture this kind of data with similar accuracy and resolution that they do now.

Yet other scientists are pretty sure that THIS happened in previous history.
So, who are we to believe? The climatologist that claim that the globe hasn't experienced such climate change in such a rapid time frame, or the paleoscientists that claim that it has?
One of those groups has it right .. unless they're both right.
Dunno if you've seen that Wiki page, or read up about this past event in history, but the notes over on addendum (graph on the RHS) also claims that this particular period in history hadn't registered a 'significant signal' in the ice cores(GISP2).

ie. climate scientists 'don't know' of this event, other than what palaeontologists know of it from fossil records. More accurately, if not for the fossil records, climate scientists don't have a record of this rapid climatic change because it doesn't register in ice cores.
Yet their argument is that rapid climate change is a recent phenomenon in this century.
Begs the question .. how many other anomalous climatic changes have occurred that we have no record of? If they missed one and we have other records of it's existence, then there's a high probability that others may have also occurred and we'll just never know.

Like I said, the issue here is the data set. There is a set of data being used to proclaim a branch of science.
Historically, we know that a very prominent scientist's prediction has not been as accurate as science should really be.
I've also read other more wild predictions, I remember one in particular that tried to claim an 8° increase in temp in 20 years or so, until NASA stepped in and squashed it. She used raw NASA data to make her claim, but NASA had to explain that the raw data wasn't usable in that manner. (I've been trying to find the specific article, but can't remember the scientists name).
The problem here is that you can't base predictions of a future climate based on historical data. The one thing we can safely predict is that it's unpredictable.
That it's warming isn't in doubt, how much warmer it's going to get is the question.

Apologies for bringing up so many examples, but again it's irksome to read sensationalist guff from scientists that should know better.
But, as the records show, Australia is heating up as the rest of the world is. The other prediction made by the sensationalists(or alarmist) is that we're going to experience wilder fluctuations in extreme weather events.
Can't imagine why they think this, but anyhow, we're expected to believe this.
So when tropical cyclone <insert name here> hits, it's "a major disaster the likes of which we've never experienced before ... proof that global warming is the cause"
You read this garbage all the time with every gust of wind.
Yet have a look on the BoM site and check out the long term climate data they have, and check their data(that is accumulated data, not circumstantial guesswork!) .. the trend is clear .. the intensity of lows has barely dropped.
In fact for a long period during the beginning of the initial warming period, 1970s to mid 1980s, there was a more significant decrease in the intensity of the lows(ie. cyclones in general weren't as strong).
Overall, from the 1960's to current, the average delta of the intensity of the lows(that is strength of the low pressure system) has dropped barely 1hPa(from 1002 to 1001) in the entire record period.
For the duration of the actual warming period(ie. 1970 to current) the difference in how strong a cyclone was then compared to current is zero.

The only conclusion anyone can make of that data is that during the warming period, there is no evidence that indicates that a warming globe will cause more severe storms.
And yet, you won't read this anywhere, cause the general consensus is that we're in for worse storms(for whatever reason).

Damn! don't get me started on rainfall .. just go look at the data for yourself. We're all going to die from a lack of water due to massive droughts! .. whereas the data shows a steadily increasing average annual rainfall plot line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Exactly which climate scientists are torturing and burning denialists alive?

---

Give it time!
And no, the actual scientists won't be burning the non believers .. that task is always left to the ambitious minions.
The upper echelons are untouchable.

[biggrin]

I have a major issue with the way the general population seems to assume or expect scientific predictions to be accurate, time and time again you read about people claiming such and such's prediction was this, but what we have now is different. News flash, no one can tell the future 100% - really at best its a highly educated guess that's based off current trends, inputs and modelling etc... Same with looking back to the past - the data will only ever be as good as what the current technology allows us to gather data from. And again looking back to the past there would defiantly be some assumptions made which would be based on our current knowledge/experience.

The current "alarmist" state I belive has been brought about from a couple of reasons - the current climate warming theory has been around for quite sometime now - long enough for a transition in they way we do things to have been well and truly implanted by now. But governments and companies have been way to slow to react - probably partly due to scientific evidence not being properly communicated in the previous decades.

It’s only ‘alarmist’ for one reason. The alarm bells are going off!

...and they’re only going to get louder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Is it just climate science that you have an issue with with or do you also have an issue with other fields of science? Would you like some input into, let's say, the debate about the Higgs boson? What about gravity? Is the consensus scientific view there also wrong?

I'll put it to you that the reason that climate science is being attacked, and there's misinformation all over the place, is that a couple of the worlds richest men, whose fortunes are built on fossil fuels, have spent a very large amount of money pumping out disinformation to destroy what they saw as a threat to their wealth.

---

👍 ...but not just a couple of rich men...the majority of rich men including the majority of world ‘leaders’ (sheep).

...or maybe the earth really is flat and we haven’t actually seen the very lonely fragility of our tiny earth from space? LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

It’s only ‘alarmist’ for one reason. The alarm bells are going off!

...and they’re only going to get louder.

---

why are we not alarmed at the lack of housing for homeless people?

why are we not alarmed at the of amount of domestic violence in this country?

why are we not alarmed at the number of cane toads?


being alarmed, emergency, crisis. these are just attention seeking words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

why are we not alarmed at the lack of housing for homeless people?

why are we not alarmed at the of amount of domestic violence in this country?

why are we not alarmed at the number of cane toads?


being alarmed, emergency, crisis. these are just attention seeking words.

---

Eevo, I’m alarmed at all of those crises. We need a collective attitude change from capitalist greed to social and environmental cohesion to improve all of these.

...And the crises you list are all only going to get worse as the knock on effects of climate change kick in. The climate crisis is not just about global warming, drought, fire, food shortages, etc. it is also about how these calamities will effect the whole population in many ways, including mental health, housing, transport and general health.

Attention is exactly whats needed in this complacent greedy environment ‘we’ have created

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

why are we not alarmed at the lack of housing for homeless people?

why are we not alarmed at the of amount of domestic violence in this country?

why are we not alarmed at the number of cane toads?


being alarmed, emergency, crisis. these are just attention seeking words.

---

We are alarmed but these are not relevant to this topic.