Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #345 - Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 45888
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #346 - Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:41pm

The Thames freezing was due to volcanic action.

You see, the study of climate is kinda dependent on observations of weather and the weather record is very noisy. El Ninos increase global temperatures in the short term, volcanoes decrease it. La Nina periods are cooler than El Nino periods.

AGW acts on weather systems and eventually major currents like the Gulf Stream will be destroyed by increasing amounts of fresh water from ice sheets melting. Glaciers are, apart from a few fortuitously located ones, melting and retreating. This is important when we consider the Himalayan Glaciers. These feed 7 of the biggest rivers in the world and water half the population. Some of the rivers: the Ganges, the Yellow and Mekong rivers.

Why do you think India and China are moving to renewable energy? It is to protect those Himalayan glaciers, to protect those rivers.

And the national embarrassment is trying to boost coal. Coal!

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #347 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:52am by ImSpartacus2 »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #348 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:13am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:41pm:

The Thames freezing was due to volcanic action.

You see, the study of climate is kinda dependent on observations of weather and the weather record is very noisy. El Ninos increase global temperatures in the short term, volcanoes decrease it. La Nina periods are cooler than El Nino periods.

AGW acts on weather systems and eventually major currents like the Gulf Stream will be destroyed by increasing amounts of fresh water from ice sheets melting. Glaciers are, apart from a few fortuitously located ones, melting and retreating. This is important when we consider the Himalayan Glaciers. These feed 7 of the biggest rivers in the world and water half the population. Some of the rivers: the Ganges, the Yellow and Mekong rivers.

Why do you think India and China are moving to renewable energy? It is to protect those Himalayan glaciers, to protect those rivers.

And the national embarrassment is trying to boost coal. Coal!

Coal and ALL fossil fuels are solar energy, captured and stored by plants.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 45888
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #349 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:17am

Soren wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:41pm:

The Thames freezing was due to volcanic action.

You see, the study of climate is kinda dependent on observations of weather and the weather record is very noisy. El Ninos increase global temperatures in the short term, volcanoes decrease it. La Nina periods are cooler than El Nino periods.

AGW acts on weather systems and eventually major currents like the Gulf Stream will be destroyed by increasing amounts of fresh water from ice sheets melting. Glaciers are, apart from a few fortuitously located ones, melting and retreating. This is important when we consider the Himalayan Glaciers. These feed 7 of the biggest rivers in the world and water half the population. Some of the rivers: the Ganges, the Yellow and Mekong rivers.

Why do you think India and China are moving to renewable energy? It is to protect those Himalayan glaciers, to protect those rivers.

And the national embarrassment is trying to boost coal. Coal!

Coal and ALL fossil fuels are solar energy, captured and stored by plants.

No, they are carbon fixed by plants using solar energy. Tens of millions of years worth of stored carbon that we are burning in decades. If you think this can happen without any affect on the atmosphere then you are a typical Liberal voter!

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #350 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:34am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:21pm:

Mate, I went to the Saltram Winery Open Day, as a Club 1 member. We were told what was happening, with fiano replacing riesling/Cab Sauv etc on the valley floor. We were told how the ripening times for different grape varieties/locations are compressing.

You should watch Landline like I do. You will see how farmers/graziers are already having to adapt to the increasing heat and how that affects crops.

Lastly you should bring yourself up to speed with what is happening in the Antarctic—not good!

This is happening NOW! Now, Longy, not at some distant time in the future or in lands far away. Why are wineries planting vineyards in Tassie you think? Or why French wineries are planting vineyards in England?

Very good - but it is in no way an explanation of how 0.005% of atmospheric gases (the human-generated CO2) causes any of this or how the removal of 0.005% of atmospheric CO2 to would halt or reverse any of it.

It's a fantasy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #351 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:54am A “fantasy” that is rising temperatures and creating wilder weather. We might as well just call it reality, eh?
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #352 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:33am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:54am: A “fantasy” that is rising temperatures and creating wilder weather. We might as well just call it reality, eh? Very tellingly, you continue to be unable to explain how 0.005% of atmospheric gases determine the entire global climate.
Back to top	IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #353 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:43am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:21pm:

Mate, I went to the Saltram Winery Open Day, as a Club 1 member. We were told what was happening, with fiano replacing riesling/Cab Sauv etc on the valley floor. We were told how the ripening times for different grape varieties/locations are compressing.

You should watch Landline like I do. You will see how farmers/graziers are already having to adapt to the increasing heat and how that affects crops.

Lastly you should bring yourself up to speed with what is happening in the Antarctic—not good!

This is happening NOW! Now, Longy, not at some distant time in the future or in lands far away. Why are wineries planting vineyards in Tassie you think? Or why French wineries are planting vineyards in England?

What increasing heat? The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that. And better still, there has been NO warming now for 17 years.

Climate alters as part of natural variability and never more so in Australia. But the word is NATURAL.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #354 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:45am Warming is still going on.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #355 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:45am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 9:33pm:

Well above it, gizmo. You tried to bullshit me about the MWP once before and I tracked down your reference and showed it did not say what you said it did.

CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than in the MWP, that is forcing the higher temperatures.

Seems the MWP is the new rallying point for deniers, like I said earlier, a more sophisticated version of the old BS argument “the climate is always changing.”

Yet AGW is here and now.

Why must you insist on ignoring all the historical and scientific evidence that PROVES that the MWP was warmer than today? It might be inconvenient for you to accept it but it remains true regardless. WARMER. WARMER. WARMER in the MWP.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #356 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:48am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

I meant the deniers pretending the MWP was warmer than thought. Just lies, clumsy lies.

AGW is NOW forcing the man on the land to change crops or buy land in cooler areas. That is happening NOW!

Firstly, it isnt 'deniers' as you so limply claim. It is scientist and historians of ALL ILKS that claim the MVP was warmer than now. In fact, most scientific bodies say the same thing. NONE say the MVP didnt exist and the best you will get is thet the MVP is the same temp as now. Either way, it shows that current warming is not unprecedented and also largely NOT anthropogenic.

And quoting a few farmers changing crops is not evidence of 'farmers moving to cooler climates' coz none of them are.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that your claims are correct because "most scientific bodies say the same thing" and then deny AGW even though those same scientific bodies (100% of the time honoured ones that have successfully guided civilisation's scientific and technological knowledge for decades) are also saying that AGW is happening and is real.

But what is most surprising is that you happily cut and paste and regurgitate the same slop from these denialist sites without the slightest concern that they might be compromised by their connections to the fossil fuel industry. Any rational human being would be concerned about that and yet it doesn't bother you at all.

And what's even more surprising is that you didnt even bother replying to the first hand accounts of those reputable businesses involved in the wine industry who make it there business to know about the climate that the climate is warming and effecting their crops. Those people you can simply dismiss and yet continue cutting and pasting this garbage from those compromised sites. There's nothing honest about your approach.

Denialist slop? Coming from hundreds of the brightest minds of our generation? But now your idea of a climate expert is a wine grower??? That's all you can come up with?

Why dont you read the book and expose yourself to the actual comments by 100 actual scientists.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #357 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:49am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

I think people are going to be pee’d off at those who tried to pretend AGW wasn’t happening either because they were afraid of change or because they were happy, even paid, to front for fossil fuel interests.

I fear you will be copping more than boots.

More likely in 20 years time you will be telling everyone how you didnt fall for the climate con and you saw right through it.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #358 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:50am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:41pm:

The Thames freezing was due to volcanic action.

You see, the study of climate is kinda dependent on observations of weather and the weather record is very noisy. El Ninos increase global temperatures in the short term, volcanoes decrease it. La Nina periods are cooler than El Nino periods.

AGW acts on weather systems and eventually major currents like the Gulf Stream will be destroyed by increasing amounts of fresh water from ice sheets melting. Glaciers are, apart from a few fortuitously located ones, melting and retreating. This is important when we consider the Himalayan Glaciers. These feed 7 of the biggest rivers in the world and water half the population. Some of the rivers: the Ganges, the Yellow and Mekong rivers.

Why do you think India and China are moving to renewable energy? It is to protect those Himalayan glaciers, to protect those rivers.

And the national embarrassment is trying to boost coal. Coal!

Nothing but a lie. You made it up. So what was causing all the rivers to freeze over in the Americas at the same time? And volcanic activity affecting it for a hundred years?

You need to try harder than that!

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7344 Sydney Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #359 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:52am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:45am: Warming is still going on. No it isn't. You seem to be totally fixed in your opinions - basically a fool.
Back to top	IP Logged