The Official Daily Rant (on Climate Change)

[icyfroth]

Reposted from Facebook with permission from Steffen Pederson.

"The fact is, Climate change is real! Nobody can argue against that fact. Nobody actually does!

So what's the debate?

'Climate Change Deniers', as alarmists like to call us, are people that believe the climate is what it is. It has changed for 100's of millions of years, it will change for 100's of millions more!

'Climate Change Alarmists' as us deniers like to call them, are people that believe Man is the reason the climate is changing. Man has caused it, Man can stop it!

This is my Rant so this will be based solely on my view and opinion from what I have learned or at least think I have learned.

To me, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong!

Man currently pumps untold amounts of emissions into the air, untold amounts of pollution into our land/air and sea's, and does untold damage through mining, deforestation, urbanisation etc etc.

Whether this affects the climate or not is actually irrelevant. We MUST STOP! We MUST find better ways to fulfil our energy needs and we must find better ways to house and feed our growing populations. We must reduce this man made damage because even the simplest of minds can recognise it cant be good for us. Also, we must make things sustainable. Some of these things take time so time is what we will take.

Again, this in my opinion has nothing to do with climate change but if I am wrong, it's a win win situation. We will not be hurt by changing these things.

Creating a Tax to reduce these things and allowing governments to put this tax back into their general revenue is NOT, and never will be the answer.

If governments were serious in their beliefs of man made climate change and the imminent dangers they believe it imposes, they would simply legislate to reduce and or stop these things.

They do not! Infact, by government logic, the more emissions generated, the more money they make. It is a futile exercise about feeling good. They can look the people in the eye and say 'see, we are doing something about climate change' but the fact is they are not.

The problem is, The climate IS changing. Every dollar we waste trying to stop it, will be a dollar we will not have to spend on the actual damage climate change will cause. Small nations will suffer, sea levels will rise, draughts will be the norm in some places, flooding will be the norm in others. We will not be prepared.

While the battle goes on about who was right and who was wrong, people will die. I believe we can actually learn to live with these changes and relocate and or adapt accordingly. todays cities will be tomorrows farmlands, todays farmlands will be tomorrows cities.

We do need to impose a tarrif of sorts on man.

Not a carbon tax that hits some people here or there or makes business suffer but a small levy that each and every one of us should be prepared to pay.

It is our world. This money should be put into an international climate fund that should be used as the climate changes more and more.

The truth is, we don't know which way the world will change so is hard to plan ahead. This money would be needed more as reactionary measure. western nations could and should be preparing for what we believe will happen through future planning anyway so this money would not be needed by those that can prepare for it themselves.

There are,  however many nations that do not stand a chance against whatever climate change brings. This is where this money will be needed. If the climate doesn't change dramatically for many years, this fund would grow to great proportions. We can help those that cannot help themselves.

I don't know all the answers to this but going on our current path of taxing emissions and putting the taxes into general revenue for me is NOT the answer. we are being played for suckers. My post is not trying to say I have the answers, it is trying to change the current climate debate questions. I have no doubt there are many other who have great ideas about how an ever changing world can be adapted to suit our wants and needs. We are a resilient lot."

_____________________________________________________________

I so agree with this post.

Yes, Earth's climate is in natural constant change. We know that.

Human industrial activity is causing a dramatic impact earth's climate and we need to sort what we need to take from earth to sustain ourselves (and there's plenty to go round)  from what is just being gobbled up by insatiable and rapacious profiteers.

 

[poddster]

AM3 what qulifications did JC have?

[poddster]

Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,

environmentalist and global warming activist

What qulifications are needed for that role ???

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

He's just a regular poster on facebook Am. I don't know him anymore than I know you. What I do know is that I find his opinion relevant and interesting enough to repost here for discussion.

You may wish to discuss it or not, that is your prerogative.

But if you just wish to bicker about "credentials of the author", I invite you to bu66er off and go find yourself a subject more worthy of your free Uni education. 

---

First readers want to know who wrote the article/text posted. Who he/she is...what are their qualifications/experience in the topic they speak on. 

I suggest you leave it up to the readers to decide what they want to read about and dicuss. Who promoted you to thought police?

Second, if we want to discredit the person who wrote it and say it is a lot of hooey, then we are free to do so. Without being told to get lost etc..

Should we all start quoting crackpots posts from facebook now?

By your own admission you don't know who Steffen Pederson is, so on what basis do you call him a crackpot?

p.s there is no 'free' Uni education in Australia, get your facts right before you start trying to insult other posters. Why do you always stoop so  low and use personal insults? Nothing to do with the topic. A reflection on you, not me.

I'm sorry if you find the term "free education" insulting. Must be hitting a raw nerve there. It's not free to the taxpayer, after all, now that IS insulting.

And if you're worried about staying on topic I suggest you comment on the subject and not create a side debate about whoever the author might be.

Oh and with regard to stooping so low... unfortunately I need to come down to your level for you to get it.

---

[icyfroth]

---

@poddster wrote:

Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,

environmentalist and global warming activist

What qulifications are needed for that role ???

---

Russell Brand would know, lol.

[myoclon1cjerk]

Hahaha.There's that name again.Roy Spencer.You like to regurgitate those discredited sceptics 😄

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@ladydeburg wrote:

Where's Tim Flannery, you know the fraud who panicked all the Labor governments into building billion dollar white elephant  de sal plants because:

"even the rain that will fall into the future will not fill our rivers or dams".

---

Perhaps you didn't live in Sydney and it's outer areas when Warragamba Dam got critically close to depletion which would have Sydney taps waterless. 

I'm pretty grateful that the de sal plant at Kurnell has been built for the next (and the next and the next and the next) drought occurs. Whilst not the ideal solution, it will certainly help keep Sydney in water.

And by the way, just 2 years prior to that dam falling to critical levels, Flannery predicted we would have severe water shortages within a couple of years. How right he was. 

And that is just Sydney. Let's not forget what is happening across all of the eastern section of Australia.

And is now a good time to mention that Flannerys views on desal plants is that they should be a last resort? Or did Bolt fail to mention that in his many Flannery misquotes as well as the misquote you have just repeated. It pays to check context when quoting Bolt...

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,

environmentalist and global warming activist

What qulifications are needed for that role ???

---

You obviously didn't read the rest of the wiki entry? His degree is a Masters in Science in Earth Science.

His entire careeer has been spent studying the impact of climate, ecology and the environment on species.

You ommitted that on purpose I presume?

[icyfroth]

Here's something you omitted, Martini re the desal plant:

Sydney's privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years.

The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not.

Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago.

Entire Article Here

[poddster]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Hahaha.There's that name again.Roy Spencer.You like to regurgitate those discredited sceptics 😄

---

Discredited by who?

The Global Warming 97%?

[poddster]

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.” “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.