Then why didn't you challenge what I wrote, Brian?
Brian, if I had to guess, I would say that you have not bothered to study this topic at all, and you have simply relied upon whatever published material the alarmists have presented to you without question. I'll bet you did not even know about the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the eight previous warm periods that earth has had in the last 10,000 years. I'll bet that graph that showed you that Earth experiences warming and cooling period roughly every 1,000 years, was something you were completely ignorant of. And the graph I presented that showed that for 570 million years, CO2, even in high concentrations, had no causal relationship to global temperatures at all, shocked you.
I will bet that the two climate gate emails shocked you. And the fact that I was able to show you that the graph you had submitted as evidence, which had supposedly proved that CO2 caused global temperatures to rise, was doctored. You probably knew about the 1940-1970 global cooling, and when I pointed out he discrepancy in your graph, you knew that something was fishy.
But mostly, Brian, I was all over you because I knew my subject, and I was able to present a list of convincing arguments which just made sense. If the industrialisation of humanity has caused such massive release of CO2 which is causing global warming, then what on earth caused the global warming in the last 9 warming periods? Especially since every one of them was about 2 degrees warmer than today. When Greenland was green. You can't answer that Brian. You can't answer how it is that global temperatures have regularly plummeted, unless you can figure out some way to explain how greenhouse gases in previous warming periods, which supposedly just materialised out of nowhere, had suddenly disappeared and caused temps to drop.
Brian, you accepted a glass of HIGW Kool Aid from people who knew how to manipulate people like yourself. People like you, who have compulsive need to think that they are the font of all wisdom, and better human beings than the Deplorables, the middle class, or the upper class. They knew which emotional buttons to push to make you think that only the "intelligent" people know that HIGW is real. They made a fool of you, Brian. And if I were you, I would get angry about that. And next time some supposedly noble cause is presented to you as the epitome of what an "intelligent" person should fight for, you will at least regard it with some scepticism and do some research before you jump in and make a fool of yourself again.
Climate Change
-
brian ross
- Posts: 6059
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Re: Climate Change
Because this topic is, as far as I care, pretty well settled. Only the whingers, the moaners and the denialists are disputing it, Bogan.
Don't you have to answer my defence post? Run along now.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair
-
brian ross
- Posts: 6059
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Re: Climate Change
While we are waiting on Bogan to extract his digit where it belongs, I came across this comment:
[Source]Sometimes, climate science deniers will tell you that we can’t predict global temperatures in the future. Sometimes, they’ll say we’re heading for an ice age.
Occasionally, contrarians will say that no single weather event can prove human-caused global warming. But then they’ll point to somewhere that’s cold, claiming this disproves climate change.
Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?
A new research paper published in the journal Synthese has looked at several of these contradictory arguments that get thrown around the blogosphere, the Australian Senate and the opinion pages of the (mostly) conservative media.
The paper comes with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
Why Alice? Because, as the White Queen admitted: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The three authors, including Dr John Cook, of the University of Queensland, look at both rhetorical and scientific arguments put by deniers.
One example is the popular theme that casts “sceptics” as “dissenting heroes” who bravely oppose “political persecution and fraud”. You know, like modern-day Galileos.
But the authors write that deniers will also try and convince the public that there is no consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change (there is and it’s us). They write:Either there is a pervasive scientific consensus in which case contrarians are indeed dissenters, or there is no consensus in which case contrarian opinions should have broad support within the scientific community and no fearless opposition to an establishment is necessary.
The authors unleash similar jujitsu-style logic on other contradictory arguments and give examples of where the same individuals have apparently argued against themselves.
One of the authors’ examples of incoherent logic comes from the Australian geologist and mining industry figure Prof Ian Plimer and his 2009 book, Heaven and Earth – a book favourably cited by the likes of the former prime minister Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
On page 278, Plimer writes that “temperature and CO2 are not connected” but, on page 411, writes that “CO2 keeps our planet warm”.According to the authors, their examples of “incoherence” only hold together in the minds of the deniers if you apply types of glue known as “conspiracist ideation” and “identity-protective cognition”.
So what’s that all about?
Conspiracist ideation, or conspiratorial thinking, is the tendency to entertain suggestions: for example that Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are conspiring to deliberately manipulate temperature data just to make global warming seem worse than it really is, rather than to correct for known issues.
An example of “identity-protective cognition” in this case, the authors explain, is where people who advocate for small governments and “free markets” face a dilemma.
Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates. So instead, the authors argue, the only options open are to either deny the consensus or try and discredit it. Because cutting GHG emissions requires interventions – such as regulation or increased taxation – that interfere with laissez-faire free-market economics, people whose identity and worldview centres around free markets are particularly challenged by the findings from climate science.
Lead author Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, an expert in cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, has written several research papers finding links between the rejection of science, “conspiracist ideation” and the belief in free market economic principles.
One argument that deniers may try with this Synthese paper is that climate scientists also contradict each other and have offered several explanations for the supposed global warming “pause” or “slowdown” (this was never really a thing).Lewandowsky told me:
Phenomena can have multiple explanations – so, for example, it is entirely conceivable that volcanic activity and heat exchange with the ocean though the La Niña phenomenon might have contributed to what has been called a “slowdown” in warming. Similarly, just because contemporary climate change is driven by CO2 does not mean that the sun could not have caused earlier episodes of climate change. The same phenomenon may have multiple causes – but the same cause cannot have contradictory consequences. For example, it would be ridiculous to say that the alleged ‘slowdown’ was driven by La Niña but that La Niña also causes warming. Equally, it cannot be the case that CO2 causes warming as well as cooling. But CO2 as well as La Niña may both contribute to global temperatures.
Of course, Lewandowsky and his colleagues are by no means the first to see the many contradictory arguments from deniers. But does he think looking at them in such detail will make any difference?
I think that people who deny basic science will continue to do so, no matter how contradictory their arguments may be. However, these pervasive contradictions should caution the media against giving an airing to those opinions.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair
-
Bogan
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:27 pm
Re: Climate Change
Back for another drubbing, I see Brian? I was going to let your last, sneery one liner post remain as the last post, because I presumed that in your desperation, your only recourse was to play the "he who has the last word wins" game.
You obviously have not made any effort to even read up on the pro HIGW cause that you so passionately promote, because you are still studiously avoiding the obligation to answer the questions I have asked of you about he obvious illogicality of your claim that CO2 leads temperatures. All you can do is cut and paste articles from alarmist sites. Which puts you at a huge disadvantage when crossing swords with an informed sceptic like me. A sceptic who has actually bothered to objectively study both sides of the problem before I decided which side was telling the truth and which side was telling porky pies.
And predictably, here you are again cutting and pasting an alarmist article which launches an attack on sceptics. I don't have to cut and paste anything to return fire Brian. I know my subject and I can formulate a reasoned argument in my head. Ready? Set? Here goes, Briney.
For over twenty years climate alarmists have had a free run in the mainstream media to promote their claim about HIGW. This should not be surprising. Scientists were expected to be completely objective, and the media and the public were universally of the opinion that scientists would always tell the truth. But whenever any institution holds widespread public trust, there is always the strong temptation for insiders within that organisation to use the moral authority of that institution, either for their own personnel aggrandisement, or to promote their own agendas.
For over twenty years there has been a relentless campaign promoted by the mainstream media that HIGW is the gospel truth. No countervailing argument was tolerated, nor was publishing a contrary view even deemed to be necessary. The few dissenting climate scientists like Tim Ball were simply labelled as cranks and likened to "holocaust deniers."
But then something happened to make people start to realise that they may have been sold a pig in a poke. Given the level of overwhelming media acceptance of the HIGW cause and their avalanche of propaganda promoting it, this was quite extraordinary.
What happened, was that the alarmists, who's opinions were never subject to informed criticism by the fourth estate, got completely carried away out bidding each other in the silliness of their own doom and gloom predictions, which they foolishly claimed were imminent. They screeched that that the Earth was going to turn into Venus within decades unless westerners in particular did not end their evil consumerist ways. The Arctic would be ice free by 2010. All the polar bears would drown. New Orleans and Miami would be under three meters of sea water by 2010. Children would not know what snow is. The dams would never fill again. The seas would boil over. The sky would rain blood. The earth would crack and nameless abominations would walk the earth.
But ten years passed, and then another ten, and nothing happened. But every naturally occurring extreme weather event which could have been blamed on global warming was enthusiastically seized upon by the alarmists of proof positive that global warming was already upon us. However, extreme whether events involving extreme cold weather were ignored, or even, laughably, blamed on global warming also. Worldwide, the public began to give the alarmist caste the hairy eyeball. Especially in those states where green left governments had enthusiastically destroyed their own coal fired power stations, and had blacked out their entire states. Lefties once told workers that they had nothing to fear except for losing their chains. Now the Lefties were telling workers that they had nothing to fear except for losing their electricity and jobs.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, a change in worldwide public attitudes towards HIGW began to emerge. Given the avalanche of the worldwide mainstream media's unquestioning acceptance of HIGW and their wholehearted promotion of it, this was quite extraordinary.
Thank Gaia for the Internet.
Youtube videos, which supported the sceptic side, which had hardly existed only five years ago, began to swell in number until they seemed to well outnumbered the alarmist sites. Worse still for the alarmists, the people who promoted these often home produced sceptic sites could not in any way be considered wild eyed cranks. The information the sceptics sites submitted were reasonable, credible, believable, and their facts cross connected with other facts. The alarmist sites, though often professionally produced by somebody with a lot of money, could not withstand the withering gaze of informed criticism from any person who knew the opposing sceptic arguments.
When leading sceptic Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer wrote a book denouncing HIGW, alarmists countered by saying that Professor Plimer was partisan because he was a geologist who worked for the mining companies. Now this is very important. Because it showed that it was the alarmists themselves who first rose the thorny question as to whether supposedly, always objective scientists could be influenced by their pecuniary interests.
So what works for the goose, works for the gander. The same accusation can be quite validly levelled at the alarmist camp. So let's examine the pecuniary interests of the climate scientists and their supporters. The science of Climatology is an obscure branch of science in no way considered as important as physics, mathematics, chemistry, or geology. All climate scientists are government employees, and if there is one thing that public service bureaucracies are great at, it is in making their own bureaucracies seem more important than others in order to get a bigger share of tax revenue.
So the charge can reasonably be made, that climate scientists all over the world instantly recognised that HIGW was their one and only chance to show the world how important their science was to their respective governments. There was no need for any conspiracies or secret meetings, only an instant realisation from climate scientists all over the world that all had a common interest in shaking down the public. After all, they could all say their science was now a critically important science, because it could Save The World.
Suddenly this unimportant branch of science was inundated with taxpayer supplied riches beyond it's wildest dreams. Numerous expeditions were planned to Greenland, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. Scientific researchers of any subject could get a bucket load of government research grants if they could find any way to link their particular subject to global warming. Anyone who opposed HIGW got no grants at all. Any climate scientist who knew that the whole thing was a hoax knew better than to say anything or they would end up washing cars for a living.
The scientifically unfrocked supporters of HIGW accepted it as consequence of the psychological needs of their particular demographic. That is, there exists within any society a not insignificant proportion of the population who have a puritanical personality, and a compulsive psychological need to think that they are morally and intellectually better than either the Great Unwashed, or the middle and upper classes, (who are usually their parents). Such a noble cause as Saving The World from the bogans, the deplorables, and the bourgeoisie, was tailor made to appeal to their well developed superiority complex. Here was another cause that allowed them to strut, and preen, and virtue signal.
The saddest outcome of this while HIGW hoax is the damage it has done to the reputation of science as being an objective force for good in the world.
You obviously have not made any effort to even read up on the pro HIGW cause that you so passionately promote, because you are still studiously avoiding the obligation to answer the questions I have asked of you about he obvious illogicality of your claim that CO2 leads temperatures. All you can do is cut and paste articles from alarmist sites. Which puts you at a huge disadvantage when crossing swords with an informed sceptic like me. A sceptic who has actually bothered to objectively study both sides of the problem before I decided which side was telling the truth and which side was telling porky pies.
And predictably, here you are again cutting and pasting an alarmist article which launches an attack on sceptics. I don't have to cut and paste anything to return fire Brian. I know my subject and I can formulate a reasoned argument in my head. Ready? Set? Here goes, Briney.
For over twenty years climate alarmists have had a free run in the mainstream media to promote their claim about HIGW. This should not be surprising. Scientists were expected to be completely objective, and the media and the public were universally of the opinion that scientists would always tell the truth. But whenever any institution holds widespread public trust, there is always the strong temptation for insiders within that organisation to use the moral authority of that institution, either for their own personnel aggrandisement, or to promote their own agendas.
For over twenty years there has been a relentless campaign promoted by the mainstream media that HIGW is the gospel truth. No countervailing argument was tolerated, nor was publishing a contrary view even deemed to be necessary. The few dissenting climate scientists like Tim Ball were simply labelled as cranks and likened to "holocaust deniers."
But then something happened to make people start to realise that they may have been sold a pig in a poke. Given the level of overwhelming media acceptance of the HIGW cause and their avalanche of propaganda promoting it, this was quite extraordinary.
What happened, was that the alarmists, who's opinions were never subject to informed criticism by the fourth estate, got completely carried away out bidding each other in the silliness of their own doom and gloom predictions, which they foolishly claimed were imminent. They screeched that that the Earth was going to turn into Venus within decades unless westerners in particular did not end their evil consumerist ways. The Arctic would be ice free by 2010. All the polar bears would drown. New Orleans and Miami would be under three meters of sea water by 2010. Children would not know what snow is. The dams would never fill again. The seas would boil over. The sky would rain blood. The earth would crack and nameless abominations would walk the earth.
But ten years passed, and then another ten, and nothing happened. But every naturally occurring extreme weather event which could have been blamed on global warming was enthusiastically seized upon by the alarmists of proof positive that global warming was already upon us. However, extreme whether events involving extreme cold weather were ignored, or even, laughably, blamed on global warming also. Worldwide, the public began to give the alarmist caste the hairy eyeball. Especially in those states where green left governments had enthusiastically destroyed their own coal fired power stations, and had blacked out their entire states. Lefties once told workers that they had nothing to fear except for losing their chains. Now the Lefties were telling workers that they had nothing to fear except for losing their electricity and jobs.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, a change in worldwide public attitudes towards HIGW began to emerge. Given the avalanche of the worldwide mainstream media's unquestioning acceptance of HIGW and their wholehearted promotion of it, this was quite extraordinary.
Thank Gaia for the Internet.
Youtube videos, which supported the sceptic side, which had hardly existed only five years ago, began to swell in number until they seemed to well outnumbered the alarmist sites. Worse still for the alarmists, the people who promoted these often home produced sceptic sites could not in any way be considered wild eyed cranks. The information the sceptics sites submitted were reasonable, credible, believable, and their facts cross connected with other facts. The alarmist sites, though often professionally produced by somebody with a lot of money, could not withstand the withering gaze of informed criticism from any person who knew the opposing sceptic arguments.
When leading sceptic Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer wrote a book denouncing HIGW, alarmists countered by saying that Professor Plimer was partisan because he was a geologist who worked for the mining companies. Now this is very important. Because it showed that it was the alarmists themselves who first rose the thorny question as to whether supposedly, always objective scientists could be influenced by their pecuniary interests.
So what works for the goose, works for the gander. The same accusation can be quite validly levelled at the alarmist camp. So let's examine the pecuniary interests of the climate scientists and their supporters. The science of Climatology is an obscure branch of science in no way considered as important as physics, mathematics, chemistry, or geology. All climate scientists are government employees, and if there is one thing that public service bureaucracies are great at, it is in making their own bureaucracies seem more important than others in order to get a bigger share of tax revenue.
So the charge can reasonably be made, that climate scientists all over the world instantly recognised that HIGW was their one and only chance to show the world how important their science was to their respective governments. There was no need for any conspiracies or secret meetings, only an instant realisation from climate scientists all over the world that all had a common interest in shaking down the public. After all, they could all say their science was now a critically important science, because it could Save The World.
Suddenly this unimportant branch of science was inundated with taxpayer supplied riches beyond it's wildest dreams. Numerous expeditions were planned to Greenland, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. Scientific researchers of any subject could get a bucket load of government research grants if they could find any way to link their particular subject to global warming. Anyone who opposed HIGW got no grants at all. Any climate scientist who knew that the whole thing was a hoax knew better than to say anything or they would end up washing cars for a living.
The scientifically unfrocked supporters of HIGW accepted it as consequence of the psychological needs of their particular demographic. That is, there exists within any society a not insignificant proportion of the population who have a puritanical personality, and a compulsive psychological need to think that they are morally and intellectually better than either the Great Unwashed, or the middle and upper classes, (who are usually their parents). Such a noble cause as Saving The World from the bogans, the deplorables, and the bourgeoisie, was tailor made to appeal to their well developed superiority complex. Here was another cause that allowed them to strut, and preen, and virtue signal.
The saddest outcome of this while HIGW hoax is the damage it has done to the reputation of science as being an objective force for good in the world.
-
brian ross
- Posts: 6059
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Re: Climate Change
Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It has to be all about me, in your mind, doesn't it, Bogan? Such a silly, silly idea. This thread is about saving the Earth from fossil fuel burning climate change. Simples really. As I have already said - when you can produce a scientifically written, peer reviewed, science journal published paper that is accepted by Scientists the world over that refutes Global Warming/Climate Change hypotheses, provide a link to it, OK? Until then you're just carping and moaning like an amateur.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair
-
Bogan
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:27 pm
Re: Climate Change
Brian, you posted up a hit piece on sceptics and all I did was return the compliment. Only I did a better job of throwing mud at alarmists than your author, who you cut and pasted. The reason you need to cut and paste alarmist opinions is because you have never bothered to study the topic like I have. You can't formulate your own arguments and you can't answer questions. You are now down to the last refuge of the scoundrel, endlessly repeating the mantra that "You have no peer reviewed scientific evidence." This is a debate site, Brian. Do you think that lame slogan will convince anybody?
Brian, the whole HIGW hoax is coming apart. As the decades pass and the confident predictions of impending doom never come to pass, more and more of the public are starting to realise it is as big a hoax as Peak Oil or the Millennium Bug. It's pretty hard to keep the public cringing in fear of global warming when it is snowing in Miami. The most significant factor in displaying that the HIGW alarmists are losing the debate, is the change in the attitudes of media reporting. Only five years ago, the media was the leading advocate for HIGW, and the media reports always described HIGW as a fact. Articles giving any credence to climate change "deniers" were as rare as a pro Trump story on the ABC. Today, the media seems to have realised that they should have looked before they leaped onto the HIGW bandwagon. Media reports on HIGW today are much more balanced, with some opinion writers now openly expressing opposition to HIGW.
Did you click on the link I gave you which showed Mark Steyn addressing a whole auditorium full of scientists who are sceptics? No, Of course you did not. And the reason is because you are scared, Brian. You are scared that you will be confronted by a room full of intelligent scientists openly laughing at HIGW. And that will stick a pin in your inflated ego which makes you think that you and your caste of humanities graduates are the font of reason and everything that is good and holy. Just like the commissars in Solzhenitsyns book "We are Never Wrong."
Here it is again, Brian. If you have an objective bone in your body then look at the quality of your opponents who oppose HIGW and flash on what they are saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU
Brian, the whole HIGW hoax is coming apart. As the decades pass and the confident predictions of impending doom never come to pass, more and more of the public are starting to realise it is as big a hoax as Peak Oil or the Millennium Bug. It's pretty hard to keep the public cringing in fear of global warming when it is snowing in Miami. The most significant factor in displaying that the HIGW alarmists are losing the debate, is the change in the attitudes of media reporting. Only five years ago, the media was the leading advocate for HIGW, and the media reports always described HIGW as a fact. Articles giving any credence to climate change "deniers" were as rare as a pro Trump story on the ABC. Today, the media seems to have realised that they should have looked before they leaped onto the HIGW bandwagon. Media reports on HIGW today are much more balanced, with some opinion writers now openly expressing opposition to HIGW.
Did you click on the link I gave you which showed Mark Steyn addressing a whole auditorium full of scientists who are sceptics? No, Of course you did not. And the reason is because you are scared, Brian. You are scared that you will be confronted by a room full of intelligent scientists openly laughing at HIGW. And that will stick a pin in your inflated ego which makes you think that you and your caste of humanities graduates are the font of reason and everything that is good and holy. Just like the commissars in Solzhenitsyns book "We are Never Wrong."
Here it is again, Brian. If you have an objective bone in your body then look at the quality of your opponents who oppose HIGW and flash on what they are saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU
-
brian ross
- Posts: 6059
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Re: Climate Change
Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It has to be all about me, in your mind, doesn't it, Bogan? Such a silly, silly idea. This thread is about saving the Earth from fossil fuel burning climate change. Simples really. As I have already said - when you can produce a scientifically written, peer reviewed, science journal published paper that is accepted by Scientists the world over that refutes Global Warming/Climate Change hypotheses, provide a link to it, OK? Until then you're just carping and moaning like an amateur.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair
-
Bogan
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:27 pm
Re: Climate Change
Ooooohhhh! Now THAT is a dirty trick, Brian. Reposting a previous post so that you can play the "if I post last I win" game. Not like the Brian Ross we all love and laugh at. It must be a measure of your embarrassment and resentment at having the shit kicked out of you on this topic.
Now Brian, you should know by now that when it comes to playing dirty, you are simply not as good at it as I am? You are out of your depth. How about I...…
Now Brian, you should know by now that when it comes to playing dirty, you are simply not as good at it as I am? You are out of your depth. How about I...…
Brian Ross wrote
Well Bogan, I must admit hat you kicked my arse on this topic. I realise that I am spruiking a cause that I know nothing about and I am going to do a lot of research to counter your arguments. Of course, if I had ever done that research in the first place I would have figured out that the whole HIGW cause is complete bullshit and I would never have wasted my time on this loser.
-
brian ross
- Posts: 6059
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Re: Climate Change
Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Manufacturing quotes now, tsk, tsk. You really do belong in the little kiddies' playground, don't you?
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair
-
Black Orchid
- Posts: 25685
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am
Re: Climate Change
I have seen you say those things, Brian. Why lie?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests