Climate Change: Is it now Benign or Catastrophic?
By Keith Antonysen
The science of climate change began through Jean Fourier believing that the Earth could not hold warmth without some medium retaining warmth from the sun. We now call what Fourier posited, greenhouse gases. In the 1850s Eunice Foote experimented with gases and found that what we now term carbon dioxide retains warmth. John Tyndall a little later also experimented with CO2 and came to the same conclusion.
During the 20th Century, climate science had reached a stage where reliable projections into the future could be made.
Scientists were already informing fossil fuel corporations about the climate warming through use of fossil fuels from the 1950s onwards. More evidence is provided by CIEL. So, the science was strong enough for action to begin to ward off climate change. At that time predictions were being made about the effects of climate change such as extreme weather conditions; examples being, storm surges, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires etc. At this stage, the denier world had not begun and the damage to the atmosphere was relatively benign in comparison to contemporary times.
Around the time of the election of President Bush senior, the politics and deniers helped create doubt in climate science outlined in a long narrative in the New York Magazine written by Nathaniel Rich.
Up till the 1980s, it would have been much easier to have created a safer world for young people to bequeath at far less cost. Risk factors have now increased.
David Wallace-Wells wrote a well researched article for the New York Magazine a little over a year ago, the article gained much criticism; an annotated version of his article was later published providing much extra information as to how he reached his conclusions.
The view could be held that the article by David Wallace-Wells is hyperbole, yet the annotated material is derived from a myriad of science sources.
Since Wallace-Wells had his article published there have been catastrophic firesoverseas. Current Australian fires have been labelled as being catastrophic. Already four decades ago a scientist working for CSIRO was the first to study the association between climate change and bushfires. Fire Authorities around the world now recognise that bushfires/wildfires are associated with climate change.
So the narrative is that climate science developed over almost 2 centuries through the work of thousands of scientists before it was attacked in the main by people without any climate science qualifications over a period of a few decades. Since 1979 climate science has gained much data through the use of satellites. Geologists are now able to take rock samples from rock layers over 250 million years of age which provide much detail about the state of the climate in the past.
Finally, Professor Richard Alley has stated that through his work with ice cores abrupt climate change can occur in the space of a decade.
When there are thousands of scientists signing a letter in regard to needing to acknowledge the need to declare a climate emergency, policy makers need to take notice. It is quite impossible to provide the number of references that underpin the scientists concerns as many thousands of studies are published each year in peer reviewed journals.
Keith Antonysen has been researching climate science since the 1980s; at that time predictions were being promoted that would happen in the future. We are now beginning to witness the predictions forecast in the past coming true. Denier Agencies have been very successful in promoting pseudo science for many years; it is very clear that many decision makers are fooled by the pseudo science promoted; or, have been bought through large donations. Keith believes we must fight against the greed shown by Fossil Fuel Corporations and self-serving Politicians for the sake of upcoming generations.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
43 comments
Login here Register here-
Yes Minister
-
Roslyn Ross
-
New England Cocky
-
Progressive Thinker
-
wam
-
crypt0
-
Kaye Lee
-
Keith
-
crypt0
-
Zathras
-
Kaye Lee
- CO2 is not actually increasing.
- Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
- Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
- Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
- Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
- Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
-
johno
-
corvus boreus
-
Peter F
-
corvus boreus
-
Zathras
-
Keith
-
Kaye Lee
-
Vikingduk
-
Roslyn Ross
-
Roslyn Ross
-
DrakeN
-
corvus boreus
-
Vikingduk
-
Kaye Lee
-
Keith
-
Kaye Lee
-
Keith
-
Roslyn Ross
-
Roslyn Ross
-
Keith
-
corvus boreus
-
Kaye Lee
-
johno
-
corvus boreus
-
corvus boreus
-
Kaye Lee
-
Keith
-
Ken Fabian
-
Peter F
-
Kaye Lee
-
Wobbley
-
johno
Return to home pageI don’t believe that Australians as a whole possess the intelligence to make the necessary changes before there are major disasters on major disasters. It will take the abandonment of hundreds of towns and cities, many due to destruction by fire or lack of water, escalating summer temperatures sufficient to kill tens of thousands of people, humungous weather events vastly more damaging than anything we have seen to date etc etc, before the sheeple come to their senses. It is usually convenient to blame welded-on lying nasty tragics, but the ALP, NoNotion, Greens and rats & mice parties are all to some extent recipients of dinosaur fuel funding. Indeed, the three wicked witches in Queensland welcomed Adani, and Albanese hasn’t exactly done a lot to oppose SCUMMO et al. Years ago I was told that fear and greed are the two most common motivating factors …. both of those are reasons why the average sheeple refuses to consider change. They are no doubt the reason why SCUMMO and friends got re-elected.
Except out of those 11,000 scientists we had Mickey Mouse, Dumbledore, people with no scientific training and a lot of students.
For heaven’s sake. Climate change theory remains theory. By all means, put all our eggs in one basket and if you get it wrong, all supporters should sell their homes and hand over their money to those who questioned it in the first place. That won’t happen. Everyone will pay for the ‘sky is falling’ paranoia.
Petroleum based fuel consumption increases, CO2 production increases, global heat increases, catastrophic weather conditions become more frequent ….. and politicians sit in Parliament counting their Parliamentary Allowances while Australian farming enterprises are robbed of MDB water by some unscrupulous NW NSW cotton farmers because the representatives of the nat$ want the financial patronage that economic blindness provides.
Roslyn Ross – So exactly what is the cost of transitioning to renewable energy? Why does Australia subsidize the Fossil Fuel Industry to the tune of $29Billion per year? Why does the world subsidize the Fossil Fuel Industry to the tune of $5.2Trillion.
dear roslyn,
The answer is pretty straight forward to anyone who has ever seen a greenhouse.
I accept the theory of a 19th century scientist svante arrhenius that burning fossil fuels may eventually result in global warming.
For me the clincher is that climate change is a long term natural process but 1billion got rich returning greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in a short time that took nature billions of years to take out. That is enough to upset the balance . If the rest of the world are to get rich other energy sources must be developed.
Roslyn Ross …
Do you have any evidence for that “interesting” observation?
Take out Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore and you still have 10,998 …
Anyway, more to the point, given the choice between David Attenborough and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on the one hand, and Tony Abbott Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones on the other, I do hope you’ll understand if I stick with the former until the denialist “science” is proven.
crypt0,
Here is the list of signatories. List of 11,258 original scientist signatories (minus 34 invalid names, now totaling 11,224 signatories):
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/PAP/10.1093_biosci_biz088/2/biz088_supplemental_file_s1.pdf?Expires=1576584792&Signature=x0bR08d-Ltw4fvLrtPn7srtoN82rUmIIBJzT6taPnvZbr2PaCa0NwTrj4uRBChrKRZVNkGwdIJiEuZf7~m89xrsJLOJ3h3VeYIYkkqwVveaAi6uKzR8Z~ahdBJ1ias99fkxFEwLzlN-a1BnCwVSH4hRgWy4e5rR7Y496kFCwZXdNmJR-xv5o69FHmHqMjX3KHmAFYOcWa50mFwCS6PKkSIcdOZl3hC52RdPX-2TF-H5vXsq5Q-gK1TVIrD~QXZsYddIRfExJzidiAtT2Q51LzNQVm1v-pGBE3YvaHfPR3GDtrmdRJanNaQ05hO4bqjzTyQRmvVuhwhW9VeUdsol7VA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA
Roslyn
With all the matters happening in the environment it is possible to argue that a thermometer is not necessary.
. Erosion is being experienced world wide, Barrow in Alaska used to have an ice barrier protecting shores not that many years ago, now sea ice in summer is hundreds of miles off. Near where I live erosion of the coastline is a factor.
. Around the world marine environments are warming characterised by fish species moving North and South of the Equator, for example yellow tail kingfish now being caught off Tasmania, the same factor has been noticed off other parts of the world.
. I used hyperlinks to back the comments made, satellites show how the atmosphere is changing, there is absolutely no doubt about that. The origin of CO2 can be identified.
. If you do not believe in anthropogentic climate change, then you do not believe in Physics and Chemistry.
Can you please provide a reference to the break down of the thousands of scientists who signed the document suggesting the need for the calling of a climate emergency.
What is your explanation for the explosions of pingos in Siberia? Or, the breakdown of permafrost, while far off have world wide impacts.
1998 was seen as a datum year in relation to temperature years ago pushed really hard by deniers, why is that no longer being pushed?
Check out the fraud in relation to a graph provided by Fredrik Ljungqvist that had been appropriately published, it was changed to suit denier arguments. Many legitimate studies have been misrepresented by some denier blogs.
Exxon is fighting a case in a New York Court at present in relation to shareholders being fooled, in supplementary comments Rex Tillerson the xCEO of Exxon stated that fossil fuel corporations knew for decades about the damage their products have on climate. A statement made under oath.
In my article I have provided hyperlinks in relation to how scientists were saying that climate change was man created, I didn’t mention Shell in the article, it has also acknowledged the role of fossil fuels on climate.
Thanks Kaye … 226 more than my obviously sub standard maths. suggested!
Keith … To paraphrase Tony Abbott, I suspect that “denialist” science is either not settled yet, or as seems more likely, is in fact simply crap.
There is at least one Australian Senator in Parliament who believes the earth is only about 8,000 years old.
There are others who have made their bizarre, conspiratorial and uninformed views well-known.
When people who have a distorted view of reality and history based on storytelling and myth sit in judgement of life-changing legislative decisions that affect us all, what chance do we really have?
The very fact that we are still debating the very existence of this issue and avoiding taking action condemns us all because we are the ones who empower such people as our representatives.
The six stages of climate denial….
The Coalition are desperately trying to peddle number 6. It ain’t working.
Then there is the one. Gee, plants love co2. That means I should drive the 4 km to work instead of walking, riding a bike or using public transport.
Roslyn Ross is tell real truthy facts and do logics very goodly.
Kinda redefines non-sequiterial gish-gallop.
Ps, The smoke’s made a comeback this morning, low, thick and nasty. Dust-mask day in the new normal.
When the article refers to the possibility of massive climate change over a period as short as a decade, I accept this.
Yesterday the young lessee of this farm harvested two paddocks of wheat, following the oats he harvested last week. His canola crop was given over to cattle which have now been brought to a saleable condition.
This farm will now be put to rest until rain comes. There is no choice. Fortunately there are no ploughed fields to be blown away in these present conditions, but useful rain is not expected during the next 12 months, except in the month of June.
If these forecasts turn out to be true, the land will be damaged beyond any chance of rapid recovery. Neighbouring properties for kilometres around are looking like deserts already, with many trees showing signs of distress, and bare soil blowing in the wind.
It is this that makes me believe that the coming year will shock this country to the core.
I hope I am wrong.
Peter F,
I hear you regarding the likely effects on health of overall land (+water) health if current trends continue (as is predicted by a large body of credible science). The likely conditions through this coming summer alone are worrying enough, let alone the prospects if we do fall into a true el-nino. As forests go up in flames, they take a hell of a lot of stored water (future rain generation) with them
In terms of long term land ecology, on the native biodiversity facets of the prism, this years early season fires have already devastated some significant areas of native vegetation that is normally fire-resistant.(eg cool-temperate rainforests of Antarctic Beech).That shit won’t grow back in a hurry, especially if seasonal weather brings first rains that scour rather than soak.
Good luck and keep safe.
Kaye Lee,
The version of the stages I read elsewhere were –
There is no warming.
The Earth is actually cooling.
If there is warming it’s only slight and due to natural causes because the “climate” is changing all the time.
CO2 is plant food and will be good for us.
There is warming and it’s partly due to human activity.
There is definitely human induced warming but it’s too late to do anything about it. We should spend our effort in finding ways to adapt.
We wanted to do something about it but the Greeenies and Lefties stopped us.
It’s interesting to watch pundits like Bolt shift between stages.
I have often challenged deniers to relate why they no longer use 1998 as a datum point, it receives no responses. In the past 1998, an el nino year, was one of main arguments used by deniers. Now global temperatures in non-el nino years are recording higher temperatures than 1998.
crypt0
Abbott just re-cycles pseudo-science opinions displaying conspiracy theories and distrust in scientists. Psychological projection?
Keith,
One of my favourite examples of projection came from George Pell in his criticism of Anglican Bishop George Browning who was very vocal about the dangers of climate change.
“Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness. Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”
https://www.theage.com.au/national/anglican-leader-and-pell-in-bitter-row-over-climate-20071025-ge64rl.html
Our recent visit to the New England tablelands (for those who aren’t familiar, from here we travel south and west, up Cunningham’s Gap to Warwick. We stopped in Warwick, two major fires to the nw of Warwick and west of Cunningham’s gap). Warwick thick with smoke, add to this the monster drought, my first thoughts were — this is apocalyptic, this is a preview of how our world ends. Peter F states many wilting trees in his area. It is far worse on the tablelands, we saw, as we traveled south hundreds? thousands? of hectares of dead eucs, etc., leading, I think to a complete collapse of the ecosystem.
Yes, the penny hasn’t dropped for many people, rain alone will not be sufficient to end this catastrophe.
We arrived in Glen Innes, shrouded in smoke, a tent city of firies. Apparently two pubs serving 3,000 meals a week to these heroes. Visited brother in law and could see two monster fires to the east.
This country is experiencing a complete disaster, ravaged by the monsters drought and fire. The consequences we will slowly or rapidly become aware of in the moments to come.
We have fcked up about as far as a species can and now the piper wants paying.
Weep for what has been lost, as I do when I recall this visit and dream of what could be.
Seems we have an arsonist in our midst, locals reasonably sure who the culprit is. After Sunday thunderstorms all quite here for the moment. Good fortune, Corvus.
Let us deal with realities. Science is a system of enquiry and it knows only what it can measure. What it can measure depends upon what it chooses to measure and the technological capacity it has at this point in history to measure anything. Ergo, science knows some things but not all things. The science is never settled because as a system of enquiry, scientific theories exist until the next question and the next answer in essence. Modern science is very good at mechanics and understanding man-made things, understandably, but its understanding of the natural world, including the human organism, while greater than it was a century ago, remains minimal.
In other words, when someone tells you the science is settled or scientists have consensus, be assured they are not referring to good science, or indeed, real science. The Climate Change agenda, now cult-like and definitely religious, has been hijacked by the Renewables industry profiteers, the environmental fanatics and politicians seeking to tap into the later public neurosis.
Facts, reason, common sense are hard to find.
The climate may well be changing, it always has done. Warmer, cooler, seas rise and fall, ever thus. Human impact may make a difference or may not. We do not know. If there is change at this point it could be cosmological or planetary and some scientists argue for that and are ignored.
So, we do not know if the climate is changing radically or for the worse and we do not know if humans play a part, i.e. does the Carbon Emissions obsession have any truth to it.
Common sense decrees we hedge our bets, act cautiously and do not put all of our eggs in one basket. Let us forensically study Renewables to see how dirty their environmental footprint is because they too have a dirty footprint in terms of mining for materials, manufacturing and disposing of a great deal of waste. Let us then compare the dirty footprints of Renewables, let’s do it honestly, with Fossil Fuels and Nuclear. Then make decisions for the future.
And, until Renewables can supply base-load power, I mean we need that to produce all those wind farms and solar panels, let us retain access to gas, Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, i.e. guaranteed sources of base-load power.
Let us also bear in mind that if the CO2 theory is wrong, and another theory is correct, i.e. many scientists foresee a new ice-age, we have to be damn sure that Solar and Wind could function well enough in such an environment to keep people alive and the world working. In other words, in an ice-age, unless most people in the northern hemisphere are to die, we need a great deal of reliable power and we would be stupid to put our faith in Renewables to carry us through such a time.
So, err on the side of caution. Reject the fear and paranoia of the Climate Change fanatics. Make decisions sourced in solid information across the spectrum and plan for various possibilities, including the possibility that CO2 Emission theory is wrong.
We owe it to the planet and to humanity not to race off half-cocked because of fear-driven propaganda. Just as an example. Take LED globes. Great idea they said, cleaner, greener, let’s do it. Now, when it is virtually impossible to buy old-style globes because the LED fanatics won the day, people are beginning to realise the high level of pollution they bring, lead and mercury to name just two, now going into landfills and poisoning the environment. But it seemed like a good idea at the time, they cry. Yeah, no-one thought hard enough about it and a lot of it was based on lies.
We humans are nothing if not gullible and never more so than when we are dragged into catastrophe thinking.
@Keith,
You said: With all the matters happening in the environment it is possible to argue that a thermometer is not necessary.
Thermometers are always necessary. Indeed, a major problem with BoM data is that it ignores information collected between 1855 and 1910, claiming that, because methods changed, the earlier data is unreliable. Hmmm, not that hard to read a thermometer or to judge readings on placement. Anyway, some scientists have taken issue with this and the good thing is the data is still available, and, when studied, if included, reveals a cooler Australian climate not a warmer one. How inconvenient.
One does not accuse BoM of doctoring data but one can accuse them of, for whatever reason, assessments based on incomplete and inadequate data.
You said:. Erosion is being experienced world wide, Barrow in Alaska used to have an ice barrier protecting shores not that many years ago, now sea ice in summer is hundreds of miles off. Near where I live erosion of the coastline is a factor.
Yes, and if you read the history of say the UK, and it is very well recorded for more than a thousand years, you will find similar stories. things change, that is a constant. As someone pointed out the other day regarding recent floods in that country, if you read centuries back in the historical data you find it is not unusual. If you assess it dating from the early 20th century, and the officials in the UK, also limit their data as BoM does in Australia to more recent times, then it is unusual. Science knows only what it can measure and that depends on what it chooses to measure. Not so much smoke and mirrors but not accurate either.
You said: Around the world marine environments are warming characterised by fish species moving North and South of the Equator, for example yellow tail kingfish now being caught off Tasmania, the same factor has been noticed off other parts of the world.
The climate has always warmed and cooled. Nothing surprising in that. Sunspot theory can explain some of it but in this age of CO2 obsession that gets ignored.
You said: . I used hyperlinks to back the comments made, satellites show how the atmosphere is changing, there is absolutely no doubt about that. The origin of CO2 can be identified.
That may well be true but CO2 may not be the cause of any changes. The role of CO2 is theory.
You said: If you do not believe in anthropogentic climate change, then you do not believe in Physics and Chemistry.
That is a ridiculous comment. Physics and Chemistry as we currently understand them can explain some things but not climate in any categorical sense. Indeed, one could argue, they explain nothing in a categorical sense. Do we understand Gravity? No. We understand some of its effects but we have no idea what it is. Do we understand why a synthetic material can be identical chemically to the natural form but different at the molecular level? No, we do not. Do we understand what switches a gene off or on? No we do not. So much for gene theory.
Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. Sure, there may be truth in it or there may not. I happen to believe the poisons spewed out by the medical, military, agriculture and manufacturing industries along with plastic are a greater danger to the planet but of course, too inconvenient to target those.
You said: Can you please provide a reference to the break down of the thousands of scientists who signed the document suggesting the need for the calling of a climate emergency.
Mate, the mere fact that Mickey Mouse, Dumbledore and a heap of students signed the document makes it shonky. Also, when scientists start signing such ridiculous scaremongering documents you can be assured that science, real science, good science is not in the mix.
You said: What is your explanation for the explosions of pingos in Siberia? Or, the breakdown of permafrost, while far off have world wide impacts.
I don’t dispute the climate changes. Of course it does. I dispute the hysterical claims of human cause. Our knowledge is barely a blink in planetary time. Any changes may be perfectly normal. Who knows, perhaps the impending switch in the magnetic poles is playing a part. But no-one wants to look at that. Better to bag the fossil fuel industry and get people terrified to increase Renewables profits.
You said: 1998 was seen as a datum year in relation to temperature years ago pushed really hard by deniers, why is that no longer being pushed?
It is so recent it is hard to see it being relevant. More interesting is the geological data showing regular warmer times throughout history.
You said: Check out the fraud in relation to a graph provided by Fredrik Ljungqvist that had been appropriately published, it was changed to suit denier arguments. Many legitimate studies have been misrepresented by some denier blogs.
First of all science has no concept of deniers. Doesn’t work. Indeed Einstein by your criteria would have been labelled a Quantum Mechanics denier. He wasn’t although he never came to terms with it.
Many legitimate studies have been misrepresented by those pushing CO2 and climate change agendas. Your point would be?
You said: Exxon is fighting a case in a New York Court at present in relation to shareholders being fooled, in supplementary comments Rex Tillerson the xCEO of Exxon stated that fossil fuel corporations knew for decades about the damage their products have on climate. A statement made under oath.
Meaningless. Someone is out to make money. By the way, modern medicine really does poison people and the planet with its medications, how about someone sues them on the same basis? Don’t like that one? Thought not. I find context and perspective matter. Modern medicine, despite the toxic nature of its drugs, believes it is doing good. When Fossil Fuels were developed, people believed they were doing good and indeed, when we look at technological developments, most would conclude that they were generally doing good. The fact that we now have a belief this energy source also causes harm needs to be assessed in light of the times and the current fear-driven paranoia about planetary doom.
You said: In my article I have provided hyperlinks in relation to how scientists were saying that climate change was man created, I didn’t mention Shell in the article, it has also acknowledged the role of fossil fuels on climate.
Of course you did because you have written a subjective piece to push your views. That is fine. I have no issue with opinion pieces but it remains op-ed. I prefer balance however, and to be informed from a perspective which presents all sides to an equation and explore across the spectrum. I fully understand such journalism is rare today and to be fair, it was not necessarily that common in times past. But it did exist. Unfortunately we live in an age where even in universities people believe an opinion equates with a fact. It doesn’t and it is dangerous to believe that it does.
Rosalyn Ross,
Do you actually know the dictionary definition of the word “theory”?
I suspect that it is not what you believe it to be.
Vikingduk,
A month and a bit back a friend of mine travelled from north coast NSW to the Warrumbungles.
I asked him (a reasonably sensible if non-expert witness) how the near-west plains were looking.
He replied; ‘dry and grim, but the tablelands are far worse. Even the big old street trees are dying.’
That conversation occurred before the recent fires upped the ante to eleventy
Bone-for-tuna backatcha my friend.
Cheers, Corvus.
Ms. Ross, I find your bullshit to be exactly that, complete and utter garbage. Reminds me of a completely futile conversation I tried to avoid recently, but no, the pig ignorant feel they have a duty to share their ignorance. Yes, I know, this will be a completely useless exercise and you will maintain your ignorance no matter what.
You see, most of us have found credible sources of information, from real scientists, who, strangely enough, have reached the same conclusion. Unlike you, a person who values bullshit and wallows in it.
You have to admire the loyalty of the deniers in sticking by the few tame scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry to deliberately sow doubt – the exact same tactics as the tobacco lobby used – despite the complete debunking of every bit of smoke and mirrors they have dished up.
You are completely incorrect Roslyn when you say these quacks have been ignored. Their work has been rigorously examined and debunked.
Rather than me wading through the very predictable rubbish you have dished up, every one of your points can be answered here complete with links to the scientific research showing just how wrong you are. Knock yourself out.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Or here….Climate change: How do we know?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The argument that the climate has always changed is so lame. It takes millenia for the climate to change unless there is a catastrophe. We are the catastrophe that is forcing the current crisis in an astonishingly short space of time. To pretend that 7 billion people pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would have no effect is beyond belief.
Roslyn Rose
Thank you for your response, but many of your points are those that keep being recycled by deniers.
.Temperature reading in Australia was not reliably read until 1910 when weather stations were constructed in an identical way at each site. The USA had similar arguments, they actually compared the sites that were said to be erroneous with others deniers felt to be accurate. Also, Professor Muller a former skeptic of climate change reviewed temperature readings in the USA. He found them to be very accurately read. Since he has formed Berkley Earth which is a site often quoted. Temperature is homogenised to take into account variations at a site over generations. I’m very aware of where that nonsense is coming from.
.I used Barrow as an example of erosion as it has had ice barriers stopping erosion for thousands of years. Off Siberia islands are beginning to disappear also through erosion, those islands similarly have had ice barriers for thousands of years.
.Behind Rex Tillerson is a huge body of evidence if you had gone to hyperlinks provided you would have been able to read some of it. There is no doubt that executives from fossil fuel corporations in the US were aware of the climate changing properties of CO2.
.Were you aware that Gravity is also a theory. You were rightly pulled up earlier about not understanding this point.
.A couple of months ago I came across a site where scientific fraud/incorrect analysis was encountered … there was one case where a climate scientist had not properly weighed up evidence, the effect was stronger than he had stated; whereas, there were numerous studies in the medical field which were mentioned where fraud was evident.
.I term scientists as skeptics when they disagree with aspects of science, the rest I term deniers.By the time deniers pass on opinions it is at least third hand.
.Your point about 1998 is meaningless, it had been used as a gotcha point by deniers. Your point goes against what deniers were arguing around the turn of the century.
.The use of the Ljungqvist graph was fraud to push a denier opinion.
I happen to read references provided by deniers and follow them up by reading the science
Scientists have always stated that the climate has changed. Paleoclimate science have studied what has gone on millions of years ago, and yes, CO2 and other greenhouse gases were a factor then. Pages2, a science consortium, blows away all the nonsense that deniers have stated about the Roman period and Medieval time . Ice cores show the impact of greenhouse gases. On a daily basis satellites provide data about how greenhouse gases are changing the atmosphere. Geology is now able to pick up the impact of climate through identifying what was happening to rock structure as it was forming.
But, deniers do not like objective data that knocks their points out.
As with deniers generally you have not provided any references, just rehashed the opinions denier blogs express. Please provide references.
.
Deniers don’t provide references Keith because that would expose the lack of credibility of their sources. Andrew Bolt says….
Thank you Kaye, deniers just don’t realise the volume of data created by scientists, or the volume of material published in peer reviewed Journals. In comparison skeptical scientists literally only have a handful of articles published.
@Keith,
Using the term ‘deniers’ betrays not only science as a credible system of enquiry, it betrays your prejudice. When one begins from a place of bigotry, i.e. dismissing all dissenters by labelling them as deniers, there are no grounds for intelligent discussion.
Name-calling is childish and immediately makes your position, not mine, questionable.
Good science has no place for name-calling. Indeed, by your criteria, Albert Einstein would be labelled a denier in regard to quantum mechanics because he never came to terms with it. Just to establish you are applying your principles equally, would you label Einstein a denier on this count? I very much doubt it, which means your name-calling is highly selective and amounts to ad hominem.
By all means attack and if you can, destroy the position, but when you resort to ad hominem you are admitting you cannot make a coherent rebuttal.
Please tell me which comments of mine, a general common-sense overview, you would like to see sourced.
Beyond that, I appreciate your integrity in publishing my post. Full marks to you for not resorting to censorship.
@Keith,
to respond to your post.
You said: Temperature reading in Australia was not reliably read until 1910 when weather stations were constructed in an identical way at each site. The USA had similar arguments, they actually compared the sites that were said to be erroneous with others deniers felt to be accurate.
Yes, I fully understand the theory and the reasoning behind dismissing data from 1855 to 1910, but it still means more than half a century of data is ignored. It is a very convenient approach because, by dismissing this data, the indicators are the climate is warming, when including the data indicates it is cooling.
Such a mechanistic approach has its flaws and limitations. Indeed, one may question if anything can be homogenised. We are already hearing that the homogenised approach in science-medicine, through mega-analyses is deeply flawed. I fail to see why climate, another area of the natural world, which cannot be reduced to the material and mechanistic, should be able to survive such number-crunching.
You said: .I used Barrow as an example of erosion as it has had ice barriers stopping erosion for thousands of years. Off Siberia islands are beginning to disappear also through erosion, those islands similarly have had ice barriers for thousands of years.
I have never disputed climate change. Of course the climate changes, it always has done. The core issue is whether or not human activity at this point in time is contributing to that change, in ways, not possible when similar changes happened in the past.
You said: .Behind Rex Tillerson is a huge body of evidence if you had gone to hyperlinks provided you would have been able to read some of it. There is no doubt that executives from fossil fuel corporations in the US were aware of the climate changing properties of CO2.
I am sure there is a huge body of evidence. But there is also evidence which differs. That however gets ignored.
As to let’s hate and fear fossil fuels, the correct statement should be:
There is no doubt that executives from fossil fuel corporations in the US were aware of the claims of the climate changing properties of CO2. In short, the critical word omitted is ‘claim.’
I am sure that those in the Renewables industry are aware of claims about the dirty environmental footprints of solar and wind. I fail to see any difference between the self-serving, profit-driven Renewables industry and the Fossil Fuel industry. The only difference is the former is considered to be acceptable today and the latter is not. Neither is acting in anything but their own profit-driven interests. I like to see principles applied equally.
You said: .Were you aware that Gravity is also a theory. You were rightly pulled up earlier about not understanding this point.
I missed that. My point was science does not know and would never claim that it knows what Gravity is. Ergo, gravity remains theoretical and our understanding comes from observing effects.
When we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, i.e. the law applies to the observation of effects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other, i.e. science does not know what gravity is. I stand by my statement and consider there is nothing to pull up.
You said: .I term scientists as skeptics when they disagree with aspects of science, the rest I term deniers.By the time deniers pass on opinions it is at least third hand.
then why are the many scientific sceptics (Australian English spelling) dismissed as deniers?
You said: .Your point about 1998 is meaningless, it had been used as a gotcha point by deniers. Your point goes against what deniers were arguing around the turn of the century.
And in times past the Climate Change agenda were claiming many things which did not come to pass which is why Global Warming became Climate Change. I fail to see your point.
You said: .The use of the Ljungqvist graph was fraud to push a denier opinion.
As some claim. Others disagree.
You said: I happen to read references provided by deniers and follow them up by reading the science
And I read references provided by Climate Change pushers and read the science.
As I said elsewhere, the constant use of the term denier reveals your prejudice and lack of scientific objectivity.
Roslyn
Your first note:
In relation to my article, the meat is in the hyperlinks … one of the links being around 100 pages. There is another well referenced article which has a wealth of references.
I challenged you to provide references you haven’t. I do not accept sophism when discussing science, you have proven Kaye right about deniers.
.. Science credibility … I wrote earlier my term for actual questioning scientists of climate change as being “skeptics”.
.. The definition of denier from dictionary ….”a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence…..”
The same points continually are pushed by deniers even though they have been debunked.
.. Definition of denier from my dictionary … “a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence …..”
..When taking into account the definition I use for deniers … your ad hominem comment falls flat.
I would like you to provide references for all your arguments. You really didn’t answer my point about 1998 being a datum year, I’d like a better response … maybe you weren’t thinking about climate change almost 2 decades ago.
Second note:
.. It is not a theory about how unreliable temperature readings were before 1910.
..Where is your experience in relation to homogenisation, weather stations often have trees growing near them, bitumen roads close by, or high buildings appear in close proximity. Those changes need to be taken into account. Please show a reference, earlier I wrote about temperature being reviewed in the US, the weather stations seen to be troublesome gave readings the same as the main aggregate. Learn about how the Koch brothers funded Professor Muller; except he came up with an answer deniers didn’t like when reviewing temperature in USA. Australia uses the same system of homogenisation. References re how homogenistion doesn’t work please.
..Scientists say that climate science has the same credibility as the theory of gravity. It is an apriori concept … suspend something in the air, let go, and it will always drop.
..When thousands of scientists say there is a climate emergency, then it pays to take notice. Did you read Kaye’s response … fictitious names were cancelled out.
..Creating renewables and installing them creates jobs. People die from the emissions of fossil fuels, people die through climate change also, businesses are destroyed through climate change. What do your figures indicate as far as deaths from renewables? Reference please.
..Deniers are those people without any science qualifications promoting pseudo science. Sky news promotes denier views, journalists are not scientists.
.. The Ljungqvuist graph was altered, please provide a reference to show it wasn’t.
.. With the amount of references provided in my article there is no way known that you could have read the material provided before making your first comment.
A year or so ago scientists reviewed work published by skeptical scientists with a view to replicating the results, the work could not be replicated (Dr Katherine Hayhoe et al).
The first link I would like to see Roslyn provide is some corroboration to her completely unsubstantiated claim that climate scientists are ignoring the possible effects of sunspot activity.
Here is a graphic representation of recent sunspot activity;
sunspotwatch.com/share/201407_wolfmms.jpg
One of the main reasons that climate scientists tend to marginalise (not ignore) the effects of sunspot activity in determining causes for the recent accelerated warming is that, unlike for instance the documented exponential increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, records of sunspot activity show little correlation with observed temperature increases.
Roslyn should really stick to fighting the evils of vaccination.
Roslyn,
“Human impact may make a difference or may not. We do not know.”
That should read YOU do not know.
“Let us forensically study Renewables to see how dirty their environmental footprint is ”
That has been done Roslyn. And do you get the renewables part? That means you don’t run out of it. Onjce the infrastructure is set up, you don’t have to dig up finite resources, transport them, and burn more of them every day, and deal with the pollution and waste that causes. Likewise for nuclear. Research is being done on recycling solar panels. That’s important. It’s an issue not yet addressed adequately with wind turbines. But even taking that into account…..renewable says it all. A free power source.
“until Renewables can supply base-load power”
As everyone who actually understands anything about this will tell you, it isn’t baseload power that we need, it’s dispatchable power that responds to demand. Coal can’t do that. Renewables, storage, better transmission grids, demand management, building and appliance efficiency…these are the discussions of the 21st century.
” many scientists foresee a new ice-age”
I think you’ll find that was Maurice Newman.
I am about half way through your first comment. My husband just said to me I am wasting my time. He is right.
Give me a link that suggests we are heading into an ice age. That should be easy.
Global warming, a religion, what the, the word is out. Every Sunday I ride my bike to the local wind farm/church. Once there I kneel and pray to the great global warming god to forgive my sins.
On Courtillot’s hypothesis postulating a correlation between past electro-magnetic fluctuations and previous climate shifts, here is part of the summary overview of his conclusions;
‘Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous.
Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent.’
http://www.ipgp.fr/fr/are-there-connections-between-the-earths-magnetic-field-and-climate
On the idea that we should plan and operate based on the idea that ‘CO2 emission theory is wrong’, here is a brief overview on the lengthy and rigid scientific processes (theoretical, experimental and observational) by which the role of increased greenhouse gases (particularly CO2) in increasing temperatures through the trapping of radiant heat has become a scientific theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in relevant fields;
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
“which is why Global Warming became Climate Change”
I am so sick of this ignorant, and so commonly trotted out, crap. Global warming is one thing that can CAUSE climate change. It wasn’t a name change because they thought they were wrong. Whilst related, they are different things. As we are all aware, the climate can be influenced by various different natural forcings, NONE of which can explain the current rapid warming.
If the science of climate change is a religion, which group heads it?
The IPCC collects science studies from thousands of scientists to write up their reports. The scientists working on the IPCC are not employed by the UN.
Or, what about peak science bodies from around Earth, they all agree climate change is happening. They are aware that climate science is not a linear study.
What about all the non-specific climate change sciences which underpin climate change, even Archeology. Are they the high priests of climate change?
What about Physicists and Chemists. Margret Thatcher was a Chemist, was she a high priest of climate change?
Are there any parables written against deniers … showing their wicked ways?
What commandments does the religion of climate science provide?
Do we accept the religion of climate change on faith, or are there objective theories holding it together?
Are the laws of thermodynamics merely
religious views?
What is the name of the climate science God?
Does the religion of climate change supersede Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism etc? Can you still be a Christian and believe in climate science? There are Christians who believe that we must act as caretakers of Earth and hence believe in climate science … are they heretics?
In other words, I’ve got a very slight hunch that calling climate change a religion is just aberrant nonsense!
“Human impact may make a difference or may not. We do not know.”
Real sceptics say “I do not know”, they don’t say everyone else does not know – not even as they check to be sure. Fake sceptics hold that unless they are personally convinced then existing bodies of science base knowledge are wrong. It allows them to reject as wrong anything they do not, cannot or choose not to understand, ie they can reject anything at all. Rosylin, you are a fake sceptic.
People are, generally speaking free to believe or disbelieve whatever they like. That is so long as they do not have fiduciary duties of care or hold positions of trust and responsibility. They – and we – have had decades of consistent top level expert advice. Bodies like the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences, drawing on the world’s most accomplished and respected experts to review and critique complex science are not just satisfied the science on climate is sound, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to inform governments of how serious climate change is; alarmed at the lack of alarm.
When people like PM Morrison turn aside from that advice they are not just negligent, they are dangerously irresponsible. Admittedly he has a lot on his plate (besides the fossil fuel donations) – making protesting and consumer choice based on ethics illegal, removing environmental considerations from mine approval processes in order to fast track new coal mines and gas fields, stopping sick refugees from getting medical care are hard work, made much harder when it is not just extremist protesters but mainstream Australians refusing to be quiet.
I am always fascinated by those who accept science when it suits them: Medical, power, transportation, food science …etc, etc., yet absolutely ignore the science they do not like.
Please do not waste emotional energy on these people.
“Denier: a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something despite evidence or general support for it.”
Far from being emotive or showing bias, the term is entirely appropriate.
I strongly believe in the science of climate change and robustly believe it is us, the scourge of the planet that is responsible for this extreme dilemma. But to apply logic to renewables even if there was no climate emergency, why in the fck wouldn’t you go to electric vehicles? Solar and wind for power generation and why would you sanely invest in anything that leaves WASTE? I think it is absurd to utilise technology that leaves a whole lot of shit to clean up when ya don’t have to. We can live in a kind of energy utopia if only we apply basic logic. In my opinion we are technologically advanced enough to transform to a sustainable way of life for all but obviously brain dead greed will kill the lot of us.
Peter F , exactly, like this one.
Australian scientists may have discovered solution to our plastic recycling problem ( the optimum word here being scientists )
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-20/scientists-may-have-found-solution-to-plastic-recycling-problem/11679326