"new threat to progress on climate change"

[Alan Liefting]

Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a bloody great rort by academics
and bureaucrats intent on their job security.

That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the facts
rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

Are ALL of the tens of thousands of scientists and academics working in
the field of climate science simply in it for job security?

Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?



Alan

[Alan Liefting]

Reliable? Do you know about the microclimates that have been installed
around those measurement stations?

"Installed"?
Around all of them?

Regardless, 10 years is not long enough to prove anything bad is about
to happen.

True. That is why proxy data from multiple sources and data from over
millions of years is used.

And it was far warmer in the middle ages.

What was far warmer? Average global temperatures?

Why did they call it Greenland?

To attract immigrants? Because of the green grass in the south of the
country? Because of the green waters in the bays? A mistake in
translation of Gruntland?


Alan Liefting

[Alan Liefting]

There is no evidence. This nonsense is based on computer games and nothing
else.

No evidence in the truest sense of the word but plenty of data that
supports the premise that there is anthropogenic climate change and
supported by climate change modeling.


Alan Liefting

[a_l_p]

Post by Alan Liefting

Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a bloody great rort by
academics and bureaucrats intent on their job security.

That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the facts
rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

Not always so easily separated. Someone with a leaning towards Theory product,
therapy) X is likely to seek work in the X-promoting sector, in which without
malicious bias the structure of surveys allows X to be readily concluded to be
valid, which further confirms the personnel in their original inclination to
believe that the evidence for X is much stronger than for non-X.

Human nature. I had an argument with a dear person who does voluntary work with
prisoners. She is highly resistant to my belief that prisoners tend to massage
their back-stories when telling them to charitably-disposed ladies so as to make
their offending seem an pitiable response to a shocking early life. No, no!
she exclaimed - she had been there, she had heard them herself.....

Post by Alan Liefting
Are ALL of the tens of thousands of scientists and academics working in
the field of climate science simply in it for job security?
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

Does anyone seriously assert that it isn't? It always has changed and probably
always will, usually on a scale that shows up with long, long hindsight, though
within the trend up or down are innumerable zigzags, with smaller zigzags on
each zig and zag.

Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening natural
disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in population (and in news
dissemination) so that a flood that might have affected hundreds of people, many
of whom might have been able to get out of the way, now sweeps through densely
packed urban areas causing vastly more damage and loss of life?

A L P

[Barry]

Post by a_l_p

Post by Alan Liefting
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

Does anyone seriously assert that it isn't? It always has changed and probably
always will, usually on a scale that shows up with long, long hindsight, though
within the trend up or down are innumerable zigzags, with smaller zigzags on
each zig and zag.

The difference is that physics and human waste combine to provide a
mechanism that has not existed before. If we stop human emission climate
will still vary over time, but the trend upwards won't be there.

Post by a_l_p
Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening
natural disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in
population (and in news dissemination) so that a flood that might have
affected hundreds of people, many of whom might have been able to get
out of the way, now sweeps through densely packed urban areas causing
vastly more damage and loss of life?

Of course the effect of changes in human settlement and news gathering are
there. It is tempting to blame every unusual event on AGW (or claim that
it disproves it). However the trends are clear, and insurance companies
are capable of distinguishing the difference.

see eg

http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2007/2007_06_05_press_release-1.aspx

[a_l_p]

Post by Barry

Post by a_l_p

Post by Alan Liefting
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

Does anyone seriously assert that it isn't? It always has changed and probably
always will, usually on a scale that shows up with long, long hindsight, though
within the trend up or down are innumerable zigzags, with smaller zigzags on
each zig and zag.

The difference is that physics and human waste combine to provide a
mechanism that has not existed before. If we stop human emission climate
will still vary over time, but the trend upwards won't be there.

Was the trend upward only ever due to those anthropogenic factors? If not,
would there not have been a steady downward trend over aeons?

Post by Barry

Post by a_l_p
Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening
natural disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in
population (and in news dissemination) so that a flood that might have
affected hundreds of people, many of whom might have been able to get
out of the way, now sweeps through densely packed urban areas causing
vastly more damage and loss of life?

Of course the effect of changes in human settlement and news gathering are
there. It is tempting to blame every unusual event on AGW (or claim that
it disproves it). However the trends are clear, and insurance companies
are capable of distinguishing the difference.
see eg
http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2007/2007_06_05_press_release-1.aspx

Insurance companies are capable of devising self-preservation measures based on
whatever beat serves their interests. "Acts of god" and non-disclosure of
factors (unspecified, unguessable by the insured until claim time) are examples.
The practices of insurance companies do not convince me of anything other than
the deviousness of insurers.

A L P

[Barry]

Post by a_l_p

Post by Barry
The difference is that physics and human waste combine to provide a
mechanism that has not existed before. If we stop human emission climate
will still vary over time, but the trend upwards won't be there.

Was the trend upward only ever due to those anthropogenic factors? If not,
would there not have been a steady downward trend over aeons?

According to IPCC the bulk of the upward trend of the last 100 years or so
can be attributed to anthropogenic factors. The best evidence is that it
was the cause of a large minority of the warming of the first half of the
20C and the majority of the warming of the second half, with pollution the
major cause of the reduction in the middle. Without human factors there
would probably have been a smaller rise in temperature in the beginning of
last century with fluctuations but no significant trend after that.

Post by a_l_p

Post by Barry

Post by a_l_p
Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening
natural disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in
population (and in news dissemination) so that a flood that might have
affected hundreds of people, many of whom might have been able to get
out of the way, now sweeps through densely packed urban areas causing
vastly more damage and loss of life?

Of course the effect of changes in human settlement and news gathering
are there. It is tempting to blame every unusual event on AGW (or
claim that it disproves it). However the trends are clear, and
insurance companies are capable of distinguishing the difference.
see eg
http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2007/2007_06_05_press_release-1.aspx

Insurance companies are capable of devising self-preservation measures
based on whatever beat serves their interests. "Acts of god" and
non-disclosure of factors (unspecified, unguessable by the insured until
claim time) are examples.
The practices of insurance companies do not convince me of anything other than
the deviousness of insurers.

Of course Insurance companies are self-interested, but they also follow
the rules of Adam Smith. They make judgements about probabilities and
decide how they can use those to their advantage. Competition prevents
them from cheating people too much. Actuarial practice is the best
applied statistics going.

Of course you can believe anything if you find reasons for disbelieving the
experts who give you contrary advice.

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by a_l_p
Was the trend upward only ever due to those anthropogenic factors? If
not, would there not have been a steady downward trend over aeons?

From the peak of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago the climate
warmed until about 11,000 years ago. At that time there was a brief cold
period, the Younger Dryas. It then warmed to a peak about 5000 years ago,
cooled, warmed again in Minoan times, cooled, warmed again in Roman times,
cooled, warmed again in the early middle ages when the Danes colonized
Greenland and the Maoris settled in New Zealand, cooled in the Little Ice
Age and has warmed since until about eight years ago. The interglacials and
the warmer periods since the last glaciation were not brought about by our
ancestors chipping stones or generating carbon dioxide in any way. The next
big change will be a cooling towards the next glaciation. When that comes
generations to come will have real cause to worry.

R

[sam]

Post by Roger Dewhurst
From the peak of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago the climate
warmed until about 11,000 years ago. At that time there was a brief cold
period, the Younger Dryas. It then warmed to a peak about 5000 years ago,
cooled, warmed again in Minoan times, cooled, warmed again in Roman times,
cooled, warmed again in the early middle ages when the Danes colonized
Greenland and the Maoris settled in New Zealand, cooled in the Little Ice
Age and has warmed since until about eight years ago. The interglacials and
the warmer periods since the last glaciation were not brought about by our
ancestors chipping stones or generating carbon dioxide in any way. The next
big change will be a cooling towards the next glaciation. When that comes
generations to come will have real cause to worry.
R

Newsweek has a great article up at the moment about GW denialism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by sam

Post by Roger Dewhurst
From the peak of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago the climate
warmed until about 11,000 years ago. At that time there was a brief cold
period, the Younger Dryas. It then warmed to a peak about 5000 years
ago, cooled, warmed again in Minoan times, cooled, warmed again in Roman
times, cooled, warmed again in the early middle ages when the Danes
colonized Greenland and the Maoris settled in New Zealand, cooled in the
Little Ice Age and has warmed since until about eight years ago. The
interglacials and the warmer periods since the last glaciation were not
brought about by our ancestors chipping stones or generating carbon
dioxide in any way. The next big change will be a cooling towards the
next glaciation. When that comes generations to come will have real
cause to worry.
R

Newsweek has a great article up at the moment about GW denialism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

It seems that you prefer new age 'journalism' to science!

R

[sam]

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by sam

Post by Roger Dewhurst
From the peak of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago the climate
warmed until about 11,000 years ago. At that time there was a brief cold
period, the Younger Dryas. It then warmed to a peak about 5000 years
ago, cooled, warmed again in Minoan times, cooled, warmed again in Roman
times, cooled, warmed again in the early middle ages when the Danes
colonized Greenland and the Maoris settled in New Zealand, cooled in the
Little Ice Age and has warmed since until about eight years ago. The
interglacials and the warmer periods since the last glaciation were not
brought about by our ancestors chipping stones or generating carbon
dioxide in any way. The next big change will be a cooling towards the
next glaciation. When that comes generations to come will have real
cause to worry.
R

Newsweek has a great article up at the moment about GW denialism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

It seems that you prefer new age 'journalism' to science!
R

Heh, it is interesting how the PR tactics used by the GW denialists are
the same as those employed by the tobacco companies and the
anti-evolution intelligent design lobbyists and the "atheism is just
another faith" crowd in the US.
Joseph Goebbels would have been an inspiration to these crooked
propagandists.

[Warwick]

Post by sam

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by sam

Post by Roger Dewhurst
From the peak of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago the climate
warmed until about 11,000 years ago. At that time there was a brief cold
period, the Younger Dryas. It then warmed to a peak about 5000 years
ago, cooled, warmed again in Minoan times, cooled, warmed again in Roman
times, cooled, warmed again in the early middle ages when the Danes
colonized Greenland and the Maoris settled in New Zealand, cooled in the
Little Ice Age and has warmed since until about eight years ago. The
interglacials and the warmer periods since the last glaciation were not
brought about by our ancestors chipping stones or generating carbon
dioxide in any way. The next big change will be a cooling towards the
next glaciation. When that comes generations to come will have real
cause to worry.
R

Newsweek has a great article up at the moment about GW denialism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

It seems that you prefer new age 'journalism' to science!
R

Heh, it is interesting how the PR tactics used by the GW denialists are
the same as those employed by the tobacco companies and the
anti-evolution intelligent design lobbyists and the "atheism is just
another faith" crowd in the US.
Joseph Goebbels would have been an inspiration to these crooked
propagandists.

There is nothing to prevent an equally valid comparison with
the GW 'confirmists'.

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by sam
Newsweek has a great article up at the moment about GW denialism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

Even readers of Newsweek rate it as crap.

R

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Barry
Of course the effect of changes in human settlement and news gathering are
there. It is tempting to blame every unusual event on AGW (or claim that
it disproves it). However the trends are clear, and insurance companies
are capable of distinguishing the difference.

Insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee having been given, on
a plate, an excuse for increasing premia.

R

[Old Wolf]

Post by Roger Dewhurst
Insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee having been given, on
a plate, an excuse for increasing premia.

The people who support compulsory third-party insurance
for cars, have developed many techniques for glossing
over this point.

[R***@hotmail.com]

Post by Old Wolf

Post by Roger Dewhurst
Insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee having been given, on
a plate, an excuse for increasing premia.

The people who support compulsory third-party insurance
for cars, have developed many techniques for glossing
over this point.

The markets for compulsory insurance in Australia and the UK are very
competitive, with probably lower margins than other insurance
business.

Or were you arguing for a single state-owned company with no
requirement to pay dividends?

[Alan Liefting]

Post by a_l_p
Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening
natural disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in
population (and in news dissemination) so that a flood that might have
affected hundreds of people, many of whom might have been able to get
out of the way, now sweeps through densely packed urban areas causing
vastly more damage and loss of life?
A L P

Yep.

The media is not a forum for getting info on weather (oops) whether
climate change is happening. The media concentrate on the human element
to pull the heart strings of the readership. Climate modeling works an
the more tangible and quantifiable factors such as temp, co2, wind
strength etc.


Alan

[a_l_p]

Post by Alan Liefting

Post by a_l_p
Could it be that the apparent shocking increase in life-threatening
natural disasters (floods etc) is tied to a global increase in
population (and in news dissemination) so that a flood that might have
affected hundreds of people, many of whom might have been able to get
out of the way, now sweeps through densely packed urban areas causing
vastly more damage and loss of life?
A L P

Yep.
The media is not a forum for getting info on weather (oops) whether
climate change is happening. The media concentrate on the human element
to pull the heart strings of the readership. Climate modeling works an
the more tangible and quantifiable factors such as temp, co2, wind
strength etc.

What I was getting at was that general acceptance of the climate change view has
been accelerated by the news-led perception that there are increasing numbers of
"extreme events"? Skepticism - denying neither view but being constantly open
to adjusting one's opinion in response to evidence - has become a social
offence, tagged with the term denier (which I preferred before its adoption by
the Thought Police, back when it measured the thickness of nylon hosiery) along
with Holocaust Deniers.

A L P

[Scuzza]

"a_l_p" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:f9o3qs$gq6$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
...

Post by a_l_p
What I was getting at was that general acceptance of the climate
change view has been accelerated by the news-led perception that
there are increasing numbers of "extreme events"? Skepticism -
denying neither view but being constantly open to adjusting one's
opinion in response to evidence - has become a social offence, tagged
with the term denier (which I preferred before its adoption by the
Thought Police, back when it measured the thickness of nylon hosiery)
along with Holocaust Deniers.

In fact there is some such increase ... in earthquakes, for example ...
but sadly, no-one has yet concocted a theory shonky enough to place the
blame on us, so it goes completely unremarked.

Don't worry, I'm sure it won't be long now ...

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Alan Liefting

Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a bloody great rort by
academics and bureaucrats intent on their job security.

That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the facts
rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

That is a bit ripe coming from you.

This is what your mates are upto:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1517

Post by Alan Liefting
Are ALL of the tens of thousands of scientists and academics working in
the field of climate science simply in it for job security?

Most.

Post by Alan Liefting
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

I have never argued that climate change is not happening.

R

Post by Alan Liefting
Alan

[Alan Liefting]

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Alan Liefting
That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the facts
rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

That is a bit ripe coming from you.

What do you mean by that?

Post by Roger Dewhurst
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1517

Why do you call them "my mates"? That sort of ridiculous attempt at
making it personal does not further the discussion. That is the sort of
crap that makes me despair of the newsgroups.

And so what was the point of the link?

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Alan Liefting
Are ALL of the tens of thousands of scientists and academics working in
the field of climate science simply in it for job security?

Most.

Post by Alan Liefting
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

I have never argued that climate change is not happening.

Well forgive me for making that assumption but how about answering the
question and give some indication of your degree of acceptance of
climate change.

Alan Liefting

[Roger Dewhurst]

Post by Alan Liefting

Post by Roger Dewhurst

Post by Alan Liefting
That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the facts
rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

That is a bit ripe coming from you.

What do you mean by that?

The global warmers rely on ad hominem attacks. The website below is an
example of that.

Post by Alan Liefting

Post by Roger Dewhurst
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1517

Why do you call them "my mates"? That sort of ridiculous attempt at
making it personal does not further the discussion. That is the sort of
crap that makes me despair of the newsgroups.

Shorthand for like-minded people if you like.

Post by Alan Liefting

Post by Roger Dewhurst
I have never argued that climate change is not happening.

Well forgive me for making that assumption but how about answering the
question and give some indication of your degree of acceptance of climate
change.

I accept that climate changes naturally between glacial and interglacial
conditions. Is that extreme enough for you?

R

[Scuzza]

Post by Alan Liefting

Anthropogenic global warming is nothing but a bloody great rort by
academics and bureaucrats intent on their job security.

That is a pretty good ad hominem argument. How about arguing the
facts rather than accusing people of having a vested interest.

Because they DO have a vested interest, and "qui bono?" is and should
be the first question asked in any investigation of such things.

The post-modern hippies ratn and rave and froth at the mouth about the
millions paid to modern CEO's, and accuse them on that basis of
destructive levels of greed and callousness.

But when one points out to them the BILLIONS being paid to bureaucrats
and public payroll "scientists" then they get offended on behalf of
these incorruptible paragons of virtue, and it's only a coincidence
that these two classes believe the same things ...

It's just not credible ... the lady doth protest overmuch ...

Post by Alan Liefting
Are ALL of the tens of thousands of scientists and academics working
in the field of climate science simply in it for job security?

The ones on a government payroll (i.e. the vast majority)?

Yes.

Post by Alan Liefting
Are you 100% sure climate change is not happening?
Or maybe 99%? Or 98%?

That's never been the question. The word climate itself only HAS
meaning because it is always changing. the questions are about to what
degree (if any) it is anthropogenic, to what degree CO2 contributes to
some marginal change beyond what was happening anyway (if any), and
what (if anything) we could do about this, should we want to make the
attempt?

Subsidiary to these considerations is the one on how much of our
current civilisation will we choose to destroy in order to pander to
those who think they already know the answers to these questions, even
though they're unable to make a convincing honest argument to justify
their conclusions?

None of these have much to do with your questions, which are almost
entirely irrelevant...