Extreme is the New Normal

[Kim OHara]

For the third time, don't go on saying what I do or don't believe! It's rude and it's very likely to be wrong.
This time, most of what you have put up is way out of date, most of it is not from scientists and most of it has also been taken out of context.
Don't know how misleading that can be? Here's an extreme example: Alex said, "390ppm [of CO2] is dangerously high."
You did say it!


Kim

I have NEVER said that 390ppm is dangerously high. You've said it. Now you are putting words in my mouth. It is dishonest, plain and simple. Considering what some AGW proponents have said, I am not surprised at all.

I'm sorry, but you did say it. You also said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet:

1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.

Yes, it is dishonest. So are many of the "quotations" you have put up here by way of casting doubt on good science.
Now you see just how dishonest it can be, perhaps you will be more cautious about accepting others' quotes.

... You have also called my statements "junk science".

What crash are you talking about? CO2 levels being too high (at 390ppm)?

Yes. 390 is dangerously high for a whole human civilisation which developed with a lower level and is critically dependent on that lower level - not least because of sea levels. Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.

Kim
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In quote below, you have called my statements to be junk science.

Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p112503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stand by all that.

In another post you have asked me:

Alex,
Why do you trust one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?
That, to me, is the crucial question, because everything you believe about the climate is a consequence of that trust.

Kim
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p112520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p118318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Great! (I mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.) An answer to the crucial question I asked repeatedly and you failed to answer!
"Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt."
And that is an excellent policy, too - especially when you remember the dangers of misquotation we have just discovered.
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
If not, why not?

The last point is what you've been saying yourself about "cities drowning".
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is appeal to emotion, not reason.

Both, actually.

I am yet to read your rational reply to my post at: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&p=118326#p118059 .

Is there a question there I haven't answered? If so, which?

Kim

[Alex123]

For the third time, don't go on saying what I do or don't believe! It's rude and it's very likely to be wrong.
This time, most of what you have put up is way out of date, most of it is not from scientists and most of it has also been taken out of context.
Don't know how misleading that can be? Here's an extreme example: Alex said, "390ppm [of CO2] is dangerously high."
You did say it!


Kim

I have NEVER said that 390ppm is dangerously high. You've said it. Now you are putting words in my mouth. It is dishonest, plain and simple. Considering what some AGW proponents have said, I am not surprised at all.

I'm sorry, but you did say it. You also said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet:

1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.

Yes, it is dishonest. So are many of the "quotations" you have put up here by way of casting doubt on good science.
Now you see just how dishonest it can be, perhaps you will be more cautious about accepting others' quotes.

Kim,

Please show where I have said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet. In the above quote, I've asked you in #3 to prove why CO2 significantly heats up the planet. Please don't claim what I didn't say.

If you have answer to above 3 questions, please answer them in this thread.

Is there a question there I haven't answered? If so, which?

Kim

Yes.
Please check one of my many posts, and actually answer it point by point:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p118059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If any of my quotes are incorrect, please show us the context and the original quote. I'll gladly disown those quotes proven wrong. I am after truth, not dogma.


I am perfectly willing to change my views if provided real evidence.

If you can prove that current global warming could not have occurred naturaly, but only due to humans, I'd accept that. I have no sacred cows in science.


1) The reason why I doubt that humans had anything to do with it is because climate was changing just as much and fast as today - WITHOUT any human burning fossil fuels. That was the main reason I've posted the temperature chart. The other reason was to show the cyclical nature of climate change. Sometimes earth warms up, sometimes it cools down. We just happen to be (hopefuly not at the end of) warming phase - similar to what was happening in recent (400k past).


2nd) CO2 does NOT cause significant, or any, warming.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p118059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kim, Please post the mechanism behind CO2 causing warming of the planet.

CO2 makes up approximately 0.0387% of atmosphere by volume. We contribute less than 5% of CO2. 5% of 0.0387% = 0.05 * 0.0387% = 0.001935%

Natural atmospheric fluctuation is greater than <0.19%! So human contribution is virtually nothing. Nature can outdo it "in the blink of an eye".

Even if humans would totally disappear today, it would make at most <0.19% change in the atmosphere.

[Kim OHara]

Kim,

Please show where I have said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet. In the above quote, I've asked you in #3 to prove why CO2 significantly heats up the planet. Please don't claim what I didn't say.

Done, by adding emphasis:

1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.

I did warn you it was dishonest!
And no, I don't believe you believe it.

Is there a question there I haven't answered? If so, which?

Kim

Yes.
Please check one of my many posts, and actually answer it point by point:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p118059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If any of my quotes are incorrect, please show us the context and the original quote. I'll gladly disown those quotes proven wrong. I am after truth, not dogma.
I am perfectly willing to change my views if provided real evidence.
If you can prove that current global warming could not have occurred naturaly, but only due to humans, I'd accept that. I have no sacred cows in science.

I'm sorry, Alex, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to slog through the loads of junk science you have put up, while you keep on avoiding the one crucial question ... the one you nearly answered last time but then skated away from this time:

Great! (I mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.) An answer to the crucial question I asked repeatedly and you failed to answer!
"Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt."
And that is an excellent policy, too - especially when you remember the dangers of misquotation we have just discovered.
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
If not, why not?

Kim

[Alex123]

Kim,

Please show where I have said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet. In the above quote, I've asked you in #3 to prove why CO2 significantly heats up the planet. Please don't claim what I didn't say.

Done, by adding emphasis:

1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.

I did warn you it was dishonest!
And no, I don't believe you believe it.

Please note, I have put "Prove that" before those question. I hope you understand what that means. It means that I don't believe those statements until you actually prove them. Since you haven't done it, I don't accept them.

I'm sorry, Alex, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to slog through the loads of junk science you have put up, while you keep on avoiding the one crucial question ... the one you nearly answered last time but then skated away from this time:

The answer is that you can't dismiss real science and base them on these "experts"

# The 1992 Rio delegates actually admitted that science doesn’t matter!
Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)


Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_a ... hor2108263" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

And you are announcing disasters:

Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kim OHara]

Kim,

Please show where I have said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet. In the above quote, I've asked you in #3 to prove why CO2 significantly heats up the planet. Please don't claim what I didn't say.

Done, by adding emphasis:

1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.

I did warn you it was dishonest!
And no, I don't believe you believe it.

Please note, I have put "Prove that" before those question. I hope you understand what that means. It means that I don't believe those statements until you actually prove them. Since you haven't done it, I don't accept them.

Alex,
Of course I understand what you meant. I was deliberately being dishonest as an example of of how easy it is, and I said so.
You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, and still showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.
Over to you.

Kim

[Alex123]

You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, and still showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.
Over to you.

Kim

BTW, now you are saying that my quotes are "bullshit" without refuting them point by point. I think that shows us something about methods of AGW believers when they can't engage in rational dialogue. When their members and high ranking people admit that there may not be enough science to prove AGW, this is the reason why I take them with grain of salt.

ex:

Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I prefer that which has more science behind it, rather than statements such as found at quotes which I've given at:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also prefer to check the graphs that include far more than 100 years of data (short graphs may show one sided view). Average temperature graph for 500 million years is more relevant to the kind of geologic timescales for this earth.

[Kim OHara]

Alex,
I have asked the question several different ways. Here's the latest:

I'm sorry, Alex, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to slog through the loads of junk science you have put up, while you keep on avoiding the one crucial question ... the one you nearly answered last time but then skated away from this time:

Great! (I mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.) An answer to the crucial question I asked repeatedly and you failed to answer!
"Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt."
And that is an excellent policy, too - especially when you remember the dangers of misquotation we have just discovered.
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
If not, why not?

Kim

Kim

[Alex123]

Alex,
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
Kim

In short, because AGW proponents do not have enough scientific proof. Even they have admitted to that.

See the quotes at bottom of this post:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I quote is more reasonable science with better explanations. Nature alone is sufficient explanation.

You are welcome to refute it point by point, if you can.

Current climate change is no different from what was before. Nothing strange to suspect any human addition.

co2Alex.JPG (58.25 KiB) Viewed 2544 times

In the grand scheme of things, current average CO2 levels are tiny compare to where they've been before.

co2AlexMillionsYears.JPG (62.02 KiB) Viewed 2544 times

Nature alone can account for rising and falling temperatures and CO2 levels.

Please don't talk about irrelevancy of time scale involve. Within 4.5 billion years this planet has existed, anything below few million years is like a blink of the eye. I think that 100 year charts (for a climate with 4.5 billion year history) are irrelevant .

[Kim OHara]

Alex,
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
Kim

In short, because AGW proponents do not have enough scientific proof. Even they have admitted to that.

Alex,
Both of those sentences are lies.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm

Kim

[Alex123]

Alex,
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
Kim

In short, because AGW proponents do not have enough scientific proof. Even they have admitted to that.

Alex,
Both of those sentences are lies.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm

Kim

Where?

Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've checked the quote from reference on the link "http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm"


As for "consensus". It is incorrect, not all agree with unproven assumption that human's near zero % contribution to the atmosphere causes global warming:


Your site states this:
"a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C."

Prove that.

Experience have shown something else:


According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Explain that, Kim!

Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How can above be?

CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Refute the radiative heating physics:
"Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Extreme weather" was even prior to industrialization:

Scientists also agree – for it is a matter of record – that floods of similar severity have struck the east coast of Australia before: twice in the 19th century and most recently in 1974. These earlier floods could not have been caused by manmade “global warming”, because there was not enough of it to make any difference at that time."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi ... loods.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... floods.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kim OHara]

Alex,
There is a difference between 'having enough evidence' and 'knowing absolutely everything about the subject'.
None of us ever know absolutely everything about any subject, and scientists are constantly aware of that - the awareness is part of their job.

There is also a difference between 'having a consensus' (loosely, pretty near everyone who ought to know the stuff agrees about it) and 'having total agreement'. (Again, scientists find total agreement almost impossible, because there's always something else to learn and that may change their conclusions).

In the case of AGW, climate scientists do have a strong consensus (as the site I pointed to you shows) that we do have enough evidence to make good decisions.
(Insert Arrow sutta here, since this is, after all, a Buddhist forum.)


Kim

[Alex123]

Please respond to my message above and refute it point by point:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can claim consensus all you want, but if many people believe in a wrong idea, it is still wrong idea.

[Kim OHara]

You can claim consensus all you want, but if many people believe in a wrong idea, it is still wrong idea.

That's true, Alex - but which is the wrong idea in this case?
We're back at...

Alex,
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot.

... and I do think that you are unable to learn anything until you face that question.


Kim

[Alex123]

That's true, Alex - but which is the wrong idea in this case?

If you refute what I've wrote, than I'll accept that.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furthermore, if you prove AGW, I'll accept it.

There should be no "sacred cows" in science.

Alex,
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot.

And why do you, Kim, believe one lot of people rather than the other lot?

[Kim OHara]

If you refute what I've wrote, than I'll accept that.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have, via the links I've posted here, but you have chosen either to avoid reading the evidence or to read it and disbelieve it.

Furthermore, if you prove AGW, I'll accept it.

I have, via the links I've posted here, but you have chosen either to avoid reading the proofs or to read them and disbelieve them.

There should be no "sacred cows" in science.

Agreed. In fact, there can't be any sacred cows in good science, by the definition of science.

And why do you, Kim, believe one lot of people rather than the other lot?

There's no need to shout - especially since I have already given you my answer: I follow expert advice where my own expertise is inadequate.
In climate science, expert advice equates to the consensus and approximately equates to the IPCC report, RealClimate, Spencer Weart ... basically the resources I have been directing you towards.


Kim