Here's a neat analysis of the history of deniability and misinformation in similar previously fraught subjects like slavery, cigarettes and seat belts.
The same tired old arguments and lies about alarmism.
The truth is, the current rise in CO2 is roughly the same as after the last ice age, but it's happening 100 times faster and the isotope markers don't lie.
The probability that this is happening naturally and at the same time as greatly increasing GHG emissions is miniscule.
....holy guacamole !!!!!, never have I been so convinced.
With those last few random videos and complicated looking graphs Holy G you have finally convinced me.
Yep, I was wrong stand corrected that nobody has ever cried wolf over climate alarmism.
I mean, I see now that everything they said is actually true and backed up with science. You have clarified it so well with your arguments here.
Indeed, as Australia's very own climate change commissioner told us, Adelaide did run out of water by 2009, the polar ice caps did disappear in 2018, the $100 million we spent on geothermal energy is now powering Australia's economy and will do so for the next 1,000 years.
The 50 million climate refugees are still flooding in. Swedish kids have had their childhood stolen from them because we didn't shut down the Liddell power station earlier. All those people working in Australia's coal, oil and gas industries are holding the economy back and all the graduates with degrees in Climate Change Social Studies are leading the charge in the forefront of scientific knowledge.
Only by focusing all our efforts on the greatest moral dilemma of our generation have we been able to stave off all the other issues facing humanity - like over population, nationalist warmongering, communicable diseases, wealth inequality, access to basic medication for so many and the such like, and also be able to retire to a sea front mansion built on the sand dunes of the Sunshine coast.
If it wasn't for people demanding instant perfection in government policy and not accepting gradual evolution, we wouldn't have such robust bi-partisan energy policy and a clear pathway to a cleaner future.
And only by bowing down to the doctrine yelled out by political climate opinion-isters who made all those bold calls as to what will happen to the planet and to society, that not only seemed ridiculous at the time but also now seem even more ridiculous, have we been able to demonstrate to the doubters why they are wrong and why they are such heretics who must be burned at the stake#.
So glad you cleared that one up for us.
#burning stakes must be sourced from sustainable FSC endorsed sources and be offset with carbon certificates issued by a foreign bank at five times the price of a normal stake. Burning stake prices will come down as more are used and stake technology improves. A policy announcement on investing $1 billion of taxpayer fund into carbon neutral burning stake development will be made shortly, it is currently being held up in the senate by those demanding $1.000000001 billion be the minimum and if not, then they'd rather see zero and an argument for 10 years about it....
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
....holy guacamole !!!!!, never have I been so convinced.
With those last few random videos and complicated looking graphs Holy G you have finally convinced me.
Yep, I was wrong stand corrected that nobody has ever cried wolf over climate alarmism.
I mean, I see now that everything they said is actually true and backed up with science. You have clarified it so well with your arguments here.
Indeed, as Australia's very own climate change commissioner told us, Adelaide did run out of water by 2009, the polar ice caps did disappear in 2018, the $100 million we spent on geothermal energy is now powering Australia's economy and will do so for the next 1,000 years.
The 50 million climate refugees are still flooding in. Swedish kids have had their childhood stolen from them because we didn't shut down the Liddell power station earlier. All those people working in Australia's coal, oil and gas industries are holding the economy back and all the graduates with degrees in Climate Change Social Studies are leading the charge in the forefront of scientific knowledge.
Only by focusing all our efforts on the greatest moral dilemma of our generation have we been able to stave off all the other issues facing humanity - like over population, nationalist warmongering, communicable diseases, wealth inequality, access to basic medication for so many and the such like, and also be able to retire to a sea front mansion built on the sand dunes of the Sunshine coast.
If it wasn't for people demanding instant perfection in government policy and not accepting gradual evolution, we wouldn't have such robust bi-partisan energy policy and a clear pathway to a cleaner future.
And only by bowing down to the doctrine yelled out by political climate opinion-isters who made all those bold calls as to what will happen to the planet and to society, that not only seemed ridiculous at the time but also now seem even more ridiculous, have we been able to demonstrate to the doubters why they are wrong and why they are such heretics who must be burned at the stake#.
So glad you cleared that one up for us.
#burning stakes must be sourced from sustainable FSC endorsed sources and be offset with carbon certificates issued by a foreign bank at five times the price of a normal stake. Burning stake prices will come down as more are used and stake technology improves. A policy announcement on investing $1 billion of taxpayer fund into carbon neutral burning stake development will be made shortly, it is currently being held up in the senate by those demanding $1.000000001 billion be the minimum and if not, then they'd rather see zero and an argument for 10 years about it....
Translation:
grumpy, conservative old fool doesn't like being corrected by other smarter people and feels irrelevant.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
....holy guacamole !!!!!, never have I been so convinced.
With those last few random videos and complicated looking graphs Holy G you have finally convinced me.
Yep, I was wrong stand corrected that nobody has ever cried wolf over climate alarmism.
I mean, I see now that everything they said is actually true and backed up with science. You have clarified it so well with your arguments here.
Indeed, as Australia's very own climate change commissioner told us, Adelaide did run out of water by 2009, the polar ice caps did disappear in 2018, the $100 million we spent on geothermal energy is now powering Australia's economy and will do so for the next 1,000 years.
The 50 million climate refugees are still flooding in. Swedish kids have had their childhood stolen from them because we didn't shut down the Liddell power station earlier. All those people working in Australia's coal, oil and gas industries are holding the economy back and all the graduates with degrees in Climate Change Social Studies are leading the charge in the forefront of scientific knowledge.
Only by focusing all our efforts on the greatest moral dilemma of our generation have we been able to stave off all the other issues facing humanity - like over population, nationalist warmongering, communicable diseases, wealth inequality, access to basic medication for so many and the such like, and also be able to retire to a sea front mansion built on the sand dunes of the Sunshine coast.
If it wasn't for people demanding instant perfection in government policy and not accepting gradual evolution, we wouldn't have such robust bi-partisan energy policy and a clear pathway to a cleaner future.
And only by bowing down to the doctrine yelled out by political climate opinion-isters who made all those bold calls as to what will happen to the planet and to society, that not only seemed ridiculous at the time but also now seem even more ridiculous, have we been able to demonstrate to the doubters why they are wrong and why they are such heretics who must be burned at the stake#.
So glad you cleared that one up for us.
#burning stakes must be sourced from sustainable FSC endorsed sources and be offset with carbon certificates issued by a foreign bank at five times the price of a normal stake. Burning stake prices will come down as more are used and stake technology improves. A policy announcement on investing $1 billion of taxpayer fund into carbon neutral burning stake development will be made shortly, it is currently being held up in the senate by those demanding $1.000000001 billion be the minimum and if not, then they'd rather see zero and an argument for 10 years about it....
And yet it still gets hotter.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..And yet it still gets hotter.Carantoc said..Yep, I was wrong stand corrected that nobody has ever cried wolf over climate alarmism.
Yep evil...and CO2 levels rise 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age, but apparently this is inconsequential to those in denial of the science.
Bottom line is, the whole discussion about alarmism is a distraction for the AGW deniers. It provides another way to avoid talking about the reality we face by pointing the finger at extreme statements and pretending this is a substantial issue in the scheme of things. It's just a trick. They can focus on forum members instead of the discussion because they don't like the truth of the issue. They can start hate threads about individual SB members in heavy weather and claim to be intelligent and mature.
There are extreme interpretations and opinions on all sides, but the earth observations and the science doesn't lie.
This discussion has moved on from alarmism which was never a disputed point, to the real reason some people are still in denial -that fundamentally they dispute the science because they don't like what it means or, they fear innovation and change that threatens their private interests - like the fossil fuel or nuclear power industries for example.
The end of slavery in the British Empire was argued by the slave traders as an impending economic disaster but the truth is, it flamed the industrial revolution through innovation and led to a booming economy the likes of which the British had never seen before.The slave traders cried wolf - big time. Sorry, I stand corrected, were wrong.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
And yet it still gets hotter.
This is not in dispute though is it? If you think it is you are perhaps a bit blinkered to the discussion points here.
I don't think there are many here who disagree the earth is warming and that we are responsible for at least some part of that.
The discussion is on how much more we actually know for sure than that. Is it as big an issue as some are making out? and what is a rational and reasoned response to it as opposed to alarmism promoting a doomsday scenario that doesn't really have any science to back it up.
Don't confuse legitimate dispute with denial paradox.
Your continual reference to alarmist views and quote "doomsday scenarios" does nothing but highlight the fact that you're in denial about the core science.
We're yet to see the observations that support your hypothesis that the warming we observe of the last century is largely or mostly or even partially natural. Zip.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Don't confuse the act of dispute with denial paradox.
HG you really are just a political beast aren't you. If what people say doesn't quite gel with a message you want to push, then just pretend they said something else and spam argue that.
Did you want to maybe clarify what it is I am denying?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
Don't confuse legitimate dispute with denial paradox
HG you really are just a political beast aren't you. If what people say doesn't quite gel with a message you want to push, then just pretend they said something else and spam argue that.
Did you want to maybe clarify what it is I am denying?
No I'm only interested in the science and the facts.
You on the other hand make the claim that the scientific work and conclusions of institutions like the IPCC is flawed - right?
You claim without any evidence, that humans are only partly contributing to the current warming - right?
Or are the above assertions incorrect and you do support the IPCC conclusions?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
We're yet to see the observations that support your hypothesis that the warming we observe of the last century is largely or mostly or even partially natural. Zip.
And again you twist what I say into something else. What I said was that there valid arguments for the warming being mostly natural. I also clarified they were unlikely to be the sole reason, but nevertheless cannot be dismissed.
Here is a paper on one hypothesis. There are others that analyse the temperature scales and put forth arguments that recent increases are at the high end of what we have seen or could possibly see but can't be ruled out by previous temperature movements. I will see if I can find them but I am not sure there is really a need as you don't seem to grasp my point.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682611003385
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
We're yet to see the observations that support your hypothesis that the warming we observe of the last century is largely or mostly or even partially natural. Zip.
And again you twist what I say into something else. What I said was that there valid arguments for the warming being mostly natural. I also clarified they were unlikely to be the sole reason, but nevertheless cannot be dismissed.
Here is a paper on one hypothesis. There are others that analyse the temperature scales and put forth arguments that recent increases are at the high end of what we have seen or could possibly see but can't be ruled out by previous temperature movements. I will see if I can find them but I am not sure there is really a need as you don't seem to grasp my point.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682611003385
Look paradox, there is a big difference between an opinion and a valid argument.
A valid argument has to be backed by sound logic, reasoning and most important, some facts.
A hypothesis that the current warming is natural possibly due to solar system phenomena that occurred in the past does not prove the current warming is largely natural. That is only a hypothesis based on very loose extrapolation of historical events - not current observations.
I note your 13 year old paper and will investigate further. Thanks.
......research going on.....oops....we have a problem.....we have a paradox....
Edit: early reading of the article you post demonstrates a glaring flaw. The Scafetta model cited as evidence that the IPCC model is flawed has been shown by actual observations since 2007 to be Itself flawed - by a global temperature increase in over 0.5 degrees above the Scafetta prediction.
That is, the paper you cite made a prediction that the warming anomaly in 2019 would be about 0.4 degrees whereas the observations were about 0.95 degrees.
Oops. Quite an error margin. So maybe you could say, the Scafetta model of 2007 was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?
Contrast this with the IPCC's 2007 predictions, which placed a 0.95 degree warming for 2019 in the middle of their error margin. Not bad.
As you say, be more careful with your sources...
Got anything else that demonstrates my point?
www.iflscience.com/environment/atmosphere-scientist-slams-climate-change-deniers-in-brilliant-viral-post/?fbclid=IwAR1_N-2dbsJkXybw1w3Tn_MGFUZa4f-CbNM02M0VAMhiI1B4hPBNnXQRZqU
To anyone who denies climate change is a real thing.....
97% of mainstream science says it is. 3 % said it wasn't. And there were poor assumptions with the 3%.
^ Much like the 2007 paper paradox cited with a 100% error prediction. Those papers are usually very flawed because they're chasing a hypothesis without observations.
Also, AGW deniers regularly claim they're suppressed or misquoted because that's much easier than providing some actual evidence for their claims.
From the link you posted:
"Of particular note was one study which tried to "blame global warming on the orbital cycles of Jupiter and Saturn".
The very same error riddled paper paradox posted above as "evidence" his claims had some merit. The same article that made a prediction in 2007 that was way off the actual 2019 observations.
Select to expand quotemartyj4 said..
www.iflscience.com/environment/atmosphere-scientist-slams-climate-change-deniers-in-brilliant-viral-post/?fbclid=IwAR1_N-2dbsJkXybw1w3Tn_MGFUZa4f-CbNM02M0VAMhiI1B4hPBNnXQRZqU
To anyone who denies climate change is a real thing.....
97% of mainstream science says it is. 3 % said it wasn't. And there were poor assumptions with the 3%.
Oh sh1t, you mentioned the 97%!!!!
que the loon!!!!
97% of scientifists are not alarmists
Extinction rebellion does not represent the scientific community, they only represent political activists masquerading as scientists
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
97% of scientifists are not alarmists
Extinction rebellion does not represent the scientific community
I couldn't have put it more clearly myself. The 3% who claim it's mostly natural are causing the alarm.
Log man maybe Toned Abs is coming around after losing his seat, just like the tobacco lobbyists lost their jobs after their propaganda claiming cigarettes were harmless was disproven?
Hg and logman are Extinction Rebellion marxist activists
So sad to see people filled with so much hate
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Hg and logman are Extinction Rebellion marxist activists
So sad to see people filled with so much hate
Oh OK Tony....
I just love science, truth and a healthy planet. If that amounts to hate in your estimation then God Help You. 
I think perhaps the hate's coming the other way - you know "ditch the witch" etc.
Isn't it time you just accepted the truth that humanity is largely responsible for the current warming and doing something about it isn't going to be, to quote you,
"the end of Western Civilisation"?
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Does 'doing something about it' include an end to capitalism and free markets?
Why on earth would it include that? That's a silly as the slave traders claim in the 18th C.
The truth back then was that abolishing slavery led to industrialisation and innovation that led to a massive economic boom.
Discussion about the structures, regulations and controls over capitalism and free markets is another matter entirely.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..
Does 'doing something about it' include an end to capitalism and free markets?
Why on earth would it include that? That's a silly as the slave traders claim in the 18th C.
The truth back then was that abolishing slavery led to an industrialisation and innovation boom that led to an economic boom.
Omg
No wonder all you marxist what to destroy historic monuments, you do not know or understand history.
Industrialisation had already mostly put an end to slavery, a newly invented cotton picker machine already reduced the need of 5/6th of slaves picking cotton in the USA. Well before Christians and England advocated and ended slavery in the us
Ya for free market capitalism, saviour of the human race
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Got anything else that demonstrates my point?
I am never sure what your point is, it tends to change a lot.
You asked for evidence of any hypothesis that waming can be explained by natural variance. That is one. It has not been disproven and the hypothesis still stands as a potential explanation no matter how unlikely it is. Just because it's one projection was less precise than one of the IPCC's 30 odd different models means little in the context of it existing.
Even the IPCC (below quote from an early report) have previously pointed out that past temperature fluctuations varied up to 2deg over century timeframes. This in itself is enough to validate the possibility that the variation could be natural. It doesn't say that that it is natural or is even likely to be natural only that rapid warming has occured before and therefore it can't be ruled out.
And that is MY point, please don't change it and argue something else, I will not respond.
"Observational and palaeo-climatic evidence indicates that the Earth's climate has varied in the past on time scales ranging from many millions of years down to a few years. Over the last two million years, glacial-interglacial cycles have occurred on a time scale of 100,000 years, with large changes in ice volume and sea level. During this time, average global surface temperatures appear to have varied by about 5-7?C. Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 BP, globally averaged surface temperatures have fluctuated over a range of up to 2?C on time scales of centuries or more. Such fluctuations include the Holocene Optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago. the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century. Details are often poorly known because palaeo-climatic data are frequently sparse."
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..holy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..
Does 'doing something about it' include an end to capitalism and free markets?
Why on earth would it include that? That's a silly as the slave traders claim in the 18th C.
The truth back then was that abolishing slavery led to an industrialisation and innovation boom that led to an economic boom.
Omg
No wonder all you marxist what to destroy historic monuments, you do not know or understand history.
Industrialisation had already mostly put an end to slavery
That's so wrong I don't know where to start. You do know that slavery was formally abolished in the UK in 1807 and in the USA in the 1860's?
I'm not claiming that the abolition of slavery in the British Empire was the catalyst for the Industrial Revolution, but it certainly did provide a large part of the impetus for the shift in thinking and investment dollars.
Slaves = cheap energy. But they also stifled innovation.
Sounds a lot like coal to me.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
Got anything else that demonstrates my point?
I am never sure what your point is, it tends to change a lot.
You asked for evidence of any hypothesis that waming can be explained by natural variance. That is one. It has not been disproven and the hypothesis still stands as a potential explanation no matter how unlikely it is. Just because it's one projection was less precise than one of the IPCC's 30 odd different models means little in the context of it existing.
Even the IPCC (below quote from an early report) have previously pointed out that past temperature fluctuations varied up to 2deg over century timeframes. This in itself is enough to validate the possibility that the variation could be natural. It doesn't say that that it is natural or is even likely to be natural only that rapid warming has occured before and therefore it can't be ruled out.
And that is MY point, please don't change it and argue something else, I will not respond.
"Observational and palaeo-climatic evidence indicates that the Earth's climate has varied in the past on time scales ranging from many millions of years down to a few years. Over the last two million years, glacial-interglacial cycles have occurred on a time scale of 100,000 years, with large changes in ice volume and sea level. During this time, average global surface temperatures appear to have varied by about 5-7?C. Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 BP, globally averaged surface temperatures have fluctuated over a range of up to 2?C on time scales of centuries or more. Such fluctuations include the Holocene Optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago. the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century. Details are often poorly known because palaeo-climatic data are frequently sparse."
It's not evidence that demonstrates your claim that humans are at best only partly responsible for the current warming. You are quoting a statement that does not relate to the hypothesis nor provide evidence. It's just a statement of the obvious past.
The paper you cited tests a hypothesis, but unfortunately it was just a paper with errors and it's been proven wrong by the observations. Obviously if a hypothesis is demonstrably erroneous when tested against it's predictions by actual observations, then it's probably not a good hypothesis in the first place!
Now if you have any papers that can demonstrate your hypothesis AND are upheld by the observations when their errors are corrected, I'd be most interested to see them.
Aside from my own puerile contributions and those of a couple of others, this is a great tete a tete between Bono and Paradox - well played.
Bono, you seem to be behaving yourself a lot better than you used to. I presume you have had some kind of therapy to ween you off the Jews / 911 obsession? Well done to you, and for what its worth, I think you're winning the debate. My only reservation is that you seem to be dismissive of nuclear as a solution to AGW, despite the fact many environmentalists appear to be coming to the conclusion it may be the only viable option (and I'm sorry to side-track the debate - carry on.)
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
Wow. Just wow. A gathering of like minded climate change deniers. No consensus! nothing to see! Alarmist! Thanks for pulling this much thought of thread together Paradox to show everyone how wrong the "experts" are. This is a complex issue and the choice that Paradox and others would like to argue is this - listen to him, much read google expert or those flimsy, underfunded, poorly resourced organisations like US National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, NASA, Royal Society of the UK, BOM, CSIRO, etc, etc etc. It's a tough choice but I'm going with a big NAHHH to your misguided arguments.
Just thought I'd go back here. Not eloquently put but still right on the money - and hardly hanging on by any fingernails. LOL
Select to expand quoteParadox said..I am never sure what your point is, it tends to change a lot.holy guacamole said..
Got anything else that demonstrates my point?
You asked for evidence of any hypothesis that waming can be explained by natural variance.
I think my point is simple. My point is that I interpret from the science that the vast bulk of evidence points to anthropogenic causes.
You dispute this, but provide no evidence to support your claim.
You provided one report with one hypothesis from 2007, which I demonstrated contained totally inaccurate predictions when compared to the observations and the IPCC predictions of the same time. Others have refuted such reports and demonstrated that they contain serious errors.
It's very clear to me. You have no evidence, but claim something.
You appear to think that a paper with a hypothesis constitutes evidence. It does not. A hypothesis is not evidence.
It seems the only defence you have remaining is to claim that I'm twisting your words and changing my point, both of which are false.
So let me be absolutely clear paradox, have you got any EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the IPCC is wrong and that quote "we just don't know" and that it's probably mostly natural variance. These are all your claims, correct me if I'm twisting your own words.
