No Place For Scare Tactics.

[Coss]

Scientists' duty goes both ways - it is irresponsible to spook public on potentially serious issues such as climate change.

 

Chris de Freitas

 

 

Increased water vapour in the form of clouds may have a cooling effect on the planet. Photo / Alan Gibson

 

Chris de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland.

 

The column by University of Canterbury sociologist Jarrod Gilbert describing climate change "denial" as a crime, is alarming because he suggests those with opinions different to his should be silenced. What is happening to our education system when university lecturers attack, rather than defend, free speech?

 

The most worrying aspect of this is the apparent desire to close down debate on a theme that is associated with costly energy policies and other grave economic consequences.

 

Calling climate sceptics "deniers" is done with the intention of putting them in the same class as "Holocaust deniers". In this context, "denier" has much the same connotation as the N word to refer to people of a certain skin colour. Such insinuations are an insult to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust or those with dark skin. It is both inappropriate and offensive.

 

In the words of colleague Benny J. Peiser: "As long as we are unable to explain the evident inconsistencies that fly in the face of climate alarmism, attempts to associate scientific scepticism with Holocaust denial can only be regarded as political incitement." (read again)

 

The level of hysteria now being stirred up against climate scientists who are raising very serious questions is reminiscent of attacks made on scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union and pre-war Germany. Those who resort to shooting at the messenger are presumably those without solid arguments on the science.

 

Just as sceptics have no right to ridicule what is a potentially serious topic, climate catastrophists have a social responsibility not to unjustifiably spook the public.

 

Climate change scepticism comes in many forms, some which are no less absurd than climate catastrophism. No sceptic denies that climate changes. There is no such thing as a constant climate. For 4.2 billion years, climate has always been getting warmer or colder, wetter or drier, and there has never been runaway warming or cooling. (something I've said before)

 

Recent research findings show there is no evidence -- none at all -- to support the global warmers' scaremongering.

 

Most climate scientists would agree rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. Basic physics supports this view. But there is no evidence that the putative change would be large or damaging. Output from computer models is not evidence unless model performance has been validated. So far, it has not.

 

For significant global warming to occur, increased concentrations must set in motion positive (or destabilising) feedback processes. Such processes would cause temperatures to rise by some other mechanism. One such mechanism is increased evaporation caused by higher temperatures leading to rising water vapour concentration, which is by far the most important greenhouse gas. This would increase retention of energy from the Sun and lead to further warming.

 

To date, scientific evidence suggests that negative (stabilising) feedback processes prevail, possibly due to the cooling effect of increased cloudiness from water vapour increase. If true, this means it is unlikely higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will greatly influence global climate.

 

Negative feedback processes are played down by climate alarmists who assume climate is governed by positive feedback processes which they claim will lead to runaway global warming. Four billion years of global climate history shows that negative feedbacks prevail.

 

"Climate change" does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural change. This has not been done.

 

From the research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Warming could occur, but no evidence suggests it will amount to much.

 

One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.

 

- NZ Herald - http://www.nzherald....jectid=11682506

 

(comments in parenthesis are mine - Coss)

[Coss]

Of course, the alarmists, when and if Global Warming is not born out, will claim that all the actions and measures they caused, to prevent warming, will 'have saved the world'. See it worked!

[My Penis is hungry]

Rubbish post. Plenty of evidence.

[Coss]

You should research the situation vis a vis the Antarctic, rather than relying on the soundbites and headlines that popular media give you. And you prove the point of the post by rubbishing the post, rather than addressing the issues and points raised therein.

 

For easy digestion, the post pointed out that Global warming proponents, address those that don't agree with them, as Deniers and their views, according to one recent column by University of Canterbury sociologist Jarrod Gilbert should be illegal. You see, Global Warming issues are a Social Science (Not).

 

Note that I am not trying to denigrate you or your views, I'm not trying to say you should be castrated or silenced. Most of what I post here and elsewhere is observations and facts on the climate itself, usually to stimulate discussion and observation.

 

You however, go after the messenger. And most Global warming proponents, use the language of religion for "Deniers". Theres a scene in "The Life Of Brian" that sums this up.

 

When one of the People's front of Judea (or similar name) claims the others are oppressing him and are evil, etc, etc, because they won't let him have a baby, it is pointed out that he doesn't have a womb, "Where's it going to gestate?" but they settle on him now being known as "Loretta".

 

The point here is that despite the facts not fitting the circumstances, Loretta is quick to label the people who state the facts, as oppressors and evil.

 

The world's recent history with GreenPeace and the like, has led to popular culture, that labels anyone opposing the views or the 'Greenies' as 'Deniers'.

 

Again, just cause something is popular doesn't make it true.

 

Look at witch hunts, they were quite fun for the majority in the medieval times, before TV.

 

When did you start hanging out with Trump?

[My Penis is hungry]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Coss]

So NASA is correct in all things? Metric or Imperial?

 

In yet another prediction certain to be wrong, End Times Prophecies has declared today will be the end of the world — and we should all blame the “polar flip.

 

â€What is a “polar flip?†It’s when the Earth’s magnetic pull reverses itself, causing the North Magnetic Pole to go south and the South Magnetic Pole to go north.

 

What causes it? The Earth’s core.The group says the polar shift will trigger worldwide tremors setting off multiple earthquakes and a “rolling cloud†that will destroy the world. Bummer, right?

 

This is not the first time people have worried a polar shift could destroy the planet. In 2011, NASA issued a statement to calm fears that a polar shift would destroy the planet in 2012.

 

http://cbs4indy.com/2016/07/29/today-will-be-the-end-of-the-world-group-says/

 

And NASA started it - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html

 

other links

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/end-of-the-world-doomsday-believers-predict-the-apocalypse/

 

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2016/07/29/the-insider-today-is-the-last-day-of-your-life--yes-again

__________

 

Now I don't agree with any of this, but a bunch of loonies have taken info from NASA and decided, in a religious manner. That to today we will all die.

 

Because I can't see the overwhelming evidence for this, am I a 'Denier'?, a 'Non-Believer'? should my views be illegal? just because large numbers of people believe this when I don't.

 

That my dear boy , is the point.

 

Not whether or not the issue is proven, one way or the other, though as you know, I am happy to argue those bananas too.

 

If we make it through the day

[Coss]

Of course, the alarmists, when and if Global Warming is not born out, will claim that all the actions and measures they caused, to prevent warming, will 'have saved the world'. See it worked!

 

A clarification - or development of this statement.

 

Virtually everything that has been proposed to combat Global Warming, with the possible exception of carbon taxes, is a good thing in my opinion.

 

But I come from an anti pollution, pro conservation, energy efficiency and human population control stance. These are the things that matter.

[Flashermac]

The world is really a pizza.

 

 

 

http://www.theflatea.../home/index.php

[My Penis is hungry]

Coss pointless ddebating with you, you through out NASA research, you really have a blind eye.

 

Personally I think that our pollution is going to make global changes, hot or cold, I am not sure, but I do think in many ways we've fucked the system

[Coss]

Coss pointless ddebating with you, you through out NASA research, you really have a blind eye.

 

Personally I think that our pollution is going to make global changes, hot or cold, I am not sure, but I do think in many ways we've fucked the system

 

 

And there it is.

 

I am in agreement with you. You say "Personally I think that our pollution is going to make global changes, hot or cold, I am not sure"

 

That's what I say.

 

I say Warming may not be the problem. It's pollution and overcrowding et al that's the issue.

 

So we agree

 

Who'd a thunk.