Comments on: Climate expert slams Fielding

By: Chris Zweck

Chris Zweck — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:30:00 +0000

How about chapter 2 of the most recent IPCC report, the one you say ignores solar cycles:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Section 2.7.1.2

By: madeinaustralia

madeinaustralia — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:43:44 +0000

Hugh, those who study solar cycles have argued for years that when solar cycle 23 ends the earth will enter a period of extended cooling, some solar scientists reccomend increasing CO2 as a plan to combat this…Ive read about 40 papers on this now…from eminemt NASA and MIT scientists…all have been ignored by the majority of IPCC studies….Or not even mentioned…

can anyone give me more info on the impact of solar cycles on the earths climate and how this is taken into account by Climate modellers? including its impact on CO2 global warming????

thanks in advance.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:44:09 +0000

Loveyuhsall, I started with two ‘facts’. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing and sea levels are rising. Nothing else, just those two. No threats, no psychobabble, no Bob Carter. I’m not interested in any religions (new or old) or any ‘tactics’ (bully boy, character, personal or belief attacks). I think that finding an explanation for the unexpected and inconvenient CO2 and sea level increase is a challenge - to our communal intelligence, to our democratic traditions and to our personal ideologies. I don’t want to resort to anything other than discussion - others have the political and financial levers in their hands for now; maybe later you and I will be reaching for them. Do we have anything in common (language, aspiration, motivation) or are we destined to sulk in our respective corners for lack of interest. In this blog the original author (Keane) and the two subjects (Fielding and Steffen) have provided us with a forum and a field. I don’t need to be marked with a metaphor (‘chicken little’ et al) and you won’t benefit from that exercise. But stay in the game. We all might benefit from the exchange.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:36:19 +0000

LOVEYUHSALL: You missed the absolute quality, integrity and courage “to withstand the unnecessary personal attacks on your character and your beliefs.” Stupidity. Aka that indefinable character trait which reveals a person unable to comprehend the truth which is circling around him.
It’s wonderful to be a god’s own. It absolves one from having to think about anything. As in Global Warming doesn’t exist because god hasn’t got around to inventing it.
BTW: Are you trying to suggest that I’m in favour of this new religion of Home Birthing? Having spent some time reading the comments of these aggressive, awkward and unfortunate females-one gross lady sang a tuneless and tasteless song to the Minister for Health. It was a demeaning experience. No, I am not guilty.

By: loveyuhsall

loveyuhsall — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:50:19 +0000

Venise: Thanks for proving my point by singling out (bullying) Senator Fielding, the heritic, who questioned your new religion.

By the way. I respect Senator Fielding for seeking information instead of following “chicken little”, regardless of the outcome. It takes some courage and personal integrity to withstand the unnecessary personal attacks on your character and your beliefs.

By: loveyuhsall

loveyuhsall — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:55:22 +0000

Hugh. The characters in the parable don’t matter that much. Its just a parable. You can be the Narrator if you choose. The AGW proponents are using fear to motivate and promote their agenda. This parable is about reacting to fear rather than exploring the facts. Fear is not thevidence, it only grabs headlines and motivates people to make decisions about something that may never happen.

Steffen’s letter re-enforces that he is also caught up with chicken little. He doesn’t want a discussion with people who disagree. He has made up his mind, like you, that the “sky is falling” and he only wants to talk to people who agree with him. He should have taken the chance to get information from Carter & Franks to avert ultimately ending up in hands of Foxy Loxy. Good science is a continual investigation, not a one-time event. Any other response reflects an unacceptable arrogance

Fear is always accompanied by the mandatory bullies who want to stop listening and enforce there opinion on the rest of the community.

I for one will not be following chicken little and his new religion based on the current lack of evidence nor will I submit to the bully boys tactics of those who promote fear to motivate change. If you want change, give us the facts without the personal attacks.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:50:17 +0000

HI YOUSEALL: If it’s religion you’re after you have missed the boat. The New Religion is Home Birthing.
Now to your parable. You don’t think a story/parable needs an antagonist and a protagonist; as in literature? In which case you missed out the whole point of the exercise. Professor Will Steffan is the protagonist and one dreary little Oz senator who, but for the stupidity of the Labor party would never have surfaced in the first place is the antagonist.
If you wish to have any creds at all you could start with re-writing your parable. A good name for the beloved Senator Steve Fielding would be the Holy Turkey. And Professor Steffan: Light and reason.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:45:26 +0000

I take it you are the ‘narrator’ LOVEYUHSALL. Which is kinda strange because you have written a parable about unsubstantiated fear and deliberately made yourself the message and the messenger. Duh? Why not take your own advice before dumping it on others.
Also, you left out Senator Fielding and Will Steffen, the actual subjects of this news item. Read Steffen’s letter to Fielding (the link is there) if you want to understand how to deal with fearmongers.

By: loveyuhsall

loveyuhsall — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:44:11 +0000

A parable for the Global Warming alarmists

“Chicken Little”” is a story for teaching courage in the face of unsubstantiated FEAR.
Don’t be a chicken little. Don’t be afraid.

Characters

Narrator
Chicken Little (IPCC)
Henny Penny (Penny Wong)
Ducky Lucky (Al Gore)
Goosey Loosey (Bob Brown)
Turkey Lurkey (Kevin Rudd)
Villain: Foxy Loxy (UN)

Narrator: Chicken Little was at the beach one day when an the sun was really hot. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She got so hot and flustered, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: “Help! Help! The AGW is destroying the earth! I have to go tell the king!”

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: “Where are you going, Chicken Little?”

Chicken Little: “Oh, help! AGW is destroying the earth!”

Henny Penny: “How do you know?”

Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”

Henny Penny: “This is terrible, just terrible! We’d better run and tell the king.”

Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

Ducky Lucky: “Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?”

Chicken Little & Henny Penny: “AGW is destroying the earth! AGW is destroying the earth! We’re going to tell the king!”

Ducky Lucky: “How do you know?”

Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach.”

Ducky Lucky: “Oh dear, oh dear! We’d better make a movie!”

Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.

Goosey Loosey “Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”

Chicken Little: “We’re running for our lives!”

Henny Penny: “AGW is destroying the earth!”

Ducky Lucky: “And we’re running to tell the king!”

Goosey Loosey: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”

Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”

Goosey Loosey: “Goodness! Then I’d better run with you.”

Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across the country. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..

Turkey Lurkey: “Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”

Chicken Little: “Help! Help!”

Henny Penny: “We’re running for our lives!”

Ducky Lucky: “AGW is destroying the earth!”

Goosey Loosey: “And we’re running to tell the king!”

Turkey Lurkey: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”

Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”

Turkey Lurkey: “Oh dear! I always suspected the earth would end someday. I’d better run with you.”

Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy: “Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a COLD day?”

Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) “Help! Help!” It’s not a COLD day at all. AGW is destroying the earth, and we’re running to tell the king!”

Foxy Loxy: “How do you know that AGW is destroying the earth?”

Chicken Little: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and I had a hot flush as I sat on the beach!”

Foxy Loxy: “I see. Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”

Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that AGW is destroying the earth. They remained under his control all the days of their life

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:02:26 +0000

Chris, a few posts back, madeinaustralia made a quip to the effect that Al Gore had no “qualies” - which I took to mean Gore had no qualifications (ie. scientific qualifications) to be participating in the climate change debate.
I didn’t think that was really relevant in this blog where no one’s qualifications are in dispute so I simply responded that Al Gore was/is a politician (ie. not a scientific expert) with his own role to play and he seemed to be doing just that. I referred to Al Gore in the first place only to access that phrase attributed to him - ‘an inconvenient truth’ - which I think is an excellent descriptor for the situation facing humanity. A less attractive descriptor might have been ‘up shit creek without a paddle’, and no doubt there is someone out there who is sure we have a paddle but we have hold of it by the wrong end. Maybe that’s Steve Fielding?

By: Chris Zweck

Chris Zweck — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:27:33 +0000

You need to explain it to me again Hugh. Al Gore as a politician is being driven by consensus politics to represent a position on behalf of an electorate that he no longer represents, while Steve Fielding (who fell backwards into climate change research 5 minutes ago) is bravely challenging the veracity of the scientific method while looking like an unelectable fool in the process? Is that really what you are saying?

By: WiseGuy63

WiseGuy63 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:10:41 +0000

Al Gore’s qualifications are totally irrelevant to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change. He is not a climate change scientist and does not purport to be. As a former politician he is merely a communicator when it comes to this issue. The validity of climate change science does not rest on what people think of Al Gore. That would be confusing the messenger for the message!

So if you are a climate change denier simply because you don’t like Al Gore’s politics, frankly, you are going to have to come up with something better than that to persuade me and others that you have a valid and sound position.

By: madeinaustralia

madeinaustralia — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:20:43 +0000

Hugh-Venise…

sorry what were Gores qualies again?

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:38:04 +0000

That’s right Loveyuhsall. Politicians are just like YUHSALL, put there by us. ie. all of us. And their connection to science is irrelevant because of the reason I gave and for your reason too. Blind leading the blind? You and me are both part of the electorate, old mate. If that’s a religion, well you’re stuck with it too….unless you’re a non-voter, in which case good luck to you.
And Chris - Al Gore will always be a politician. Or did you mistake him for a film star?

By: loveyuhsall

loveyuhsall — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:50:05 +0000

Hugh, politicians are in fact just like you. They flow with popular opinion rather than use any reason. There approval or otherwise of any science is irrelevant because they will use any opportunity to jump an any bandwagon. Its kind of like the blind leading the blind.

Welcome to your new religion… “Global Warming”…….or is it………”Climate Change”. Better stick with CC because it will have a longer life and better fit the evidence.

By: Chris Zweck

Chris Zweck — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:04:19 +0000

Sorry Hugh, didn’t realize Gore was still in office and hadn’t actively turned down runs at the presidency in 2004 and 2008. Whereas Fielding seems to be trying any trick to save his worthless hide from electoral annihilation.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:58:46 +0000

Al Gore’s “qualies” are that he’s a politician - in case you hadn’t noticed. Politicians are what we employ to be the ‘meat in the sandwich’ or the ‘shock absorber’ - that moves the electorate from this position to that position by that mysterious and painless process which non-politicians, especially scientists, can’t possibly explain. A perfect example is John Howard introducing the GST. Do you imagine that Meg Lees was an economics heavyweight or the majority of Australians actually wanted a GST?
Most politicians who are now engaged in the climate change process are better off without scientific qualifications (or any pretense to them) because explaining science (any science) to the electorate would be harder than teaching fish to ride bicycles.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:23:50 +0000

MADEINAUSTRALIA: You say If “Fielding, a trained engineer”, as if this alone spoke volumes for the man’s intellect.

When he came back from his self-funded??? trip overseas-his effort to talk to the scientists on the world stage re climate change. He made a couple of thought provoking comments. One was to the effect that he had only spoken to the scientists who denied the existence of CC. The other was a complete slap in the face to anyone on the planet who was capable of thought. Namely, Climate Change didn’t exist because God would have to have invented it. Yet He didn’t. Yep, no doubt about it, Senator Fielding is a genius.

By: madeinaustralia

madeinaustralia — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:28:52 +0000

I love when people slam Fielding, a trained engineer for his lack of expertise on GW.

sorry what was Al Gores Qualies again…ohh thats right…nothing.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:08:22 +0000

To Simmobc - if you’re sitting on the fence what is insurance for? In fact, what is the insurance you think you’ve got?
To Jeffery, calm yourself down old mate. You mention my “emotional attachment” and head off (for simmobc) down the no-temperature-increase-since-1998 track - again. You won’t find any comfort there unless the sea level rise and sea acidity rise peters out. Your whole glacier melt and warm air circulation thing doesn’t match the evidence although that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. It’s still a loose end which demands some sort of settlement.
I try to make sense of the things we know for sure. We know for sure that atmospheric CO2 content is rising but you are sure it is not connected in any way to human activity - even though there’s an uncanny timing correlation with increasing human industrial activity. I don’t think the science is saying that the whole thing is caused by human activity, it’s just the spike of the last century that looks ‘unnatural’ and demands attention. We needn’t jump immediately to extreme positions (catastrophe, crisis, call it what you will) but we can’t just dismiss the evidence either. I think that’s what Al Gore referred to as the inconvenient truth (amongst whatever else he said) and it sure is inconvenient if the majority of the world’s political systems decide we must take action.
We know for sure - and you agree - that sea levels are rising. You dismiss that as some sort of natural fluctuation but you can’t really be satisfied with an empty and meaningless explanation such as you have used in an earlier post. Empty and meaningless is as problematic as crisis and catastrophe - both extremes will be frustrated by a political settlement which charts a middle course - a course which acknowledges that something is amiss and it seems to have a direct connection to human CO2 emissions.

By: simmobc

simmobc — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:40:42 +0000

Jeffrey - the “sahara” reference was just a figment of my imagination.. For what it is worth, I am happy to sit on the fence with this whole debate however I think there is no harm taking out a little insurance policy… I have private health, have never used it, but am happy to keep it!

By: Jeffrey Morton

Jeffrey Morton — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:04:10 +0000

HUGH:

You are suggesting that adaptation is impossible, and that we must all be doomed (“…Even our fantastic mining industry won’t be able to supply the kind of demand for plain old rock you’re on about…” [to build seawalls]). However, it’s far-fetched to imagine a lack of dirt and rocks for building levees and sea walls. Give us all a break, man! Your emotional attachment to the AGW orthodoxy is making you say things that make no sense, and which cast doubt on your ability for rational thought. We all expect better from you.

SIMMOBC:

There’s little risk that the world will turn into one big Sahara desert. In 1975, temperatures were uncommonly low. Scientists were were then sounding the alarm for a possible ice age! Then for the next 20 years, temperatures rose. Scientists began sounding the alarm for harmful warming, blaming manmade CO2 as the culprit. That takes us to about 1998, Since then, despite ever-increasing rises in CO2, air temps have not risen in any significant amount. In other words, 30 years ago we had just gotten over scares of global cooling. Then we had 20 years of global increases in air temperatures. And for the past 10 years, we’ve seen temperatures flatten and begin to decline. How does this translate into “one big Sahara” thing? Why the crisis mentality?

VENISE:

You asked me: “…how do you account for over population and mass utilization of coal fired power, having caused the problem in the first place?” As I stated in an earlier comment (to Hugh), I am an AGW skeptic. I may even be (Heaven forbid) a “closet denier”. I never said, nor would I agree, that over population or coal powered electrical plants have any bearing of significance on global climate. I cannot see, nor do I believe, that we are facing a global climate problem, unless air temperatures begin to rise or continue to fall, by any material amount. Even then, the relationship of air temperatures to rising CO2 has been discounted from observations over the past 10 years (and also in the much older geological record). Then I would only conclude that natural climate cycles are still at work, and that we might give consideration to adaptive planning.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:54:52 +0000

Jeffrey Morton. If you find it is so difficult to believe that humans could control the temperature of the planet to be the stuff of science fiction. Then how do you account for over population and mass utilization of coal fired power, having caused the problem in the first place?

By: simmobc

simmobc — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:02:02 +0000

at the end of the day IF there is a risk, lets just insure against it and leave the debate on results for 100 years time (I, won’t be there to debate of course..!!).

A wise man once said, “if my auntie had balls, she’d be my uncle”. So, lets not risk turning the whole planet into one big Sahara desert by debating over our premiums!

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:24:57 +0000

So, you agree that something is causing sea levels to rise and you are satisfied that “…it seems likely that warm air circulation has shifted…”(whatever that means - I thought it shifted all the time), melting glaciers and adding runoff to the oceans. What has caused the circulation to shift? Anybody’s guess. That’s it? Nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the El Nino effect or the Coriolus effect? Just anybody’s guess. And all those climate scientists have no idea what they’re talking about? Those IPCC people are just pissing into space to fill their pockets…what a rort!
Where will it end? Most planners and engineering gurus I’ve read suggest we prepare for 500mm to 1000mm (one metre) sea level rise this century. Which is going to threaten a helluva lot of coastlines around the world. So you prescribe moving to “adaptive measures”, which I suppose means dykes and seawalls or canal estates? Or do you mean prayer? Anyway, thinking of dykes and seawalls makes me wonder just how far around the world’s coastal cities and productive land these seawalls will get before we have spent the “wealth of nations” you seem so protective about. Even our fantastic mining industry won’t be able to supply the kind of demand for plain old rock you’re on about. At least, not before the diesel has run out. Which is some kind of adaptation I guess.