NZ Weather Forum

RWood wrote: ↑Sun 25/08/2019 17:44 Those citing Judith Curry should know she is refuted by a large body of climate scientists.

That’s probably true. I’m all for the reduction in fossil fuel use, increasing renewables and making sustainability the objective of human activity. It’s the damage to science that bugs me. Climate change has become a belief - since when has a religious term become so embedded in a scientific argument. You have to believe in climate change. Science is all about coming up with a theory, testing through experiments and observation and re evaluating to see if your theory is correct and by allowing other scientists to question your methods and results to get to the facts. It’s all turned into a political and ideological bun fight - not helped by the fact that it’s very difficult to run good experiments in a complex atmosphere/ocean system and make accurate long term observations.

ndoa wrote: ↑Sun 25/08/2019 20:27 Climate change has become a belief- since when has a religious term become so embedded in a scientific argument. You have to believe in climate change.

Ive noticed religious people say just that- 'I dont believe in climate change ' do they think science is the work of devil ?, This is why unstable religious leaders are dangerous, namely the 'chosen one' in the White House and Brazil's Bolsonaro who has publicly said he wants to bring on the apocaypse, this seems to be going well for him at the moment

Gary McConnochie wrote: ↑Fri 23/08/2019 14:38 An interesting read.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/col ... -told.html

This piece of misinformation you posted has no doubt been spread by the same climate denial movement
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 504wFuSwE8

The article in the UK 'Daily Telegraph' newspaper referred to above was written in 2009 by Christopher Booker, a well known climate change denier. A lot has changed since it was written and the view of Dr Morner is not shared by many other climate scientists.

The Daily Telegraph is the most right wing of the broadsheets in the UK (by some margin), but does report both sides of the argument on its news pages. Its true position is usually revealed in its commentary which is very pro-business, free markets, freedom of choice, anti-Europe etc.

I have argued for both sides of this issue in the past and I changed my viewpoint from being a denier to someone who, having read the evidence, supports the idea that human influence has a big finger print on this problem. However, I do not hold this viewpoint too passionately as I can see worrying similarities to some arguments of the past such as vivisection and CND, when years of protests by activists (like Extinction Rebellion today) achieved nothing more than entrenching polarised viewpoints. We have exactly the same problem here in the UK with Brexit.

Please read this blog entry from Dr Cliff Mass regarding the current nature of the argument about climate change.

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/ ... ebate.html

This may appear a very American or even Washington State viewpoint, but the substance of his argument, I think, applies everywhere. Accepting the science is one thing, but using it as the solution appears to be a much harder argument to sell. Hopefully, the current vogue for publishing the ideas of the more extreme elements will pass and a more informed debate will follow on the science and more importantly, the development and application of technology to supply the answers.

The only problem, as with all arguments at the moment, is that there is still a strong element of 'them versus us' in this piece and a desire to politicise everything, i.e. left v right. Some of the comments to this blog entry point this out!

I hadn't really thought about how extreme this debate has become till reading this, makes you think where does one fit in on that scale, either a ultra ACP at one extreme or an all out denial that MMCC is real on the other. Myself I like to think I sit closer to the ACT side instead of following a largely misguided set of viewpoints eg - stop eating meat, stop all controlled burn offs etc etc, instead remain positive, reduce you carbon foot print as much as you can, plant trees and grow soil. The ultra left ACP are just as damaging as those in the all out denial camp

If they are talking 50 deg you would think that air flows of that intensity would bring temperatures to eastern NZ in the 40's on a regular bases
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... U0yvTdqS_c

Food for thought. This presentation by Dr Easterbrook for me raises more questions on both sides of debate.
Why would the whole subject of climate change get the huge mainstream media coverage that it does when its mostly the wealthy elitists that are supposedly responsible for much the problem in the first place, yet they own and control the MSM while allowing for this level of publicity .....??. Its kind of like, 'hey, look at what we are doing, come on, you need to rise up and make us change our ways'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF ... bKFmzKWsk0

Richard wrote: ↑Sun 29/12/2019 08:14 Food for thought. This presentation by Dr Easterbrook for me raises more questions on both sides of debate.
Why would the whole subject of climate change get the huge mainstream media coverage that it does when its mostly the wealthy elitists that are supposedly responsible for much the problem in the first place, yet they own and control the MSM while allowing for this level of publicity .....??. Its kind of like, 'hey, look at what we are doing, come on, you need to rise up and make us change our ways'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF ... bKFmzKWsk0

Nothing to see here, all old hat. Wonder who is funding him.

Certainly there are points raised by him that are valid and others questionable, he claimed the Antarctic ice cap is growing and not shrinking, but presented no data to back it up.
To claim the sea level around the Maldives is dropping by using a photo that shows a high tide mark of evidence of sea level drop is laughable.

A prime example of where the fossil fuel industry funds millions of dollars into spreading misinformation.

Thanks for posting that article from physics.org, Richard. The graph is the best I have seen for reconstructing the temperature profile for the Holocene.

It appears very likely that the earth has passed the peak of the current interglacial period and therefore it would seem entirely logical that the temperature should be falling very slowly ahead of the abrupt drop as the next glacial period starts -this is probably a few tens of thousands of years away. The sharp upward tick at the end of the graph must have an explanation, and barring any geological or external event, neither of which have been seen, could well be (and probably is) due to human influence. The abruptness of the change is the clue.

Bradley - that piece by Michael Shellenberger was more about advertising his book than anything else. It made a lot of claims, but to get the answers you will have to buy the book! Interestingly, Forbes, the original publisher of this piece, has removed it from its website.

Some points Michael Shellenberger made I agree with, but others are just plainly ridiculous

Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

Its modern farming through the use poisons and artificial fertilizers that's killing off the soil's biology, how can this be called 'environmental progress'.

An interesting hypothesis

Broadcasttheory.com

Thought provoking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Ln3Ou ... ghTheNoise