I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.
You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.
Read the rest of the article here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Some people couldn’t wait till 2008.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/597022.html
Bill McKibben: 350 (ppm) or less, or our days are numbered
This guy quotes James Hansen in a talk at the AGU conference in SF as saying, “The evidence indicates we’ve aimed too high – that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350 ppm.”
He further claims that Hansen has reams of paleo-climatic data to support his statements.
Fat chance he will ever show us, but rest assured he has the data and we are all doomed.
What year was it that we passed 350 ppm?
See we are probably dead already, and because nobody bothered to print the headline we’re all just walking zombies, none the wiser.
The ‘best’ quote I saw was from a Cardiff University academic who said ‘there is no safe level of CO2.” What a nutter!
“It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.”
Maybe they could actually attack what Gore said.
“Now I’m going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them.”
He doesn’t say there will be more, but he says they will be stronger. A recent topic here actually confirmed that claim.
Biggsy was in Florida when hurricane Frances hit -the ‘eye’ passed very close to our villa – 36 hours without power.
The ‘stroger claim’ is not confirmed and depends on, amongst other things, being able to compare like with like – not possible unless records are accurate.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001307endof2007_hurrican.html
“Now I’m going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them.”
SJT has a very selective interpretation here. The clear intention with the words “a lot of big hurricanes” is that there will be more and stronger hurricanes.
It suits the political agenda of Gore for put out this misconception.
Truth is, even IF the worlds climate is changing to a warmer world, no-one knows the impacts. It is just guesswork and modelling.
The few facts are that more people die from cold than heat, so deaths from extreme weather will reduce, plants will grow more vigourously if there are no other limitations, and the atmosphere will contain more moisture.
The NY Times should have 100 percent alarm about its falling subscriptions and continual layoffs.
It’s not exactly the words of the prophet written on a subway wall, but John Williamson’s Cootamundra Wattle
Don’t buy the daily papers any more woman,
Read all about what’s going on in hell.
They don’t care to tell the world of kindness,
Good news never made a paper sell.
It’s clear to me what he means, in the context. Warmer oceans means stronger storms, he explicitly says that, then gives examples of stronger storms.
“It’s clear to me what he (Gore) means, in the context. Warmer oceans means stronger storms, he explicitly says that, then gives examples of stronger storms”
Gore’s just another amateur – a silly old fart suffering from ‘relevance deprivation’.
Meanwhile, BoM has declared 2007 the sixth warmest year on record (since when?).
The league table stands as follows:
① 2005, ② 1998, ③ 1980 ④ 1988, ⑤ 1991, ⑥ 2007.
Can anyone detect a pattern?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/03/2131182.htm
It’s consistent with AGW theory? For Victoria, it’s been the warmest on record, along with the rest of the SE of Australia. If we didn’t have the Asian pollution cloud masking temperatures and adding rain as pollution did to the world in the 50’s to 70s, the result would have been even more clear.
The warmest year in SE Australia (since when), or in any other small patch of the globe, does not validate the theory of anthropogenic global warming – even amateurs, like your good self, should know that.
chrisgo! I don’t know why you people bother with the likes of SJT? The man is obviously a twit, with time on his hand, and spends that time on the net for links, supporting his religious bent.
By answering them, you only satisfy their demand for attention, and gain nothing valuable in return.
Poor sods! I pity them.
Well put Brett. Trolls like SJT suffer most when ignored.
SJT=Luke=Phil Done= so many others, who cares?
The guy is OBSESSED
Chris, I said is consistent.
Rog, Mr Kettle, meet Mr Pot.
Has to be the ultimate bias – just picking a convenient one from many. This blog is the absolute mother plucking lode for bias spotting.
Take your pick.
Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief formation and business decisions and scientific research.
Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink, herd behaviour, and manias.
Base rate fallacy — ignoring available statistical data in favor of particulars
Bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one’s own cognitive biases.
Choice-supportive bias — the tendency to remember one’s choices as better than they actually were.
Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.
Congruence bias — the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
Contrast effect — the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.
Déformation professionnelle — the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one’s own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.
Distinction bias – the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[1]
Endowment effect — “the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it”.[2]
Extreme aversion — the tendency to avoid extremes, being more likely to choose an option if it is the intermediate choice.
Focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue. Also framing effect — drawing different conclusions based on how data are presented.
Hyperbolic discounting — the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.
Illusion of control — the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.
Impact bias — the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
Irrational escalation — the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.
Loss aversion — “the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it”.[3] (see also sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
Moral credential effect — the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Need for closure — the need to reach a verdict in important matters; to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.[4]
Neglect of probability — the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
Omission bias — The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
Outcome bias — the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Planning fallacy — the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
Post-purchase rationalization — the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pseudocertainty effect — the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Status quo bias — the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same (see also Loss aversion and Endowment effect).[5]
Unit bias — the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item with strong effects on the consumption of food in particular
Von Restorff effect — the tendency for an item that “stands out like a sore thumb” to be more likely to be remembered than other items.
Zero-risk bias — preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
apologies to my unmentioned source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.
Another bias.
100% chance you’ll see food prices double in 2008. Why no talk about it Jen? After all agriculture is the best way to measure weather and us farmers manage the majority of the world’s land mass hence environment …
If food prices double it’s less likely to be about weather and more likely to be about demand from ill considered biofuel programs subsidized by reactionary governments kowtowing to climate alarmism.
Sorry, make that spineless reactionary governments!
Wheat isn’t used in car engines. It has in under two years because of Australia, Ukraine and India’s droughts, frosts in the US and floods in Europe. Durum wheat actually quadrupled.
Detect a pattern? The fact is, we are not the only force in play. Simplistic thinking (one event, one cause) is going to be the death of this planet, so thank you for providing such a clear example…