My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

FB — can you try making sense? You're not engaging the serious points made above and are verging on trolling.

Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed science?

Not engaging!!! ...what you mean Eclipse Now, is I'm not engaging the pionts you want me to.

As we are accepting wikipedia as an authoritive source, via wikipedia -

Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998, with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992).

The New York Times reported that in 2002 Frontiers of Freedom received $230,000 in funding from Exxon.[5] The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]

As to sources of funding... I'm a farmer (amongst other things), and from time to time fund some groups that I believe are looking out for my business of farming - I do not think those groups then become suspect for accepting my money, nor do I think there is anything wrong with me wanting to protect my business - common sense really

Re peer review in an environmental area - I helped a wildlife researcher many years ago who was studying a rare animal (for a PHD) on my farm - basicly I showed the researcher where the animals could be found and related storys of my knoweledge, sightings, paddock management and fire regime, etc. For my sins I got the first read of the pre peer review draft and an explanation of just what was involved and how you need to address the 'politics' of the reviewers, amongst other things ...interesting.

That said, when done properly IMHO and to me, 'peer review' is a usefull tool, though it needs carefull oversight to aviod being abused.

[Eclipse Now]

You've told a few long meandering tales leading no where to hide the fact that he has not published one peer reviewed climate piece. He lead a doubtful enterprise under the sceptical Howard government, and has worked for a number of dubious sources with dubious funding.

According to DeSmogBlog.com: Kinimonth is a frequent writer for a climate change skeptic organization called the "Lavoisier Group," and in Nov. 2004, the Lavoisier Group helped launch Kilimonth's book Climate Change; a natural hazard. According to Nov. 27, '04 news article , the Lavoisier Group was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company recently taken over by BHP Billiton. Lavoisier founders, "... are of the view that the science behind global warming policy is far less certain than its protagonists claim, and we also believe that the economic damage which Australia would suffer, if a carbon tax of the magnitude canvassed in AGO [Australia's Greenhouse Office] documents were imposed." No published peer-reviewed research on climate change According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Kininmonth has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. There is one study published in 1972 by "Kininmon, WR" on the subject of Rain-grown rice in Northern Australia. Kininmonth is a retired meteorologist and headed Australia's national climate centre for 12 years.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: William Kininmonth

Don't try telling me that these groups were 'independent' even though they had dodgy sources of funding.

Check this... Exxon have as much as admitted they distorted the climate science with their funding.

[Flying Binghi]

And the question was -

Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed science?

My reply, ...again -

Re peer review in an environmental area - I helped a wildlife researcher many years ago who was studying a rare animal (for a PHD) on my farm - basicly I showed the researcher where the animals could be found and related storys of my knoweledge, sightings, paddock management and fire regime, etc. For my sins I got the first read of the pre peer review draft and an explanation of just what was involved and how you need to address the 'politics' of the reviewers, amongst other things ...interesting.

That said, when done properly IMHO and to me, 'peer review' is a usefull tool, though it needs carefull oversight to aviod being abused.

In reply I get this nonsense -

You've told a few long meandering tales leading no where to hide the fact that he has not published one peer reviewed climate piece

Try this article Eclipse Now -

Via, Climate case built on thin foundation | The Australian - a major Oz newspaper.

Some extracts,

The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate

...We should now ask what else the IPCC has misled us about...

[Eclipse Now]

I've chased enough balls for you without even a "Woof, woof, good boy! Goooood booooy!"

It's time for you to get real. On peer review you write:

some good mates with shares in the private company of the reviewed was the last one I found.

Your argument appears to be that 30 something major climate science organisations around the globe are 'thrown out' by the fact that they are funded by various governments? You're comparing them to a suspicious little 'private company' with suspect shares and conflicts of interest?

I note that for some reason funding sources cast suspicion on environmental science, but don't do the same when Exxon is doing the funding.

"No, no, not Exxon... perish the thought they could skew the science! They're just funding 9 major climate sceptic groups for the good of humanity! Only the environmentalists have conflict-of-interest funding that throws out the science... not Exxon, never Exxon." (Nudge nudge wink wink say no more! Say no more!)

So, to The Australian article and the many other 'experts' and myths you might regurgitate I reply with the following 2 words:

Peer Review!

Show me the peer reviewed paper that questions the basic fundamentals on climate science, and then I'll be interested. Until then... (yawns)... more important things to do than to go chasing more balls for you. Answer my peer review challenge substantively, and then we'll have a chat.

[Flying Binghi]

Eclipse Now, your coming across as a breathless hysterical vegitarian. Could I recomend that you sit down and eat a good steak - it will help calm the mind, give clarity of thought, and reduce flatulance, i.e. the steak comes 'pre farted'

[Eclipse Now]

No mate, I love my steak. And even though I'm from a humanities background, I respect good science, and nothing you have supplied has made me question the scientific consensus.

I hope that some amazing new quirk of climate science, some 'global safety valve' that we were unaware of, becomes apparent over the next few decades... I really do hope this. I wouldn't rule it out. But that's different to being a sceptic because one doesn't like the idea of carbon taxes, or changing lifestyles. I accept the climate science for good reason. IF some future development means I can accept we're suddenly saved because of some heretofore unknown reason, I'll crack open a bear, crank up the barbie, and enjoy a good steak or 2. But until such time as the majority of peer reviewed climate science has verified some new cloud mechanism or oceanic phytoplankton gizmo or other can prevent our worst case scenarios... I'm a global warming alarmist, through and through.

It's simply about risk mitigation, like taking out insurance. If it were a 5% chance of a 'Great Depression'... I might say ignore it. But they seem to be saying a 95% chance of a Great Depression with "Business as usual" and a 5% chance that BILLIONS might die. (Figures just to illustrate risk mitigation... not exact). So the scenario is bad enough that even if the worst case scenarios are only small in probability, they are significantly high enough to warrant the 'extreme' action of weaning off fossil fuels a little earlier than we might have otherwise.

With peak oil, gas, and coal all this century... earlier than you think... isn't it a good idea to wean off them earlier rather than later anyway? We need to get off the fossil fuels because they are RUNNING OUT!

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I'll just give the link to the thread here where it is discussed, as it is rather a more complex impact event than you imagine.

>> Permian impact evidence discussion

by Turtle:
What made the Antarctic impact of 250 million years ago unique is the size of the rock -estimated at 25 miles in diameter, moving 10 mps-, the resulting antipodal focusing creating a hot spot resulting in the Siberian traps eruptions (the largest known in the planets history) which caused global warming which drew oxygen out the oceans which allowed sulphur dioxide excreting bacteria to poison the oceans and then the land over a period of several million years and making condition ripe for the rise of the dinos.

I'm well aware of the complexity of impact events as well as antipodal focusing. This would seem to support my contention that global warming released huge amounts of methane. Just because a asteroid strike triggered it doesn't make it any less true. We are the trigger now.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm well aware of the complexity of impact events as well as antipodal focusing. This would seem to support my contention that global warming released huge amounts of methane. Just because a asteroid strike triggered it doesn't make it any less true. We are the trigger now.

My bad. That was last week you indicated you hadn't heard of the impact connection to the Permian extinction.

Moving on, here's some mud in the proverbial eye of concensus. Objections to my objections here in this thread on the climate modeling notwithstanding, I chanced on this today. >>

Climate Modeling Heats Up

"The limiting factor to more reliable climate predictions at higher resolution is not scientific ideas, but computational capacity to implement those ideas," said Jay Fein, NSF program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences. "This project is an important step forward in providing the most useful scientifically-based climate change information to society for adapting to climate change."

Researchers once had assumed that climate can be predicted independently of weather, that is, with weather having no impact on climate prediction. Now they're finding that weather has a profound impact on climate, a result that's integral to the drive to improve weather and climate predictions and climate change projections. ...

As it is, I'm changing my conversation. >> ........ . ...... http://hypography.com/forums/environ...ock-solid.html

[Eclipse Now]

While there might be some debate in the exact particulars of how this will play out, as Co2 levels rise we've experienced the hottest years on record (apart from the last La Nina year of course), watched as the North Pole thins, glaciers retreat... etc.

Isn't it a bit of a Furphy to insist that global warming is bunk because they get the temperature wrong for a particular month?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Turtle

My bad. That was last week you indicated you hadn't heard of the impact connection to the Permian extinction.

Moving on, here's some mud in the proverbial eye of concensus. Objections to my objections here in this thread on the climate modeling notwithstanding, I chanced on this today. >>

Climate Modeling Heats Up


As it is, I'm changing my conversation. >> ........ . ...... http://hypography.com/forums/environ...ock-solid.html

Actually you are correct I hadn't heard of the impact connection of that event.