Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

Vanden Saab said:

mike9009 said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/20...


No doubt this is good news to some people in the thread.

A CO2 monitoring station at the top of an active volcano.

Yep, since 1958.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/30/ha...

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

mike9009 said:

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Not great news....but at least still transitioning to net zero..... Wonder if the political position will change if the mini ice age in 2030 does not materialise?

I think the fact that the Arctic is not ice free yet , even given multi peer reviewed scientists predictions is make people realise perhaps it's been a lot of scare stories, along with an inability to manage without fossil fuels.
Did anybody see the BBC news piece from Wales on climate change ? My wife pointed out he was wearing 4 layers on his top..... then went on to talk about rising temperatures, its May and he was dressed for the Arctic.

Distinguishing between weather and climate perhaps?

https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-global-te...

Hard times for 'sceptics'

Call 999 it’s an emergency. It has crisis and catastrophe written all over it. Will you cope?

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

mike9009 said:

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Not great news....but at least still transitioning to net zero..... Wonder if the political position will change if the mini ice age in 2030 does not materialise?

I think the fact that the Arctic is not ice free yet , even given multi peer reviewed scientists predictions is make people realise perhaps it's been a lot of scare stories, along with an inability to manage without fossil fuels.
Did anybody see the BBC news piece from Wales on climate change ? My wife pointed out he was wearing 4 layers on his top..... then went on to talk about rising temperatures, its May and he was dressed for the Arctic.

Distinguishing between weather and climate perhaps?

https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-global-te...

Hard times for 'sceptics'

Call 999 it’s an emergency. It has crisis and catastrophe written all over it. Will you cope?

I suppose the question is 'when is late, too late?' ..... But it is a very human trait not to react to something until it is too late.......a trait I seem to witness daily at work

However, even if we do over react I don't see the path to net zero as a bad thing anyway.....

[Carl_VivaEspana]

Storming of the Tesla factory in Germany yesterday - doh.

Maybe St. Greta was in the wrong place and should have been at the Tesla gates to help protect the factory and its staff.

[Diderot]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

Storming of the Tesla factory in Germany yesterday - doh.

Maybe St. Greta was in the wrong place and should have been at the Tesla gates to help protect the factory and its staff.

She’s too busy trying to free the Palestinians.

[robinessex]

mike9009 said:

However, even if we do over react I don't see the path to net zero as a bad thing anyway.....

Specsavers in your local high street ?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

However, even if we do over react I don't see the path to net zero as a bad thing anyway.....

Specsavers in your local high street ?

They do home visits for certain people, but it may not include trolls

Net Zero would be disastrous as clearly demonstrated by Profs Happer and Lindzen (pdf)
Click

Snip said:

• Computer models supporting every government Net Zero regulation and the trillions of
dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and
many other products, do not work.
• Scientific research and studies that do not support the “consensus” narrative of harmful
man-made global warming are routinely censored and excluded from government
reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National
Climate Assessment.
• Conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradict the
narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewriten by government
bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero.
• The many benefits of modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide are routinely
either eliminated or minimized in governmental reports.
• Eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the
elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen feritlizers and pesticides that will result in
about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat. Many would starve.
• The adoption of Net Zero is the rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence that there
is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
• Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has
underpinned the advancement of western civilization

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

However, even if we do over react I don't see the path to net zero as a bad thing anyway.....

Specsavers in your local high street ?

They do home visits for certain people, but it may not include trolls

Net Zero would be disastrous as clearly demonstrated by Profs Happer and Lindzen (pdf)
Click

Snip said:

• Computer models supporting every government Net Zero regulation and the trillions of
dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and
many other products, do not work.
• Scientific research and studies that do not support the “consensus” narrative of harmful
man-made global warming are routinely censored and excluded from government
reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National
Climate Assessment.
• Conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradict the
narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewriten by government
bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero.
• The many benefits of modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide are routinely
either eliminated or minimized in governmental reports.
• Eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the
elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen feritlizers and pesticides that will result in
about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat. Many would starve.
• The adoption of Net Zero is the rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence that there
is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
• Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has
underpinned the advancement of western civilization

Somewhat privileged you think my posting is trolling. Would you engage with my critique of the 'proper' scientific papers posted (Mckiltrick and Christy 2018 is regularly quoted in this thread but it is wrong) - no one responds which really is very telling that my simple critique is correct. I am willing to have the debate.....

The paper produced above is not really a scientific paper is it? It regurgitates information from various sources. I wonder why this paper is not published in Nature?? It is very much like the defence of a conspiracy theory......

Kooning seems very focussed on the US weather only. The metrics applied seem quite odd.....maybe to prove a political bias?

Just waiting for six months for claims of the new mini ice age coming

[turbobloke]

Lowballing is due to climate change no doubt.

Four major national institutions made similar errors in their lowball estimates of the astronomical cost of Net Zero. Just a coincidence.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/errors-in-ne...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Lowballing is due to climate change no doubt.

Four major national institutions made similar errors in their lowball estimates of the astronomical cost of Net Zero. Just a coincidence.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/errors-in-ne...

Haven't you posted this before?? Or at least the same story? Are you okay or did you start drinking early for Eurovision?

What are your views on the Christy McKiltrick paper?? Fundamentally flawed?

[turbobloke]

Cooling is indeed the new warming, though activism and officialdumb incapable of grasping basic arithmetic / orders of magnitude / causality may not see the irony of it.

'Global Warming' (what happened to boiling) is leading to the Himalayas cooling, and preventing glacial melt. That's a bit of a downer for Prof Schellnhuber and claims that they'll be ice-free by 2030. Failing with serially erroneous summer arctic sea ice guesstimations just isn't enough.

Warming is cooling, more snow less snow, more hurricanes fewer hurricanes, more floods yet more droughts, truly fantastic. Heads we win, Tails we win.

There's some comfort in contemplating agw infallibility in that how glaciers modulate local climate remains unknown. Some mistake, surely, but make your own minds up as usual (apart ftom faith types of course).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01331-y

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Cooling is indeed the new warming, though activism and officialdumb incapable of grasping basic arithmetic / orders of magnitude / causality may not see the irony of it.

'Global Warming' (what happened to boiling) is leading to the Himalayas cooling, and preventing glacial melt. That's a bit of a downer for Prof Schellnhuber and claims that they'll be ice-free by 2030. Failing with serially erroneous summer arctic sea ice guesstimations just isn't enough.

Warming is cooling, more snow less snow, more hurricanes fewer hurricanes, more floods yet more droughts, truly fantastic. Heads we win, Tails we win.

There's some comfort in contemplating agw infallibility in that how glaciers modulate local climate remains unknown. Some mistake, surely, but make your own minds up as usual (apart ftom faith types of course).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01331-y

All very worthy. What about my critique of McKiltrick and Christy 2018??

Is it because the scientific paper is complete bks??

[robinessex]

mike9009 said:

Is it because the scientific paper is complete bks??

They all are, with 'stuff' missing because they can't figure out how it 'works'. How about clouds:-

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

"Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects, partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking"

and the bloody sun:-

Understanding the role of the sun in climate change

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-role-sun-climate.htm...

"Although the sun provides nearly all the energy needed to warm the planet, its contribution to climate change remains widely questioned. Many empirically based studies claim that it has a significant effect on climate, while others (often based on computer global climate simulations) claim that it has a small effect."

Heads or tails this week ?

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

Is it because the scientific paper is complete bks??

They all are, with 'stuff' missing because they can't figure out how it 'works'. How about clouds:-

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

"Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects, partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking"

and the bloody sun:-

Understanding the role of the sun in climate change

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-role-sun-climate.htm...

"Although the sun provides nearly all the energy needed to warm the planet, its contribution to climate change remains widely questioned. Many empirically based studies claim that it has a significant effect on climate, while others (often based on computer global climate simulations) claim that it has a small effect."

Heads or tails this week ?

Come on, stop posting more drivel. Undoubtedly the sun heats the earth. But what happens if we 'trap' the energy a bit more?

No response to my critique of the hero worshipped McKiltrick and Christy paper 2018 still? It is fundamentally flawed to provide a scientific bias?

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 12th May 11:27

[PRTVR]

mike9009 said:

Come on, stop posting more drivel. Undoubtedly the sun heats the earth. But what happens if we 'trap' the energy a bit more?

No response to my critique of the hero worshipped McKiltrick and Christy paper 2018 still? It is fundamentally flawed to provide a scientific bias?

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 12th May 11:27

What happens if you heat the earth a little bit more ? Remember CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Just in case you are worried about coral and bleaching, here is an Australian marine biologist putting your fears to bed.

https://youtu.be/areO6pET2sw?si=mpS1RUpc2oLTN4rK

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

Is it because the scientific paper is complete bks??

They all are, with 'stuff' missing because they can't figure out how it 'works'. How about clouds:-

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

"Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects, partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking"

and the bloody sun:-

Understanding the role of the sun in climate change

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-role-sun-climate.htm...

"Although the sun provides nearly all the energy needed to warm the planet, its contribution to climate change remains widely questioned. Many empirically based studies claim that it has a significant effect on climate, while others (often based on computer global climate simulations) claim that it has a small effect."

Heads or tails this week ?

Come on, stop posting more drivel. Undoubtedly the sun heats the earth. But what happens if we 'trap' the energy a bit more?

No response to my critique of the hero worshipped McKiltrick and Christy paper 2018 still? It is fundamentally flawed to provide a scientific bias?

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 12th May 11:27

As I said before, if you have a critique of the paper which you think stacks up, then send it to the journal and the authors for a response. I’m sure they would be grateful to be enlightened. Better still, draft a paper which rebuts their claims and see if it gets published after the peer review process.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

Is it because the scientific paper is complete bks??

They all are, with 'stuff' missing because they can't figure out how it 'works'. How about clouds:-

https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

"Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects, partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking"

and the bloody sun:-

Understanding the role of the sun in climate change

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-role-sun-climate.htm...

"Although the sun provides nearly all the energy needed to warm the planet, its contribution to climate change remains widely questioned. Many empirically based studies claim that it has a significant effect on climate, while others (often based on computer global climate simulations) claim that it has a small effect."

Heads or tails this week ?

Clearly Scafetta's preferred solar TSI reconstruction "closely correlated with the changes observed in total surface temperature records" goes in the wrong direction around the turn of the century - so he stops the curve there

[turbobloke]

‘Hydrogen town’ plan cancelled after protests over forced switch from natural gas.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/09/hy...

Energy Sec Claire Coutinho has shelved proposals to force thousands of homes and businesses to replace their natural gas supplies with hydrogen by 2030. The Plan isn't going well for The Cause, and while that's a good thing in principle, the waste of money along the way remains pointless - not least as the climate crisis is a lie, claimed to be a noble lie but a lie all the same.

[turbobloke]

Anyone with access to the previously posted link will now know that the answer for Not Zero is heat pumps

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-647...

[Diderot]

turbobloke said:

Anyone with access to the previously posted link will now know that the answer for Not Zero is heat pumps

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-647...

Gotta love the image the BBC article uses for their point about France. It shows lots of split aircon systems.