Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

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.

So drivel can be continuously and repeatably be posted in this thread without rebuttal or debate.

The whole conspiracy is a dire load of bks supported by some easily led, biased followers in here.

If that is the case, we should close this thread. You can all start lobbying government about your concerns........

The denialists/ conspiracy supporters cannot even defend the ste being posted and quoted in here. It ain't clever....

[mike9009]

PRTVR said:

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

Please lobby your local MP. Not needed in this thread....

[GT9]

turbobloke said:

‘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.

Or maybe the penny has finally dropped that low-carbon AKA blue hydrogen is the lie.
Increasing methane consumption whilst attempting to capture the CO2 but also increasing fugitive methane and hydrogen emissions.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas...
Renewable/ fusion-based electrification is pretty much the only true low carbon pathway, what you do with that electricity is the question.

Edited by GT9 on Sunday 12th May 19:04

[PRTVR]

mike9009 said:

PRTVR said:

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

Please lobby your local MP. Not needed in this thread....

It's science, marine biologist, this is the science thread.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

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.

So drivel can be continuously and repeatably be posted in this thread without rebuttal or debate.

The whole conspiracy is a dire load of bks supported by some easily led, biased followers in here.

If that is the case, we should close this thread. You can all start lobbying government about your concerns........

The denialists/ conspiracy supporters cannot even defend the ste being posted and quoted in here. It ain't clever....

Did I a touch a raw nerve with my suggestion? I take it from your rantette that you’re not going to share your insight and wisdom with the journal’s editors and the authors by contacting them about your concerns? Nor indeed, it seems, are you going to pen a crushing rebuttal of their work …

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

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.

So drivel can be continuously and repeatably be posted in this thread without rebuttal or debate.

The whole conspiracy is a dire load of bks supported by some easily led, biased followers in here.

If that is the case, we should close this thread. You can all start lobbying government about your concerns........

The denialists/ conspiracy supporters cannot even defend the ste being posted and quoted in here. It ain't clever....

Did I a touch a raw nerve with my suggestion? I take it from your rantette that you’re not going to share your insight and wisdom with the journal’s editors and the authors by contacting them about your concerns? Nor indeed, it seems, are you going to pen a crushing rebuttal of their work …

Earlier in the thread, I did state I had written to some of the authors. Guess what? I heard nothing from them either.

If people keep posting this 'research' in this thread I will continue rebutting it all.

The silence from all quarters is quite a compelling argument that the papers are fundamentally flawed.

What did your MP say??

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

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.

So drivel can be continuously and repeatably be posted in this thread without rebuttal or debate.

The whole conspiracy is a dire load of bks supported by some easily led, biased followers in here.

If that is the case, we should close this thread. You can all start lobbying government about your concerns........

The denialists/ conspiracy supporters cannot even defend the ste being posted and quoted in here. It ain't clever....

Did I a touch a raw nerve with my suggestion? I take it from your rantette that you’re not going to share your insight and wisdom with the journal’s editors and the authors by contacting them about your concerns? Nor indeed, it seems, are you going to pen a crushing rebuttal of their work …

Earlier in the thread, I did state I had written to some of the authors. Guess what? I heard nothing from them either.

If people keep posting this 'research' in this thread I will continue rebutting it all.

The silence from all quarters is quite a compelling argument that the papers are fundamentally flawed.

What did your MP say??

Some but not all? You really need to write to the Journal’s editorial team. I would, as an erstwhile editor in chief of a non related journal in a non related field, would have made it my business to seek out your views. Give it a go.

[kerplunk]

Papers rebutting Mckitrick already exist

[mike9009]

kerplunk said:

Papers rebutting Mckitrick already exist

From a bunch of 14 year olds? The flaws are so glaringly obvious.

So, I don't need to chase up again as suggested, above.

Do the posters quoting these papers actually read or understand?

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 13th May 19:08

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

kerplunk said:

Papers rebutting Mckitrick already exist

From a bunch of 14 year olds? The flaws are so glaringly obvious.

So, I don't need to chase up again as suggested, above.

Do the posters quoting these papers actually read or understand?

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 13th May 19:08

I think you need to take your chances and see how far you get. I suspect, not very far. Keep us posted.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

kerplunk said:

Papers rebutting Mckitrick already exist

From a bunch of 14 year olds? The flaws are so glaringly obvious.

So, I don't need to chase up again as suggested, above.

Do the posters quoting these papers actually read or understand?

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 13th May 19:08

I think you need to take your chances and see how far you get. I suspect, not very far. Keep us posted.

Why would I keep someone updated who does not even understand the paper or my critique???? Weird

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

kerplunk said:

Papers rebutting Mckitrick already exist

From a bunch of 14 year olds? The flaws are so glaringly obvious.

So, I don't need to chase up again as suggested, above.

Do the posters quoting these papers actually read or understand?

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 13th May 19:08

I think you need to take your chances and see how far you get. I suspect, not very far. Keep us posted.

Why would I keep someone updated who does not even understand the paper or my critique???? Weird

Because your astonishingly percipient rebuttal would need to go through the peer review process. As I said above, you have no idea how academic research works. Do keep us updated.

[J210]

Nothing to see here just a UCL Professor and climate writer for the Guardian....




tweet now deleted

[Skeptisk]

This video pretty much sums up my views

https://youtu.be/MaaJqPCjNr4?si=brrVAQuqHAzUniwj

Despite all the talk about climate change, very little (far too little) is actually being done to get to net zero and a lot of the “plans” are just wishful thinking (if I were being less generous I would call them dangerous nonsense as they give the false impression that something is being done).

Let’s hope all the AGW deniers on here are right.

[turbobloke]

Anyone still on the climate crisis lie path who wants to volunteer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCwhFX4Fbjs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHQaAvvXgAAzhRV.jpg

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Anyone still on the climate crisis lie path who wants to volunteer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCwhFX4Fbjs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHQaAvvXgAAzhRV.jpg

I thought climate deniers would be selected first?

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Anyone still on the climate crisis lie path who wants to volunteer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCwhFX4Fbjs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHQaAvvXgAAzhRV.jpg

I thought climate deniers would be selected first?

There wouldn't be enough, I can't recall anyone saying there's no such thing as climate, or that there is such a thing and it doesn't change.

Climate crisis lie believers are ten a penny, plenty of fodder there.

Meanwhile...somebody has finally decided to look into the lack of permanent dangerous antarctic warming over recent decades and tuned a model. This tuning shows extremely low climate sensitivity, at both poies as it happens. Apparently, increasing tax gas levels from pre-industrial times to the present (280 to 400 ppm) gives a small cooling effect for antarctica (-0.01°C), shocking! Whoever paid the piper for that tune may be disappointed. However, as the results agree with empirical data over that timescale, the result is credible unlike the multiply failed vanishing tricks for polar ice from inadequate modelling that drives our political policymaking. PDF of Notholt et al (2024) follows.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10...

[turbobloke]

PS the conclusions confirm a previously noted polar 'negative greenhouse effect' (ooer).

Implication: if The Team pushing The Cause want to be heard they need to buy a new amplifier.

To maintain the faith, anyone shaken and stirred can re-read 'might' and 'tipping point' repeatedly until calm returns.

[turbobloke]

New news from the beeb which isn't joining the wideawake club in spite of this.

Is the move to electric cars running out of power?

For some time now, sleepy beebies.

Hapless beeb said:

Buoyant electric car sales are a must if we're to hit our climate targets. But EV sales in the West are down and if governments want them to recover it may have to be at the expense of their own economies.

Yes crash those economies (further) what could possibly go wrong me old China.

[kerplunk]

turbospin:

Arctic sensitivity low, as confirmed by the obs of non-disappearing ice.

What the paper says:

While we calculated a warming of 0.95 K since pre-industrial CO 2 and CH4 for the Arctic, the observed increase since 1960 is 2–3 K. The difference results from the various feedback processes, most importantly the melt of sea ice and the lapse rate feedback.