Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
DieselGriff said:
Look at Black's latest report on the Schmallenberg virus...
OK then...Article said:
Climate change IS raising the risk of diseases such as Schmallenberg in the UK and northern Europe, say scientists.
Schmallenberg virus affects sheep and cattle, and is probably carried by midges. It was identified in Germany last year, and in the UK in January.
Experts say the path of Schmallenberg is currently impossible to predict.
But the path is very hard to predict as so little is known about a virus that was only identified a few months ago.
"We don't know."
So that's nice and clear-cut then Schmallenberg virus affects sheep and cattle, and is probably carried by midges. It was identified in Germany last year, and in the UK in January.
Experts say the path of Schmallenberg is currently impossible to predict.
But the path is very hard to predict as so little is known about a virus that was only identified a few months ago.
"We don't know."
This 'Black' chap starts from a dodgy premise and then compounds the idea. bad journalism.
As the midges move from the poorer areas of Europe and most importantly the population remains the same it means that areas that are poor suffer the consequences less, so there is a net real benefit, the disease enters a wealthy area and is thus more likely to be wiped out and the poorer parts of the planet are left alone, we then virtually wipe it and we all benefit, a positive for 'climate change', it's not a negative... unless you dress it up as such.
As the midges move from the poorer areas of Europe and most importantly the population remains the same it means that areas that are poor suffer the consequences less, so there is a net real benefit, the disease enters a wealthy area and is thus more likely to be wiped out and the poorer parts of the planet are left alone, we then virtually wipe it and we all benefit, a positive for 'climate change', it's not a negative... unless you dress it up as such.
DieselGriff said:
However I have to say that for a sceptic you appear to be quite happy to repeat the Government sponsored dogma without question, have you researched the subject at all (other than reading the Guardian)?
Oh b
h - no wrong again, I don't read or value the Guardian, nor am I a rabid greenie or even a socialist. This thread is remarkable - I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"
bigdog3 said:
I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"
Likely is a loaded word that has statistical significance, that's why you were called on that.It's likely that you'll no understand why the word 'likely' has a certain meaning so look it up in a dictionary.
bigdog3 said:
DieselGriff said:
However I have to say that for a sceptic you appear to be quite happy to repeat the Government sponsored dogma without question, have you researched the subject at all (other than reading the Guardian)?
Oh bh - no wrong again, I don't read or value the Guardian, nor am I a rabid greenie or even a socialist. This thread is remarkable - I've even been accused of making a "Dramatic statement!" in a sentence which contained the words "...likely to promote"No where have I suggested you were rabid in any sense of the word just noted (politely I thought) that your views as posted here were typical of those postulated by our left wing MSM and as such was going to suggest some other places you could use to broaden your outlook on the subject.
In no way was this meant to be antagonistic but you seem very quick to defend your POV despite the fact it was never under attack (at least from me).
Yet another great read from Pointman's blog:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-cl...
"The Climate Wars."
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-cl...
"The Climate Wars."
Guam said:
Calm Down Dears...
Thanks turbobloke for the chemical measurement data
There's the important political aspect of getting your message across, which is getting scant regard. I would love the harbingers of climatic doom to be proved wrong, but they are still way ahead politically.
If CO2 concentration can been proved to have no effect on climate, how can this information be broadcast widely and debated openly to good effect? Certainly will not happen through exchanges by a core minority on this forum.
Now was that reasonable?
bigdog3 said:
..Certainly will not happen through exchanges by a core minority on this forum.
No it won't, you're right, but this is a mild backwater compared to the parts of the web that discuss nothing but this subject.There is a huge difference in the power and money involved between the the Government sponsored "official" outlets whose aim appears to be the full advocation of the AGW story and those that challenge it.
As such there are claims from the pro AGW side that are based on appeals to consensus (98% of scientists agree etc) and appeals to authority (Paul Nurse of the Royal Society says.. etc), both of which are meaningless when discussing science (ask Newton and Einstein amongst others), proof indeed that money talks, so yes you're right politically it's almost sewn up.
Where there is a difference it's down, again, to money. The Canadians have questioned why they cannot develop their own natural resources and have decided they can, and they will. The Australians were lied to by their present Prime Minister prior to election and even though the impact of her actions have yet to hit home many are questioning the validity of the "science" on which her decision was based and which is going to cost them dear. It's unlikely she'll see another term.
The number of people that question the dogma is low, but as the cost of "green" starts to hit home more will question it and political will will wane. In the mean time real damage is being done to real environmental concerns and people so I hope it won't take too much longer.
bigdog3 said:
Guam said:
Calm Down Dears...
Thanks turbobloke for the chemical measurement data
There's the important political aspect of getting your message across, which is getting scant regard. I would love the harbingers of climatic doom to be proved wrong, but they are still way ahead politically.
If CO2 concentration can been proved to have no effect on climate, how can this information be broadcast widely and debated openly to good effect? Certainly will not happen through exchanges by a core minority on this forum.
bigdog3 said:
If CO2 concentration can been proved to have no effect on climate, how can this information be broadcast widely
Ironically the climate itself is doing that itself, spreading a message of calm and continuity.For the past few years the AGW crowd have been telling everyone how snow is a thing of the past, and yet for over a decade the climate is noticeably, exactly the same as it was a few decades ago.
In fact 1976 is still be far the hottest summer I remember, as does anyone else of my age and older. The climate simply isn't living up to the hype, and seems blissfully ignorant of the need for floods, sinking atolls and waves of 'climate refugees'.
So that's the information being broadcast, people, with their own senses, seeing the lies for themselves, first hand. And that's what's turning the tide and making a mockery of AGW, our dear own climate, totally unresponsive to the political spin, just carrying on day to day as it has for billions of years.
bigdog3 said:
..Certainly will not happen through exchanges by a core minority on this forum.
Nope, too much big money invested, too much political spin etc, I take it you know about the BBCs pension 'investments'? it will explain Richard Blacks increasingly bizarre attempts to link any kind of disaster to MMGW ie http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1722...
just how desperate is that? it is impossible to fight that kind of belief but unfortunately it is having the opposite effect, people are tired of it, they have short attention spans and see nothing changing year after year, the wild claims are becoming ludicrous to even the average bloke in the street and the financial penalties harder to justify. We now have Parliament back pedalling on it's Green promises as they realise it is a financially crippling dream and windmill farms are failing to deliver.
Man Made Global Warming is now called Climate Change because the planet, despite Plunky's protestations, is refusing to warm, sea levels remain boringly average and Polar Bears are breeding like rabbits.
All it takes is time
Apache said:
I take it you know about the BBCs pension 'investments'? it will explain Richard Blacks increasingly bizarre attempts to link any kind of disaster to MMGW ie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1722...
Difficult to link temperature to midges either - take Siberia for instance. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1722...
Jam packed full of midges, yet one could hardly describe it as 'warm'...
Maybe we could send Richard there, in just his shorts?
bigdog3 said:
turbobloke said:
Also, bigdog3, can we assume you read the link in chris watton's post at 12:54?
Yes and most of the comments...
After Climategate 1.0 there was Climategate 2.0 and you may be aware that whoever leaked or hacked the files in 2.0 has left a ticking timebomb for Believerville. It may be a dud but the chances of that are slight. However there seems to be no hurry for the individual holding the key to use it.
turbobloke said:
However there seems to be no hurry for the individual holding the key to use it.
Timing is everything. So when the bull***t factor amplifies due to some jaunt where they all fly around the world to tell us not to, using expensive and large limos to travel around in whilst telling us not to etc THEN this person releases info to damn them all...... As for not prosecuting them - if I get to power they will be, no matter how long it takes.
chris watton said:
Yet another great read from Pointman's blog:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-cl...
"The Climate Wars."
Thoroughly absorbing read, that.http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-cl...
"The Climate Wars."
bigdog3 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Only if you spell it correctly...
skeptic (or sceptic)
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
sceptic
Pronunciation: /ˈskɛptɪk/
( archaic & North American skeptic)
So there, Mr Archaic Bigdog III...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff