Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
robinessex said:
I have a parrott at home. He has quite an extensive repertoire of phrases. You can hold what appears to be an intelligent converstion with him. He does of course repeat himself eventually. He reminds me of someone who posts here frequently. I wonder who that is ?
Turbobloke, presumably, since he posts the same phrases on pretty much every page of this thread.durbster said:
And the same goes the other way e.g. the tiresome 1970s global cooling myth (which is what triggered my latest round of slurs) has been dealt with before but it keeps coming back.
You keep repeating this and blaming it all on the Media and you might be right. After all we could just as well blame the more recent "Global Warming" meme on the Media representation since I seriously doubt that anyone, including politicians, will have read the proposing papers let alone be in a position to understand them eno9ugh to make an informed decision. Indeed one might suggest that is true of some of the authors as well - which is why they are reluctant to be challenged.I think the "changists", who at the time might have gone either way since competing papers were proposing both severe cooling and warming according to your guidance, learned a lot about the political manipulation of the "Media" and have subsequently used that and other factors to their advantage.
As someone who remembers the period in question I was strongly influenced into believing that there was a threat of sever cooling to consider though sceptical that the world as we knew it would end by 1980 or whatever the incredibly short change period was stated to be. I cannot remember a single mention about the threat of warming. Not one.
So either the Warmists were very poor at getting their message across or the coldists were especially good at getting their message across and making sure the Warmists failed to do the same.
Clearly the coldists were wrong and needed to jump ship quickly. The warmist boat was floating around dead in the water but laden with treasure - so they jumped ship adopted the treasure and deployed the self promotional and outsider suppressant tactics that they had developed to deal with the media using the cooling meme. It seem to have worked for them for about 40 years so far.
If you want to rewrite that period of history in your mind I can't stop you and it's your decision about whether or not you are being honest with yourself. However don't try to tell me that I am wrong about my understanding of what BS was being fed to the world back in the 70s.
You may even like to contemplate why that example - and a number of other scientific advances that subsequently became embarrassments (often medical in nature) - provided a solid basis for scepticism in later life. Such a trait is, to my mind, ever more vital as the world of politics plummets further and further into an amoral abyss pulling everything it uses for support with it.
The 70s cooling thing being denied using a reverse bandwagon strategy is a non-starter and another form of argumentum ad populum mixed with consensus gentium. The logical fallacies arise because the mere fact that a belief or idea is taken up by any number of people, including scientists, matters not one jot as regards anything else. A large pack of intelligent fools can be wrong - see IPCC & Disciples.
The other totally obvious point is that back in the 70s even climate scientists had one eye on the data and before there could be any political patronage and increase in funding to spur research, solar eruptivity picked up again and after a short lag a period of modest (in rate and extent) natural warming started which would have made coolists back then look as silly as warmists do today.
The other totally obvious point is that back in the 70s even climate scientists had one eye on the data and before there could be any political patronage and increase in funding to spur research, solar eruptivity picked up again and after a short lag a period of modest (in rate and extent) natural warming started which would have made coolists back then look as silly as warmists do today.
You may even like to contemplate why that example - and a number of other scientific advances that subsequently became embarrassments (often medical in nature) - provided a solid basis for scepticism in later life. Such a trait is, to my mind, ever more vital as the world of politics plummets further and further into an amoral abyss pulling everything it uses for support with it.
Yes, think this qualifies. Anyone remember Mad Cow disease ?
Humans can’t get mad cow disease
For all the fuss over mad cow disease, otherwise known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), it’s actually not transmittable to humans. Those mad cows can, however, contract a form of the disease that is transmittable to humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which, although technically not mad cow, is just as unpleasant and deadly. The strain is always fatal in cows, and usually fatal in humans within 13 months of symptoms occurring.
The Don of Croy said:
I remember the fuss - not so in school - but at the time the 'Chariots of the Gods' was a much better story (Erich von Daniken) delving into pseudo-science, alongside Yuri Geller spoon bending on every TV show.
Ah, the Seventies...beige loon pants and bri-nylon furniture, and surprisingly warm summers (now why was that?).
There was a Dr Who serial referring to it as well Ah, the Seventies...beige loon pants and bri-nylon furniture, and surprisingly warm summers (now why was that?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ice_Warriors
Looking at it another way, let's not forget that there was a previous global warming movement in the 30s that got curtailed by the 1940s start of cooling. The only difference with the recent (as was, prior to morphing into another name) warming movement closer to today is that, instead of reacting to the data as happened back then, we get global warming turned into climate change and "the data don't matter" - and adjustments such as SST buoy-to-ship (plus the rest) are made to keep the myth-hoax rolling along.
By the time that ~19 years of stasis hit home and likely imminent cooling started in 2005/2006 (see below) the political patronage had built up over three decades rather than barely one, a whole host of unnecessary and damaging legislation / policies have been enacted, and the egg on face factor is so great that politicians and scientists must be hoping to retire and then leave the planet before the planet's data hits back and shows them up as the ignorant and deluded individuals that they are.
This is the data (below), a measure of solar eruptivity, that's convincing many scientists that a deep 'grand minimum' is potentially on the way. See step change down to a low in 2005/2006 and then down again. Solar eruptivity is more important as a climate forcing than solar irradiance but, surprisingly, eruptivity is ignored/dismissed by IPCC types while irradiance is considered; despite the wealth of data available and the well-known paper from Shaviv. Interpreting this type of chart wouldn't be included in PPE degrees, unfortunately
By the time that ~19 years of stasis hit home and likely imminent cooling started in 2005/2006 (see below) the political patronage had built up over three decades rather than barely one, a whole host of unnecessary and damaging legislation / policies have been enacted, and the egg on face factor is so great that politicians and scientists must be hoping to retire and then leave the planet before the planet's data hits back and shows them up as the ignorant and deluded individuals that they are.
This is the data (below), a measure of solar eruptivity, that's convincing many scientists that a deep 'grand minimum' is potentially on the way. See step change down to a low in 2005/2006 and then down again. Solar eruptivity is more important as a climate forcing than solar irradiance but, surprisingly, eruptivity is ignored/dismissed by IPCC types while irradiance is considered; despite the wealth of data available and the well-known paper from Shaviv. Interpreting this type of chart wouldn't be included in PPE degrees, unfortunately
robinessex said:
You may even like to contemplate why that example - and a number of other scientific advances that subsequently became embarrassments (often medical in nature) - provided a solid basis for scepticism in later life. Such a trait is, to my mind, ever more vital as the world of politics plummets further and further into an amoral abyss pulling everything it uses for support with it.
Yes, think this qualifies. Anyone remember Mad Cow disease ?
Humans can’t get mad cow disease
For all the fuss over mad cow disease, otherwise known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), it’s actually not transmittable to humans. Those mad cows can, however, contract a form of the disease that is transmittable to humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which, although technically not mad cow, is just as unpleasant and deadly. The strain is always fatal in cows, and usually fatal in humans within 13 months of symptoms occurring.
Except that's not quite the truth either. I was heavily involved in the meat industry at the time and wrote a number of articles on the subject. Variant CJD was the cobble together to explain why things weren't working in the way that the official science said it should. (sound familiar) Yes, think this qualifies. Anyone remember Mad Cow disease ?
Humans can’t get mad cow disease
For all the fuss over mad cow disease, otherwise known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), it’s actually not transmittable to humans. Those mad cows can, however, contract a form of the disease that is transmittable to humans called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which, although technically not mad cow, is just as unpleasant and deadly. The strain is always fatal in cows, and usually fatal in humans within 13 months of symptoms occurring.
I'll not derail the thread, but the REAL answer to MCD lay in the missuse of organophosphates to treat warble fly in cattle...
durbster said:
Or maybe you are.
i do not mind being brainwashed on the path to enlightenment if a human causal signal can ever be identified for global climate change i will be among the first to admit to being wrong .it would not be the first time i have been wrong so no worries on my part.now about all that warming we have supposedly been having. a few years back i did a bit of travelling with work. i just assumed i was unlucky when it came to the weather at whatever location i ended up in. hell even in thailand it was cooler than the norm when i was there. i was reading this today ,looks like other people seem to have the same luck with the weather as i do. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Or maybe you are.
i do not mind being brainwashed on the path to enlightenment if a human causal signal can ever be identified for global climate change i will be among the first to admit to being wrong .it would not be the first time i have been wrong so no worries on my part.wc98 said:
durbster said:
Or maybe you are.
i do not mind being brainwashed on the path to enlightenment if a human causal signal can ever be identified for global climate change i will be among the first to admit to being wrong .it would not be the first time i have been wrong so no worries on my part.now about all that warming we have supposedly been having. a few years back i did a bit of travelling with work. i just assumed i was unlucky when it came to the weather at whatever location i ended up in. hell even in thailand it was cooler than the norm when i was there. i was reading this today ,looks like other people seem to have the same luck with the weather as i do. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
turbobloke said:
Looking at it another way, let's not forget that there was a previous global warming movement in the 30s that got curtailed by the 1940s start of cooling. The only difference with the recent (as was, prior to morphing into another name) warming movement closer to today is that, instead of reacting to the data as happened back then, we get global warming turned into climate change and "the data don't matter" - and adjustments such as SST buoy-to-ship (plus the rest) are made to keep the myth-hoax rolling along.
By the time that ~19 years of stasis hit home and likely imminent cooling started in 2005/2006 (see below) the political patronage had built up over three decades rather than barely one, a whole host of unnecessary and damaging legislation / policies have been enacted, and the egg on face factor is so great that politicians and scientists must be hoping to retire and then leave the planet before the planet's data hits back and shows them up as the ignorant and deluded individuals that they are.
This is the data (below), a measure of solar eruptivity, that's convincing many scientists that a deep 'grand minimum' is potentially on the way. See step change down to a low in 2005/2006 and then down again. Solar eruptivity is more important as a climate forcing than solar irradiance but, surprisingly, eruptivity is ignored/dismissed by IPCC types while irradiance is considered; despite the wealth of data available and the well-known paper from Shaviv. Interpreting this type of chart wouldn't be included in PPE degrees, unfortunately
But, but, but El Nino...!By the time that ~19 years of stasis hit home and likely imminent cooling started in 2005/2006 (see below) the political patronage had built up over three decades rather than barely one, a whole host of unnecessary and damaging legislation / policies have been enacted, and the egg on face factor is so great that politicians and scientists must be hoping to retire and then leave the planet before the planet's data hits back and shows them up as the ignorant and deluded individuals that they are.
This is the data (below), a measure of solar eruptivity, that's convincing many scientists that a deep 'grand minimum' is potentially on the way. See step change down to a low in 2005/2006 and then down again. Solar eruptivity is more important as a climate forcing than solar irradiance but, surprisingly, eruptivity is ignored/dismissed by IPCC types while irradiance is considered; despite the wealth of data available and the well-known paper from Shaviv. Interpreting this type of chart wouldn't be included in PPE degrees, unfortunately
turbobloke said:
mondeoman said:
But, but, but El Nino...!
Ocean-atmosphere coupling from here...La Nina ftw.
(Whatever a "watershed" is. Something like my neighbour's shed roof where the ancient roof felt abandoned all pretence of acting as protection a few weeks back? He seems happy enough to leave it that way for now.)
wc98 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Is Dr Viner taking questions right now, or hiding in a cupboard?
Under a glacier apparently, as initially revealed by Sean Thomas at the DT via chris watton iirc.
Sean Thomas said:
Whither the weather? As you may have heard, a conference of national forecasters assembled this week in Exeter: to discuss the future of the British climate, following the spate of harsher than expected winters, and unusually wet summers, since 2007.
Already, commentators are asking if global warming is to blame. In particular, some are wondering if the direction of the Jet Stream is being altered by Arctic ice melt. Others are speculating that natural variations, such as the “Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation”, might be responsible for recent evolutions.
However, most of this reportage has been second-hand. Unprecedentedly, I had direct access to the meteorologists concerned, as I was in Exeter in spirit form, and I managed to speak to the principal actors.
First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.
When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”
It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.
So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event".
However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.
Already, commentators are asking if global warming is to blame. In particular, some are wondering if the direction of the Jet Stream is being altered by Arctic ice melt. Others are speculating that natural variations, such as the “Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation”, might be responsible for recent evolutions.
However, most of this reportage has been second-hand. Unprecedentedly, I had direct access to the meteorologists concerned, as I was in Exeter in spirit form, and I managed to speak to the principal actors.
First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.
When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”
It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.
So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event".
However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.
LongQ said:
Are you allowed to type "coupling" before the watershed?
It may be politically incorrect but that makes it correct for a politics thread at any time of the day or night http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/3/mo...
The Moonbat out-Moonbats himself....
Comments well worth a read.
The Moonbat out-Moonbats himself....
Comments well worth a read.
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/3/mo...
The Moonbat out-Moonbats himself....
Comments well worth a read.
Definitely. A free sample follows The Moonbat out-Moonbats himself....
Comments well worth a read.
Comment said:
Monbiot is in my view desperately sad. It's academic jealousy because the old Stoics of his era had to compete with Grammar School meritocrats. These low CE score fascists have for decades been destroying meritocracy as they try to return the country to a wild state with a much reduced population of serfs. Don't underestimate them.
Perfectly judged for a former Visiting Fellow at a (Green) College in Oxford
andymadmak said:
Except that's not quite the truth either. I was heavily involved in the meat industry at the time and wrote a number of articles on the subject. Variant CJD was the cobble together to explain why things weren't working in the way that the official science said it should. (sound familiar)
I'll not derail the thread, but the REAL answer to MCD lay in the missuse of organophosphates to treat warble fly in cattle...
Totally OT, but I've never read or heard about that; bad science gets about.I'll not derail the thread, but the REAL answer to MCD lay in the missuse of organophosphates to treat warble fly in cattle...
CSIRO, the Australian Science research centre, is closing down its climate research programme because "the science is settled", so no more research is needed.
This is hilarious. 350 jobs to go, apparently.
[url]http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
[/quote]
I wonder how long before they tell us that the science is not settled?
This is hilarious. 350 jobs to go, apparently.
[url]http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/
[/quote]
I wonder how long before they tell us that the science is not settled?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff