Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[Blib]

Anti-capitalism and an imaginary utopia where everyone lives as an equal, wisely and benevolently guided by the handmaidens of Mother Earth.

Of course, a system akin to Orwell's Animal Farm is what emerges whenever a Socialist paradise is practiced.

[London424]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2167...

I wonder what stupid decision they will come up with this time that will no doubt cost more money than it saves while also ballsing up something else.

They are masters of unintended consequences.

[AJI]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/991...

Tide turning for one of the media websites?
They started off the week with a barrage of pro-warming stories. Now on Wednesday they issue this one from the other side of the debate.
But I do note that they portray the failure of the policy due to the fact that not all countries are signed up to the cuts, rather that the whole policy and having to cut in the first place is based up on a religious belief.

[BliarOut]

AJI said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/991...

Tide turning for one of the media websites?
They started off the week with a barrage of pro-warming stories. Now on Wednesday they issue this one.
But I do not that they portray the failure of the policy due to the fact that not all countries are signed up to the cuts, rather that the whole policy and having to cut in the first place is based up on a religious belief.

The comments sections certainly don't seem to support the MMGW myth these days.

[AJI]

BliarOut said:

The comments sections certainly don't seem to support the MMGW myth these days.

Yeah you're right on that one.

I notice every 'climate change' story they run is met with dismay and disapproval. (Quite rightly).

It seems the public are fully aware of the scam, but the editors and the media's position still wants to tow the government line.

What I don't get is that much of the media is prepared to attack Labour, Conservative, LibDem, UKIP etc. etc. on many different issues, but still seem to be very friendly to government policy regarding MMGW.

[kerplunk]

Bacardi said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

Undoubtedly, yes. Everyone needs a hobby - let me know when you're through peering up my ass

The one you sit on or the one that generates your utterances?

Ouch.... but so accurate

mybrainhurts said:

Imagine a world full of 'Plunkies...

This might make it so...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/5/or...

Scary, but not surprising, Goebbels would be so proud.

My question to the likes of the Plunkies in this world is.... why?

Why, after nearly two decades of prophecies which have completely failed, or to be more accurate, have done a reversal of all the predictions, weather or climate. What is in it for you? What's the point in trying to convince us that AGW or CC is real (only in computer models with fudged data) when the observational evidence shows nothing? Is your hobby just to look like a weapons grade tit?

Edited by Bacardi on Wednesday 6th March 01:31

You love it.

Why is a somewhat moving target. The last several times I came onto this thread was because my name was invoked. Seems like people WANT to hear from me. More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

Bacardi said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

Undoubtedly, yes. Everyone needs a hobby - let me know when you're through peering up my ass

The one you sit on or the one that generates your utterances?

Ouch.... but so accurate

mybrainhurts said:

Imagine a world full of 'Plunkies...

This might make it so...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/5/or...

Scary, but not surprising, Goebbels would be so proud.

My question to the likes of the Plunkies in this world is.... why?

Why, after nearly two decades of prophecies which have completely failed, or to be more accurate, have done a reversal of all the predictions, weather or climate. What is in it for you? What's the point in trying to convince us that AGW or CC is real (only in computer models with fudged data) when the observational evidence shows nothing? Is your hobby just to look like a weapons grade tit?

Edited by Bacardi on Wednesday 6th March 01:31

You love it.

Why is a somewhat moving target. The last several times I came onto this thread was because my name was invoked. Seems like people WANT to hear from me. More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

You're the denier round here

No, it is warming. Really...


You've got a bad case of the King's new clothes mate

[chris watton]

kerplunk said:

Nothing of note.....

…Spoken like a true recipient of tax payer funding…..

[kerplunk]

chris watton said:

kerplunk said:

Nothing of note.....

…Spoken like a true recipient of tax payer funding…..

huh? what's this? - more made-up bullst?

[AnonSpoilsport]

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. Risk assess it. Cost it.

You won't. You can't.

You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

[kerplunk]

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. risk assess it. You won't. You can't. You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

The radiative forcing from GHGs is well established science and it's been quantified. The ball is in the court of those who say it ain't so. But of course people who say it ain't so are thin on the ground in the science community - they're mainly blowhards on internet fora at the extreme end of AGW-denial who have had zero impact on the current level of scientific understanding.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. risk assess it. You won't. You can't. You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

The radiative forcing from GHGs is well established science and it's been quantified. The ball is in the court of those who say it ain't so. But of course people who say it ain't so are thin on the ground in the science community - they're mainly blowhards on internet fora at the extreme end of AGW-denial who have had zero impact on the current level of scientific understanding.

Denial?

In case you haven't noticed all the models are not just wrong, but spectacularly so. It AINT GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

Now who is in denial?

[kerplunk]

BliarOut said:

kerplunk said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. risk assess it. You won't. You can't. You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

The radiative forcing from GHGs is well established science and it's been quantified. The ball is in the court of those who say it ain't so. But of course people who say it ain't so are thin on the ground in the science community - they're mainly blowhards on internet fora at the extreme end of AGW-denial who have had zero impact on the current level of scientific understanding.

Denial?

In case you haven't noticed all the models are not just wrong, but spectacularly so. It AINT GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.

I've said so much on this already I doubt your ability to 'get it' - it's either inability to understand or wilful incomprehension.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

BliarOut said:

kerplunk said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. risk assess it. You won't. You can't. You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

The radiative forcing from GHGs is well established science and it's been quantified. The ball is in the court of those who say it ain't so. But of course people who say it ain't so are thin on the ground in the science community - they're mainly blowhards on internet fora at the extreme end of AGW-denial who have had zero impact on the current level of scientific understanding.

Denial?

In case you haven't noticed all the models are not just wrong, but spectacularly so. It AINT GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.

I've said so much on this already I doubt your ability to 'get it' - it's either inability to understand or wilful incomprehension.

I AIN'T GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

What part of that don't you understand?

Let's break it down into simple steps.

Supposed scientists produce sooper dooper 'models' that predict it's gonna get warmer.

It doesn't get warmer.

Predictions are wrong.

See, I get it, I'm afraid it's you that's having a comprehension breakdown Palooka...

[Blib]

kerplunk said:

So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.

So, you'll agree that there's no need to worry about a forcing that is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by other natural factors.

Thank goodness for that, Kerplunk. I had you down as a hysterical chicken licken kinda guy.

[kerplunk]

BliarOut said:

I AIN'T GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

What part of that don't you understand?

Let's break it down into simple steps.

Supposed scientists produce sooper dooper 'models' that predict it's gonna get warmer.

It doesn't get warmer.

Predictions are wrong.

See, I get it, I'm afraid it's you that's having a comprehension breakdown Palooka...

You need to read this sentence again and try and absorb it:

"AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs."

Models = sensitivity issue.

[Blib]

kerplunk said:

Models = sensitivity issue.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

BliarOut said:

I AIN'T GETTING WARMER PLUNKY.

What part of that don't you understand?

Let's break it down into simple steps.

Supposed scientists produce sooper dooper 'models' that predict it's gonna get warmer.

It doesn't get warmer.

Predictions are wrong.

See, I get it, I'm afraid it's you that's having a comprehension breakdown Palooka...

You need to read this sentence again and try and absorb it:

"AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs."

Models = sensitivity issue.

And you, my friend, need to read this (extremely simple) sentence and absorb it.

It ain't getting any fking warmer...

M'kay?

[kerplunk]

Blib said:

kerplunk said:

So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.

So, you'll agree that there's no need to worry about a forcing that is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by other natural factors.

Thank goodness for that, Kerplunk. I had you down as a hysterical chicken licken kinda guy.

No I can't agree to that, sorry. There might be no need to worry but that's not established by the current temp plateau (yet).

Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

Blib said:

kerplunk said:

So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.

So, you'll agree that there's no need to worry about a forcing that is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by other natural factors.

Thank goodness for that, Kerplunk. I had you down as a hysterical chicken licken kinda guy.

No I can't agree to that, sorry. There might be no need to worry but that's not established by the current temp plateau (yet).

Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?

You mean it's the nature of the planet to warm and cool all by itself? Well fk my old boots, who'da thought it.