Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
hidetheelephants said:
LongQ said:
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
I heard it too; it's available on iplayer here.Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
Seems like I heard all of it bar the first few seconds.
Quite why the "interviewer" decided to harp on about Brexit at the end was a puzzle. I got the impression that Walport was not impressed with that approach and wanted to stick with science based questions rather than drift into the political trap.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Soundbites versus knowledge do seem to appeal to you
The soundbites that matter here were in the Independent.In heneral terms, engaging with true believers has its price, but this is well worth paying, and in turn I could add that otherwise vacuous personal angles devoid of substance appeal to you - evidence is in the post above. If you check out the Independent with a spot of personal research you'll find that my description may lack something but only in terms of not conveying the levels of baseless hysteria sufficiently.
As to your personal angle, you would know if you'd been around PH climate threads for the last fifteen years or thereabouts, that unmolested credible data and sound science appeal to me, they are after all the basis for my position on agw bunk and on unworkable renewables, but surely you must also realise that this is the politics thread in a highly politicised arena so it's a case of being up close with political animals (dogs, often on string) and there are fleas around.
The alternative to unmolested credible data and sound science consists of junkscience, appeals to (a false) consensus, appeals to authority, selectivity, simplified dramatic statements, sacrificing truth for what's seen as being effective, and of course the occasional personal angle as per your post. Same old!
Meanwhile, back on the topic of climate politics, there's a note over on the political blog Climate Depot relating to a request for Trump to go further than withdraw from the Paris boondoggle outcome. A group of 300 scientists are asking President Trump to withdraw the United States from the United Nations’ climate change agency.
The group is led by climatologist Prof Richard Lindzen. The letter to Trump and Vice President Pence pointed out that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are not as harmful as most climate scientists say.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” the letter reads.
“While we support effective, affordable, reasonable and direct controls on conventional environmental pollutants, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” it says. “To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.”
The U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty that was established in 1992 and signed by more than 150 countries. The treaty requires countries to make certain annual disclosures about their greenhouse gas emissions, among other requirements.
It is under the treaty that leaders in 2015 wrote the Paris agreement, which includes non-binding emissions reductions.
Trump has vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement. But shortly after the November election, Reuters reported that some advisers were exploring a pullout from the 1992 treaty altogether.
The group is led by climatologist Prof Richard Lindzen. The letter to Trump and Vice President Pence pointed out that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are not as harmful as most climate scientists say.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” the letter reads.
“While we support effective, affordable, reasonable and direct controls on conventional environmental pollutants, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” it says. “To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.”
The U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty that was established in 1992 and signed by more than 150 countries. The treaty requires countries to make certain annual disclosures about their greenhouse gas emissions, among other requirements.
It is under the treaty that leaders in 2015 wrote the Paris agreement, which includes non-binding emissions reductions.
Trump has vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement. But shortly after the November election, Reuters reported that some advisers were exploring a pullout from the 1992 treaty altogether.
Vizsla said:
"In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally know someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others"
Further to this, I managed to find a record in my files of an item from Stanford University Prof J Ioannidis who wrote an article in 2005 with the title “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”The points made by Ioannidis were that scientists initially “fool themselves” in their search to find something that can be published. Then once the move has been made it's not possible to backtrack. The reality is that most scientific enquiry merely confirm what is already known / isn't fit for publication / will not lead to grant-funding, prizes and promotions.
With support from fashion and political largesse, this general point has been taken to extremes in terms of climate politics as revealed by the two sets of Climategate emails.
Here's some good news for a change, they'll make a fortune!
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
Andy Zarse said:
Here's some good news for a change, they'll make a fortune!
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
So, when the subsidies are removed from windy mills, and the business collapses, all these pension funds will go down the plug hole. Has NEST chief investment officer (CIO) Mark Fawcett any idea what’s happening in Australia? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/sa-power-wha... & http://theconversation.com/turnbull-turns-south-au... How do these fhttp://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
kwits ever get into such jobs/positions?PS
Nearly forgot Germany. http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/13/germanys-on-the-... & http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/02/were...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
robinessex said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
so no facts to back up what I asked the other day. Fair enough....
Wow! 21 posts, mostly pointless, in 9 days ! I presume you've read all the 1528 pages on this thread, so you are fully informed, thus up to date with the discussion?And I am sure that you've all got far better knowledge and researchers than the huge investment banks and funds. I'll leave you all to all lambast away.
robinessex said:
Andy Zarse said:
Here's some good news for a change, they'll make a fortune!
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
So, when the subsidies are removed from windy mills, and the business collapses, all these pension funds will go down the plug hole. Has NEST chief investment officer (CIO) Mark Fawcett any idea what’s happening in Australia? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/sa-power-wha... & http://theconversation.com/turnbull-turns-south-au... How do these fhttp://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
kwits ever get into such jobs/positions?PS
Nearly forgot Germany. http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/13/germanys-on-the-... & http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/02/were...
Comment taken from Climate Depot on changes underway stateside regarding winding in EPA necks:
"No longer do we have to hear EPA officials and administration officials in power talk about how EPA climate regulations will somehow alter a path of storms or global temperature when they won't even impact global CO2 levels"
Realistic. What a refreshing change!
"No longer do we have to hear EPA officials and administration officials in power talk about how EPA climate regulations will somehow alter a path of storms or global temperature when they won't even impact global CO2 levels"
Realistic. What a refreshing change!
It will be interesting to see how new EPA boss Scott Pruitt deals with the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement. I assume he will tackle the former first as domestic, but considering his entire staff will not be that "enthused" to help him due to his previous 14 litigations against the department he now runs, and also that Donald has two other big things to sort in the next 3 months
Tax reform
Obamacare reform
As well as walls and immigration, it does make me wonder how much effort will be put into climate, at least in the short term.
Tax reform
Obamacare reform
As well as walls and immigration, it does make me wonder how much effort will be put into climate, at least in the short term.
powerstroke said:
turbobloke said:
¿Qué?
Just more personal angle stuff and a flounce, nothing to see here.
I think you will find a certain member of the community is riding the subsidy gravy train Just more personal angle stuff and a flounce, nothing to see here.
ks you just pulled out of your arse with no evidence whatever"
3 out of 10 for that comment, and that's just me being generous as I am a big softy at heart.
turbobloke said:
Comment taken from Climate Depot on changes underway stateside regarding winding in EPA necks:
"No longer do we have to hear EPA officials and administration officials in power talk about how EPA climate regulations will somehow alter a path of storms or global temperature when they won't even impact global CO2 levels"
Realistic. What a refreshing change!
And all that money saved too so far from the hard working US citizen."No longer do we have to hear EPA officials and administration officials in power talk about how EPA climate regulations will somehow alter a path of storms or global temperature when they won't even impact global CO2 levels"
Realistic. What a refreshing change!
Approximately $0 or in cents, 0 cents.
Let's see some action not words.
To misquote Donald, Lets Make America Dirty Again.
As for quoting from blogs, then you might as well quote from one of those rolls of bog paper that has "quotes of the day on it" as both are something connected to wiping your arse with.
Can you start quoting proper news sources Turbobloke? You will have us putting stone cladding on the thread at this rate and having an outside toilet. Cheers.
Can you start quoting proper news sources Turbobloke? You will have us putting stone cladding on the thread at this rate and having an outside toilet. Cheers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff