Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
I can only wonder what you think this proves beyond the existence of research into various aspects of climate.
Er, great. Of course there is. That's how science works. That's a good thing. It shows the field is healthy.
But you seem to be heralding this as the only research we should listen to for some reason i.e. picking out the small parts that you agree with while completely ignoring the vast majority.
Nice try to twist it, but fatuous. I've never suggested a clear division in the scientific body of work on climate change, let alone advocated primacy. I was responding to your position that the science is settled and clearly supports AGW, and you've been shown conclusively that it isn't, that it is YOU that has ignored challenging alternative opinions, and you've just tacitly accepted it, and then projected your own confirmation bias onto me. Astounding.Er, great. Of course there is. That's how science works. That's a good thing. It shows the field is healthy.
But you seem to be heralding this as the only research we should listen to for some reason i.e. picking out the small parts that you agree with while completely ignoring the vast majority.
The problem is that the IPCC is only interested in AGW confirmation, its conclusions exaggerate the weight of one side of the scientific literature, and politicians and green activists have now become completely decoupled from what even the IPCC says, and the result is the endless diatribe of sci-fi doomsday climate change porn stories masquerading as news/science on the BBC and other MSM.
durbster said:
Again, you're undermining your own arguments. If the global data is deliberately corrupted to create non-existent warming, it begs the question: why not do the same to the Antarctic?
Another poor effort to twist things. Just because some data has self-evidently been manipulated by some very prominent people/institutions does not for one second mean that all data and all research from all sources is poor or corrupt. As far as I'm concerned the Antarctica cooling paper is just another paper in the body of work, for all I know the authors are raving sceptics, I haven't judged that. So self-evidently, I cannot possibly undermine my own point. However, plainly, there are some things like satellite data that are less easy to manipulate (not that RSS aren't desperately trying, but UAH limits their hand), and that shows undeniably that Antarctica hasn't warmed since 1979, so a cynic might say that this latest paper was just the usual fodder that is produced on demand to explain away inconvenient facts as 'exactly what is expected' and confirm 'the warming will appear soon'. So nope, my argument and logic is solid, unlike your stinking morass.
So again, you've reconfirmed your total lack of acuity, and your inability to even have an honest discussion.
durbster said:
OK. What's a better solution to addressing the warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than replacing fossil fuels with something else?
That would be fine if that was what was happening, but it isn't; the French unwittingly showed how it should be done 45 years ago. Compare and contrast, the UK has had ~£100bn invested in windpower over 15 years and produces perhaps 5GW and France managed to build 60GW of nuclear power in about 20 years and reputedly for about £52bn corrected for inflation. Which was a better investment and which is a better way to reduce carbon emissions? Windmills are a good way of filling the pockets of the rich at the expense of the proleteriat and a s
t way of making electricity.Mr GrimNasty said:
durbster said:
I can only wonder what you think this proves beyond the existence of research into various aspects of climate.
Er, great. Of course there is. That's how science works. That's a good thing. It shows the field is healthy.
But you seem to be heralding this as the only research we should listen to for some reason i.e. picking out the small parts that you agree with while completely ignoring the vast majority.
Nice try to twist it, but fatuous. I've never suggested a clear division in the scientific body of work on climate change, let alone advocated primacy. I was responding to your position that the science is settled and clearly supports AGW, and you've been shown conclusively that it isn'tEr, great. Of course there is. That's how science works. That's a good thing. It shows the field is healthy.
But you seem to be heralding this as the only research we should listen to for some reason i.e. picking out the small parts that you agree with while completely ignoring the vast majority.
As for your list, well it appears to be predominantly made up of papers written by authors funded by Exxon.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysing-the-900-paper...
And even so, the criteria for inclusion is not that they dispute or challenge AGW - indeed, some of them explicitly endorse it - but that they are simply studying non-anthropogenic effects on the climate. That's not the same as challenging or disputing AGW. In fact it's often good evidence to support it (i.e. we know that solar causes x warming, but we've observed z warming so maybe y = AGW).
Basically, your list is only relevant to somebody that thinks the global temperature is only influenced by man (which nobody does), and only credible if you think research funded by Exxon is reliable.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/using-our-paper-to-supp...
Besides, even if it were what the headline erroneously claims, it is still a small number of papers compared to the numer that endorse AGW, so the weight of evidence is still against you.
So no, you haven't shown anything conclusively and your confidence in your position is in no way validated with the strength of your argument.
You seem to think the mere existence of a web page with a headline makes it eligible to be considered absolute proof. What they've actually done is cherry pick some papers and put a dubious spin on it. You've somehow concluded this is the only research that exists then presented it all as if it were fact. I'm sure anyone looking on objectively will find it as laughable as I do.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The problem is that the IPCC is only interested in AGW confirmation, its conclusions exaggerate the weight of one side of the scientific literature
Speculation. The opposite is true according to every study done on it.Mr GrimNasty said:
durbster said:
Again, you're undermining your own arguments. If the global data is deliberately corrupted to create non-existent warming, it begs the question: why not do the same to the Antarctic?
Another poor effort to twist things. Just because some data has self-evidently been manipulated by some very prominent people/institutions does not for one second mean that all data and all research from all sources is poor or corrupt.Mr GrimNasty said:
However, plainly, there are some things like satellite data that are less easy to manipulate (not that RSS aren't desperately trying, but UAH limits their hand), and that shows undeniably that Antarctica hasn't warmed since 1979, so a cynic might say that this latest paper was just the usual fodder that is produced on demand to explain away inconvenient facts as 'exactly what is expected' and confirm 'the warming will appear soon'. So nope, my argument and logic is solid, unlike your stinking morass.
Bizarre. When the data shows cooling it's fine, but when the data that shows warming (which it all does - including the very same satellite data) it is corrupt and fraudulent. You're tying yourself up in knots. Just face it, none of the data supports your argument but rather than admit you're wrong, you've decided you're still right and everyone else must be corrupt.hidetheelephants said:
That would be fine if that was what was happening, but it isn't; the French unwittingly showed how it should be done 45 years ago. Compare and contrast, the UK has had ~£100bn invested in windpower over 15 years and produces perhaps 5GW and France managed to build 60GW of nuclear power in about 20 years and reputedly for about £52bn corrected for inflation. Which was a better investment and which is a better way to reduce carbon emissions? Windmills are a good way of filling the pockets of the rich at the expense of the proleteriat and a st way of making electricity.
I agree. We should have built more nuclear power stations in the UK and be spending the money saved on renewable research rather than massive deployment of today's dubious technology. However, that's a local answer, not a global one. Encouraging the world to take eight steps towards the ten required for nuclear weapons isn't very sensible...t way of making electricity.durbster said:
El Guapo said:
Not sure if serious
Completely serious. People say that, then point to random blogs, public opinion or one highly dubious survey done in the 90s years ago. What other evidence is there?There's zero indication in science media of AGW being at all controversial, no credible scientific institutions dispute it, and every single peer-reviewed study on scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in support. Every time the notion that AGW is subject to some great dispute is tested, it comes back false.
Which means the skepticism seems to exist exclusively in the world of website comments sections and internet blogs (which, more often than not, are written by people who aren't scientists).
TX.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Hundreds of "media" "news" retailers publish a press release storm because they know a good "scare" story sells views.
Err, yeah, maybe, but you've missed the point.Hundreds of "media" "news" retailers publish a press release storm because they know a good "scare" story sells views.
"The oft-repeated claim that the BBC is the only media outlet running climate change stories as part of a concerted propaganda campaign is b
ks, proven by the simple fact that pretty much every media outlet across the world runs the same stories."News" media are, typically commercial operations. (If not they are likely to be state propaganda outlets ....)
They "print" what they think will attract readers and therefore advertising revenue. In the old days that might have meant reader subscriptions but they are likely less important these days in terms of generating enough revenue to run the operation.
They also print what their owners want to see printed. So in some cases one might think of them as Private rather than State Propaganda outlets.
The BBC, on the other hand, is meant to be an impartial organisation offering even handed reports - especially for mainstream matters of broad public interest.
It has a commercial aspect although not for "news".
Most of its funding comes from the public purse and is, in effect, a form of taxation though no government would wish for it to be seen that way.
Although governments want to be seen to be giving the BBC its independence in effect they cannot do that because they control the legal matters that support the demand for the tax payments that provide the organisations budget. They also run the risk that by abandoning all control the organisation will be taken over by people who are anti-government (of any hue) and that is not a risk that a government can accept when any form of propaganda is at risk.
The BBC has a particular set of guidelines for its Charter and it reasonable to expect them to stick to them when you consider the scale of the operation and the size of the salaries involved.
But of course you know all of that don't you!
So you set up a straw man ("The oft-repeated claim that the BBC is the only media outlet running climate change stories as part of a concerted propaganda campaign ....") that reads like a cut and paste from a BBC web site. Quite why you decide to include "the only" in the sentence is not clear, unless it is to puff the straw man into a larger target to give you a chance to hit it.
We don't need to run all the way through this subject again do we? There seems to be little point in doing so. I get the impression you are determined to ignore any suggestions that there may be alternative views (compared to yours) that deserve consideration.
In the world of wider science alternative views are usually tolerated and discussed.
In areas of science that are populated by scientists who enjoy the internal politics that can abound things may not be so clear cut and the discussions may take a career or two to come to something useful. Scientific careers, in terms of influence of thought, can be long.
In area of politics the subjects are less balanced - especially where there is, for political reasons, no opposition party or parties.
Lack of opposition may mean there is a dictator in control or it may mean that the politicians of all parties are subject to group think and are perhaps only play a game for public consumption. The public will see through that unless they, the politicians, keep throwing up chaff to make the scene less clear on the radar. So they do. It has always happened that way.
They used the media to place the chaff in the public domain. When TV viewing became the norm rather than the exception the UK politicians realised that they had, in the BBC, something that was within their control remit and indeed needed to be controlled to their advantage. That was partly for self preservation to start with but later could be extended to cover active management of things so long as they were not too overtly related to party politics. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell (along with others) saw that coming although they perhaps did not expect the politicians to adopt their predictions as development blueprints.
There were and continue to be attempts to control the rest of the "media". Government control of the "Honours" system seems to suffice for that in the UK. In other countries they may rely on different types of patronage or perhaps terror.
The BBC, however, still stands out as being somewhat "special" in terms of the influence it can be induced to provide both at home and, apparently, in the wider world. That makes it a valuable propaganda tool - though it must never be seen to be such a tool for fear of losing its effectiveness.
durbster said:
Total speculation. There's no evidence of fraud.
fraud or incompetence , you decide. in case you think mcintyre is some "random blogger" , a bit of due diligence might be in order.https://climateaudit.org/2016/07/21/joelle-gergis-...
durbster said:
robinessex said:
How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?
Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...
...and so on.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?
Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...
...and so on.
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?
Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...
...and so on.
Vizsla said:
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?
Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...
...and so on.
Even so there's still more hot air
durbster said:
hidetheelephants said:
That would be fine if that was what was happening, but it isn't; the French unwittingly showed how it should be done 45 years ago. Compare and contrast, the UK has had ~£100bn invested in windpower over 15 years and produces perhaps 5GW and France managed to build 60GW of nuclear power in about 20 years and reputedly for about £52bn corrected for inflation. Which was a better investment and which is a better way to reduce carbon emissions? Windmills are a good way of filling the pockets of the rich at the expense of the proleteriat and a st way of making electricity.
I agree. We should have built more nuclear power stations in the UK and be spending the money saved on renewable research rather than massive deployment of today's dubious technology. However, that's a local answer, not a global one. Encouraging the world to take eight steps towards the ten required for nuclear weapons isn't very sensible...t way of making electricity.hidetheelephants said:
durbster said:
hidetheelephants said:
That would be fine if that was what was happening, but it isn't; the French unwittingly showed how it should be done 45 years ago. Compare and contrast, the UK has had ~£100bn invested in windpower over 15 years and produces perhaps 5GW and France managed to build 60GW of nuclear power in about 20 years and reputedly for about £52bn corrected for inflation. Which was a better investment and which is a better way to reduce carbon emissions? Windmills are a good way of filling the pockets of the rich at the expense of the proleteriat and a st way of making electricity.
I agree. We should have built more nuclear power stations in the UK and be spending the money saved on renewable research rather than massive deployment of today's dubious technology. However, that's a local answer, not a global one. Encouraging the world to take eight steps towards the ten required for nuclear weapons isn't very sensible...t way of making electricity.
Hottest year ever?
Not currently in the Arctic, below average for the melt season if anything.
DMI Arctic ice volume is bang on 10 year average for date, extent same as 5 or so recent years, despite the warm winter - reaffirms decline has stabilized.
Antarctic still stubbornly in denial about the exitence of man-made CO2.
Antarctic ice extent is bang on long term average.
Globally the El Nino heat continues to deny the CO2 and radiate off into space as nature intended to regulate the planet.
Not currently in the Arctic, below average for the melt season if anything.
DMI Arctic ice volume is bang on 10 year average for date, extent same as 5 or so recent years, despite the warm winter - reaffirms decline has stabilized.
Antarctic still stubbornly in denial about the exitence of man-made CO2.
Antarctic ice extent is bang on long term average.
Globally the El Nino heat continues to deny the CO2 and radiate off into space as nature intended to regulate the planet.
JawKnee said:
Firstly, not quite.Link said:
It is the highest temperature ever recorded in the eastern hemisphere and almost certainly the highest temperature ever recorded on earth.
Secondly, in the context of this thread, the record for any location and all locations is very short, and any record achieved has no causality to humans attached to it as a result of being a record.JawKnee said:
No it's not the hottest on record.Lots of others beat it (esp. US & Australia), but crooks like to discard as unreliable whilst keeping jet engine wash enhanced Heathrow readings.
You do realise just about everywhere in Kuwait is normally 45-50C max. this time of year, 55+ must be fairly 'common' just not enough weather stations to capture.
Meanwhile Peru has record cold http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/severe-winte... and snow has fallen on 6 continents in July, even down to 1500m in Europe which is highly unusual.
JawKnee said:
Article said:
But many modern meteorologists are sceptical of the record, arguing that the equipment used at the time was prone to error and not as reliable as modern recording methods.
I wonder how many other historic recordings get ignored due to error prone equipment?Benbay001 said:
JawKnee said:
Article said:
But many modern meteorologists are sceptical of the record, arguing that the equipment used at the time was prone to error and not as reliable as modern recording methods.
I wonder how many other historic recordings get ignored due to error prone equipment?Cooling the past makes the present look warmer, disguises the fact it is was likely as warm c.1940 as it is now, and has erased the c.1940 - c.1980 cooling that caused the 'ice age' scare, giving the impression of a continuous CO2 matching rise in global temps throughout the 20th C.
turbobloke said:
Secondly, in the context of this thread, the record for any location and all locations is very short, and any record achieved has no causality to humans attached to it as a result of being a record.
Records still show trends even if they are relatively short but I'm sure you know that. As we see new records as CO2 continue to rise it only adds weight to the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.Mr GrimNasty said:
No it's not the hottest on record.
Lots of others beat it (esp. US & Australia), but crooks like to discard as unreliable whilst keeping jet engine wash enhanced Heathrow readings.
You do realise just about everywhere in Kuwait is normally 45-50C max. this time of year, 55+ must be fairly 'common' just not enough weather stations to capture.
Meanwhile Peru has record cold http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/severe-winte... and snow has fallen on 6 continents in July, even down to 1500m in Europe which is highly unusual.
You do realise that for temperature readings to be accepted they need to be from stations properly sited so that the readings are as accurate as possible.Lots of others beat it (esp. US & Australia), but crooks like to discard as unreliable whilst keeping jet engine wash enhanced Heathrow readings.
You do realise just about everywhere in Kuwait is normally 45-50C max. this time of year, 55+ must be fairly 'common' just not enough weather stations to capture.
Meanwhile Peru has record cold http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/severe-winte... and snow has fallen on 6 continents in July, even down to 1500m in Europe which is highly unusual.
If 55+ is common in that part of the world you'd think at least one of the stations out there would have recorded 55+ at least one point in the past. I highly suspect 55+ is not common out there.
Record temps in the Middle East at the same time as Peru having record snow. Just shows the global climate is in an unusual state at the moment. Things are not normal. Quite worrying really.
JawKnee said:
You do realise that for temperature readings to be accepted they need to be from stations properly sited so that the readings are as accurate as possible.
If 55+ is common in that part of the world you'd think at least one of the stations out there would have recorded 55+ at least one point in the past. I highly suspect 55+ is not common out there.
Record temps in the Middle East at the same time as Peru having record snow. Just shows the global climate is in an unusual state at the moment. Things are not normal. Quite worrying really.
Properly sited stations, no really, suck eggs grandma, YOUR RECORD was not taken at a long standing station or one recognized by GISS.If 55+ is common in that part of the world you'd think at least one of the stations out there would have recorded 55+ at least one point in the past. I highly suspect 55+ is not common out there.
Record temps in the Middle East at the same time as Peru having record snow. Just shows the global climate is in an unusual state at the moment. Things are not normal. Quite worrying really.
The world is always full of natural extremes. If you want to worry about it just because we have instant connectivity to the remotest places in the world, then more fool you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff