Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Podcasts with Dr Tim Ball and Tony Heller. Well worth a listen.

http://www.podcastone.com/pg/jsp/program/episode.j...

http://www.podcastone.com/pg/jsp/program/episode.j...

[durbster]

wc98 said:

you forget the continued warming was predicted at a particular rate. a rate the tiny amount of warming we did see was no where near.

What rates are you referring to? According to this: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/...

IPCC said:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

wc98 said:

what changes in plants were predicted . you need to be specific here ... animal migration patterns, again you need to be specific. animal migration patterns have varied throughout history

If the planet was warming, it stands to reason that plants and animals would adapt accordingly e.g. birds that migrate are heading further north:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/fu...

And fish stocks are moving as would be expected in response to climate change, according to NOAA (and fishermen):
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/10/butterfis...
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/sci...

That said, I can't find any information on whether these fish, birds and plants are really just gullible left-wing morons who only get their news from the BBC.

wc98 said:

melting of permafrost. in order for biological matter to become perma frozen it had to have been warmer in the region the permafrost exists for the biological matter to grow in the first place.

Err... yes, obviously.

wc98 said:

...what if any , are the problems melting permafrost will cause ? think carefully, very carefully about mentioning methane as there has been some significant discoveries around this in recent times.

I don't know, but you agree it is happening which was the point you were responding to. That's another tick.

wc98 said:

melting of glaciers , generally accepted as a good thing.

That aside, again, you agree it is happening, so that's another correct prediction. Tick.

wc98 said:

arctic ice levels vary in line with the atlantic multi decadal oscillation .

With all due respect, I'll take the conclusions of groups like the National Snow and Ice Data Center over yours, and they say otherwise.

wc98 said:

arctic amplification was an unphysical nonsense when it was first mooted, my thoughts on the topic have not changed. i would appreciate it if you could explain to me how it is supposed to work though.

I've no idea, but (I think) it was expected. Also, I forgot the northern hemisphere warming faster, which was also predicted. Tick. Tick.

wc98 said:

ocean acidification . the notion we can measure the ph of the oceans is about as fanciful...

I didn't think they measured it, but rather simulated the effects of acidification on various sea creatures so they could recognise the symptoms. And 1998 offers some observed evidence too. Here's a paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/ab...

wc98 said:

coral reef damage . due to what ?

And again, you are not contesting this damage has occurred, so another tick. Have another paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/173...

wc98 said:

sea level rise . like global temperatures a particular rate of change was forecast. apparently the rate of rise has not changed and remains around 3 mm per year. this is another area i have doubts about claimed measurement accuracy as physical tide guages used in some of the longest running datasets even show drops in some cases.

I'm also cautious of the accuracy of sea-level measurements (particularly historic) but given the ice situation is more solidly understood and you agree that is happening, basic physics dictate what'll happen to the sea levels. I was hunting around for an objective view on this and saw that insurance companies are certainly preparing for it, and their entire business model is evidence based.

In conclusion, it seems you have largely agreed that those things are happening as predicted.

Could all of these events be natural or have different causes? Of course. Maybe it's just a massive coincidence that they've all happened at exactly the same time, and in the manner that was expected as a response to global warming. Seems unlikely.

I should probably apologise to some posters for the evidence and facts. I know you aren't interested in that stuff but I couldn't find a facile cartoon that covered it all.

[deeps]

BBC News shocker - Coldest Christmas in some parts of Russia for 110 years.

As always - no causality to humans.

[durbster]

Gandahar said:

Dear durbster,

You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.

No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any facts that might upset their worldview.

I know, I know

I suppose I don't really post for their benefit because they are right, the experts are wrong and that's all there is to it. Nothing will change that.

But I love the internet, and it's sad seeing it become increasingly saturated with confusing bullst, so I'm on a crusade for rational thinking.

I'm also not bothered by the bullying, so I don't mind fielding the abuse for others.

[Jasandjules]

deeps said:

BBC News shocker - Coldest Christmas in some parts of Russia for 110 years.

As always - no causality to humans.

Old boy you are making a clear mistake. You see, in Global Warming, if it gets cold it is weather. It is only when something is warmer that it no longer is weather and is AGW...

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

durbster said:

LongQ said:

What on earth is that comment about durbster?

Are you trying to suggest that the British legal system is infallible and has extensive expertise in science?

No, nobody said the British legal system was infallible. What it is, is a system entirely based on around the strength of evidence, and scientific evidence where possible. It is as objective a way to test something as we have available.

But we already know that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. There are some on here that could be sat three metres under the Atlantic and still manage to post a graph stating the sea-levels aren't changing.

You're a real conundrum LQ. Every single time you're presented with solid, subjective evidence that challenges your view, you start looking for some insanely complex reason why it - and not you - must be wrong. I don't know if there's a name for the exact opposite of Occam's razor, but that's what you're doing (when it suits...).



Edit: It's interesting you raised the FOTE thing because I thought the British legal system was in on the conspiracy?

Dear durbster,

You might as well give up, you can lead a horse to water, sorry, herd of donkeys, but you can't make them drink.

No matter what you or I may say, those donkeys have their blinkers on, they ain't going to be changed by any facts that might upset their worldview.

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 8th January 20:32

Early days on the correspondence course for creative writing of insults Gandahar?

Most of the world's worried involved with the climate change course seem to be years ahead of you.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

But I love the internet, and it's sad seeing it become increasingly saturated with confusing bullst, so I'm on a crusade for rational thinking.

...Irony bomb alert

durbster said:

I'm also not bothered by the bullying, so I don't mind fielding the abuse for others.

Tally ho, onward and upward...everything forward and trust in the lord.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

But I love the internet, and it's sad seeing it become increasingly saturated with confusing bullst, so I'm on a crusade for rational thinking.

I'm also not bothered by the bullying, so I don't mind fielding the abuse for others.

Ah, Martyrdom syndrome.

As for the rational thinking - this is the Political thread.

It was always intended to be dealing with the politics of the concerns at hand not the Science angle, though I'm not sure you have ever accepted that idea.

Your science wishes may well encompass the concept of rational thinking in the way the our expectations of scientists hope for just such outcomes and, across the spectrum of science, those expectation are mostly fulfilled.

The "rational thinking" of politicians, especially modern times politicians, appears to be even less likely than it has previously been for everything except their own objectives and pet projects.

It really does not matter now what the scientists have suggested or how they have "proved" it to their satisfaction and brushed off any attempts to question the results - even for basic clarity.

The scientists have provided the world's ever changing stock of politicians with an endless excuse to make grand statements about their commitment to things that may or may not relate to matter of climate change (the politicians don't really care about that, they just need a vehicle to parade their self importance and provide opportunities for income.)

If they really cared they would have looked at a whole load of ideas - like converting Drax to run on wood pellets form North America - and decided it was insane and would not provide any benefit towards the target they agreed after leaving it to Bryony Worthington to come up with some numbers.

The fiasco in Northern Ireland has been seen, in slightly different forms, elsewhere but that did not help the politicians avoid making old mistakes.

Surprising that. They always claim to be learning from mistakes.

So here's a point to consider.

As a the holder (I assume) of a genuine and honest concern that humanity will be somewhat or entirely stuffed by the end of this century unless "carbon" emissions are cut by at least as much as the various governments are promising to each other ...

do you think they will achieve it?

do you think they really care?

do you think they understand the issues involved?

do you think they are being well advised about what is and what is not likely to be be technically possible (whether needed or not) in the period covered by what there is of their forward thinking? (About 20 years currently - a full career for the younger ones perhaps.)

[robinessex]

And add to the above, that the question of planet, warmer or colder STILL hasn't been answered.

[Shar2]

I don't know how old Ghandahar and Durbster are, but I remember being taught in school in the 70's that we were due to enter a new ice age and that we were all going to have to move south as the glaciers and ice sheets took over the British Isles, again. Strangely that all seems to have been forgotten in the mass charge for scientific funding that is only given to those researchers that include global warming in their papers. I know this as I work in a university. It's endemic within the academic circle.

[durbster]

Shar2 said:

I don't know how old Ghandahar and Durbster are, but I remember being taught in school in the 70's that we were due to enter a new ice age

Not old enough

There's no doubt it was in the public consciousness and it was supported by science (still is in theory, I think). Was it actually part of the curriculum?

Here's an article that explains it quite well: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4487

[chris watton]

durbster said:

Shar2 said:

I don't know how old Ghandahar and Durbster are, but I remember being taught in school in the 70's that we were due to enter a new ice age

Not old enough

There's no doubt it was in the public consciousness and it was supported by science (still is in theory, I think). Was it actually part of the curriculum?

Here's an article that explains it quite well: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4487

We were certainly taught it at school, with the same verve and vigour that is now applied to today's students. Except this time, it's runaway global warming rather than a relapse back into our current ice age (which we are still in, as there is still ice at the north and south poles).

Perhaps in 20-30 years, the consensus will change again, and there may be talk of a deepening of the current ice age. Maybe you will still argue that that's nonsense, as you were taught that the Earth is experiencing global warming, just as we were taught about global cooling.

[dub16v]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

As a the holder (I assume) of a genuine and honest concern that humanity will be somewhat or entirely stuffed by the end of this century unless "carbon" emissions are cut by at least as much as the various governments are promising to each other ...

do you think they will achieve it?

do you think they really care?

do you think they understand the issues involved?

do you think they are being well advised about what is and what is not likely to be be technically possible (whether needed or not) in the period covered by what there is of their forward thinking? (About 20 years currently - a full career for the younger ones perhaps.)

I can help with this (assuming 'they' = the Government) then:

(1) Achieve what? Restricting warming to 2 degrees C? Meeting carbon reduction targets? Something else? No matter which, who knows but we should be positioning ourselves to do so.

(2) Yes

(3) To a level to which they need to, yes. Government ministers, and even their advisors, are not scientists (for the most part). They certainly understand the issues.

(4) Yes. FYI, the time frames you use are inaccurate. Most Governments, including the UK, look beyond policy horizons (~20 years); many have been using scenario planning and horizon scanning for decades.

It's difficult to understand what you mean by 'humanity will be entirely stuffed'. For example, what sorts of impacts do you envisage to occur that would render this statement true? Could you clarify?

[Shar2]

The thing is, the planet will go on doing whatever it does, as it doesn't give a stuff what happens on its surface, we, that is, "humanity" are an insignificant plague that, sooner or later, nature will get tired of and we will become extinct. Who cares. The planet will go on supporting life, whatever form that takes, as it has before, and we will become another point in its history until the sun gobbles the solar system up as it too dies, or are we going to try and stop that too?

[durbster]

chris watton said:

We were certainly taught it at school, with the same verve and vigour that is now applied to today's students. Except this time, it's runaway global warming rather than a relapse back into our current ice age (which we are still in, as there is still ice at the north and south poles).

Considering how little information and data there was back then, it seems unlikely. Was it part of the curriculum, or do you just remember a teacher talking about it?

chris watton said:

Perhaps in 20-30 years, the consensus will change again, and there may be talk of a deepening of the current ice age.

The scientific consensus has never changed. Please read the article above.

chris watton said:

Maybe you will still argue that that's nonsense, as you were taught that the Earth is experiencing global warming, just as we were taught about global cooling.

I don't recall being taught about global warming at all at school.

Edited by durbster on Monday 9th January 12:37

[turbobloke]

Shar2 said:

The thing is, the planet will go on doing whatever it does, as it doesn't give a stuff what happens on its surface, we, that is, "humanity" are an insignificant plague that, sooner or later, nature will get tired of and we will become extinct. Who cares. The planet will go on supporting life, whatever form that takes, as it has before, and we will become another point in its history until the sun gobbles the solar system up as it too dies, or are we going to try and stop that too?

Quite right. Tax the Sun. Sorted.

[turbobloke]

Apparently, Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka is still going to "fight climate change" in spite of her father's position on this political topic.

No clue as yet whether it's MMA or something else, but...we're saved! No need for any more COPs then, or robbers taking greenblob taxes off us.

After saving the planet, maybe she'll save the Sun and fight stellar core collapse. That would be good even on pay per view.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Quite right. Tax the Sun. Sorted.

Spain already tried it

[chris watton]

durbster said:

chris watton said:

We were certainly taught it at school, with the same verve and vigour that is now applied to today's students. Except this time, it's runaway global warming rather than a relapse back into our current ice age (which we are still in, as there is still ice at the north and south poles).

Considering how little information and data there was back then, it seems unlikely. Was it part of the curriculum, or do you just remember a teacher talking about it?

chris watton said:

Perhaps in 20-30 years, the consensus will change again, and there may be talk of a deepening of the current ice age.
The scientific consensus has never changed. Please read the article above.

chris watton said:

Maybe you will still argue that that's nonsense, as you were taught that the Earth is experiencing global warming, just as we were taught about global cooling.

I don't recall being taught about global warming at all at school.

It really wasn't that long ago. I guess that suppression of data that contradicting theories wasn't as prevalent then, as they are now, perhaps. It's no good citing better science when it is clearly a faith based religion - even has the 'burn the heretics' calls from some activist scientists. Quite laughable.

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

...it is clearly a faith based religion - even has the 'burn the heretics' calls from some activist scientists. Quite laughable.

It is indeed on both counts a faith-based religion and laughable.

However I must point out that activist scientists should really be activist 'scientists'