Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Blib said:
plunker said:
Those shameless sceptics - fiddling the data to make it conform to their beliefs.
/sauce for the gander
You've now completely run out of arguments. You post nothing but snide comments nowadays. You have nothing of value to contribute to this thread any longer./sauce for the gander
You're embarrassing yourself and your cause.
Carry on.
A percentage of 24 hour news is no longer news. It is either a parade of pressure groups presenting 'surveys' which coincidentally back up whatever snake oil 'solution' they happen to offer. So long as they get sufficient funding. Or, breathless reports on how the World is going to end / the human race is going to become extinct / the sky is going to fall on our heads, sometime in the future, preferably, the distant future. And that only sufficient funding can avert such a disaster.
I avoid TV news nowadays and when I'm Emperor my second edict will be to ban 24 hour news channels.
My first edict will be to exile Adele.
I avoid TV news nowadays and when I'm Emperor my second edict will be to ban 24 hour news channels.
My first edict will be to exile Adele.
Shar2 said:
On Sky news this morning, one of the main reports was on the fact that in 100 years there are going to be mass extinctions due to the massive rise in temperature. They reckon the temperature is going to rise by 4 degrees, all caused by man of course.
If we take the last ~20 years as a yardstick then there won't be any significant temperature increase in the next 100 years. That wouldn't be acceptable to the faithful so we need to take a longer-term trend, the best available is UAH LTT which extends over a climate-relevant 35 years and at +0.114 degC/decade means that in 100 years it will be 1.14 degC warmer.
This would be unprecedented and more like the unprecedented Roman Warm Period or the unprecedented Minoan Warm Period before that, which had two precedents on that timescale.
Claiming 4 degC is either a sign that the forecast is propaganda not information, or notice in advance regarding what the next 100 years of temperature adjustments will look like to ensure that political science researchers get the right answer.
The Church of England says that climate change is the biggest moral challenge of our time. They are selling all their interests in 'dirty' fuels (coal, tar sands products, etc.) but not oil or gas. If I were God I'd be pretty cheesed off that my representatives in England thought that I couldn't look after the world myself!
motco said:
The Church of England says that climate change is the biggest moral challenge of our time. They are selling all their interests in 'dirty' fuels (coal, tar sands products, etc.) but not oil or gas. If I were God I'd be pretty cheesed off that my representatives in England thought that I couldn't look after the world myself!
The Church will be soon re writing the story of Adam and Eve substituting forbidden fruit to forbidden fire!! dickymint said:
motco said:
The Church of England says that climate change is the biggest moral challenge of our time. They are selling all their interests in 'dirty' fuels (coal, tar sands products, etc.) but not oil or gas. If I were God I'd be pretty cheesed off that my representatives in England thought that I couldn't look after the world myself!
The Church will be soon re writing the story of Adam and Eve substituting forbidden fruit to forbidden fire!! Hopefully Gaia isn't a jealous God or the C of E could find themselves picking locusts out of their teeth. Then again, that would be 'explained' by non-existent manmadeup global warming too.
No, all the sceptics are wrong, wrong, wrong.
From an article in today's Grauniad,
"Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.
“Climate change has become so strong over the last 10 to 15 years that you can really sense it now on the local level. Fifteen years ago you could only really see it if you looked at the global mean temperature. And now any old thermometer can show you that the temperatures are increasing,” he said."
See more here;
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/01...
From an article in today's Grauniad,
"Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.
“Climate change has become so strong over the last 10 to 15 years that you can really sense it now on the local level. Fifteen years ago you could only really see it if you looked at the global mean temperature. And now any old thermometer can show you that the temperatures are increasing,” he said."
See more here;
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/01...
The Don of Croy said:
No, all the sceptics are wrong, wrong, wrong.
From an article in today's Grauniad,
"Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.
“Climate change has become so strong over the last 10 to 15 years that you can really sense it now on the local level. Fifteen years ago you could only really see it if you looked at the global mean temperature. And now any old thermometer can show you that the temperatures are increasing,” he said."
See more here;
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/01...
Sheers desperation that is.From an article in today's Grauniad,
"Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who co-authored the study, said climate change had become so influential on the world’s weather that its effects could be modelled at increasingly local levels.
“Climate change has become so strong over the last 10 to 15 years that you can really sense it now on the local level. Fifteen years ago you could only really see it if you looked at the global mean temperature. And now any old thermometer can show you that the temperatures are increasing,” he said."
See more here;
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/01...
Reminds me of the divv on sky news the one morning who ejaculated " yes you can really feel the heat nowadays"....
Riiight, course you can mate, cos 11 degrees C feels soooooooooo much hotter that 10.9999999 degrees C.
Its high time this stupid nonsense was permanently derailed by all right minded scientists, not the scientits on the warmist side.
Any old thermometer near airport tarmac, aircon outlets, trash burners or car parks, and if that's no use to the faith then either ignore that reading, or substitute a reading from a thermometer somewhere warmer hundreds of km away, or simply 'adjust' the one you've got. It's climatewang.
Again from the same Grauniad article, a nicely put comment (not been moderated yet);
"Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
"Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
The Don of Croy said:
Again from the same Grauniad article, a nicely put comment (not been moderated yet);
"Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
Sounds like "model-ception", models upon models within models, modelling models. And somewhere in the slight of hand, it all gets presented as fact. You can't use one model to validate another. You need actual experimental measurements, which they have, they just don't play ball."Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
The Don of Croy said:
Again from the same Grauniad article, a nicely put comment (not been moderated yet);
"Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
Not moderated yet, and in 3...2...1..."Relax and read the actual paper.
This is pure fantasy. They've compared a model of the real world without man's forcing and then compared that to a model of the real world with man's forcing.
Then they've taken that model output as a baseline for empirical observation and said "see it's manmade because it's different to the model". Rubbish.
They claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit."
Good for the Grauniad if it stays up. Models do little more than faithfully reproduce the assumptions of the modellers.
The comment is spot on if rather unkind to Sanskrit with the climate model code comparison.
What the paper really needed was a subtitle 'Harry Read Me'.
Interesting times for the National Trust.
Recently the Ghosh Dame was spouting on abot the risk of Silver Fish in their old properties due to the politicall increase in temperature due to Climate Change.
Presumably the Silver Fish problem is now solved at Clandon House, or what is left of it.
Maybe she should be paying more attention making the properties fire resistant or at least less prone to being totally destroyed. The fire risk seems to be somewhat greater than the alleged climate change risk and certainly, by any measurement, much more immediate.
As yet I have not hear her say anything about the fire being caused by climate change but no doubt that will be worked in somewhere.
Once assumes that she will take responsibility for the "pollution" caused by the fire - probably at least +1/2 a degree on this summer's coming heatwave. (According to the models.)
Then she will have to face the question of what to do next with the shell of the property.
As its owner will the NT feel they should attempt to rebuild it? Think of the CO2 that would be released by such a building project even if it was affordable!
Or should they demolish it? Think of the cost of such work and the CO2 output plus the ecological problem of what to do with the waste!
In either case one would assume that could cover some of the financial burden by selling off the parkland to developers and so claim that they were doing their bit towards sorting out the alleged housing crisis in the South East. BUT if they were to encourage building ..... think of the CO2 overload from the concrete and the vehicles required to do the work!
Clearly such decisions would be very taxing and so the lady must be worth every penny of the salary she extracts from the membership fees. Right?
Recently the Ghosh Dame was spouting on abot the risk of Silver Fish in their old properties due to the politicall increase in temperature due to Climate Change.
Presumably the Silver Fish problem is now solved at Clandon House, or what is left of it.
Maybe she should be paying more attention making the properties fire resistant or at least less prone to being totally destroyed. The fire risk seems to be somewhat greater than the alleged climate change risk and certainly, by any measurement, much more immediate.
As yet I have not hear her say anything about the fire being caused by climate change but no doubt that will be worked in somewhere.
Once assumes that she will take responsibility for the "pollution" caused by the fire - probably at least +1/2 a degree on this summer's coming heatwave. (According to the models.)
Then she will have to face the question of what to do next with the shell of the property.
As its owner will the NT feel they should attempt to rebuild it? Think of the CO2 that would be released by such a building project even if it was affordable!
Or should they demolish it? Think of the cost of such work and the CO2 output plus the ecological problem of what to do with the waste!
In either case one would assume that could cover some of the financial burden by selling off the parkland to developers and so claim that they were doing their bit towards sorting out the alleged housing crisis in the South East. BUT if they were to encourage building ..... think of the CO2 overload from the concrete and the vehicles required to do the work!
Clearly such decisions would be very taxing and so the lady must be worth every penny of the salary she extracts from the membership fees. Right?
Open letter to the Bishop of Salisbury from Philip Foster.
Let's hope the response is more positive than the one Monckton got from Gore.
Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam
71 XXXXXXXXXX
Salisbury
XXX XXX
1st May 2015
Dear Bishop
Following your announcement that ”Climate change is the biggest moral
issue facing the world" I would like to put before you a challenge.
I will debate this issue with you in any public venue of your choosing at a date that suits yourself.
I look forward to your reply.
Etc
Let's hope the response is more positive than the one Monckton got from Gore.
Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam
71 XXXXXXXXXX
Salisbury
XXX XXX
1st May 2015
Dear Bishop
Following your announcement that ”Climate change is the biggest moral
issue facing the world" I would like to put before you a challenge.
I will debate this issue with you in any public venue of your choosing at a date that suits yourself.
I look forward to your reply.
Etc
Humans have appeared on the Earth either by luck, or because of a window of the most stable climate conditions which have ever occurred in the Earths 4.6 billion year history.
When that window changes, we will either be able to adapt to it, or we will go the way of countless species, who were not able to recognise and adapt to them, But control the climate??
If some really believe we are that powerful, I can only conclude they took the entire box of arrogance pills.
If indeed we do control the climate (as some seem to think we can) please could someone point out the controller to me, as I would quite like to paint my shed next Saturday, and possibly go to the beach on Sunday, so asking them for a few nice sunny days would seem to be practical.
Darwin stated that it was not necessarily the strongest who survived, nor even the smartest, but those who were able to adapt to changing conditions the most easily.
Therefore going for adaptation to climate changes, rather than control of climate, would seem to be the most intelligent option.
When that window changes, we will either be able to adapt to it, or we will go the way of countless species, who were not able to recognise and adapt to them, But control the climate??
If some really believe we are that powerful, I can only conclude they took the entire box of arrogance pills.
If indeed we do control the climate (as some seem to think we can) please could someone point out the controller to me, as I would quite like to paint my shed next Saturday, and possibly go to the beach on Sunday, so asking them for a few nice sunny days would seem to be practical.
Darwin stated that it was not necessarily the strongest who survived, nor even the smartest, but those who were able to adapt to changing conditions the most easily.
Therefore going for adaptation to climate changes, rather than control of climate, would seem to be the most intelligent option.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff