Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
For a taster on how these things work, see below.
hotter = climate change
colder = climate change
stasis = climate change (it's just hidden, you see, or rather you don't)
wetter = climate change
dryer = climate change
windy = climate change
calm = climate change
snow = climate change
less ice = climate change
more ice = climate change
polar bears = climate change (anything relating to the man-eaters will do)
migrants = climate change
children upset = climate change
more crime = climate change
less crime = climate change
famine = climate change
eutrophication = climate change
The mystical mythical junkscience religion cannot be falsified, by order of the faithful.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scientists-say-g...
and syrian war
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/15...
AreOut said:
turbobloke said:
For a taster on how these things work, see below.
hotter = climate change
colder = climate change
stasis = climate change (it's just hidden, you see, or rather you don't)
wetter = climate change
drier = climate change
windy = climate change
calm = climate change
snow = climate change
less ice = climate change
more ice = climate change
polar bears = climate change (anything relating to the man-eaters will do)
earthquakes = climate change
conflict = climate change
migrants = climate change
children upset = climate change
more crime = climate change
less crime = climate change
famine = climate change
eutrophication = climate change
The mystical mythical junkscience religion cannot be falsified, by order of the faithful.
and syrian war...
On Newsnight:
This stuff parodies itself, difficult to tell whether Maitlis either agreed or was stunned into silence by the wrongness; either way the 'fact' bomb was not challenged.
Emma Thompson said:
ZOMG! The planet will warm 4 degrees by 2030! Won't someone think of the children!
This stuff parodies itself, difficult to tell whether Maitlis either agreed or was stunned into silence by the wrongness; either way the 'fact' bomb was not challenged.hidetheelephants said:
On Newsnight: This stuff parodies itself, difficult to tell whether Maitlis either agreed or was stunned into silence by the wrongness; either way the 'fact' bomb was not challenged.
It's another prize piece of climate infopoo on the record, alongside existing poopearls of great price:Emma Thompson said:
ZOMG! The planet will warm 4 degrees by 2030! Won't someone think of the children!
This stuff parodies itself, difficult to tell whether Maitlis either agreed or was stunned into silence by the wrongness; either way the 'fact' bomb was not challenged.By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.
A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.
Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.
Half the years 2010-2015 will be hotter than 1998.
Temperatures will increase by 0.15 deg C over the period 2009-2014.
I'll pause at that point but not for ~19 years.
On our local Tyne Tees news last night one of the articles was about a number of Beluga whales being seen and filmed off the coast in the North Sea. The weather presenter who was introducing the sighting said it was unusual to see them here because they normally live in the cold artic waters. Quick as a flash the female anchor person suggested they had come down due to the sea warming.
This threw the weather guy but he recovered and said no, it's because the water is getting colder. Cue the anchor woman being totally bewildered at this, obviously counter intuitive to her belief system!
Glad her attempt to play the climate change card was nullified by the weather guy!
This threw the weather guy but he recovered and said no, it's because the water is getting colder. Cue the anchor woman being totally bewildered at this, obviously counter intuitive to her belief system!
Glad her attempt to play the climate change card was nullified by the weather guy!
Dear Emma's Climate Change poem in defence of Polar Bears. I challenge you not to laugh.
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/nonsense-and-ins...
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/nonsense-and-ins...
Blib said:
Dear Emma's Climate Change poem in defence of Polar Bears. I challenge you not to laugh.
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/nonsense-and-ins...
Best response on the Guido site;http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/nonsense-and-ins...
Dangerous Brian • 20 hours ago
Ode to Emma Thompson (in the style of Thribb)
Emma
You have been in some films
And appeared
On stage
Many times
You now believe this gives you
The right
to tell me
What to think
And
Believe.
It doesn't
f
k OffThe Don of Croy said:
Best response on the Guido site;
Dangerous Brian • 20 hours ago
Ode to Emma Thompson (in the style of Thribb)
Emma
You have been in some films
And appeared
On stage
Many times
You now believe this gives you
The right
to tell me
What to think
And
Believe.
It doesn't
fk Off
Actors (and celebrities in general) seem to think that fame for one thing gives them oracle-like wisdom in all others. Christopher Reeve (God rest his soul) was a poorly talented hunk-actor until he fell off his horse. Thereafter quadriplegia apparently bestowed upon him all the knowledge of the ancients and everyone hung on the pearls of wisdom that dripped from his lips. Dangerous Brian • 20 hours ago
Ode to Emma Thompson (in the style of Thribb)
Emma
You have been in some films
And appeared
On stage
Many times
You now believe this gives you
The right
to tell me
What to think
And
Believe.
It doesn't
f
k OffRejoice !!! Why? Well, it’s just been discovered we, the scientific community that is, have under estimated the number of trees on the planet by a factor of 8 or 10. That’s EIGHT oe TEN for those at the back not paying attention.. Now, ignorant me would’ve thought that trees, being a dam good absorber of CO2, are a very significant factor in the climate computer models, and, so, surely, it follows, if this new, vastly increased quantity of trees is stuffed into the old confuser, hey presto, we now have enough trees to absorb all the CO2 we require, and the planet is thus saved from cooking itself. Global warming now officially dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
Comment at the bottom of an article about EL Nino:-
Currently, the Pacific is seeing a surge of hurricane activity, with three category four strength tropical storms swirling around the Hawaiian islands.
Researchers say that these hurricanes can disrupt the predominant easterly trade winds that are found along the equator. This disruption allows more heat to build up in the eastern part of the Pacific, adding more fuel to stormy conditions.
But researchers cautioned that the scale of impacts, especially in the northern hemisphere, is very hard to read because there is also an Arctic warming effect seen in the Atlantic jet stream.
"The truth is we don't know what will happen. Will the two patterns reinforce each other? Will they cancel each other? Are they going to act in sequence? Are they going to be regional? We really don't know," David Carlson, the director of the World Climate Research Programme, told news agencies.
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW !!!! Oh dear, that buggers up weather prediction faith then, doesn't it ? But not the climate ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3412...
Currently, the Pacific is seeing a surge of hurricane activity, with three category four strength tropical storms swirling around the Hawaiian islands.
Researchers say that these hurricanes can disrupt the predominant easterly trade winds that are found along the equator. This disruption allows more heat to build up in the eastern part of the Pacific, adding more fuel to stormy conditions.
But researchers cautioned that the scale of impacts, especially in the northern hemisphere, is very hard to read because there is also an Arctic warming effect seen in the Atlantic jet stream.
"The truth is we don't know what will happen. Will the two patterns reinforce each other? Will they cancel each other? Are they going to act in sequence? Are they going to be regional? We really don't know," David Carlson, the director of the World Climate Research Programme, told news agencies.
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW !!!! Oh dear, that buggers up weather prediction faith then, doesn't it ? But not the climate ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3412...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/the-hood-rob...
have we had that yet?
What is that quote TB? Something about redistributing, defacto, the worlds wealth? Yeah to those who already have the lions share of it.
have we had that yet?
What is that quote TB? Something about redistributing, defacto, the worlds wealth? Yeah to those who already have the lions share of it.
Otispunkmeyer said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/the-hood-rob...
have we had that yet?
What is that quote TB? Something about redistributing, defacto, the worlds wealth? Yeah to those who already have the lions share of it.
That quote from UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer doesn't specify how the redistribution works, that may have been deliberate or not!have we had that yet?
What is that quote TB? Something about redistributing, defacto, the worlds wealth? Yeah to those who already have the lions share of it.
Article at WUWT said:
This is not a joke. This is what passes for moral activism in the liberal American universe. Throwing money at the rich is seen as striking a noble blow for POSSIBLY saving the poor from a tenth of a degree of warming by 2100.
Somebody should tell Emma that her 4 deg C by 2030 is a bit offish.The same position as outlined by Willis over at WUWT was set out by Lord Donouoghue but the lefty warmistasi over here aren't paying attention either. The bold text emphasis is mine.
Labour's Lord Donoughue said:
To shake them (left-wing true believers) it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy.
That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor. And that it's so-called scientific certainties are very uncertain indeed. It is also necessary for the sceptical and realistic side to show more publicly that they accept the proven aspects of climate change (which every sceptic I know does) and care about the genuine concerns of the environment (which the Greens ignore by littering our landscapes with inefficient and costly windmills.)
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality. In that political context, where any questioner is so derided, it is no surprise that most Labour supporters choose not to take the risk - especially when it immediately throws them into confrontation with their embattled leader.
This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above.
That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor. And that it's so-called scientific certainties are very uncertain indeed. It is also necessary for the sceptical and realistic side to show more publicly that they accept the proven aspects of climate change (which every sceptic I know does) and care about the genuine concerns of the environment (which the Greens ignore by littering our landscapes with inefficient and costly windmills.)
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality. In that political context, where any questioner is so derided, it is no surprise that most Labour supporters choose not to take the risk - especially when it immediately throws them into confrontation with their embattled leader.
This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above.
robinessex said:
Rejoice !!! Why? Well, it’s just been discovered we, the scientific community that is, have under estimated the number of trees on the planet by a factor of 8 or 10. That’s EIGHT oe TEN for those at the back not paying attention.. Now, ignorant me would’ve thought that trees, being a dam good absorber of CO2, are a very significant factor in the climate computer models, and, so, surely, it follows, if this new, vastly increased quantity of trees is stuffed into the old confuser, hey presto, we now have enough trees to absorb all the CO2 we require, and the planet is thus saved from cooking itself. Global warming now officially dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
Article said:
There are just over three trillion trees on Earth, according to a new assessment.
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
nelly1 said:
robinessex said:
Rejoice !!! Why? Well, it’s just been discovered we, the scientific community that is, have under estimated the number of trees on the planet by a factor of 8 or 10. That’s EIGHT oe TEN for those at the back not paying attention.. Now, ignorant me would’ve thought that trees, being a dam good absorber of CO2, are a very significant factor in the climate computer models, and, so, surely, it follows, if this new, vastly increased quantity of trees is stuffed into the old confuser, hey presto, we now have enough trees to absorb all the CO2 we require, and the planet is thus saved from cooking itself. Global warming now officially dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3413...
Article said:
There are just over three trillion trees on Earth, according to a new assessment.
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
kwittery. How these philosophically illiterate fks have the cheek to call themselves scientists is beyond my ken. It's always comforting to know that grant money is so well spent. I love this pearl of wisdom from an 'expert':
Article said:
And Dr Martin Lukac from the University of Reading was still not sure we were near an accurate count.
"The previous estimate of trees in the world was 400 billion. The new estimate is three trillion large trees. There are so many margins of error in this study that the real number could be anything between the two - or even 10 times higher," he said.
f"The previous estimate of trees in the world was 400 billion. The new estimate is three trillion large trees. There are so many margins of error in this study that the real number could be anything between the two - or even 10 times higher," he said.
k me sideways. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff