Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
Blimey, the goalposts of the anti-AGW arguments move around far faster than I can keep up with (it's almost as if they're lacking solid foundations 
).
A few days ago you were throwing newspaper articles at me as a counterpoint to the scientific research I cited, and indeed skimming back a few pages I see you post links to mainstream media articles in just about every other post you make.
What examples did you have in mind? It always helps to quote, or link, that sort of thing. Then people can go back and take a look. ).A few days ago you were throwing newspaper articles at me as a counterpoint to the scientific research I cited, and indeed skimming back a few pages I see you post links to mainstream media articles in just about every other post you make.
Durbster said:
But now the mainstream media are morons that can't be trusted to report honestly on matters of science, apparently, because they're not covering a story in which somebody says something that isn't very interesting because it's already obvious and well known.
Not just because of that, there's a long track record.Durbster said:
Skeptics should be smarter given they should be looking at things objectively, but I don't see much evidence of that here.
You can't see evidence on a forum which is before your eyes yet you can see an invisible signal that the IPCC has miraculously pointed out to you.That's an astounding performance differential!
Durbster said:
Generally the pattern is: find a quote, news article or blog post on the web that supports your view and post it.
But enough about believer blogs, let's get back to PH.Durbster said:
There's very little evidence that people are bothering to check sources, context or credibility before posting or commenting.
[panto] oh yes there is [/panto]I've cited more peer-reviewed papers in various PH climate threads than you've had globally warmed dinners.
Durbster said:
The quote above from Odenhofer is a prime example. In isolation it might appear quite shocking, but how many apparent skeptics on here read it and then went to find the original source of the quote, and the context in which it was said?
Me. Do I win a Pachauri novel? If so, no thanks!In any case that "out of context" claim is a standard response and is pure boolix, the statement has no alternative interpretation when the entire interview is taken around it.
Durbster said:
If you didn't, you shouldn't really consider yourself a skeptic.
Phew I'm still a climate realist, because Durbster said do.
turbobloke said:
Durbster said:
The quote above from Odenhofer is a prime example. In isolation it might appear quite shocking, but how many apparent skeptics on here read it and then went to find the original source of the quote, and the context in which it was said?
Me. Do I win a Pachauri novel? If so, no thanks!In any case that "out of context" claim is a standard response and is pure boolix, the statement has no alternative interpretation when the entire interview is taken around it.
It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
And the context is crucial. Don't be simple.
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data — first I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
What another lovely quote. No source check necessary. The truth is as plain as the nose.........
What another lovely quote. No source check necessary. The truth is as plain as the nose.........
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Durbster said:
The quote above from Odenhofer is a prime example. In isolation it might appear quite shocking, but how many apparent skeptics on here read it and then went to find the original source of the quote, and the context in which it was said?
Me. Do I win a Pachauri novel? If so, no thanks!In any case that "out of context" claim is a standard response and is pure boolix, the statement has no alternative interpretation when the entire interview is taken around it.
It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
And the context is crucial. Don't be simple.
Try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0t8cfFom4
You should really watch the whole thing. The last 5 or 6 minutes probably best explain the context of the previously referenced quote but people may need to follow things through carefully to understand the trends of his thinking and it seemed to me that the strands all came together towards the end.
His closing remarks reveal an interesting sense of humour. As least I take it as humour. There may be other contexts.
Irrespective of disputes about interpretation the video is certainly an interesting 20 minutes of economics and hints at political solutions being the only way forward. Anyone looking for scientific discussion will be disappointed - his basis is to accept the then current projections (2012) from the IPCC and consider Risk related to those numbers and what might be necessary to deliver, successfully, mitigating strategies.
If one sets out by accepting such a starting point (in order to follow him with his risk management analysis) it's quite easy to agree, in general, with his conclusions. And his conclusions are very much in line with the statement attributed to him previously from 2010. Or so it seems to me.
You may also like this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EoDi1bdOLk
Very slickly produced.
Whilst we are doing videos ... if the final GP of the year is extremely boring try this one.
"Politics of the Transition to Renewable Energy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx2ZlzFNXp4
I will confess I have not watched it all but I did watch the first 15 mins (Mostly James Hansen) and have randomly dipped in to other parts.
There is quite an interesting section at the end. Probably starts around 1hr 40m or a minute or two later and goes through to the end.
"Politics of the Transition to Renewable Energy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx2ZlzFNXp4
I will confess I have not watched it all but I did watch the first 15 mins (Mostly James Hansen) and have randomly dipped in to other parts.
There is quite an interesting section at the end. Probably starts around 1hr 40m or a minute or two later and goes through to the end.
durbster said:
That statement has no alternative interpretation? It's been translated from German, therefore open to any number of interpretations.
It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
The translation of German to English is far easier than controlling the supposed thermostat of a complex chaotic planetary climate system via taxation based on a gas which has no causal link to any temperature change. Translation is straightforward, the tax thing is impossible, yet you're at ease with the taxing of an essential and harmless trace gas. You're Slack Alice when you want to be! It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
Anyway it's good of you to trawl every pro-AGW site and every anti-AGW site on the web to let us know what the result it, and you were very quick.
durbster said:
And the context is crucial. Don't be simple.
Having already said that the context doesn't change the meaning, not that the context doesn't matter, once again you're arguing against a point that wasn't made.At least that type of creativity allows you a chance to be right by arguing against what you said yourself.
LongQ said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Durbster said:
The quote above from Odenhofer is a prime example. In isolation it might appear quite shocking, but how many apparent skeptics on here read it and then went to find the original source of the quote, and the context in which it was said?
Me. Do I win a Pachauri novel? If so, no thanks!In any case that "out of context" claim is a standard response and is pure boolix, the statement has no alternative interpretation when the entire interview is taken around it.
It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
And the context is crucial. Don't be simple.
And for Durbster, did the context of Kyoto affect the translation from English to English of what the former Canadian minister said, namely, that the science may be phoney but there are collaterial benefits in producing the kind of society she wants? Ho Ho Ho.
robinessex said:
So if Brians wish come true, and we do manage to get the 2 degree (or more) temp drop, how do we then stop it going lower, and lower, and lower, and lower, ad finitum ? Opps.
Exactly.In a complex chaotic system such as our planet's coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system, it's not possible to know for sure what the outcome will be from any perturbation. We can no more engineer a X deg C drop, or prevent a 2 deg C rise (globally via tax gas nonsense) not least since we won't have caused it if it happens. We can alter our local environment via LULC / UHIE and even more locally by turning the heat up in our homes, if we're able to afford it with all the green bullshine to pay for on top of keeping warm enough to live a decent existence in winter.
woowahwoo said:
Ed makes an appearance. 4th paragraph "Let me return..."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/...
"We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C". - Even he was smirking at reading that out aloud.
A rallying cry to The Team? Adjustments half-way there, keep it up!http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/...
"We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C". - Even he was smirking at reading that out aloud.
At least he accomplished some simple arithmetic, quite an achievement for Ed.
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Durbster said:
The quote above from Odenhofer is a prime example. In isolation it might appear quite shocking, but how many apparent skeptics on here read it and then went to find the original source of the quote, and the context in which it was said?
Me. Do I win a Pachauri novel? If so, no thanks!In any case that "out of context" claim is a standard response and is pure boolix, the statement has no alternative interpretation when the entire interview is taken around it.
It is simple to prove: searching for that version of Edenhofer's statement only leads to anti-AGW websites, therefore they're the only people who translated it that way.
And the context is crucial. Don't be simple.
And for Durbster, did the context of Kyoto affect the translation from English to English of what the former Canadian minister said, namely, that the science may be phoney but there are collaterial benefits in producing the kind of society she wants? Ho Ho Ho.
I'm sure he will offer us something when he has had a chance to review the video and check the translation/interpretation.
turbobloke said:
woowahwoo said:
Ed makes an appearance. 4th paragraph "Let me return..."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/...
"We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C". - Even he was smirking at reading that out aloud.
A rallying cry to The Team? Adjustments half-way there, keep it up!http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/...
"We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C". - Even he was smirking at reading that out aloud.
At least he accomplished some simple arithmetic, quite an achievement for Ed.
Words fail me. A crowd of muppets who can't see how very obviously stupid and daft are their assursions as to what is happening, what is going to happen, and that we can actually control it !! How can supposedly intelligent people hold such a view, don't they even possess commonsense! You don't need to be any sort of accademic to work out that so much bulls
t is expanded on climate change, that only an idiot would believe any of it. A few simple and obvious questions can stop a climate change advocate in their tracks. And thats leads one to question their the ability to make a judgement on all the other topics that poloiticians get involved in.turbobloke said:
Andy Zarse said:
turbobloke said:
...it's not possible to know for sure what the outcome will be from any perturbation.
It is if you're going blind (to the facts) through excessive perturbation. It's enough to give you The Vapours! 
"The frame is stunted and weak, the muscles underdeveloped, the eye is sunken and heavy, the complexion is sallow, pasty or covered with spots of acne, the hands are damp and cold, and the skin is moist. The boy shuns the society of others, creeps about alone, joins with repugnance in the amusements of his schoolfellows. He cannot look anyone in the face, and becomes careless in dress and uncleanly in person. His intellect has become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot or peevish valetudinarian".
Sounds very much like your average member of Green Peas. One can only wonder what Paris will make of such a mass gathering in the broader name of valetudinarianism.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff