Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

COP21: People of Kiribati 'may have to relocate'

Matt McGrath had to have his puff piece as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-34967...

[johnxjsc1985]

Silver Smudger said:

The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2 - According to Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could...

Also - Climate March Turns Violent As Protesters Throw Memorial Candles At Police - Lovely caring folks most days, upset by the issue, I'm sure

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/29/paris-c...

Edited by Silver Smudger on Tuesday 1st December 02:15

how much damage to the worlds environment have the participants done .

[Mr GrimNasty]

zygalski said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

...And if sea levels are rising so rapidly, why would the Maldives build airports and resorts on such shallow reclaimed land!

...

Naughty Mr Staw Man.
All the reporting I've seen have suggested that the Maldives will be underwater by the end of this century.
85 years is enough time to screw many billions out of tourism and then up sticks. Jobs a good 'en.

You clearly lack the ability to distinguish a straw man and a prime example.

Sea level data isn't alarming - and that's just fact.

[nelly1]

Mr GrimNasty said:

You clearly lack the ability to distinguish a straw man and a prime example.

Sea level data isn't alarming - and that's just fact.

Good grief man! You forgot the 'adjustments'...

[turbobloke]

Atolls of the Maldives are impervious to fractionally millimetric levels of claimed sea level rise, not that the millimetric levels are trustworthy given that the error in the measurements is so great...and that there is no causality to humans in any sea level rise in any case.

There's a mechanism operating with island atolls such that when waters encroach inland, particularly during storm surges, as well as causing temporary flooding they bring ashore particulate solids that get left behind which cause the surfaces of the islands to be continually replenished and maintain or 'grow' their position above sea level. Human activity on the islands may offset this but that activity is not the type that releases tax gas.

The next time politicians on a certain attol hold their meetings underwater in an absurd form of protest they really should be given a copy of this graphic from Morner et al (2004). It would go down well as a handout in Paris for sure.

[turbobloke]

nelly1 said:

Good grief man! You forgot the 'adjustments'...

[Mr GrimNasty]

turbobloke said:

nelly1 said:

Good grief man! You forgot the 'adjustments'...

That is actually very funny.

The truth is less funny, NASA has fraudulently doubled sea level rise by adjusting data (just like with temperatures).

[GnuBee]

Mr GrimNasty said:

That is actually very funny.

The truth is less funny, NASA has fraudulently doubled sea level rise by adjusting data (just like with temperatures).

They didn't land on the moon in 69 either and when they did get there the aliens were already present. I thought the "Science" thread was all a bit "Conspiracy Theory" but it pails into insignificance compared to this one.

Have we mentioned the BBC's role in this global conspiracy? I heard it was the council of seven as well.

How much did NASA defraud you of?

All this linking graphs and coming out with things like this: "Atolls of the Maldives are impervious to fractionally millimetric levels of claimed sea level rise" is as "fanatical" as the very people you seek to decry and accuse of massive fraud on a global scale.

This is all a shame, too much time spent shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at one another which could/should be energy going into really looking at some of this from the basics of whether or not what we do as a civilization is tenable.

No I don't live "off-grid", yes I do think nuclear fusion is a probably a way forward, yes I do think a mixed generation portfolio is sensible especially when looked at further than cost of petrol at your local station in middle England.

[robinessex]

GnuBee said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

That is actually very funny.

The truth is less funny, NASA has fraudulently doubled sea level rise by adjusting data (just like with temperatures).

They didn't land on the moon in 69 either and when they did get there the aliens were already present. I thought the "Science" thread was all a bit "Conspiracy Theory" but it pails into insignificance compared to this one.

Have we mentioned the BBC's role in this global conspiracy? I heard it was the council of seven as well.

How much did NASA defraud you of?

All this linking graphs and coming out with things like this: "Atolls of the Maldives are impervious to fractionally millimetric levels of claimed sea level rise" is as "fanatical" as the very people you seek to decry and accuse of massive fraud on a global scale.

This is all a shame, too much time spent shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at one another which could/should be energy going into really looking at some of this from the basics of whether or not what we do as a civilization is tenable.

No I don't live "off-grid", yes I do think nuclear fusion is a probably a way forward, yes I do think a mixed generation portfolio is sensible especially when looked at further than cost of petrol at your local station in middle England.

And the point you are making is ?

[turbobloke]

GnuBee said:

All this linking graphs and coming out with things like this: "Atolls of the Maldives are impervious to fractionally millimetric levels of claimed sea level rise" is as "fanatical" as the very people you seek to decry and accuse of massive fraud on a global scale.

It's scientific and accurate and - for this thread - has the required political edge given the local nutter politicos meeting underwater to make a silly non-point about something they don't understand...they do understand the concept of snouts-in-the-trough well enough.

As we've got the politics out of the way, there is a simple right and wrong issue involved in the current topic. Namely there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data. This means that the politicians burning lots of avgas and dining like lords over in Paris are blowing their hot air over something that nobody has seen.

Still, if you want somewhere more lowbrow head over to CIF with your interesting comments, though PH would of course be blessed if you posted more often in this thread.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

And the point you are making is ?

It could be that GnuBee didn't like my post. I'm gutted.

Mr GrimNasty said:

That is actually very funny.

Yes and a lot of the humour derives from the point you went on to make about the reality of corrupt near-surface data being used to hoodwink those willing to be hooded and winked as well as those incapable of spotting reality.

Very dark humour indeed ... tens of thousands of pensioners will find the entire junkscience edifice dead funny this winter and for as long as the ecoclaptrap and "simply won't work" renewables sham is allowed to go on.

[robinessex]

I don't wish nasties on people at all, but I’m secretly hoping that at least once this winter, the bloody lights go off. You’ll see the hue and cry then. A few reverse ferrets from some as well.

[mybrainhurts]

robinessex said:

GnuBee said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

That is actually very funny.

The truth is less funny, NASA has fraudulently doubled sea level rise by adjusting data (just like with temperatures).

They didn't land on the moon in 69 either and when they did get there the aliens were already present. I thought the "Science" thread was all a bit "Conspiracy Theory" but it pails into insignificance compared to this one.

Have we mentioned the BBC's role in this global conspiracy? I heard it was the council of seven as well.

How much did NASA defraud you of?

All this linking graphs and coming out with things like this: "Atolls of the Maldives are impervious to fractionally millimetric levels of claimed sea level rise" is as "fanatical" as the very people you seek to decry and accuse of massive fraud on a global scale.

This is all a shame, too much time spent shouting "I'm right, you're wrong" at one another which could/should be energy going into really looking at some of this from the basics of whether or not what we do as a civilization is tenable.

No I don't live "off-grid", yes I do think nuclear fusion is a probably a way forward, yes I do think a mixed generation portfolio is sensible especially when looked at further than cost of petrol at your local station in middle England.

And the point you are making is ?

I think he's trying to go spiritual, but having a bit of trouble with it.

[don4l]

robinessex said:

And the point you are making is ?

As I read it, he is saying that if the real data doesn't match his preconceptions, then the data must be ignored.

Atolls are shrinking, and the measurements that show otherwise must be suppressed.

[GnuBee]

I'm having trouble with the central theme of most of PH's commentary on Climate Change hinging on the acceptance of a global conspiracy on a scale which would have put NASA to shame had they actually lied about going to the moon. Failing that it's an acceptance of the kind of global, institutionalized, fraud that even the most hairbrained James Bond plot would not try and have us believe.

Whether you think it's all "man's" fault is irrelevant; if the climate is changing and how we respond to that is what defines us that then's the bit that matters. Even if you don't think the climate is changing do you honestly believe the way in which we currently consume all our resources is tenable?

[turbobloke]

GnuBee said:

I'm having trouble with the central theme of most of PH's commentary on Climate Change hinging on the acceptance of a global conspiracy on a scale...

Whoa!

The climate threads on PH are full of comments like that.

Somebody alleges that PHers see a conspiracy, yet threads contain many if not exclusive comments that nobody on the climate realist side sees any conspiracy.

The point you aren't making is a strawman. Nobody is saying there are clandestine meetings in dark rooms or conference calls between politicians and the most faithful believer scientists and the pressure groups and charities and activists and hacks and (etc)...it's nonsense.

The idea that all of the above independently have a vested interest in perpetuating the climate hoax-scam is however totally obvious, the coincidence of vested interests is obvious, just as the lack of a conspiracy is obvious - so we agree there

My climate realism is based on the data (particularly from UAH LTT and RSS) which shows no visible causal human signal in climate data, and the sound science which shows that this is entirely as expected. Even the corrupted near-surface data hasn't as yet been tortured enough to produce an artificial face saver.

Paris is a joke and the comedians in attendance are fools. That's arisen from anything but a conspiracy.

[mybrainhurts]

GnuBee said:

I'm having trouble with the central theme of most of PH's commentary on Climate Change hinging on the acceptance of a global conspiracy on a scale which would have put NASA to shame had they actually lied about going to the moon.

No suggestion of conspiracy here, as mentioned many times before.

GnuBee said:

Failing that it's an acceptance of the kind of global, institutionalized, fraud that even the most hairbrained James Bond plot would not try and have us believe.

Think selfish band wagoneering, then you're getting close.

GnuBee said:

Whether you think it's all "man's" fault is irrelevant; if the climate is changing and how we respond to that is what defines us that then's the bit that matters.

You think we can stop the climate changing? The climate that's been changing since the planet's birth? And you accuse people here of a "hairbrained James Bond plot"..? Oh dear.

GnuBee said:

Even if you don't think the climate is changing do you honestly believe the way in which we currently consume all our resources is tenable?

You want us to live in caves and survive on potatoes, don't you?

[don4l]

GnuBee said:

I'm having trouble with the central theme of most of PH's commentary on Climate Change hinging on the acceptance of a global conspiracy on a scale which would have put NASA to shame had they actually lied about going to the moon. Failing that it's an acceptance of the kind of global, institutionalized, fraud that even the most hairbrained James Bond plot would not try and have us believe.

Whether you think it's all "man's" fault is irrelevant; if the climate is changing and how we respond to that is what defines us that then's the bit that matters. Even if you don't think the climate is changing do you honestly believe the way in which we currently consume all our resources is tenable?

Going on about conspiracies and faked moon landings just makes you sound like a bit of a nutter.

Take a look at some data and see if you can detect any warming over the last 18 years.

Nullius in verba.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

The point you aren't making is a strawman. Nobody is saying there are clandestine meetings in dark rooms or conference calls between politicians and the most faithful believer scientists and the pressure groups and charities and activists and hacks and (etc)...it's nonsense.

You sure about that?

Because that seems to be what you were suggesting just a few posts ago:

turbobloke said:

There may be an official statement somewhere but their members don't agree. A small number of activists on committees agree and get to word and then publish the statement.

[Beati Dogu]

GnuBee said:

I'm having trouble with the central theme of most of PH's commentary on Climate Change hinging on the acceptance of a global conspiracy on a scale which would have put NASA to shame had they actually lied about going to the moon. Failing that it's an acceptance of the kind of global, institutionalized, fraud that even the most hairbrained James Bond plot would not try and have us believe.

I think you're confusing the part of NASA that put men of the moon and NASA GISS, which has been at the centre of pseudo-scientific fraud for 3 decades. Led as it was from 1981 to 2013 by James Hansen, the man who practically invented global warming back in the 80s. The same man who has been arrested multiple times at environmental protests and likes to refer to power station coal supply trains as "death trains". Do you seriously think a man like that wouldn't abuse science to serve his pet project?