Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
It's almost as if some people only post here to obfuscate and muddy the debate... like they're being paid to do so...
George111 said:
durbster said:
It's almost as if some people only post here to obfuscate and muddy the debate... like they're being paid to do so...
George111 said:
You are like the guest who arrives in fancy dress, not knowing the host but claiming to be his best buddy and telling everybody else they also ought to have come in fancy dress despite it being a wake . . .
Ta.
But the funny thing is, can I really be the heretic when all I'm presenting is the boring, almost entirely accepted mainstream view?
I'm not making claims about global inter-Government conspiracies, massive, decades-long scientific fraud, international collusion, data tampering or people having their careers curtailed for saying the wrong things.
My posts are are just a reflection of what the vast, overwhelming majority of the science says. I realise that's significantly less exciting than the above so perhaps not as compelling but let's be honest, it's also significantly more likely to be true.
I would apologise for interrupting the party but I just feel compelled to point out that the rest of the world finished debating this stuff long ago.
durbster said:
XJ40 said:
Thanks for the replies TB, I shall give the links a squint.
A word of caution if you're new to the thread: you have to read this thread like a tabloid newspaper. A lot of stuff posted is designed to influence you with outrageous sounding soundbites but there's often little substance to them when you care to look.For example, you'll see this posted a lot as above:
turbobloke said:
Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
The actual quote is:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Google said:
Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-changeIt's almost as if some people only post here to obfuscate and muddy the debate... like they're being paid to do so...
You selected one quote from one of the links, and ignored the other.
Both are scientific-engineering based and written by engineers and scientists, with technical details capable of verification.
Your attempt to smear the sources cannot possibly work on anyone who reads them both in full.
Also, have you got to grips with that non-experiment for bamboozling schoolchildren that doesn't demonstrate what was claimed?
durbster said:
I would apologise for interrupting the party but I just feel compelled to point out that the rest of the world finished debating this stuff long ago.
Not so. A small number of researchers, well grant-funded, and activists ramping The Cause, started claiming that the debate had finished, in fact their continuing debate and yours on this thread shows beyond doubt that it's not the case.durbster said:
George111 said:
You are like the guest who arrives in fancy dress, not knowing the host but claiming to be his best buddy and telling everybody else they also ought to have come in fancy dress despite it being a wake . . .
Ta.
But the funny thing is, can I really be the heretic when all I'm presenting is the boring, almost entirely accepted mainstream view?
I'm not making claims about global inter-Government conspiracies, massive, decades-long scientific fraud, international collusion, data tampering or people having their careers curtailed for saying the wrong things.
My posts are are just a reflection of what the vast, overwhelming majority of the science says. I realise that's significantly less exciting than the above so perhaps not as compelling but let's be honest, it's also significantly more likely to be true.
I would apologise for interrupting the party but I just feel compelled to point out that the rest of the world finished debating this stuff long ago.
One last chance to redeam yourself Durbster
Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
robinessex said:
One last chance to redeam yourself Durbster
Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
Er, I did last time you posted it.Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
I am sure I read somewhere that, when Emma Thompson was interviewed on Sky News (?), as a campaigner in Paris against climate change, the interviewee asked what she was doing, personally, to help 'combat climate change'. Her answer, and I paraphrase - 'I carry two reusable carrier bags with me, in my bag'!
Wow! The Boudicca of Eco warriors!
Wow! The Boudicca of Eco warriors!
chris watton said:
I am sure I read somewhere that, when Emma Thompson was interviewed on Sky News (?), as a campaigner in Paris against climate change, the interviewee asked what she was doing, personally, to help 'combat climate change'. Her answer, and I paraphrase - 'I carry two reusable carrier bags with me, in my bag'!
Wow! The Boudicca of Eco warriors!
Wow! The Boudicca of Eco warriors!
People like her provide a marvellous bonus - to climate realism.
She and other uninformed celebs like her are doing a Corbynesque job.
She's well-educated thus demonstrating that intelligence and education are no barrier to foolishness.
Nullius (etc), follow the data, buy Damart and candles.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
One last chance to redeam yourself Durbster
Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
Er, I did last time you posted it.Try commonsense and logic. You don't need scientific qualifications for that.
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok.
Answer that.
Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 2nd December 16:27
durbster said:
Er, I did last time you posted it.
I've posted in this thread seldom over the years. I have no axe to grind, I think I leaned on the MMGW was real side years ago, but since joining PH and reading more stuff....I now lean on the, 'humans have negligible if little effect' side.I've read a few books that cover how accepted paradigms can quash and destroy heretics (nothing to do with GW, just other sciences).
Could you repost your response again?
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No you didn't, you pointed out a stupid experiment which was quickly shot down in flames. Now answer it, specificaly. With common sense and logic like I did.
It's an experiment that proves the greenhouse effect. Why do you think it was shot down in flames?To help you come to terms with your misunderstanding, could you point out when the entire area of the earth's surface next becomes covered with lead, as I want to notice it happen, having missed it previously.
Also, where exactly and when do the far IR emissions from the planet's surface have the spectrum of a photoflood bulb?
Finally for now, as a bonus, is any of the heat energy transferred in the experiment 'trapped' in the container or does it escape?
What you posted is simplistic kiddywinks jamjar junkscience that brainwashes pupils, so in one sense it succeeds - in the same way it reflects the state of climate proselytising as peddled via the gospel according to IPCC and its credulous disciples.
durbster said:
I would apologise for interrupting the party but I just feel compelled to point out that the rest of the world finished debating this stuff long ago.
The rest of the world? I must be living somewhere else then.Anyway, it's the geologists I really despise, why do they even bother after Bishop Ussher went to all that trouble?
br d said:
durbster said:
I would apologise for interrupting the party but I just feel compelled to point out that the rest of the world finished debating this stuff long ago.
The rest of the world? I must be living somewhere else then.Anyway, it's the geologists I really despise, why do they even bother after Bishop Ussher went to all that trouble?
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No you didn't, you pointed out a stupid experiment which was quickly shot down in flames. Now answer it, specificaly. With common sense and logic like I did.
It's an experiment that proves the greenhouse effect. Why do you think it was shot down in flames?A 'greenhouse' does not rely upon the 'greenhouse effect'
Prof R. Wood 1909
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.htm...
The main effect that a 'greenhouse' has is to block convection - the absorption/radiation characteristics of CO2 are irrelevant in this case, as is any supposed 'trapping' of IR.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff