Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

So I'm out of touch with the scientific community according to you guys?

Who can say what you're in touch with, or not. It doesn't matter much as you appear to swallow the information pollution from donkey-style surveys which under the slightest scrutiny are unable to sustain the conclusions claimed for them. Much like the entire manmadeup warming edifice.

zygalski said:

That virtually all PH N,P & E regulars have vested interests.

None here - try somewhere more realistic, such as those within the Green Blob.

Then again, presumably owning and running a car is seen as a vested interest - it was trotted out as such by a true believer previously with the same comical effect, and if this is a repeat then it would be as ridiculous as the idea of proclaiming a scientific consensus on AGW.

The interest people express is to do what can be done to limit the damage from idiotic green / renewable false promises. It's been shown that renewables cannot work, already too much has been wasted on a pointless dead-end. AGW is a myth and the ultraleftists claiming loyalty to Gaia are doing nothing more than looking for a Green smokescreen for socialism and socialist control freakery. At least that's what the Greens say about themselves publicly, reality could be worse.

[Jasandjules]

zygalski said:

That virtually all PH N,P & E regulars have vested interests.

Really, you wish to talk about vested interests in contrasting this matter?

[Mr GrimNasty]

I think that most people would agree that being a scientist is a career, a job, whatever, and that most normal people can't survive without a job or income, or afford to throw 10, 20, 30 years of career down the drain.

When it comes to climate change, if you fail to produce the 'correct' results you will be starved of funding, ostracized, denied posts, subjected to threats and hate, have your reputation smeared, etc. etc. and have no career left in mainstream science.

That's pretty powerful motivation, a rather large vested interest, to give the 'correct' answer.

It's why so many people only say what they really think after they retire.

[hidetheelephants]

zygalski said:

So I'm out of touch with the scientific community according to you guys?
Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.

If this was remotely the aim a cursory study of the EROI of the various energy options reveals that windmills and solar panels are possibly the sttest option available, particularly for the UK with respect to solar; a sustained move to nuclear was and is the only practical solution in the intermediate term, yet the previous government did not pursue it and this government is not doing very much to rectify the situation.

I have to conclude that neither government had/has any real belief in climatewang and simply used/uses it as window dressing to appease simpletons and line the pockets of landowners and greenwash consultants.

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

I do accept 100% that it depends who you ask. Ask climate scientists & you get one general answer, ask car enthusiasts & you get a very different one.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

I thought for a moment that this came dangerously close to science on the Political thread ... but then I realised it wasn't, confirmed when I noted the link showing the source of the graph.

An opinion poll showing some very old 'analysis'.

Wow.

Has someone pressed a reset button somewhere?

[zygalski]

Mr GrimNasty said:

I think that most people would agree that being a scientist is a career, a job, whatever, and that most normal people can't survive without a job or income, or afford to throw 10, 20, 30 years of career down the drain.

When it comes to climate change, if you fail to produce the 'correct' results you will be starved of funding, ostracized, denied posts, subjected to threats and hate, have your reputation smeared, etc. etc. and have no career left in mainstream science.

That's pretty powerful motivation, a rather large vested interest, to give the 'correct' answer.

It's why so many people only say what they really think after they retire.

Hmm.
It's odd that science is lauded so widely on PH in virtually every aspect apart from climate change. For instance science vs religion. All the PH N,P & E types all of a sudden do a hasty about turn & start praising at the altar of the wider scientific community. Those same posters who have just been suggesting an industry-wide tinfoil hat conspiracy. Now science can do no wrong. How dare anyone question the consensus within science? Thanks to science we know this, that & the other....
That's what I call vested interests. Transparently so. Keep filling your tanks, lads. It's funny to watch the hypocrisy in this joint

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 04:49

[zygalski]

hidetheelephants said:

If this was remotely the aim a cursory study of the EROI of the various energy options reveals that windmills and solar panels are possibly the sttest option available, particularly for the UK with respect to solar; a sustained move to nuclear was and is the only practical solution in the intermediate term, yet the previous government did not pursue it and this government is not doing very much to rectify the situation.

I have to conclude that neither government had/has any real belief in climatewang and simply used/uses it as window dressing to appease simpletons and line the pockets of landowners and greenwash consultants.

So the best way to develop renewables is what... not to invest in them?
"Appeasing simpletons". Interesting. So most seats of learning & the vast majority of scientists are included in this rather sweeping judgment of yours. I suppose the likes of the populist right wing UKIP voting PH intelligentsia are the ones with a firm grip on the truth!

[zygalski]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Lest we forget.

Short termism dear boy.
Not that you're worried about the grandchildren, I get that, but:

[dudleybloke]

Well its 2015 and we still have polar ice.
Can we take Gore to court over his bullst?

[hidetheelephants]

zygalski said:

So the best way to develop renewables is what... not to invest in them?
"Appeasing simpletons". Interesting. So most seats of learning & the vast majority of scientists are included in this rather sweeping judgment of yours. I suppose the likes of the populist right wing UKIP voting PH intelligentsia are the ones with a firm grip on the truth!

What have renewables got to do with anything? You're coming from the position that assumes CO2 emission is likely to cause significant problems in the near future, but you want to tackle this problem in the least effective and most economically damaging way. Can you not see how ridiculous a position this is?

If the enthusiasm espoused by Labour for saving the planet in 1998 had been directed to a reasonably funded restart of the nuclear power programme rather than wasting time and money with wind turbine and solar subsidies, the UK would be well on its way to meeting the emissions targets set, as well as a robust energy supply unlike the nonsense of STOR we have now. What we got instead was window dressing and energy insecurity.

[AreOut]

zygalski said:

Short termism dear boy.
Not that you're worried about the grandchildren, I get that, but:

130 years is also a very short period in the history of this planet

[Jasandjules]

zygalski said:

Hmm.
It's odd that science is lauded so widely on PH in virtually every aspect apart from climate change. For instance science vs religion. All the PH N,P & E types all of a sudden do a hasty about turn & start praising at the altar of the wider scientific community. Those same posters who have just been suggesting an industry-wide tinfoil hat conspiracy. Now science can do no wrong. How dare anyone question the consensus within science? Thanks to science we know this, that & the other....
That's what I call vested interests. Transparently so. Keep filling your tanks, lads. It's funny to watch the hypocrisy in this joint

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 04:49

No, personally I think that much medical "science" can be flawed. Many drugs which are "approved" are subsequently withdrawn. Often after killing/seriously injuring a lot of people. I also question how much money pharmaceutical companies make and their impacts.. Cui Bono you see. Same as here.

However, in the AGW lie, I trust you've read about the frauds, fabrications and whatnot which seem almost the norm amongst certain areas? You've seen, in black and white, talk of ensuring publications which show AGW to be a myth, will NOT get past the peer review process, even if they must change what the process is? You've seen the wholesale refusal to disclose raw data.

Where in science do you believe the above is acceptable? I studied physics. If ever a theory was produced and the experiment designed, do you believe I could then say "no, not telling you about the data I used, not providing any to do, not telling you how I conducted the experiment and I'm not telling you what adjustments I made to do the data to produce my line of best fit. You will just have to "trust" me. I am telling the truth, my theory is correct.....

Climate Change - no longer Global Warming - why do you suppose that is?. It is not a science in the way we are provided with the information. Nor does it seem to be conducted in a scientific manner.

[zygalski]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Lest we forget.

AreOut said:

130 years is also a very short period in the history of this planet

That's what I like about you climate tin-foilers. You're just so damn consistent.

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 08:59

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Lest we forget.

AreOut said:

130 years is also a very short period in the history of this planet

That's what I like about you climate tin-foilers. You're just so damn consistent.

Yes because we foil-free climate realists know what the data says and what the implications are, also that it's politics not science as the MMGW idea was a lost scientific cause long ago. True believer consistency amounts to parroting meaningless soundbites followed by more of the same, that's all you have to offer.

[zygalski]

Jasandjules said:

Climate Change - no longer Global Warming - why do you suppose that is?. It is not a science in the way we are provided with the information. Nor does it seem to be conducted in a scientific manner.

I thought they were used interchangeably?
Gilbert Plass used the phrase Climate Change in his studies in the 1950's.

Ironically, the only person on record as wanting to change phraseology from Global Warming to Climate Change was Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist GW sceptic in the US wanted to promote the usage of Climate Change because it was "less frightening" than GW.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_env...
see section Conclusion: Redefining Labels

[turbobloke]

From the Green Lunacy thread:

ChemicalChaos said:

The lunacy just got even more loony...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984169/Hu...

Public sector ships as target practice for pirates to hijack, human rights for animals, ban on horse racing (animal rights people have joined the ultraleftists), smaller 'progressive' lottery wins, and more.

Economic genius and housing specialist Natalie Bennett will be joined by scientist model Lily Cole at Conference to push the above proposals aimed at a 'peaceful political revolution' for the comrades.

[AreOut]

zygalski said:

That's what I like about you climate tin-foilers. You're just so damn consistent.

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 08:59

sure we are, a whole lot more than believers

[Jasandjules]

zygalski said:

That's what I like about you climate tin-foilers. You're just so damn consistent.

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 08:59

Yes, consistency is used by those telling the truth. Only liars need to keep changing the story, such as "snow is a thing of the past", no wait, what we meant was there would be loads more snow, the models show this...

Or, the models will show the planet heating out of control. No wait, what we mean is there will be a 20-30 year period where there will be no statistical warming....

[Mr GrimNasty]

zygalski said:

Hmm.
It's odd that science is lauded so widely on PH in virtually every aspect apart from climate change. For instance science vs religion. All the PH N,P & E types all of a sudden do a hasty about turn & start praising at the altar of the wider scientific community. Those same posters who have just been suggesting an industry-wide tinfoil hat conspiracy. Now science can do no wrong. How dare anyone question the consensus within science? Thanks to science we know this, that & the other....
That's what I call vested interests. Transparently so. Keep filling your tanks, lads. It's funny to watch the hypocrisy in this joint

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 04:49

You have bizarre logic errors in your argument in that you think PH is some sort of hive mind, or that all matters of science are the same - clearly ludicrous.

You have unwittingly made a valid point though, the climate issue has destroyed the reputation and trust in science and abandoned the scientific method and integrity for the sake of money and politics.

Anyway, I'm ooot as they say. You've clearly lost touch with logic and reality and are only here to fling insults around.

[zygalski]

Jasandjules said:

zygalski said:

That's what I like about you climate tin-foilers. You're just so damn consistent.

Edited by zygalski on Sunday 8th March 08:59

Yes, consistency is used by those telling the truth. Only liars need to keep changing the story, such as "snow is a thing of the past", no wait, what we meant was there would be loads more snow, the models show this...

Or, the models will show the planet heating out of control. No wait, what we mean is there will be a 20-30 year period where there will be no statistical warming....

So which climate data should we be looking at for trends? The last 18 years or the last 1800?
Talk amongst yourselves & come back to me when you've got your story straight.