Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
The suspicion has to be he's on about that political advocacy group known as the IPCC, stuffed full of political appointees, whose role it is to carry out a one-sided review then make a case for AGW to politicians come what may.
And what does that have to do with me?robinessex said:
The Beeb puff piece today
...
PS. Don’t mention the world tree count which was wrong by a factor of 10 !!
I heard it on the way home - the diligent re-telling of the 'global warming dangers' (ocean acidification, rising sea levels, arctic ice melt, stronger hurricanes) all got a mention....
PS. Don’t mention the world tree count which was wrong by a factor of 10 !!
Meantime I wondered how the hell they counted all that leaf matter across the globe, factoring in the vastly different plants/trees/moss/lichen etc etc. Turns out it was three satellite datasets and ten computer models - so no room for error.
There really is no space for any positives in any of these 'unprecedented' events that turn up every five minutes. Yet when I look at the countryside in all it's verdant glory I think it looks spiffing. Hard to maintain, but glorious too.
Anybody else feeling the chill temp-wise? Surprisingly so in such warm climes. Luckily we have a warmer climate overall, so that's all good. /sarkymode
robinessex said:
2nd Beeb puff piece today
Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
Laughably inconsistent aren't they, of course such a small localised effect shows how large an effect change of land use has on climate & temperatures globally, clearly a much bigger factor in global surface temperature measurements than CO2, and UHI and waste heat contamination are nowhere near adequately adjusted for.Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
Also incredibly bad science - measuring the 'impact' when the turbines were off v. on - rather than before/after they were installed.
ATEOTD it's just another pointless paper among thousands written for no reason other than to whitewash away any concerns/issues with dumb green.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The IPCC is not a neutral organisation, the information they publish is not balanced, the IPCC's reason for existence is to prove AGW and to justify UN control.
The IPCC? What are you banging on about?Mr GrimNasty said:
Durbster reminds me of Sen. Boxer in this clip, the same tactics, the same inconsistency, the same bigotry.
Inconsistency? Bigotry 
Are you just pulling your personal insults out of a hat now?
don4l said:
Why don't you have a proper look before commenting.
Because I don't have a lot of spare time and because it was apparent there were some glaring problems with that petition.If you find an accurate description of your behaviour on this thread insulting, that's life.
As for the 'impossibility' of establishment collusion and corruption involving 100s of people and dozens of organisations/bodies, all knowing what they 'have' to do without being ordered, in order to present a consensus, perhaps you would like to consider Hillsborough for one moment.
Mr GrimNasty said:
As for the 'impossibility' of establishment collusion and corruption involving 100s of people and dozens of organisations/bodies, all knowing what they 'have' to do without being ordered, in order to present a consensus, perhaps you would like to consider Hillsborough for one moment.
Jesus. What a disgusting thing to say. Even if it were even a relevant analogy - which it's not - to use the deaths of those poor people to push your distorted agenda is beyond awful.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
As for the 'impossibility' of establishment collusion and corruption involving 100s of people and dozens of organisations/bodies, all knowing what they 'have' to do without being ordered, in order to present a consensus, perhaps you would like to consider Hillsborough for one moment.
Jesus. What a disgusting thing to say. Even if it were even a relevant analogy - which it's not - to use the deaths of those poor people to push your distorted agenda is beyond awful.
How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
don4l said:
Wow! You are doing exactly what you accuse Mr GN of doing.
How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Excuse me? When have I exploited the dead bodies of innocent people to make a tenuous point?How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Where did he prove me wrong and on what? I don't recall any proof of anything, just insults and demanding anyone who disagrees with him to leave.
Anyway, not really interested in the personal stuff and bringing Hillsborough into it has turned my stomach. Celebrating people losing their jobs was pretty damn low, but this is a step beyond.
durbster said:
don4l said:
Wow! You are doing exactly what you accuse Mr GN of doing.
How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Excuse me? When have I exploited the dead bodies of innocent people to make a tenuous point?How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Where did he prove me wrong and on what? I don't recall any proof of anything, just insults and demanding anyone who disagrees with him to leave.
Anyway, not really interested in the personal stuff and bringing Hillsborough into it has turned my stomach. Celebrating people losing their jobs was pretty damn low, but this is a step beyond.
You really should not conflate the two things as you seem to be doing for some reason.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
As for the 'impossibility' of establishment collusion and corruption involving 100s of people and dozens of organisations/bodies, all knowing what they 'have' to do without being ordered, in order to present a consensus, perhaps you would like to consider Hillsborough for one moment.
Jesus. What a disgusting thing to say. Even if it were even a relevant analogy - which it's not - to use the deaths of those poor people to push your distorted agenda is beyond awful.
durbster said:
don4l said:
Wow! You are doing exactly what you accuse Mr GN of doing.
How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Excuse me? When have I exploited the dead bodies of innocent people to make a tenuous point?How low can you go?
He proved you wrong. Just accept that you have lost this particular point.
Where did he prove me wrong and on what? I don't recall any proof of anything, just insults and demanding anyone who disagrees with him to leave.
Anyway, not really interested in the personal stuff and bringing Hillsborough into it has turned my stomach. Celebrating people losing their jobs was pretty damn low, but this is a step beyond.
I've just been listening to some of the relatives on the radio. They want everyone to know the truth.
MrGN did not use the deaths to back up his position, he was merely highlighting the fact that corruption.
You then tried to use the situation to your advantage by mentioning the deaths.
When I said that people like you were partly to blame for the deaths of 30,000 people in the winter 2014/2015 I was wrong. I had a look at the Office of National Stastics website. The true figure is 47,000.
I then had a look at the Climate Change Committee's website. They admit that 9% of energy bills is down to the climate change act.
I then paid a visit to the NICE website, where they confirmed that these deaths are caused because of the cold.
Vulnerable people cannot afford to heat their homes, and at least 10% of bills are to fight imaginary man made global warming.
Your support for daft climate change policies makes you complicit in the deaths of far more people than the bent coppers in Sheffield.
robinessex said:
2nd Beeb puff piece today
Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
This is one of the more peculiar reports I have seen on the BBC.Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
If you know there is a temperature gradient from ground up to a certain height and then "mix" up the column of air with turbine blades you might well expect to see some changes. Erratic no doubt, but changes nonetheless. And lo, they have - at ground level. What about higher up?
Did they look at what might happen downwind?
Turns out they did in some ways although perhaps not a long way downwind.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...
No unreasonably the report concludes there is nothing much to worry about, at least at that location in that eco system based on peatland with a high water table.
However it does correctly point out that since the results suggest significance, even if not a large effect, the study type should probably be extended to different locations.
"This research demonstrates that effects of wind
turbines on ground-level microclimate could have
implications for biogeochemical processes and ecosys-
tem carbon cycling. Consequently, improved mea-
surements and modelling approaches are needed to
determine the true carbon balance of wind energy that
includes the effects of altered ground-level
microclimates."
don4l said:
The families of the Hillsborough victims have suffered terribly for 27 years. Police collusion and corruption is at the heart of he case. That is a simple fact, and I am sure that none of the families involved would take exception with me stating that.
I've just been listening to some of the relatives on the radio. They want everyone to know the truth.
MrGN did not use the deaths to back up his position, he was merely highlighting the fact that corruption.
You then tried to use the situation to your advantage by mentioning the deaths.
When I said that people like you were partly to blame for the deaths of 30,000 people in the winter 2014/2015 I was wrong. I had a look at the Office of National Stastics website. The true figure is 47,000.
I then had a look at the Climate Change Committee's website. They admit that 9% of energy bills is down to the climate change act.
I then paid a visit to the NICE website, where they confirmed that these deaths are caused because of the cold.
Vulnerable people cannot afford to heat their homes, and at least 10% of bills are to fight imaginary man made global warming.
Your support for daft climate change policies makes you complicit in the deaths of far more people than the bent coppers in Sheffield.
Exactly working to make people feel guilty about living a normal life and stealing from the poor and vulnrable to pay rich I've just been listening to some of the relatives on the radio. They want everyone to know the truth.
MrGN did not use the deaths to back up his position, he was merely highlighting the fact that corruption.
You then tried to use the situation to your advantage by mentioning the deaths.
When I said that people like you were partly to blame for the deaths of 30,000 people in the winter 2014/2015 I was wrong. I had a look at the Office of National Stastics website. The true figure is 47,000.
I then had a look at the Climate Change Committee's website. They admit that 9% of energy bills is down to the climate change act.
I then paid a visit to the NICE website, where they confirmed that these deaths are caused because of the cold.
Vulnerable people cannot afford to heat their homes, and at least 10% of bills are to fight imaginary man made global warming.
Your support for daft climate change policies makes you complicit in the deaths of far more people than the bent coppers in Sheffield.
people to jet round the world , study a non existent problem , and grab money to mess up the countryside with windmills
and solar farms ,
s thats all they are.....durbster said:
Jesus. What a disgusting thing to say.
Even if it were even a relevant analogy - which it's not - to use the deaths of those poor people to push your distorted agenda is beyond awful.
We had a family member used the same tactic as you just have. It's very effective too, putting someone on the back-foot when you've run out of answers. She was an argumentative sort, but was adept at ignoring facts, so inevitably she had to seek refuge in personal attacks by always transferring the argument onto something wildly emotional - as you have just done.Even if it were even a relevant analogy - which it's not - to use the deaths of those poor people to push your distorted agenda is beyond awful.
Shame on you for doing that.
Oh, when I say 'used to', I don't mean she's passed on. I mean that she is very lonely now.
don4l said:
MrGN did not use the deaths to back up his position, he was merely highlighting the fact that corruption.
You then tried to use the situation to your advantage by mentioning the deaths.
I didn't invoke Hillsborough and it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. I reacted to it because it turned my stomach when I read it.You then tried to use the situation to your advantage by mentioning the deaths.
don4l said:
Your support for daft climate change policies makes you complicit in the deaths of far more people than the bent coppers in Sheffield.
You have absolutely no idea what policies I support.don4l said:
When I said that people like you were partly to blame for the deaths of 30,000 people in the winter 2014/2015 I was wrong. I had a look at the Office of National Stastics website. The true figure is 47,000.
Your attribution to climate change policies is highly questionable. You could just as easily equally blame energy company pricing strategy, building insulation, energy regulators, Government, also pensions, inequality, healthcare, education. What about the other 90+% of the energy bill?Also, I can't see any evidence of a rise in excess winter deaths since climate change policies were introduced.
I can't find anything that reaches the same conclusions you have:
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng6/chapter/3-Con...
https://fullfact.org/economy/housing-pollution-and...
https://fullfact.org/news/31000-excess-deaths-last...
jshell said:
We had a family member used the same tactic as you just have. It's very effective too, putting someone on the back-foot when you've run out of answers. She was an argumentative sort, but was adept at ignoring facts, so inevitably she had to seek refuge in personal attacks by always transferring the argument onto something wildly emotional - as you have just done.
Er, is this seriously intended for me or was that an error? If it's intentional, the hypocrisy is comical.Tenuously bringing Hillsborough in to this ridiculous debate was totally unecessary and - crucially - it wasn't me who brought it up.
And I suppose accusing me of assisted genocide is not emotive at all. Any indignation for that?
jshell said:
Oh, when I say 'used to', I don't mean she's passed on. I mean that she is very lonely now.
Oh no!
I hadn't realised just how much accepting a widely uncontested, mainstream scientific position would affect my life. I had no idea I was murdering pensioners and endorsing poor policies, and now I find I'm destined for loneliness too!
I shall go and start reading WUWT immediately before my friends abandon me.
durbster said:
jshell said:
We had a family member used the same tactic as you just have. It's very effective too, putting someone on the back-foot when you've run out of answers. She was an argumentative sort, but was adept at ignoring facts, so inevitably she had to seek refuge in personal attacks by always transferring the argument onto something wildly emotional - as you have just done.
Er, is this seriously intended for me or was that an error? If it's intentional, the hypocrisy is comical.Tenuously bringing Hillsborough in to this ridiculous debate was totally unecessary and - crucially - it wasn't me who brought it up.
And I suppose accusing me of assisted genocide is not emotive at all. Any indignation for that?
jshell said:
Oh, when I say 'used to', I don't mean she's passed on. I mean that she is very lonely now.
Oh no!
I hadn't realised just how much accepting a widely uncontested, mainstream scientific position would affect my life. I had no idea I was murdering pensioners and endorsing poor policies, and now I find I'm destined for loneliness too!
I shall go and start reading WUWT immediately before my friends abandon me.
That's all...
Durbster, you are a truly pathetic individual. You keep playing the faux-outrage card and putting 'words in mouth' game instead of addressing the point, along with all the usual cliche moronic 'argumental' tactics.
If you had an ounce of social grace you would just accept that you are out of step with the character of this thread and you are boring and bullying and upsetting just about everyone else, and you would just leave it alone. It's not your views that is the problem, it is YOU.
Your supposed mainstream climate science is just the politics of the IPCC, and the enforcement of political correctness on the scientific establishment.
How many times do we need to say that.
"A panel of climate experts are telling the House Science Committee that politics often gets in the way of good science at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as in the U.S. government’s own climate research.
Climate scientists and researchers who dissent even slightly from the talking points of politicians and environmental groups are intimidated and ostracized, said one congressional witness. Politics, the witness said, takes a lead role over science in the study of global warming.
Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence in which case they are harassed and smeared.......”
If you had an ounce of social grace you would just accept that you are out of step with the character of this thread and you are boring and bullying and upsetting just about everyone else, and you would just leave it alone. It's not your views that is the problem, it is YOU.
Your supposed mainstream climate science is just the politics of the IPCC, and the enforcement of political correctness on the scientific establishment.
How many times do we need to say that.
"A panel of climate experts are telling the House Science Committee that politics often gets in the way of good science at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as in the U.S. government’s own climate research.
Climate scientists and researchers who dissent even slightly from the talking points of politicians and environmental groups are intimidated and ostracized, said one congressional witness. Politics, the witness said, takes a lead role over science in the study of global warming.
Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence in which case they are harassed and smeared.......”
Vigorous fightback against contrived legalese climate billhooks:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/victim-of-ags-cl...
Climate alarmists are getting (even more) desperate:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
What's this, racism?! 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change:
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/science-230-...
http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/victim-of-ags-cl...
Climate alarmists are getting (even more) desperate:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
What's this, racism?! 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change:
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/science-230-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff