Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
And this is the politics thread.
I was so close to clicking the report button (attrition looping) but I guess it is all edumacation. It was so much easier a few years ago.How long has this been going on now? Ten, Twelve years?
Edited by TheExcession on Wednesday 4th May 16:28
It's marginal but on balance I think more politics than anything approaching real science.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/05/climate-h...
pretty fun to read and even funnier to read the comments.
Lots of people suggesting deniers should be disappeared... (again hate the term denier, has no place in science). Also one comment mentioning confirmation bias. I bet none have actually watched it.
pretty fun to read and even funnier to read the comments.
Lots of people suggesting deniers should be disappeared... (again hate the term denier, has no place in science). Also one comment mentioning confirmation bias. I bet none have actually watched it.
The Don of Croy said:
Anybody watch Horizon last night?
Stunning scenery as Peter Gibbs went back to the UK Antarctic base onboard the Ernest Shackleton, and learned even more about global warming climate change.
There was much reference to ice calving, some spectacular images of same, and news that the base station might have to move because of massive ice sheet changes - none of which was specifically attributed to AGW but helpfully mentioned in and around the same subject. What he didn't explain was why the last ice sheet change - it's happened before - did it's thing before we warmed the planet.
Later we saw them release weather balloons which feed back all that warming data - and learned there are another 40 monitoring sites across that continent. A continent twice the size of Australia. But all the data helps with the 'models'.
I didn't watch it, primarily because I saw the red boat on the thumbnail and instantly thought it would be that ding bat who got it stuck in all the sea ice he was expecting to have melted and disappeared. I thought he'd gone back to try sweep the pieces under the carpet.Stunning scenery as Peter Gibbs went back to the UK Antarctic base onboard the Ernest Shackleton, and learned even more about global warming climate change.
There was much reference to ice calving, some spectacular images of same, and news that the base station might have to move because of massive ice sheet changes - none of which was specifically attributed to AGW but helpfully mentioned in and around the same subject. What he didn't explain was why the last ice sheet change - it's happened before - did it's thing before we warmed the planet.
Later we saw them release weather balloons which feed back all that warming data - and learned there are another 40 monitoring sites across that continent. A continent twice the size of Australia. But all the data helps with the 'models'.
I wasn't far off though. The message seems to be the same, its just some other dude telling the story.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
People are sick and tired of Durbster ruining the thread.
I would ask for evidence but previous requests for you to back up your assertions have been consistently met with silence.Mr GrimNasty said:
He's a hypocritical inconsistent moron who just pops in with an arrogant snide 'pitty the ignorant fools'
attitude to stir s
t.
I can see why you'd say that.attitude to stir s
t.Mr GrimNasty said:
He dismisses all contrary evidence.
Can you give me an example of one thing you have changed your mind on in this discussion?
Mr GrimNasty said:
What else is there left to say - Durbster doesn't want a discussion, he wants suppression of alternative views.
You're the guy who has repeatedly asked me to leave the thread for ruining the thread, right?Moronic. I'm not playing your game. Don't you get it?
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism complete with the retorts to the usual 'debunk' sites like Skept. Sci.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...
Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes instead of selectively quoting my factual self-evident remarks about your unpleasant character.
And when you've finished that, please read each of the 1350 papers and explain why they are all wrong.
Please address the science/political facts. Or you can just keep evading as per usual. And look even more pathetic.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Moronic. I'm not playing your game. Don't you get it?
...
Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes instead of selectively quoting my factual self-evident remarks about your unpleasant character.
This isn't going to happen, Durbster flipped my mental ignore switch a few days back when I asked him to refute the climategate emails, specifically the Booker Telegraph article....
Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes instead of selectively quoting my factual self-evident remarks about your unpleasant character.
I was teetering on the edge when
TheExcession said:
I've suggested that you ignore the blogs and read the emails leaked from the CRU UEA, perhaps check out who Harry is, and then read the Harry-Readme.txt. After that come back and tell us the science is settled.
Only to receive in reply:Durbster said:
Let me guess, you read about this on a blog. 
He's obviously incapable of doing any reading or research by himself, and even when pointed in the right direction his head is buried so deep in the sand that he won't listen to the opportunities to get a wider picture.
Pure true-faith in this one. It reminds me of the elderly lady working behind the counter in our village shop. A "Local Shop for Local People". She was absolutely adamant that there are no worms in consecrated ground (I kid you not). She was convinced that when you are buried (in consecrated ground) you just lie there until Jeebus decides to return and God will wake you up!
Astonishing, but what can you say?
I'd suggest we all just ignore him.
The fires in Canada have at last been partially blamed on CC!
'Perfect storm' of El Niño and warming boosted Alberta fires
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3621...
El Niño and ongoing climate change have both contributed to the devastating Alberta wildfires according to experts.
The weather phenomenon has caused much drier conditions than normal, leading to a massive increase in the number of fires in the province.
Alberta has had 330 wildfires already this year, more than double the recent annual average.
Global warming has also seen wildfire seasons lengthen considerably since 1979, according to studies.
Dry winter
Alberta and much of western Canada experienced a serious drought last year. So great was the impact on farmers, the province declared an agricultural emergency.
The dry conditions continued through the winter with the western part of Canada then feeling the impact of El Niño.
Scientists say the current El Niño event is one of the strongest on record, with the effects felt all over the world including a reduced monsoon in India and droughts in parts of Africa.
"We've had an incredibly dry winter, we didn't have enough snow pack," said Prof Judith Kulig from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, who believes a "perfect storm" of factors, including El Niño, has come together to cause the huge fire.
"This year the fire season officially began March 1st, last year it was March 15th. These are significant changes when the fire season used to begin in May and now begins in March."
That fingerprint of El Niño saw Fort McMurray record a temperature of 32.6C earlier this week, which is significantly above the normal high temperature for early May of around 14C.
Not local but global
Many researchers believe that El Niño was not the only factor increasing the likelihood of a major fire in Alberta.
They point to the bigger global picture of rising temperatures, which in the first four months of this year are running more than 1C above the long-term average.
In January a Canadian study suggested that warming would lead to a "higher frequency of extreme fire weather days" across the country.
The author of that paper, Dr Mike Flannigan from the University of Alberta, seems in little doubt that climate change was at least partly responsible for the outbreak around Fort McMurray.
"This is consistent with what we expect from human-caused climate change affecting our fire regime," he told reporters.
A number of research papers have highlighted the fact that warming is leading to an increase in wildfire risk. Studies have also shown that northern latitudes are feeling those impacts more strongly.
"Some of the changes can be ascribed to improvements in reporting but there are datasets which show the fire season has lengthened," said Prof Martin Wooster, from King's College London and NERC National Centre for Earth Observation.
"There have been papers that have shown that not only in theory the conditions are there for longer, but also the actual area of burn has increased over the past half century."
"That sort of thing is more likely to be able to be said in Canada than in other places."
One factor that is often overlooked in the race to discover the causes of natural disasters is demography.
Just before the last major El Niño in 1997, the population of Fort McMurray was just over 30,000. The last census indicated it was over 60,000.
More people means not just a greater impact when fires occur, it also suggests the chances of one starting are increased.
"There is this thing called the wild land urban interface, which is where people's homes get increasingly close to environments still undeveloped - and fire is able to come out of these 'natural' areas," Prof Wooster said.
"And if you get more people you are more likely to get ignitions."
'Perfect storm' of El Niño and warming boosted Alberta fires
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3621...
El Niño and ongoing climate change have both contributed to the devastating Alberta wildfires according to experts.
The weather phenomenon has caused much drier conditions than normal, leading to a massive increase in the number of fires in the province.
Alberta has had 330 wildfires already this year, more than double the recent annual average.
Global warming has also seen wildfire seasons lengthen considerably since 1979, according to studies.
Dry winter
Alberta and much of western Canada experienced a serious drought last year. So great was the impact on farmers, the province declared an agricultural emergency.
The dry conditions continued through the winter with the western part of Canada then feeling the impact of El Niño.
Scientists say the current El Niño event is one of the strongest on record, with the effects felt all over the world including a reduced monsoon in India and droughts in parts of Africa.
"We've had an incredibly dry winter, we didn't have enough snow pack," said Prof Judith Kulig from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, who believes a "perfect storm" of factors, including El Niño, has come together to cause the huge fire.
"This year the fire season officially began March 1st, last year it was March 15th. These are significant changes when the fire season used to begin in May and now begins in March."
That fingerprint of El Niño saw Fort McMurray record a temperature of 32.6C earlier this week, which is significantly above the normal high temperature for early May of around 14C.
Not local but global
Many researchers believe that El Niño was not the only factor increasing the likelihood of a major fire in Alberta.
They point to the bigger global picture of rising temperatures, which in the first four months of this year are running more than 1C above the long-term average.
In January a Canadian study suggested that warming would lead to a "higher frequency of extreme fire weather days" across the country.
The author of that paper, Dr Mike Flannigan from the University of Alberta, seems in little doubt that climate change was at least partly responsible for the outbreak around Fort McMurray.
"This is consistent with what we expect from human-caused climate change affecting our fire regime," he told reporters.
A number of research papers have highlighted the fact that warming is leading to an increase in wildfire risk. Studies have also shown that northern latitudes are feeling those impacts more strongly.
"Some of the changes can be ascribed to improvements in reporting but there are datasets which show the fire season has lengthened," said Prof Martin Wooster, from King's College London and NERC National Centre for Earth Observation.
"There have been papers that have shown that not only in theory the conditions are there for longer, but also the actual area of burn has increased over the past half century."
"That sort of thing is more likely to be able to be said in Canada than in other places."
One factor that is often overlooked in the race to discover the causes of natural disasters is demography.
Just before the last major El Niño in 1997, the population of Fort McMurray was just over 30,000. The last census indicated it was over 60,000.
More people means not just a greater impact when fires occur, it also suggests the chances of one starting are increased.
"There is this thing called the wild land urban interface, which is where people's homes get increasingly close to environments still undeveloped - and fire is able to come out of these 'natural' areas," Prof Wooster said.
"And if you get more people you are more likely to get ignitions."
Re the above , all these circumstances have occurred many times before , just not all at once . Add in the geographical situation of Fort Mac , plus only one road in or out and you have the perfect storm , not CC , an almighty fking disaster waiting to happen , which is where we are now .
king disaster waiting to happen , which is where we are now .Mr GrimNasty said:
Moronic.
Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes instead of selectively quoting my factual self-evident remarks about your unpleasant character.
Personal abuse aside (you've used that one already btw), the fact you think I would feel inclined to refute your list of quotes shows that you don't really understand much about all this. It suggests you can only think in binary.Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes instead of selectively quoting my factual self-evident remarks about your unpleasant character.
Then there's the fact that you don't realise that your extensive list of quotes contradicts your regular assertions that dissenting scientists are silenced. Assuming you haven't made them up, it looks like strong evidence that the debate among climate scientists and the IPCC is reassuringly healthy.
TheExcession said:
This isn't going to happen, Durbster flipped my mental ignore switch a few days back when I asked him to refute the climategate emails, specifically the Booker Telegraph article.
Whether wilful or not that is a gross misrepresentation of events. You raised climategate and I pointed you to the results of one of several enquiries, and the official rebuttal from the UEACRU that put the cherry picked quotes into context.If you aren't willing to believe the findings of multiple official inquiries then I'm not sure what you expect from a random unqualified bloke off the internet, frankly.
TheExcession said:
I was teetering on the edge when
Again, I responded to this because you misunderstood it. I was referring to the harry readme story.TheExcession said:
I've suggested that you ignore the blogs and read the emails leaked from the CRU UEA, perhaps check out who Harry is, and then read the Harry-Readme.txt. After that come back and tell us the science is settled.
Only to receive in reply:Durbster said:
Let me guess, you read about this on a blog.
And I don't know how many times I have to say this but I've never presented anything I've seen on a blog.
TheExcession said:
He's obviously incapable of doing any reading or research by himself
You mean apart from all the research I've done by myself that I've presented in here (that wasn't from blogs).TheExcession said:
...and even when pointed in the right direction his head is buried so deep in the sand that he won't listen to the opportunities to get a wider picture.
The "right" direction eh. That's definitely the kind of language somebody looking at this with an open-mind uses.TheExcession said:
It reminds me of the elderly lady working behind the counter in our village shop. A "Local Shop for Local People". She was absolutely adamant that there are no worms in consecrated ground (I kid you not). She was convinced that when you are buried (in consecrated ground) you just lie there until Jeebus decides to return and God will wake you up!
And she thought this because of multiple streams of corroborating research, endorsement from every major scientific institute in the world, and decades of observations matching predictions!?TheExcession said:
Astonishing, but what can you say?
That is astonishing! Why wasn't this in the news!? ... oh wait, I know. It was a plan hatched in the 1970s to use the worms so that politicians can increase power and raise taxes 40 years later! It's obvious really.
TheExcession said:
I'd suggest we all just ignore him.
Suits me fine but let's face it, it's really boring in here when it's just you lot wking each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.durbster said:
Suits me fine but let's face it, it's really boring in here when it's just you lot wking each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.
Wild imagination you have there, or are you talking from experience?king each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.durbster said:
Suits me fine but let's face it, it's really boring in here when it's just you lot wking each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.
there were no proper investigations into the content of climategate. none. a few panels of fellow troughers accepted verbatim what those involved told them .to be fair, i do not know your personal criteria for what would constitute an investigation into the matter, but none of the cosy meetings that were held met mine.king each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.wc98 said:
there were no proper investigations into the content of climategate. none. a few panels of fellow troughers accepted verbatim what those involved told them .to be fair, i do not know your personal criteria for what would constitute an investigation into the matter, but none of the cosy meetings that were held met mine.
Well,all I can say is that you must be very hard to please...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Un...
CR6ZZ said:
wc98 said:
there were no proper investigations into the content of climategate. none. a few panels of fellow troughers accepted verbatim what those involved told them .to be fair, i do not know your personal criteria for what would constitute an investigation into the matter, but none of the cosy meetings that were held met mine.
Well,all I can say is that you must be very hard to please...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Un...
"The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries".
That's the white wash done then. Carry on lads !!!
robinessex said:
CR6ZZ said:
wc98 said:
there were no proper investigations into the content of climategate. none. a few panels of fellow troughers accepted verbatim what those involved told them .to be fair, i do not know your personal criteria for what would constitute an investigation into the matter, but none of the cosy meetings that were held met mine.
Well,all I can say is that you must be very hard to please...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Un...
"The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries".
That's the white wash done then. Carry on lads !!!
Best keep the investigation budget down - that will ensure there are very few days allocated to the process.
The manner in which some people believe officialdumb when the evidence is available for them to review - and obviously not as portrayed in whitewashes - is mind-boggling. Being told what to think and accepting it meekly ... that'll do nicely.
There must be a grant somewhere to discover if this is a variation on the old style of believer or a new species altogether.
It would be no exaggeration to expect such people to wear earphones 24/7 to hear a loop playing the phrase 'government says you can breathe in government says you can breathe out'.
There must be a grant somewhere to discover if this is a variation on the old style of believer or a new species altogether.
It would be no exaggeration to expect such people to wear earphones 24/7 to hear a loop playing the phrase 'government says you can breathe in government says you can breathe out'.
turbobloke said:
It would be no exaggeration to expect such people to wear earphones 24/7 to hear a loop playing the phrase 'government says you can breathe in government says you can breathe out'.
Many years ago there was a picture of Wendy James of Transvision Vamp fame, I think it was in Sounds or perhaps The NME.
It was a picture of her with ear buds (known as heaphones for the older folk) and the caption competition was 'What is Wendy listening to?', IIRC the winning caption was 'breathe in breath out, breathe in breath out, breathe in breath out'
How you keep on at this I'll never know, the ignorance annoys me beyond belief, but then I never had anytime for God bothers either.
durbster said:
Suits me fine but let's face it, it's really boring in here when it's just you lot wking each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.
There you have it again folks. True colours. king each other off when one of you finds a blog post written by an geography teacher from Alabama in his bedroom in which he has discovered something that suggests the theory of AGW isn't absolutely perfect.Pretends he wants a debate, but actually only wants to sneer and create a rambling never-ending argument.
Climategate investigation? Here's all you need.
Can't have that nasty decline in the tree ring data, even though NCAR measured corresponding temperatures at the time.
Mr GrimNasty said:
EFA
Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes
Oooo, oooo, can I play, or this only between MrGN and Durbster?Durbster, can you please refute each of my IPCC people quotes
OK, so since MrGN asked us to, I’ve had a brief look at his list of "people who contributed to the IPCC process" (so who is appealing to authority here?).
This lists has appeared on various advocacy blog sites since 2011, and also in an open letter, penned by John Happs, to Australia’s chief scientist. So where was it copied and pasted from? Just curious. It’s nice to know sources.
The list was complied around 5 years ago and is comprised of quotes collected over the 12 year period before that, so may not be an indication of current feeling.
Now if MrGN had checked the bios for the people on the list himself, rather than uncritically copying and pasting, he would have found one, or more, people on the list who is:
Someone who is not a climate scientist and has never done any research on climate science (there are several of these);
Someone who is not a scientist of any sort;
Someone’s whose bio does not mention any association with the IPCC;
Someone who is a self-declared AGW skeptic, and always has been (several of these too…);
Someone who is retained by the mining industry to advocate against AGW;
Someone who has changed their mind and now believes in AGW;
Someone who is labeled as Dr but is actually not a Dr;
Someone who is retained by the Heartland Institute;
Someone who has publicly stated that they believe Michael Mann’s research has been diligently carried out;
And so on, and so on…
Perhaps MrGN can go away and come back after he has done some research and tell us who is who…
Of course in the original iterations of this list much is made of the fact that these people are “IPCC experts”, or “Expert reviewers”. Let’s just clarify that: “Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn't mean that they asked him/her to review material – all it means is that he/she asked to see the draft report. Even you guys can become expert reviewers – all you need do is fill out the application form.
So, here we have a list of 42 people, many of whom are long-time AGW skeptics, who may or may not have asked to see a draft report from any one of several IPCC meetings, who say they don’t agree with the IPCC’s findings. Well, surprise, surprise.
To put thing in perspective, each IPCC report produced has had 2000 – 3000 “expert” reviewers. Where is the outrage from the remainder?
If we are going to post lists as proof of argument, why not post the list of more than 2800 scientists who have lent their names to an open letter to the Australian Government castigating them for cuts to CSIRO funding for climate and other research? Or does it have less credence because it does not support your particular view.
http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2016/02/an-open-le...
All Mr GN’s list does is show, as Durbster has already pointed out, that the IPCC is open to review by anyone who cares to take the time to submit a review, and quite rightly so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff