Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
powerstroke said:
durbster said:
zygalski said:
Nice to see business as usual in this thread now & full-on global conspiracy froth-mode is resumed. 
Sometimes it's interesting to release this thread from the unwelcome burden of criticism just to see what happens 
turbobloke said:
The only people suggesting a conspiracy, full-on global no less, are those who claim others are suggesting it. One of the more tedious strawman attrition loops.
It's interesting how you retreat from calling it a conspiracy when every part of your argument implies exactly that.I guess it's critical that you appear sufficiently detched from the anti-vaxxer, chemtrail type people, since that association would undermine your efforts to put a credible spin on the argument (your heart must sink every time Grim posts another ramble
).Having said that, when your argument contradicts itself at almost every step I suppose it should be no surprise to see repeated claims of evidence cover-ups, tampered data, silenced/sacked naysayers, diverted research funds, Government/BBC propaganda etc., and at the same time insisting that nobody is claiming conspiracy.
durbster said:
powerstroke said:
No conspiracy , its straight forward open warfare on common sense dressed up as doing good for the planet...
Led by who? Who's conducting this warfare?It's pretty straightforward. You are intelligent enough to understand this. Whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely up to you.
Blib said:
For goodness sakes. It doesn't need orchestrating. Different groups with differing agendas see the benefit of travelling in a common direction.
It's pretty straightforward. You are intelligent enough to understand this. Whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely up to you.
What groups? Can you give examples? What agenda? Can you offer evidence? It's pretty straightforward. You are intelligent enough to understand this. Whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely up to you.
It's all so vague.
And different groups conspiring to further their own agenda sounds rather like a conspiracy, don't you think?
Blib said:
It's disheartening that a nation which has the ability to easily meet its energy needs will have to endure brown outs and black outs.
Still, chins up lads, it's only the poor and disadvantaged who will really suffer.
There won;t be blackouts - there is too much money being thrown at capacity market participants for that. A terrific transfer of wealth from bill payers to investment funds etc. Still, chins up lads, it's only the poor and disadvantaged who will really suffer.
Don't need a conspiracy Durbster.
Groups: politicians. Nothing nobler than being seen to save the planet. Climate scientists: once a backwater, now at the forefront of public conscience AND the public purse. Greens: climate change is a game changer for them. Communists: the climate agenda is inherently anti capitalism.
Why are you deliberately being obtuse?
Groups: politicians. Nothing nobler than being seen to save the planet. Climate scientists: once a backwater, now at the forefront of public conscience AND the public purse. Greens: climate change is a game changer for them. Communists: the climate agenda is inherently anti capitalism.
Why are you deliberately being obtuse?
Blib said:
Don't need a conspiracy Durbster.
Groups: politicians. Nothing nobler than being seen to save the planet. Climate scientists: once a backwater, now at the forefront of public conscience AND the public purse. Greens: climate change is a game changer for them. Communists: the climate agenda is inherently anti capitalism.
Why are you deliberately being obtuse?
I'm not, I'm just asking for specifics, not vague speculation. Groups: politicians. Nothing nobler than being seen to save the planet. Climate scientists: once a backwater, now at the forefront of public conscience AND the public purse. Greens: climate change is a game changer for them. Communists: the climate agenda is inherently anti capitalism.
Why are you deliberately being obtuse?
Which politicians have personally gained and how?
What have climate scientists gained? More funding? Fame, b
hes and bling?And we're almost a generation into climate change and the Greens and communists (come on, seriously?
) are hardly wielding great power are they.It's repeatedly said that people are deliberately corrupting data and infiltrating the world's scientific organisations and Governments, but nobody seems to know who is doing it.
durbster said:
It's repeatedly said that people are deliberately corrupting data and infiltrating the world's scientific organisations and Governments, but nobody seems to know who is doing it.
This could be part of the global conspiracy strawman as used earlier, or a new and completely different strawman. Not that it matters.durbster said:
I'm not, I'm just asking for specifics, not vague speculation.
God, you're almost as tedious as that Scottish tennisist.For starters, go away and read the UEA emails. Don't come back and say x number of inquiries exonerated them, go and READ the emails.
Then follow the money.
mybrainhurts said:
For starters, go away and read the UEA emails. Don't come back and say x number of inquiries exonerated them, go and READ the emails.
First, I've read the rebuttals, which covers the main points.Second, I would need a reason not to trust the findings of the enquiries.
Third, the UEA research tallies with other research conducted elsewhere in the world, so there's nothing controversial enough to warrant further effort.
mybrainhurts said:
Then follow the money.
Right, I followed the money and it leads to the multi-billionaire Koch's funding of anti-AGW propaganda. Now what?Edited by durbster on Wednesday 31st August 13:31
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
I'm not, I'm just asking for specifics, not vague speculation.
God, you're almost as tedious as that Scottish tennisist.For starters, go away and read the UEA emails. Don't come back and say x number of inquiries exonerated them, go and READ the emails.
Then follow the money.
Is the zip file still available anywhere ?
Edit- sorry, got it !
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
For starters, go away and read the UEA emails. Don't come back and say x number of inquiries exonerated them, go and READ the emails.
First, I've read the rebuttals, which covers the main points.Second, I would need a reason not to trust the findings of the enquiries.
Third, the UEA research tallies with other research conducted elsewhere in the world, so there's nothing controversial enough to warrant further effort.
Even so, if you insist...
IIRC there's a liking for appeals to authority in certain believer circles, here are some authorities to appeal to.
The late Prof Hal Lewis excoriated the APS leadership for its religious behaviour on climate and said:
Climategate was a (scientific) fraud on a scale I have never seen.
Prof Lewis also said:
Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud.
As always you wait for an authority then two come along in the same thread.Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr Ivar Giaever wrote to the American Physical Society and said:
Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the APS statement below (on global warming): ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
AGW: gigo bunk built on junk.In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
hidetheelephants said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
hidetheelephants said:
The daft bat in charge of National Grid is being quoted on Today that we don't need baseload anymore, as smart electrickery and magic batteries will cure all. I've heard some bks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow... 
I heard that segment, on the face of that, a domestic genset will be a basic requirement in a year or two.ks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow... If that woman is making decision on the functioning of the National grid, shares in candle makers are going to go crazy.
k did she get to be in charge of anything,let alone the national grid, the things she talked about are years away from development,let alone implementation on a large scale, the coal fired power stations are going off line, nuclear plants are running past their sell by dates and demand is increasing, (population growth) now and she said there is no need to worry, obviously she has spoken to the fairies at the bottom of her garden and they have told her things will be OK.durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
For starters, go away and read the UEA emails. Don't come back and say x number of inquiries exonerated them, go and READ the emails.
First, I've read the rebuttals, which covers the main points.Second, I would need a reason not to trust the findings of the enquiries.
Third, the UEA research tallies with other research conducted elsewhere in the world, so there's nothing controversial enough to warrant further effort.
Go on, read more, you know you want to.
turbobloke said:
AGW: gigo bunk built on junk.
And yet widely accepted by pretty much everyone who should know - including many of the scientists you cite as providing scientific proof that AGW isn't valid, it seems.Maybe "random unqualified man on internet" is right and the smart and informed people are all wrong, but that seems a little unlikely.
calling any faithful here present...turbobloke said:
...just post up a link to that elusive visible causal human signal in global climate data.
Not much to ask really
and it's only been 14 years of asking.
You'd think after 14 years you'd have figured out it's not a very good question. Not much to ask really
and it's only been 14 years of asking.I suspect you do know that but hey, it gives your flock hope and encouragement and maybe that's what's really important here...
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
...just post up a link to that elusive visible causal human signal in global climate data.
Not much to ask really and it's only been 14 years of asking.
You'd think after 14 years you'd have figured out it's not a very good question.Not much to ask really
and it's only been 14 years of asking. as the inevitable evasion and personal angle re-affirm that there is indeed no attributable, causal human warming anywhere to be seen; it can only be seen if the faith is strong enough to see invisible things, or strong enough to believe that somebody else (presumably an authority) has seen it.Just for amusement, here's another thought experiment for your consideration.
In a hermetically sealed room which has perfectly non-conducting surfaces which are also perfect reflectors of radiation, there are 2501 physically similar objects. These objects are black bodies.
Initially they are all at the same temperature.
Approximately speaking, to what temperature must one object be raised in order to elevate the temperature of the other 2500 objects by 1 deg C?
If the room is not hermetically sealed, and the surfaces can absorb thermal energy, and the objects are not black bodies, would the required temperature increase of the one object be larger or smaller than in the first instance?
Enjoy
durbster said:
You'd think after 14 years you'd have figured out it's not a very good question.
I suspect you do know that but hey, it gives your flock hope and encouragement and maybe that's what's really important here...
did you attend this college ? I suspect you do know that but hey, it gives your flock hope and encouragement and maybe that's what's really important here...
"Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course."
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
that's the final straw for me .there will be no more conversation with anyone that "believes" in cagw . they all need burnt at the stake.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff