Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

It's proven they are. Much of swallowed up by Turbs & his ilk with relish.

With GENUINE references which you've ignored since you have been here. Plus all the 'challenges' put your way. You never proove anything you say, just post puff and bks. Claimed the $100,000 yet ? See my posting above re $107 billion CC/AGW cost in the USA alone.

PS. I asked for you to supply an anti CC/AGW propaganda message, another challenge you've failed

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 3rd September 15:32

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

durbster said:

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

It's proven they are. Much of swallowed up by Turbs & his ilk with relish.

The accusation above isn't clear. After all, while I can't speak for others, I base my position on unmolested data and sound science.

The suspicion has to be that there are others taking a similar line, rightly disregarding issues around the irrelevant false consensus, and costly model gigo.

Is it a claim that the Kochs are paying for temperatures recorded in previous decades to be increased back towards their unadjusted values? That's quite amusing if so.

Or more recent temperatures to be taken back down from inflated values - such as ship intakes back to buoy temperatures for SST values? Ho ho ho.

Or that there is a visible causal human signal in some global climate data but the Kochs are paying to keep it hushed up? Not a chance.

Or that there's a climate model somewhere that's got everything spot on across all past decades for the full range of variables including first derivatives etc but the Kochs are covering it up with used 100 dollar bills? Don't be silly.

All of the above = pie in the sky.

Then we have the point that the actual visible paid-for manmade propaganda on manmadeup warming isn't working - see polls posted earlier and around half a dozen more, which show that AGW is seen as a fraud and that action on climate change - cc is natural after all - is at the bottom of people's list of priorities.

All it needs is a few more pro-AGW billionaires to waste a bit more money and the propaganda will start working a bit better

It'll still be small beans compared to the former gov't dept DECC aim of almost complete decarbonisation of our economy at their estimated cost of £1.1 trillion.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 3rd September 15:58

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

It's proven they are. Much of swallowed up by Turbs & his ilk with relish.

With GENUINE references which you've ignored since you have been here. Plus all the 'challenges' put your way. You never proove anything you say, just post puff and bks. Claimed the $100,000 yet ? See my posting above re $107 billion CC/AGW cost in the USA alone.

PS. I asked for you to supply an anti CC/AGW propaganda message, another challenge you've failed

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 3rd September 15:32

Sorry can't comment - watching the G20 conspiracy summit

[turbobloke]

Article on USA uni climate indoctrination and closing down debate by faculty believers said:

The University of Colorado professors who shut down climate change debate in class have landed on the radar of a top school official, who says he wants to make sure students are being “educated, not indoctrinated.”

John Carson, a member of the University of Colorado Board of Regents, said he plans to make inquires Thursday about an email from three University of Colorado at Colorado Springs professors who advised students to drop the class if they dispute climate change.

“I have a lot of questions after reading this reported email sent to students,” Mr. Carson told The Washington Times. “We should be encouraging debate and dialogue at the university, not discouraging or forbidding it. Students deserve more respect than this. They come to the university to be educated, not indoctrinated.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/university-official-wants-answers-whether-climate-/?preview

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Did someone say climate fraud?

I bet there are a few American CO2 apostles, sorry scientists, having sleepless nights.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/03/two-hundred...

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

It's proven they are. Much of swallowed up by Turbs & his ilk with relish.

With GENUINE references which you've ignored since you have been here. Plus all the 'challenges' put your way. You never proove anything you say, just post puff and bks. Claimed the $100,000 yet ? See my posting above re $107 billion CC/AGW cost in the USA alone.

PS. I asked for you to supply an anti CC/AGW propaganda message, another challenge you've failed

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 3rd September 15:32

Sorry can't comment - watching the G20 conspiracy summit

Substitute farce for conspiracy. Acceptable I think

[Oceanic]

China and America governments agree there is problem that needs sorting, if those two can agree on this, I wonder whether some of the mental folk here might start remove their tin hats.

[turbobloke]

Oceanic said:

China and America governments agree there is problem that needs sorting, if those two can agree on this, I wonder whether some of the mental folk here might start remove their tin hats.

Mental folk, are they people who believe what politicians tell them and play the man not the ball in discussions? Or men/women, in general.

Personally I refer to the data and sound science, not any national collection of politicians; what they agree on is what suits their political ambitions (personal and/or Party).

In any case, as you will know, appeals to authority and a consensus of two (countries) represent logical fallacies (politicians are no authority on this matter, but ignoring that).

[robinessex]

Oceanic said:

China and America governments agree there is problem that needs sorting, if those two can agree on this, I wonder whether some of the mental folk here might start remove their tin hats.

Any chance you can explain why rational, thoughtful, not muppet guys here are mental? I'll accept idiotic to actually believe CC/AGW though

[Jasandjules]

Oceanic said:

China and America governments agree there is problem that needs sorting, if those two can agree on this, I wonder whether some of the mental folk here might start remove their tin hats.

Oh China will agree the US and EU need to cut back, which by happy coincidence will ensure their production will increase and they will make more money. They must be laughing their socks off at us.

[Phud]

I wonder if coal seam fires are man made or natural in the division when it comes to accounting for the CO2 they pump out?

China has a few.

[turbobloke]

Americans and Chinese have little time for the climate information pollution emitted by their politicians.

"A new Gallup poll (as of March 2015) shows that Americans’ concern about warming has fallen to the same level it was in 1989. In fact, global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns"

Elsewhere on the planet only ~20% of Chinese poll respondents believe global warming is a serious threat. A fraudulent threat might score more highly, or a religious threat.

Don't you need a consensus for this sort of thing? One in four is nowhere near a fake 97%.

[don4l]

Oceanic said:

China and America governments agree there is problem that needs sorting, if those two can agree on this, I wonder whether some of the mental folk here might start remove their tin hats.

An appeal to consensus!

Brilliant!

You, sir, are a true scientist.

[/sarc]

On a more serious note...


Your's must be the most scientifically illiterate post that I have ever read on PH.

Edited by don4l on Saturday 3rd September 23:03

[Oceanic]

don4l said:

An appeal to consensus!

Brilliant!

You, sir, are a true scientist.

[/sarc]

On a more serious note...


This must be the most scientifically illeterate post that I have ever read on PH.

Where was there a claim of science? Not that is needed at all!!

I was making a point that China and the US have joined up their thinking, if the biggest climate destroyers are talking on the same page, are you a total retard?

Edited by Oceanic on Saturday 3rd September 22:49

[powerstroke]

Oceanic said:

don4l said:

An appeal to consensus!

Brilliant!

You, sir, are a true scientist.

[/sarc]

On a more serious note...


This must be the most scientifically illeterate post that I have ever read on PH.

Where was there a claim of science? Not that is needed at all!!

I was making a point that China and the US have joined up their thinking, to if the biggest climate destroyers are talking on the same page, are you a total retard?

Depends iF China stops destroying nature by damming or poluting riverrs and building everywhere or will they just say we will will reduce our plant food gas output and carry on as before ....

[deeps]

Isn't it wonderful news! Obama is going to limit man made global warming to 2 degrees.

Today is the day he saved the planet. Now he just has to phone the Pope who'll get in touch with God and make it happen.

I think there's some new hope here for Trump to gain some more votes. He's shortened in the betting from 5.0 to 3.8 over the last month or so, which is still a good price. Stranger things have happened, the most recent of which was Brexit, 'Leave' being available to back at odds of 10.0 on the day of voting!

[gareth_r]

I noticed that, as usual, the TV news reports referred to carbon dioxide and real pollution (smog) as if they are one and the same.

[glazbagun]

gareth_r said:

I noticed that, as usual, the TV news reports referred to carbon dioxide and real pollution (smog) as if they are one and the same.

TBH the news talks st about everything so often that this should't surprise anyone, not attributing incompetence to malice and all that. Unless it's the DM, I definitely attribute malice to them these days.

I know there are are a lot of people in this thread who don't believe in manmade climate change/whatever the term of the day is, but the idea that pumping out greenhouse gasses might lead to a change in the environment doesn't strike me as a crazy one at all- it has, after all, been linked as a possible cause of previous extinctions (through volcanic or other means), so is there a concise reason why people believe that our own emissions have no influence on our climate?

[bodhi]

glazbagun said:

TBH the news talks st about everything so often that this should't surprise anyone, not attributing incompetence to malice and all that. Unless it's the DM, I definitely attribute malice to them these days.

I know there are are a lot of people in this thread who don't believe in manmade climate change/whatever the term of the day is, but the idea that pumping out greenhouse gasses might lead to a change in the environment doesn't strike me as a crazy one at all- it has, after all, been linked as a possible cause of previous extinctions (through volcanic or other means), so is there a concise reason why people believe that our own emissions have no influence on our climate?

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that variations in a has that makes up an enormously tiny proportion of our atmosphere can have a bigger bearing on our climate than, say, the massive ball of fire in the sky we get all our heat from.

And when that gas in question is one of yhe fundamental building blocks of life, I find it exceptionally hard to believe that more of it can ever be a bad thing.

[dickymint]

glazbagun said:

gareth_r said:

I noticed that, as usual, the TV news reports referred to carbon dioxide and real pollution (smog) as if they are one and the same.

TBH the news talks st about everything so often that this should't surprise anyone, not attributing incompetence to malice and all that. Unless it's the DM, I definitely attribute malice to them these days.

I know there are are a lot of people in this thread who don't believe in manmade climate change/whatever the term of the day is, but the idea that pumping out greenhouse gasses might lead to a change in the environment doesn't strike me as a crazy one at all- it has, after all, been linked as a possible cause of previous extinctions (through volcanic or other means), so is there a concise reason why people believe that our own emissions have no influence on our climate?

Are you confusing CO2 with ash clouds due to volcanoes? as in the Sun being blocked out and causing 'dinosaurs' extinction?