Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[hidetheelephants]

powerstroke said:

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 ....

Or they could just smile, nod and agree to reduce the rate at which their CO2 output is increasing. Oh wait, they already did that! Clearly they really believe in CAGW and are fully signed up to the climageddon bandwagon!

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

It seems not to be science ... but then it IS political to this is exactly the right thread to bring it up.

Thank you zygalski.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 2nd September 20:29

My pleasure. A pleasant change from Turbospam posting graphs & data in this thread, which I know y'all call out every single time.

But you miss the point that those who keep chasing the "scientific" angle from a "believer" perspective have, for some reason, abandoned the pre-existing thread on the subject and decided to post stuff here then demand answers.

This is odd behaviour in my opinion, given that there is a perfectly good place to go round and round in circles in the other thread.

Now it might just be that people disagree with some fairly eminent climate spokespersons who have recognised that the entire project is now entirely political in so much as without any political will and action no amount of data modelling will result in something happening. After all, to convince the politicians "the science" has long advised them that it is "Settled", albeit not quite so settled as to suggest that funding is not longer required.

Tricky that, pulling the rug out from under your own feet in order to get your message across. Still,m associate the right concepts and choose your words carefully with the help of some smart PR organisations and it's amazing what one can getaway with, as most politicians know.

I think your antipathy towards Turbobloke is misplaced for several reasons but unless you have been following both the earlier "Science" thread and this thread from the early days you might not understand why .... or you might well understand why and that drives your motivation. It's difficult to tell.

Either way I think you will find that the majority of people posting here have joined in after they had come to some conclusions about things "Global Warming", "Climate Change" or whatever people might choose to label it today.

That applies to both "sides" of the potential discussion but for some reason a small number of posters seem to want to discuss the science here instead of the politics and since they keep raising old matters they will nag on and on until someone responds.

As we are not the sort of thread that will remove posts and posters at the drop of a hat such activity is accepted as a part of a freedom of comment. Not so in other places where the concepts of discussion are stifled at the first sign of non-conformance to the group view.

Frankly I would really love to keep the "Science" thread active by transferring relevant posts over there but since the politics of the matter are sometimes intertwined with the scientific claims an entirely clean break would seem impossible unless individually self managed. That mirrors the position of those scientists who see themselves as "politicians" and activists as well as a few politicians (and a large number of "celebrities") who see themselves as scientists.

However the "Science" is indeed settled in so far as nothing can be proven by any experiment that would follow "normal" scientific principles of control and repeatability. Many different groups have recognised that openness of the proposition and the rather unique opportunities that such a situation can provide for them to advance their own objectives, whatever they may be.

We can group those responses under the heading of politics and discuss the social and economic consequences of everything that has been associated with "AGW" or "CC" whether that association has any potential merit to an eventually "proven" risk or not.

That's the crux of the problem, in my opinion.

The real risks, whatever they may turn out to be, great, small or non-existent, will inevitably be secondary in consequence to the follies of social control and management through taxation that so many seem to desire and would desire no matter whether AGW, CC or some other threat existed or not.

We could realistically discuss such matters here because they are certainly things that will directly and evidently affect humans lives in the future in way that will be 100% controlled by human decisions.

Control of the climate of the planet has too many external influences for it to be totally (or even partially) under significant human control - yet it is that control, unlikely as it may be, that underpins the driving theology behind any response to "the most serious threat to the planet."

On that basis our global movers and shakers are either seriously deluded and we should reconsider whether they should be allowed to continue in their often self appointed roles or they are not at all deluded but have spotted a way to provide themselves with status and authority and, for some, wealth at the expense of others.

It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to question what they and their supporters do and say.

Do you not agree?

[PRTVR]

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?

Here is one of many reasons, just look at the make up of CO2, a colourless odourless inert gas that is a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is important for life on earth as plants use it in photosynthesis,a very scary substance is it not? adding a small amount to a trace gas will make a very small difference, could you record the change ? I believe not in an atmosphere dominated by H2O, we can all observe the effects of H2O on the planet, take a cold winters night with and without cloud cover, you may have a difference of 10 degrees, how do you measure the changes attributed to CO2 alongside the variability of cloud and our inability to record accurately the temperature of the earth, due to the fact it is predominantly covered in water with very few temperature recording stations at sea.

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

A pleasant change from Turbospam posting graphs & data in this thread <snip>

Good to see you're still making good use of that diploma in playing the man not the ball.

I took a look through the last ~10pp of this thread and did find one chart I posted, it was a form of bar graph showing that, globally, climate change is mankind's lowest priority within the so-called major issues of the day.

There was some data about 5pp back:

Back in the thread I said:

'NOAA Adjustments Increase US July Warming'

NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest etc

If you think NOAA and NASA and various data adjustments aren't political in one way or another, think again.

Whether it's political in terms of opinions revealing the lack of impact from government propaganda, or scientific data refuting alarmist headlines, you and other similar individuals can't cope and fall back on time-worn insults and strawmen to make yourselves feel better about ongoing failure.

If politicians claim a desire, and an ability, to control the planet's meaningless global average temperature and limit the fantasy carbon dioxide-led rise (never happened before but hey ho) to 2 deg C then the ramifications are fair game and neither junkscience nor gigo model dreck have anything meaningful on offer.

On that basis I mentioned a thought experiment some time ago which was left well alone by religious climatists. I'll give it a bit of spit and polish and post it again shortly in a form relevant to the political 2 deg C hogwash.

Paris Agreement Article 2a said:

...?to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 deg C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

It sure is good to know we've got super-competent politicians with their tax-and-control-then-redistribute finger on the planet's thermostat

[turbobloke]

Politically motivated thought experiment said:

In a hermetically sealed container which has perfect thermally insulating (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, approx 15 deg c (288 K).

Approximately speaking, to what excess temperature must one object be raised in order to elevate the temperature of the other 2500 physically similar objects a) by 1.5 deg C b) and by 2 deg C?

If the container is not hermetically sealed, and the surfaces can absorb and conduct thermal energy, and the objects are not black bodies, and there's a puddle of water on the floor of the container, would the required temperature increase of the one object be larger or smaller?

Surely it won't have escaped notice from the first part that energy transfers focus on radiative effects involving distribution of the thermal energy introduced in the one object among the physically similar objects, and that 1 in 2501 is very close to 400 parts per million.

It will also have been noted that in the second part, convection, conduction and latent heat are introduced while adding more reality in that the physically similar objects only absorb radiation at a small number of wavelengths in the far IR.

When that's been sorted, presumably using faith, manbearpig fraternity members can move on to Doug Keenan's 'money for old rope' competition where those capable of seeing an invisible signal can pocket $100,000 and this will surely result in a stampede of manmadeup global warming adherents and a queue for the money.

Money for Old Rope Competition

Appetiser from Keenan said:

It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.

Or pure speculation, as per the IPCC admission in an SPM footnote as posted n times previously.

[glazbagun]

bodhi said:

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that variations in a gas 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.

So, not to put words into your mouth, are you saying that you don't believe that the "greenhouse" effect of gasses exists, or that their effect is negligible?

dickymint said:

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?

No. One of the proposed causes of the Permian-Triassic extinction (I think. Whichever the the really bad one was which killed almost all sealife) was massive volcanic activity which had a number of effects- firstly, as you say, massive ash cloud reduces radiation reaching earth, cools the planet and increases acidity in the rain/water, killing lots of plant life and by extension much which lived on it.

Any creatures which were equipped to survive the this disaster would then be faced with a planet with a higher proportion of CO2 & methane in the atmosphere and reduced plantlife which would be warmer than before, so having survived a winter environment they now had to survive a tropical one.

PRTVR said:

Here is one of many reasons, just look at the make up of CO2, adding a small amount to a trace gas will make a very small difference, could you record the change ? I believe not in an atmosphere dominated by H2O, we can all observe the effects of H2O on the planet, take a cold winters night with and without cloud cover, you may have a difference of 10 degrees, how do you measure the changes attributed to CO2 alongside the variability of cloud and our inability to record accurately the temperature of the earth, due to the fact it is predominantly covered in water with very few temperature recording stations at sea.

So you contend that, because water vapour has a much more powerful greenhouse effect than Carbon Dioxide or Methane, the effect of the latter two (for example) can be discounted, or simply that it is impossible to quantify their effect in human timescales and thus wrong to create policy limiting the production of greenhouse gasses?

Surely one of the potential issues with water vapour is that you get more of it with a warmer climate and in the locality of water. Thus a small increase global temperature due to lesser greenhouse gasses would lead to a further increase in the amount of water vapour and a further increase in temperature?

[DibblyDobbler]

Interesting article in the Telegraph on the Paris Agreement - link

Choice little quote: 'It is hard to recall any event in history that has been more absurdly and comprehensively misrepresented by politicians and the media. In reality, the Paris agreement was no more than a vainglorious act of collective wishful thinking, orchestrated to fool the world into thinking that anything of significance had actually been achieved.'

[durbster]

LongQ said:

But you miss the point that those who keep chasing the "scientific" angle from a "believer" perspective have, for some reason, abandoned the pre-existing thread on the subject and decided to post stuff here then demand answers.

Hm. You really should drop this act.

You present the idea that you're policing the thread to keep it on topic but it's very clear you're trying to control the debate by limiting it to a single point of view.

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

There's a simple question to prove this: you regularly call out people for posting mainstream science (entirely related to the discussion) - have you ever called out turbobloke or Grim McNasty when they post science in here (especially when the latter is usually just made up)?

The idea that this thread is a balanced debate about the politics of climate change is laughable.

The US and China just ratified the Paris agreement. This is probably the biggest political story about climate change there has ever been, and the response in here is not discussion at all. Instead, it's a swift dismissal and the cult declares the Chinese and US Government must be too stupid to understand "the truth".

As the denier argument continues to run out of roads, and the strength of the AGW continues to grow based on continuing research, evidence and observation, I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole some of you are. It's extremely clear that no amount of expertise will sway you. You're not qualified to understand the science, but you have read some blogs written by other people who are also not qualified. And because that suits your opinion, you can justify dismissing all experts.

Oops, sorry, you have to put "experts" or "scientists" in quotes, because that shows you have no respect you have for their knowledge, experience or qualifications. You can't actually explain why you have no respect for their knowledge, experience or qualifications, but you don't.

[turbobloke]

glazbagun said:

bodhi said:

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that variations in a gas 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.

So, not to put words into your mouth, are you saying that you don't believe that the "greenhouse" effect of gasses exists, or that their effect is negligible?

Can't speak for anyone else on PH but I wish to point out that whatever the Greenhouse Effect is said to involve, it's not relevant. The only relevant issue is the so-called Enhanced Greenhouse Effect where the small 5% perturbation from human-CO2 is examined.

This relates to the last / most recent ~100 ppmv IF we assume it's all anthropogenic by ignoring ocean outgassing, and with the logarithmic Beer Law and existing saturation it's not going to make any signigicant measurable difference if we add more tax gas to the atmosphere at this stage, not least as there's also a total lack of causality to CO2. Water vapour feedback and overall feedback being negative seals the fate of AGW junkscience.

Retired Infrared Astronomer Dr Mike Sanicola said:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all.

In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason.

From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2.

This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface.

The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government which needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”.

I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut any more. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rat's arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.

This ^ is science rather than politicised junkscience.

Faithful types over at Skeptical Science (misnomer, it's an AGW advocacy blog as most of us know) claim that while carbon dioxide follows temperature changes and cannot therefore be the cause, it enhances the rise. This would still be still causation - which is not limited to initiation effects - and for which there's no evidence in the data...as indicated by the lack of any explanation for temperature dropping while the atmospheric CO2 levels go on to peak 600-800 years after the temperature has peaked.

According to the enhancement junkscience the rising carbon dioxide level should still be enhancing (historic data) nor do they account for the same causality failure in contemporary data (Humlum et al).

Politicised junk and bunk is everywhere.

[PRTVR]

glazbagun said:

PRTVR said:

Here is one of many reasons, just look at the make up of CO2, adding a small amount to a trace gas will make a very small difference, could you record the change ? I believe not in an atmosphere dominated by H2O, we can all observe the effects of H2O on the planet, take a cold winters night with and without cloud cover, you may have a difference of 10 degrees, how do you measure the changes attributed to CO2 alongside the variability of cloud and our inability to record accurately the temperature of the earth, due to the fact it is predominantly covered in water with very few temperature recording stations at sea.

So you contend that, because water vapour has a much more powerful greenhouse effect than Carbon Dioxide or Methane, the effect of the latter two (for example) can be discounted, or simply that it is impossible to quantify their effect in human timescales and thus wrong to create policy limiting the production of greenhouse gasses?

Surely one of the potential issues with water vapour is that you get more of it with a warmer climate and in the locality of water. Thus a small increase global temperature due to lesser greenhouse gasses would lead to a further increase in the amount of water vapour and a further increase in temperature?

But can you prove that any warming can be attributed to a small change in a trace gas ? in a complex chaotic system, if not the best you can say is we think, is that good enough to base our energy policy on, this is not science, this is guess work driven by a green agenda, then we come to a warmer planet,if it was happening is that a bad thing? a colder planet is a very bad thing but a slightly warmer one ? its interesting that the with reference to the earth an average temperature is mentioned, this is meaningless, at any time on this planet there is about a 100 degree difference in different locations, just think about that for a moment and you will see why it is meaningless to use averages, would you notice 1.7 degrees increase at 50 degrees or -50 degrees ?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

But you miss the point that those who keep chasing the "scientific" angle from a "believer" perspective have, for some reason, abandoned the pre-existing thread on the subject and decided to post stuff here then demand answers.

Hm. You really should drop this act.

You present the idea that you're policing the thread to keep it on topic but it's very clear you're trying to control the debate by limiting it to a single point of view.

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

There's a simple question to prove this: you regularly call out people for posting mainstream science (entirely related to the discussion) - have you ever called out turbobloke or Grim McNasty when they post science in here (especially when the latter is usually just made up)?

The idea that this thread is a balanced debate about the politics of climate change is laughable.

The US and China just ratified the Paris agreement. This is probably the biggest political story about climate change there has ever been, and the response in here is not discussion at all. Instead, it's a swift dismissal and the cult declares the Chinese and US Government must be too stupid to understand "the truth".

As the denier argument continues to run out of roads, and the strength of the AGW continues to grow based on continuing research, evidence and observation, I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole some of you are. It's extremely clear that no amount of expertise will sway you. You're not qualified to understand the science, but you have read some blogs written by other people who are also not qualified. And because that suits your opinion, you can justify dismissing all experts.

Oops, sorry, you have to put "experts" or "scientists" in quotes, because that shows you have no respect you have for their knowledge, experience or qualifications. You can't actually explain why you have no respect for their knowledge, experience or qualifications, but you don't.

All those points have been answered before Ad nauseam. Just go and read this forum from the start again. And switch of your repeat mode as well.

[turbobloke]

Without one attrition loop after another it would be boring.

Just kidding.

[don4l]

durbster said:

Hm. You really should drop this act.

You present the idea that you're policing the thread to keep it on topic but it's very clear you're trying to control the debate by limiting it to a single point of view.

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

There's a simple question to prove this: you regularly call out people for posting mainstream science (entirely related to the discussion) - have you ever called out turbobloke or Grim McNasty when they post science in here (especially when the latter is usually just made up)?

The idea that this thread is a balanced debate about the politics of climate change is laughable.

The US and China just ratified the Paris agreement. This is probably the biggest political story about climate change there has ever been, and the response in here is not discussion at all. Instead, it's a swift dismissal and the cult declares the Chinese and US Government must be too stupid to understand "the truth".

As the denier argument continues to run out of roads, and the strength of the AGW continues to grow based on continuing research, evidence and observation, I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole some of you are. It's extremely clear that no amount of expertise will sway you. You're not qualified to understand the science, but you have read some blogs written by other people who are also not qualified. And because that suits your opinion, you can justify dismissing all experts.

Oops, sorry, you have to put "experts" or "scientists" in quotes, because that shows you have no respect you have for their knowledge, experience or qualifications. You can't actually explain why you have no respect for their knowledge, experience or qualifications, but you don't.

You seem to be saying that we should believe the experts. There doesn't appear to be anything else in your posst.

Why do you think that the Royal Society adopted the phrase "Nullius in verba" back in the 1650s?

Were they wrong?

Or... are you wrong?

[durbster]

don4l said:

You seem to be saying that we should believe the experts. There doesn't appear to be anything else in your posst.

Why do you think that the Royal Society adopted the phrase "Nullius in verba" back in the 1650s?

Were they wrong?

Or... are you wrong?

Ugh, not this again.

That quote basically means "don't believe anything from an authority unless they can prove it scientifically".

It doesn't mean "don't believe anything from an authority". That's just the distorted interpretation adopted by The PH climate-cult here.

Using that motto as an argument against AGW is absurd, when it's comprehensively supported by evidence and observation.

This is the Donald Trump form of attack, in which you project your own weaknesses onto the opposition.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

don4l said:

You seem to be saying that we should believe the experts. There doesn't appear to be anything else in your posst.

Why do you think that the Royal Society adopted the phrase "Nullius in verba" back in the 1650s?

Were they wrong?

Or... are you wrong?

Ugh, not this again.

That quote basically means "don't believe anything from an authority unless they can prove it scientifically".

Priceless.

Nullius in verba.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

But you miss the point that those who keep chasing the "scientific" angle from a "believer" perspective have, for some reason, abandoned the pre-existing thread on the subject and decided to post stuff here then demand answers.

Hm. You really should drop this act.

You present the idea that you're policing the thread to keep it on topic but it's very clear you're trying to control the debate by limiting it to a single point of view.

durbster, you really do have serious difficulty understanding anything don't you.

That comment is so badly skewed as an understanding of the simple point I was making that I have to conclude you must be attuned to what is known as trolling at a subconscious level. It is surely a compulsive response.

durbster said:

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

Complete and utter rubbish, but confirms the point I was making about understanding.

There are two threads on PH that are long running on the subject of "Global Warming". Once was shall call Science, long ago set up for considering Science related matters, and this one to discuss the Political angle of things whether or not they are based on science.

You choose to perpetuate the posting of topics that would fit into the "Science" thread in the "Politics" thread, leaving the "Science" thread inactive.

Why?

Is this a deliberately disruptive act on your part? Or is it something else more personal in nature?

As an experiment, create an anonymous user on any of the so called "beleiver" sites that are help up as the examplars of the AGW/CC debate, post something that is vaguely questioning of the belief and see what response you get. Actually you could start first with the wonderfully misnamed "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian if they are still running it.

And you have the temerity to suggest that people using PH always want to shut down "debate" if it does not agree with their opinion. Your own continued presence here disproves that along with your constant repetition - mostly in the "wrong" thread. I know of no "warmist" sites that would accept that. You would have been banned long ago.

durbster said:

There's a simple question to prove this: you regularly call out people for posting mainstream science (entirely related to the discussion) - have you ever called out turbobloke or Grim McNasty when they post science in here (especially when the latter is usually just made up)?

The idea that this thread is a balanced debate about the politics of climate change is laughable.

The US and China just ratified the Paris agreement. This is probably the biggest political story about climate change there has ever been, and the response in here is not discussion at all. Instead, it's a swift dismissal and the cult declares the Chinese and US Government must be too stupid to understand "the truth".

As the denier argument continues to run out of roads, and the strength of the AGW continues to grow based on continuing research, evidence and observation, I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole some of you are. It's extremely clear that no amount of expertise will sway you. You're not qualified to understand the science, but you have read some blogs written by other people who are also not qualified. And because that suits your opinion, you can justify dismissing all experts.

Oops, sorry, you have to put "experts" or "scientists" in quotes, because that shows you have no respect you have for their knowledge, experience or qualifications. You can't actually explain why you have no respect for their knowledge, experience or qualifications, but you don't.

Complete rubbish.

[durbster]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

Complete and utter rubbish, but confirms the point I was making about understanding.

Then it'll be very easy for you to answer my question.

Have you ever called out a denier for posting science in here? I don't read every page but I've never seen it.

LongQ said:

And you have the temerity to suggest that people using PH always want to shut down "debate" if it does not agree with their opinion.

I've been asked to leave this discussion several times, so it's clear some are very keen for this to be nothing more than an echo chamber.

LongQ said:

Your own continued presence here disproves that along with your constant repetition - mostly in the "wrong" thread. I know of no "warmist" sites that would accept that. You would have been banned long ago.

Again, blatant double standards.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

durbster said:

The truth is, actual climate science posted in here is often quickly shut down, whereas pseudo-science and blogs that confirm the bias against AGW are given a free pass. Every. Single. Time.

Complete and utter rubbish, but confirms the point I was making about understanding.

Then it'll be very easy for you to answer my question.

Have you ever called out a denier for posting science in here? I don't read every page but I've never seen it.

LongQ said:

And you have the temerity to suggest that people using PH always want to shut down "debate" if it does not agree with their opinion.

I've been asked to leave this discussion several times, so it's clear some are very keen for this to be nothing more than an echo chamber.

LongQ said:

Your own continued presence here disproves that along with your constant repetition - mostly in the "wrong" thread. I know of no "warmist" sites that would accept that. You would have been banned long ago.

Again, blatant double standards.

durbster,

I try not to "call out", whatever that means, anyone any time unless they are clearly bent on creating a scene.

However, yes I have made my preferences known on a number of occasions, not that my preferences matter here - it's an open forum and I merely started the subject.

If you read more carefully and think about it a little you may, from time to time, catch the odd back reference to those posts.

Since you and a few others constantly post science here instead of in the other thread and then "demand" answers you perpetuate the challenge you claim. If you don't read every page you really should consider carefully when you write about your personal though uninformed view.

If I had any management control over this thread my preference would be to move posts to the thread where they would best fit. I don't have any control so they stay here. At many other places the posts would be deleted and the poster barred from the site. That is something that I do not support under normal circumstances though individuals do sometimes test that level of acceptance.

Being "asked to leave" is not the same as being barred. From memory I can only recall such suggestions being offered on the basis that your subject matter might be better suited elsewhere (the science thread perhaps) or that you seemed to be taking a subject around in circles but persisted anyway.

As for echo chambers - if you want one start your own thread! You can and it's free.

If it is your view that this thread is an echo chamber so be it. It's just your view.

It's not your responsibility to do anything about that is it? So what makes you persist in ensure the echoes repeat so often?

The main echo seems to be you once again missing a point and asking a repeat question in the wrong thread for the subject content.

Your final comment about double standards is completely puzzling. Or were you referring to your own standards?

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 4th September 12:34

[durbster]

LongQ said:

The main echo seems to be you once again missing a point and asking a repeat question.

There is a large difference between missing the point and not accepting a response as satisfactory.

The evidence presented here is usually wofeul. It's a constant stream of contradictions, double-standards, misdirection, misunderstanding and outright invention. I go to great lengths to explain in my responses why I don't accept what's presented.

Repetition is a product of neither side accepting the other's argument. And it works both ways.

LongQ said:

Your final comment about double standards is completely puzzling. Or were you referring to your own standards?

The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.

That's your double standards at play.

Edited by durbster on Sunday 4th September 12:45

[With these feet]

Conspiracy seems to be a word that believers love to throw at those that question the science, yet, if you look at the meaning and then review the stolen/leaked whatever emails, that exactly what was going on.

Yet its conveniently ignored by those where it doesn't suit.

Sure its doesn't show everyone is crooked, but it does show in some cases those at the top are and are able to cover for each other.