Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
Won't someone think of the bears - again?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-400...
As sson as I saw the words expected and probability, and predictions for 2040, I confined it to the garbage bin.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-400...
PS. Who pay these idiots to have such a pointless career ?
The Beebs CC puff peice today:-
Climate protection gap widening, warns insurance report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3822...
Experts have warned of a $100bn (£79bn) "protection gap" in the global insurance sector as a result of the rising impact of climate risks.
ClimateWise, based at the University of Cambridge, warned that the gap of uninsured or under-insured assets had quadrupled over the past three decades.
The insurance sector's role as society's risk manager was under threat, warned one senior figure.
The network outlined its findings in two reports published on Wednesday.
"What we have seen is that over the past 30 years, as societal exposure to climate change has increased, is that the traditional response of insurance - which is to reassess, re-underwrite, and reprice - is almost becoming the sector's Achilles heel if you like because it is repricing itself out of risk but it is not addressing the root cause of the problem, which is that society is increasingly vulnerable to climate risks and it is in need of enhancing its resilience," explained ClimateWIse programme manager Tom Herbstein.
Pretty dim university bods. They are experts of course, so why do they push the 'we have climate change now' rubbish is beyond my comprehension.
Climate protection gap widening, warns insurance report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3822...
Experts have warned of a $100bn (£79bn) "protection gap" in the global insurance sector as a result of the rising impact of climate risks.
ClimateWise, based at the University of Cambridge, warned that the gap of uninsured or under-insured assets had quadrupled over the past three decades.
The insurance sector's role as society's risk manager was under threat, warned one senior figure.
The network outlined its findings in two reports published on Wednesday.
"What we have seen is that over the past 30 years, as societal exposure to climate change has increased, is that the traditional response of insurance - which is to reassess, re-underwrite, and reprice - is almost becoming the sector's Achilles heel if you like because it is repricing itself out of risk but it is not addressing the root cause of the problem, which is that society is increasingly vulnerable to climate risks and it is in need of enhancing its resilience," explained ClimateWIse programme manager Tom Herbstein.
Pretty dim university bods. They are experts of course, so why do they push the 'we have climate change now' rubbish is beyond my comprehension.
Google data centres to be 100% renewable-powered by 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38227491
Only while it's subsidised. And the wind blows. And the sun shines. And elee nobody wants a some as well at the same time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38227491
Only while it's subsidised. And the wind blows. And the sun shines. And elee nobody wants a some as well at the same time.
Jasandjules said:
robinessex said:
PS. Who pay these idiots to have such a pointless career ?
We all do through our taxes. That is what annoys me the most. And paying for rich landowners to get richer too. On another blog some time ago I had an interchange about this with Richard Betts (Met Office) and Tamsin Edwards (moderate-ish Climate Scientist). They're clearly decent, intelligent people who are totally wasting their lives studying the equivalent of bum fluff. Yes they pick up a nice taxpayer funded paycheck but surely when they retire and look back they'll regret the futility of their working lives. What could they have achieved if funding had been available in more productive areas and they'd made a different choice.
(Dr. Edwards here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5nhmp06xs&fe...
Jasandjules said:
plunker said:
I doubt the raw output from the IR sensors on satellites is publically available.
What would you do with it if you had it?
I want all raw data which is alleged to support this scam.What would you do with it if you had it?
I would use it to show that the data proves there is no AGW and this is a scam. The same as others who want the raw data, which is why those who have this data won't release it.
Have you tried approaching the owners of the data yet, or is requesting it from posters on pistonheads as far as you've got?
plunker said:
Impressive, you must be pretty smart - I wouldn't have a scooby what to do with the raw output from satellite sensors.
Scientifically trained you see. Which is why I don't believe anyone who says "trust me" and no you can't have the raw data.I've not asked for it, they've not provided it to others who have asked, I fail to see why they would provide it to me. After all, they've got nothing to hide have they? It's all honest and accurate information when in the raw form and they are not fabricating anything..........
Jasandjules said:
plunker said:
Impressive, you must be pretty smart - I wouldn't have a scooby what to do with the raw output from satellite sensors.
Scientifically trained you see. Which is why I don't believe anyone who says "trust me" and no you can't have the raw data.I've not asked for it, they've not provided it to others who have asked, I fail to see why they would provide it to me. After all, they've got nothing to hide have they? It's all honest and accurate information when in the raw form and they are not fabricating anything..........
The satellite data will be american and they have a thing about research paid for out of the public purse being freely available so don't take my word for it that it's not available.
PRTVR said:
Because even with all the torturing it still fails to completely tell the whole true story, as for the data being completely acceptable, see above from Mr Grim about the cherry picking from the BBC and the Arctic temperature, ask yourself why ?
Kawasicki said:
Not
powerstroke said:
Not , the only thing that's warming is my piss !!!
Right, so if you deny we have reliable data about the global temperature, how can you take a position in this debate?Either you accept the data is fine (which I think all scientists do, even those that don't accept AGW), which very clearly tells us that the planet is warming.
Or you don't accept the data, in which case you have no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another. If you think the data is invalid, the temperature might be rising, cooling or not moving at all, but you have no way of knowing.
PRTVR said:
...the cherry picking from the BBC and the Arctic temperature, ask yourself why ?
The BBC are reporting what the sources of arctic temperature data are saying.mondeoman said:
Hmmmm. So, not only is the science settled...
Strawman - I've never said that.mondeoman said:
...and the models absolutely correct
Something of a strawman too since I've never said that. Observations are within the projections though, so they are basically correct.mondeoman said:
but anyone who says otherwise is irrational?
But it is irrational to say the planet is not warming, as all the information we have says it is. As above, whatever you think of the data, there's no evidence to support that point of view.Jasandjules said:
Scientifically trained you see. Which is why I don't believe anyone who says "trust me" and no you can't have the raw data.
I've not asked for it, they've not provided it to others who have asked
This doesn't really stand up either. See the bold above - in one sentence you're saying you don't believe anyone, but you clearly do trust the person who said they've requested but failed to obtain raw data.I've not asked for it, they've not provided it to others who have asked
Don't you think that suggests you only accept things that support your viewpoint, but reject the ones who don't?
This just about sums up the sorry state of affairs for me:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice...
An interesting analysis of how images of flooded Miami streets are used to cry 'climate change', yet much of the city is build at levels below the maximum expected high water mark.
Beggars belief really.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice...
An interesting analysis of how images of flooded Miami streets are used to cry 'climate change', yet much of the city is build at levels below the maximum expected high water mark.
Beggars belief really.
plunker said:
Who is 'they'? Sounds like you're referring to Steve McIntyre's dealings with the UK CRU many years ago.
The satellite data will be american and they have a thing about research paid for out of the public purse being freely available so don't take my word for it that it's not available.
Nope, Lamar Smith - are you calling a Senator of the US House a liar? The satellite data will be american and they have a thing about research paid for out of the public purse being freely available so don't take my word for it that it's not available.
durbster said:
Right, so if you deny we have reliable data about the global temperature, how can you take a position in this debate?
Either you accept the data is fine (which I think all scientists do, even those that don't accept AGW), which very clearly tells us that the planet is warming.
Or you don't accept the data, in which case you have no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another. If you think the data is invalid, the temperature might be rising, cooling or not moving at all, but you have no way of knowing.
Haha, it's worse than that - the models are a dead duck Jim! So we have no idea what the likely effect of chucking billions and billions (h/t Brian Cox) of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year could be. It could be anywhere from a tiny amount to runaway warming (and hence the risk factor increases substantially). Either you accept the data is fine (which I think all scientists do, even those that don't accept AGW), which very clearly tells us that the planet is warming.
Or you don't accept the data, in which case you have no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another. If you think the data is invalid, the temperature might be rising, cooling or not moving at all, but you have no way of knowing.
Jasandjules said:
Nope, Lamar Smith - are you calling a Senator of the US House a liar?
WHAT!? A politician that lies! 
I've just looked him up.
I'm sure him being very well funded by the fossil fuel industry (to the tune of $600,000 according to this article) and publicly campaigning against AGW is a massive coincidence.
durbster said:
WHAT!? A politician that lies!
I've just looked him up.
I'm sure him being very well funded by the fossil fuel industry (to the tune of $600,000 according to this article) and publicly campaigning against AGW is a massive coincidence.
So you are calling a US Senator a liar and claiming he did not request this information from the NOAA as he said? I've just looked him up.
I'm sure him being very well funded by the fossil fuel industry (to the tune of $600,000 according to this article) and publicly campaigning against AGW is a massive coincidence.
Jasandjules said:
plunker said:
Who is 'they'? Sounds like you're referring to Steve McIntyre's dealings with the UK CRU many years ago.
The satellite data will be american and they have a thing about research paid for out of the public purse being freely available so don't take my word for it that it's not available.
Nope, Lamar Smith - are you calling a Senator of the US House a liar? The satellite data will be american and they have a thing about research paid for out of the public purse being freely available so don't take my word for it that it's not available.
Jasandjules said:
So you are calling a US Senator a liar and claiming he did not request this information from the NOAA as he said?
Trying to deflect this on to me is fruitless. I didn't call him anything.I'm just pointing out that it sounds like you are trusting his word without question, after stating you don't trust anyone's word without question.
durbster said:
Trying to deflect this on to me is fruitless. I didn't call him anything.
I'm just pointing out that it sounds like you are trusting his word without question, after stating you don't trust anyone's word without question.
False equivalency again durbs. The "take no ones word for it" is in scientific evidence arena not day to day activities. You really should stop using logical fallacies as they reveal far too much about your own critical thinking abilities. I'm just pointing out that it sounds like you are trusting his word without question, after stating you don't trust anyone's word without question.
durbster said:
Trying to deflect this on to me is fruitless. I didn't call him anything.
I'm just pointing out that it sounds like you are trusting his word without question, after stating you don't trust anyone's word without question.
Well, he has said he asked for this information and you appear to be suggesting he did not. That would mean you are calling a US Senator, a man with deep pockets, a liar. I just want to make sure that is what you are doing, that is all. I'm just pointing out that it sounds like you are trusting his word without question, after stating you don't trust anyone's word without question.
Are you equating Nullus in Verbia with what a US Senator has said he did? Seriously?
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Because even with all the torturing it still fails to completely tell the whole true story, as for the data being completely acceptable, see above from Mr Grim about the cherry picking from the BBC and the Arctic temperature, ask yourself why ?
Right, so if you deny we have reliable data about the global temperature, how can you take a position in this debate?Either you accept the data is fine (which I think all scientists do, even those that don't accept AGW), which very clearly tells us that the planet is warming.
Or you don't accept the data, in which case you have no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another. If you think the data is invalid, the temperature might be rising, cooling or not moving at all, but you have no way of knowing.
PRTVR said:
...the cherry picking from the BBC and the Arctic temperature, ask yourself why ?
The BBC are reporting what the sources of arctic temperature data are saying.As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?
Why not? Anybody would think they had an agenda, oh I forgot they do, a secret meeting proved that, that they spent a lot of licence payers money to hide the attendees,they appear happy to brainwash the uniformed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff