Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
chris watton said:
It really wasn't that long ago. I guess that suppression of data that contradicting theories wasn't as prevalent then, as they are now, perhaps. It's no good citing better science when it is clearly a faith based religion - even has the 'burn the heretics' calls from some activist scientists. Quite laughable.
Makes sense. If you choose to wilfully ignore the vast amount of supporting scientific evidence then yes, maybe it does look something like a religion.dub16v said:
LongQ said:
As a the holder (I assume) of a genuine and honest concern that humanity will be somewhat or entirely stuffed by the end of this century unless "carbon" emissions are cut by at least as much as the various governments are promising to each other ...
do you think they will achieve it?
do you think they really care?
do you think they understand the issues involved?
do you think they are being well advised about what is and what is not likely to be be technically possible (whether needed or not) in the period covered by what there is of their forward thinking? (About 20 years currently - a full career for the younger ones perhaps.)
I can help with this (assuming 'they' = the Government) then:do you think they will achieve it?
do you think they really care?
do you think they understand the issues involved?
do you think they are being well advised about what is and what is not likely to be be technically possible (whether needed or not) in the period covered by what there is of their forward thinking? (About 20 years currently - a full career for the younger ones perhaps.)
(1) Achieve what? Restricting warming to 2 degrees C? Meeting carbon reduction targets? Something else? No matter which, who knows but we should be positioning ourselves to do so.
(2) Yes
(3) To a level to which they need to, yes. Government ministers, and even their advisors, are not scientists (for the most part). They certainly understand the issues.
(4) Yes. FYI, the time frames you use are inaccurate. Most Governments, including the UK, look beyond policy horizons (~20 years); many have been using scenario planning and horizon scanning for decades.
It's difficult to understand what you mean by 'humanity will be entirely stuffed'. For example, what sorts of impacts do you envisage to occur that would render this statement true? Could you clarify?
"They" means "politicians". Not necessarily "Government".
The questions were posed with durbster in mind (as quoted) so I'll allow time for durbs to respond in whatever way he wishes before considering adding any further thoughts.
Edited by LongQ on Monday 9th January 13:10
durbster said:
chris watton said:
It really wasn't that long ago. I guess that suppression of data that contradicting theories wasn't as prevalent then, as they are now, perhaps. It's no good citing better science when it is clearly a faith based religion - even has the 'burn the heretics' calls from some activist scientists. Quite laughable.
Makes sense. If you choose to wilfully ignore the vast amount of supporting scientific evidence then yes, maybe it does look something like a religion.robinessex said:
And you choose to wilfully ignore the vast amount of non-supporting scientific evidence, as well as not using a bit of commonsense, logic, and a healthy dose of scepticism.
I haven't ignored it, I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Was it in an older thread?robinessex said:
And repeatedly NOT answer the basic question. Planet, warm or cold?
Yes, it is a basic question.Edited by durbster on Monday 9th January 13:29
durbster said:
robinessex said:
And you choose to wilfully ignore the vast amount of non-supporting scientific evidence, as well as not using a bit of commonsense, logic, and a healthy dose of scepticism.
I haven't ignored it, I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Was it in an older thread?
Evasion again. Your answer is ?I haven't ignored it, I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Was it in an older thread?
robinessex said:
And repeatedly NOT answer the basic question. Planet, warm or cold?
Yes, it is a basic question.Vantagemech said:
Durbs, you laugh at the jokey posts above, but theyre all true, every one of them.
If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert?
No, but that's not a good analogy. If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert?
What we have here is a mechanic telling somebody that they need to change the oil to prevent damage to their engine.
But that person ignores the advice, accuses the mechanic of being part of a Castrol conspiracy, declares there's no proof that engines even need oil and then six months later, rings the mechanic to tell him he's been proved wrong because the engine is still working.
durbster said:
Vantagemech said:
Durbs, you laugh at the jokey posts above, but theyre all true, every one of them.
If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert?
No, but that's not a good analogy. If you took your car on for a repair and the head technician had you spend tens of thousands on something that wasnt needed, time after time after time, would you still deem him an expert?
What we have here is a mechanic telling somebody that they need to change the oil to prevent damage to their engine.
But that person ignores the advice, accuses the mechanic of being part of a Castrol conspiracy, declares there's no proof that engines even need oil and then six months later, rings the mechanic to tell him he's been proved wrong because the engine is still working.
durbster said:
If the planet was warming, it stands to reason that plants and animals would adapt accordingly e.g. birds that migrate are heading further north:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/fu...
Use this for your papers as most are available to view in full here https://www.researchgate.net/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/fu...
Both of those papers use data of less than 40 years and therefore the movement of species correlates to the warming period of early seventies to circa 2000. Jolly good, and?
durbster said:
And fish stocks are moving as would be expected in response to climate change, according to NOAA (and fishermen):
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/10/butterfis...
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/sci...
That said, I can't find any information on whether these fish, birds and plants are really just gullible left-wing morons who only get their news from the BBC.
This one is built on models and assumptions, it says so in the article. Lets face it, fish stocks do directly respond to human interference as it depends almost directly on how much we eat and current regulatory regimes. So plenty of human fingerprint but not of warming.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/10/butterfis...
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/sci...
That said, I can't find any information on whether these fish, birds and plants are really just gullible left-wing morons who only get their news from the BBC.
So once again your confirmation bias means you don't ask critical questions of the papers where as my confirmation bias means that I do.
By the way, I'm posting this for other people Durbster as I know you are a trolling loon. Maybe if you trolled for butter fish you may catch a few.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff