Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[voyds9]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/freezing-fog...

Looks like it was, is, or is going to be cold.

TOTALLY unexpected for January around zero temperatures.

Seems like only last year it was this cold.

[Vizsla]

voyds9 said:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/freezing-fog...

Looks like it was, is, or is going to be cold.

TOTALLY unexpected for January around zero temperatures.

Seems like only last year it was this cold.

I'm not of a warmist persuasion, but I have to say I was damn glad of a touch of AGW this morning. Scraping the windscreen it was -7°C, without that luverly AGW it would have been a parky -7.07°C

[LongQ]

More on Tidal Lagoons and the like.

http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-tidal-base-l...


Some very interesting observations in the piece and the one response so far (at time of posting) seems to me to be trying to find an apparent technical justification for a poor option just because it has been proposed.

[robinessex]

Beeb starts 'attacking' Trump

World v Trump on global climate deal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3867...

As a pro-coal president strides into the White House, the rest of the world is rallying in defence of the climate.
Donald Trump has called climate change "a hoax" and filled his cabinet with representatives of fossil fuel industries.
One of the world's leading climate scientists told me she was positively scared about his potential impact on the planet.
Continues............................

Lots of desperation and impending doom predicted

[turbobloke]

Trump cares deeply what the BBC's true believers publish and will cave in, just like he did with requests from Republican 'bigwigs' to step down. Hang on...

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Beeb starts 'attacking' Trump

World v Trump on global climate deal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3867...

As a pro-coal president strides into the White House, the rest of the world is rallying in defence of the climate.
Donald Trump has called climate change "a hoax" and filled his cabinet with representatives of fossil fuel industries.
One of the world's leading climate scientists told me she was positively scared about his potential impact on the planet.
Continues............................

Lots of desperation and impending doom predicted

To put his comments into perspective, Trump also thinks vaccines cause autism so the man is clearly scientifically illiterate. And more worryingly, he seems to have surrounded himself with people of similar abilities.

Hooray for ignorance!

Out of interest, will you be celebrating when anti-vaccine material starts appearing in US schools?

[robinessex]

Standard Durbster nonsense posting

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Standard Durbster nonsense posting

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.

[Blib]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Standard Durbster nonsense posting

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.

For goodness sakes.

[don4l]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Standard Durbster nonsense posting

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.

You really haven't a clue about how science works.

There is no rule that says that if you are correct about one thing, then you must be correct about everything else.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Evil fossil fuels at work just now whilst wind and solar go AWOL.

[LongQ]

don4l said:

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Standard Durbster nonsense posting

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.

You really haven't a clue about how science works.

There is no rule that says that if you are correct about one thing, then you must be correct about everything else.

Indeed not.

However, in the world of Politics such personal self belief can be strong - and possibly needs to be for anything to be done.

[jurbie]

durbster said:

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

Greenpeace share your view that AGW is a serious problem. They also believe GM crops are a serious problem.

So if Greenpeace are right about climate change then it stands to reason that you think they're right about GM crops too. Is that correct?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?

Not directed at me but I can answer in general terms that what person X believes or thinks about A has no bearing on what they or you should believe or think about their position on an unrelated matter B in terms of whether B is accurate or not, and this is in fact part of the failure of appeals to authority. Logical fallacies see.

All possibilities exist. They could be correct about A and B, incorrect about both, or correct about one but not the other. Therefore one goes off to the data/evidence and makes up one's own mind. Try it sometime.

However as believers must appeal to such fallacies and generally get things wrong I can see how it might be offered in discussion for some point-scoring reason, wrong-minded though it is.

[durbster]

jurbie said:

So if Greenpeace are right about climate change then it stands to reason that you think they're right about GM crops too. Is that correct?

Incorrect.

See, a simple answer. No need for all the hystrionics.

But Trump's judgement on scientific matters is important, as it will probably affect all of us.

[LongQ]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Evil fossil fuels at work just now whilst wind and solar go AWOL.

Crikey, that looks a bit tight considering this "cold snap" does not seem to be a really deep cold yet.

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

jurbie said:

So if Greenpeace are right about climate change then it stands to reason that you think they're right about GM crops too. Is that correct?

Incorrect.

See, a simple answer. No need for all the hystrionics.

But Trump's judgement on scientific matters is important, as it will probably affect all of us.

yep, we might see an end to the wind and solar subsidies, that'd be a great start.

Durbster - believes in AGW, therefore believes in the Faeries at the Bottom of the Garden - neither of which offer any proof. Correct?

[AreOut]

dunno if already posted

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/why-it-doesnt-...

[wc98]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Evil fossil fuels at work just now whilst wind and solar go AWOL.

is the balance of usage being made up by the diesel generator parks ?

[turbobloke]

AreOut said:

dunno if already posted

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/why-it-doesnt-...

Lukewarmist honesty!

-Believe but can't prove (spot on, it's belief not science at the endgame).

-Paris level of theoretical temperature reduction is unmeasurable but costs $100trillion.

-Climate models have badly botched forecast warming.

-Trump does not want to destroy prosperity just for those who want to feel good about making efforts to save the planet (Greenpeace co-founder Dr Moore called them mystics and dreaners) - price of feelgood is indeed premature death for millions.

-Workable fossil fuel replacements will arise through market forces not government fiat (clearly renewables are not workable).