Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Reform of EU carbon trading scheme agreed

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/2...

Member states approve changes, including €12bn innovation fund, to emissions plan for cleaner technology and pollution cuts

Heathrow aims to make third runway carbon neutral

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/2...

The huge growth in flights from Heathrow’s planned new runway could be carbon neutral, according to an ambition revealed by the airport.

Surely the simplest way to make air travel "carbon neutral", whatever that means, would be to avoid causing it in the first place.

How much air travel could be claimed to be "necessary" by any measurement method one might employ?

It would be extremely ironic if capacity was increased worldwide and the "growing" market turned out to be not growing so much. Something rather similar has happened to the freight shipping industry in recent times and that, one would have thought, is at least based on some sort of real purpose for trading goods.

Never mind, perhaps we really need the runway capacity to allow tomatoes and other food produce to be flown in from Senegal and Kenya when "carbon" causes "climate" problems in Spain or cross channel transport can no longer support the process of bringing food in by road and sea.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Believers are the ones citing X organisations backing agw junkscience via a tiny number of activists on committees issuing statements on behalf of others that aren't subject to any wider agreement than the activist committee.

Your continued attempts to label all who disagree with you (which is pretty much everyone) as believers while pretending your cult are somehow not is as comical as it is inexplicable.

But of all the baseless assertions you make, I think the one about the "tiny number of activists" is my favourite as it makes me laugh each time.

Do you have any evidence of this activist infiltration? I mean, without evidence it's just be a belief isn't it.

[robinessex]

That's weird Durbster, just everyone I talk to, i.e., the 'man in the street', thinks AGW and CC is complete bks, and would rather have government(s) putting it's efforts (and money) in to today’s problems, instead of chasing some fantasy scientific bks, that no one alive to day will ever see what eventually happens to the climate.

[Hosenbugler]

robinessex said:

That's weird Durbster, just everyone I talk to, i.e., the 'man in the street', thinks AGW and CC is complete bks, and would rather have government(s) putting it's efforts (and money) in to today’s problems, instead of chasing some fantasy scientific bks, that no one alive to day will ever see what eventually happens to the climate.

Ditto , the only individual I have met who beleived in the AGW nonsense was a student doing volunteer work on the same nature reserve as me.

Everybody else I've met/discussed it with thinks its nonsense, and some even stating that its an elaborate tax scam,which is a large part of what it actually is.

[DapperDanMan]

Hosenbugler said:

robinessex said:

That's weird Durbster, just everyone I talk to, i.e., the 'man in the street', thinks AGW and CC is complete bks, and would rather have government(s) putting it's efforts (and money) in to today’s problems, instead of chasing some fantasy scientific bks, that no one alive to day will ever see what eventually happens to the climate.

Ditto , the only individual I have met who beleived in the AGW nonsense was a student doing volunteer work on the same nature reserve as me.

Everybody else I've met/discussed it with thinks its nonsense, and some even stating that its an elaborate tax scam,which is a large part of what it actually is.

I know some people who believe 9/11 was an inside job and some believe the moon landings were a hoax. I also know some people who think man made climate change is real and needs dealing with.

So what is your point? I guess it is the company you keep and I would imagine that company is for the most part determined by your own belief system and filtered by it. What you are getting are echo's of your own bias, some might even call it confirmation bias.

[turbobloke]

DapperDanMan said:

Hosenbugler said:

robinessex said:

That's weird Durbster, just everyone I talk to, i.e., the 'man in the street', thinks AGW and CC is complete bks, and would rather have government(s) putting it's efforts (and money) in to today’s problems, instead of chasing some fantasy scientific bks, that no one alive to day will ever see what eventually happens to the climate.

Ditto , the only individual I have met who beleived in the AGW nonsense was a student doing volunteer work on the same nature reserve as me.

Everybody else I've met/discussed it with thinks its nonsense, and some even stating that its an elaborate tax scam,which is a large part of what it actually is.

I know some people who believe 9/11 was an inside job and some believe the moon landings were a hoax. I also know some people who think man made climate change is real and needs dealing with.

So what is your point? I guess it is the company you keep and I would imagine that company is for the most part determined by your own belief system and filtered by it. What you are getting are echo's of your own bias, some might even call it confirmation bias.

It's in keeping with credible unmolested data and sound science (unlike agw) so whatever else it is, rejecting the failed hypothesis of agw is sound science, however this is the politics thread so believing in fairytales backed by politicians should be right at home.

[durbster]

Hosenbugler said:

robinessex said:

That's weird Durbster, just everyone I talk to, i.e., the 'man in the street', thinks AGW and CC is complete bks, and would rather have government(s) putting it's efforts (and money) in to today’s problems, instead of chasing some fantasy scientific bks, that no one alive to day will ever see what eventually happens to the climate.

Ditto , the only individual I have met who beleived in the AGW nonsense was a student doing volunteer work on the same nature reserve as me.

Everybody else I've met/discussed it with thinks its nonsense, and some even stating that its an elaborate tax scam,which is a large part of what it actually is.

Perhaps you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear:

Evidence suggests you're in a minority:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/wh...

[robinessex]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/wh...

The comments don't seem to be in agreement. Funny that. Surveys can be made to produce the answers you want. Just like the 88% of ladies agree the latest cream hides their wrinkles, and then discover they only asked 127 !!!!

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Perhaps you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear:

Evidence suggests you're in a minority:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/wh...

Or you are suffering from psychological projection...... You can tell the entire CO2 based CAGW is nonsense by the amount of contradictions it throws up (the latest NASA and Mars news is a shining example) .
The "Ocean acidification" contradiction. The cyclone energy contradiction. The "would be funny if it was costing so much" hockey stick contradiction ("MWP was only northern hemisphere so not global" .... tell me the name of the chart again? Wasn't it Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction???!!!)
The IPCC only uses peer reviewed papers nonsense.
So much BS so little temperature increase......

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

mybrainhurts said:

zygalski said:

So you have had your own work published in a peer reviewed journal?
Would it not just be easier to reference it? I'd hate to think you're just a glorified copy/paster.

You appear to be struggling with the English language. Must try harder.

Given the flattering levels of personal attention I'm getting from certain quarters you'd think young z would have spotted the posts in this - and other climate topics - in which I indicate clearly that due to past experience I won't be exposing people with whom I've worked to the gaze of believers and the kind of stalker-nutter attention that can regrettably be a feature of these threads, as per the example I cited which led to the first and only custard moment (btw zygalski, it's not about me; if anything take a look at your own position).

Nor will I reveal the peer-reviewed publications that I've reviewed...these reviews were conducted anonymously in confidence, something that was once normal in all branches of science.

One consolation from the persistence with which true belief is trying and failing to discredit me is the positive sign that I'm on the right track and doing a reasonable job of putting junkscience (and related political ineptitude) under scrutiny and in its place.

The good offices of a neutral PHer have served their purpose in discreetly providing ezternal scrutiny / verification and no amount of mewling and puking will change that.

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/27/20-new-papers-a...

"20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability"

Poor old tax gas.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 1st March 09:48

Ok.
So copy/paster it is then.
Thanks for the clarification.
It would however be interesting to know exactly what your scientific background & experience is. Alas, that shall remain a closely guarded secret....

[Kawasicki]

I like to refer to published peer reviewed papers such as this...this scientist "believes" that there is currently no significant trend in global average temperature. How could that have passed peer review?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095830...

[zygalski]

Kawasicki said:

I like to refer to published peer reviewed papers such as this...this scientist "believes" that there is currently no significant trend in global average temperature. How could that have passed peer review?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095830...

That's missing the point.
I asked a straight question which will remain unanswered.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

...in a minority...

In a minority...another appeal to consensus?

Despite so many people supposedly swallowing agw information pollution, gloopal wombling is the lowest of political priorities for people, globally.

The UN found that out from a sample size of only 7.6 million.

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Ok.
So copy/paster it is then.
Thanks for the clarification.

The clarification you got is that another PHer, an independent soul, has seen the evidence you ask for but won't get on a public forum. Tough titty

I like to copy and paste where it's available as it saves typing time, particularly from peer reviewed papers, including those I reviewed myself if needs be...once they were published of course.

[dickymint]

zygalski said:

Ok.
So copy/paster it is then.
Thanks for the clarification.
It would however be interesting to know exactly what your scientific background & experience is. Alas, that shall remain a closely guarded secret....

Are you also interested in Durds background and experience? I am but alas........

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

zygalski said:

Ok.
So copy/paster it is then.
Thanks for the clarification.
It would however be interesting to know exactly what your scientific background & experience is. Alas, that shall remain a closely guarded secret....

Are you also interested in Durds background and experience? I am but alas........

If either of zygalski's dad or durbster's dad happen to be bigger than my dad (was) it could be serious.

Back on-topic, incoming Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has spoken of an “aggressive” agenda of green blob regulatory rollbacks, criticizing the previous Obama administration. This would be excellent news for Americans when it happens, and a good example for other developed nations to follow.

http://www.thegwpf.com/epa-chief-calls-for-aggress...

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

The clarification you got is that another PHer, an independent soul, has seen the evidence you ask for but won't get on a public forum. Tough titty

I like to copy and paste where it's available as it saves typing time, particularly from peer reviewed papers, including those I reviewed myself if needs be...once they were published of course.

....hmmm, so you've reviewed papers....hmmm

Durbster, does that mean it is ok to be brainwashed by Turbobloke now?

[wc98]

robinessex said:

The best and only way to check on a scientific hypothesis, is for a totally impendent repeat of it, and see if you get the same answer/conclusion. It’s no good getting your scientific mates to just agree with you.

this is the bit that gets me. hot spot in the troposphere is an absolute necessity to even begin to contemplate there is anything in the cagw hypothesis. my understanding is it should have been a stand out feature increasing in temperature significantly over the last twenty years directly in line with the increase in atmospheric co2 .

yet the only place it appears is in models. why has this one single thing not killed this crap stone dead ?

[Kawasicki]

wc98 said:

this is the bit that gets me. hot spot in the troposphere is an absolute necessity to even begin to contemplate there is anything in the cagw hypothesis. my understanding is it should have been a stand out feature increasing in temperature significantly over the last twenty years directly in line with the increase in atmospheric co2 .

yet the only place it appears is in models. why has this one single thing not killed this crap stone dead ?

there must be a problem with the sensors

[mybrainhurts]

Kawasicki said:

wc98 said:

this is the bit that gets me. hot spot in the troposphere is an absolute necessity to even begin to contemplate there is anything in the cagw hypothesis. my understanding is it should have been a stand out feature increasing in temperature significantly over the last twenty years directly in line with the increase in atmospheric co2 .

yet the only place it appears is in models. why has this one single thing not killed this crap stone dead ?

there must be a problem with the sensors

I think you mean censors...