Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
No x2Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
Correlation isn't causation.
Basic stuff - but for a group of people deciding their position on faith, a group which can't cope with the simple concept of causality, it's just too difficult self-evidently.
Never mind.
durbster said:
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
But the prediction and observation are not independent - and CO2 increasing is also an observation.Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
A more accurate description would be:
Observation: CO2 increasing
Observation: Temperature increasing
Make prediction: Increasing CO2 will increase temperature
Make claim: My model is validated!
Your prediction isn't really a prediction at all though because of your observations. What you have done instead is correlated two observations that may or not actually be linked (in much the same way as the temperature vs pirates chart a few posts back does).
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 14th March 09:23
turbobloke said:
From 97% of a small group of vested interests to 97% of the planet, that's some leap of faith even for the uber-faithful.
"97% of the planet", who said that then? Really, up the comprehension levels chaps or at the least the accuracy in the quoting. I've made 2 posts and the responses have been, well, less than scrupulous.That aside, I'd argue that the 'leap of faith' is believing that more than 10% of planet might believe the skeptic's case at this point in time. Out in the real world they're still comprehensively winning the propaganda war.
kelvink said:
That aside, I'd argue that the 'leap of faith' is believing that more than 10% of planet might believe the skeptic's case at this point in time. Out in the real world they're still comprehensively winning the propaganda war.
Any evidence you might have to support what you believe that the planet believes will be welcomekelvink said:
"97% of the planet", who said that then? Really, up the comprehension levels chaps or at the least the accuracy in the quoting. I've made 2 posts and the responses have been, well, less than scrupulous.
That aside, I'd argue that the 'leap of faith' is believing that more than 10% of planet might believe the skeptic's case at this point in time. Out in the real world they're still comprehensively winning the propaganda war.
It was a kindness offered against your remark; if you were referring - as others thought - to the 97% false consensus then at least there was a bogus statistic for you to claim reference to. If you really meant "9/10ths of the planet" in terms of inhabitants, it's too silly for a considered reply. Don't expect one. Even worse, with your casual wording, the idea that a planetary body behaves in that way is less than childlike.That aside, I'd argue that the 'leap of faith' is believing that more than 10% of planet might believe the skeptic's case at this point in time. Out in the real world they're still comprehensively winning the propaganda war.
Before launching unwarranted smears around comprehension, try improving your weak forms of expression.
In any case the leap of faith is for the faithful to make, those considering credible unmolested data within the basic concept of causality have no need for any faith aspect.
Your comment about winning the propaganda war brings us back to politics, where manmade climate change bunk belongs.
Belief in the political sphere is a curious thing, dividing as it does on Party lines, blurring the line between politics and religion.
Comment on survey outcomes stateside go like this: Americans remain starkly divided along Party lines. Nearly 7 of 10 Democrats believe climate change is mainly a result of human activity; about 2 out of 10 Republicans believe that. A similarly worded question that appeared on surveys from 2006 to 2015 found comparable gaps on the perceived cause of climate change.
In the UK, Labour Lord Donoughue has set out most cogently how it is that manmade climate change is so beloved of the British left, as per the USA. He likened Miliband clinging to it as a drowning man clinging to a straw.
If you regard winning the propaganda war as something worthy of mention, though your perspective is somewhat skewed as per your previous comments, this suggests you're aware that manmade climate change needs that propaganda as in reality it's a baseless concern. Given the massive effort and the astronomical amount of money behind the manmade climate change propaganda the results represent very poor value for money, which is good news as changes in the political scenery in the USA and UK are reducing significantly the share of taxpayer funding wasted on it.
kelvink said:
I'd argue that the 'leap of faith' is believing that more than 10% of planet might believe the skeptic's case at this point in time. Out in the real world they're still comprehensively winning the propaganda war.
I don't believe you're actually a climate realist, as you would know that most people do not believe in MMGW. But may I ask, have you formed your opinion from watching BBC News? Or perhaps CNN or another? They would have you believe that anyone who doesn't believe is an outcast, a fringe minority, but that actually doesn't represent reality at all.Independant polls usually show around 20% or less that believe.
My own experience among family and friends (for what it's worth) from varied backgrounds is that only 5% believe.
I'm afraid your 10% figure is way short of reality and in fact more likely to be the exact opposite of the truth, in my honest view. I guess this reflects the true power of 24 hour biased News channels on the impressionable.
Turbobloke: There is nothing weak about my expression.
Re Propoganda. You say "If you regard winning the propaganda war as something worthy of mention" as if propaganda doesn't feed into belief - which was the crux of my point. I use the term propaganda in its more relaxed meaning of 'The use of information to promote a point of view', not the use of 'misleading' information.
I cannot think for one minute that you don't think that the information war is being won by the AGW advocates whether fairly or otherwise.
Propaganda will determine the outcome of future actions or inactions. Only a very small amount of people are able/inclined to read and digest the science around this topic - thus propaganda (or the dissemination of information via the media) is critical.
Silver Smudger: As for the 90% of the planet who I might contend believe in AGW then the USA is only a small part of the global population (4.4%) and of that Climate skeptics possibly make up half. Indeed the ONLY Nations that haven't signed 1997's Global Climate Treaty are Afghanistan, Sudan & the U.S.A. A total of 192 countries have signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and that, according to that bastion of truth Wiki, is the closest thing you can get to a "working global agreement". With the lack of a global poll of individuals you can take my 90% figure from that statistic.
If it's not 90% (give or take) of the Global Population that believe in AGW then please put forward your figures with your reasoning because outside of the USA it's an ever diminishing number unfortunately.
Yes, I know not everybody in every country will believe in AGW but you can bet your last $ that (for example) the 1.3bn Chinese (or 20% of the global population) will mostly believe damn near everything that spews from their TV sets and will be on-board with their Govts AGW message.
Re Propoganda. You say "If you regard winning the propaganda war as something worthy of mention" as if propaganda doesn't feed into belief - which was the crux of my point. I use the term propaganda in its more relaxed meaning of 'The use of information to promote a point of view', not the use of 'misleading' information.
I cannot think for one minute that you don't think that the information war is being won by the AGW advocates whether fairly or otherwise.
Propaganda will determine the outcome of future actions or inactions. Only a very small amount of people are able/inclined to read and digest the science around this topic - thus propaganda (or the dissemination of information via the media) is critical.
Silver Smudger: As for the 90% of the planet who I might contend believe in AGW then the USA is only a small part of the global population (4.4%) and of that Climate skeptics possibly make up half. Indeed the ONLY Nations that haven't signed 1997's Global Climate Treaty are Afghanistan, Sudan & the U.S.A. A total of 192 countries have signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and that, according to that bastion of truth Wiki, is the closest thing you can get to a "working global agreement". With the lack of a global poll of individuals you can take my 90% figure from that statistic.
If it's not 90% (give or take) of the Global Population that believe in AGW then please put forward your figures with your reasoning because outside of the USA it's an ever diminishing number unfortunately.
Yes, I know not everybody in every country will believe in AGW but you can bet your last $ that (for example) the 1.3bn Chinese (or 20% of the global population) will mostly believe damn near everything that spews from their TV sets and will be on-board with their Govts AGW message.
kelvink said:
Silver Smudger: As for the 90% of the planet who I might contend believe in AGW then the USA is only a small part of the global population (4.4%) and of that Climate skeptics possibly make up half. Indeed the ONLY Nations that haven't signed 1997's Global Climate Treaty are Afghanistan, Sudan & the U.S.A. A total of 192 countries have signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and that, according to that bastion of truth Wiki, is the closest thing you can get to a "working global agreement". With the lack of a global poll of individuals you can take my 90% figure from that statistic.
That's some serious extrapolation, and seriously flawed logic. Governments never represent 90% of their population, never. UK referendum as a case in point, 70% voted, 36% was enough to tip the balance in favour, but it certainly can't be claimed to be 52% of the population, let alone 90%.Nuts.
Seriously flawed logic is the order of the day. Dr Patrick Moore co-founder of Greenpeace summed it up well.
Dr P Moore said:
I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology. At the same time that business and government are embracing public participation and inclusiveness, many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.
Same old! Those in the public eye who commit heresy against doctrine and put their heads over the parapet are seen as targets by the angry ones who, as per this comment in the Wall Street Journal of 03 October 1997 "tend to become apoplectic at anyone who dares suggest that the threat of global warming is theory, not established fact". It's been that way for years in terms of trying to silence those with an eye for unmolested data and sound science, and does little more than demonstrate how scared true believers are of open debate.
Burning wood for energy ignites fierce academic row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3926...
Scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have become embroiled in a war of words over energy from trees.
A recent Chatham House report claimed that burning wood for electricity is worse for the climate than using coal.
It sparked a backlash from a group of 125 academics in the field who said the research was deeply flawed.
Now supporters of the original study have hit back, saying that to avoid dangerous warming the world needs to plant more trees, not burn them.
Producing electricity from burning biomass such as trees has boomed in recent years, with the amount of energy generated doubling between 2005 and 2015.
Right the science is settled, is it not? So why the argument. Oh, I've got it, nobody actually knows, just like most of the CC science. All we have to do is leave the CC advocates alone, they're not far off finally shooting themseleves on their foot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3926...
Scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have become embroiled in a war of words over energy from trees.
A recent Chatham House report claimed that burning wood for electricity is worse for the climate than using coal.
It sparked a backlash from a group of 125 academics in the field who said the research was deeply flawed.
Now supporters of the original study have hit back, saying that to avoid dangerous warming the world needs to plant more trees, not burn them.
Producing electricity from burning biomass such as trees has boomed in recent years, with the amount of energy generated doubling between 2005 and 2015.
Right the science is settled, is it not? So why the argument. Oh, I've got it, nobody actually knows, just like most of the CC science. All we have to do is leave the CC advocates alone, they're not far off finally shooting themseleves on their foot.
Oh no.
Animals could start shrinking because of global warming, scientists have predicted, after discovering that mammals became ‘dwarfed’ in a similar episode of climate change 50 million years ago.
Better news for penguins though after we were told climate change was killing them.
"Scientists Miscalculate Antarctica's Penguin Population By 3.6M"
http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/14/scientis...
Animals could start shrinking because of global warming, scientists have predicted, after discovering that mammals became ‘dwarfed’ in a similar episode of climate change 50 million years ago.
Better news for penguins though after we were told climate change was killing them.
"Scientists Miscalculate Antarctica's Penguin Population By 3.6M"
http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/14/scientis...
BlackLabel said:
Oh no.
Animals could start shrinking because of global warming, scientists have predicted, after discovering that mammals became ‘dwarfed’ in a similar episode of climate change 50 million years ago.
Better news for penguins though after we were told climate change was killing them.
"Scientists Miscalculate Antarctica's Penguin Population By 3.6M"
http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/14/scientis...
Yea,but it keeps the grants (money) rolling in !!Animals could start shrinking because of global warming, scientists have predicted, after discovering that mammals became ‘dwarfed’ in a similar episode of climate change 50 million years ago.
Better news for penguins though after we were told climate change was killing them.
"Scientists Miscalculate Antarctica's Penguin Population By 3.6M"
http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/14/scientis...
Einion Yrth said:
BlackLabel said:
Animals could start shrinking
Animal species might conceivably evolve to be a tad smaller, should that turn out to be beneficial to their breeding prospects; I think it's probably fair to note that individual animals will be as big, or small, as their genes dictate.mybrainhurts said:
Einion Yrth said:
BlackLabel said:
Animals could start shrinking
Animal species might conceivably evolve to be a tad smaller, should that turn out to be beneficial to their breeding prospects; I think it's probably fair to note that individual animals will be as big, or small, as their genes dictate.
mybrainhurts said:
Einion Yrth said:
BlackLabel said:
Animals could start shrinking
Animal species might conceivably evolve to be a tad smaller, should that turn out to be beneficial to their breeding prospects; I think it's probably fair to note that individual animals will be as big, or small, as their genes dictate.A few giant ferns and the like and there may be enough food available for the resurgence of dinosaurs, large and small.
So, has anyone yet concluded that the basis of measuring global climate has been settled?
Seems to me that there's been quite a bit of debate as to whether there are enough temp measuring stations, theri accuracy, their proximity to sources of heat etc.
I can't see how it can even be determined that the global climate is going one way or the other until that is sorted out.
Seems to me that there's been quite a bit of debate as to whether there are enough temp measuring stations, theri accuracy, their proximity to sources of heat etc.
I can't see how it can even be determined that the global climate is going one way or the other until that is sorted out.
johnfm said:
So, has anyone yet concluded that the basis of measuring global climate has been settled?
Seems to me that there's been quite a bit of debate as to whether there are enough temp measuring stations, theri accuracy, their proximity to sources of heat etc.
I can't see how it can even be determined that the global climate is going one way or the other until that is sorted out.
I expect Durbs has Seems to me that there's been quite a bit of debate as to whether there are enough temp measuring stations, theri accuracy, their proximity to sources of heat etc.
I can't see how it can even be determined that the global climate is going one way or the other until that is sorted out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff