Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

ooo000ooo said:

Gandahar said:

Is there something called storage? Like when you charge up your phone overnight?

Major EU grant for Gaelectric Islandmagee cave project - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-3947...

What a great idea. Sod driving a turbine use it for Fracking....that'll learn em

[durbster]

NWTony said:

LongQ said:

Snip

I'm with TB on the impact of CO2 on the climate, not on the fence, waiting to be convinced, I fully share his conviction that it is a complete nonsense.

That said Natural News was a stty link to make, if there was an alternative I'd have definitely gone for that.

But what's worse is your defence of Natural News - have you even read it FFS?

To be fair, there aren't any credible sources to link to that would back up turbobloke's position, so he might as well use the full-on paranoid conspiracy theory loonies

I'm a little surprised by LongQ here, but I suppose this is more proof that his position is based on ideology and not objectivity.

[wc98]

durbster said:

To be fair, there aren't any credible sources to link to that would back up turbobloke's position, so he might as well use the full-on paranoid conspiracy theory loonies

I'm a little surprised by LongQ here, but I suppose this is more proof that his position is based on ideology and not objectivity.

i am a little surprised by you here.i thought the link from the bbc regarding the number of trees would have been credible enough for you.

[jjlynn27]

LongQ said:

An idiotic site?

Is that a political opinion?

If you take the three articles durbster selected and presented, presumably, as being belief generated rather science based ..

The Golden RIce story seems to be based on a report by an academic. If not based on then presents much the same message.

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-genetically-golden-r...


The story about vaccines sound about as plausible as any other story, positive or negative to one's point if view whatever it might be, that appears in print in any health related and newspaper or magazine. Is it's credibility, whatever we think of personally, more or less acceptable to the massed ranks of the population than the opinions of, say, Prince Charles?

Is mass vaccination the right way to go for everyone with no doubts at all? Should it be mandated? If so, why? This is, after all, a political question where one can invert the "if one person dies" mantra from being a case for perceived social good to something being a very low risk harm for someone. But is it really as low risk as people think for everyone?


Are Pharma companies really totally safe operations that have only people's health in mind?

I would certainly like to think so but then there are frequent situations where investigation and courts decide they are not, whether thorugh poor execution of quality standards or less than complete science.

A few years back large number of blind trials were stopped early when drugs on which future hopes were pinned were suddenly found to have a such a dramatic positive result on those receiving it that it was felt potentially immoral to not offer the control groups the same treatments.

Well, that's true enough but also implies that the tests as developed would never be complete. They might be OK or they might have produced long term concerns. Who carries the can when claims are made 10 or 15 years down the track?

My grandson recently had the triple vaccine given at around a year old. He was very noticeably out of sorts for some weeks. The little girl who was in line before him ended up at A&E. Maybe her parents were simply over worried by rumours of possible problems ... but since nothing is done to pre-assess the children - or anyone else for that matter - given these sorts of mass treatments there certainly seems to be room for differences in responses on an individual basis and the related increased risk individual by individual for some individuals, to creep in to proceedings.

The consensus seems to be that that such potentail risks can be ignored, if they exist, because of the the supposedly greater good for all.

Of course that is a political decision and as such is not necessarily aligned with other political decisions about risk.

Across the board we seem to lack any political will for consistency in such matters,

When you consider what is presented as being at stake politically this is hardly a surprise.

The only puzzle seems to be that people, given two very similar politically motivated policy decisions with significantly different outcomes and expectations, feel comfortable support one but not the other. In fact there is no reason to support either.

Never take anything at face value.

Never take anything for granted.

Both no matter what the course might be one's natural (no pun intended) inclination.

You'll need much, much bigger tinfoil hat to protect your thoughts.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

NWTony said:

LongQ said:

Snip

I'm with TB on the impact of CO2 on the climate, not on the fence, waiting to be convinced, I fully share his conviction that it is a complete nonsense.

That said Natural News was a stty link to make, if there was an alternative I'd have definitely gone for that.

To be fair, there aren't any credible sources to link to that would back up turbobloke's position

There was nothing wrong with the link as the information presented within it in terms of the specific poiint I was making remains accurate. As pointed out previously, if you or I were to write Maxwell's Equations on a piece of toilet paper and publish it down the loo, the lights would stay on. Probably better to let me do it though, as you wouldn't have a clue what to write.

That said, knowing how you'd appreciate an 'authority' such as Dr Patrick Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace, particularly if he wrote for the GWPF, this source will back up my position on starvation levels of tax gas and give you a giggle at the same time. The cross-Party-political nature of the GWPF is perfect for this thread after all.

http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-cel...

Dr Moore said:

the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die

Given that the concept of causality causes believers so much trouble, the concept of 'order of magnitude' may be too much but it's worth a try. Tax gas at low ~10^2 ppm(v) levels represent starvation levels, 10^3 ppm(v) would be more nourishing. The futther away we go from pre-industrial levels ca 280 ppm(v) the better. Humans can cope easily with plant-favourable levels as demonstrated by data from submarines featured on PH climate threads previously: "data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm" i.e. more than 8x the current atmospheric level.

Plants, trees, crops and people get on well with carbon dioxide way above the current lowly 400 ppm(v) level.

durbster said:

I'm a little surprised by LongQ here, but I suppose this is more proof that his position is based on ideology and not objectivity.

Lovely irony there, really peachy.

[Mr GrimNasty]

The fact that Durbster etc. consider any reference to certain topics as conspiracy theory/science bks just shows how ideologically entrenched and anti-science their closed minds are, I say closed, more like welded shut, concrete encased, and buried six-miles down.

Durbster should make his invaluable in-expertise available to overturn numerous court cases/inquiries where vaccines have been proven to transmit disease, cause death, caused catastrophic reactions, and GM crops have caused health problems, contamination and other detrimental effects on wildlife.

I can well believe that people like Durbster don't think there is anything wrong with forcing people to have vaccines, he forces us to listen to his anti-science brand of extreme prejudice about CO2!

Meanwhile the seas around Antarctica are refreezing, the Arctic is fine (despite implausible dishonest exaggeration about record lows by tiny error margins), Alaska was record cold last month, Greenland has blown away all records for ice mass accumulation, it's a record low hurricane season currently, tornadoes aren't getting worse, rainfall is not getting more extreme, coastal sea level measurements indicate the same inexorable natural rise as ever, a normal California drought cycle has ended - marked by the flowering of all the desert plants that evolved for precisely that, the pre-event news of record early Cherry blossom didn't happen, and the earth cooled again in March.

In any sane world, in any world that values scientific integrity, the real facts and observations refute any visible predicted effect of a CO2 induced climate emergency or threat whatsoever.

Just imagine all the environmental/humanity good that could have been done with all the money wasted on CO2 BS.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

You'll need much, much bigger tinfoil hat to protect your thoughts.

See Rousseau "insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong".

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

same old

When was the last time you made a new point?

[Phud]

durbster said:

When was the last time you made a new point?

When was the last time you made a valid point?

[LongQ]

NWTony said:

LongQ said:

Snip

I'm with TB on the impact of CO2 on the climate, not on the fence, waiting to be convinced, I fully share his conviction that it is a complete nonsense.

That said Natural News was a stty link to make, if there was an alternative I'd have definitely gone for that.

But what's worse is your defence of Natural News - have you even read it FFS?

Yes, as of last night, and it appears its direction on policy seems to be all over the place as far as I can tell.

But it seems to be an amalgam of personal opinions, obsessive concepts and article written based on various medical and science paper claims.

Not unlike the Grauniad for example, or any other "media" outlet.

Unless people are prepared to dictate content and disallow freedom of opinion - it's tempting but are we really getting to that point? - you have to look at all "information" aggregators" and take them with a large does of salt.

Notably for many, on all sides of an opinion, that seems to be a challenge with which they feel uncomfortable - hence the constant drive to influence or, in some cases, force people to be "on message".

If you read what I wrote you should see, unless I was not clear enough, that the message (in this case from Natural News bit it could have been about the same subject matter with any slant applied to it) and the deliverer needed to be considered separately. That cuts both ways whether or not the article and its contents are read in Natural News or the BBC of the Daily Mail, Time Magazine, NYT, WSJ or anywhere else.

We also need to have at least some facility to suspend our own learned biases for a while while considering the words rather than the messenger, although in some cases the human psyche may find that difficult once the bias is well ingrained.

If you look at the specific link I offered to the BBC report compared to the NN article the core content is much the same. So if I were to choose to reject NN's version because it is from NN can I also reject the BBC and everything it offers? Not only can I but should I?

More widely that would lead us to consider what sources of alleged "factual" information we ought to find acceptable - and of course that discussion has been a point of disagreement for millenia.

I'm often grateful for links people provide when they offer perspective (rather than repetitive rabid doctrine) even if the content does not align with my understanding of the matters discussed as I understand them so far.

Remember this is the Politics thread. These differences and sources are all about political positioning and belief systems. Like it or not belief systems are at the core of human "understanding" one way or another. ( I use the word understanding in a very broad sense.)

If you prefer to eliminate any off message sources because occasionally some of the messages they offer do not fit in with the official narrative then so be it. It's been done before and in some parts of the world is how present normality is managed.

I'm yet to be convinced that is a good thing but post some links to positive articles about the benefits of total content and opinion control and I will consider them.

[durbster]

Phud said:

durbster said:

When was the last time you made a new point?

When was the last time you made a valid point?

Two posts ago when I highlighted how anti-scientific naturalnews.com is.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Phud said:

durbster said:

When was the last time you made a new point?

When was the last time you made a valid point?

Two posts ago when I highlighted how anti-scientific naturalnews.com is.

Shooting the messenger as an ad hom category of logical fallacy isn't a valid point except to those relying on non-valid points masquerading as valid points. HTH.

[turbobloke]

From the political blog Climate Depot:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/03/2016-17-qui...

"2016-17 Quitest Hurricane Season On Record For Southern Hemisphere"

This offers no difficulty for those of the nonscience faith side of agw politico-religious persusasion given that agw will increase and decrease hurricane frequency and cannot therefore be verified or refuted, Neat if it's working for your vested interest, but total garbage.

1 Hurricanes and tropical storms will become less frequent by the end of the century as a result of climate change (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory).

2 Hurricanes are likely to become more frequent as a result of global warming (study by Kerry Emanuel, hurricane researcher at MIT).

Less is more, more is less, cooling is the new warming and agw is still a religion

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

You'll need much, much bigger tinfoil hat to protect your thoughts.

See Rousseau "insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong".

There were no insults, you, while whining about BBC, link naturalnews, a crackpot site designed to appeal to the same demographics as infowars. I really like the images of the scared children and stories about Pharma conspiracies. They peddle the same moronic, irresponsible idiocy by linking MMR to autism. LongQ's post is a continuation of that site. To call it idiotic is not an insult, it's an observation.

I know, I know. It's secondary sources, appeal to authority, logical fallacy, Bliar and Liebore. Like a broken record.

I don't care much about global warming, but linking site promoting those views is stupid. There is no other way to call it.

[turbobloke]

Plus ca change etc.

"From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science” Representative Dana Rohrabacher said to Mann. That's Michael Mann of the splintered hockey stick and dodgy stats infamy,

Loving the 'claiming to represent' bit, an excellent insight into non-consensus and non-representative activism.

[turbobloke]

Not so happy anniversary - the worst tornado outbreak in recent American history occurred on April 3-4, 1974 at the peak of the 1970’s ice age scare.

Thank goodness for reduced extreme weather from non-existent manmade global warming

Temperatures on April 3rd were very hot in the southeast with Texas over 100 degrees and much of the south over 90 degrees. Loving that warming cooling

Feel the heat love.

[LongQ]

jjlynn27 said:

You'll need much, much bigger tinfoil hat to protect your thoughts.

Such a sad and old meme.

Maybe just a cheap response because you have no other?

[LongQ]

jjlynn27 said:

There were no insults, you, while whining about BBC, link naturalnews, a crackpot site designed to appeal to the same demographics as infowars. I really like the images of the scared children and stories about Pharma conspiracies. They peddle the same moronic, irresponsible idiocy by linking MMR to autism. LongQ's post is a continuation of that site. To call it idiotic is not an insult, it's an observation.

I know, I know. It's secondary sources, appeal to authority, logical fallacy, Bliar and Liebore. Like a broken record.

I don't care much about global warming, but linking site promoting those views is stupid. There is no other way to call it.

I think you have entirely missed the points I was making. Either that or misunderstood them. Perhaps deliberately to make make the point you wished to make? I say that as you did not answer mine or even seem to directly engage.

Why did you bring up autism?

Using a site like PH (for anything) is pretty stupid in the overall context of humanity. It doesn't stop us thought does it?

In the end it often comes down to a passion or a belief or something that mixes the two - probably best categorised as an obsession in that case.

You should probably try politics as a career. Such a ferocious self belief would probably fit well. The subject matter likely would not matter. The ability to fully divert the discussion into areas of your choosing can be quickly refined. If you are lucky people won't be able to spot the diversion.

On the other hand Law training perhaps works best in politics and for that you probably need to be able to argue any side without necessarily accepting the "evidence" at all. I'm not sure that would suit on a short term task basis.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

same old

When was the last time you made a new point?

When was the last time you made an intelligent one ?

[jjlynn27]

LongQ said:

I think you have entirely missed the points I was making. Either that or misunderstood them. Perhaps deliberately to make make the point you wished to make? I say that as you did not answer mine or even seem to directly engage.

Why did you bring up autism?

Using a site like PH (for anything) is pretty stupid in the overall context of humanity. It doesn't stop us thought does it?

In the end it often comes down to a passion or a belief or something that mixes the two - probably best categorised as an obsession in that case.

You should probably try politics as a career. Such a ferocious self belief would probably fit well. The subject matter likely would not matter. The ability to fully divert the discussion into areas of your choosing can be quickly refined. If you are lucky people won't be able to spot the diversion.

On the other hand Law training perhaps works best in politics and for that you probably need to be able to argue any side without necessarily accepting the "evidence" at all. I'm not sure that would suit on a short term task basis.

Thanks for the career advice. Now, take a deep breath.

The link between autism and MMR was brought up by moronic website quoted. Quite a few times. The whole 'omg vaccinations are bad, mkay' is perpetuated by morons. Without exception. That site is written by morons for even bigger morons. And I'm being kind here. Yes, some kids, very rarely, will have a reaction, which is usually very easily treated. The benefits of vaccinations, wait, am I actually talking about benefits of vaccination in the 21st century?

I don't care if adults chose not to have vaccinations. I do care very much if, due to their incalculable stupidity they inflict harm on an innocent child.

As per the previous post, I don't care much about global warming, but linking a site like that, deserves all the ridicule it gets.