Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[wc98]

durbster said:

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

you do know the definition of conspiracy/conspire ? have a look at the climategate emails and tell me there is no conspiring there .
i cannot believe you still maintain this position when the factual evidence has been provided to show various climate scientists have conspired on several occasions.

[PRTVR]

dub16v said:

PRTVR said:

The point I was making was how can you distinguish any change as being abnormal? Taking the point that we are still coming out of an ice age and detailed fauna and plants have only been studied in any detail for perhaps 200 years or less if you look at it globally, attributing any change to a minute change in temperature that isn't continuous is just fanciful the UK has not become a med type climate.
I will have a read of the links when I get back in but I do not hold much hope for them, UK climate change risk assessment no agenda there.....

I don't know what you're expecting in truth - that we'll suddenly wake up one morning to palm trees and 3m sea level rise and be shocked by it? We are seeing changes now - this is now our 'normal'. We also have documented evidence of species responding to climate change for records much longer than 200 years (read the papers cited above).

Speaking with farmers (some of the most skeptical people on the subject I can assure you) they have been seeing significant changes for the last 20-30 years, changes not seen at any other time in their family histories (many farms are passed down through the generations). A lot of farmers actually document these changes, through their own farm diaries (i.e. changes in the start of spring, first leaf fall etc.). These people know the environment, and it's changing. I guess it's all natural though. Or is it? Models (not reliable of course) have been shown to replicate past climate (back/hindcasting) and predict future climate successfully with and without natural and antropogenic forcings (see Stott et al. 2003; Tett et al. 2000 etc.). They are fudged though to fit the data though aren't they?

Also relevant, an increase in CO2 has a greater warming effect than changes attributed to changes in solar activity or changes in the Earth's orbit. There's a very well regarded paper on this (see Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010 - it's available via Google).

Re the bold text, it's an independently produced study no matter your conspiracy theories or other agendas. Again, available to read.

Well I went and had a look at the website, what a let down, I was expecting to see the light, but what I found was a lot of contradiction,

https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/...

The best they could come up with is it would be a good insurance against what might happen, so we are spending billions as an insurance against something that may not happen.
Maybe the site has changed since dubs last looked at it, I think a lot of site's will suffer from the TE, TRUMP EFFECT, it will be interesting to watch the science follow the political direction.

I really am amazed at your comments on farmers memories, you talk about a localised situations and link it to GLOBAL warming, were the farmers around last time we came out of an ice age ?

[wc98]

dub16v said:

the above movements are linked to climate change.

they may well be. the issue is,are they related to mmgw or natural climate change .

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

dub16v said:

the above movements are linked to climate change.

they may well be. the issue is,are they related to mmgw or natural climate change .

Exactly. See previous post ref LIA.

There's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.

This may have been mentioned previously but needs repeating for some folks who keep forgetting it.

[Silver Smudger]

dub16v said:

Silver Smudger said:

dub16v said:

^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... and the latest UK CC risk assessment (here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... to name a few.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

None of this seems disastrous or dramatic to me though, all examples of flora and fauna adapting or moving about as they have always done, no?
As mentioned on this page, it was warm enough in Roman times to grow decent vineyards far further north in the UK, but not so now - is returning to this climate that bad?

No. It's the speed of change that is the issue. Read the reports.

I'd like to, neither of your links are complete

Edited by Silver Smudger on Friday 27th January 07:49

[Mr GrimNasty]

The current rate of warming is no different to previous natural warming spurts.

And that assumes that the satellite data is totally wrong and the warming shown in the sparse, highly manipulated, very poor quality, politically controlled ground data - is right. Which is clearly preposterous.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that is the science - the effect is however logarithmic decreasing and the effect already near saturation point - also science

The imagined modeled CAGW positive feedbacks is the crap science/BS politics.

Even if last year was the hottest 'evah', well all it brought was superb food yields and some of the most mild and least lethal/damaging weather in history!

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb CC piece

World Bank loan scheme 'failing clean energy'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...

"A multi-billion dollar global fund is encouraging the construction of fossil fuel projects, at the expense of cleaner options, a study reports.
An NGO said that some World Bank policy loans had the effect of supporting coal, gas and oil developments while undermining renewable schemes.
It added the loans were intended to boost growth in the low carbon sector.
The World Bank disputed the report's findings, saying it did not reflect the wider work it did with countries. Continues......................"

Now I wonder why that's happening? Follow the money?

[durbster]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

you do know the definition of conspiracy/conspire ? have a look at the climategate emails and tell me there is no conspiring there .
i cannot believe you still maintain this position when the factual evidence has been provided to show various climate scientists have conspired on several occasions.

+

turbobloke said:

No conspiracy - that's your strawman. In claiming that I present climate change and any other fairytales or junkscience as a left-wing conspiracy is a misrepresentation, a falsehood, and your very own strawman as indicated.

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists... you are a troll

LongQ said:

What will it take to get you to understand that most people here see no broad conspiracy as a pure conspiracy (though there may be local small groups who are acting in that way)

=

durbster said:

your answers are ... wildly inconsistent

[turbobloke]

Not so, wc98 is talking about pal review and gatekeeping in the literature, a specific point in the suborning of science by politicised bunk purveyors.

Cospiracy theory strawman as adduced by you durbster relates to a wider plot involving unis, gov'ts, charities, pressure groups, and so on.

These are not the same thing and you conflating the two is transparently bogus.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

durbster said:

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

you do know the definition of conspiracy/conspire ? have a look at the climategate emails and tell me there is no conspiring there .
i cannot believe you still maintain this position when the factual evidence has been provided to show various climate scientists have conspired on several occasions.

+

turbobloke said:

No conspiracy - that's your strawman. In claiming that I present climate change and any other fairytales or junkscience as a left-wing conspiracy is a misrepresentation, a falsehood, and your very own strawman as indicated.

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists... you are a troll

LongQ said:

What will it take to get you to understand that most people here see no broad conspiracy as a pure conspiracy (though there may be local small groups who are acting in that way)

=

durbster said:

your answers are ... wildly inconsistent

Durbs - unlike the pro CAGW lot (who for some reason delight in temperature increases - as if being right is more important than humanity) - the contributors above are not sock puppets nor part of a group/team pushing a particular opinion. They are individuals with their own opinions on the whole CAGW subject. Therefore do not need to agree with each other and can each find their own things wrong with the entire climate change (tm) industry. As such TB can attest there was no conspiracy whilst someone else (wc98) believes that there is evidence of conspiratorial behaviour in the climate gate email release.
There is no unified team against climate change (tm) merely many individuals who have found the whole hypotheses wanting. For many different reasons. Heck Professor Richard Tol swallows the whole thing hook line and sinker and yet is ostracised for showing how useless the solutions are....

[LongQ]

durbster seems to feel uncomfortable when people agree with him. (In this case about the non-existence of a carefully constructed conspiracy.)

Maybe we should just refer to it as a stupidity.

Stupidities have been extensively documented through history. Often widespread albeit it with some very specific centres of control the Stupidities had slowly evolved as global communications have reshaped relationships but in the most recent times their rapid development has seen them adopted without much question across the globe.

If COP22 is still seeking a logo might I propose the Tulip.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

durbster said:

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

you do know the definition of conspiracy/conspire ? have a look at the climategate emails and tell me there is no conspiring there .
i cannot believe you still maintain this position when the factual evidence has been provided to show various climate scientists have conspired on several occasions.

+

turbobloke said:

No conspiracy - that's your strawman. In claiming that I present climate change and any other fairytales or junkscience as a left-wing conspiracy is a misrepresentation, a falsehood, and your very own strawman as indicated.

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists... you are a troll

LongQ said:

What will it take to get you to understand that most people here see no broad conspiracy as a pure conspiracy (though there may be local small groups who are acting in that way)

=

durbster said:

your answers are ... wildly inconsistent

Oh st, I hope nobody leaks the emails we send each other about this. WC98, I'm so disappointed that you forgot that's not what we agreed to say this week!

Have you read the leaked emails though Durbster?

[wc98]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

durbster said:

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

you do know the definition of conspiracy/conspire ? have a look at the climategate emails and tell me there is no conspiring there .
i cannot believe you still maintain this position when the factual evidence has been provided to show various climate scientists have conspired on several occasions.

+

turbobloke said:

No conspiracy - that's your strawman. In claiming that I present climate change and any other fairytales or junkscience as a left-wing conspiracy is a misrepresentation, a falsehood, and your very own strawman as indicated.

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists... you are a troll

LongQ said:

What will it take to get you to understand that most people here see no broad conspiracy as a pure conspiracy (though there may be local small groups who are acting in that way)

=

durbster said:

your answers are ... wildly inconsistent

what else can you call a group of people working together to prevent certain authors being published or publicly funded work being made available to the public ?

[wc98]

LongQ said:

If COP22 is still seeking a logo might I propose the Tulip.

you are a bad man ! i genuinely lol'd at that. (sorry durbs ,it is funny)

[turbobloke]

XM5ER said:

Oh st, I hope nobody leaks the emails we send each other about this. WC98, I'm so disappointed that you forgot that's not what we agreed to say this week!

Have you read the leaked emails though Durbster?

Leaked emails are one thing and a serious matter at that but it looks as though durbster didn't get the latest memo.

IPCC, WHO, WWF, UN, EU, Bilderberg, Illuminati, HMGovt, Unis, Fiends of the Earth, Greenpeas, PH, all there on the cc line but somehow durbster was omitted. It's simply not good enough.




I'd forward my copy if I could find it...

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

you are a bad man ! i genuinely lol'd at that. (sorry durbs ,it is funny)

Next time, use 'colluding' for what The Team get up to in pal review and gatekeeping, it won't set durbster off on one and it might prevent another attrition loop!

[XM5ER]

turbobloke said:

wc98 said:

you are a bad man ! i genuinely lol'd at that. (sorry durbs ,it is funny)

Next time, use 'colluding' for what The Team get up to in pal review and gatekeeping, it won't set durbster off on one and it might prevent another attrition loop!

What ever you do, don't mention the Moon landings!

[durbster]

wc98 said:

what else can you call a group of people working together to prevent certain authors being published or publicly funded work being made available to the public ?

I'd call it the target of seven different enquiries that all cleared the scientists involved, and didn't find anything to pursue.

The usual follow up is that the British and US Governments and Universities were in on it too, which starts to sound rather like...

turbobloke said:

Cospiracy theory strawman as adduced by you durbster relates to a wider plot involving unis, gov'ts, charities, pressure groups, and so on.

Don't you think?

But anyway, that wasn't the point. I was referring back to turbobloke's (and other's) inconsistency. I use the word conspiracy, he rants and raves. You use it - nothing at all.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

what else can you call a group of people working together to prevent certain authors being published or publicly funded work being made available to the public ?

I'd call it the target of seven different enquiries that all cleared the scientists involved, and didn't find anything to pursue.

The usual follow up is that the British and US Governments and Universities were in on it too, which starts to sound rather like...

turbobloke said:

Cospiracy theory strawman as adduced by you durbster relates to a wider plot involving unis, gov'ts, charities, pressure groups, and so on.

Don't you think?

But anyway, that wasn't the point. I was referring back to turbobloke's (and other's) inconsistency. I use the word conspiracy, he rants and raves. You use it - nothing at all.

Did you read the Emails ? A lot of people on here did, myself included , it did not make pretty reading from a supposedly scientific establishment, why did they need several enquiries ? Is it this obsession with weight of proof, it's almost as if something is said often enough it must be true, the same thinking that sadly permeates a lot of the thinking regarding MMCC.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Did you read the Emails ? A lot of people on here did, myself included , it did not make pretty reading from a supposedly scientific establishment, why did they need several enquiries ? Is it this obsession with weight of proof, it's almost as if something is said often enough it must be true, the same thinking that sadly permeates a lot of the thinking regarding MMCC.

I saw the quotes that had been lifted from the emails and I saw the explanation from UEA that put them into context. None of it looked particularly exciting.

Again, they were investigated and cleared multiple times. I'm fine with that. I don't really have the inclination, time or resources to conduct my own personal inquiry.

PRTVR said:

A lot of people on here did, myself included

Hm, that's quite a claim considering the level of research that is on display here. I would suggest a few have seen the original article with the selective quotes, and others just parrot the version posted in here. I sincerely doubt "a lot of people on here" have read the actual emails.