Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[grumbledoak]

Good news in Ontario Canada - for some - $14000 towards your new Tesla!

While the poor cannot heat their homes:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murp...

[wc98]

grumbledoak said:

Good news in Ontario Canada - for some - $14000 towards your new Tesla!

While the poor cannot heat their homes:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murp...

look,it's about saving the planet ,what is wrong with that . we don't actually need poor people do we

[LongQ]

grumbledoak said:

Good news in Ontario Canada - for some - $14000 towards your new Tesla!

While the poor cannot heat their homes:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murp...

The comments on that one are fascinating.

The "blue collar" chap who apparently has his own company that provides him with a Tesla because he can't afford yet to buy one for himself (yep, that's a tricky one to work out) seems to have no clue about reality at all. Difficult to believe he is real. Must be someone trying wind people up.

So, this country is pretty crap, right? Anyone fancy heading to Canada?

[durbster]

wc98 said:

i think you will find it is the observations that do not support the "science" . i was going to link a recent summary from judith curry published by the gwpf highlighting some of the main issues with the "science",modeling in particular, but then i know you won't read it,so i didn't bother .

Actually I don't mind Judith Curry or the GWPF.

They raise some sensible points and are not the shameless propaganda that usually passes for a source here.

But again, this comes back to the basic question of who do we believe. Why do you believe the analysis on Judith Curry you're referring to over all others?

wc98 said:

durbster said:

I have firsthand experience of this - just over ten years ago I hiked up a glacier, and the bit I was on has now gone. There were markers to show the rate of retreat showing how it had sped up in recent decades.

you are aware that is what glaciers do ? they grow some, then melt some according to the prevailing climate of the time. can you tell me what made the glaciers retreat thousands of years ago to make greenland habitable by the people of the day ? the fact that those glaciers recede uncovering human artefacts ,trees etc is a fairly big clue it is nothing new.

Err... yes. I'm not sure what point this makes though.

turbobloke said:

In one way it really is appreciated, so thanks for the latest personal attack style attention - it supports my view that true belief has nothing better to offer.

Indeed. I've been saying that quite consistently for some time.

e.g.

dickymint said:

powerstroke said:

I think you will find a certain member of the community is riding the subsidy gravy train

a certain members profile picture.......

powerstroke said:

fking epic and the gravy train jumper hasn't even got a electric car according to his profile

etc.

---

As for this, I'm amazed you had the balls to post it

turbobloke said:

It's also as predictable as it is ineffective, see point 12 below.

Let's see...

Point 1.

turbobloke said:

Not being capable of powering a western civilisation with hospitals and universities as well as shops and factories is a damning indictment.

Point 3.

turbobloke said:

Meanwhile freezing pensioners burn books to keep warm.

Point 5.

turbobloke said:

Even before they're toast, they're harmful and not just becuase they kill thousands of birds and bats - the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. This was the first ruling of its kind in the USA.

Point 7.

turbobloke said:

As to sources being happy or throwing hissy fits about data presentation, what a hoot. Maybe there are some concerns over grant funding in future, and more nasty emails from The Team, who knows / who cares / doesn't matter anyway.

Point 8.

turbobloke said:

Anything that came back, if indeed anything ever went out to those dozens of authors (we have no compelling evidence either way) would inevitably have been along the lines of Dr Roy Spencer who has said of agw "I believe but cannot prove". That's what and where agw is: belief with no available proof.

Point 9.

turbobloke said:

Would that be one of the polls covered by the green blob alert machine which emails activists to get them to vote in online polls?

Point 12.

turbobloke said:

...As already pointed out, putting heads above the parapet, and advertising the fact, can be very dangerous for careers and grant funding, and there are often fudge statements in conclusions to leave the door open to plausible denial because of this. That's also been commented on before now.

(context: waffly response when found to be misrepresenting science papers)

The useful thing about your replies being so generic and repetitive is that I only had to go back a couple of pages to find these.

I'm sure we could find better examples and fully populate the list countless times, but I think the point is obvious.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Indeed. I've been saying that quite consistently for some time.

e.g.

dickymint said:

powerstroke said:

I think you will find a certain member of the community is riding the subsidy gravy train

a certain members profile picture.......

Hardly a "personal attack" It happens to be a fact!!

[robinessex]

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

[XM5ER]

Anyone posted this yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

[Greeny]

400 ppm is 0.04 %

[mybrainhurts]

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

Did Captain Gullible ever have the plot?

[powerstroke]

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

Not sure !! but posts seem to contain more lashing out than engagement with the enemy these days,
and we do seem to be on the brink of toy throwing perhaps

Edited by powerstroke on Monday 27th February 06:08

[turbobloke]

Worse than previously thought => Tipping point

Maybe we have only 96 months to save the thread

[XM5ER]

Greeny said:

400 ppm is 0.04 %

Assuming that's in reply to me. That is 4.3% of the 400ppm.

This paper takes a good kick at another of the rotten legs of the rickety stool that is the "science" underpinning the whole facade of the climate change establishment.

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

Did Captain Gullible ever have the plot?

powerstroke said:

Not sure !! but posts seem to contain more lashing out than engagement with the enemy these days,
and we do seem to be on the brink of toy throwing perhaps

turbobloke said:

In one way it really is appreciated, so thanks for the latest personal attack style attention - it supports my view that true belief has nothing better to offer.

Yep, you're definitely on to something here.

[wc98]

XM5ER said:

Anyone posted this yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

the residence time in the atmosphere also gives some food for thought.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

XM5ER said:

Anyone posted this yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

the residence time in the atmosphere also gives some food for thought.

In addition, at times like this we should remember to go into the kitchen and contemplate the missing sink.

[DapperDanMan]

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

If he has he'll fit in well on this thread then.

[XM5ER]

turbobloke said:

wc98 said:

XM5ER said:

Anyone posted this yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

the residence time in the atmosphere also gives some food for thought.

In addition, at times like this we should remember to go into the kitchen and contemplate the missing sink.

I use a coal powered dishwasher meself.

[robinessex]

DapperDanMan said:

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

If he has he'll fit in well on this thread then.

Well, as your first post here in 1530 pages, I'm sure you are well qualified and informed to make that statement.

[turbobloke]

DapperDanMan said:

robinessex said:

At what point do we assume durbster has lost the plot?

If he has he'll fit in well on this thread then.

The thread that you posted in and fitted in just fine? OK!

[XM5ER]

wc98 said:

XM5ER said:

Anyone posted this yet?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
•
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

the residence time in the atmosphere also gives some food for thought.

That's the rotten stool leg I was thinking of as well.