Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Pesty said:
we are not the ones who are saying the science is settled

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 6th March 23:16
I thought you were?

I thought that the whole premise of your argument was that the MMGW was made up and the so called junk science didn't actually show anything i.e. the planet is not even warming, let alone as a result of mans actions?

Or am I wrong?

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Globs said:
Then there is 'The Weather' from the Met office, whose error on the current temperature in Cambridge is wrong on a daily basis us to about 6C.
So the met office consistently report the temperature in Cambridge as being 6 degC different to what it actually is?

Thios sounds very strange. A degree or two here and there could be accounted for with local variations depending on where they get their numbers from related to you. However 6 degC is a big difference.
It's not strange at all, the temperature they quote for Cambridge is, iirc, measured in Bedford or somewhere close like that. Same applies to non-existent manmadeup warming, figures for somewhere cold get taken from somewhere hot, cool isn't it. It's called substitution and that's before we get into homogenisation.

nuts

You really ought to look deeper into the information people are feeding you wink

Devil2575 said:
Globs said:
You are (incidentally) starting to sound a bit like a Lib.Dem. TBH. The last Lib Dem I spoke to wanted to eliminate all CO2 from the planet to avoid this catastrophic warming we will soon experience (This was in 2005, no warming occurred since). He failed of course to realise - not unsurprisingly given how much bad press it gets - that without CO2 we'd all be dead, and if it was reduced significantly large numbers of us would starve to death.
I'm not sure what you are saying now? Have i suggested that we need to get rid of all CO2 from the atmosphere?
Fair enough, who but the libdims could be so utterly stupid. OK, apart from Greenpeas. Oh, and Fiends of the Earth. Not forgetting wwf. Or (etc).

Devil2575 said:
Globs said:
Lets face facts, China continues to spew out more and more CO2, and the planet isn't warming up at all. And you want to know who TB is? You need to find out who the people telling you that you'll never see snow again went this winter.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to know who the messenger is because they control what information you see to some extent.

Whether the overall average temperature of the planet is warming bears little relation to whether we get snow or not in the UK.
As suggested above, get looking into the data and the information. The idea in several of the areas I post in on here is that I have over 20 years of reading the climate science literature to save time since catching up on that would take, erm, about 20 years up for somebody to repeat.

Nevertheless you really should look into the data and information, I really wish you would. Starting perhaps with substitution and homogenisation. After that you could check out how the corrupted near-surface temperature database is predicated on airport tarmac and aircon outlets, with the occasional car park, chimney or incinerator thrown in, alongside a main road or two with bus stops etc. Truth or fiction, who knows eh.

sonar

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Lost_BMW said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm quite happy to tell you who I am.

I am a chemical engineer working for a Petrochemical business based in the UK. I have a degree in Chemistry and a degree in Chemical engineering. I have no political connections.
But a distinct 'leaning'.
I have political views but I am far more interested in facts. Politics is largely opinion and BS.
Someones political views should not change the facts or the interpretation of them although it often does.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
It's not strange at all, the temperature they quote for Cambridge is, iirc, measured in Bedford or somewhere close like that. Same applies to non-existent manmadeup warming, figures for somewhere cold get taken from somewhere hot, cool isn't it. It's called substitution and that's before we get into homogenisation.

nuts

You really ought to look deeper into the information people are feeding you wink
I fail to see your point?

Ok so this explains why Globs sees a different temperature to the one the MET office publish.
However as long as the temperature is always measured in the same place what does it matter, if you are looking at long term trends?
It affects the accuracy of Glob's forcast but not the validity of the data to detemine if, over time, temperatures are increasing/decreasing/staying the same.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
It's not strange at all, the temperature they quote for Cambridge is, iirc, measured in Bedford or somewhere close like that. Same applies to non-existent manmadeup warming, figures for somewhere cold get taken from somewhere hot, cool isn't it. It's called substitution and that's before we get into homogenisation.

nuts

You really ought to look deeper into the information people are feeding you wink
I fail to see your point?

Ok so this explains why Globs sees a different temperature to the one the MET office publish.
However as long as the temperature is always measured in the same place what does it matter, if you are looking at long term trends?
Yes.

Devil2575 said:
It affects the accuracy of Glob's forcast but not the validity of the data to detemine if, over time, temperatures are increasing/decreasing/staying the same.
Of course it does when those trends (temperature changes) are due to UHIE, LULC (GDP) and not global climate.

In general, how intelligent people can look at nearly parallel lines and not realise they diverged at some point and are still diverging is a mystery only religious Gaians seen capable of understanding.

And I didn't even mention airport tarmac or aircon units again.

You appear to have an interesting relationship with concepts such as accuracy and validity.

Andy Zarse

10,868 posts

246 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
It's not strange at all, the temperature they quote for Cambridge is, iirc, measured in Bedford or somewhere close like that. Same applies to non-existent manmadeup warming, figures for somewhere cold get taken from somewhere hot, cool isn't it. It's called substitution and that's before we get into homogenisation.

nuts

You really ought to look deeper into the information people are feeding you wink
However as long as the temperature is always measured in the same place what does it matter, if you are looking at long term trends?
Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

You've got a lot to learn!

Oh, and does the word albedo mean anything?

dickymint

24,020 posts

257 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Guam said:
P O L I T I C S thread guys
Move the Data etc discussions to the science thread please, or I will have to clean the thread up smile

Cheers
While your at it Guam - could you "clean" it up so that the page width fits my laptop? Ta.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Guam said:
P O L I T I C S thread guys
Move the Data etc discussions to the science thread please, or I will have to clean the thread up smile

Cheers
Ahem (guilty as charged).

Clearly I was referring to data such as local temperature measurement, and its potential for false inflation via substitution, with a view to commenting later on the winter fuel supplement. If the best brains UK officialdumb can offer only measure hotter places and substitute the values for colder ones, just think how much money they'll save how many thousands more pensioners will die about the propaganda effect for non-existent manmadeup global warming.

Look, over there (^), politics wink

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 7th March 13:20

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

203 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Ahem (guilty as charged).
Don't worry

We all know about your graph fetish

Its okay

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
thinfourth2 said:
turbobloke said:
Ahem (guilty as charged).
Don't worry

We all know about your graph fetish

Its okay
smile

It's strange how perceptions can work sometimes. Data can be presented as number sets tabulated or otherwise, science can be set out as chewy concepts but provide a chart or graph (or three) in an attempt to make it more digestible and you become a fetishist?!

Particularly as we ignore the wet Daily Mail rub down you enjoy each day wink

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Politics it is then.

So you are saying then that the science is settled. MMGW is not happening at all and you are certain of that?

Without scrutinising lots of data i'd suggest that it's like any scientific theory. There are those who believe it and those who don't. The problem then is that what does a politican do about it?
Science never really works in terms of absolutes, it's always probabilites.
Even if you take a low probability that MMGW is happening, say 10%, what do you do?
Do you do nothing on the basis that you're 90% confident that it isn't real so we don't need to worry or do you act because a 10% chance of a catastrophy is worth actively trying to avoid?
My personal view is that dependance on burning fossil fuels, most of which comes from other countries is foolish. I have concerns over security of supply, price and reserves. We know that oil/coal and gas are all finite. We don't know how long they will remain economically viable to extract but we can be 100% sure they will run out at some point. That could be 50 years or it could be 500 years but we can be sure that we don't know the actual number.
So moving away from a dependance on fossil fuels is IMHO a good idea regardless of the MMGW debate.

WRT the current political stance, if the science is so easy to disprove and debunk then why is the current government not listening to you and scrapping all the measures put in place, such as subsidy of renewables, out involvement in the EUETS scheme (Which affects the company I work for in a big way) etc. Why are they not jumping up and down telling the world not to worry?
Even if you use the arguement that there was a political motivation from Labour to perpetuate this scam, why would the Conservatives continue to tow the line? Imagine how popular they could make themselves by dropping stuff like EUETS and, assuming the science behind MMGW not being real was water tight, no one could argue. Manufacturing would get an instant financial boost from dropping out of EUETS and we would suddenly become much more competetive than any country still operating within it.

Unless you believe that the current conservative party is operating to the same agenda as Labour?




Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 7th March 14:15

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
Politics it is then.

So you are saying then that the science is settled. MMGW is not happening at all and you are certain of that?
Nice non-sequitur. The political propaganda (note to mods: politics mention) is that the science is settled, that comes from true believers, scientists wouldn't claim such a thing. It's best kept in the believer manual where it belongs. What some people on here me included are saying is that there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data showing established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and that there is no prospect of it appearing any time soon no matter how evil carbon dioxide is made out to be. Curiously, the IPCC (note to mods: a political organisation) agree and have said the same in a draft report. This is all over in the science thread.

jet_noise

5,624 posts

181 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Dear Devil2575,

Devil2575 said:
snip

WRT the current political stance, if the science is so easy to disprove and debunk then why is the current government not listening to you and scrapping all the measures put in place?

snip
At the risk of being thought an aluminium-foil-hat favourer here's a few to chew on:
Political inertia, face (both local and international), noble cause corruption, vested interests, technical naivety, control.

Oh, and money, follow the money.
How much more tax is the government generating as a result?

regards,
Jet


Edited by jet_noise on Wednesday 7th March 15:22

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
What some people on here me included are saying is that there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data showing established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and that there is no prospect of it appearing any time soon no matter how evil carbon dioxide is made out to be.
Love the language! laugh

So in nomral words, there is no evidence to suggest that carbon dioxide released by human activity is influencing our climate and there is not likely to be any time soon.
I much prefer plain speak biggrin

How can anyone be certain to any degree about the last part of the statement? Unless you and the IPPC have a crystal ball?


What about the rest of my post?
Are the conservative party working to the same political agenda as the Labour party in perpetuating this scam as you refer to it?

BliarOut

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
What some people on here me included are saying is that there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data showing established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and that there is no prospect of it appearing any time soon no matter how evil carbon dioxide is made out to be.
Love the language! laugh

So in nomral words, there is no evidence to suggest that carbon dioxide released by human activity is influencing our climate and there is not likely to be any time soon.
I much prefer plain speak biggrin

How can anyone be certain to any degree about the last part of the statement? Unless you and the IPPC have a crystal ball?


What about the rest of my post?
Are the conservative party working to the same political agenda as the Labour party in perpetuating this scam as you refer to it?
The Tories are starting to distance themselves from the MMGW myth.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Guam said:
Devil2575 said:
Love the language! laugh

. . .

How can anyone be certain to any degree about the last part of the statement? Unless you and the IPPC have a crystal ball?

. . .
Yes, my old grandad used to say if they could find a way to tax the air we breathe they would, they did and they have. Smart guy for A fitter who started work in the yards at age 12
Love the language? If the language is imprecise there's room for believer slime to slide inbetween the words and pretend it says something else or make political capital out of it in other ways.

Such is life.

As to crystal ball, yes of course. Is that the answer you expected? Or was it just a silly question?

Data and sound science tell anybody prepared to look and see that there is no prospect of any visible causal human signal short of a nuclear exchange and that won't be global warming once the initial dose of instant sunlight has dissipated.

Yes indeed Guam the muppets in charge are unfit to be fitters.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
BliarOut said:
The Tories are starting to distance themselves from the MMGW myth.
Ok, so if that is the case why are they not having it shot down right away.

If the whole scam is based around government funding etc and scieitists needing to support MMGW in order to secure furture funding then why don't the Conservatives just step in and remove this factor? They could easily give scientists free reight to properly evaluate the real data and hence shoot the whole scam down in flames. At which point they could legitiamtely remove all funding for renewables from our evergy bills and pull us out of EUETS. Given the financial mess we are in this would be a huge boost to both industry and private households. There could also be no MMGW argument against airport expansion etc.

You'd upset the green party and Friends of the earth etc but most of Joe Public would be fine. You could also deal labour a huge blow.

If the case for MMGW is so easy to debunk as you say then this is a real no brainer.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
BliarOut said:
The Tories are starting to distance themselves from the MMGW myth.
Ok, so if that is the case why are they not having it shot down right away.
Contracts and agreements already signed by Liarbore with Tone's mates, the EU et al, and support up to now from Huhneyboy.

Devil2575 said:
If the case for MMGW is so easy to debunk as you say then this is a real no brainer.
Correct, but politics doesn't involve brains just ccensoredts.

Apache

39,731 posts

283 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
BliarOut said:
Devil2575 said:
turbobloke said:
What some people on here me included are saying is that there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data showing established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and that there is no prospect of it appearing any time soon no matter how evil carbon dioxide is made out to be.
Love the language! laugh

So in nomral words, there is no evidence to suggest that carbon dioxide released by human activity is influencing our climate and there is not likely to be any time soon.
I much prefer plain speak biggrin

How can anyone be certain to any degree about the last part of the statement? Unless you and the IPPC have a crystal ball?


What about the rest of my post?
Are the conservative party working to the same political agenda as the Labour party in perpetuating this scam as you refer to it?
The Tories are starting to distance themselves from the MMGW myth.
I'm not so sure, they have realised just how much it is costing them, er, us and for purely financial reasons have started to back peddle a bit, but DC is still green to the core, his father in law has begun to rake in loadsamoney from the windmills on his land, the BBC Pension funds are still invested in Green Industry etc etc so I can't see them actually distancing themselves from it.....there's just too much invested

nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Wednesday 7th March 2012
quotequote all
Sitting here in the South East, watching it absolutely tip down with rain barely a week after being told we're in a drought (again!), and thinking of the poor sods in Australia who are suffering with quite a bit more of the wet stuff than us ATM, I was amused by this Dr David Viner-esque set of predictions regarding rainfall (or lack of) down under...

The quotes that warmists claim don’t exist...

hehe
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED