Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Ahimoth said:
Those are interesting statements. Four separate posters. They are in fact extraordinary claims, that (and you can all finish this statement) require...
The jailing of those responsible for the AGW fraud along with the confiscation of their assets to be sold to pay back the state.Ahimoth said:
I find it interesting that there aren't 'others' really. I guess the Gish Gallop gets too much.
And with the lengthy diatribe above this last post of mine, I think I can leave having demonstrated all that there ever is to demonstrate with most internet 'sceptics'. They're really weird conspiratorial underneath it all, it is just a conspiracy theory.
I didn't even have to try to 'troll' the "follow the money" out of them. So I didn't fail.
after yor previous query, how timely is this And with the lengthy diatribe above this last post of mine, I think I can leave having demonstrated all that there ever is to demonstrate with most internet 'sceptics'. They're really weird conspiratorial underneath it all, it is just a conspiracy theory.
I didn't even have to try to 'troll' the "follow the money" out of them. So I didn't fail.
it is almost as though every time any scientist or vehement warmist makes a claim some mysterious entity provides a huge metaphorical kick in the b
ks .David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.
But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.
We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA. Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.
So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Ahimoth said:
Andy Zarse said:
So have we, and you're just like the others; all piss and wind.
Why is it apparently so difficult for you to SHOW US YOUR fkING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Until then you will be treated as a failed troll.
I find it interesting that there aren't 'others' really. I guess the Gish Gallop gets too much.Why is it apparently so difficult for you to SHOW US YOUR f
kING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE! Until then you will be treated as a failed troll.
And with the lengthy diatribe above this last post of mine, I think I can leave having demonstrated all that there ever is to demonstrate with most internet 'sceptics'. They're really weird conspiratorial underneath it all, it is just a conspiracy theory.
I didn't even have to try to 'troll' the "follow the money" out of them. So I didn't fail.
It's hilarious how Ahimoth and his various acolytes/incarnations feel compelled to come and do a bit of mud slinging on this thread from time to time.
It's hilarious how weather is climate when it suits, but weather is weather when it suits too.
Less ice is what we expect, no wait more ice, which then vanishes again just as the requisite scientific paper is issued to justify more.
More storms, no less, errrrrr more sometimes, not today, 10 years, 10 years pass, no 20 years time, 20 years pass, no next century....
It's risible to believe or suggest that all climate change impacts are negative.
It's hilarious how 'big oil' is funding everything anti, but money is irrelevant to their opinions and research.
The hypocrisy and mendacity screams out of every one of his posts. Yet he appears unaware of the damage he is doing to his own 'cause'.
Never any debatable opinion or convincing facts, and then just flounce off again with his credibility in tatters.
It really irks him that despite everything, all the money, all the propaganda, all the appeals to authority, all the power, the majority of the population still see through the lies/politics/fake science and do not recognize AGW as a serious problem - for the pure and simple fact, it isn't.
It's hilarious how weather is climate when it suits, but weather is weather when it suits too.
Less ice is what we expect, no wait more ice, which then vanishes again just as the requisite scientific paper is issued to justify more.
More storms, no less, errrrrr more sometimes, not today, 10 years, 10 years pass, no 20 years time, 20 years pass, no next century....
It's risible to believe or suggest that all climate change impacts are negative.
It's hilarious how 'big oil' is funding everything anti, but money is irrelevant to their opinions and research.
The hypocrisy and mendacity screams out of every one of his posts. Yet he appears unaware of the damage he is doing to his own 'cause'.
Never any debatable opinion or convincing facts, and then just flounce off again with his credibility in tatters.
It really irks him that despite everything, all the money, all the propaganda, all the appeals to authority, all the power, the majority of the population still see through the lies/politics/fake science and do not recognize AGW as a serious problem - for the pure and simple fact, it isn't.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It doesn't even meet the criteria of being politically impossible; the prophesied heat death of mankind is sufficiently perilous that any statistical risk presented by building nuclear power stations is vanishingly small in comparison. Whither the outcry over the apparently ignored extinction level event? Consistently the pols reel off how much they believe it to be true but simultaneously are doing nothing of note to avert it; Occam suggests they're full of st. Paradoxically the only nation doing significantly more than average is China; the middle kingdom seems at best agnostic about it but their pollution problems are sufficiently pressing that they need to reduce coal use for that reason alone, hence most of the nuclear power stations in build at the moment are in China.anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's one way of looking at it; no sane person would buy the green energy created because there's nowhere for it to go within Germany on sunny and/or windy days, so the stupid market distortions have created a situation where Das Volk are paying for the french to take this excess power and use it to boil water in order to avoid frying the german grid.Einion Yrth said:
They'll be back to impugn either your intelligence or your sanity in a moment, perhaps both.
Dates for the Paris Carbonfest (30 November – 11 December) suggest an increasing rate. There's still lots of time for impugning and possibly a tidbit or two of maligning on the side. Such is believer campaigning given the embarrassing absence of any visible causal human signal in global climate data and the abject failure of predictions based on junkscience.In terms of climate politics, Allan MacRae over at ICECAP offers the following.
Allan MacRae said:
UN IPCC has NO Credibility
In 2002 the PEGG, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) solicited the following debate on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord (Kyoto Protocol), between Dr. Matthew Bramley and Matt McCullough, P.Eng. of the Pembina Institute, who supported the Kyoto Accord and relied upon the IPCC’s position, and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist, Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton Paleoclimatologist, and Allan MacRae, P.Eng., who opposed Kyoto based on scientific statements in their PEGG article and rebuttal.
Now, after 13 years, it is instructive to look back at the two positions and determine how they have fared. One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility, actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically, based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.
All the IPCC’s scary projections of catastrophic humanmade global warming, wilder weather, and climate change have failed to materialize, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2, the purported driver of this falsely-predicted “weather weirding”. According to the best data from satellites, global temperatures measured in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have not increased significantly in about 18 years. Hurricane frequency and intensity are at record low levels. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC’s sycophants responded by falsifying the Surface Temperature (ST) record to overstate global warming...
More at http://www.icecap.us/In 2002 the PEGG, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) solicited the following debate on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord (Kyoto Protocol), between Dr. Matthew Bramley and Matt McCullough, P.Eng. of the Pembina Institute, who supported the Kyoto Accord and relied upon the IPCC’s position, and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist, Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton Paleoclimatologist, and Allan MacRae, P.Eng., who opposed Kyoto based on scientific statements in their PEGG article and rebuttal.
Now, after 13 years, it is instructive to look back at the two positions and determine how they have fared. One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility, actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically, based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.
All the IPCC’s scary projections of catastrophic humanmade global warming, wilder weather, and climate change have failed to materialize, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2, the purported driver of this falsely-predicted “weather weirding”. According to the best data from satellites, global temperatures measured in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have not increased significantly in about 18 years. Hurricane frequency and intensity are at record low levels. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC’s sycophants responded by falsifying the Surface Temperature (ST) record to overstate global warming...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You have just pointed out one of the many problems with renewables, the whole thing has not been thought through, the time to build the energy store is when you are building your intermittent energy supply, but the problem with that is the people would not stomach the massive cost, better to just build the bird killers and sort out the problems and cost latter, I actually hope that is what is happening because the alternative is that nobody thought the whole thing through.On the subject of building nuclear power stations, there really is not a problem in building them, all were going to be built alongside existing stations, were people are more relaxed about them.
Barack Obama said:
July was the hottest month ever recorded
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/634777600884408322ICECAP note on Dr Roy Spencer update said:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 Julys in ranking order shows it (2015) was the 9th warmest. NOAA’s intentionally corrupted data showed the global temperatures are the warmest ever for any month.
Naughty Potus.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The store is not only for balancing the system, its to time shift availability, its worse than useless to produce large amounts of electricity during the night when demand is low, we have to pay to shut down the bird killers, not a working system unless you have a way to store the excess energy.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tidal I have no problem with,apart from eye watering costs, solar and wind are not viable unless you have 100% back up, during a winter windless evening they would contribute nothing when demand is high,real power stations have to be on stand by to take up the load, along with cost implications, in some cases they have to be running just in case they are needed, and don't get me started on wood burning power stations, the ultimate madness.As per the science and engineering information at the link, if we want to use renewable energy to move to a low carbon energy system to solve the non-problem of non-manmade warming that isn't happening, we can't use energy storage to overcome the variability of solar and wind power. The intermittency problem is insoluble unless we want to regress, or allow ourselves to be regressed, to a localised pre-industrial and neomedieval lifestyle.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
This is part of the reason why renewables simply cannot work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Whether we want to acknowledge that offshore turbines are bankrupt on completion without subsidies, or however we calculate cost, the key issue is to decide very quickly how far along the dead end road we go.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-...
This is part of the reason why renewables simply cannot work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...
Whether we want to acknowledge that offshore turbines are bankrupt on completion without subsidies, or however we calculate cost, the key issue is to decide very quickly how far along the dead end road we go.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What is nuclear if not clean? Hysteria aside this is not a difficult problem to solve. Ask the inhabitants of Baotou how clean ore extraction for solar panel manufacture is. Ponder that the amount of concrete per kWh is greater for wind turbines than nuclear power stations. Contemplate the utter insanity of politicians asking power companies to make intermittent power magically become baseload. I could go on but the pub calls.Ahimoth said:
Papers in a journal, with data and reviewed by other experts are another.
Gah... I've missed all the fun today.I was going to pull you up on the point above, specifically on how peer review doesn't always quite work the way we'd like it to - but having read this thread it seems these issues have been explained.
Ahimoth - would you mind if I politely inquire as to how old you are? Before you ask why is that relevant - I've worked in a few scientific institutions - mainly pharmaceuticals. and I've witnessed 'peer review' catastrophically fail.
I'm 46 by the way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff