Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[zygalski]

No consensus eh?
Name a single scientific organisation which fails to back the IPCC ref their stance on climate change.
Don't worry - I won't copy/paste the oh no not that list again list.

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 1st October 14:53

[turbobloke]

Back to good old climate politics.

An American politician with considerable background and interest in climate politics has just completed his prize list for climate hypocrisy. Another politician comes top,

https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/climate-week

[stew-STR160]

zygalski said:

The burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to refute the consensus.
For every dissenting climatologist you can quote, I can name an entire organisation which agrees that man contributes to climate change, and climate change poses a tangible risk to the future of life on our planet.

Spoken like a true member of the faith.

If a claim is made, it's on the person making the claim to prove it.

And as pointed out, an organisations view point is not that of all of its members. The fact you can't grasp this simple fact says it all about you. You are fully bought into the church of Gore.

[JustALooseScrew]

zygalski said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

The burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to refute the consensus.
For every dissenting climatologist you can quote, I can name an entire organisation which agrees that man contributes to climate change, and climate change poses a tangible risk to the future of life on our planet.

So you can name an entire organisation - can you get a quote for everyone in that organisation agreeing? Have you ever asked the question why (when the consensus is life likes "warm") would a warmer world pose a tangible risk to the future of life on this planet?

That's such a dull-minded denier whack-a-mole load of old nonsense, I really don't know where to begin.
Next you'll be denying the existence of ecosystems, because they don't fit your narrative.

Sorry to quote all, but.

I think that was a perfectly valid question. What is the problem with it being a bit warmer? If as allegedly stated sea levels rise a bit (then move people to higher ground or build levies) and if temps get warmer (great that means my heating bills are reduced, and my lad who has witnessed some severe snow will be able to tell his kids 'Eh I remember when we got snow in winter - it was miserable as fook walking to school - took an hour longer than it normally took'.

What is the problem you have with the planet being a bit warmer?

[JustALooseScrew]

zygalski said:

That was solved by science, not by a dissenting view offered by politically motivated anti-establishment fragmented groups of nut jobs.
This oft-repeated analogy does nothing for the denier side. Perhaps you're so blinded you can't even see the logic in that.

Oh poor child, perhaps Piston Heads needs a 'Greta Zone'.

There is very little science involved in making AGW policy. Any kind of 'science', you can't see, I can see it, oh wait a minute Greta can see CO2.

Start a crowd funding page to buy Greta a spectrometer.

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

Next you'll be denying the existence of ecosystems, because they don't fit your narrative.

I suggest you read up on evolutionary stable systems - ecosystems exist because they are evolutionary stable systems (if they weren't they would have collapsed a long time before now). A slight increase or decrease in average temperatures when the diurnal and annual temperature swings are magnitudes greater are not going to cause significant changes and even if they did this can be negated by shifting <50 miles polewards (with plenty of time to do it).
Yes the climate is changing - the ratio of temperate/tropic/arid/arctic zones will change - (heck the more greening alone is going to have profound improvements in biodiversity) - and the biosphere will change with it. So far though I haven't seen any convincing science that this will be a net degradation and with increased availability of CO2 should be a net improvement.

[kerplunk]

Murph7355 said:

kerplunk said:

Murph7355 said:

Is the climate changing? 100%. Is man the primary (not even root) cause? I don't know, but with all other factors available it strikes me as unlikely.

doh you went from not knowing reasonableness to providing a baseless hand-wavey evaluation ("unlikely") - I'm afraid that does go beyond scepticism and into D-word territory.

"unlikely" is not definitive.

That I am sceptical should be no surprise. Doesn't mean to say I won't change that view.

If that makes me a "Denier" then so be it.

Unlikely is quite definitive I think and unless you can justify the assertion that GHGs are unlikely to be the primary cause of the warming we're seeing beyond a weak handwave to 'other factors' then you are in denialist territory I'm afraid. Proper scientific scepticism demands you not make assertions based on such weak appeals you see. Denialism on the other hand makes no such demands.

[Murph7355]

kerplunk said:

Unlikely is quite definitive I think and unless you can justify the assertion that GHGs are unlikely to be the primary cause of the warming we're seeing beyond a weak handwave to 'other factors' then you are in denialist territory I'm afraid. Proper scientific scepticism demands you not make assertions based on such weak appeals you see. Denialism on the other hand makes no such demands.

Definitive is not an ambiguous concept. "unlikely" is not definitive. If you think differently that is entirely up to you, but it's quite important when understanding what people are saying or making yourself understood not to redefine things

I don't think I said greenhouse gases weren't the primary cause of warming or otherwise. Just that man was unlikely to be. I've stated very clear that I know the climate changes and something must be responsible for that

I believe it is scientific consensus that the Earth's climate changed before man existed, and certainly long before man industrialised. So I'm not sure I need to prove anything on that front.

Or are you denying that?

[Pesty]

I’m not in the UK is this on the news?




https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/10/traffic-chao...

Farmers protesting at all the mmgw crap affecting them


The farmers are heading for the Malieveld close to parliament, where tens of thousands are expected to join the protests. The demonstration has been prompted by a suggestion from coalition party D66 that Dutch livestock farming should be slashed to meet commitments on reducing nitrogren emissions. Farming organisations say their member

[Pesty]

Looks like the farmers are a bit vexed.


https://mobile.twitter.com/OldRowSwig/status/11790...

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 1st October 18:06

[Kawasicki]

Pesty said:

I’m not in the UK is this on the news?




https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/10/traffic-chao...

Farmers protesting at all the mmgw crap affecting them


The farmers are heading for the Malieveld close to parliament, where tens of thousands are expected to join the protests. The demonstration has been prompted by a suggestion from coalition party D66 that Dutch livestock farming should be slashed to meet commitments on reducing nitrogren emissions. Farming organisations say their member

I reckon you have it 180 degrees wrong. They are really protesting because they are suffering from sea level rise. Being the Netherlands, of course they will be the first to suffer...they are the canary in the climate mine. CO2 stole their childhoods and is now stealing their hard won agricultural land. Bad CO2!

[turbobloke]

Pesty said:

Looks like the farmers are a bit vexed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jackfmitch/status/11790...

https://mobile.twitter.com/OldRowSwig/status/11790...

First link didn't go anywhere after a clicky but the second made up for it! It looks like Rutte has done a Macron.

Comment: "The people are cheering on the farmers who are being demanded to cut food output due to climate change hysteria"

Not surprising. Western politicians live in a climate hysteria bubble on Planet Zorg - where they think there are zillions of voters around them cheering in support rather than shouting from a distance at the foolish emperors to put some clothes on. A minority of glandular mystics and hysterics do not an electorate make, and hypocrite slebs don't help.

ETA another "They're being blamed for climate change by their government"

That's original carbon sin for you.
Totally nucking phuts.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 1st October 18:06

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

I reckon you have it 180 degrees wrong. They are really protesting because they are suffering from sea level rise. Being the Netherlands, of course they will be the first to suffer...they are the canary in the climate mine. CO2 stole their childhoods and is now stealing their hard won agricultural land. Bad CO2!

[LongQ]

Kawasicki said:

Pesty said:

I’m not in the UK is this on the news?




https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/10/traffic-chao...

Farmers protesting at all the mmgw crap affecting them


The farmers are heading for the Malieveld close to parliament, where tens of thousands are expected to join the protests. The demonstration has been prompted by a suggestion from coalition party D66 that Dutch livestock farming should be slashed to meet commitments on reducing nitrogren emissions. Farming organisations say their member

I reckon you have it 180 degrees wrong. They are really protesting because they are suffering from sea level rise. Being the Netherlands, of course they will be the first to suffer...they are the canary in the climate mine. CO2 stole their childhoods and is now stealing their hard won agricultural land. Bad CO2!

That's only half of it.

Wait until the up and coming pensioners realise that "climate mitigation" , amongst other things, has stolen their pension funds.

After which the youngsters may just about spot that their efforts to earn a crust will also need to fund several decades of pension, health support and other social requirements for the very people who have previously given birth to them before stealing their futures.

All that and any inheritance assets that the luckier few might have expected will have been returned to the State before they get a chance to get their mitts on it.

Boy are they going to get really mad ...

[Electro1980]

JustALooseScrew said:

zygalski said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

The burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to refute the consensus.
For every dissenting climatologist you can quote, I can name an entire organisation which agrees that man contributes to climate change, and climate change poses a tangible risk to the future of life on our planet.

So you can name an entire organisation - can you get a quote for everyone in that organisation agreeing? Have you ever asked the question why (when the consensus is life likes "warm") would a warmer world pose a tangible risk to the future of life on this planet?

That's such a dull-minded denier whack-a-mole load of old nonsense, I really don't know where to begin.
Next you'll be denying the existence of ecosystems, because they don't fit your narrative.

Sorry to quote all, but.

I think that was a perfectly valid question. What is the problem with it being a bit warmer? If as allegedly stated sea levels rise a bit (then move people to higher ground or build levies) and if temps get warmer (great that means my heating bills are reduced, and my lad who has witnessed some severe snow will be able to tell his kids 'Eh I remember when we got snow in winter - it was miserable as fook walking to school - took an hour longer than it normally took'.

What is the problem you have with the planet being a bit warmer?

A nice simple example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

[turbobloke]

Electro1980 said:

JustALooseScrew said:

zygalski said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

The burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to refute the consensus.
For every dissenting climatologist you can quote, I can name an entire organisation which agrees that man contributes to climate change, and climate change poses a tangible risk to the future of life on our planet.

So you can name an entire organisation - can you get a quote for everyone in that organisation agreeing? Have you ever asked the question why (when the consensus is life likes "warm") would a warmer world pose a tangible risk to the future of life on this planet?

That's such a dull-minded denier whack-a-mole load of old nonsense, I really don't know where to begin.
Next you'll be denying the existence of ecosystems, because they don't fit your narrative.

Sorry to quote all, but.

I think that was a perfectly valid question. What is the problem with it being a bit warmer? If as allegedly stated sea levels rise a bit (then move people to higher ground or build levies) and if temps get warmer (great that means my heating bills are reduced, and my lad who has witnessed some severe snow will be able to tell his kids 'Eh I remember when we got snow in winter - it was miserable as fook walking to school - took an hour longer than it normally took'.

What is the problem you have with the planet being a bit warmer?

A nice simple example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

It's not a nice simple example as it happens.

That has nothing to do with human emissions. Coral bleaching has occurred to the same extent as now in the 1600s 1700s and 1800s, Corals appeared 500 million years ago and are still here even after recent climate optima including the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, all relatively recent in comparison to coral survival timescales.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars...



It's due to natural El Nino episodes. We've had a couple of late from which the Great Barrier Reef is recovering not dying as per propaganda. The Australian Federal Environment Minister recently went to take a look for herself.

Ms Ley said:

I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life, I saw the exact ­opposite to that.

That's what happens after believing climate fairytales. Subs (no pun intended) link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/g...

Looking to the future in terms of the non-threat to corals from carbon dioxide, Dr McCulloch of the University of Western Australia put boxes around corals at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef and bubbled carbon dioxide into them, the corals were not affected at all in a simulation of the carbon dioxide levels expected by 2100.

[PRTVR]

Electro1980 said:

A nice simple example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

Not that simple,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI&feat...
Peter Ridd was sacked for speaking out , now having to go back to court due to the University trying to silence him,
Great places these universities, so long as you tow the line.

[kerplunk]

Murph7355 said:

kerplunk said:

Unlikely is quite definitive I think and unless you can justify the assertion that GHGs are unlikely to be the primary cause of the warming we're seeing beyond a weak handwave to 'other factors' then you are in denialist territory I'm afraid. Proper scientific scepticism demands you not make assertions based on such weak appeals you see. Denialism on the other hand makes no such demands.

Definitive is not an ambiguous concept. "unlikely" is not definitive.


If you think differently that is entirely up to you, but it's quite important when understanding what people are saying or making yourself understood not to redefine things

Unlikely leaves room to be wrong but is an expession of probability in a *specific* direction.

If that's not what you meant then you've used the wrong word

Murph7355 said:

I don't think I said greenhouse gases weren't the primary cause of warming or otherwise. Just that man was unlikely to be.

lol - ok that's clear. Man hasn't warmed the earth by rubbing his hands together reallly fast - is that what you meant perhaps? I thought we were talking about y'know - the enhanced GHG levels due to man's burning of fossil fuels. Am I on the wrong thread?

Murph7355 said:

I've stated very clear that I know the climate changes and something must be responsible for that

I believe it is scientific consensus that the Earth's climate changed before man existed, and certainly long before man industrialised. So I'm not sure I need to prove anything on that front.

Well you do at least need to evidence something that would justify making an likely/unlikely judgement.

If you're just hand-waving to other variables then you don't even know the sign of those variables - should it be naturally cooling or warming now? What good then is merely stating what everyone knows about natural climate change as if that knowledge alone indicates in a specific direction?

Murph7355 said:

Or are you denying that?

Here's a plus-minus sign for you to cogitate on:

+/-

[turbobloke]

More perspectives on the Dutch farmer protests against their PM doing a figurative Macron based on climate fairytales.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/10/traffic-chao...

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/10/01/world/...

https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-dutch-farmers-...

[Murph7355]

kerplunk said:

Unlikely leaves room to be wrong but is an expession of probability in a *specific* direction....

Excellent. We agree I wasn't being definitive as you appeared to insinuate. Glad we sorted that out
...

kerplunk said:

Well you do at least need to evidence something that would justify making an likely/unlikely judgement.

If you're just hand-waving to other variables then you don't even know the sign of those variables - should it be naturally cooling or warming now? What good then is merely stating what everyone knows about natural climate change as if that knowledge alone indicates in a specific direction?

Have temperatures/greenhouse gases been higher in the history of the planet than they are now?

If so, then man quite evidently isn't the only possible cause. And it's likely (room for doubt still) that other factors might also have an impact.

I'm not the one suggesting a very specific factor has to be stopped due to the damage it is doing.

From the charts I've seen I would bet 2p on them going up. Then down again. Then up even more. Then down again even more

Whether we use less fossil fuels as humans or not.

I would bet my house and cars on mankind not being destroyed in my lifetime as a consequence of climate change. And I think my kids and theirs (and theirs...) are also likely to be just fine. (Arguing on the Internet, war, pestilence etc are different kettles of fish mind. As are Reality TV and Twitter. Those last two are what we need a figurehead to speak up against).

kerplunk said:

Here's a plus-minus sign for you...
+/-

Did you find those all on your own? And did you have to press two keys at once?

So what's your prediction for temps? Both if we carry on as we are and if we all suddenly turned our lights off...?