Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
robinessex said:
Climate change made UK's waterlogged winter worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
I am amazed you still read the BBC website..... It obviously aggravates you but you keep going back for more.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
Labour would save us from complex crunchy chaotic climate complications as the next gov't. It would be as easy as ABC.
Labour spell it out
Labour spell it out
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate change made UK's waterlogged winter worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
I am amazed you still read the BBC website..... It obviously aggravates you but you keep going back for more.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
Atlantic to get 'extraordinary' hurricane season
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw441ng00wxo
"The North Atlantic could...................................................."
Might as well stop there, another guessing weather prediction.
".................................While there's no evidence climate change is producing more hurricanes.........................."
And then pop in the sentence that makes the headline complete b
ks. The Beeb at its most dishonest, again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw441ng00wxo
"The North Atlantic could...................................................."
Might as well stop there, another guessing weather prediction.
".................................While there's no evidence climate change is producing more hurricanes.........................."
And then pop in the sentence that makes the headline complete b
ks. The Beeb at its most dishonest, again.robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate change made UK's waterlogged winter worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
I am amazed you still read the BBC website..... It obviously aggravates you but you keep going back for more.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
jshell said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate change made UK's waterlogged winter worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
I am amazed you still read the BBC website..... It obviously aggravates you but you keep going back for more.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp992nxxe7do
"Climate change is a major reason the UK suffered such a waterlogged winter, scientists have confirmed...................................Global warming due to humans burning fossil fuels made this level of rainfall at least four times more LIKELY, according to the World Weather Attribution group."
Just another guess then. No mention of the government's poor management of our rivers and canals then?
ks. All the while knowing that there will be millions of gullible victims lapping up their unsubstantiated catastrophism. And look on their website (World Weather Attribution Group), and it boils down to these two paragraphs:
“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
Diderot said:
And guess what? It’s because of the unique way they are funded. By us through their license fee to give their activist ‘journalists’ like Rowlatt and Harrabin before him, free rein to spout utter bks. All the while knowing that there will be millions of gullible victims lapping up their unsubstantiated catastrophism.
Time will tell. What is your prediction for impact of the Atlantic warming? Less severe hurricanes? Maybe.....ks. All the while knowing that there will be millions of gullible victims lapping up their unsubstantiated catastrophism. Diderot said:
And look on their website (World Weather Attribution Group), and it boils down to these two paragraphs:
“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
A bit like McKiltrick?“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
Why would you not peer review my critique of McKiltrick 2018?
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
And look on their website (World Weather Attribution Group), and it boils down to these two paragraphs:
“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
A bit like McKiltrick?“Occasionally, there are methodological challenges which means that quantitative results can not be provided in the findings of a WWA study. These challenges include the availability of reliable observations of the weather and the suitability of models to replicate the event being studied.
If a study does not have a conclusive result because of these challenges, that does not necessarily mean that climate change played no role in the weather event.”
Utterly unscientific tripe as usual. That is crucifiable as a research objective; as supposed scientists, how can they even state such crap with a straight face? In the part of my career which conducts peer review, editing journals and conducting PhD vivas, you would simply throw this kind of nonsense out. Obviously, it’s perfect fodder for the activists at the BBC to regurgitate uncritically to keep the gullible menaced.
Why would you not peer review my critique of McKiltrick 2018?
Keep us updated.
mike9009 said:
Keep the faith Mike. Do let us know when that groundbreaking rebuttal has been published.
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Keep the faith Mike. Do let us know when that groundbreaking rebuttal has been published.
Too scared that I might be right? Or do you not understand the paper or rebuttal? In either case, not sure you should be taunting.... Somewhat embarrassing the level of debate.....
McKitrick has directly engaged with me. Just need to present my data questioning his fundamental flaw.....
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Keep the faith Mike. Do let us know when that groundbreaking rebuttal has been published.
Too scared that I might be right? Or do you not understand the paper or rebuttal? In either case, not sure you should be taunting.... Somewhat embarrassing the level of debate.....
McKitrick has directly engaged with me. Just need to present my data questioning his fundamental flaw.....
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Keep the faith Mike. Do let us know when that groundbreaking rebuttal has been published.
Too scared that I might be right? Or do you not understand the paper or rebuttal? In either case, not sure you should be taunting.... Somewhat embarrassing the level of debate.....
McKitrick has directly engaged with me. Just need to present my data questioning his fundamental flaw.....
Though as ever with such matters, it's one thing to agree with engagement and quite another to know for sure what's actually being said.
Just stumbled on this and seems true just wondered what peoples views are?
https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
Good Plan Ted said:
Just stumbled on this and seems true just wondered what peoples views are?
https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
Already posted and commented on..... Emotional slight of hand..... Biased and not accurate.https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
mike9009 said:
Good Plan Ted said:
Just stumbled on this and seems true just wondered what peoples views are?
https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
Already posted and commented on..... Emotional slight of hand..... Biased and not accurate.https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
Good Plan Ted said:
Just stumbled on this and seems true just wondered what peoples views are?
https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
Already posted and commented on..... Emotional slight of hand..... Biased and not accurate.https://player.vimeo.com/video/924719370
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
And guess what? It’s because of the unique way they are funded. By us through their license fee to give their activist ‘journalists’ like Rowlatt and Harrabin before him, free rein to spout utter bks. All the while knowing that there will be millions of gullible victims lapping up their unsubstantiated catastrophism.
Time will tell. What is your prediction for impact of the Atlantic warming? Less severe hurricanes? Maybe.....ks. All the while knowing that there will be millions of gullible victims lapping up their unsubstantiated catastrophism. It is strange, how some want to use the climate, as a stick, to beat those they don't like. or don't agree with, but don't seem to know, what is at the root of just about every environmental issue facing the planet.
Possibly because they `do' know what is at the root of it all, but just don't have the courage to face up to the truth?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff