Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Did they just hold out for a day that looked a bit less bad to publish that article? Better than last year but not exactly a rosy picture is it?
As to the juvenile argumentative post content involving a leading question expecting something to be said on behalf of a third party (ask the secondary source) where is established causality to humans established objectively, beyond the mere opinion of political appointees?
Nowhere at the present but do tell when you have found it.
Report away anyone who feels the need. I believe it's an open access image.
I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
hairykrishna said:
Report away anyone who feels the need. I believe it's an open access image.
I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
Sounds like you’re suggesting there’s no natural variation involved in changes of climate. I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).
Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.
Here is what NSIDC state
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/
I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....
You chose Feb to align with your preferred information. Since then significant changes have occurred in temperature and ice extent.
Your wish to shoot the messenger(s) as unreliable in yet another ad hom fallacy isn't getting any help from me. Try learning the difference between primary and seondary sources, and the current status of copyright law, and you might be more reliable yourself.
Show that the data for March contradict what was posted if you think it's wrong. Otherwise you're adding nothing but yada which is just another nothingburger.
Your post (and 'research' from Eike) is either extremely naive or downright misleading. I don't think Donald Trump would defend that analysis.
If you cannot see that, you need to have a play with the raw data.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-intera...
Diderot said:
hairykrishna said:
Report away anyone who feels the need. I believe it's an open access image.
I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
Sounds like you’re suggesting there’s no natural variation involved in changes of climate. I don't think I'll bother contacting your secondary source. They already know it's carefully curated propaganda without me telling them.
Causality is fairly straightforward. The observed increase in the earths temperature, in line with theoretical predictions, due to the large scale release of greenhouse gases by humans. I thought you would have heard about this by now.
There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
Where's the objectively established causality to humans in any ice data? Nothing beyond subjective mere opinion form political appointees is available.
SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
hairykrishna said:
Diderot said:
Sounds like you’re suggesting there’s no natural variation involved in changes of climate.
What are the drivers for natural variation? Can you think of any of them we might be affecting? LULC/UHIE within the Adjustocene. Also substitution of airport and other non-tax-gas-related temps for remote rural/altitude temps, plus in policy terms false assumptions and tuned paramaterisations in inadequate models. That's it.
As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:30
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:31
turbobloke said:
Where's the objectively established causality to humans in any ice data? Nothing beyond subjective mere opinion form political appointees is available.
SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
Stop moving goalposts. We can save that for another day when we discuss the current climatic cooling predicted. SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
The Eike 'research' is naive and completely misleading in its political ambitions about the weather. It has absolutely nothing to do with climate. Do you agree or disagree?
turbobloke said:
LULC/UHIE within the Adjustocene. Also substitution of airport and other non-tax-gas-related temps for remote rural/altitude temps, plus in policy terms false assumptions and tuned paramaterisations in inadequate models. That's it.
As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
I would hope their (Curry, Hulme et Al) research stands up to better scrutiny than Eike. However, recent posts about the Antarctic sea ice completely undermine the political agenda being spouted. It is not convincing by its misleading interpretation. As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:30
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:31
I will not stop until the previous subject is closed despite the continual attempts to change the subject. Great decoy tactics.
It been a bit wet recently though hasn't it......
I will make a prediction tomorrow.....
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
LULC/UHIE within the Adjustocene. Also substitution of airport and other non-tax-gas-related temps for remote rural/altitude temps, plus in policy terms false assumptions and tuned paramaterisations in inadequate models. That's it.
As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
I would hope their (Curry, Hulme et Al) research stands up to better scrutiny than Eike. However, recent posts about the Antarctic sea ice completely undermine the political agenda being spouted. It is not convincing by its misleading interpretation. As Christy and Curry and Hulme, and others using data not dogma have indicated, there is no climate crisis (see e.g. 'noble lie').
Political policy is nonsensical and unaffordable based on available data as opposed to the opinion of politicians and political appointees / extremist activists seeking societal change using a convenient false alarm.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:30
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 22:31
I will not stop until the previous subject is closed despite the continual attempts to change the subject. Great decoy tactics.
It been a bit wet recently though hasn't it......
I will make a prediction tomorrow.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff