Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Watch out if you're heading off to Weston super Mare or Cleethorpes this weekend.
That one trillion tonne iceberg that broke off (antarctica) will have repercussions.
Sea level omigawd events span the hemispheres, there's no escape.
Don't drop any ice lollipops in the sea, we can't be too careful.
Do let PH know if you don't need to walk so far to reach the wet bits this time
That one trillion tonne iceberg that broke off (antarctica) will have repercussions.
Sea level omigawd events span the hemispheres, there's no escape.
Don't drop any ice lollipops in the sea, we can't be too careful.
Do let PH know if you don't need to walk so far to reach the wet bits this time
GWPF claiim Erdogan is stalling over Paris. It's hardly USA all over again but I can't recall the BBC covering this item. They (beeb) go in big-time for the Turkey-EU migrant deal kerfuffle however. As you would expect.
https://www.thegwpf.com/paris-agreement-crumbling-...
"Shortly after the (Hamburg) mega-summit ended, Erdogan, who met Trump at the event, told a news conference that Turkey was no longer a certain candidate and suggested other members of the “G19” also had doubts."
Wow, 'G19' departs from Schneiderism!
It's OK though, the data don't matter and there's still a political consensus.
https://www.thegwpf.com/paris-agreement-crumbling-...
"Shortly after the (Hamburg) mega-summit ended, Erdogan, who met Trump at the event, told a news conference that Turkey was no longer a certain candidate and suggested other members of the “G19” also had doubts."
Wow, 'G19' departs from Schneiderism!
It's OK though, the data don't matter and there's still a political consensus.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Global climate change has already had observable (PROVE THAT) effects on the environment....
I STOPPED READING THIS FAIRY TAIL HERE
Nope, I've no idea what this nonsense was about. I STOPPED READING THIS FAIRY TAIL HERE
Anyway, would you mind answering my questions please?
PS. Does it matter if the planet gets a minute bit warmer? You can't/won't answer that, because it screws up your CC faith.
Did anyone else hear the LBC radio show today, with Maajid Nawaz?
He was intolerable. Everyone who phoned in (to the debate he invited) he seemed desperate to ridicule and "label".
His agenda was that; if 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities therefore we should not have any reason for skepticism.
Basically; this is on the Nasa website and presented as “fact" - so who are we to question these qualified individuals?
What he is pedalling is more dangerous than anything misguided Trump might say - he's suggesting that we shouldn't question climate change at all, cos, well, 'scientists'.
I have little respect for the bloke because of his bullying tactics to anyone calling in who vehemently argued they were not a "denier“, but instead a skeptic about the man-made cause. He tried desperately to make one caller sound stupid, so much so it was cringe-worthy. He suggested that; because this caller questioned man-made climate change that he was akin to a conspiracy theorist, likening the caller to a 9/11 inside-job nutcase.
I wanted to call in but the temptation to call him a blithering idiot would have been too much.
To phrase it alternately: 97% of science graduates whose livelihood depends on proving evidence of man-made climate change agreed that it probably exists; even though they have no conclusive evidence ergo; FACT.
I wonder if the show is available to listen to on demand, if anyone fancied having their piss boiled?!
He was intolerable. Everyone who phoned in (to the debate he invited) he seemed desperate to ridicule and "label".
His agenda was that; if 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities therefore we should not have any reason for skepticism.
Basically; this is on the Nasa website and presented as “fact" - so who are we to question these qualified individuals?
What he is pedalling is more dangerous than anything misguided Trump might say - he's suggesting that we shouldn't question climate change at all, cos, well, 'scientists'.
I have little respect for the bloke because of his bullying tactics to anyone calling in who vehemently argued they were not a "denier“, but instead a skeptic about the man-made cause. He tried desperately to make one caller sound stupid, so much so it was cringe-worthy. He suggested that; because this caller questioned man-made climate change that he was akin to a conspiracy theorist, likening the caller to a 9/11 inside-job nutcase.
I wanted to call in but the temptation to call him a blithering idiot would have been too much.
To phrase it alternately: 97% of science graduates whose livelihood depends on proving evidence of man-made climate change agreed that it probably exists; even though they have no conclusive evidence ergo; FACT.
I wonder if the show is available to listen to on demand, if anyone fancied having their piss boiled?!
C.A.R. said:
He suggested that; because this caller questioned man-made climate change that he was akin to a conspiracy theorist, likening the caller to a 9/11 inside-job nutcase.
That's been a standard tactic for years. Not very creative or useful in any way.
Who is this bloke anyway? Anyone vaguely important for any reason?
C.A.R. said:
Did anyone else hear the LBC radio show today, with Maajid Nawaz?
He was intolerable. Everyone who phoned in (to the debate he invited) he seemed desperate to ridicule and "label".
His agenda was that; if 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities therefore we should not have any reason for skepticism.
Basically; this is on the Nasa website and presented as “fact" - so who are we to question these qualified individuals?
What he is pedalling is more dangerous than anything misguided Trump might say - he's suggesting that we shouldn't question climate change at all, cos, well, 'scientists'.
I have little respect for the bloke because of his bullying tactics to anyone calling in who vehemently argued they were not a "denier“, but instead a skeptic about the man-made cause. He tried desperately to make one caller sound stupid, so much so it was cringe-worthy. He suggested that; because this caller questioned man-made climate change that he was akin to a conspiracy theorist, likening the caller to a 9/11 inside-job nutcase.
I wanted to call in but the temptation to call him a blithering idiot would have been too much.
To phrase it alternately: 97% of science graduates whose livelihood depends on proving evidence of man-made climate change agreed that it probably exists; even though they have no conclusive evidence ergo; FACT.
I wonder if the show is available to listen to on demand, if anyone fancied having their piss boiled?!
there are a few of the proponents of cagw that i would find it very hard not to punch in the face, in some cases several times. should i be unfortunate enough to meet them. most inhabit skeptical science. yes i know, a bit of a low brow knuckle draggerish stance to take, but we all have our flaws.He was intolerable. Everyone who phoned in (to the debate he invited) he seemed desperate to ridicule and "label".
His agenda was that; if 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities therefore we should not have any reason for skepticism.
Basically; this is on the Nasa website and presented as “fact" - so who are we to question these qualified individuals?
What he is pedalling is more dangerous than anything misguided Trump might say - he's suggesting that we shouldn't question climate change at all, cos, well, 'scientists'.
I have little respect for the bloke because of his bullying tactics to anyone calling in who vehemently argued they were not a "denier“, but instead a skeptic about the man-made cause. He tried desperately to make one caller sound stupid, so much so it was cringe-worthy. He suggested that; because this caller questioned man-made climate change that he was akin to a conspiracy theorist, likening the caller to a 9/11 inside-job nutcase.
I wanted to call in but the temptation to call him a blithering idiot would have been too much.
To phrase it alternately: 97% of science graduates whose livelihood depends on proving evidence of man-made climate change agreed that it probably exists; even though they have no conclusive evidence ergo; FACT.
I wonder if the show is available to listen to on demand, if anyone fancied having their piss boiled?!
Clinging on to the multiply disproven 97% lie is par for the course, we see it all the time on here from regular believers in attrition loops and from interlopers who think they're playing the agw joker when in a way they are but not as they think.
This issue has been known for a long time and was summarised by a distinguished former PM - a lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Supine media have their own version, publish the expected headline from some rentapaper or other then 'forget' to mention when it's shown up as junkscience. Getting the headline is the name of the game on the propaganda front and the vested interests know this as well as their tame hacks.
This issue has been known for a long time and was summarised by a distinguished former PM - a lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Supine media have their own version, publish the expected headline from some rentapaper or other then 'forget' to mention when it's shown up as junkscience. Getting the headline is the name of the game on the propaganda front and the vested interests know this as well as their tame hacks.
turbobloke said:
Clinging on to the multiply disproven 97% lie is par for the course, we see it all the time on here from regular believers in attrition loops and from interlopers who think they're playing the agw joker when in a way they are but not as they think.
This issue has been known for a long time and was summarised by a distinguished former PM - a lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Supine media have their own version, publish the expected headline from some rentapaper or other then 'forget' to mention when it's shown up as junkscience. Getting the headline is the name of the game on the propaganda front and the vested interests know this as well as their tame hacks.
hottest year evah claim from last year was a good example of this. i noted no mention it was well within the margin of error and that is before we begin to talk about how accurate the global temperature record is,including the fact measurements are nothing like global.This issue has been known for a long time and was summarised by a distinguished former PM - a lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Supine media have their own version, publish the expected headline from some rentapaper or other then 'forget' to mention when it's shown up as junkscience. Getting the headline is the name of the game on the propaganda front and the vested interests know this as well as their tame hacks.
robinessex said:
Can't you read.
Yes. Can you comprehend? It seems not.Oh well, I tried but you're completely brainwashed and therefore not worth engaging with further.
C.A.R. said:
To phrase it alternately: 97% of science graduates whose livelihood depends on proving evidence of man-made climate change agreed that it probably exists; even though they have no conclusive evidence ergo; FACT.
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
Based on numerous previous false alarms and false claims, post content from durbster claims that gigo from inadequate computer climate models is evidence - at least, in that sense, it actually is 'all the evidence' if only it was evidence.
In terms of diddled data, there are various posts citing 'record' temperatures that aren't records - because erasing higher temperatures from previous decades doesn't count (nor does siting sensors near jet wash, chimneys, air con outlets, trash burners,.car parks etc help much with the cause) - also because they're not actually records, likewise with any warming microtrend including those from cherry picking start and end dates. The fundamental lack of causality in these and other non-evidence sources is clear to everyone except those who can see an invisible signal, extract it, and then analyse it. For these people, ignoring the lack of any visible causal human signal doesn't matter because pure thought can allocate unambiguous attribution from anything to anything (if you have sufficient faith), and if that's not enough then the data don't matter anyway as policy is based on gigo from climate models.
In terms of diddled data, there are various posts citing 'record' temperatures that aren't records - because erasing higher temperatures from previous decades doesn't count (nor does siting sensors near jet wash, chimneys, air con outlets, trash burners,.car parks etc help much with the cause) - also because they're not actually records, likewise with any warming microtrend including those from cherry picking start and end dates. The fundamental lack of causality in these and other non-evidence sources is clear to everyone except those who can see an invisible signal, extract it, and then analyse it. For these people, ignoring the lack of any visible causal human signal doesn't matter because pure thought can allocate unambiguous attribution from anything to anything (if you have sufficient faith), and if that's not enough then the data don't matter anyway as policy is based on gigo from climate models.
Chris Folland of UKMO and PCC infamy said:
We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.
Which is where we came in.durbster said:
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
You can't prove something will happen in the future and there is as much, if not more, evidence that CAGW is a bum theory than evidence that supports it - if you weigh it up without extreme confirmation bias.Apart from all the evidence.
So we are left with political motives and conclusive evidence of deliberate dishonesty - the crazy desperate alarmist stories being published since Trump stuck 2 fingers up to Paris.
Al Gore's film - not just dishonest, but risible.
And as you know I'm sure, the US has been at record low drought levels recently, ONLY Florida was left in a not particularly unusual drought, so what does Gore point to as EVIDENCE of climate change affecting the US now, when interviewed on the news about Trump, yes Florida, and the drought is already over now!
No evidence, no proof, just politics and dishonesty and vested interests and lorry loads of cash for free.
Paris ergo CAGW is so important/evidenced, that now the USA won't bankroll the UN socialist global wealth redistribution fund, Turkey won't play ball.
You'd think that faced with climate catastrophe, national leaders would have other priorities than just cash!
Mr GrimNasty said:
...there is as much, if not more, evidence that CAGW is a bum theory than evidence that supports it...
Infinitely more. Without an unambiguously attributed visible causal human signal, nothing is due to humans.
Which means there's no evidence of permanent dangerous human warming, just gigo.
Believers telling us they believe humans are to blame doesn't count, whether the believers are in the IPCC or on PH.
Like Federer this is always worth a return to the centre court.
IPCC confidence levels relating to human influence on the climate are not derived from statistical tests. At the start of and then during the pause, the IPCC's confidence in manmade warming increased - rather than decreased as it should - most recently from 90% to 95%, and this IPCC SPM report footnote explains why.
"In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confi dence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct."
Clearly the IPCC will regard themselves as experts, but strip away the arrogance and hubris and what we have is nothing more than speculation by vested interests.
Handwaving never looked so blatant.
IPCC confidence levels relating to human influence on the climate are not derived from statistical tests. At the start of and then during the pause, the IPCC's confidence in manmade warming increased - rather than decreased as it should - most recently from 90% to 95%, and this IPCC SPM report footnote explains why.
"In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confi dence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct."
Clearly the IPCC will regard themselves as experts, but strip away the arrogance and hubris and what we have is nothing more than speculation by vested interests.
Handwaving never looked so blatant.
C.A.R. said:
durbster said:
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff! Apart from all the evidence.
I'll wait...
The greenhouse effect was first figured out in 1824:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
By this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
And yes, I'm sure it was ground-breaking... 200 years ago.
No link here:-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:31
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:32
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No link here:-
You keep posting this, yet when asked have never been able to explain what it means, where it's from or what relevance it has to AGW.PS. The is no AGW, so it doesn't have to have any relevance.
durbster said:
C.A.R. said:
durbster said:
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff! Apart from all the evidence.
I'll wait...
The greenhouse effect was first figured out in 1824:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
By this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
And yes, I'm sure it was ground-breaking... 200 years ago.
PS. here we go again :yawn:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff