Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[stew-STR160]

zygalski said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

What’s interesting is that I see myself as a lover of science and technology. It’s why I work in this area. I see the CAGW alarmists as the anti-science group.

Funny, isn’t it!?

What is a "CAGW alarmist"?

I assume the C stands for catastrophic.
CAGW is being used a bit in this thread by deniers because they are having to lurch to ever new heights of imposing extreme views.
It's no longer just ok to think that AGW is real. If you're a believer you have to subscribe to it never snowing again & Western Europe being entirely underwater by 2035.

Pretty sure the terms catastrophy and catastrophic have been thrown around by those of the faith far more than us.

Nice attempt at trying to sound above it all though.

As for the last part, again, pretty sure those claims have been thrown around by the faith in attempts to get more signed up to the cause.

[anonymous-user]

stew-STR160 said:

So, no then. You don't see the problem.

Well only a miniority of you can see the problem, because It’s not actually a real problem.

I can see why you might think there’s a problem and I’ve pointed out how your mindset has made you think there’s a problem.

But it’s not actually real.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

Nice to see you got over the whole BBC thing.

I just republish what they publish. Anything remotely intelligent or relevant you can add to the forum then?

[stew-STR160]

El stovey said:

stew-STR160 said:

So, no then. You don't see the problem.

Well only a miniority of you can see the problem, because It’s not actually a real problem.

I can see why you might think there’s a problem and I’ve pointed out how your mindset has made you think there’s a problem.

But it’s not actually real.

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

I can't imagine how a person reconciles the notion that that all the world's leading science organisations are actually anti-science.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

I can't imagine how a person reconciles the notion that that all the world's leading science organisations are actually anti-science.

I didn't say that, nor suggest it.

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

I can't imagine how a person reconciles the notion that that all the world's leading science organisations are actually anti-science.

I didn't say that, nor suggest it.

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

Like Cliff Mass you mean?

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

I can't imagine how a person reconciles the notion that that all the world's leading science organisations are actually anti-science.

I didn't say that, nor suggest it.

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

The IPCC who falsified the state of glaciers in India, that IPCC ?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/2...

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

Like Cliff Mass you mean?

Eh? I've never heard of him- is his position ever-changing? That blog posted earlier quite clearly states that he doesn't deny AGW is happening:

Blog post said:

Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is the primary cause of warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying/

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

So, majority is always right?

Not a real problem according to the anti science alarmist faith, such as yourself.

I'm happy to tell you that you got my mindset guess all wrong. But thanks anyway.

I can't imagine how a person reconciles the notion that that all the world's leading science organisations are actually anti-science.

I didn't say that, nor suggest it.

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

What endlessly shifting views?

No, I don't accept the science as presented by the IPCC, and neither do they, hence the constant revisions and retractions.

And what organisations are you referring to? Those posted by LT in his lists? Which we went over and over. Which the faith held as absolute proof. But when you looked closer, all was not as simply clear cut as it seemed.
Nevermind eh.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

Like Cliff Mass you mean?

Eh? I've never heard of him- is his position ever-changing? That blog posted earlier quite clearly states that he doesn't deny AGW is happening:

Blog post said:

Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is the primary cause of warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying/

Cherry picked or read the whole thing?

Mass had a lot more to say than just agreeing with AGW.

[Terminator X]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, so I got that wrong and you actually accept the science as presented by the IPCC, as those organisations do?

It's impossible to keep up with what endlessly-shifting views touted by the faithful in here.

Like Cliff Mass you mean?

Eh? I've never heard of him- is his position ever-changing? That blog posted earlier quite clearly states that he doesn't deny AGW is happening:

Blog post said:

Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is the primary cause of warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying/

The trend seems to be pretty flat though #despiteCO2 since 1850?





Note - using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2

TX.

[The Don of Croy]

robinessex said:

Earth’s subterranean ecosystem uncovered

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/earth-s-subterr...

There is no light, little nutrition and extreme heat. But in the crust deep beneath our feet scientists have uncovered a wilderness to rival the most diverse ecosystems in the world...

I read that in the paper, then re-read it and still wonder what it all means.

There's a stonking great biomass-type generator down there, bigger than all the Attenborough-visited greenery (possibly) doing who-knows-what with CO2 and methane, and we know diddly about it?

So will it get exploited by BIG OIL first or the BBC natural history unit? And what does it mean for atmospheric GHGs?

[robinessex]

The Don of Croy said:

robinessex said:

Earth’s subterranean ecosystem uncovered

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/earth-s-subterr...

There is no light, little nutrition and extreme heat. But in the crust deep beneath our feet scientists have uncovered a wilderness to rival the most diverse ecosystems in the world...

I read that in the paper, then re-read it and still wonder what it all means.

There's a stonking great biomass-type generator down there, bigger than all the Attenborough-visited greenery (possibly) doing who-knows-what with CO2 and methane, and we know diddly about it?

So will it get exploited by BIG OIL first or the BBC natural history unit? And what does it mean for atmospheric GHGs?

But of course, we knew sod all about it, therefore it's not in the AGW models, is it. Opps !!! Nothing will change though, the science is settled, the planet will still self destruct in about a 100yrs time

[gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

What endlessly shifting views?

No, I don't accept the science as presented by the IPCC, and neither do they, hence the constant revisions and retractions.

And what organisations are you referring to? Those posted by LT in his lists? Which we went over and over. Which the faith held as absolute proof. But when you looked closer, all was not as simply clear cut as it seemed.
Nevermind eh.

So LT’s lists were wrong but the lists supplied by deniers have been right?

You say “when we looked closer” which entries were wrong? I don’t remember any being questioned.

And I’m going to call you out on this too...

stew-STR160 said:

Pretty sure the terms catastrophy and catastrophic have been thrown around by those of the faith far more than us.

Nice attempt at trying to sound above it all though.

Can you please quote 2 instances of that term, Catastrophic or Catastrophy or CAGW being used by us Science believers on this thread please. Time to put up.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

Nice to see you got over the whole BBC thing.

I just republish what they publish. Anything remotely intelligent or relevant you can add to the forum then?

You don’t add anything to the forum by simply linking to a bbc article every day and shouting “bks” .

[gadgetmac]

Terminator X said:

The trend seems to be pretty flat though #despiteCO2 since 1850?





Note - using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2

TX.

You know this is the Political thread and that the Science thread is in the Science forum.

[stew-STR160]

gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

What endlessly shifting views?

No, I don't accept the science as presented by the IPCC, and neither do they, hence the constant revisions and retractions.

And what organisations are you referring to? Those posted by LT in his lists? Which we went over and over. Which the faith held as absolute proof. But when you looked closer, all was not as simply clear cut as it seemed.
Nevermind eh.

So LT’s lists were wrong but the lists supplied by deniers have been right?

You say “when we looked closer” which entries were wrong? I don’t remember any being questioned.

And I’m going to call you out on this too...

stew-STR160 said:

Pretty sure the terms catastrophy and catastrophic have been thrown around by those of the faith far more than us.

Nice attempt at trying to sound above it all though.

Can you please quote 2 instances of that term, Catastrophic or Catastrophy or CAGW being used by us Science believers on this thread please. Time to put up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/0...

The question was about the use of CAGW. Not specific faith users using it. Two links above provide examples. If that's not good enough for you, just use Google to search for catastrophic/catastrophy/anything like it. Enjoy.

Actually many on LT's lists were questioned. But then you and others just didn't pay much attention because you were too busy being in in awe of the list.

[gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

What endlessly shifting views?

No, I don't accept the science as presented by the IPCC, and neither do they, hence the constant revisions and retractions.

And what organisations are you referring to? Those posted by LT in his lists? Which we went over and over. Which the faith held as absolute proof. But when you looked closer, all was not as simply clear cut as it seemed.
Nevermind eh.

So LT’s lists were wrong but the lists supplied by deniers have been right?

You say “when we looked closer” which entries were wrong? I don’t remember any being questioned.

And I’m going to call you out on this too...

stew-STR160 said:

Pretty sure the terms catastrophy and catastrophic have been thrown around by those of the faith far more than us.

Nice attempt at trying to sound above it all though.

Can you please quote 2 instances of that term, Catastrophic or Catastrophy or CAGW being used by us Science believers on this thread please. Time to put up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/0...

The question was about the use of CAGW. Not specific faith users using it. Two links above provide examples. If that's not good enough for you, just use Google to search for catastrophic/catastrophy/anything like it. Enjoy.

Actually many on LT's lists were questioned. But then you and others just didn't pay much attention because you were too busy being in in awe of the list.

So, nobody on here has used the term CAGW

Also, you can’t name which entries on LT’s lists were wrong.

Classic denier strategy. Throw as much st as you can and hope some of it sticks.