Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
durbster said:
Deeps, if we wanted to read everything posted on WUWT, they have a website people can visit.
Do you ever check any of this stuff or do you just believe what you read on there?
The comments section is where it's at, but all he posts is a load of nodding dog snark - like there's a shortage of that here and we must have more! Do you ever check any of this stuff or do you just believe what you read on there?
kerplunk said:
durbster said:
Deeps, if we wanted to read everything posted on WUWT, they have a website people can visit.
Do you ever check any of this stuff or do you just believe what you read on there?
The comments section is where it's at, but all he posts is a load of nodding dog snarkDo you ever check any of this stuff or do you just believe what you read on there?
Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
Meanwhile back on-topic with some climate politics courtesy of comment at CNN: ‘EPA nominee Andrew Wheeler is even worse than Scott Pruitt’.
The good news continues
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Er, that's not me reporting him. Failure to understand isn't uncommon amongst you deniers though.
Er ,typical Gadgey trick answering without quoting!I was actually referring to the ‘Paddy’ incident!
You’re not man/woman enough to admit to hitting the button anyway.
Anyway care to adress the Paddy issue?
I don't know how much he wants me to say on this matter so I'll not say anything.
Unlike you I don't need to hit the report button and trust the mods to do their job. Their deletion of the offensive posts is down to them not me.
Edited by gadgetmac on Thursday 17th January 09:28
Comments on the politics of science from an experienced marine scientist (no PhD cert available oh dear) follow.
But don't take his word for any of it, check out the corrupt science case(s) elsewhere and then examine data in contemporary peer-reiewed papers on coral as cited in this thread recently which show that the current position is no different to that in the 1600s 1700s and 1800s; coral recovery takes place even as tax gas levels rise; and that experiments exposing GBR coral to levels of carbon dioxide expected by the year 2100 had no detrimental effect.
Generations of researchers have been schooled in a culture wherein threats to the Great Barrier Reef are an unquestionable belief from which all evidence is interpreted. She (Lonnstedt) got into ocean acidification and global warming and the effect CO2 was going to have on the behaviour of marine animals and she started publishing.
Immediately the publishers lapped it up. As a graduate student she managed to get as much published in one year as most professors do in a decade. Lonnstedt’s work is now being picked apart.The recent Lionfish investigation by the Biology Letters journal followed a finding of “scientific dishonesty” relating to a 2016 study regarding the Baltic Sea, fish and microplastic. Apparently the scientist in question is now retired (very early) according to her co-author Chivers..
But don't take his word for any of it, check out the corrupt science case(s) elsewhere and then examine data in contemporary peer-reiewed papers on coral as cited in this thread recently which show that the current position is no different to that in the 1600s 1700s and 1800s; coral recovery takes place even as tax gas levels rise; and that experiments exposing GBR coral to levels of carbon dioxide expected by the year 2100 had no detrimental effect.
Dr Walter Starck said:
Generations of researchers have been schooled in a culture wherein threats to the Great Barrier Reef are an unquestionable belief from which all evidence is interpreted. She (Lonnstedt) got into ocean acidification and global warming and the effect CO2 was going to have on the behaviour of marine animals and she started publishing.
Immediately the publishers lapped it up. As a graduate student she managed to get as much published in one year as most professors do in a decade. Lonnstedt’s work is now being picked apart.
Turbobloke said:
Unlike the frequently off-topic personal and essentially content-free nodding dog sarc/ad hom pro-agw content in this and other PH climate threads, as illustrated by the above two posts.
Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
The scientists and scientific institutions say one thing.Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
Deniers say another.
We question the validity of your sources which always turn out to be some blog or another discredited source with the odd maverick thrown in.
turbobloke said:
The recent Lionfish investigation by the Biology Letters journal followed a finding of “scientific dishonesty” relating to a 2016 study regarding the Baltic Sea, fish and microplastic. Apparently the scientist in question is now retired (very early) according to her co-author Chivers..
Doesn't this case expose all of the conspiracy of scientists, everyone toes the line, guff we see in this thread for the nonsense that it is? A high profile paper in Science, says all the 'right' things yet other scientists think it's fishy, investigate and it's withdrawn.gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke said:
Unlike the frequently off-topic personal and essentially content-free nodding dog sarc/ad hom pro-agw content in this and other PH climate threads, as illustrated by the above two posts.
Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
The scientists and scientific institutions say one thing.Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
Deniers say another.
We question the validity of your sources which always turn out to be some blog or another discredited source with the odd maverick thrown in.
Deniers have Judith Curry.
Oh - and that other dude who thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because an old book told him so.
zygalski said:
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke said:
Unlike the frequently off-topic personal and essentially content-free nodding dog sarc/ad hom pro-agw content in this and other PH climate threads, as illustrated by the above two posts.
Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
The scientists and scientific institutions say one thing.Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
Deniers say another.
We question the validity of your sources which always turn out to be some blog or another discredited source with the odd maverick thrown in.
Deniers have Judith Curry.
Oh - and that other dude who thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because an old book told him so.
Buy shares in Damart !!
Wylfa Newydd: Hitachi to halt work on UK nuclear plant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46900918
Hitachi has announced it will suspend work on a £20bn nuclear plant in the UK because of rising construction costs.
The decision puts thousands of jobs at risk if the Wylfa Newydd facility in Anglesey, north Wales, is scrapped...............continues
At one time, the UK was in the lead with nuclear power plants. Then politicians/Government got involved. Usual outcome. f
k all, but at enormous expense.
Wylfa Newydd: Hitachi to halt work on UK nuclear plant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46900918
Hitachi has announced it will suspend work on a £20bn nuclear plant in the UK because of rising construction costs.
The decision puts thousands of jobs at risk if the Wylfa Newydd facility in Anglesey, north Wales, is scrapped...............continues
At one time, the UK was in the lead with nuclear power plants. Then politicians/Government got involved. Usual outcome. f
k all, but at enormous expense.turbobloke said:
Oops
Threaders may have spotted that NASA alarmists are hyping ice loss mass in Antarctica compared to the 70s. The study looks at data from 1992. Where's the 70s data?
Only 3 years ago with much of the same data they reckoned it was actually gaining ice mass.
Peer reviewed science (Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al) found the same.
There's at least one paper discussing origins which points to ocean circulation patterns rather than holidaying tax gas.
Convincing alarmism; we must panic!
although it is as usual a big scary number they mention, i didn't see anything about that number actually being within the error bars for estimates of antarctic ice loss. Threaders may have spotted that NASA alarmists are hyping ice loss mass in Antarctica compared to the 70s. The study looks at data from 1992. Where's the 70s data?
Only 3 years ago with much of the same data they reckoned it was actually gaining ice mass.
Peer reviewed science (Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al) found the same.
There's at least one paper discussing origins which points to ocean circulation patterns rather than holidaying tax gas.
Convincing alarmism; we must panic!
zygalski said:
gadgetmac said:
Turbobloke said:
Unlike the frequently off-topic personal and essentially content-free nodding dog sarc/ad hom pro-agw content in this and other PH climate threads, as illustrated by the above two posts.
Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
The scientists and scientific institutions say one thing.Great irony as usual, thanks for the entertainment.
Deniers say another.
We question the validity of your sources which always turn out to be some blog or another discredited source with the odd maverick thrown in.
Deniers have Judith Curry.
Oh - and that other dude who thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because an old book told him so.
USA Green New Deal = Back to the Dark Ages Manifesto
(Not) saving the planet at the point of a bayonet and costing $49 trillion over ten years
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
(Not) saving the planet at the point of a bayonet and costing $49 trillion over ten years
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Buy shares in Damart !
But it's not a cult, honest 
robinessex said:
AGW is just belief
robinessex said:
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Buy shares in Damart !
But it's not a cult, honest robinessex said:
AGW is just belief
All you've got are a few rogue individual scientists & right wing blogs.
I would say the onus on disproving an overwhelming consensus lies with the deniers.
zygalski said:
I'm not the one attempting to refute every scientific organisation & seat of learning on the planet.
All you've got are a few rogue individual scientists & right wing blogs.
I would say the onus on disproving an overwhelming consensus lies with the deniers.
Well that bit I agree with (only the bold) All you've got are a few rogue individual scientists & right wing blogs.
I would say the onus on disproving an overwhelming consensus lies with the deniers.
If the models embody the consensus proof of AGW then their failure is disproof is it not?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff