Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[zygalski]

My comment is that you seem to be suggesting that no organisation or wealthy individual has a motive to take proceedings against publications organisations backing the consensus stance on AGW.
I think that is obviously false. Motive is there, because of the cost in investing in green tech which reduces CO2, or renewable alternatives.

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 12:48

[jshell]

grumbledoak said:

Why are you lot feeding it?

Exactly!

[zygalski]

My understanding of an internet troll is someone who deliberately misrepresents their own opinion in order to inflame and cause a reaction from others.
I don't think that the scientific establishments, international organisations and every seat of learning in the Western world are all lying about AGW as a real issue.

Just because I'm taking part in an unrepresentative right wing, casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber does not make me a troll.

[XM5ER]

zygalski said:

My comment is that you seem to be suggesting that no organisation or wealthy individual has a motive to take proceedings against publications organisations backing the consensus stance on AGW.
I think that is obviously false. Motive is there, because of the cost in investing in green tech which reduces CO2, or renewable alternatives.

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 12:48

You swerve like a professional. Do you play rugby? Did you click the links? No.

At what cost, who do you sue and to what end? Have you ever engaged in any kind of legal action. I have and it's not nice and it's not cheap.

[Kawasicki]

zygalski said:

My understanding of an internet troll is someone who deliberately misrepresents their own opinion in order to inflame and cause a reaction from others.
I don't think that the scientific establishments, international organisations and every seat of learning in the Western world are all lying about AGW as a real issue.

Just because I'm taking part in an unrepresentative right wing, casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber does not make me a troll.

You should be careful of "group think", I hear it's catching.

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

My comment is that you seem to be suggesting that no organisation or wealthy individual has a motive to take proceedings against publications organisations backing the consensus stance on AGW.
I think that is obviously false. Motive is there, because of the cost in investing in green tech which reduces CO2, or renewable alternatives.

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 12:48

Firstly science really should not be "decided" in courts. That a scientist (Mann seems not to be the only one) decides to take that route is interesting.

Secondly a business may not have the cash flow or inclination to pursue a legal process unless its existence is threatened - it has other commitments that take up its time and may simply decide to wait and see how things work out while looking at the new opportunities the "policies" offer - this is perhaps nor evident for the Oil and Gas industry than for coal, even in the USA. However parts of the US coal industry may not be doing so badly given it can now export its output to places like China - at least for the immediate future.

So why would anyone feel like taking on organisations that have no responsibility on their own account and are funded by a bottomless pit of money from tax flows? All against a mirage for a target and a fluid interpretation of what AGW, CC or any of the other terms actually means. All from people with no personal responsibilities for what they say or do - so they say and do anything they like. Unelected or elected Politicians - it make no difference.

If you cannot understand that and persist with your line of discussion then there really is no point in responding further.

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

Just because I'm taking part in an unrepresentative right wing, casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber does not make me a troll.

No but the above makes you a

[blindswelledrat]

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Just because I'm taking part in an unrepresentative right wing, casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber does not make me a troll.

No but the above makes you a

Why? Do you disagree with the content of it or just not like someone articulating the extremely accurate description?
I think it would make a very suitable tagline to replace "speed matters"

[Ali G]

blindswelledrat said:

Why? Do you disagree with the content of it or just not like someone articulating the extremely accurate description?
I think it would make a very suitable tagline to replace "speed matters"

Diversion surely? Radio 4 matters.

[robinessex]

Funny. My previous postings asked 2 question, which has been studiously ignored. Easy to draw a conclusion from that I think.

[Jinx]

blindswelledrat said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Just because I'm taking part in an unrepresentative right wing, casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber does not make me a troll.

No but the above makes you a

Why? Do you disagree with the content of it or just not like someone articulating the extremely accurate description?
I think it would make a very suitable tagline to replace "speed matters"

Badly articulated contradictory statement - unless you believe "casually misogynistic, Islamophobic, AGW-skeptic internet forum echo chamber" is unrepresentative of the right wing. Surely it is representative right wing etc.....

Because "accuracy matters".

[XM5ER]

robinessex said:

Funny. My previous postings asked 2 question, which has been studiously ignored. Easy to draw a conclusion from that I think.

Mine also. Maybe they hurt too much.

[zygalski]

You boys can deflect all you want.
Whataboutery, to use the parlance of our time.

Truth of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence against the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Or if there is, there's not a single person on this planet who is willing to publish it.

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

You boys can deflect all you want.
Whataboutery, to use the parlance of our time.

Truth of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence against the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Or if there is, there's not a single person on this planet who is willing to publish it.

Earlier this thread

Jinx said:

You can't see CO2 - visible light passes straight through it much like the majority of IR except at 2 very narrow bands:

Add in this for H2O


CO2 does all

Repeat after me - CO2 does all CO2 does all

[zygalski]

Is this the science thread, you know, the one with all the graphs and data and stuff?
How many graphs have I resorted to posting, from any one of a hundred leading organisations?

Better tell the global scientific community they're all wrong then.
Why waste time on here?

[Ali G]

zygalski said:

You boys can deflect all you want.

Gender bias combined with confirmation bias is interesting.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

You boys can deflect all you want.
Whataboutery, to use the parlance of our time.

Truth of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence against the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Or if there is, there's not a single person on this planet who is willing to publish it.

And the other Truth of the matter, is there is no conclusive evidence for the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Just a lot of believers.

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

You boys can deflect all you want.
Whataboutery, to use the parlance of our time.

Truth of the matter is there is no conclusive evidence against the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Or if there is, there's not a single person on this planet who is willing to publish it.

And the other Truth of the matter, is there is no conclusive evidence for the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Just a lot of believers.

Round and round we go. *yawn*

Onus must be on those battling against the consensus to prove it wrong.

[HairyPoppins]

robinessex said:

Funny. My previous postings asked 2 question, which has been studiously ignored. Easy to draw a conclusion from that I think.

You give yourself too much self-importance me'thinks.

There are lots of questions going unanswered. Why are yours any more important than anybody else's?

Here's one for you. Why are the Gulf States not taking the anti-MMGW stance you vehemently believe in? They have bucket loads of cash for research of their own (and to take legal proceedings when those findings contradict MMGW statements being made not least in their own countries by the media) and the most pure of motives - self preservation.

[Kawasicki]

zygalski said:

Ok, let me walk through how I would deal with this, if I had for instance Turbobloke's independent wealth, knowledge, expertise, and (clearly) free time, but most importantly burning desire to destroy the AGW myth.

Let's take the article I linked to earlier, published by Oxford University:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/2016/0708-heatwavedea...
The title of which is
100s of deaths in two cities in 2003 heatwave due to man-made climate change

Now what I would do is investigate this, and should I be able to produce evidence that refutes it, my understanding is that I could, if I wanted to, take Oxford University to court for publishing false or misleading information.

If I won, I'd be famous throughout the UK and possibly the world, for refuting such a document.
Oh the fame and fortune - I can almost taste it.

Instead what do I choose to do?
I whine about data manipulation and remain an infamous figure on N,P&E.

To provide a balance to the article you linked to, do you have any links to articles showing how deadly cold weather is compared to warm weather?