Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Jinx]

HairyPoppins said:

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.

Why rock the boat?

[turbobloke]

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.

Massive irony as usual.

There is a lot of evidence against the non-consensus. Lots of researchers have published it and there have been many links to this research in PH climate threads.

- no anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance (published)
- no visible causal human signal in LTT data (take your pick)
- no tropical troposphere hotspot (published)
- water vapour feedback is negative (published)
- solar eruptivity forcing omitted by IPCC causes climate change (published) taking out CO2
- jet stream strengthening and moving away from N pole (obvious) opposing agw bunk
- real world temperature fell out of the climate model gigo envelope before the ship intake fiddle fiasco (published)
- no Antarctic ice mass increase overall (published) contrary to agw junkscience

There's more but that will do.

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

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?

Upton Sinclair said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[HairyPoppins]

Jinx said:

HairyPoppins said:

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.

Why rock the boat?

I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.

[Kawasicki]

zygalski said:

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.

Battling is not required, just pointing out obvious weaknesses in CAGW theory is enough. Or even just waiting will do, as the models predictions are adjusted further downward.

[Jinx]

HairyPoppins said:

I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.

It is from https://www.eia.gov/ the projections have taken into account all of the CAGW nonsense. If you expect your existing lines to continue to expand and you have investments in renewables that are going to rapidly expand why would you waste money producing a report to hit your rapid growth market?

[HairyPoppins]

Jinx said:

HairyPoppins said:

I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.

It is from https://www.eia.gov/ the projections have taken into account all of the CAGW nonsense. If you expect your existing lines to continue to expand and you have investments in renewables that are going to rapidly expand why would you waste money producing a report to hit your rapid growth market?

Er because your sitting on tens of trillions of $$$ worth of oil and don't want it to depreciate in any significant way? A few court cases even if only in your own country would be a drop in the ocean by comparison.

This is desperate stuff and you're simply guessing.

[blindswelledrat]

Jinx said:

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".

I think you misread it, thats all. Its quite a step from claiming the wording is a bit off to calling him a because of it. Sounds a bit mental to me.

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

Massive irony as usual.

There is a lot of evidence against the non-consensus. Lots of researchers have published it and there have been many links to this research in PH climate threads.

- no anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance (published)
- no visible causal human signal in LTT data (take your pick)
- no tropical troposphere hotspot (published)
- water vapour feedback is negative (published)
- solar eruptivity forcing omitted by IPCC causes climate change (published) taking out CO2
- jet stream strengthening and moving away from N pole (obvious) opposing agw bunk
- real world temperature fell out of the climate model gigo envelope before the ship intake fiddle fiasco (published)
- no Antarctic ice mass increase overall (published) contrary to agw junkscience

There's more but that will do.

So why don't any of the publishers of these articles take the IPCC to court to test the legality of the global scientific community continually misleading the world with provably false claims of AGW?
From what you're saying it'd be a slam-dunk win for the AGW skeptics.

Perhaps your data isn't quite so compelling when subjected to peer review (sorry I know you dislike peer review).

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 17:38

[Kawasicki]

zygalski said:

XM5ER said:

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

The consensus view of much of the world's population is that one or more Gods or some other form of external influences exist.

Do you agree with that consensus?

If not, over to you to provide the proof to disprove it.

That's not the scientific view.
It's an irrelevant strawman.

Now about that proof that refutes AGW....?

Which version of AGW? The catastrophic one? The "a bit warmer than before" one. The one where we cured the earth of ice ages one? etc.

Oh and by the way, my question still stands, who does "big oil" (like that's not a conspiracy theory all on its own ) sue, and on what charges?

The one that says that human activity exacerbates, to any extent, climate change.
The one that for instance Donald Trump believes is true.
That clear enough?

Sorry, just read this post. I have decided to change camp, I now believe in AGW (For clarity sake I think CAGW is utter BS).

I believe human activity has an effect on the climate. I think the effect is quite tiny, and might even be positive, but it probably exists. I have thought about this in the past, it has been eating away at me. I feel much better now. I am a Believer! Praise Gaia, Gore and Mann!

[HairyPoppins]

The wealth of the Gulf States is vastly dependent upon the value of their Oil. Renewables and the like can be produced anywhere, Oil cannot.

Wiki info for just Saudi for instance:

"The economy of Saudi Arabia is dependent on oil and has strong government control over major economic activities. The Saudi economy is the largest in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia has the world's second-largest proven petroleum reserves and the country is the largest exporter of petroleum. It has also the fifth-largest proven natural gas reserves. Saudi Arabia is considered an "energy superpower". It has third highest total estimated value of natural resources, valued at US$34.4 trillion in 2016."

Add in the other Gulf States and it makes no sense not to challenge MMGW on almost any level possible if they can. But they don't.

[Jinx]

blindswelledrat said:

I think you misread it, thats all. Its quite a step from claiming the wording is a bit off to calling him a because of it. Sounds a bit mental to me.

I was being facetious by claiming PH is not "unrepresentative right wing" but very much "representative right wing"

I call it humour though some may disagree.

the was earned given the diverse membership of PH and to tar the entire community due to the comments in a particular thread is -ish behaviour

[grumbledoak]

More interestingly, does anyone have any suggestions for the reason for the influx this time? I know we just had a boondoggle with little to shout about.

Germany is now mostly coal powered? More amusing, less environmentally friendly.
Poland - next year - even more so?
US still not signed up?
Merkel likely to lose her very 'Green' coalition?

[LongQ]

Jinx said:

HairyPoppins said:

I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.

It is from https://www.eia.gov/ the projections have taken into account all of the CAGW nonsense. If you expect your existing lines to continue to expand and you have investments in renewables that are going to rapidly expand why would you waste money producing a report to hit your rapid growth market?

And you know that everything points to renewables plateauing eventually, market by market due to saturation/intermittency so gas will likely have a strong future in the electricity generation market and industrial as coal stagnates a little.

Nuclear is both controversial politically and usually needs long development schedules so is not responsive in the marketplace. Not a real competitor in the predictable future.

Moreover the massive investment that will be required, useful or not, to change stuff offers so many opportunities for short term business that most threats to business really should be some way into the future. Problems, should they ever arise, that the next generation of management may have to deal with.

In any case, from their business perspective the Oil and Gas operations have ways and means to influence the things they need to influence without having to rely on the (often dubious) decisions of courts of law.

This is interesting.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf...

[zygalski]

Jinx said:

I was being facetious by claiming PH is not "unrepresentative right wing" but very much "representative right wing"

I call it humour though some may disagree.

the was earned given the diverse membership of PH and to tar the entire community due to the comments in a particular thread is -ish behaviour

Diverse membership? Really?
Let's look at that.

How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.

How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.

How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?

Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.

I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 18:01

[Ali G]

Is there an emo for digging one's own grave?

[PRTVR]

zygalski said:

Jinx said:

I was being facetious by claiming PH is not "unrepresentative right wing" but very much "representative right wing"

I call it humour though some may disagree.

the was earned given the diverse membership of PH and to tar the entire community due to the comments in a particular thread is -ish behaviour

Diverse membership? Really?
Let's look at that.

How many females make up the N,P & E forum contributors do you think? Very few I would say. A tiny minority.
That's 50% of the population pretty much gone right there.

How about politically liberal/left wing people? They probably make up over 50% of the voting population.
I'd be amazed if more than 10% of regular contributors to this forum would describe themselves as centrist or leftist.

How many non-white, non-right wing, men and women under the age of 30 do you think we have here?

Hardly a cosmopolitan kaleidoscope of views expressed.
One person says something vaguely leftist and 10 other people shout them down.
Liberal (with a small l) is a dirty word here.

I'm just amazed at the cheek you have saying that there's a diverse membership.
It's massively skewed towards the low-rent wannabe Clarksons - grumpy, right wing, over 40 white males, openly xenophobic, openly misogynistic and with a foot firmly in the past, just click on any topic at random - there they all are...

Edited by zygalski on Tuesday 21st November 18:01

So much bigotry in one post, do you read what you have written?

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Jinx said:

HairyPoppins said:

I earn more and more money each year (I could draw an equivalent graph to the above) but if you do something that affects my potential future earnings I'll be on your case.

It is from https://www.eia.gov/ the projections have taken into account all of the CAGW nonsense. If you expect your existing lines to continue to expand and you have investments in renewables that are going to rapidly expand why would you waste money producing a report to hit your rapid growth market?

And you know that everything points to renewables plateauing eventually, market by market due to saturation/intermittency so gas will likely have a strong future in the electricity generation market and industrial as coal stagnates a little.

Nuclear is both controversial politically and usually needs long development schedules so is not responsive in the marketplace. Not a real competitor in the predictable future.

Moreover the massive investment that will be required, useful or not, to change stuff offers so many opportunities for short term business that most threats to business really should be some way into the future. Problems, should they ever arise, that the next generation of management may have to deal with.

In any case, from their business perspective the Oil and Gas operations have ways and means to influence the things they need to influence without having to rely on the (often dubious) decisions of courts of law.

This is interesting.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf...

You chaps appear to want it all ways.

Jinx tells us that the Gulf States aren’t complaining because they’re invested in renewables (they’ve effectively future-proofed themselves) whilst LongQ tells us that renewables won’t last (they’ll plateau) and that they’re not complaining because they have “ways and means” to get their own way without using the courts.

It’s not exactly a united front on this. Moreover it appears that all roads lead to denialism.

[Ali G]

Does the witch burn or float?

[HairyPoppins]

And they've still not answered the question merely supplied their own opinion.