Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[steveT350C]

Jesus fking Christ

"Why climate change is creating a new generation of child brides"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/cl...

Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 26th November 20:01

[durbster]

wc98 said:

i have said it before and i will say it again,you have the patience of a saint. understandable having to post the same information to someone quoting the 97% consensus for the first time, but i believe you have posted this refutation at least once in reply to durbs. yet we hear it is the "deniers" that have nothing new to offer.

Evidently you have a much higher value on the opinions of turbobloke than I do.

If somebody would like to present a plausible reason to doubt that there's an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real, I'm all ears, but if you're expecting me to simply kneel and accept the opinion of somebody who is consistently and demonstrably wrong on this topic, you'll be waiting a while.

Yes he repeats the same answers endlessly but so what? Repeating something that's wrong and doesn't eventually make it correct.

Considering you're one of the few here who can put together a coherent argument that requires some thought before answering, I can't help but wonder why you show so much deference to somebody who is so consistently shown to be posting nonsense.

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

Considering you're one of the few here who can put together a coherent argument that requires some thought before answering, I can't help but wonder why you show so much deference to somebody who is so consistently shown to be posting nonsense.

It’s a hard choice to make really.

In team A there’s loads of experts and scientists and respected scientific bodies and in team B there’s some bloke on a car forum who isn’t a scientist.

It’s understandable that people might opt for team B.

I went to see Billy Graham years ago. I expect it’s a bit like that. Without the charisma and less people watching etc. But you get my drift.

It’s either that or Stockholm syndrome.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

It’s a hard choice to make really.

In team A there’s loads of experts and scientists and respected scientific bodies and in team B there’s some bloke on a car forum who isn’t a scientist.

Then why do posters like yourself, Zygalski, Durbster etc waste your time debating with this 'some bloke'. Why don't you simply accept what your 'experts' in team A are saying, which would render what 'some bloke' is saying irrelevant to you.

The way it appears to me is that 'some bloke' has you all very rattled, and that what he says is very relevant, hence you're all constantly coming back to monitor what he's said and have a dig at him. If he truly means nothing to you why do you do that?

So something doesn't make sense here. Either what 'some bloke' is saying actually means a lot to you although you won't admit it, or you come back to have a dig at him just for meaningless fun?

I would hazard a guess that you are not quite so sure of yourselves and indeed your 'experts' as you like to make out.

[dickymint]

deeps said:

El stovey said:

It’s a hard choice to make really.

In team A there’s loads of experts and scientists and respected scientific bodies and in team B there’s some bloke on a car forum who isn’t a scientist.

Then why do posters like yourself, Zygalski, Durbster etc waste your time debating with this 'some bloke'. Why don't you simply accept what your 'experts' in team A are saying, which would render what 'some bloke' is saying irrelevant to you.

The way it appears to me is that 'some bloke' has you all very rattled, and that what he says is very relevant, hence you're all constantly coming back to monitor what he's said and have a dig at him. If he truly means nothing to you why do you do that?

So something doesn't make sense here. Either what 'some bloke' is saying actually means a lot to you although you won't admit it, or you come back to have a dig at him just for meaningless fun?

I would hazard a guess that you are not quite so sure of yourselves and indeed your 'experts' as you like to make out.

[PRTVR]

dickymint said:

deeps said:

El stovey said:

It’s a hard choice to make really.

In team A there’s loads of experts and scientists and respected scientific bodies and in team B there’s some bloke on a car forum who isn’t a scientist.

Then why do posters like yourself, Zygalski, Durbster etc waste your time debating with this 'some bloke'. Why don't you simply accept what your 'experts' in team A are saying, which would render what 'some bloke' is saying irrelevant to you.

The way it appears to me is that 'some bloke' has you all very rattled, and that what he says is very relevant, hence you're all constantly coming back to monitor what he's said and have a dig at him. If he truly means nothing to you why do you do that?

So something doesn't make sense here. Either what 'some bloke' is saying actually means a lot to you although you won't admit it, or you come back to have a dig at him just for meaningless fun?

I would hazard a guess that you are not quite so sure of yourselves and indeed your 'experts' as you like to make out.

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

[dickymint]

PRTVR said:

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

I think I may have found a way forward.........

https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Jehovah%27s-Witnesses...

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

PRTVR said:

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

I think I may have found a way forward.........

https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Jehovah%27s-Witnesses...

It’s interesting that you see yourselves as the rational ones with the facts following science and the other side are involved in a belief system.

Isn’t it the case that your view goes against the majority of scientists and scientific bodies and institutions. That would make it more likely that you’re in the belief system group wouldn’t it? Just on probability alone.

If you or a loved one required surgery and the majority of surgeons and consultants and the NHS and BMC etc all said one thing and you went with another group who had a tiny amount of surgeons in it and you were defending the medical advice of a guy on a car forum, I’m not sure you'd be identified as the rational thinking group.

I’m not actually that bothered about climate change either way, I find it interesting though, I’m certainly not ideologicaly tied to a viewpoint.. I just don’t think it’s likely that you’re right and find it odd that you side with non experts and then allways call other people believers.

Presumably whenever you read the news or science journals or look on the nasa website etc you must always be thinking everyone else is wrong? Doesn’t it make you think, hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Do you think they’re all part of a conspiracy or just mistaken?

[LongQ]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

PRTVR said:

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

I think I may have found a way forward.........

https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Jehovah%27s-Witnesses...

It’s interesting that you see yourselves as the rational ones with the facts following science and the other side are involved in a belief system.

Isn’t it the case that your view goes against the majority of scientists and scientific bodies and institutions. That would make it more likely that you’re in the belief system group wouldn’t it? Just on probability alone.

If you or a loved one required surgery and the majority of surgeons and consultants and the NHS and BMC etc all said one thing and you went with another group who had a tiny amount of surgeons in it and you were defending the medical advice of a guy on a car forum, I’m not sure you'd be identified as the rational thinking group.

I’m not actually that bothered about climate change either way, I find it interesting though, I’m certainly not ideologicaly tied to a viewpoint.. I just don’t think it’s likely that you’re right and find it odd that you side with non experts and then allways call other people believers.

Presumably whenever you read the news or science journals or look on the nasa website etc you must always be thinking everyone else is wrong? Doesn’t it make you think, hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Do you think they’re all part of a conspiracy or just mistaken?

What is your opinion about the ability of politicians to correctly understand the issues or which they have responsibility to pass laws and prompt the direction in which social groups "move" and inter-relate to each other.

If we consider religious groups to be political as well as religious (there seems to be plenty of evidence that they are - especially the larger worldwide religions) how much effective influence would you say can be attributed to faith alone?

Are you really sure you wish to put forward the suggestion that the NHS, medical bodies and even NASA are infallible?

Do you think that because you are not ideologically tied to a view point (or at least you claim not to be in your opinion and that's fine) you can assume that those whose ideas you accept are also not ideologically tied to a specific viewpoint?

What percentage of politicians can we rely upon to have a full and correct understanding of the issues on which they pronounce and an unwavering ideological position that also accepts and is flexible enough to be adaptable to changes?

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

PRTVR said:

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

I think I may have found a way forward.........

https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Jehovah%27s-Witnesses...

It’s interesting that you see yourselves as the rational ones with the facts following science and the other side are involved in a belief system.

It's inevitable, how else would you describe a situation where some people believe in invisible entities and others ask for critical empirical data as evidence? AGW is like a religion in that regard and remains entirely a faith/belief system as long as there's no anthropogenic signal in TOA radiative imbalance data (energy) and no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data. You and others skip over this as though you never read it. You must realise that if either of these empirical data criteria were met - only energy and temperature data can provide evidence of agw - there would indeed be widespread acceptance? Are you part of the belief system or just trolling along with some others?

The term 'true believer' was coined by a climate scientist.

[PRTVR]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

PRTVR said:

Defence of a belief system is nothing new, it's interesting to view their unwillingness to even consider a alternative viewpoint.

I think I may have found a way forward.........

https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Jehovah%27s-Witnesses...

It’s interesting that you see yourselves as the rational ones with the facts following science and the other side are involved in a belief system.

Isn’t it the case that your view goes against the majority of scientists and scientific bodies and institutions. That would make it more likely that you’re in the belief system group wouldn’t it? Just on probability alone.

If you or a loved one required surgery and the majority of surgeons and consultants and the NHS and BMC etc all said one thing and you went with another group who had a tiny amount of surgeons in it and you were defending the medical advice of a guy on a car forum, I’m not sure you'd be identified as the rational thinking group.

I’m not actually that bothered about climate change either way, I find it interesting though, I’m certainly not ideologicaly tied to a viewpoint.. I just don’t think it’s likely that you’re right and find it odd that you side with non experts and then allways call other people believers.

Presumably whenever you read the news or science journals or look on the nasa website etc you must always be thinking everyone else is wrong? Doesn’t it make you think, hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Do you think they’re all part of a conspiracy or just mistaken?

Good point, originally I was happy with the science of global warming as I am with most science and medical matters, then climategate happened, TB started a thread on it a long time ago that sparked my interest, the more over the years I read up on it the more it didn't make sense, from the original e mails to the action of some supposedly respectable establishments it was clear that their drive to maintain the status of MMGW along with their own status and income was overriding any science that may be happening,
Then we come to the political aspect which drove the science, in the UK, during the labour years Ed Miliband steered the subject, remember the government controlled grants, so having a advocate at the helm it was only going to go one way, it appears to be a good scheme for redistributed of wealth, we sent money to China to help them prevent climate change,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/chi...
This at a time when China was building a coal fired power station every week, do you think that is logical ?
On the conspiracy point, my view backed up by some of the Climategate emails is that once started down a path it's very hard to to change without loosing respect along with funding and others have used the subject to progress their own agenda, take the environmental movement for one.
Anyway the real world is calling, if you have any questions just ask and I'll try to give you my point of view when I get back this afternoon.

[durbster]

deeps said:

Then why do posters like yourself, Zygalski, Durbster etc waste your time debating with this 'some bloke'. Why don't you simply accept what your 'experts' in team A are saying, which would render what 'some bloke' is saying irrelevant to you.

Good question.

First off, I should clarify that I rarely bother debating turbobloke any more because a) it's not a debate and b) there's nothing new and the assertions have been addressed countless times.

And maybe that's the core of the problem for me. If there weren't so many people that believed this stuff, I probably wouldn't bother, but the distance between public perception and reality is still pretty big.

Another factor is that I love the internet and hate that misinformation is so prolific. I'm not a scientist so don't make any scientific claims, but I would guess I have much more experience of the web than most so I've learned to recognise the plausible from the dubious.

Also, I am generally fascinated with belief and what it does to people. I've studied things like creationism, scientology and alternative medicine, and I'm currently reading up on the vegan diet to see if there's any justification for that belief system

Considering I'm simply presenting the mainstream position, surely you'd get more interesting answers from those holding the fringe views?

[AreOut]

steveT350C said:

Jesus fking Christ

"Why climate change is creating a new generation of child brides"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/cl...

Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 26th November 20:01

when all the models fail you have to resort to soviet style propaganda

[robinessex]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

i have said it before and i will say it again,you have the patience of a saint. understandable having to post the same information to someone quoting the 97% consensus for the first time, but i believe you have posted this refutation at least once in reply to durbs. yet we hear it is the "deniers" that have nothing new to offer.

Evidently you have a much higher value on the opinions of turbobloke than I do.

If somebody would like to present a plausible reason to doubt that there's an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real, I'm all ears, but if you're expecting me to simply kneel and accept the opinion of somebody who is consistently and demonstrably wrong on this topic, you'll be waiting a while.

Yes he repeats the same answers endlessly but so what? Repeating something that's wrong and doesn't eventually make it correct.

Considering you're one of the few here who can put together a coherent argument that requires some thought before answering, I can't help but wonder why you show so much deference to somebody who is so consistently shown to be posting nonsense.

Here’s what you have just requested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs I fail to see why you have already ignored my previous 2 attempts at getting you to do this.

[Kawasicki]

I started to become sceptical of CAGW a couple of years before climategate. I couldn't understand why scientific organisations would only show part of a data set that would back their theory, and omit the rest. This seemed dishonest to me and counter to how science should work. Science seemed to me to be increasingly mixed with politics and the scientists didn't seem to be openly critical of that.

Climate science is full of unknowns, but climate scientists are unbelievably silent about this. They are uncritical of those who say it is a settled, well understood field of knowledge. It is absolutely disgraceful behaviour for a scientist in any field.

The scientists and the activists probably think they will convince people with these methods, but each example of this unethical behaviour just makes me ever more sceptical.

[turbobloke]

There's another key aspect of this affair which is repeatedly mentioned but serially ignored by faithful types. A UKMO/IPCC stalwart expressed this aspect long ago in a mantra which states "the data don't matter". This is clearly nonscience, yet believers just swallow it and swiftly move on. This UKMO/IPCC bod went on to say that activist scientists don't base their recommendations to politicians on the data but on climate models, which is science arse about face. The data do matter, and always matter.

These models are then touted as pure science / basic physics etc which is also misleading. Modelling can't cope with even those elements of the science that are partly understood, never mind the rest, and use approx 100 'tuned' (!) parameterisations alongside fudges based on unrealistic cell sizes, unrealistic stepwise timescales, false symmetry, assumptions and so on. Science documented in the peer-reviewed literature which describes natural climate forcings (Svensmark, Bucha) is omitted. The head honcho scientist in the CLOUD (Svensmark) experimental verification decreed that the result would be released but should not be discussed. WTF?! This whole sorry saga is not how science operates, at least not outside the climate industry.

Then again if you have faith you may well be or become impervious to evidence, and that's before we consider the largesse in operation. As long as the nonscience of gigo modelling is held to be superior to credible empirical data, nothing will change, and the nonscience position is now well-entrenched.

[wc98]

zygalski said:

Never had a satisfactory answer (or an answer at all, really) as to why Trump's climate experts have passed this information to Pruitt and he has made his judgement:
https://youtu.be/UBybnYN8ki4?t=495
Pruitt said in his press conference, defending Trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement:
'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.

Now if Trump's climate guru had come out against AGW, you lot would have been all over that like a rash.
Seems like this is another inconvenient truth and perhaps Trump's team are another bunch our resident PH climate experts have added to the global conspiracy supporting the AGW hoax perpetrated upon us all?

how many people on this thread do think disagree with the statement 'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.

[wc98]

durbster said:

Evidently you have a much higher value on the opinions of turbobloke than I do.

If somebody would like to present a plausible reason to doubt that there's an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real, I'm all ears, but if you're expecting me to simply kneel and accept the opinion of somebody who is consistently and demonstrably wrong on this topic, you'll be waiting a while.

Yes he repeats the same answers endlessly but so what? Repeating something that's wrong and doesn't eventually make it correct.

Considering you're one of the few here who can put together a coherent argument that requires some thought before answering, I can't help but wonder why you show so much deference to somebody who is so consistently shown to be posting nonsense.

the claimed 97% consensus was nothing of the sort. there have been various rebuttals , just one of them below. i know you might not like turboblokes style,but he is consistent in what he posts and has taken the time to keep posting the same information over a number of years to a great many people that post on this topic obviously having done little reading of the subject matter. i know you know your climate eggs so it puzzles me why you refer to this non consensus when there are many other valid points , both political and science related you could pick up on.

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-0...

[wc98]

El stovey said:

It’s interesting that you see yourselves as the rational ones with the facts following science and the other side are involved in a belief system.

Isn’t it the case that your view goes against the majority of scientists and scientific bodies and institutions. That would make it more likely that you’re in the belief system group wouldn’t it? Just on probability alone.

If you or a loved one required surgery and the majority of surgeons and consultants and the NHS and BMC etc all said one thing and you went with another group who had a tiny amount of surgeons in it and you were defending the medical advice of a guy on a car forum, I’m not sure you'd be identified as the rational thinking group.

I’m not actually that bothered about climate change either way, I find it interesting though, I’m certainly not ideologicaly tied to a viewpoint.. I just don’t think it’s likely that you’re right and find it odd that you side with non experts and then allways call other people believers.

Presumably whenever you read the news or science journals or look on the nasa website etc you must always be thinking everyone else is wrong? Doesn’t it make you think, hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Do you think they’re all part of a conspiracy or just mistaken?

genuine question , how much reading of the subject have you done. where does your certainty in relation to the position of the experts come from ?
if i was being treated for a stomach ulcer back in the day it turns out it would have been better to be treated by the one bloke that thought they were caused by bacteria rather than the consensus medical professionals that thought they were stress related.

if you have a read around the net you will find there are a few arguments around the actaul limited amount of science involved in the debate. from my position and that of most other sceptics the arguments surround the physical effects of the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere.

i am another that just accepted agw prior to climate gate. i had never had any reason to doubt otherwise. once i started reading the ongoing debate and found one of the main tenets of the theory , the tropospheric hotspot , had not been observed then the path to scepticism began.

i believe you fly aircraft ? climate models are weather models,themselves models bastardised from other disciplines. cfd being one. all those little air deflectors ,winglets and other bits and bobs that get stuck on aircraft are absolute proof of the adage that all models are wrong, but some are useful.if we cannot model cfd correctly, so need to tweak the end result to get it to fly properly,what hope is there of modeling the atmosphere? climate modelers themselves will tell you they cannot. that is why we have projections not predictions as model output.

if some opposing views to agw are correct the next two decades should see a general cooling in the northern hemisphere as a result of ocean cycles. as we are still on the warming path that began after the little ice age hopefully it won't cool to 70,s levels. i loved the winters of the early to mid 80's as a kid, i wouldn't fancy them now, particularly as where i live tends to see more snow than many places.

the massive political machine behind agw would usually be a warning to most people something is up. remember when they the politicians drove us toward diesel "for our own good".

[HairyPoppins]

wc98 said:

how many people on this thread do think disagree with the statement 'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.

Presumably anybody who says there is "no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data" no?

wc98 said:

the massive political machine behind agw would usually be a warning to most people something is up.

Conspiracy theory again? What do you think could be 'up' as you put it?

wc98 said:

remember when they the politicians drove us toward diesel "for our own good".

I do, what do you think 'they' (whoever 'they' may be) were REALLY trying to achieve at that point? What do you think they are trying to achieve by espousing the opposite now?

I'm genuinely intrigued by this line of reasoning.