Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
durbster said:
deeps said:
Thinking about it, could we perhaps set up a poll to ask people here on PH, maybe in the gassing station... "Do you believe climate changes naturally?"
And what would you learn from asking a stupid question like that? stew-STR160 said:
You are really ok with saying that a random open poll on twitter would just so happen to result in 97/3? And then throwing out the conspiracy BS when someone says it looks fishy...
I actually thought better of you.
I may not be a scientists but I know how websites work and rigging a Twitter poll like that is basically impossible.I actually thought better of you.
The only way it could be done is if it was deliberately sanctioned by people working for Twitter. It would have to go through various stages of reviews, almost certainly including passing a process of automated testing which would check things like the results of polls. It would have to involve people at almost every level of Twitter, from the developers to management. That would be a conspiracy.
And all for a daft poll of a few thousand people, to prove something that's already blatantly obvious. Twitter loves to promote a conspiracy theory but it's usually dredged up from the anti-science folk.
It's sort of fascinating how people choose to create these complex stories in their mind because they just refuse to accept the simple reality. Occam's razor, and all that.
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Moving away from surveys which include any belief options towards evidence 
that it's not due to pirates but Democrat presidentes...
Meanwhile threaders may have noticed that the BBC website has very recently gone for a spin as passenger with the IPPR, regarding extreme weather and supported by a cherry picked short timescale. The claim is that since 2005 the number of floods across the world has increased by x15 extreme temperature events by x20 and wildfires x7. Why 2005? Cherry alert.
The literature looks at these events on a timescale reflecting claims of global warming (and related hype) increasing since anthropogenic tax gas emissions have been increasing i.e.over ~100+ years not just since 2005.
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying.see Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Extreme temperature events include cold as well as warm. Cooling is the new warming but snow is a rare and exciting event etc.
In terms of so-called extreme high T events, the relationship between changes in mean temperature and corresponding changes in the probability of 'extreme high' temperature events are nonlinear (Mearns et al) so there's no neat agw relationship between such events and a claimed mean T warming trend. In passing, autocorrelation and no-causality alerts are in force with this stuff.
that it's not due to pirates but Democrat presidentes...Climate Depot said:
Analysis reveals GOP presidencies coincide with global cooling – The top 6 warming presidencies were all Democrats
Ho Ho Ho Meanwhile threaders may have noticed that the BBC website has very recently gone for a spin as passenger with the IPPR, regarding extreme weather and supported by a cherry picked short timescale. The claim is that since 2005 the number of floods across the world has increased by x15 extreme temperature events by x20 and wildfires x7. Why 2005? Cherry alert.
The literature looks at these events on a timescale reflecting claims of global warming (and related hype) increasing since anthropogenic tax gas emissions have been increasing i.e.over ~100+ years not just since 2005.
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying.see Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Extreme temperature events include cold as well as warm. Cooling is the new warming but snow is a rare and exciting event etc.
In terms of so-called extreme high T events, the relationship between changes in mean temperature and corresponding changes in the probability of 'extreme high' temperature events are nonlinear (Mearns et al) so there's no neat agw relationship between such events and a claimed mean T warming trend. In passing, autocorrelation and no-causality alerts are in force with this stuff.
Diderot said:
Prof I am, obvs with a PhD and a Masters. Sorry to disappoint you Mr aerial bus driver and resident climate criminal hypocrite, and indeed Gadgetmac the resident dingleberry/village idiot whatever it is you don’t do for any kind of living. Stovey either you believe in your own religion or you don’t. And if you do, then how could you, in all conscience, wreak so much havoc on the climate by flying around in your infernal contraption and threaten the existence of the polar bears? Give up your job and save the planet. Simples. 97% percent of all scientists say that jet engines are not good for rare species of critically endangered water snails and innocent icebergs.
Diderot said:
Prof I am, obvs with a PhD and a Masters. Sorry to disappoint you Mr aerial bus driver and resident climate criminal hypocrite, and indeed Gadgetmac the resident dingleberry/village idiot whatever it is you don’t do for any kind of living. Stovey either you believe in your own religion or you don’t. And if you do, then how could you, in all conscience, wreak so much havoc on the climate by flying around in your infernal contraption and threaten the existence of the polar bears? Give up your job and save the planet. Simples. 97% percent of all scientists say that jet engines are not good for rare species of critically endangered water snails and innocent icebergs.
You're as much a professor with a masters and PhD as I'm one of the 12 men to have walked on the moon.In fact I've never conversed with someone who so obviously isn't qualified in anything. You're just an anti-science internet troll I'm afraid.
turbobloke said:
SIR JIM RATCLIFFE: GREEN TAXES ARE KILLING EUROPE’S ECONOMY
In an open letter Ineos founder Sir Jim Ratcliffe has criticised the EU over expensive regulations and “stupid” green taxes that choke Europe’s chemicals industry.
Energy Voice, 13/02/19
Ah, Britain's wealthiest man and chemical engineer turned industrialist in rant against green (chemical) taxes shocker!In an open letter Ineos founder Sir Jim Ratcliffe has criticised the EU over expensive regulations and “stupid” green taxes that choke Europe’s chemicals industry.
Energy Voice, 13/02/19
The arch Brexiteer who's decided after the vote to up sticks and move to Monacco...
You couldn't cherry pick a more biased Observer if you tried.
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
SIR JIM RATCLIFFE: GREEN TAXES ARE KILLING EUROPE’S ECONOMY
In an open letter Ineos founder Sir Jim Ratcliffe has criticised the EU over expensive regulations and “stupid” green taxes that choke Europe’s chemicals industry.
Energy Voice, 13/02/19
Ah, Britain's wealthiest man and chemical engineer turned industrialist in rant against green (chemical) taxes shocker!In an open letter Ineos founder Sir Jim Ratcliffe has criticised the EU over expensive regulations and “stupid” green taxes that choke Europe’s chemicals industry.
Energy Voice, 13/02/19
The arch Brexiteer who's decided after the vote to up sticks and move to Monacco...
You couldn't cherry pick a more biased Observer if you tried.
now I know you have no problem with china producing massive amounts of CO2,
but I don't think you are naive to honestly think it will make a difference globally and could actually make it worse if the factories do not have to meet high social and environmental standards.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Prof I am, obvs with a PhD and a Masters. Sorry to disappoint you Mr aerial bus driver and resident climate criminal hypocrite, and indeed Gadgetmac the resident dingleberry/village idiot whatever it is you don’t do for any kind of living. Stovey either you believe in your own religion or you don’t. And if you do, then how could you, in all conscience, wreak so much havoc on the climate by flying around in your infernal contraption and threaten the existence of the polar bears? Give up your job and save the planet. Simples. 97% percent of all scientists say that jet engines are not good for rare species of critically endangered water snails and innocent icebergs.
Diderot said:
Prof I am, obvs with a PhD and a Masters. Sorry to disappoint you Mr aerial bus driver and resident climate criminal hypocrite, and indeed Gadgetmac the resident dingleberry/village idiot whatever it is you don’t do for any kind of living. Stovey either you believe in your own religion or you don’t. And if you do, then how could you, in all conscience, wreak so much havoc on the climate by flying around in your infernal contraption and threaten the existence of the polar bears? Give up your job and save the planet. Simples. 97% percent of all scientists say that jet engines are not good for rare species of critically endangered water snails and innocent icebergs.
You're as much a professor with a masters and PhD as I'm one of the 12 men to have walked on the moon.In fact I've never conversed with someone who so obviously isn't qualified in anything. You're just an anti-science internet troll I'm afraid.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
How little you know.
Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.durbster said:
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Nope not Judith Curry - she's part of the consensus on AGW.Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
How little you know.
Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
How little you know.
Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.
and believe everything I read on the internet especially when it involves posters aggrandizing themselves on forums.kerplunk said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
How little you know.
Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.
What I do have is a nose for sniffing out bullshine. Enquiry is my friend. 
kerplunk said:
durbster said:
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Nope not Judith Curry - she's part of the consensus on AGW.Prof. Mann says she's a denier.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff