Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

to be fair you have a made a fair few yourself and avoided addressing several replies/questions relating to your posts, so i will pass on this latest set of questions until you start responding in kind.

I’ve only made 15 posts.

I’ve no idea what questions you want answered. I’ve said the IPCC and NASA etc seem more likely to be right than you. That’s my position really.

Answer or not, no biggie either way.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

I can't even understand how the question needs to be asked. How could we possibly not have a changing climate? We live on a spinning rock orbiting a star at colossal speed in space, not in a laboratory or computer model. The lack of logic in thinking that Earth's climate should be static is mind boggling. Then you hear people like Zuckerburg stating "we might soon stop the climate from changing".

Our climate has always, is now, and will always change. The point at which it stops changing will be when Earth no longer exists.

The media and politicians have coined the term 'climate change' when they should be using 'man made global warming' to the extent that it's now considered normal by most to use the incorrect name when discussing the theory.

[turbobloke]

The planet's atmosphere under radiation from the Sun, gravity and rotation of the planet itself is non-linear and unstable. This is a recipe for chaotic behaviour.

The planet's atmosphere has never been stationary. The mind-boggling stupidity in the following quote is...mind-boggling. I'll leave the reader to discover the source (if not recognised). Naturally it's from an agw "authority" and a mystically pompous one at that.

"We no longer have a stationary climate"

[turbobloke]

Some time ago before quasi-exponential increases in silliness the IPCC said:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.

A short-term appearance of stability isn't the same as stationary.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 5th December 16:18

[mybrainhurts]

El stovey said:

I’ve said the IPCC and NASA etc seem more likely to be right than you. That’s my position really.

I'd risk a little bet you've never delved very far into the workings of those bodies.

[Bacardi]

mybrainhurts said:

El stovey said:

I’ve said the IPCC and NASA etc seem more likely to be right than you. That’s my position really.

I'd risk a little bet you've never delved very far into the workings of those bodies.

Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....

... bit quiet, have the paid activists gone xmas shopping?

[mybrainhurts]

Bacardi said:

... bit quiet, have the paid activists gone xmas shopping?

They'll be at a meeting at The Cause HQ, getting a bking for failing to convert us to the way of the befuddled...

[Bacardi]

mybrainhurts said:

Bacardi said:

... bit quiet, have the paid activists gone xmas shopping?

They'll be at a meeting at The Cause HQ, getting a bking for failing to convert us to the way of the befuddled...

I hope they aren't paid on performance... it makes me wonder why they spend so much time on this backwater of the internet, some blokes car forum.... roll on a 'expert'...

[durbster]

Bacardi said:

Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....

Where do you get your information about climate change from?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Bacardi said:

Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....

Where do you get your information about climate change from?

Do you suspect...(catches breath)...it might be non-IPCC doctrinal sources? OMG.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Bacardi said:

Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....

Where do you get your information about climate change from?

Try a bit of commonsense, scepticism, and logic. And ask if it matters if the planet gets tiny bit hotter in the first place.

PS. I see you are still studiously ignoring my previous 4 requests to look and comment on the links I sent you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

Bacardi said:

Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....

Where do you get your information about climate change from?

Try a bit of commonsense, scepticism, and logic. And ask if it matters if the planet gets tiny bit hotter in the first place.

PS. I see you are still studiously ignoring my previous 4 requests to look and comment on the links I sent you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

Fair points.

Even so it's good to see durbster's concern for Bacardi, who could be at-risk for consulting heretical authorities.

After all, just think of the information pollution Bacardi could suffer if FakeClimate, UnskepticalAGW, SmoggyBlog, GristToTheTeam or any number of unaligned sources of unbiased info were to be consulted.

The key question is: when will believers consult credible empirical data on TOA radiative imbalance and unattributed causality and understand what it actually means? Tick Tock.

[XM5ER]

robinessex said:

Try a bit of commonsense, scepticism, and logic. And ask if it matters if the planet gets tiny bit hotter in the first place.

PS. I see you are still studiously ignoring my previous 4 requests to look and comment on the links I sent you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

No response from Elstovey about the historical perspective of confluence of interests, nor about historical scientific individuals with a creationist belief system.

No response from any about Michael Mann's contempt of court in refusing to submit his data and methodology.

Oh, and here's a response to the "but NASA" comment. Here is NASA's finest in debate https://youtu.be/V96k4BO2sBw Ho Ho. Nearly 10 years since climategate, emissions of C)2 are higher than ever but Armageddon still seems to be a long way away.

[wc98]

XM5ER said:

No response from Elstovey about the historical perspective of confluence of interests, nor about historical scientific individuals with a creationist belief system.

No response from any about Michael Mann's contempt of court in refusing to submit his data and methodology.

Oh, and here's a response to the "but NASA" comment. Here is NASA's finest in debate https://youtu.be/V96k4BO2sBw Ho Ho. Nearly 10 years since climategate, emissions of C)2 are higher than ever but Armageddon still seems to be a long way away.

and no response to the consensus on stomach ulcers being incorrect, or the resulting paradigm shift. all those highly qualified professionals that bought into the consensus,wrote papers on it and talked at length at seminars about stress related stomach ulcers were talking and writing complete and utter bks, but it was fine because consensus.

no response to modeling issues in cfd, despite it being a more mature field than climate science modeling and far less complex than modeling the atmosphere . as said, all the winglets, blisters and various other modifications to aircraft wings post design and build are not added for sts and giggles, they are there purely down to the fact cfd modeling is far from an exact science and largely dependent upon the experience of the designer/modeler.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

and no response to the consensus on stomach ulcers being incorrect, or the resulting paradigm shift. all those highly qualified professionals that bought into the consensus,wrote papers on it and talked at length at seminars about stress related stomach ulcers were talking and writing complete and utter bks, but it was fine because consensus.

What's the relevance to this thread? How many people studied stomach ulcers? How much evidence was there? Was the science replicated?

You're really scraping the barrel; it's not comparable to climate science at all.

wc98 said:

no response to modeling issues in cfd, despite it being a more mature field than climate science modeling and far less complex than modeling the atmosphere . as said, all the winglets, blisters and various other modifications to aircraft wings post design and build are not added for sts and giggles, they are there purely down to the fact cfd modeling is far from an exact science and largely dependent upon the experience of the designer/modeler.

You seem to have invented your own argument here. Everyone knows all models are an educated guess. They're not psychic visions of the future.

And I'm sure robinessex will be along shortly to tell you CFD is a worthless tool because it's based on models.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

and no response to the consensus on stomach ulcers being incorrect, or the resulting paradigm shift. all those highly qualified professionals that bought into the consensus,wrote papers on it and talked at length at seminars about stress related stomach ulcers were talking and writing complete and utter bks, but it was fine because consensus.

What's the relevance to this thread? How many people studied stomach ulcers? How much evidence was there? Was the science replicated?

You're really scraping the barrel; it's not comparable to climate science at all.

wc98 said:

no response to modeling issues in cfd, despite it being a more mature field than climate science modeling and far less complex than modeling the atmosphere . as said, all the winglets, blisters and various other modifications to aircraft wings post design and build are not added for sts and giggles, they are there purely down to the fact cfd modeling is far from an exact science and largely dependent upon the experience of the designer/modeler.

You seem to have invented your own argument here. Everyone knows all models are an educated guess. They're not psychic visions of the future.

And I'm sure robinessex will be along shortly to tell you CFD is a worthless tool because it's based on models.

You know full well what the relevance is; either that or you are spectacularly thick (I don't think you are though).

I thought models were evidence Durbster, that's what you said before.

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

You know full well what the relevance is; either that or you are spectacularly thick (I don't think you are though).

A handful of scientists did a limited study of a very specific subject and got it wrong, therefore hundreds of thousands of scientists working across numerous fields backed up by huge amounts of observable evidence and validated by every equivalent organisation across the world are also wrong?

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

You know full well what the relevance is; either that or you are spectacularly thick (I don't think you are though).

A handful of scientists did a limited study of a very specific subject and got it wrong, therefore hundreds of thousands of scientists working across numerous fields backed up by huge amounts of observable evidence and validated by every equivalent organisation across the world are also wrong?

Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of scientists are studying the science of AGW? Please answer honestly and not another swerve.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

You know full well what the relevance is; either that or you are spectacularly thick (I don't think you are though).

A handful of scientists did a limited study of a very specific subject and got it wrong, therefore hundreds of thousands of scientists working across numerous fields backed up by huge amounts of observable evidence and validated by every equivalent organisation across the world are also wrong?

So you don’t consider almost the entire medical world as a “consensus”?

And for the umpteenth time there is no consensus for CAGW

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

So you (durbster) don’t consider almost the entire medical world as a “consensus”?

And for the umpteenth time there is no consensus for CAGW

Faith is impervious to objective evidence by its very nature, as seen above and elsewhere on climate threads with monotonous regularity.

I'll leave any considerations of trolling by believers (tedious attrition looping, silly questions etc) to others.