Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Durbster had awoken, and again diligently ignored my previous 5 requests to read and comment on:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
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 b
ks, 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?ks, but it was fine because consensus.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.ts 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.And I'm sure robinessex will be along shortly to tell you CFD is a worthless tool because it's based on models.
XM5ER said:
Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of scientists are studying the science of AGW? Please answer honestly and not another swerve.
Studying today? No idea. Have contributed to further the understanding of our atmosphere in some way over the past 70 years? Quite possibly.That odd diversion aside, I'm sure the number is rather larger than those that studied stress and stomach ulcers several decades ago. Would you agree?
turbobloke said:
Even so it's good to see durbster's concern for Bacardi, who could be at-risk for consulting heretical authorities.
God forbid. turbobloke said:
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.
I have developed pollution filters for this soap opera which I have been following intently for the last 23+ years. As for AGW theory, I find the Beano the most authoritative source. I wonder how old Durbs was 23 years ago? were to be consulted.Bacardi said:
I have developed pollution filters for this soap opera which I have been following intently for the last 23+ years. As for AGW theory, I find the Beano the most authoritative source. I wonder how old Durbs was 23 years ago?
Would you mind answering the question please: where do you get your information about climate change from?durbster said:
Bacardi said:
I have developed pollution filters for this soap opera which I have been following intently for the last 23+ years. As for AGW theory, I find the Beano the most authoritative source. I wonder how old Durbs was 23 years ago?
Would you mind answering the question please: where do you get your information about climate change from?Try practicing what you’re preaching! Robinessex’s Would be a good start
Edit: typical Durbitroll hypocrisy eh?
Edited by dickymint on Wednesday 6th December 21:57
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Would you mind answering the question please: where do you get your information about climate change from?
i think the beano was mentioned , as good a source as any .When you say something like this:
Bacardi said:
Of course he hasn't. Just comes across as someone who trusts authority without question... a sheep, incapable of thinking for himself....
It suggests Bacardi has been applying critical thinking to his research and has found a more trustworthy source of information about climate science than the people studying climate and, well, basically every single established science body on earth. I'd be interested to know what this ultimate source of truth is, but no answer just means we can assume it's just a blog like watts up with that.It's very easy to dismiss a source of information for whatever reason suits you, but unless you can explain why your source is more valid it's a pretty shallow statement. And if you're not even brave enough to share your source, I think we can guess how confident you are in it.
turbobloke said:
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.
I've been thinking about the pyschology of why you keep trying to deride others for doing what you do most. The person who posts far more links to advoacy blogs than anyone else persistently accuses others of relying on advocacy blogs. were to be consulted.I think it's because you simply need this to be true. If you can prove other people are as deeply reliant on advocacy blogs as you are, it allows you to justify your use of them. It's right out of the Trump school of talking b
ks.It doesn't hold up at all of course. If you accept AGW you can go to Google scholar, or any science website or magazine to get your information; you don't need advocacy blogs.
durbster said:
I've been thinking about the pyschology of why you keep trying to deride others for doing what you do most. The person who posts far more links to advoacy blogs than anyone else persistently accuses others of relying on advocacy blogs.
I think it's because you simply need this to be true. If you can prove other people are as deeply reliant on advocacy blogs as you are, it allows you to justify your use of them. It's right out of the Trump school of talking bks.
It doesn't hold up at all of course. If you accept AGW you can go to Google scholar, or any science website or magazine to get your information; you don't need advocacy blogs.
It’s because it’s nothing to do with science, it’s simply part of a wider political world view. Right wing, small government, distrust the media, anti EU, pro trump etc. It about not being told what to do by the government or worse by organisations like the IPCC etc. and certainly not being part of treaties where those distrusted organisations might be influencing our government policy or our actions.I think it's because you simply need this to be true. If you can prove other people are as deeply reliant on advocacy blogs as you are, it allows you to justify your use of them. It's right out of the Trump school of talking b
ks.It doesn't hold up at all of course. If you accept AGW you can go to Google scholar, or any science website or magazine to get your information; you don't need advocacy blogs.
Many of the same posters on this thread are always posting about bbc bias and are pro Brexit and Trump and aparently identify with the positions above. It’s a political position not a scientific one. That’s why this thread is much more popular than the scientific debate thread.
Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th December 08:26
durbster said:
I've been thinking about the pyschology of why you keep trying to deride others for doing what you do most. The person who posts far more links to advoacy blogs than anyone else persistently accuses others of relying on advocacy blogs.
I think it's because you simply need this to be true. If you can prove other people are as deeply reliant on advocacy blogs as you are, it allows you to justify your use of them. It's right out of the Trump school of talking bks.
It doesn't hold up at all of course. If you accept AGW you can go to Google scholar, or any science website or magazine to get your information; you don't need advocacy blogs.
talking about advocacy and climate scientists i wonder would you have an opinion on this sorry debacle ? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-... note the authors ,one in particular i think you referred to as no longer relevant a while back . seems the unscrupulous little fat git just can't help himself. now regardless of the actual science involved (the only hard evidence is polar bears are indeed doing fine, numbers are up) i don't think many scientists of any discipline would support this sort of nonsense.I think it's because you simply need this to be true. If you can prove other people are as deeply reliant on advocacy blogs as you are, it allows you to justify your use of them. It's right out of the Trump school of talking b
ks.It doesn't hold up at all of course. If you accept AGW you can go to Google scholar, or any science website or magazine to get your information; you don't need advocacy blogs.
El stovey said:
It’s because it’s nothing to do with science, it’s simply part of a wider political world view. Right wing, small government, distrust the media, anti EU, pro trump etc. It about not being told what to do by the government or worse by organisations like the IPCC etc. and certainly not being part of treaties where those distrusted organisations might be influencing our government policy or our actions.
Many of the same posters on this thread are always posting about bbc bias and are pro Brexit and Trump and aparently identify with the positions above. It’s a political position not a scientific one. That’s why this thread is much more popular than the scientific debate thread.
Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.
way to oversimplify, climate has always been changing and we don't have a slightest clue how much of an impact we have, it might be 1% or 10% or 50% of current warming but nobody knows, it's impossible to calculate in a chaotic systemMany of the same posters on this thread are always posting about bbc bias and are pro Brexit and Trump and aparently identify with the positions above. It’s a political position not a scientific one. That’s why this thread is much more popular than the scientific debate thread.
Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.
Edited by El stovey on Thursday 7th December 08:26
El stovey said:
Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.
And "many" people use the word "many" when describing a group of individuals they wish to denigrate, stereotype and not engage constructively with, because it is a lot easier to insult and belittle others than it is to actively listen to what they are actually saying. You asked some questions stovey, a few of us responded and yet you ignored the answers - what does that say about you?El stovey said:
Many posters here happily admit they don’t know why the climates is changing or if it even is, what they know though is that they don’t believe the IPCC or NASA or the bbc etc.
Believe. That says it all, yet it won't be long before one of the usual suspects denounces the term True Believer as coined by an IPCC Lead Author climate scientist.
The IPCC was set up to provide advocacy to governments, not to review the literature and the science impartially. You appear to be unaware of that.
NASA isn't a person. Many NASA engineers and scientists, once retired and no longer holding a duty of loyalty to an employer, have denounced NASA's political belief-based approach to climate via an open letter which has been posted on here N times. Beyond that, James Hansen's boss Theon has told us all we need to know...assuming you know who Hansen and Theon are.
In any case what would possess any thinking individual to 'believe' anyone who claims to see invisible things? Who would dismiss empirical data because "the data don't matter" when that's total nonscience? You and a few other PHers apparently.
Your comment about people not knowing why the climate is changing merely projects your own lack of knowledge and understanding onto others as an attempted smear against them. I've posted the list (below) of natural climate forcings many times, your level of interest and/or memory appears to have left you unaware. No excuse now.
Meteorite and cometary impacts
Cosmic dust accretion (Sun) linked to Local Group motion
Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun i.e. elliptical eccentricity
Changes in the angle of tilt of the Earth upon its axis
Shorter duration 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis
The changing shape of the Earth [the Earth's mean dynamic oblateness parameter)
The changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core
Amplified total solar irradiance
Lunar tidal slowing of the Earth's rotation, previously >465d in 1 year
Changes in the Earth's magnetic field
Tectonic movements of the Earth's plates
Volcanic eruptions
Changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans
Changes in ocean salinity and chemistry as a coupled atmosphere system
Changes in ice-sheets
Changes in sea-ice thickness
Changes involving atmospheric water vapour including clouds
Cosmic ray flux and nucleation (Svensmark) as an aspect of solar eruptivity forcing
Solar storms and the auroral oval (Bucha) as an aspect of solar eruptivity forcing
Natural variations in atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide and methane
Changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through natural landscape change
Surface radiative energy fluxes
Vegetative emission of volatile organic aerosols
Other biogeographical factors e.g. those affecting albedo
Couplings and feedbacks involving the above
El stovey said:
Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,
Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper? Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,
Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper? Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
durbster said:
XM5ER said:
Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of scientists are studying the science of AGW? Please answer honestly and not another swerve.
Studying today? No idea. Have contributed to further the understanding of our atmosphere in some way over the past 70 years? Quite possibly.That odd diversion aside, I'm sure the number is rather larger than those that studied stress and stomach ulcers several decades ago. Would you agree?
. Once again your assertions are untenable.[dopamine] Would I agree, absolutely not, no.
XM5ER said:
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Neither of us know what’s going’s on but I’m not pretending to, you’re the one rubbishing actual scientists and experts,
Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
Disagreeing with conclusions and pointing out flaws in the data is not "rubbishing". You do know that Michael Mann's northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has been shown to be seriously flawed in methodology ergo making his conclusions unsupportable? Is that "rubbishing" Michael Mann or pointing out flaws in his paper? Your entrenched position is based on political dogma and rhetoric.
What word is appropriate for describing belief in invisible entities and the leap of faith involved in asserting that "the data don't matter"? Fantasy and junkscience respectively are spot on.
XM5ER said:
Wow, climategate emails still being investigated.
Mann won't release data and is apparently in contempt as a result, the same may well happen here with emails. They would appear to be juicy. The faith can't be challenged - though a sight of punitive damages and stripy daylight could help open the sphincters.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff