Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Pardon ?
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
I presume you've got this angle from some advocacy blog but the reality is that there is simply not enough reliable data on polar bear numbers to have any bearing on this topic.Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
PRTVR said:
I have no problem with data you wish to post to refute what I have posted, but the facts are the numbers have risen from ? 7000 in the sixties to ?30000 now. Who is misrepresenting the data?
How about you supply what was asked for, not what you now wish I had asked for. I’m open to the truth so if the total Polar Bear population is currently growing then supply a link from an acknowledged/undisputed source showing that please and not a report on something else entirely and certainly not from Susan Crockford of whom Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says has “zero” authority on the subject.Like I say, if it’s true fine, but lets insert some credibility into the proceedings.
Cheers.
London424 said:
I’m sure I saw something about this a few days ago elsewhere but yes, there is definitely an issue with machine learning at the moment 
Apparently there has been a request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the Steyn vs Mann case (now 8 years and counting) in terms of the danger a Mann win would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Steyn supporters include not only the expected organisations such as Fox News, but others not routinely lined up against Mann and The Climate Empire including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. They have something in common here, namely a mission to see off 'the threat that Mann poses to a free society'.
Wattsupwithpostinglinks said:
Apparently there has been a request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the Steyn vs Mann case (now 8 years and counting) in terms of the danger a Mann win would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Steyn supporters include not only the expected organisations such as Fox News, but others not routinely lined up against Mann and The Climate Empire including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. They have something in common here, namely a mission to see off 'the threat that Mann poses to a free society'.
Good to see you spending your Sunday evenings plaguerising wattsupwiththat and tweaking it ever so slightly.Wattsupwiththat said:
....request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case – that’s to say, on the danger Michael E Mann’s victory would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not – including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society....
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that the hydrological cycle shows no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video...
To be filed along with the creationist religious claptrap espoused by some of them.
Anti-science 101.
gadgetmac said:
Wattsupwithpostinglinks said:
Apparently there has been a request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the Steyn vs Mann case (now 8 years and counting) in terms of the danger a Mann win would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Steyn supporters include not only the expected organisations such as Fox News, but others not routinely lined up against Mann and The Climate Empire including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. They have something in common here, namely a mission to see off 'the threat that Mann poses to a free society'.
Good to see you spending your Sunday evenings plaguerising wattsupwiththat and tweaking it ever so slightly.Wattsupwiththat said:
....request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case – that’s to say, on the danger Michael E Mann’s victory would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not – including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society....
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
I have no problem with data you wish to post to refute what I have posted, but the facts are the numbers have risen from ? 7000 in the sixties to ?30000 now. Who is misrepresenting the data?
How about you supply what was asked for, not what you now wish I had asked for. I’m open to the truth so if the total Polar Bear population is currently growing then supply a link from an acknowledged/undisputed source showing that please and not a report on something else entirely and certainly not from Susan Crockford of whom Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says has “zero” authority on the subject.Like I say, if it’s true fine, but lets insert some credibility into the proceedings.
Cheers.
above based on some sort of new computer modelling?gadgetmac said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Oh, ok. here's another one then:-
Ooops again.!
Ooops again.!
Try and find one that's a bit more up to date.
It’s a Canadian denier site (think The GWPF) and hosts the likes of big oil lackeys Dr Soon and Susan Crockford together with the fruit loop McKitrick.
The site’s sensationalist style is funny.
https://friendsofscience.org/
You live on a different planet to me. The one I live on is thriving, population is thriving, food production is thriving, life is thriving because it's nice and warm at the moment, albeit for a brief period. Of course brutal cold will return and spoil the party, but until then let's enjoy what we've got.
dandarez said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
I have no problem with data you wish to post to refute what I have posted, but the facts are the numbers have risen from ? 7000 in the sixties to ?30000 now. Who is misrepresenting the data?
How about you supply what was asked for, not what you now wish I had asked for. I’m open to the truth so if the total Polar Bear population is currently growing then supply a link from an acknowledged/undisputed source showing that please and not a report on something else entirely and certainly not from Susan Crockford of whom Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says has “zero” authority on the subject.Like I say, if it’s true fine, but lets insert some credibility into the proceedings.
Cheers.
above based on some sort of new computer modelling?
I get the impression some people would jump off a cliff if someone with the perceived relevant qualifications told them to do so. Life must actually be quite simple for them, what with not needing to think for themselves.Blind belief in authority is still the greatest enemy of truth. A perfect example is the way children were blindly led this week.
Edited by deeps on Monday 18th February 03:12
turbobloke said:
Apparently there has been a request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the Steyn vs Mann case (now 8 years and counting) in terms of the danger a Mann win would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Steyn supporters include not only the expected organisations such as Fox News, but others not routinely lined up against Mann and The Climate Empire including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. They have something in common here, namely a mission to see off 'the threat that Mann poses to a free society'.
That’s absolutely terrible.You’ve taken that straight from an advocacy blog and tried to make it look like you wrote it.
What would you call that if a scientist or one of your old students did that?
A new low.
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
I have no problem with data you wish to post to refute what I have posted, but the facts are the numbers have risen from ? 7000 in the sixties to ?30000 now. Who is misrepresenting the data?
How about you supply what was asked for, not what you now wish I had asked for. I’m open to the truth so if the total Polar Bear population is currently growing then supply a link from an acknowledged/undisputed source showing that please and not a report on something else entirely and certainly not from Susan Crockford of whom Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says has “zero” authority on the subject.Like I say, if it’s true fine, but lets insert some credibility into the proceedings.
Cheers.
Your comment if it's true fine, it's not fine, people are being told lies to promote AGW.
Pan Pan Pan said:
durbster said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If anyone want a glimpse at what is allegedly causing the planets climate to change, we need only walk over and take a look in the nearest mirror.
With global population increasing at rates between 286 and 347 thousand net new humans per DAY, using up the planets resources and turning them into emissions faster and faster. We are only bringing forward the time when the planet cannot sustain our colossal numbers any more.
Or do people believe the planet and its recourses are actually infinite?
We must save the planet for our children they say, as they pop yet another disposable nappy in the bin, after which and producing emissions at ever increasing ratesh they take the children a few mile to school in their multi litre 4WD sprog panzers, whilst buying them the latest resource consuming electrical goods for their delight and delectation.
You post this same thing every couple of months. With global population increasing at rates between 286 and 347 thousand net new humans per DAY, using up the planets resources and turning them into emissions faster and faster. We are only bringing forward the time when the planet cannot sustain our colossal numbers any more.
Or do people believe the planet and its recourses are actually infinite?
We must save the planet for our children they say, as they pop yet another disposable nappy in the bin, after which and producing emissions at ever increasing ratesh they take the children a few mile to school in their multi litre 4WD sprog panzers, whilst buying them the latest resource consuming electrical goods for their delight and delectation.
And it still has little relevance to the thread.
But what's your point? Are you proposing a cull? Are you proposing banning 4WD cars or disposable nappies? Are you proposing children should be home-schooled? Are you saying we should stop selling and buying electrical products?
PRTVR said:
And my point was why do school children protesting about climate change comment on the incorrect status of polar bears ? Why are they fed incorrect information.
I would imagine they're commenting on incorrect polar bear statistics for the same reasons you are commenting on incorrect polar bear statistics.
This is lovely sauce for the goose.
Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder
Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder
Greenpeace Cofounder Dr Moore said:
It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years.
. . .
The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.
The above point appears to forget about windymills but then they are unreliables and unavailable to large swathes of the world population. How much has changed in 5 years...in 2014 and to the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy consumption supplied by wind power for example was 0% according to data from the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends report.. . .
The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
‘Plaguerising’
It is definitely plagiarising.Why don’t you ever pick up Robinessex or wc98 or dickymint for their spelling mistakes.
It just makes you look silly.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Apparently there has been a request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the Steyn vs Mann case (now 8 years and counting) in terms of the danger a Mann win would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Steyn supporters include not only the expected organisations such as Fox News, but others not routinely lined up against Mann and The Climate Empire including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. They have something in common here, namely a mission to see off 'the threat that Mann poses to a free society'.
That’s absolutely terrible.You’ve taken that straight from an advocacy blog and tried to make it look like you wrote it.
What would you call that if a scientist or one of your old students did that?
A new low.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff