Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
LongQ said:
David Derbyshire in the Daily Mail discovers diesel duplicity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2617425/...
Nothing really new as far as one can tell from a quick scan - but is a big full page article and I rather liked the penulimate paragraph.
"Sadly, when it comes to the environment, politicians and pundits often lose any grip on their critical faculties. They blindly support the latest supposed panacea for our ills — then force us to adopt it, with often grotesque consequences."
Exactly. Something that needs saying and should have been said at least 10 years ago when it became clear 'they' were going to keep the scams going no matter what.
It's ironic that a global warming believer is trying to make the case against diesel cars considering by his own admission they are all about trying to meet tougher CO2 emissions limits.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2617425/...
Nothing really new as far as one can tell from a quick scan - but is a big full page article and I rather liked the penulimate paragraph.
"Sadly, when it comes to the environment, politicians and pundits often lose any grip on their critical faculties. They blindly support the latest supposed panacea for our ills — then force us to adopt it, with often grotesque consequences."
Exactly. Something that needs saying and should have been said at least 10 years ago when it became clear 'they' were going to keep the scams going no matter what.
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Nigel Lawson: The Bath Lecture
Excellent. Hits nail on head with sublime calm, restraint and respect.Pity this clown can't do the same...
A New God Of Chaos Emerges From Climate Fear & Climate Fatigue
The problem is, it’s just so hard to be an alarmist these days. Temperatures aren’t rising, USA CO2 emissions are down, and now it turns out that peak oil won’t peak. What’s a scare-monger to do?
Editorial, The Tyler Morning Telegraph, 01 May 2014
I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science… I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. Lennart Bengtsson, The State of the Climate, 01 May 2014
Catching evolution in action is hard. But a group [of researcher] has now provided an example of selection responding to a human action that was most definitely unintentional: the explosion and fire at a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, 28 years ago. They sent blood and feather samples from 120 birds of 13 species they collected from both high- and low-radiation regions around the defunct reactor at Chernobyl to Dr Galván, who looked for genetic damage in them and also analysed their levels of glutathione, an antioxidant that mops up highly reactive (and therefore harmful) molecules created when radiation hits biological tissues. In those birds taken from low-radiation zones the average concentration of glutathione was 450 micrograms per gram of body mass; in high-radiation areas it was 725 micrograms per gram. Moreover, the higher a bird’s glutathione level, the lower the amount of genetic damage Dr Galván could spot in its cells. Birds in high-radiation zones, then, seem to have evolved to deal with the threat, just as Darwin would have predicted.
The Economist, 03 May 2014
Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.
Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 04 May 2014
What has changed is that many of today’s scientists and, by and large, the public think that nature is very fickle, very unstable, that anything could tip it into utter chaos. We’re almost back to the view of nature where the ancient pagans looked like they thought they were at the whim of irrational gods punishing mankind at will. They didn’t understand basic physics, the basic scientific dynamics of nature. That was the big breakthrough of the enlightenment, where we discovered we could understand exactly how nature works. And today we’re back in the situation where people no longer trust nature, and they feel that anything we do, any intervention could flip nature into some kind of ‘revenge of Gaia’, that certainly there could be a tipping point that could tip our stable environment into a chaotic, disastrous downturn.
Dr Benny Peiser, The Institute of Art and Ideas, 05 May 2014
Maybe we've reached the tipping point over use of tipping points.
The problem is, it’s just so hard to be an alarmist these days. Temperatures aren’t rising, USA CO2 emissions are down, and now it turns out that peak oil won’t peak. What’s a scare-monger to do?
Editorial, The Tyler Morning Telegraph, 01 May 2014
I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science… I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. Lennart Bengtsson, The State of the Climate, 01 May 2014
Catching evolution in action is hard. But a group [of researcher] has now provided an example of selection responding to a human action that was most definitely unintentional: the explosion and fire at a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, 28 years ago. They sent blood and feather samples from 120 birds of 13 species they collected from both high- and low-radiation regions around the defunct reactor at Chernobyl to Dr Galván, who looked for genetic damage in them and also analysed their levels of glutathione, an antioxidant that mops up highly reactive (and therefore harmful) molecules created when radiation hits biological tissues. In those birds taken from low-radiation zones the average concentration of glutathione was 450 micrograms per gram of body mass; in high-radiation areas it was 725 micrograms per gram. Moreover, the higher a bird’s glutathione level, the lower the amount of genetic damage Dr Galván could spot in its cells. Birds in high-radiation zones, then, seem to have evolved to deal with the threat, just as Darwin would have predicted.
The Economist, 03 May 2014
Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.
Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 04 May 2014
What has changed is that many of today’s scientists and, by and large, the public think that nature is very fickle, very unstable, that anything could tip it into utter chaos. We’re almost back to the view of nature where the ancient pagans looked like they thought they were at the whim of irrational gods punishing mankind at will. They didn’t understand basic physics, the basic scientific dynamics of nature. That was the big breakthrough of the enlightenment, where we discovered we could understand exactly how nature works. And today we’re back in the situation where people no longer trust nature, and they feel that anything we do, any intervention could flip nature into some kind of ‘revenge of Gaia’, that certainly there could be a tipping point that could tip our stable environment into a chaotic, disastrous downturn.
Dr Benny Peiser, The Institute of Art and Ideas, 05 May 2014
Maybe we've reached the tipping point over use of tipping points.
Meanwhile the weather propaganda service ( aka the UK Met office forecast ) as expected seems to have been a case of putting a warm spin on what is in reality just another cold miserable weekend for May with yet more s
t weather moving in .With no real settled dry summer warming trend in sight even as I've said as far south as Italy.
t weather moving in .With no real settled dry summer warming trend in sight even as I've said as far south as Italy. Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 5th May 15:24
Something that occurred to me today when reading Simon Heffer's Pedantic English observations in the Mail.
"REFUTE, REBUT and REJECT: Refute is a verb often used by people who simply mean contradict or deny. However, refutation requires proof. I may say the train for London is scheduled to leave at 11.30. You may say it goes at 11.45. By recourse to the timetable, I can refute your claim. To rebut a contention is to offer an argument against it, but not necessarily to prove it is wrong. To reject is simply to throw a claim out."
The words Rebut and Rebuttal are often bandied about in science, especially "climate science", as if they entirely demolish an argument or position that has been presented for consideration and discussion.
To do so is a misrepresentation of the the message being delivered, presumably for reasons of obfuscation.
So why is it a word family so regularly used by some of the most educated (so they would claim) people on the planet?
Likewise ....
"CONVINCE and PERSUADE are often used as if interchangeable: they are not. To convince someone of something is to make him admit the truth of a contention, thanks to the force of one’s argument. To persuade someone of something means to induce him to believe it. For example, someone can convince me of his age by showing me his birth certificate. He can persuade me of the Christian miracles if I choose to believe him, but he can offer me no proof."
So should we refer to those who adopt the creed of warmism as "Persuaders"?
"REFUTE, REBUT and REJECT: Refute is a verb often used by people who simply mean contradict or deny. However, refutation requires proof. I may say the train for London is scheduled to leave at 11.30. You may say it goes at 11.45. By recourse to the timetable, I can refute your claim. To rebut a contention is to offer an argument against it, but not necessarily to prove it is wrong. To reject is simply to throw a claim out."
The words Rebut and Rebuttal are often bandied about in science, especially "climate science", as if they entirely demolish an argument or position that has been presented for consideration and discussion.
To do so is a misrepresentation of the the message being delivered, presumably for reasons of obfuscation.
So why is it a word family so regularly used by some of the most educated (so they would claim) people on the planet?
Likewise ....
"CONVINCE and PERSUADE are often used as if interchangeable: they are not. To convince someone of something is to make him admit the truth of a contention, thanks to the force of one’s argument. To persuade someone of something means to induce him to believe it. For example, someone can convince me of his age by showing me his birth certificate. He can persuade me of the Christian miracles if I choose to believe him, but he can offer me no proof."
So should we refer to those who adopt the creed of warmism as "Persuaders"?
turbobloke said:
A New God Of Chaos Emerges From Climate Fear & Climate Fatigue
The problem is, it’s just so hard to be an alarmist these days. Temperatures aren’t rising, USA CO2 emissions are down, and now it turns out that peak oil won’t peak. What’s a scare-monger to do?
Editorial, The Tyler Morning Telegraph, 01 May 2014
I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science… I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. Lennart Bengtsson, The State of the Climate, 01 May 2014
Catching evolution in action is hard. But a group [of researcher] has now provided an example of selection responding to a human action that was most definitely unintentional: the explosion and fire at a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, 28 years ago. They sent blood and feather samples from 120 birds of 13 species they collected from both high- and low-radiation regions around the defunct reactor at Chernobyl to Dr Galván, who looked for genetic damage in them and also analysed their levels of glutathione, an antioxidant that mops up highly reactive (and therefore harmful) molecules created when radiation hits biological tissues. In those birds taken from low-radiation zones the average concentration of glutathione was 450 micrograms per gram of body mass; in high-radiation areas it was 725 micrograms per gram. Moreover, the higher a bird’s glutathione level, the lower the amount of genetic damage Dr Galván could spot in its cells. Birds in high-radiation zones, then, seem to have evolved to deal with the threat, just as Darwin would have predicted.
The Economist, 03 May 2014
Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.
Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 04 May 2014
What has changed is that many of today’s scientists and, by and large, the public think that nature is very fickle, very unstable, that anything could tip it into utter chaos. We’re almost back to the view of nature where the ancient pagans looked like they thought they were at the whim of irrational gods punishing mankind at will. They didn’t understand basic physics, the basic scientific dynamics of nature. That was the big breakthrough of the enlightenment, where we discovered we could understand exactly how nature works. And today we’re back in the situation where people no longer trust nature, and they feel that anything we do, any intervention could flip nature into some kind of ‘revenge of Gaia’, that certainly there could be a tipping point that could tip our stable environment into a chaotic, disastrous downturn.
Dr Benny Peiser, The Institute of Art and Ideas, 05 May 2014
Maybe we've reached the tipping point over use of tipping points.
I've heard a similar bird story at Chernobyl before. Some birds developed mutations that gave them different colours. What happened was that these birds were no longer attractive to the rest of the birds and the mutation died out. Normal service resumed. In fact, the program I saw this on was a BBC one (I'm sure) and the conclusion was that wildlife was in rude health, better than when the town was inhabited, rather than died out due to radiation.The problem is, it’s just so hard to be an alarmist these days. Temperatures aren’t rising, USA CO2 emissions are down, and now it turns out that peak oil won’t peak. What’s a scare-monger to do?
Editorial, The Tyler Morning Telegraph, 01 May 2014
I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science… I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. Lennart Bengtsson, The State of the Climate, 01 May 2014
Catching evolution in action is hard. But a group [of researcher] has now provided an example of selection responding to a human action that was most definitely unintentional: the explosion and fire at a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, 28 years ago. They sent blood and feather samples from 120 birds of 13 species they collected from both high- and low-radiation regions around the defunct reactor at Chernobyl to Dr Galván, who looked for genetic damage in them and also analysed their levels of glutathione, an antioxidant that mops up highly reactive (and therefore harmful) molecules created when radiation hits biological tissues. In those birds taken from low-radiation zones the average concentration of glutathione was 450 micrograms per gram of body mass; in high-radiation areas it was 725 micrograms per gram. Moreover, the higher a bird’s glutathione level, the lower the amount of genetic damage Dr Galván could spot in its cells. Birds in high-radiation zones, then, seem to have evolved to deal with the threat, just as Darwin would have predicted.
The Economist, 03 May 2014
Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.
Paul Homewood, Not a Lot Of People Know That, 04 May 2014
What has changed is that many of today’s scientists and, by and large, the public think that nature is very fickle, very unstable, that anything could tip it into utter chaos. We’re almost back to the view of nature where the ancient pagans looked like they thought they were at the whim of irrational gods punishing mankind at will. They didn’t understand basic physics, the basic scientific dynamics of nature. That was the big breakthrough of the enlightenment, where we discovered we could understand exactly how nature works. And today we’re back in the situation where people no longer trust nature, and they feel that anything we do, any intervention could flip nature into some kind of ‘revenge of Gaia’, that certainly there could be a tipping point that could tip our stable environment into a chaotic, disastrous downturn.
Dr Benny Peiser, The Institute of Art and Ideas, 05 May 2014
Maybe we've reached the tipping point over use of tipping points.
LongQ said:
Something that occurred to me today when reading Simon Heffer's Pedantic English observations in the Mail.
"REFUTE, REBUT and REJECT: Refute is a verb often used by people who simply mean contradict or deny. However, refutation requires proof. I may say the train for London is scheduled to leave at 11.30. You may say it goes at 11.45. By recourse to the timetable, I can refute your claim. To rebut a contention is to offer an argument against it, but not necessarily to prove it is wrong. To reject is simply to throw a claim out."
The words Rebut and Rebuttal are often bandied about in science, especially "climate science", as if they entirely demolish an argument or position that has been presented for consideration and discussion.
To do so is a misrepresentation of the the message being delivered, presumably for reasons of obfuscation.
So why is it a word family so regularly used by some of the most educated (so they would claim) people on the planet?
Likewise ....
"CONVINCE and PERSUADE are often used as if interchangeable: they are not. To convince someone of something is to make him admit the truth of a contention, thanks to the force of one’s argument. To persuade someone of something means to induce him to believe it. For example, someone can convince me of his age by showing me his birth certificate. He can persuade me of the Christian miracles if I choose to believe him, but he can offer me no proof."
So should we refer to those who adopt the creed of warmism as "Persuaders"?
Even the ruling class has fallen foul of bad education in the UK."REFUTE, REBUT and REJECT: Refute is a verb often used by people who simply mean contradict or deny. However, refutation requires proof. I may say the train for London is scheduled to leave at 11.30. You may say it goes at 11.45. By recourse to the timetable, I can refute your claim. To rebut a contention is to offer an argument against it, but not necessarily to prove it is wrong. To reject is simply to throw a claim out."
The words Rebut and Rebuttal are often bandied about in science, especially "climate science", as if they entirely demolish an argument or position that has been presented for consideration and discussion.
To do so is a misrepresentation of the the message being delivered, presumably for reasons of obfuscation.
So why is it a word family so regularly used by some of the most educated (so they would claim) people on the planet?
Likewise ....
"CONVINCE and PERSUADE are often used as if interchangeable: they are not. To convince someone of something is to make him admit the truth of a contention, thanks to the force of one’s argument. To persuade someone of something means to induce him to believe it. For example, someone can convince me of his age by showing me his birth certificate. He can persuade me of the Christian miracles if I choose to believe him, but he can offer me no proof."
So should we refer to those who adopt the creed of warmism as "Persuaders"?
Examples of basic stuff include Gordon Brown, who doesn't know the singular of pence is penny and they all fail to pronounce economics correctly.
We're on a slippery slope here, mes braves...
Guam said:
A real NSS moment there. Cooling really is the new warming.
Would a reminder on what global means in this context do any good? Thought not.
Nothing 'global' for nearly 18 years now is it not...
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Guam said:
A real NSS moment there. Cooling really is the new warming.Would a reminder on what global means in this context do any good? Thought not.
Nothing 'global' for nearly 18 years now is it not...
When the artificial construct was heading in the correct direction it had meaning, when it doesn't behave religiously and do what the IPCC expects 'Houston We Have A Problem' and assorted bilge starts slopping around in the sewer of suborned science.
PistonHeads: Alliteration Matters
XJ Flyer said:
Meanwhile the weather propaganda service ( aka the UK Met office forecast ) as expected seems to have been a case of putting a warm spin on what is in reality just another cold miserable weekend for May with yet more st weather moving in .With no real settled dry summer warming trend in sight even as I've said as far south as Italy.
I've noticed the Met has been giving undue prominence to the London conurbation temperature max., when in reality as you say, 90% of the country has been very normally on the chill side. We've just had 3 air frosts and 3 days colder than most of Jan here on the South Coast. Also notice that town mins of 7 - 8C are reached when the countryside is getting a touch of air frost. It is impossible not to conclude that urban areas are causing a seriously exaggerated temperature record.t weather moving in .With no real settled dry summer warming trend in sight even as I've said as far south as Italy. Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 5th May 15:24
This spring has also been remarkably calm here on the south coast, I cannot remember a year when I have not had to protect young growth from stormy winds, it has also been fairly dry. Nature always averages things out. The winter storms can now been seen as nothing of importance.
As ever, it is nuts, to draw any conclusion/propaganda from any weather event. It will not be possible to determine 'climate change' until hundreds of years hence.
And yet my house in the North East countryside has been sat at 17-18 degrees since Friday without the heating on at all because the weather was so nice over the weekend. I dont think you can really draw any conclusions about the climate from the weather over any short period of time.
Did anyone here Harrabin on R4 this morning? Reporting on a report released in the US compiled by "300 climate experts", the 'balance' added to the report was, "An anonymous blogger said, "RANT"" and "Someone on twitter said, "RANT"". Amazing.
Did anyone here Harrabin on R4 this morning? Reporting on a report released in the US compiled by "300 climate experts", the 'balance' added to the report was, "An anonymous blogger said, "RANT"" and "Someone on twitter said, "RANT"". Amazing.
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Guam said:
A real NSS moment there. Cooling really is the new warming.Would a reminder on what global means in this context do any good? Thought not.
Nothing 'global' for nearly 18 years now is it not...
the artificial construct was heading in the correct direction it had meaning, when it doesn't behave religiously and do what the IPCC expects 'Houston We Have A Problem' and assorted bilge starts slopping around in the sewer of suborned science.
PistonHeads: Alliteration Matters
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff