Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
I agree, (with the first bit) I’m just pointing out that the evidence presented by turbobloke for the two landing aircraft causing a spike was unlikely, due to wind directions and power settings and taxiway configurations etc and was asking for the people that all thought it was to explain how it happened.
As you can see, they haven’t and now moved on to something else.
It happens often in this and the renewables thread, someone quotes some evidence which sounds a bit technical but is incorrect, from a blogger or whoever, it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny but the same posters all become google experts and jump in supporting it and making out they know all about it.
Then when it gets questioned by someone who does know about it, it all gets snowed under with loads of googled waffle and unrelated graphs and pictures and stories etc.
Then in 6 months when it comes up again they’ll shout about how it’s “already been covered on here FFS” and “attrition loops”
the alternative view is some people will reply with something that is perfectly reasonable in terms of an answer even if only opinion, that you will ignore,along with any questions they may ask of you. then you disappear for a while and come back with some more insults a few pages later.As you can see, they haven’t and now moved on to something else.
It happens often in this and the renewables thread, someone quotes some evidence which sounds a bit technical but is incorrect, from a blogger or whoever, it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny but the same posters all become google experts and jump in supporting it and making out they know all about it.
Then when it gets questioned by someone who does know about it, it all gets snowed under with loads of googled waffle and unrelated graphs and pictures and stories etc.
Then in 6 months when it comes up again they’ll shout about how it’s “already been covered on here FFS” and “attrition loops”
wc98 said:
the alternative view is some people will reply with something that is perfectly reasonable in terms of an answer even if only opinion, that you will ignore,along with any questions they may ask of you. then you disappear for a while and come back with some more insults a few pages later.
Nobody replied with anything reasonable that I ignored. If I ignored your posts it was because it was irrelevant and waffle.Why do you keep banging on about people “disappearing for a while” ? Do you seriously expect people to be on this thread at your beck and call to listen to this echo chamber of 5 poster’s opinion dressed up as fact all the time?
This job lot must appear very differently through the blinkers credulous eyes of faith:
1
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/long-term-globa...
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.u...
http://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/...
New Zealand unadjisted temperature data 1850-2000 show no overall temperature rise.
4
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
USA unadjusted temperature data for the 600+ sensor sites reporting annually 1900--2000 show no overall warming.
5
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317
Jones et al methodical insertion of warming bias into unadjusted Australia temperature data
"Sydney and Melbourne aside, there is not one station, long or short term, between Brisbane and Mt. Gambier. This area includes all of NSW and Victoria and contains the greatest concentration of long term recording stations in Australia. Must be one of the great and complete exclusions in the history of science."
Note
For anyone unaware, CDIAC = Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which is the primary climate change data and information analysis centre for the USA Department of Energy.
1
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/long-term-globa...
NASA said:
The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 deg F or 0.8 deg C since 1880
2http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.u...
NOAA/CDIAC chart showing data adjustments over this period said:
The adjustments made to global temperature data between 1900 and 2000 amount to 0.6 deg C warming
3http://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/...
New Zealand unadjisted temperature data 1850-2000 show no overall temperature rise.
4
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
USA unadjusted temperature data for the 600+ sensor sites reporting annually 1900--2000 show no overall warming.
5
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317
Jones et al methodical insertion of warming bias into unadjusted Australia temperature data
"Sydney and Melbourne aside, there is not one station, long or short term, between Brisbane and Mt. Gambier. This area includes all of NSW and Victoria and contains the greatest concentration of long term recording stations in Australia. Must be one of the great and complete exclusions in the history of science."
Note
For anyone unaware, CDIAC = Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which is the primary climate change data and information analysis centre for the USA Department of Energy.
One of the great exclusions of data...alongside Hadley-UKMO exclusion of Russia cold sites. Andrei Illarionov, head of a thinktank in Moscow, released the following report (pdf in Russian).
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.p...
This report compared the (then) newly-released HadCRUT data with records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied HadCRUT with data covering Russia.
According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database.
As Russia accounts for over 12% of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records rather than cherry picked warmer sites would significantly reduce the extent of global warming in recent times.
This is nothing new (see Jones of CRU & Australia omissions) and a certain individual at CRU has long been criticised for refusing full disclosure of the data and algorithms.
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.p...
This report compared the (then) newly-released HadCRUT data with records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied HadCRUT with data covering Russia.
According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database.
As Russia accounts for over 12% of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records rather than cherry picked warmer sites would significantly reduce the extent of global warming in recent times.
This is nothing new (see Jones of CRU & Australia omissions) and a certain individual at CRU has long been criticised for refusing full disclosure of the data and algorithms.
jjlynn27 said:
This thread just keeps giving (etc)
If that minimalist selection from the usual faith menu (shooting the messenger / smears / sarc / abuse / fallacies / verbiage) contains a convincing case for agw I missed it. Where was it cleverly hidden?Good post though! It almost had me believing in invisible things that ought to be visible, but something was lacking.
Credible evidence (empirical data).
While there's still lots of climate politics around, here's some 'giving' from the EU as reported by the GWPF.
GWPF coverage of the recent Junky Trumpy lovefest said:
Given Trump’s avowed intent to quit the Paris Agreement, the EU appeared to have ruled out the revival of transatlantic trade agreement talks unless he changed his mind.
Last year, EU heads of state frequently lobbied the president on the Paris deal. Juncker gave a speech calling Trump’s position an “abdication from common action”.
But on Wednesday, with Trump’s trade actions threatening EU auto-makers and farmers, Juncker adopted a more conciliatory tone.
“(Juncker’s) clear priority was to de-escalate the trade dispute with the US and to some extent that has been achieved for now,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director at European think-tank E3G.
“To do that the commission has diverged from its own line about the importance of the Paris Agreement and environmental standards in trade deals.
https://www.thegwpf.com/eu-abandons-climate-stance-in-trade-sop-to-trump/Last year, EU heads of state frequently lobbied the president on the Paris deal. Juncker gave a speech calling Trump’s position an “abdication from common action”.
But on Wednesday, with Trump’s trade actions threatening EU auto-makers and farmers, Juncker adopted a more conciliatory tone.
“(Juncker’s) clear priority was to de-escalate the trade dispute with the US and to some extent that has been achieved for now,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director at European think-tank E3G.
“To do that the commission has diverged from its own line about the importance of the Paris Agreement and environmental standards in trade deals.
That won't please Edenhofer who needs more pressure not less in order to extract EU taxpayers' cash to give away around the world as he memorably told everyone previously.
In the above non-news an IPCC bigwig admits that the climate agenda is all about redistributive politics not environment and saving the pwanet. Good job we knew already
how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot
Article said:
For climate science deniers, this is also the time of year to polish up their dodgy climate science talking points and those mythical conspiracy theories about the UN, new world orders, secretive global government plans, and other such illuminati activities.
One recurring feature of these efforts is what's known as quote mining, where lines are taken out of context to try and discredit people associated with climate science or the UN. If that doesn't work, then just make up words that people never said.
Here’s how it usually works. The “source” for a particular quote will invariably lead you down a rabbit hole, echoing with the sounds of other climate science deniers quoting the same material. If a misrepresentation occurs in two different places, this does not suddenly make it real.
Rarely, if ever, will the quote be linked to a primary source that might give you some idea of the context, relevance, or the actual date when the quote was supposedly delivered.
One recurring feature of these efforts is what's known as quote mining, where lines are taken out of context to try and discredit people associated with climate science or the UN. If that doesn't work, then just make up words that people never said.
Here’s how it usually works. The “source” for a particular quote will invariably lead you down a rabbit hole, echoing with the sounds of other climate science deniers quoting the same material. If a misrepresentation occurs in two different places, this does not suddenly make it real.
Rarely, if ever, will the quote be linked to a primary source that might give you some idea of the context, relevance, or the actual date when the quote was supposedly delivered.
turbobloke said:
https://www.thegwpf.com/eu-abandons-climate-stance...
That won't please Edenhofer who needs more pressure not less in order to extract EU taxpayers' cash to give away around the world as he memorably told everyone previously.
In the above non-news an IPCC bigwig admits that the climate agenda is all about redistributive politics not environment and saving the pwanet. Good job we knew already
And now you are distorting the point he was making beyond what is reasonable. That won't please Edenhofer who needs more pressure not less in order to extract EU taxpayers' cash to give away around the world as he memorably told everyone previously.
In the above non-news an IPCC bigwig admits that the climate agenda is all about redistributive politics not environment and saving the pwanet. Good job we knew already
Quote
A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.
You and Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.
Technology does the same thing - Saudi Arabia was a kingdom (or set of kingdoms ) of less than three million people living principally in a subsistence economy until the discovery of oil in 1938 and the systematic exploitation of that oil in the 1940s. Today, thanks to the value of oil, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world and a population of 23 million (28 million if you include foreign guest workers.).
If the planet decides we can no longer afford to burn oil, Saudi Arabia won’t go back entirely to its pre-1930 economy. But it would lose a lot of its present economic position.
End Quote
He he simply stating the obvious and not what you have perverted it into. Redistribution of wealth is a side effect, not the goal.
You’ll notce the 3 ...’s conveniently placed where he went on to say more. That graphic of yours is really just more fake news.
Edited by gadgetmac on Sunday 29th July 22:26
Countdown said:
Desmogblog.Hmm.
Pretty sure they know all about the subject covered here. They are experts.
Jinx said:
jjlynn27 said:
This thread just keeps giving. People arguing about plane engines with an actual pilot.
I would not trust a pilot to know about engines. The maintenance crew who service the aircraft and engineers who designed the engine, yes. Pilot not so much. They’d actually know plenty about engines and more importantly they would know more than you and other google experts here about power settings used on landing and the process of slowing down the aircraft and vacating the runway at Heathrow.
Who do you think would know more about thrust used on landing and vacating the runway than the people actually doing it?
I’ve flown B737 B757 B767 B777 and B787 and landed at Heathrow often. Are you really saying I don’t know about engines and what’s involved in operation of them when landing?
You are quite frankly an idiot.
El stovey said:
Seriously? what an astonishing statement. You’ve just displayed extraordinary ignorance.
They’d actually know plenty about engines and more importantly they would know more than you and other google experts here about power settings used on landing and the process of slowing down the aircraft and vacating the runway at Heathrow.
Who do you think would know more about thrust used on landing and vacating the runway than the people actually doing it?
I’ve flown B737 B757 B767 B777 and B787 and landed at Heathrow often. Are you really saying I don’t know about engines and what’s involved in operation of them when landing?
You are quite frankly an idiot.
And all pilots are the same are they? A Cesna pilot with a PPL has a full grasp of the complete workings of a Rolls-Royce Trent XWB turbofan?They’d actually know plenty about engines and more importantly they would know more than you and other google experts here about power settings used on landing and the process of slowing down the aircraft and vacating the runway at Heathrow.
Who do you think would know more about thrust used on landing and vacating the runway than the people actually doing it?
I’ve flown B737 B757 B767 B777 and B787 and landed at Heathrow often. Are you really saying I don’t know about engines and what’s involved in operation of them when landing?
You are quite frankly an idiot.
So no, just because someone is legally able to fly something doesn't make them an expert on all things aeronautical.
Jinx said:
And all pilots are the same are they? A Cesna pilot with a PPL has a full grasp of the complete workings of a Rolls-Royce Trent XWB turbofan?
So no, just because someone is legally able to fly something doesn't make them an expert on all things aeronautical.
He’s clearly talking about you climate thread google experts telling me how to operate an aircraft and arguing about thrust settings and telling me I don’t know about reverse thrust. So no, just because someone is legally able to fly something doesn't make them an expert on all things aeronautical.
El stovey said:
He’s clearly talking about you climate thread google experts telling me how to operate an aircraft and arguing about thrust settings and telling me I don’t know about reverse thrust.
I quoted the comment as it was a non-sequitur. Your knowledge of engine operation was not part of my comment and I did not refer to anyone individually. El stovey said:
Jinx said:
jjlynn27 said:
This thread just keeps giving. People arguing about plane engines with an actual pilot.
I would not trust a pilot to know about engines. The maintenance crew who service the aircraft and engineers who designed the engine, yes. Pilot not so much. They’d actually know plenty about engines and more importantly they would know more than you and other google experts here about power settings used on landing and the process of slowing down the aircraft and vacating the runway at Heathrow.
Who do you think would know more about thrust used on landing and vacating the runway than the people actually doing it?
I’ve flown B737 B757 B767 B777 and B787 and landed at Heathrow often. Are you really saying I don’t know about engines and what’s involved in operation of them when landing?
You are quite frankly an idiot.
I’d have thought understanding of the engine (and rest of the aircraft) would go with the type rating. Do you have to demonstrate knowledge of the aircraft mechanics and its components like the PPL? (Genuine interest!)
El stovey said:
He’s clearly talking about you climate thread google experts telling me how to operate an aircraft and arguing about thrust settings and telling me I don’t know about reverse thrust.
I've built and tested RB199 (Tornado) Olympus 593 (concorde) and Pegasus (Harrier Jump Jet) engines at Rolls Royce Bristol.Care to enlighten me what Google has taught you? After all you're the one that keeps banging on about others using Google as their only source of info
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff