Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[wc98]

Mr GrimNasty said:

dickymint said:

wc98 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

A nice concise Agenda 21 grounder/comment.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...

Local Agenda 21 (LA21) is regarded as a comprehensive local level action plan for the 21st century and has been embraced by the UK. In 1997 the British Prime-minister; Tony Blair said:

'I want all local authorities in the UK to adopt Local Agenda 21 Strategies by the year 2000.'

from here http://www.lordgrey.org.uk/~f014/usefulresources/a...

would appear most if not all local authorities are signed up.

Strange that Agenda 21 never gets mentioned by name by MSM - I've made a point of asking my mates and anybody I discuss climate with if they know about it, nobody has yet said they no about it, even a couple of Councillors I know hadn't!

Our democracy really is just an illusion. Keeps us all quiet, thinking we have a say, but with Europe, Agenda 21, etc. it matters not one iota who we vote for.

everyone i have ever spoken to about this is the same. a rampant tory mate (yes we do have them in scotland ) i was talking politics with the other day reckoned i was getting all tin foil hat . i directed him to google for some informed reading. looking forward to the next conversation . quite possibly with people adopting more insular lifestyles this type of thing is likely to pass them by ,well until it starts affecting how they live their lives in a big way.

[plunker]

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Edited by plunker on Sunday 15th March 16:17

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate, anyone would think you had found a global climate signal causally related to vehicle emissions when of course there isn't one.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate

Thanks TB - it's good to have people around who know about these things.

Edited by plunker on Sunday 15th March 21:09

[Mr GrimNasty]

Well Country File bias had a non-climate/windmill theme tonight.......

Cuts, Cuts, cuts, it's a disaster for the countryside, CUTSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Argggggghhhhh!

Another nicely balanced program then (sarky face).

[LongQ]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well Country File bias had a non-climate/windmill theme tonight.......

Cuts, Cuts, cuts, it's a disaster for the countryside, CUTSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Argggggghhhhh!

Another nicely balanced program then (sarky face).

Presumably they are talking cuts like the seemingly ever reducing price of milk paid to dairy farmers while the supermarkets and dairies import from abroad, mainly Europe I suppose based on proximity, "standards" and exchange rate.

Meanwhile our doorstep delivery company, very recently purchased by a German diary based desserts manufacturer, has been adding to the retail price.

Is that the sort of "cut" they were on about?

Or perhaps they are not getting their "cut" from the disturbine subsidies and solar power fields?

[Jasandjules]

LongQ said:

Or perhaps they are not getting their "cut" from the disturbine subsidies and solar power fields?

Well, maybe the cut in their pension returns invested in companies which can not sustain themselves without heavy state subsidy?!?

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate

it's good to have people around who know about these things.

Knowing is one thing, speaking it is another, the environment on PH means that when that type of accurate statement (nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate) appears, then unlike CIF or Wiki and similar sites, there's no William Connolley character waiting to delete it and ban the IP address. I appreciate that must be stressful for true believers but well, never mind.

plunker said:

Thanks TB

Almost forgot! You're welcome.

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well Country File bias had a non-climate/windmill theme tonight.......

Cuts, Cuts, cuts, it's a disaster for the countryside, CUTSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Argggggghhhhh!

Another nicely balanced program then (sarky face).

Resistance is futile! Election ahead, climate beanfeast ahead, if it's not ramping one it's pushing propaganda over the other. All entirely normal for the BBC.

[hidetheelephants]

It didn't take long for the TRS hitting Vanuatu to be blamed on climate change.

[turbobloke]

hidetheelephants said:

It didn't take long for the TRS hitting Vanuatu to be blamed on climate change.

Mrs TB said the BBC was on hyperoverdrive this morning with their language.

Making political capital out of the tragedy of a natural disaster is despicable.

[turbobloke]

An exercise in transcription/translation prompted by a link in a post from Mermaid in the Euro thread.

TAKE 1
Today, being part of the euro makes little sense. The currency is collapsing today because Europe is in a deflationary mess and Britain and the US are growing. In the future it will probably rebound – and all the while, Irish entrepreneurs have to deal with different prices, making business harder, not easier.

Yet the upper echelons of the Irish public sector and most ‘respectable people’ believe that being in the euro is a good thing, despite the overwhelming economic evidence to the contrary. The euro being a good thing is now conventional wisdom. And when an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it is extremely difficult to change it, because so many so-called ‘serious’ people have lined up behind it.

As the wonderful J K Galbraith noted, when serious people “are faced with the choice between changing their minds and finding the proof that there is no need to do so, they invariably get busy looking for the proof”.

As a result there is no debate, and those who suggest that the emperor has no clothes are dismissed as mavericks or cranks – or, worse still, they are accused, in the ultimate putdown deployed by serious people, of guess what? Not being serious.

TAKE 2
Today, tackling climate change makes little sense. The politicised junkscience is collapsing today because the data is in a mess and temperatures aren't rising. In the future it will probably cool – and all the while, entrepreneurs have to deal with rising energy prices, making business harder, not easier.

Yet the upper echelons of the public sector and most ‘respectable people’ believe that tackling climate change is a good thing, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The tackling climate change idea being a good thing is now conventional wisdom. And when an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it is extremely difficult to change it, because so many so-called ‘serious’ people have lined up behind it.

As the wonderful J K Galbraith noted, when serious people “are faced with the choice between changing their minds and finding the proof that there is no need to do so, they invariably get busy looking for the proof”.

As a result there is no debate, and those who suggest that the emperor has no clothes are dismissed as mavericks or cranks – or, worse still, they are accused, in the ultimate putdown deployed by serious people, of guess what? Not being serious.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate

it's good to have people around who know about these things.

Knowing is one thing, speaking it is another, the environment on PH means that when that type of accurate statement (nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate) appears, then unlike CIF or Wiki and similar sites, there's no William Connolley character waiting to delete it and ban the IP address. I appreciate that must be stressful for true believers but well, never mind.

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

[chris watton]

plunker said:

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.

I used to use it for the research I do in my line of work, until I realised (just like my step son's college tutors), that a lot of the info on there is quite laughably wrong.

[turbobloke]

Steve M has posted a reminder about Pal Review over at CA.

McIntyre said:

Coauthors of Rutherford et al (J Climate 2005) were Rutherford, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Osborn and Briffa. Its editor was Andrew Weaver. It was formally submitted on Sept 16, 2003, received two reviews in January 2004, revised and resubmitted on June 29, 2004, accepted without revision on September 27, 2004 and published in July 2005.

On January 1, 2005, Weaver became chief editor of Journal of Climate. On January 4, 2005, Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann submitted Testing the fidelity of methods used in proxy-based reconstructions of past climate.

On January 7, 2005, Weaver asked Keith Briffa, one of the coauthors of Rutherford, Mann et al 2005, to act as a peer reviewer for Mann, Rutherford et al 2005. Because of his IPCC commitments, Briffa declined (suggesting Wigley), but neither Weaver nor Briffa seemed the least bit concerned about any potential impropriety arising from Briffa acting as a buddy peer reviewer.

Clothes pegs on noses time (again). Keep those pegs on!

Prof Kelly offered a wake up call and coffee to the Royal Sorcery when he said:

Five years ago, I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society – the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world – who wrote to our then-president about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.

The reason for our warning was a Society document which stated breezily: ‘If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.’ The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.

We hoped we would persuade the Society to rethink this position. That document was revised so that the uncertainty involved in trying to model the climate was admitted. But since then the Society has become more, not less dogmatic – despite the fact that since we sent that letter, it has become evident that there is even more uncertainty than previously thought. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.

[4v6]

plunker said:

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Credible support?
Jumkscience propped up by tortured data, massaged by models and jerked off over by true believers.
The case for AGW is shot to bits.

Youre wrong, you know it and theres nothing you can do about it.

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

krunchkin said:

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but what a fascinating article - it shows just how laughable any attempt to blame the vast global forces that affect climate on humans is ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summ...

Looks like a striking example of how much emissions from a single 'exhaust pipe' can affect climate to me.

I've often wondered what the collective human exhaust pipe would look like.

Nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate

it's good to have people around who know about these things.

Knowing is one thing, speaking it is another, the environment on PH means that when that type of accurate statement (nothing from an exhaust pipe has affected global climate) appears, then unlike CIF or Wiki and similar sites, there's no William Connolley character waiting to delete it and ban the IP address. I appreciate that must be stressful for true believers but well, never mind.

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Massive irony, and calling it irony is being kind. Climate realists don't "just know" as that, by definition, is the realm of True Belief. Climate realists look to the data. When a position (which happens to be mine not yours) aligns with the data, even the empty rhetoric of believerdom has no chance at all. Keep plunking plugging away! You're getting there just like British Rail never really did.

[Diderot]

chris watton said:

plunker said:

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.

I used to use it for the research I do in my line of work, until I realised (just like my step son's college tutors), that a lot of the info on there is quite laughably wrong.

indeed, there's a reason why in HE circles it's banned and why we call it: wkypedia

[plunker]

chris watton said:

plunker said:

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.

I would've thought that's because Encylcopedia in general aren't considered a primary source.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

chris watton said:

plunker said:

That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.

I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.

Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.

I used to use it for the research I do in my line of work, until I realised (just like my step son's college tutors), that a lot of the info on there is quite laughably wrong.

indeed, there's a reason why in HE circles it's banned and why we call it: wkypedia

wnakypedia is 'worthless and damaging'

wnakypedia climate fiddler Connolley is back in the news dated 2013

the scorning of William Connolley, by Pointman

William Connolley aka Thoughtcop

“And while the future’s there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past.”
Fountain of Sorrow
Jackson Browne