Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Kawasicki]

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

virtual climate

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

There's going to be a shortage of parrots at this rate...even so, with global wildfires decreasing and LTT temperature down below the 30-year running average, make mine a friendly African grey.

Apparently Biden is about to host a virtual climate whine tasting event, though China's playing hard to get.

Boris is allegedly fighting to keep Glasgow going, with other world leaders looking to zoom it into cyberspace because of covid. It had better go ahead somehow, with the BBC in glandular overdrive there would be a lot of heat but not much light wasted otherwise.

[dickymint]

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Well you could post it in the 'science thread' but don't expect it to get passed the gate-keeper

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

Apparently Biden is about to host a virtual climate whine tasting event

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Time to first falsehood - 10 seconds

And your proof ?
I am all ears

I double checked it with my watch and it was defo 10 seconds (ish)

I paraphrase: satellites provide greater coverage than land-based thermometers. Is that what you're referring to?

Missed the crucial word - surface. Satellite IR sensors don't 'see' down to the surface very well and there is no satellite dataset for surface temp.

Well he actually says the following: '... satellites are by far the most accurate way to measure the temperature of the earth, this is largely because satellites provide much better coverage of the Earth's surface than ground-based thermometers.'

I guess one's reading of this depends upon whether one considers the surface of the Earth to include the Oceans (which of course make up 2/3rds of the surface. Beyond this, in terms of coverage (and given the systematic reduction in the number of weather stations in recent decades and the lack of measurements in remote areas) I think his point is a good one. My problem with it is that I find it difficult to listen to his drawling voice for more than 10 seconds; it sends me to sleep.

Not sure what your point is re oceans. The satellites are a measurement of a broad layer of the troposphere. That they don't measure the surface temps is shown by the delayed response in the sattelite obs to El Nino/la Nina variation compared to surface obs - it takes time for surface temperature changes to transmit through the atmosphere.

[turbobloke]

Memories are made of this.

Statement from 2008 said:

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend :–

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 04 March.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

It isn't.
I got banned from CiF, for pointing out to them, that in just one of their papers, they had an article expounding the dangers of pollution caused by air traffic, right next to another article, exhorting their readers to fly to Hong Kong to sample the meatballs in a floating restaurant there, or to fly to Mexico, to enjoy the vibrant street processions. or to fly to Switzerland to breath in the brilliant fresh mountain air.
They are just a paper trying to make money, like papers they focus on certain groups who they know will align themselves with their particular point of view, and who will carry on buying their product

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

It isn't.
I got banned from CiF, for pointing out to them, that in just one of their papers, they had an article expounding the dangers of pollution caused by air traffic, right next to another article, exhorting their readers to fly to Hong Kong to sample the meatballs in a floating restaurant there, or to fly to Mexico, to enjoy the vibrant street processions. or to fly to Switzerland to breath in the brilliant fresh mountain air.
They are just a paper trying to make money, like papers they focus on certain groups who they know will align themselves with their particular point of view, and who will carry on buying their product

It is a major news outlet, if they were publishing articles contrary to climate science there would be uproar, no?

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

It isn't.
I got banned from CiF, for pointing out to them, that in just one of their papers, they had an article expounding the dangers of pollution caused by air traffic, right next to another article, exhorting their readers to fly to Hong Kong to sample the meatballs in a floating restaurant there, or to fly to Mexico, to enjoy the vibrant street processions. or to fly to Switzerland to breath in the brilliant fresh mountain air.
They are just a paper trying to make money, like papers they focus on certain groups who they know will align themselves with their particular point of view, and who will carry on buying their product

It is a major news outlet, if they were publishing articles contrary to climate science there would be uproar, no?

NO

[Kawasicki]

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Not sure whether to post this here or in the climate science thread?

The planet is burning. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here. This is a statement of science, not politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/1...

Ignore it, the Guardian is barmy.

Barmy? Everything they write is backed up by climate science.

It isn't.
I got banned from CiF, for pointing out to them, that in just one of their papers, they had an article expounding the dangers of pollution caused by air traffic, right next to another article, exhorting their readers to fly to Hong Kong to sample the meatballs in a floating restaurant there, or to fly to Mexico, to enjoy the vibrant street processions. or to fly to Switzerland to breath in the brilliant fresh mountain air.
They are just a paper trying to make money, like papers they focus on certain groups who they know will align themselves with their particular point of view, and who will carry on buying their product

It is a major news outlet, if they were publishing articles contrary to climate science there would be uproar, no?

NO

Of course there would be uproar. Real climate scientists and their trusted and established scientific institutions would be apoplectic with rage if the mainstream media misrepresented climate science.

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

Of course there would be uproar. Real climate scientists and their trusted and established scientific institutions would be apoplectic with rage if the mainstream media misrepresented climate science.

It's ok though to greatly exaggerate CC all the time, with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess, disguised as a study.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

It's bloody obvious. If you can't scientifically prove it, it's all a bloody fairytale.

[Kawasicki]

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

Of course there would be uproar. Real climate scientists and their trusted and established scientific institutions would be apoplectic with rage if the mainstream media misrepresented climate science.

It's ok though to greatly exaggerate CC all the time, with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess, disguised as a study.

They're not guessing, they are using sophisticated climate models based on well understood physics based principles (plus a few small tweak numbers to make the model produce realistic/expected results). They model results also match very well to observed data (which has been tweaked/quality controlled to make the data realistic).

It's clear that the vast majority of climate scientists have no issue with what the Guardian is reporting.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

It's bloody obvious. If you can't scientifically prove it, it's all a bloody fairytale.

Go ahead and prove they're exaggerating then

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 15th April 13:26

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

It's bloody obvious. If you can't scientifically prove it, it's all a bloody fairytale.

Go ahead and prove they're exaggerating then

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 15th April 13:26

The planet is burning.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

It's bloody obvious. If you can't scientifically prove it, it's all a bloody fairytale.

Go ahead and prove they're exaggerating then

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 15th April 13:26

Have you any idea how science works?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

with lots of future (supposed) effects of it nothing more than a guess

Quite like your claims then.

How are you a special case with a free pass?

No one can scientifically prove CC screws up the weather it's all guessing and subjective.

So no one can say they are exaggerating then.

Or are you the exception that just *knows*?

It's bloody obvious. If you can't scientifically prove it, it's all a bloody fairytale.

Go ahead and prove they're exaggerating then

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 15th April 13:26

Have you any idea how science works?

I can see a 'free pass' coming