Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
johnfm said:
What the heck is 'consensus science'?
Honestly, just get back to whatever it is you do (something not requiring much thinking I expect) and leave science to people who understand what science is.
Clue: it doesn't involve consensus in any way, shape or form.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensusHonestly, just get back to whatever it is you do (something not requiring much thinking I expect) and leave science to people who understand what science is.
Clue: it doesn't involve consensus in any way, shape or form.
“Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution,[3][4] climate change,[5] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]”
It’s not difficult. There’s a scientific consensus, someone disproves it. That becomes the new scientific consensus. It’s exactly how science works.
Obviously on this thread, your lot can’t accept that or disprove the consensus so you have to say there’s no consensus or even that science doesn’t work by consensus.
turbobloke said:
The troll statement bank is narrowing to extinction in...50 years, more or less. Changes will be huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3681780/...
"I see they learned from al gore to push out theirpredictions wild-ass guesses beyond the lifespan of most of the audience"
The industrial and energy revolution has a lot to answer for.https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3681780/...
"I see they learned from al gore to push out their
Creating huge polluted cities and driving all of the originally resident birds far away from them ... even worse with the arrival or electric street lights.
Obviously the birds could not cope with the changes in body clock the artificially lit hours of the night would have produce which is why the left en masse.
Right?
Is this chap attempting to develop a new version of Silent Spring attuned to 21st century brain patterns?
"Another threat is the spread of avian malaria from tropical areas under a climate-change scenario, “marching to the poles, away from the equatorial regions,” Cassone said."
Why is it that any form of malaria is always associated with "tropical" areas?
Essex, when it was mostly marshland near the coast, was well known for its population suffering illnesses that were extensive locally and seemed to be locally contained. "Marsh Gas" was blamed if I recall correctly. More accurately it was malaria.
When the Russians were building St. Petersburg it was estimated that hundreds of thousands of often migrant workers were killed by the awful winter weather conditions on the one hand and terriible sickness in the summer. Apart from the dire winter cold the sickness to blame was malaria from the local swamps.
So far as I can see neither Essex nor St. Petersburg are or ere thought to be tropical locations. What's missing from the over all picture here?
El stovey said:
Wow all the cult crybabies are out in force. Getting all angry and resorting to abuse. Getting posts removed and flouncing off repeatedly. 
The reason you lot are called a cult is that you show cult like behaviour. You think you’re right and consensus science is wrong.and you all slavishly follow turbobloke, the cult leader.
I can only imagine the reason you lot all get so angry, is because you become convinced by turbobloke and his dogma but then you can’t then understand why the majority of scientists and institutions and scientific consensus disagrees with you.
So you have to reason that they’re all in on some kind of deception.
Seriously, just think about it for a minute and calm down. Then you won’t all be getting posts removed for being so silly.
lol, the only cry baby i saw was the one reporting someone to the mods because a bad man swore at him for being a tool. The reason you lot are called a cult is that you show cult like behaviour. You think you’re right and consensus science is wrong.and you all slavishly follow turbobloke, the cult leader.
I can only imagine the reason you lot all get so angry, is because you become convinced by turbobloke and his dogma but then you can’t then understand why the majority of scientists and institutions and scientific consensus disagrees with you.
So you have to reason that they’re all in on some kind of deception.
Seriously, just think about it for a minute and calm down. Then you won’t all be getting posts removed for being so silly.
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Wow all the cult crybabies are out in force. Getting all angry and resorting to abuse. Getting posts removed and flouncing off repeatedly.
The reason you lot are called a cult is that you show cult like behaviour. You think you’re right and consensus science is wrong.and you all slavishly follow turbobloke, the cult leader.
I can only imagine the reason you lot all get so angry, is because you become convinced by turbobloke and his dogma but then you can’t then understand why the majority of scientists and institutions and scientific consensus disagrees with you.
So you have to reason that they’re all in on some kind of deception.
Seriously, just think about it for a minute and calm down. Then you won’t all be getting posts removed for being so silly.
lol, the only cry baby i saw was the one reporting someone to the mods because a bad man swore at him for being a tool. The reason you lot are called a cult is that you show cult like behaviour. You think you’re right and consensus science is wrong.and you all slavishly follow turbobloke, the cult leader.
I can only imagine the reason you lot all get so angry, is because you become convinced by turbobloke and his dogma but then you can’t then understand why the majority of scientists and institutions and scientific consensus disagrees with you.
So you have to reason that they’re all in on some kind of deception.
Seriously, just think about it for a minute and calm down. Then you won’t all be getting posts removed for being so silly.
It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. 
El stovey said:
johnfm said:
What the heck is 'consensus science'?
Honestly, just get back to whatever it is you do (something not requiring much thinking I expect) and leave science to people who understand what science is.
Clue: it doesn't involve consensus in any way, shape or form.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensusHonestly, just get back to whatever it is you do (something not requiring much thinking I expect) and leave science to people who understand what science is.
Clue: it doesn't involve consensus in any way, shape or form.
“Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution,[3][4] climate change,[5] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]”
It’s not difficult. There’s a scientific consensus, someone disproves it. That becomes the new scientific consensus. It’s exactly how science works.
Obviously on this thread, your lot can’t accept that or disprove the consensus so you have to say there’s no consensus or even that science doesn’t work by consensus.
And you chose Wiki .... have some more
Back under the bridge with you!
Edited by dickymint on Monday 27th August 15:03
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work as adopted and amended by the IPCC 1999-2003 states that when changes in the longer Report are required to conform it to the SPM then the authors of the longer Report will make changes to ensure conformity with the SPM. Consistency with the political messages in the SPM constrains what's left in the technical (scientific) report content.
This appendix also explains how non-published and non-peer-reviewed material is used by the IPCC (grey lit) where it serves a political purpose. This has inevitably led to problems e.g. when anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine and similar materoal from a student's masters' dissertation were included.to bolster claims about mountain-top ice mass changes This saga followed an apology and retraction relating to inaccurate claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. 'Glaciergate' and 'Mountainguidegate' are in a long list of embarrassments for the IPCC: Disastergate, Pachaurigate, Sterngate, Infraredgate Water(vapour)gate, Tourismgate, Refugeegate, Weathergate, Judithgate, Africagate and Dutchgate as discussed in PH climate threads at the time (most or all should still available online unless the source has taken them down as per The Independent and Viner's "children won't know what snow is" hilarity). Bob Ward ex PR man for the RS has been noted in dispatches for stoic defence duties.
Presumably this catalogue of nonsense will get the usual vacuous 'meme' response which is meaningless.
dickymint said:
You’re talking to a Scientist you daft troll
And you chose Wiki .... have some more
Back under the bridge with you!
More yapping from the cult pet dog.And you chose Wiki .... have some more
Back under the bridge with you!
Edited by dickymint on Monday 27th August 15:03
Who’s a scientist you or John?
Wiki explains perfectly what a scientific consensus is, you should read it instead of slavishly following the teachings of turbobloke.
It’s a shame Ali flounced off because that will likely mean you will now be the last to be chosen when the cult are picking teams for trivial pursuit.
Amidst all of their transparent and predictable diversionary tactics, we still haven’t had an answer to the question from Durbster, Gadget et al whether they deny that the models are wrong and whether they deny the existence of the 18 year pause. Answers on a recyclable postcard please. I’m only holding my breath in case I tip the climate over the precipice. Can’t be too careful these days.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
In fact there is the correct interpretation of what he was saying and there is the deliberate misrepresentation of what he said - which has been truncated to fit the denier narrative with the context completly omitted. It was also said in an interview conducted in Swiss-German and so translated without the nuance.
Wealth had already been redistributed away from the poorer countries to the wealthy industrialised countries by the expropriation of the atmosphere of the world community in the first place. So now by being the biggest polluter of the atmosphere the west was having to pay the biggest price for the clean up.
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate politics" was said as a consequence of the Cancun climate summit. This is a fact - not a socialist plot as it’s been portrayed - just a simple paying of the bill.
If I pay you for my dumping of trash in your garden I’m not engaged in a socialist plot but am redistributing my wealth to you to help you pay for any restoration of your garden.
The transfer he is talking about is from the carbon-intensive industries to…well...the rest of the world so funnily enough he was actually expressing acknowledgement of capitalists (Oil and Gas companies) concerns when he said it.
A spokesperson for Edenhofer has said that the quote has been used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“
“Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
Of course the meme version of what he said got deniers all frothy at the mouth as it was intended to do. Some fell for it, others not so much.
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
The actual interview.
https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltv...
The actual statement within the interview:
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
The translation of the actual statement:
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forests dying or the ozone hole.
Political dogma in the form of bovine excreta translates well all things considered ("expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" ho ho ho); the context is clear and there has been no misinterpretation. The statement was a considered one and its meaning is crystal clear.
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
The actual interview.
https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltv...
The actual statement within the interview:
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
The translation of the actual statement:
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forests dying or the ozone hole.
Political dogma in the form of bovine excreta translates well all things considered ("expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" ho ho ho); the context is clear and there has been no misinterpretation. The statement was a considered one and its meaning is crystal clear.
It’s meaning is crystal clear but sadly it eludes you as you’ve decided to roll it up into a secret communist plot to overthrow the world order.
(And thats a meme thats more accurate than your IPCC one).
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
The actual interview.
https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltv...
The actual statement within the interview:
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
The translation of the actual statement:
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forests dying or the ozone hole.
Political dogma in the form of bovine excreta translates well all things considered ("expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" ho ho ho); the context is clear and there has been no misinterpretation. The statement was a considered one and its meaning is crystal clear.
It’s meaning is crystal clear but sadly it eludes you as you’ve decided to roll it up into a secret communist plot to overthrow the world order.
All told a pathetic non-defence complete with infantile imagery but then it never had a chance.
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
You’re exactly the type El Stovey is talking about. You in particular believed the IPCC meme turbobloke posted and quoted it often a couple of years ago when it first came out even getting angry about it with one poster It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling.
no need for belief , i can read perfectly well. there are however subtle nuances in how his quote can be interpreted .in essence he is correct in what he said if the aims are to be achieved. It comes as no surprise that you would be wrong about everything else too and again have to resort to name calling. the ipcc is a political organisation, they state that themselves. the science doesn't really matter and they are happy to alter what the scientists say to fit in with their narrative. this is all public record.
it must have been part of the attrition loop where you saw that, the quote is from 2010 i believe and i would be surprised if it hadn't been discussed fairly soon on here after it was made.
The actual interview.
https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltv...
The actual statement within the interview:
Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
The translation of the actual statement:
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forests dying or the ozone hole.
Political dogma in the form of bovine excreta translates well all things considered ("expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" ho ho ho); the context is clear and there has been no misinterpretation. The statement was a considered one and its meaning is crystal clear.
It’s meaning is crystal clear but sadly it eludes you as you’ve decided to roll it up into a secret communist plot to overthrow the world order.
All told a pathetic non-defence complete with infantile imagery but then it never had a chance.
ks to promote your Libertarian/Tory viewpoint time and time again.You must think we are all as stupid as the rest of your small little clique.
As for calling out advocacy blogs, well, from you?
Models not so inaccurate it would appear.
“The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...
“The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...
turbobloke said:
It certainly is a matter of public record as it's in the IPCC's own account of how the IPCC should operate when publishing a Report and its Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work as adopted and amended by the IPCC 1999-2003 states that when changes in the longer Report are required to conform it to the SPM then the authors of the longer Report will make changes to ensure conformity with the SPM. Consistency with the political messages in the SPM constrains what's left in the technical (scientific) report content.
This appendix also explains how non-published and non-peer-reviewed material is used by the IPCC (grey lit) where it serves a political purpose. This has inevitably led to problems e.g. when anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine and similar materoal from a student's masters' dissertation were included.to bolster claims about mountain-top ice mass changes This saga followed an apology and retraction relating to inaccurate claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. 'Glaciergate' and 'Mountainguidegate' are in a long list of embarrassments for the IPCC: Disastergate, Pachaurigate, Sterngate, Infraredgate Water(vapour)gate, Tourismgate, Refugeegate, Weathergate, Judithgate, Africagate and Dutchgate as discussed in PH climate threads at the time (most or all should still available online unless the source has taken them down as per The Independent and Viner's "children won't know what snow is" hilarity). Bob Ward ex PR man for the RS has been noted in dispatches for stoic defence duties.
Presumably this catalogue of nonsense will get the usual vacuous 'meme' response which is meaningless.
in time we should have karl gate,given the circumstances in how his paper was rushed through so the main paris topic wasn't wtf happened to the warming.Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work as adopted and amended by the IPCC 1999-2003 states that when changes in the longer Report are required to conform it to the SPM then the authors of the longer Report will make changes to ensure conformity with the SPM. Consistency with the political messages in the SPM constrains what's left in the technical (scientific) report content.
This appendix also explains how non-published and non-peer-reviewed material is used by the IPCC (grey lit) where it serves a political purpose. This has inevitably led to problems e.g. when anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine and similar materoal from a student's masters' dissertation were included.to bolster claims about mountain-top ice mass changes This saga followed an apology and retraction relating to inaccurate claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. 'Glaciergate' and 'Mountainguidegate' are in a long list of embarrassments for the IPCC: Disastergate, Pachaurigate, Sterngate, Infraredgate Water(vapour)gate, Tourismgate, Refugeegate, Weathergate, Judithgate, Africagate and Dutchgate as discussed in PH climate threads at the time (most or all should still available online unless the source has taken them down as per The Independent and Viner's "children won't know what snow is" hilarity). Bob Ward ex PR man for the RS has been noted in dispatches for stoic defence duties.
Presumably this catalogue of nonsense will get the usual vacuous 'meme' response which is meaningless.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff