Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Terminator X]

turbobloke said:

With the topic of extreme weather now full-politik, Prof Roger Pielke Jr's new edition of "Disasters & Climate Change" is out this week. It's a must-have stocking filler for every agw alarmist.

Foreword by Daniel Sarewitz:
"In this book, Roger Pielke Jr summarizes those facts to answer the question, “Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change?” Many people do worry that climate change is causing disasters to get worse, but Pielke presents a wealth of data, including the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to show why such concerns are not supported by the available science."

Prof Pielke Jr is Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, mentioned so that agw supporters' appeals to his authority (as opposed to checking the underlying data and science) can be properly directed

Don't "disasters .. get worse" because more people have set up camp in well known disaster areas? Increasing size of global population issue surely.

TX.

[Terminator X]

LoonyTunes said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

I don't have time to read all of that as I'm working - point me to the part where it says that a 2 degree increase in temps has a net benefit for mankind please.

It's 20 pages. With pictures.

I work

Read it tonight?

TX.

[turbobloke]

Terminator X said:

turbobloke said:

With the topic of extreme weather now full-politik, Prof Roger Pielke Jr's new edition of "Disasters & Climate Change" is out this week. It's a must-have stocking filler for every agw alarmist.

Foreword by Daniel Sarewitz:
"In this book, Roger Pielke Jr summarizes those facts to answer the question, “Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change?” Many people do worry that climate change is causing disasters to get worse, but Pielke presents a wealth of data, including the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to show why such concerns are not supported by the available science."

Prof Pielke Jr is Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, mentioned so that agw supporters' appeals to his authority (as opposed to checking the underlying data and science) can be properly directed

Don't "disasters .. get worse" because more people have set up camp in well known disaster areas? Increasing size of global population issue surely.

TX.

Indeed. In summary there is no increase in extreme weather linked to agw, there have been increasing costs of 'disasters' due to GDP / personal wealth increases allied to more people choosing to live in riskier locations, and deaths are reducing not increasing even though costs are up.

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

I work

Rather disappointing that as someone who lambastes those that disagree with the consensus, you haven't even read the climate change bible yourself. Your criticisms would have more impact if you actually knew what you were defending.

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

[dickymint]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

[turbobloke]

Fossil Fuel Saved Germany's Summer.

https://www.thegwpf.com/how-coal-saved-germany-thr...

[turbobloke]

As shy climate activists shrink from debate and hide behind dogma, we can still “Debate a Climate Alarmist” apparently.

http://industrialprogress.com/how-to-debate-a-clim...

This isn’t a recommendation as I haven’t had time to watch the video but as Heartland is involved and Bill Nye gets a mention, it should be entertaining.

[turbobloke]

steveT350C said:

Retweeted by tallbloke

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/29/weaponize-attor...

Interesting!

Which begs the question about any UK equivalent.

[Jasandjules]

turbobloke said:

This isn’t a recommendation as I haven’t had time to watch the video but as Heartland is involved and Bill Nye gets a mention, it should be entertaining.

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

So nothing then. Except more waffle, obviously.

You'd think I'd be used to out by now, clearly the others are so don't bother much any more.

Have a nice weekend

Edited by LoonyTunes on Friday 31st August 15:55

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

turbobloke said:

This isn’t a recommendation as I haven’t had time to watch the video but as Heartland is involved and Bill Nye gets a mention, it should be entertaining.

Righto...

that's entertainment

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

So nothing then. Except more waffle, obviously.

You'd think I'd be used to out by now, clearly the others are so don't bother much any more.

Have a nice weekend

Edited by LoonyTunes on Friday 31st August 15:55

Haven't a clue what you mean! Was there a question for me buried in there somewhere?

[Diderot]

dickymint said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

As I said on page 439 of this thread, it’s simply lazy thinking or indeed lack of critical thought on his part. He can’t be bothered to read it because he’s seemingly happy to be indoctrinated. A useful idiot perhaps,

[With This Staff]

From the taxpayers alliance circa 2007.

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...

Extract from conclusion said:

Overall, comparing an average of official and academic estimates of the social costs of the UK’s entire output of CO2 emissions with the revenue raised from green taxes and charges (excluding Air Passenger Duty and net of road spending), environmental levies are already £10.2 billion in excess of the level they need to be to cover these social costs. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain. Green taxes are therefore already too high unless they are seen simply as revenue-raising measures.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

dickymint said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

As I said on page 439 of this thread, it’s simply lazy thinking or indeed lack of critical thought on his part. He can’t be bothered to read it because he’s seemingly happy to be indoctrinated. A useful idiot perhaps,

Oh well, if one of the cultists said it must be true because...oh, wait a minute...

And for you there's no "perhaps" I'm afraid.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

dickymint said:

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

Got that bit that backs up your assertion yet...?

Point me to the pertinent paragraph please.

You need to read the whole thing, understand the projections, understand the likelihoods and balance against the confidence levels. When you do you will realise that until the 2 degree projection is passed there is a high likelihood with high confidence that nothing bad will happen. Balanced with the known benefits of CO2 and you conclude that up to 2 degrees is a net benefit as described.
Whilst this doesn't fit the soundbite you requested it is all there in colour no less.

One thing I’ve learned about Loony lately is that sometimes he asks for a ‘one liner’ answer then sometimes he laughs at a ‘one liner’ answer to a question and demands more

As I said on page 439 of this thread, it’s simply lazy thinking or indeed lack of critical thought on his part. He can’t be bothered to read it because he’s seemingly happy to be indoctrinated. A useful idiot perhaps,

Oh well, if one of the cultists said it must be true because...oh, wait a minute...

And for you there's no "perhaps" I'm afraid.

I find it alarming that anyone with a modicum of intellect wouldn’t take the opportunity to actually read, first hand, something they purport to believe in, at the very least to verify that it says what they have been told it says. It speaks volumes that you simply swallow this stuff uncritically and unquestioningly, and you chose instead to simply *believe*. The problem is that the actual data doesn’t demonstrate what you have been told it does and the entire premise of your blind faith has been constructed on the fantastical outputs of fundamentally flawed models. you sir are the denier: a denier of evidence, data and reality. A useful idiot indeed and your religion needs plenty of those.

[turbobloke]

With This Staff said:

From the taxpayers alliance circa 2007.

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_case_against...

Extract from conclusion said:

Overall, comparing an average of official and academic estimates of the social costs of the UK’s entire output of CO2 emissions with the revenue raised from green taxes and charges (excluding Air Passenger Duty and net of road spending), environmental levies are already £10.2 billion in excess of the level they need to be to cover these social costs. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain. Green taxes are therefore already too high unless they are seen simply as revenue-raising measures.

Well said TPA. A few uears later on in 2011 the RAC Foundation report "Fuel For Thought: the what, why and how of motoring taxation" looked at fuel duty (existence and increases often excused for supposedly environmental reasons) and compared the carbon price a litre of fuel should attract - at that time - which was 14p / litre. Fuel duty then and now is somewhat above that proportional level and other excuses for FD ('externalities') are equally less capable of holding water with the passage of time.

[With This Staff]

Just in case anyone was guessing.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

I find it alarming that anyone with a modicum of intellect wouldn’t take the opportunity to actually read, first hand, something they purport to believe in, at the very least to verify that it says what they have been told it says. It speaks volumes that you simply swallow this stuff uncritically and unquestioningly, and you chose instead to simply *believe*. The problem is that the actual data doesn’t demonstrate what you have been told it does and the entire premise of your blind faith has been constructed on the fantastical outputs of fundamentally flawed models. you sir are the denier: a denier of evidence, data and reality. A useful idiot indeed and your religion needs plenty of those.

This from someone who sides with those who claim to know better than scientists and the current scientific consensus. Who misrepresent what scientists and others say and are told so by more than one scientist. Who also claim to know more than people who actually make a living in the renewables field and pilots who land at Heathrow.