Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[deckster]

stew-STR160 said:

Reefs dying is vastly exaggerated.
Glaciers melting...oh, they do that anyway.
Increased hurricane activity? No, increased reporting of activity.
Opening of north-west passage...and ships still getting stuck in the ice.

So if none of these are actually happening, can you remind us of your explanation for the many, many scientific studies that have shown all of these things, and many more, that document not only an overall warming of the planet but also show the real-world effects of the warming?

[DS240]

[Jinx]

deckster said:

So apart from the vanishing glaciers, the dying reefs, the increased hurricane activity, the thawing permafrost, the opening of the north-west passage...or are none of these actually happening and it's all just a left-wing conspiracy to tax you out of your V8?

Call me when any of that actually happens (you do know there are glaciers that are expanding right, landfall hurrican activity is not increasing, global sea level rise pretty damn linear, still ice in the arctic in summer) . Check out the IPCC AR5 and you will realise that the actual science that supposedly has consensus says "low confidence" in all the really bad things happening and not expected until 2100. Yep at least 80 years in the future and then they only have low confidence.
Read the actual damn science and not the latest press release from Green peace.

[turbobloke]

deckster said:

robinessex said:

NO DRAMATIC CC PREDICTIONS HAVE EVER COME TRUE. Science scores 100% wrong answers then. Brilliant!

So apart from the vanishing glaciers, the dying reefs, the increased hurricane activity, the thawing permafrost, the opening of the north-west passage...or are none of these actually happening and it's all just a left-wing conspiracy to tax you out of your V8?

That's no different to predicting eclipses and claiming victory when they happen. All of the above are natural events depicted in the scientific evidence of the planet's recent history, including prior to industrialisation.

Glaciers (all of them, really?) aren't vanishing, the cycles of advance and retreat aren't related to mean global temperature, arctic ice was in the same state as now back in 1922 and 1817 with no V8s around in 1817, coral reefs were undergoing the same natural changes back in the 18th and 19th centuries due to El Nino impacts not human emissions (18th century V8s, what a joke).

For evidence, rather than relying on propaganda from The Guardian or the BBC, try accessing and reading peer-reviewed scientific research from:

Prof Humlum who has been researching on the arctic island of Svalbard for years and notes that glaciers there have for many decades undergone rapid advance lasting less than 10 years followed by slow retreat over 70-80 years in a repeating natural cycle. A glacier can have (and has had) two snouts, one advancing and one retreating at the same time, under the same meaningless average global temperature conditions.

Kamenose and Hennige studied coral bleaching and in their peer-reviewed paper noted that bleaching events were as common and occurred to the same extent in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as they do now, just like El Nino events. Their results have been posted in this and other climate threads but if you missed it just say.

A paper from Andersson noted that corals 'acidify' the ocean around them as they grow and thrive. Research by McCulloch of the University of Western Australia in Perth involved putting boxes around corals on the Great Barrier Reef and bubbling carbon dioxide into them, increasing 'acidity' (actually, decreasing alkalinity) the corals were not affected at all in a simulation of the 'acidity' expected by the year 2100.

Global warming junkscience in gigo climate models predicted that the arctic ocean would be ice free by 2000 then 2008 then 2016 and we're still waiting. This planet has been without any ice at both of the poles, including permafrost which is just ice, for millions of years entirely naturally. There's a neat graphic from an article in the journal Nature which can be posted if you want t see the time when Earth was ice-free and of course remained fine both then and when ice returned.

If you have any additional misconceptions arising from political manipulation of natural processes, post up, though some won't like what happens next and will ignore the politicised manipulation aspect while howling about seeing/reading evidence that demolishes agw as though it should not be heard/read. Attempting to stifle debate and block off-message content is where it's at for such people (and the BBC).

[deckster]

I thought this was the political debate, not the scientific one. We can all cherry-pick studies until the cows come home.

Presuming that your base contention is that the studies that show genuine measurable climate change and actual real-world impacts are all false - why is that? Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists support the idea that the climate is changing, and changing due to mankind's activities?

Are they all deluded? Left-wing loons? In the pay of Big Eco-business? What's the reason?

[robinessex]

deckster said:

stew-STR160 said:

Reefs dying is vastly exaggerated.
Glaciers melting...oh, they do that anyway.
Increased hurricane activity? No, increased reporting of activity.
Opening of north-west passage...and ships still getting stuck in the ice.

So if none of these are actually happening, can you remind us of your explanation for the many, many scientific studies that have shown all of these things, and many more, that document not only an overall warming of the planet but also show the real-world effects of the warming?

Overall warming of the planet is a made-up expression. the temperature of the planet at every point on its surface is constantly varying, thus a 'planet temperature' is a meaningless expression. PS. You supply the documents/studies to match your above claims. Can you show proove the real world effects as well?

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 24th September 09:53

[turbobloke]

deckster said:

I thought this was the political debate, not the scientific one.

I didn't need a gigo computer model for this...

It seems like only a few minutes ago when I said:

If you have any additional misconceptions arising from political manipulation of natural processes, post up, though some won't like what happens next and will ignore the politicised manipulation aspect while howling about seeing/reading evidence that demolishes agw as though it should not be heard/read. Attempting to stifle debate and block off-message content is where it's at for such people (and the BBC).

If anyone posts up natural events and claims they're manmade, and as a result are being misused to divert political policy, expect to see peer-reviewed evidence knocking those claims into the long grass. The whining is pathetic and misplaced as when I post peer-reviewed science to demolish agw bunk I make the point that it's precisely about addressing political manipulation and suborning science. The answer to this dilemma is easy, if posts claiming some witchraft/voodoo origin for natural processes stop appearing then the evidence revealing such claims as totally bogus won't be needed.

[robinessex]

deckster said:

I thought this was the political debate, not the scientific one. We can all cherry-pick studies until the cows come home.

Presuming that your base contention is that the studies that show genuine measurable climate change and actual real-world impacts are all false - why is that? Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists support the idea that the climate is changing, and changing due to mankind's activities?

Are they all deluded? Left-wing loons? In the pay of Big Eco-business? What's the reason?

To keep themselves employed, and the money rolling in.

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

Pesty said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

To me it shows you how much the media is it its own daft world and completely out of touch your normal person on the street , It may work in your metropolitan middle class world. But for me having to be honest a wired spoilt 16 year old preaching at me just has the opposite effect.

Agree

Especially when they basically throw a tantrum. Why was she even there ffs.

Oh yeah this is why.

“We will use the youth to bring order to the Reich. world. When we control our youth, we will control the German people"

Not brain washed at all. Oh no.
This constitutes an attack these days....

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th September 00:25

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-hitler-youth-...

Quite an interesting read on what we are seeing at the moment.

[turbobloke]

deckster said:

So if none of these are actually happening, can you remind us of your explanation for the many, many scientific studies that have shown all of these things

Already done on the demolishing agw side, as you know. Would you like a repeat of the many papers not keeping the faith with the IPCC's politicised bunk?

Curiously all we get from the agw side is vague soundbite waffly carp about 'many studies'. The few that have been posted previously have been demolished previously.

Would sir or madam like to see agw 'research' hiding the decline (in temperature)? Or weather bureau fixing of temperature measuring equipment to delete cold temperatures automatically? Or metoos getting cosmic ray science comically wrong? Or using outlier treemometer data (single tree no less) as though it meant something? Or getting the whole gamut upside down? Or the scientists involved telling each other they have no idea about the carbon missing sink and are nowhere near to balancing the planet's enery budget and have no idea where energy is going or why it isn't warming the planet like the gigo models predicted? Or any other of the falsified junk out there? All used to politicise the process via political appointees at the UN IPCC and take it off-course with disastrous policy results that require brainwashing and weaponising children to sustain even this long.

[Pesty]

People seem to believe more when a 16 year old is lying Goebels would be so proud.
Plus if you even croticise what you are saying you get told you are on blood thinners and a gammon. How progressive.

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th September 10:12

[turbobloke]

Did somebody mention politicised bunk and stunts? Possibly.

After the backfiring political stunt which led to a ship full of 'Climate Warriors' documenting melting ice getting stuck in ice ho ho ho thus requiring a helicopter rescue at the cost of goodness knows how many 'carbons', the lessons of history remain available, but not via the MSM as they've removed coverage of Wrong Way Flanagan from the internet afaics. This approach mimics The Independent removing that hilarious interview with 'senior climate scientist' (senior. no less) Viner from the UEA CRU featuring agw foot-in-mouth syndrome. Viner's line was that due to agw, snow in the UK (from 2000) will be a rare event such that children won't know what snow is etc etc ifollowed by some of the coldest and snowiest winters for decades

This (below) is still out there as a 'be careful' reminder to politically motivated climate heroes.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2...

[turbobloke]

Pesty said:

People seem to believe more when a 16 year old is lying Goebels would be so proud.
Plus if you even croticise what you are saying you get told you are on blood thinners and a gammon. How progressive.

Quite. It's the politicised agw disciple way to retreat behind all manner of dross.

As carbon dioxide levels have increased, the number of deaths has decreased, and with a much larger population for nature to aim at. Carbon dioxide must be a wonderful thing, it's greening the earth and saving lives. In addition, propping up the global food chain is quite a decent entry on its CV.

Good to see the reducing impact of what is actually weather events on the loss of life and well-being - due to extreme weather <not> increasing as misdescribed by political activists and extremists. Prof Pielke's work and that of Goklany can be useful for popping that particular agw politicised junkbubble.

[deckster]

So, robinessex (thank you, by the way) is the only person to have actually answered the question. Which is that climate scientists are writing all these studies and making up all their measurements "To keep themselves employed, and the money rolling in."

Which is a pretty breathtaking claim, to be fair. It is interesting though that naked financial self-interest is the only motivation that makes sense to the anti-climate lobby.

[dandarez]

deckster said:

I thought this was the political debate, not the scientific one. We can all cherry-pick studies until the cows come home.

Presuming that your base contention is that the studies that show genuine measurable climate change and actual real-world impacts are all false - why is that? Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists support the idea that the climate is changing, and changing due to mankind's activities?

Are they all deluded? Left-wing loons? In the pay of Big Eco-business? What's the reason?

When you've lived a tad longer you'll understand - how can I put it in words for you to understand?
Nah, forget words, this might lightbulb you and make it easier to understand. Then again, probably not.

[turbobloke]

Some juicy climate politics from across the pond.

AGW climate activist James Hansen said:

It’s time for Bernie Sanders to retire. He truly doesn’t get it.

The rest have a good chance of spending more time with their families if they keep plugging the AOC Green Soylent Deal job-losses and lifestyle bans, with a mention in passing of the activists' and professorial agw solution...cannibalism. How to lose votes and alienate people beyond the small minority of politically motivated activists and their brainwashed useful bipeds.

[PRTVR]

deckster said:

So, robinessex (thank you, by the way) is the only person to have actually answered the question. Which is that climate scientists are writing all these studies and making up all their measurements "To keep themselves employed, and the money rolling in."

Which is a pretty breathtaking claim, to be fair. It is interesting though that naked financial self-interest is the only motivation that makes sense to the anti-climate lobby.

If you watched the you tube link I posted about Peter Ridd, the expert on the Great Barrier reef who told the
truth about the reef and was sacked for not following the religion, you will understand how people can be controlled.

[robinessex]

deckster said:

So, robinessex (thank you, by the way) is the only person to have actually answered the question. Which is that climate scientists are writing all these studies and making up all their measurements "To keep themselves employed, and the money rolling in."

Which is a pretty breathtaking claim, to be fair. It is interesting though that naked financial self-interest is the only motivation that makes sense to the anti-climate lobby.

You got a better idea then?

[deckster]

robinessex said:

deckster said:

So, robinessex (thank you, by the way) is the only person to have actually answered the question. Which is that climate scientists are writing all these studies and making up all their measurements "To keep themselves employed, and the money rolling in."

Which is a pretty breathtaking claim, to be fair. It is interesting though that naked financial self-interest is the only motivation that makes sense to the anti-climate lobby.

You got a better idea then?

Obviously, that they aren't making it up and that AGW is very real. But that's obviously far too complex an explanation when we can just blame it on some nebulous global left-wing eco-conspiracy to keep scientists in their ludicrously well-funded careers.

[turbobloke]

Political and Other Climate Hypocrite Awards.

https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/climate-week

Long overdue.