Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
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?"Climate change" in one meaning is terminology for man made global warming, but it is not terminology for a naturally changing climate.
What is the current political terminology for a naturally changing climate?
Or at the very least a changing climate whereby the human influence is very much undetectable?
Anyways, I do wonder what the politicians would do if they were successful in legislating civilisation back to the dark ages whereby no human CO2 is emitted (apart from breathing hopefully), and they find that the climate is still changing?
What would they call it then?
If that happens it'll go back to Climate Chaos probably, but then the climate has always behaved chaotically as it's a chaotic system. Same problem.
Climate has changed for billions of years and will go on changing for billions more.
Everyone knows the shift to Climate Change from Global Warming occurred because there wasn't enough warming compared to predictions, and because the propagandists could expect to gull a lot of people by pointing to weather anywhere, misdescribe it as climate change and call it extreme weather when it's within natural variation.
Cue the wonderful Mystic Met naming storms to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth.
Climate has changed for billions of years and will go on changing for billions more.
Everyone knows the shift to Climate Change from Global Warming occurred because there wasn't enough warming compared to predictions, and because the propagandists could expect to gull a lot of people by pointing to weather anywhere, misdescribe it as climate change and call it extreme weather when it's within natural variation.
Cue the wonderful Mystic Met naming storms to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth.
Interesting point of view. Alternately the Met Office decided to start giving storms names back in 2014, in the same way they do in America due to, as Derrick Ryall from the Met Office put it "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises awareness of severe weather before it strikes."
They also think it will be easier to follow the progress of a storm on the TV, radio, or on social media, if it has a name.
I don't think it had anything to do with "to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth".
They also think it will be easier to follow the progress of a storm on the TV, radio, or on social media, if it has a name.
I don't think it had anything to do with "to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth".
stew-STR160 said:
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?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.
robinessex said:
Climate change: Scientists to report on ocean 'emergency' caused by warming
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
The Beebs continuous run of CC stories to support the party in New York. Nothing new though, surprise, surprise
"It will be the clearest declaration yet on how an overheating world is hammering our oceans and frozen regions.
Scientists have been meeting in Monaco to finalise a report on the seas and the cryosphere.
Released on Wednesday, it will show how the oceans have been a friend, helping us cope with rising temperatures.
But it will warn that warming is turning the seas into a huge potential threat to humanity.".......continues
Ref the bolding above - well of course. Where else would one meet - if one has to meet at all to repeat the same hypotheses that have been under investigation for a few decades?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
The Beebs continuous run of CC stories to support the party in New York. Nothing new though, surprise, surprise
"It will be the clearest declaration yet on how an overheating world is hammering our oceans and frozen regions.
Scientists have been meeting in Monaco to finalise a report on the seas and the cryosphere.
Released on Wednesday, it will show how the oceans have been a friend, helping us cope with rising temperatures.
But it will warn that warming is turning the seas into a huge potential threat to humanity.".......continues
jonmiles said:
Interesting point of view. Alternately the Met Office decided to start giving storms names back in 2014, in the same way they do in America due to, as Derrick Ryall from the Met Office put it "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises awareness of severe weather before it strikes."
OK that's one side of the coin, but don't forget the other."We are looking forward to working closely with the UK Met Office and Met Éireann. Storms are not confined to national borders, so it makes sense to give common names to such extreme weather events"
An atlantic storm is not an extreme weather event, they've happened for centuries, existing commonly within normal weather variation, and indeed have been far worse in times of global cooling (LIA). This tactical use of terminology will encourage people to mislead themselves.
If a hurricane is on the way and likely to remain such on reaching part of the UK, name away! Just don't expect the Met Office to raise your awareness before it happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqs1YXfdtGE
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/weath...
"The Met Office computer on which Fish and his colleagues relied in 1987 made four million calculations a second.
Whoopeedoo! Its successor is now failing at climate forecasts.
Jinx said:
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.
Deckster beyond this evident dissembling for effect (activism rather than journalism I'm sure you'd agree), the are some potential and significant geopolitical advantages to moving away from fossil fuels.
rdjohn said:
Taylor James said:
She reminds me of my teenage sister when she was told to tidy her room.
Do we know when she is going back to school and what transport she will be using?
Long term planning is not her strong point. Rage is her weaponDo we know when she is going back to school and what transport she will be using?
She has yet to realise that in Democracies, Politician’s first objective tends towards getting re-elected and in dictatorships, leaders tend towards lining their own pockets.
Of the 160 democracies she spoke to yesterday, only 20 are regarded as full democracies like she has in Sweden. When she does get back to school, her teachers need to explain these simple facts of life. A key life skill is learning to handle failure.
This year there will be 20-million new cars on the roads in China alone. The future is not bright, but no one is going to turn the clock back 200-years.
One of the questions for future generations is whether they can make a highly 'virtual' world with instant communications and all that that allows to remain a place of 'human' style interactions.
Of course, I am assuming that the system of humanity as it is currently practised right across the spectrum of views and opinions can be kept going long enough that such matters become fundamental to the futures of future humans.
An Atlantic storm may not be an extreme event but it is a dangerous one. More than 10 people in the UK died from the effects of the Beast from the East and every year a few more die in storm related incidents.
Indeed it's the downplaying of storms that is/was the problem, especially for the very young, old and infirm. Unfortunately just telling people a storm is due had become so familiar that complacency and even contempt took root.
So I beg to differ, naming storms is a great idea and with a worthy purpose not a scheme dreamed up exaggerate climate change.
Indeed it's the downplaying of storms that is/was the problem, especially for the very young, old and infirm. Unfortunately just telling people a storm is due had become so familiar that complacency and even contempt took root.
So I beg to differ, naming storms is a great idea and with a worthy purpose not a scheme dreamed up exaggerate climate change.
Diderot said:
Jinx said:
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.
Deckster beyond this evident dissembling for effect (activism rather than journalism I'm sure you'd agree), the are some potential and significant geopolitical advantages to moving away from fossil fuels.
The motive, both eco and political, for pushing renewables with so much tax -take was however to save the planet, something that both RE<C and the IPCC recognise they cannot do (and that's working within the agw belief system).
Some previously ardent pro-agw and pro-white elephant campaigners are now angry at being misled in that way. The light will dawn on others eventually, as long as the lights stay on.
Article on the Director of a recent Michael Moore Documentary called Planet Of The Humans said:
“It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side,” Gibbs said in a phone interview. “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us … but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money … It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”
His future, stolen? Oooh.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.
That people are driven by money is hardly controversial.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.
jonmiles said:
Interesting point of view. Alternately the Met Office decided to start giving storms names back in 2014, in the same way they do in America due to, as Derrick Ryall from the Met Office put it "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises awareness of severe weather before it strikes."
They also think it will be easier to follow the progress of a storm on the TV, radio, or on social media, if it has a name.
I don't think it had anything to do with "to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth".
Hmm. One could debate that. However the naming convention does indeed help people identify (and likely remember, at least in some part for familiarity if not accuracy) the names if not the resulting effects. Naming the storms in alphabetical order also allows the quantity of (named) storms to be communicated to the masses sub-consciously. Getting towards the end of the alphabet would likely leave quite an impression in the minds of people who are vaguely literate, no matter that they do not remember the effects, if any, of each named weather event. Nor in which year they appeared or failed to manifest.They also think it will be easier to follow the progress of a storm on the TV, radio, or on social media, if it has a name.
I don't think it had anything to do with "to make them appear like hurricanes and thus accidentally no doubt promulgate the extreme weather myth".
It's a bit like naming, say, a wild tiger and then asking for subscription donations to 'protect' it. It works especially well in some areas of psychology - notably young people of course. Especially those young enough to want to name everything. Once you have their minds you probably have an adherent for some time - possibly life.
The indirect assumed sub-message tends to be so much more powerful, long term, than the imposed message since it will recalled as a "realisation" that one came to unaided. Hence the naming of storms tends to humanise them in some way that goes well beyond the ability to simply communicate the level of potential risk from different weather events. Numbers, could do the same thing but would be less personal for most people and less uniquely memorable.
Kawasicki 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.
That people are driven by money is hardly controversial.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.
Diderot said:
Or that academics (scientists) are required to undertake research as part of their contracts, that they are judged by their employers on how much research funding they bring in (particularly at Reader and Prof level and can and do lose their roles if they fail to bring enough in), and that in the UK the upcoming REF has everyone scrabbling around trying to quantify 'impact' (impact is broadly defined as the dissemination of research outside academic circles). Deckster also seems to think that Altruism exists and that academics have no political biases or financial motivations whatever.
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
deckster said:
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).
But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Fooling governments? Or that the governments pay their research grants into climate change... But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Your last comments are typical of the faith. Trying to claim intellectual superiority via accusations of conspiracy claims by those who are not believers.
Just to be clear, because I know some of you lot are hard of learning- real. Lee Harvey Oswald. Oblate spehroid. Jeremy Corbyn is a snake.
stew-STR160 said:
deckster said:
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).
But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Fooling governments? Or that the governments pay their research grants into climate change... But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Your last comments are typical of the faith. Trying to claim intellectual superiority via accusations of conspiracy claims by those who are not believers.
Just to be clear, because I know some of you lot are hard of learning- real. Lee Harvey Oswald. Oblate spehroid. Jeremy Corbyn is a snake.
The real point being, and I'm probably going to give up soon, that regardless of which scientist you choose to believe or which report you happen to agree with - there's a really simple explanation for the massive consensus that we see amongst those who choose to spend their lives studying the climate and man's effect on it. The explanation being, of course, that they're right.
Everything else aside, the mental gymnastics required to keep on believing that the scientists have got it all wrong because <insert reason here> is exhausting and, forgive me, has parallels with conspiracy nutjobs who go on about flags on the moon and bombs in the WTC.
deckster said:
stew-STR160 said:
deckster said:
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).
But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Fooling governments? Or that the governments pay their research grants into climate change... But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Your last comments are typical of the faith. Trying to claim intellectual superiority via accusations of conspiracy claims by those who are not believers.
Just to be clear, because I know some of you lot are hard of learning- real. Lee Harvey Oswald. Oblate spehroid. Jeremy Corbyn is a snake.
The real point being, and I'm probably going to give up soon, that regardless of which scientist you choose to believe or which report you happen to agree with - there's a really simple explanation for the massive consensus that we see amongst those who choose to spend their lives studying the climate and man's effect on it. The explanation being, of course, that they're right.
Everything else aside, the mental gymnastics required to keep on believing that the scientists have got it all wrong because <insert reason here> is exhausting and, forgive me, has parallels with conspiracy nutjobs who go on about flags on the moon and bombs in the WTC.
Take the Oreskes report which the IPCC still love, it was a very open search criteria.
Other such consensus promoting reports were similar. Search for a specific wording and voila, there's your search results, predominantly showing what you searched for.
Just go to Google yourself and type in something, like, "black honda". Shock horror, some 90% or more of the images found are of black Honda's. Nice consensus there that Honda's are mostly black.
It's not a case of believing they have got it wrong, although quite a few have, but some have actively lied and hid their methods from scrutiny, which is one of the most anti science things imaginable.
deckster said:
Diderot said:
Or that academics (scientists) are required to undertake research as part of their contracts, that they are judged by their employers on how much research funding they bring in (particularly at Reader and Prof level and can and do lose their roles if they fail to bring enough in), and that in the UK the upcoming REF has everyone scrabbling around trying to quantify 'impact' (impact is broadly defined as the dissemination of research outside academic circles). Deckster also seems to think that Altruism exists and that academics have no political biases or financial motivations whatever.
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
OK, it's Johnson so possibly a 'joke' or not to happen under his watch but anyone working in the field of renewable energy is unlikely to want to diss the opportunity of taking a slice of a Billion quid that might be made available via the Aid budget scheme.
It seems like he is also planning to make a handful of wild animals rather wealthy. I suppose if it keeps his squeeze happy it's tax income well spent.
deckster said:
Diderot said:
Or that academics (scientists) are required to undertake research as part of their contracts, that they are judged by their employers on how much research funding they bring in (particularly at Reader and Prof level and can and do lose their roles if they fail to bring enough in), and that in the UK the upcoming REF has everyone scrabbling around trying to quantify 'impact' (impact is broadly defined as the dissemination of research outside academic circles). Deckster also seems to think that Altruism exists and that academics have no political biases or financial motivations whatever.
Oddly enough, yes I do believe that altruism exists (with or without a capital A).But do you not think that it's quite some way from 'research grants and bias exists' - which is self-evidently true - to there being an international cartel of climate scientists that has fooled successive governments and NGOs around the globe into funding their careers to the detriment of the international population.
Out of interest what is your view on the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, and the shape of world? Is it lizard people all the way up?
Research grants are given out on the basis of what? On the basis of what research councils, funding bodies and Government agencies deem important or under researched or politically useful. You simply will not get funding for projects that fall outside of these criteria which is precisely why you find very few academics, who are under pressure to bring in research income for their livelihoods and their career prospects, willingly taking a gun and shooting themselves in the foot. Scientists were useful idiots in this regard but have long since ceased being useful since there are so many gullible individuals willing to swallow whatever the media tells them to.
deckster said:
The last comment was tongue in cheek, of course. Although I'm with you on Corbyn.
The real point being, and I'm probably going to give up soon, that regardless of which scientist you choose to believe or which report you happen to agree with - there's a really simple explanation for the massive consensus that we see amongst those who choose to spend their lives studying the climate and man's effect on it. The explanation being, of course, that they're right.
Everything else aside, the mental gymnastics required to keep on believing that the scientists have got it all wrong because <insert reason here> is exhausting and, forgive me, has parallels with conspiracy nutjobs who go on about flags on the moon and bombs in the WTC.
No mental gymnastics required, most climate scientists have got it wrong because their predictions have already failed.The real point being, and I'm probably going to give up soon, that regardless of which scientist you choose to believe or which report you happen to agree with - there's a really simple explanation for the massive consensus that we see amongst those who choose to spend their lives studying the climate and man's effect on it. The explanation being, of course, that they're right.
Everything else aside, the mental gymnastics required to keep on believing that the scientists have got it all wrong because <insert reason here> is exhausting and, forgive me, has parallels with conspiracy nutjobs who go on about flags on the moon and bombs in the WTC.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff