Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
what ?
I simply stated the chap who is currently the darling of those that believe Climate Change is a farce, is linked to the Koch Brothers.
You need to get your ducks in a row and your personal attacks better chosen. There are 50 shades of true belief and care needs to be taken when a lack of objective evidence tempts you to go for the casual smear.I simply stated the chap who is currently the darling of those that believe Climate Change is a farce, is linked to the Koch Brothers.
In his book 'Cool It' Dr Bjorn Lomborg said:
global warming is real and man-made
Your smear tactic just blew the credibility of real manmade global warming out of the water, at least it would have done if the smear approach had any validity in the first place. After all, wind energy has funding links to UK politicians, that's dreadful for credibility surely.What Dr Lomborg does, which annoys green blob troughers and faithful believers so much, is to downplay the hysteria that activists rely on for the oxygen of publicity and the gravy train of funding.
As already written:
Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature...Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.
As a scientist adopting a position in line with the data and sound science who acknowledges a transient and non-dangerous delay in cooling, but not permanent dangerous manmade warming, I can still say: Lomborg
There's more.
Coverage of Lomborg's research already posted on PH said:
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals (that) the climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
This result was obtained using the IPCC's own junkscience.Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals (that) the climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
It's not difficult to see why, in spite of partial rather than wholesale agreement, most climate realists have an overall appreciation for Lomborg's work, after all BL has an appropriate focus on the rational result over the emotive guff and understands the principles of order of magnitude and prioritisation. His calls for an end to massive funding errors paying for e.g. herds of white elephants are well-founded. That's why the likes of PnM are keen to use smear tactics - even when they bite back - lacking any credible alternative.
robinessex said:
Australia's warmest winter 'driven by climate change'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41316014
Climate change has driven Australia to its warmest winter on record, a leading climate group has said.
Data released this month showed average maximum temperatures in the winter months of June to August were nearly 2C above average.
Climate change made the "exceptionally warm and dry" winter 60 times more likely, the Climate Council said in a report.
The group has linked the record hot winter to "worsening climate change".
The Climate Council is an independent, non-profit organisation that was set up in 2013 to continue the work of its government-funded predecessor, which was abolished by the Tony Abbott government.
According to its report released on Tuesday - Hot and Dry: Australia's Weird Winter - winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more frequently and becoming more intense.
More than 260 heat and low rainfall records around Australia were broken this winter, the report said.
It said climate change and the burning of fossil fuels had driven Australia's average winter temperature up by about 1C since 1910. That figure was reported by the CSIRO, the nation's scientific research body, last year......................continues
No proof of that shown though. We do have a "more likely" though, so that'll do then.
Is that the same Australian BOM who can't read a (digital) thermometer?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41316014
Climate change has driven Australia to its warmest winter on record, a leading climate group has said.
Data released this month showed average maximum temperatures in the winter months of June to August were nearly 2C above average.
Climate change made the "exceptionally warm and dry" winter 60 times more likely, the Climate Council said in a report.
The group has linked the record hot winter to "worsening climate change".
The Climate Council is an independent, non-profit organisation that was set up in 2013 to continue the work of its government-funded predecessor, which was abolished by the Tony Abbott government.
According to its report released on Tuesday - Hot and Dry: Australia's Weird Winter - winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more frequently and becoming more intense.
More than 260 heat and low rainfall records around Australia were broken this winter, the report said.
It said climate change and the burning of fossil fuels had driven Australia's average winter temperature up by about 1C since 1910. That figure was reported by the CSIRO, the nation's scientific research body, last year......................continues
No proof of that shown though. We do have a "more likely" though, so that'll do then.
Honestly what a bunch of unscientific amateurs. Actually that is unfair on amateurs, as they seem to be the ones showing the Australian BOM how to measure temps.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/how-t...
This is the warmist equivalent of a 911 truther talking about Tower 7.JAMES DELINGPOLEHow scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warmi...
Where's Durbster when you need him ?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warmi...
Where's Durbster when you need him ?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
A 15 minute Google and weighing up the various dozen or so pages whilst taking in to account the dates - i.e. Ignoring my anything less than 6 months old to get impartiality / away from his current headline making observations.
Surprised in the link to Koch and Co?
Paddy,Surprised in the link to Koch and Co?
Lomborg has, despite his well known green leanings in ecology circles at the time, been a pariah in the minds of the AGW movement since he published his first book in 1998 and followed it up with Cool it a few years later.
The remarkable attacks the AGW involved community launched a the time, seemingly oblivious to the message he was communicating with regard to the economics angle, was quite influential to my own opinions - not so much about the science as about the morality and reliability of quite a large number of the noisiest AGW proponents of the time. Nothing changed over several years other than to get worse for what appeared to be the wrong reasons. I could not accept that so many apparently very smart and knowledgeable people, mostly in academia, were more than comfortable with misrepresenting the messages that Lomborg seemed to be trying to communicate. At the start one might have taken it for mistaken understanding but it became clear that no one was likely to admit that - so it was evidently a deliberate ploy with a number of objectives in mind.
My trust in academics prepared to operate at that level is not great. If they attempt to destroy one of their own - their own in terms of being an academic and sharing ecologically based conservation beliefs - why would anyone assume that they had the interest of the rest of humanity at the centre of their actions?
Nothing that has been said (afaik) in the subsequent decade (or now nearing 2 decades) has changed that. The AGW promoters don't seem to want to consider anything that might widen the scope of the moral discussions. How very controlling. In that, in my experience, they are at least consistent in everything they do. In other areas of society such an approach would be considered unacceptable. Possibly dangerous. The sort of activities that lead to cults.
If you look long enough you will probably find "evidence" of Lomborg being "connected" with every "name" used by the AGW media "players" to smear individuals over the years. Does it mean anything. If you think it does, how do you know?
The Beeb clinging onto CC by their finger tips !!
Hurricanes: A perfect storm of chance and climate change?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4134...
The succession of intense and deadly tropical cyclones that have barrelled across the Atlantic in recent weeks have left many people wondering if a threshold of some sort has been crossed. Is this chain of hurricanes evidence of some significant new frontier in our changing climate?
The answer is mostly NO, but with worrying undertones of YES.
The first thing to note about this season is that it shows the power of science and weather forecasting..............continues
"worrying undertones" eh. How about desperate seeking of something to keep the fairy story going ?
Story continues with lots of CC advocates desperately looking to attribute these storms to CC. Pathetic, and the Beeb should be brought to task with such fairy stories. It certainly isn't News.
Hurricanes: A perfect storm of chance and climate change?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4134...
The succession of intense and deadly tropical cyclones that have barrelled across the Atlantic in recent weeks have left many people wondering if a threshold of some sort has been crossed. Is this chain of hurricanes evidence of some significant new frontier in our changing climate?
The answer is mostly NO, but with worrying undertones of YES.
The first thing to note about this season is that it shows the power of science and weather forecasting..............continues
"worrying undertones" eh. How about desperate seeking of something to keep the fairy story going ?
Story continues with lots of CC advocates desperately looking to attribute these storms to CC. Pathetic, and the Beeb should be brought to task with such fairy stories. It certainly isn't News.
Edited by robinessex on Friday 22 September 09:49
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
XM5ER said:
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
https://youtu.be/42YD0BdrnI0
And who could deny her
Edit: about 1:30 in
Edited by dickymint on Friday 22 September 13:39
dickymint said:
XM5ER said:
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
https://youtu.be/42YD0BdrnI0
And who could deny her
Edit: about 1:30 in
Edited by dickymint on Friday 22 September 13:39
It is that simple, just basic school science.
I'm right clever, me.
Kawasicki said:
dickymint said:
XM5ER said:
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
https://youtu.be/42YD0BdrnI0
And who could deny her
Edit: about 1:30 in
Edited by dickymint on Friday 22 September 13:39
It is that simple, just basic school science.
I'm right clever, me.
So which incompetents in Mexico (for example) failed to spot the rock softening as the temperature rose?
LongQ said:
Kawasicki said:
dickymint said:
XM5ER said:
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
https://youtu.be/42YD0BdrnI0
And who could deny her
Edit: about 1:30 in
Edited by dickymint on Friday 22 September 13:39
It is that simple, just basic school science.
I'm right clever, me.
So which incompetents in Mexico (for example) failed to spot the rock softening as the temperature rose?
Must admit I am a bit unsure of this logic that the Koch Brothers don't want us to transition away from Fossil Fuels, hence any research stating they are not the bogeyman they are made out to be is instantly trashed. Given the the Kochs are what we would call "loaded", surelyif we move away to even more profitable renewable energy, they will just invest in that instead to maintain their position?
Surely it's a bit naive to think they will just be like "Ah well no more oil, guess we'll retire shall we?".
Surely it's a bit naive to think they will just be like "Ah well no more oil, guess we'll retire shall we?".
LongQ said:
Kawasicki said:
dickymint said:
XM5ER said:
LongQ said:
Has anyone yet linked the recent rush of relatively noticeable earthquakes to CC? (Or vice versa perhaps ....?)
I don't recall seeing anything so far.
Apart from some bellends on Twitter, nobody of note. Yet.I don't recall seeing anything so far.
It will happen though, IIRC there were some attempts last year to link earthquakes to heavy rainfall, caused of course by climate change.
https://youtu.be/42YD0BdrnI0
And who could deny her
Edit: about 1:30 in
Edited by dickymint on Friday 22 September 13:39
It is that simple, just basic school science.
I'm right clever, me.
So which incompetents in Mexico (for example) failed to spot the rock softening as the temperature rose?
bodhi said:
Must admit I am a bit unsure of this logic that the Koch Brothers don't want us to transition away from Fossil Fuels, hence any research stating they are not the bogeyman they are made out to be is instantly trashed. Given the the Kochs are what we would call "loaded", surelyif we move away to even more profitable renewable energy, they will just invest in that instead to maintain their position?
Surely it's a bit naive to think they will just be like "Ah well no more oil, guess we'll retire shall we?".
The Kochs are just bogie men of the American left. Never quite understood why, though I have my suspicions.Surely it's a bit naive to think they will just be like "Ah well no more oil, guess we'll retire shall we?".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff