Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
zygalski said:
Trump administration joins the consensus.
AGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.
you are talking bAGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.
ks yet again. for a start the global part is wrong. some places have seen rises in temperature, some have seen falls. i have already mentioned the northern hemisphere is responsible for nearly all of the very small temperature increase we have seen so far ,with the arctic responsible for the lions share. so not global at all.wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Trump administration joins the consensus.
AGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.
you are talking bAGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.
ks yet again. for a start the global part is wrong. some places have seen rises in temperature, some have seen falls. i have already mentioned the northern hemisphere is responsible for nearly all of the very small temperature increase we have seen so far ,with the arctic responsible for the lions share. so not global at all.
durbster said:
Lunar Tick said:
If the error bars for the models were sufficiently large to include the observed data sets, they'd be even more worthless in their predictive capacity than they already patently are. How can actual observations be 'misleading'?
See proper version of the graph from credible source above.
And still no comment on the "hockey stick graph"
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Lunar Tick said:
If the error bars for the models were sufficiently large to include the observed data sets, they'd be even more worthless in their predictive capacity than they already patently are. How can actual observations be 'misleading'?
See proper version of the graph from credible source above.And still no comment on the "hockey stick graph"
turbobloke said:
Credible empirical data still has no visible causal human signal so agw is junkscience fairytales.
It doesn't make any difference how many credulous believers there are or how truly they believe.
Politicians are mostly clueless as always.
Keep the faith.
It doesn't make any difference how many credulous believers there are or how truly they believe.
Politicians are mostly clueless as always.
Keep the faith.
You couldn't get far enough up Trump's arse in the other thread after he won the Presidency. Especially with regards to their approach to climate change/global warming.
Now his leading climate official is clueless?
Flippety-flop, flippety-flop.
https://youtu.be/UBybnYN8ki4?t=495
Pruitt said in his press conference, defending Trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement:
'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
Credible empirical data still has no visible causal human signal so agw is junkscience fairytales.
It doesn't make any difference how many credulous believers there are or how truly they believe.
Politicians are mostly clueless as always.
Keep the faith.
It doesn't make any difference how many credulous believers there are or how truly they believe.
Politicians are mostly clueless as always.
Keep the faith.
You couldn't get far enough up Trump's arse in the other thread after he won the Presidency. Especially with regards to their approach to climate change/global warming.
Now his leading climate official is clueless?
Flippety-flop, flippety-flop.
https://youtu.be/UBybnYN8ki4?t=495
Pruitt said in his press conference, defending Trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement:
'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.
What if the contribution is 0.00001%? Would that be a problem for the planet which requires drastic action? What is the actual percentage?
durbster said:
Stupid gullible astronauts, believing junk science.
If they believe in the Paris accords then they are thick as pig ste. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper herehttps://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s...
Ill just leave that there. Guardian as well, which surprised me. Doesn't mention climate change science specifically but you can bet your bottom dollar it goes on there too.
Though I should point out, it is not so much the scientists desire to be pushing an agenda, more that they have a quota to hit, have specific high impact journals to target and that if they don't meet these, they're out on their ear. So things get massaged, tweaked and made up along the way to satisfy the goal of producing high impact papers.
Ill just leave that there. Guardian as well, which surprised me. Doesn't mention climate change science specifically but you can bet your bottom dollar it goes on there too.
Though I should point out, it is not so much the scientists desire to be pushing an agenda, more that they have a quota to hit, have specific high impact journals to target and that if they don't meet these, they're out on their ear. So things get massaged, tweaked and made up along the way to satisfy the goal of producing high impact papers.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 7th June 09:41
Jinx said:
If they believe in the Paris accords then they are thick as pig ste. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper here
And here we are, in the fantasy world of climate change deniers, where astronauts are thick and Donald Trump is a genius.te. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper here
Jinx said:
If they believe in the Paris accords then they are thick as pig ste. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper here
Exactly. Politics and junkscience make a fascinating combination.te. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper hereBjorn Lomborg said:
even if every nation meets its pledges under the Paris climate change agreement, the total reduction in the planet‘s temperature will only be 0.17C by 2100
That's using the IPCC's own junkscience, and in any case it'd be lost in the noise of natural variation.Lord Lawson said:
The Climate Change Act is set to cost the UK economy approximately £320 billion by 2030 equivalent to funding the NHS in England for three years.
The green blob is a pointless expensive disaster for poor and sick people nationwide.It's great for wealthy land owners like CMD's multi-millionaire father-in-law.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Stupid gullible astronauts, believing junk science.
If they believe in the Paris accords then they are thick as pig ste. The accords do nothing for the climate even at the extreme end of the climate sensitivity Peer reviewed published paper hereI suppose one might wonder about how many French astronauts there have been over the years.
Handy too that the timing for this one happened to broadly coincide with the events of Paris and the aftermath attempts to get countries to" sign up" to whatever they think it is and Hollande's retirement form office.
Terrific PR effect all round - nominally for free in theory. I guess that might depend on how you count the numbers.
durbster said:
I've no idea why you all make these statements when it's so bloody easy to refute them. There's never a source, never anything to back it up, just the same assertions made over and over again that a simple search shows to be wrong. Do you just expect people to believe you and not check?
i am thinking that just verified the statement i made ,despite it being only ten years of pairwise homogenisation (as opposed to real data)used to create the image.LongQ said:
Terrific PR effect all round - nominally for free in theory. I guess that might depend on how you count the numbers.
It costs tens of thousands of $ per kg to get in to LEO I believe, so I guess in the scheme of the costs associated with AGW - very definitely 'nominally free'. 
durbster said:
Stupid gullible astronauts, believing junk science.
astronauts you say ? here are some that might not agree with you. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dis...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff