Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
TheExcession said:
wc98 said:
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.
I thought I must be having an 'Abbott' moment for thinking the very same. 
wc98 said:
astronauts you say ? here are some that might not agree with you. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dis...
Oh gee, I haven't seen that before.I guess that's still the best you have.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
astronauts you say ? here are some that might not agree with you. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dis...
Oh gee, I haven't seen that before.I guess that's still the best you have.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
astronauts you say ? here are some that might not agree with you. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dis...
Oh gee, I haven't seen that before.I guess that's still the best you have.
and it's better than your offering anyway.Vizsla said:
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?
Talking if which, welcome to the 97% club
zygalski said:
Well I'm glad you accept AGW is real & now it's an argument over %'s.
Talking if which, welcome to the 97% club
You're actually in a much smaller club but you're still welcome to it,Talking if which, welcome to the 97% club
Cook considered published papers and used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. On this definition the true consensus among published scientific papers has been demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97.1% as Cook had claimed. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. That’s 0.3%
The Doran survey result came from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents and those responses were then whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give another 97% consensus figure. It’s actually 75 out of 3,146 which is little more than 2%
Small club, no credible data or other evidence, enjoy!
zygalski said:
Vizsla said:
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?
Talking if which, welcome to the 97% club
Vizsla said:
zygalski said:
Vizsla said:
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?
Talking if which, welcome to the 97% club
I guess you'd have to ask Pruitt what data he is basing his assumptions on.
Perhaps his good ole buddies in the oil industry provided it?
Richard Feynman's findings re NASA and space shuttles failing.
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l...
"Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers."
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l...
"Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers."
durbster said:
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.
That graphic illustrates EXACTLY what wc98 said !
To the other one (Zygster or whatever - What happened to Plunky?) - Why are you crowing about Trump / Pruitt accepting AGW? Why have you posted that so many times this weekend?
Trump is a moron, I could not give a toss what he believes - You pro-AGW lot just ignore the important details in every question asked, post your own twaddle and help no-one understand anything.
Why do you bother?
Just in case..
http://www.richardfeynman.com/
Shame he is not arround these days - if I were to accept anyone's opinion on something without further verification, there is a finite probability that his would be high on the list.
Even CAGW!
http://www.richardfeynman.com/
Shame he is not arround these days - if I were to accept anyone's opinion on something without further verification, there is a finite probability that his would be high on the list.
Even CAGW!
Silver Smudger said:
That graphic illustrates EXACTLY what wc98 said !
You don't think that illustrates that the warming is global?Bizarre.
Just to be clear, the blue bits are the only areas that have not risen. There isn't much blue. The yellow - red colour band is all where the temperature has risen.
Well, I dip in and out of this thread to see if there is anything new (as with the other thread) and nothing has changed.
Still a refusal of nature to acquisce to political demands, and an obdurate resistance to moderate opinion which at the very least would be evidenced by a more open discussion in MSM.
Becoming ever more of McCarthian witch-hunt as days go by!
Still a refusal of nature to acquisce to political demands, and an obdurate resistance to moderate opinion which at the very least would be evidenced by a more open discussion in MSM.
Becoming ever more of McCarthian witch-hunt as days go by!
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
That graphic illustrates EXACTLY what wc98 said !
You don't think that illustrates that the warming is global?Bizarre.
Just to be clear, the blue bits are the only areas that have not risen. There isn't much blue. The yellow - red colour band is all where the temperature has risen.
Which bit are of the OP (wc98's post) are you denying?
Bizarre indeed, but we've been witness to this for over a decade now, so it tends to fall on deaf ears.
Ali G said:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time"
Abraham Lincoln
OT:Abraham Lincoln
Congrats on the 200 month membership, 22 months more than our Turbobloke - tell us - how does that make you feel?
A little warmer or are you chilling to it all a bit?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff