Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
dickymint said:
johnfm said:
Must say the standard of discourse on here is not exactly threatening the Captain of Oxford's debating team.
And your contribution is?I can only assume you've never watched the banter that goes on between college debating teams.
Edited by dickymint on Wednesday 26th July 16:34
It didn't include taking things personally or insulting people.
That sort of noise just gets in the way of the "debate"
johnfm said:
dickymint said:
johnfm said:
Must say the standard of discourse on here is not exactly threatening the Captain of Oxford's debating team.
And your contribution is?I can only assume you've never watched the banter that goes on between college debating teams.
Edited by dickymint on Wednesday 26th July 16:34
It didn't include taking things personally or insulting people.
That sort of noise just gets in the way of the "debate"
knuckle comment it's banter as in all "debates" and this after all is PH not the Royal Society! You may or may not have noticed that some on here cry "insult" only when they are losing the debate.You'll be slagging off PM's Questions next
Diesel and petrol car ban: Clean air strategy 'not enough'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40731164
The government's £3bn clean air strategy does not go "far enough or fast enough", campaigners have said.
Moves including scrapping new diesel and petrol cars from 2040 and £255m for councils to tackle air pollution locally have been welcomed.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the government was determined to deliver a "green revolution".
But environmental groups criticised the decision not to include a scrappage scheme or immediate clean air zones.
The plan to stop all sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is part of the government's intention for almost every car and van on UK roads to be zero emission by 2050.
The government report includes the promise of £40m immediately to start local schemes rolling, which could include changing road layouts, retrofitting public transport or schemes to encourage people to leave their cars at home.
The funding pot will come from changes to tax on diesel vehicles and the reprioritising departmental budgets - the exact details will be announced later in the year.
If those measures do not cut emissions enough, charging zones for the most polluting vehicles could be the next step...................Continues
I've got it. Let's go back to horses. Their output is bio degradable
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40731164
The government's £3bn clean air strategy does not go "far enough or fast enough", campaigners have said.
Moves including scrapping new diesel and petrol cars from 2040 and £255m for councils to tackle air pollution locally have been welcomed.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the government was determined to deliver a "green revolution".
But environmental groups criticised the decision not to include a scrappage scheme or immediate clean air zones.
The plan to stop all sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is part of the government's intention for almost every car and van on UK roads to be zero emission by 2050.
The government report includes the promise of £40m immediately to start local schemes rolling, which could include changing road layouts, retrofitting public transport or schemes to encourage people to leave their cars at home.
The funding pot will come from changes to tax on diesel vehicles and the reprioritising departmental budgets - the exact details will be announced later in the year.
If those measures do not cut emissions enough, charging zones for the most polluting vehicles could be the next step...................Continues
I've got it. Let's go back to horses. Their output is bio degradable
Sea level fears as Greenland darkens
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
Scientists are "very worried" that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet COULD accelerate and raise sea levels more than EXPECTED.
They say warmer conditions are encouraging algae to grow and darken the surface.
Dark ice absorbs more solar radiation than clean white ice so warms up and melts more rapidly.
Currently the Greenland ice sheet is adding up to 1mm a year to the rise in the global average level of the oceans.
It is the largest mass of ice in the northern hemisphere covering an area about seven times the size of the United Kingdom and reaching up to 3km (2 miles) in thickness.
This means that the average sea level would rise around the world by about seven metres, more than 20ft, IF it all melted.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues with tons of speculation. It's funded a 5 yr investigation. Keep the money rolling in then!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
Scientists are "very worried" that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet COULD accelerate and raise sea levels more than EXPECTED.
They say warmer conditions are encouraging algae to grow and darken the surface.
Dark ice absorbs more solar radiation than clean white ice so warms up and melts more rapidly.
Currently the Greenland ice sheet is adding up to 1mm a year to the rise in the global average level of the oceans.
It is the largest mass of ice in the northern hemisphere covering an area about seven times the size of the United Kingdom and reaching up to 3km (2 miles) in thickness.
This means that the average sea level would rise around the world by about seven metres, more than 20ft, IF it all melted.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues with tons of speculation. It's funded a 5 yr investigation. Keep the money rolling in then!!!
High risk of 'unprecedented' winter downpours - Met Office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
There is an increased risk of "unprecedented" winter downpours such as those that caused extensive flooding in 2014, the UK Met Office says.
Their study suggests there's now a one in three chance of monthly rainfall records being broken in England and Wales in winter.
The estimate reflects natural variability plus changes in the UK climate as a result of global warming.
BUT A SUPERCOMPUTER WAS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE SCALE OF INCREASED RISK.
There we go, the Super Computer GIGO model strikes again !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
There is an increased risk of "unprecedented" winter downpours such as those that caused extensive flooding in 2014, the UK Met Office says.
Their study suggests there's now a one in three chance of monthly rainfall records being broken in England and Wales in winter.
The estimate reflects natural variability plus changes in the UK climate as a result of global warming.
BUT A SUPERCOMPUTER WAS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE SCALE OF INCREASED RISK.
There we go, the Super Computer GIGO model strikes again !!!
robinessex said:
High risk of 'unprecedented' winter downpours - Met Office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
There is an increased risk of "unprecedented" winter downpours such as those that caused extensive flooding in 2014, the UK Met Office says.
Their study suggests there's now a one in three chance of monthly rainfall records being broken in England and Wales in winter.
The estimate reflects natural variability plus changes in the UK climate as a result of global warming.
Good ol' Mystic Met. Mummy bought them a new slide rule so they must show how useful it is in order to get the next one.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4068...
There is an increased risk of "unprecedented" winter downpours such as those that caused extensive flooding in 2014, the UK Met Office says.
Their study suggests there's now a one in three chance of monthly rainfall records being broken in England and Wales in winter.
The estimate reflects natural variability plus changes in the UK climate as a result of global warming.
Whatever the reason for citing 2014, none of the relatively recent UK flooding episodes have been attributed to human activity in any way whatsoever.
The Met Office couldn't get its own ducks in a row regarding the 2014 floods.
Explanation of the 2014 event from Prof Collins as posted on PH at the time said:
One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming. Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter".
Sensible chap, remembering that global warming junkscience in gigo climate models predicted jet stream weakening and movement towards the pole, not intensification and movement away from the pole.More coverage of UK flooding, this time 2015, as posted on PH at the time.
Coverage as posted on PH said:
Scientists have contradicted a minister’s claim that last weekend’s flooding in Cumbria was unprecedented and linked to climate change.They say that there have been 34 extreme floods there in the past 300 years and that lives had been put at risk by “grossly underestimating” the risk of floods and failing to consider evidence from records. Liz Truss, the environment secretary, told MPs on Monday that Cumbria had experienced an “unprecedented weather event” that was “consistent with climate change trends”.
Dr Tom Spencer, a reader in coastal ecology and geomorphology at the University of Cambridge, said that analysis of deposits left by floods in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries showed they were the “biggest events”. These floods happened long before the rise in manmade emissions, undermining the claim that last weekend’s floods were linked to climate change. He said that the government relied too heavily on records dating back only 40 years.
Going further back to the 2007 floods, UK scientists confirmed that the event did not support the idea that the flooding was linked to climate change. This conclusion was contained within a comprehensive hydrological appraisal of the summer 2007 floods carried out by scientists from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology which said that the flooding 'did not show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios'. Dr Tom Spencer, a reader in coastal ecology and geomorphology at the University of Cambridge, said that analysis of deposits left by floods in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries showed they were the “biggest events”. These floods happened long before the rise in manmade emissions, undermining the claim that last weekend’s floods were linked to climate change. He said that the government relied too heavily on records dating back only 40 years.
From studies over a more realistic timescale, cited previously in PH climate threads, sixteen episodes of increased UK flooding occurrence are identified in the data 12 of which (at c. 11170, 5740, 4850, 4530, 3550, 2740, 2560, 2290, 1960, 1300, 670, 580 years ago) are recorded in most UK regions i.e. severe and non-ocalised flooding episodes, none of which correlate with post-industrialisation release of carbon dioxide (!) so causation is out of the window over timescales not only including recent decades as above but also over thousands of years. This is bleedin' obvious but needs regular repetition for the faithful.
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
No, I haven't had time to listen yet.
Says the man who devotes half his life obsessively scratching around, looking for stuff to defeat those who mock his belief.
Blimey. It says a lot that you think people who bother to do their own research about claims made on the internet are a bad thing. You're a true champion of ignorance.
And it hardly requires "scratching around"; it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke you evidently accept without question. Most of the time it takes a minute or two to find out he's lying to you, and I'm more than happy to do the research and share it in the thread.
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
No, I haven't had time to listen yet.
Says the man who devotes half his life obsessively scratching around, looking for stuff to defeat those who mock his belief.Blimey. It says a lot that you think people who bother to do their own research about claims made on the internet are a bad thing. You're a true champion of ignorance.
And it hardly requires "scratching around"; it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke you evidently accept without question. Most of the time it takes a minute or two to find out he's lying to you, and I'm more than happy to do the research and share it in the thread.
You are just willfully blind to your own extreme prejudice and confirmation bias.
Strangely, having an alternative opinion backed up by tons of scientific research and data is not lying, it is forming a judgement, an opinion.
Just because it doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it a lie.
What it does make you, is dishonest, and very very tedious.
durbster said:
Blimey. It says a lot that you think people who bother to do their own research about claims made on the internet are a bad thing. You're a true champion of ignorance.
And it hardly requires "scratching around"; it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke you evidently accept without question. Most of the time it takes a minute or two to find out he's lying to you, and I'm more than happy to do the research and share it in the thread.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
durbster said:
it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke...
You're not arguing against me you're arguing against empirical data (primarily) and sound science, this means you're destined to lose on a permanent basis. As we see.
This should be obvious to you by now i.e. if it's so easy how come you haven't managed it yet.
durbster said:
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
No, I haven't had time to listen yet.
Says the man who devotes half his life obsessively scratching around, looking for stuff to defeat those who mock his belief.Blimey. It says a lot that you think people who bother to do their own research about claims made on the internet are a bad thing. You're a true champion of ignorance.
And it hardly requires "scratching around"; it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke you evidently accept without question. Most of the time it takes a minute or two to find out he's lying to you, and I'm more than happy to do the research and share it in the thread.
Boom....
Mr Ironic....or should that be Mr Disturbedster?
Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 27th July 13:32
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
it's extremely easy to debunk the teachings of the church of turbobloke...
You're not arguing against me you're arguing against empirical data (primarily) and sound science, this means you're destined to lose on a permanent basis. As we see.
This should be obvious to you by now i.e. if it's so easy how come you haven't managed it yet.
Engineer792 said:
As it's evidently so extremely easy to find said 'debunking', it just makes me wonder why so many scientists and the like are wasting so much of their precious time doing so.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Because propaganda can be frighteningly effective against facts, and the public is naive. We're seeing that played out all over the place, not just climate science.As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
As it's evidently so extremely easy to find said 'debunking', it just makes me wonder why so many scientists and the like are wasting so much of their precious time doing so.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Because propaganda can be frighteningly effective against facts, and the public is naive. We're seeing that played out all over the place, not just climate science.As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Engineer792 said:
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
As it's evidently so extremely easy to find said 'debunking', it just makes me wonder why so many scientists and the like are wasting so much of their precious time doing so.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Because propaganda can be frighteningly effective against facts, and the public is naive. We're seeing that played out all over the place, not just climate science.As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Of course we are all "the public" and therefore all naive.
Right?
Engineer792 said:
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
As it's evidently so extremely easy to find said 'debunking', it just makes me wonder why so many scientists and the like are wasting so much of their precious time doing so.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Because propaganda can be frighteningly effective against facts, and the public is naive. We're seeing that played out all over the place, not just climate science.As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
As it's evidently so extremely easy to find said 'debunking', it just makes me wonder why so many scientists and the like are wasting so much of their precious time doing so.
As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
Because propaganda can be frighteningly effective against facts, and the public is naive. We're seeing that played out all over the place, not just climate science.As Einstein said, "If I'm wrong then only one should do it"
The only is to read everything and make your own judgements - and not to add to the morass which already exists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff