Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Here you go Durbs......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniq...
Remind you of a certain TV station?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniq...
Remind you of a certain TV station?
grumbledoak said:
Which is why the appearance of authority and credibility are so carefully managed by those who wish to lie to us.
Which is a story given to us by not very credible sources. See the problem? 
Engineer792 said:
And likewise, no shortage of attempts to discredit the other side.
The only is to read everything and make your own judgements - and not to add to the morass which already exists.
I disagree. Like almost everyone here, I am not qualified to make my own mind up. I am not an climate scientist or a physicist, I'm just a layman. The absolute best I can do is consider who is most likely to be correct and go with that. When doing your own research leads you to disagree with every single expert on a subject, where does that leave you?The only is to read everything and make your own judgements - and not to add to the morass which already exists.
We've seen the exact same thing with the Charlie Gard case. Those with access to all the firsthand data, the knowledge, the qualifications and the experience say one thing, but countless others decide they know better.
durbster said:
Engineer792 said:
And likewise, no shortage of attempts to discredit the other side.
The only is to read everything and make your own judgements - and not to add to the morass which already exists.
I disagree. Like almost everyone here, I am not qualified to make my own mind up.The only is to read everything and make your own judgements - and not to add to the morass which already exists.
You have just as much right to form an opinion as anyone else, for whatever reasons you choose.
But not more.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/prof-peter-ridd-t...
Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked
Alan Jones, interviews Peter Ridd, James Cook university professor of physics about the state of the Great Barrier Reef
The coral reef recovers
Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.”
On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.”
All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts.
Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale.
Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.
On the failure of modern science
Peter Ridd: We can no longer rely on our science institutions. This is a very sad thing.
We are like a ship upon the ocean when our science fails and we need to do something about it. … This science is almost never checked.
Alan Jones: All these things [bleaching, crown of thorns] have been around for millennia, I love this line, as you write “long before scientists got hold of any scuba gear.”
Peter Ridd: These things only became a problem when scientists pop up on the scene.
Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
Like a bushfire… It [bleaching] looks terrible when it happens but it grows back
There's a lot there that would have interested John 'Snorkel' Presclot back in the day, he could have added something on the failure of modern politics....and still could.
Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked
Alan Jones, interviews Peter Ridd, James Cook university professor of physics about the state of the Great Barrier Reef
The coral reef recovers
Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.”
On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.”
All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts.
Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale.
Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.
On the failure of modern science
Peter Ridd: We can no longer rely on our science institutions. This is a very sad thing.
We are like a ship upon the ocean when our science fails and we need to do something about it. … This science is almost never checked.
Alan Jones: All these things [bleaching, crown of thorns] have been around for millennia, I love this line, as you write “long before scientists got hold of any scuba gear.”
Peter Ridd: These things only became a problem when scientists pop up on the scene.
Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
Like a bushfire… It [bleaching] looks terrible when it happens but it grows back
There's a lot there that would have interested John 'Snorkel' Presclot back in the day, he could have added something on the failure of modern politics....and still could.
durbster said:
When doing your own research leads you to disagree with every single expert on a subject, where does that leave you?
Durbs - are you really implying every single expert agrees with AGW? If so I must say I find that a bit odd 
You could make a case a 'majority' perhaps but surely not all ?
turbobloke said:
Peter Ridd: These things only became a problem when scientists pop up on the scene.
Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
But why? Agw deniers keep on saying that there's this global academic and political conspiracy about global warming and how harmful it is but to what end??Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
Applying Occam's razor to the issue-isn't it just the case that some scientists have realised that fossil fuel companies and the people with interests in them will pay a lot of money to have research published that discredits something harming their business?
Rather than a global conspiracy involving politicians, the media and the academic world?
cookie118 said:
turbobloke said:
Peter Ridd: These things only became a problem when scientists pop up on the scene.
Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
But why? Agw deniers keep on saying that there's this global academic and political conspiracy about global warming and how harmful it is but to what end??Scientists are trying to close down, or affect adversely the sugar cane, the cattle, and the coal industry, and they are also telling the world the reef is dead which affects the tourist industry in Queensland.
Applying Occam's razor to the issue-isn't it just the case that some scientists have realised that fossil fuel companies and the people with interests in them will pay a lot of money to have research published that discredits something harming their business?
durbster said:
I disagree. Like almost everyone here, I am not qualified to make my own mind up. I am not an climate scientist or a physicist, I'm just a layman. The absolute best I can do is consider who is most likely to be correct and go with that. When doing your own research leads you to disagree with every single expert on a subject, where does that leave you?
The Earth is flatThe sun revolves around the Earth
Illnesses are cured by leeches
The power of witches exists
In their time...100% consensus.
Then somebody disagreed.
If they hadn't come along, we'd all still be as confused as disturbster.
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout
Most media outlets cannot be bothered to report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually been falling for the past few years, the media would be more than silent.
As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.
On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.
Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.
Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather. Looking at current events right now, we’d say that Armageddon would be created by a world war or a global economic collapse.
Even a warmer planet would be more hospitable to plants. But again, warmth as a benefit for plant life is not something climate alarmists want to hear. They need their backsides patted by the same lies.
Most media outlets cannot be bothered to report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually been falling for the past few years, the media would be more than silent.
As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.
On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.
Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.
Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather. Looking at current events right now, we’d say that Armageddon would be created by a world war or a global economic collapse.
Even a warmer planet would be more hospitable to plants. But again, warmth as a benefit for plant life is not something climate alarmists want to hear. They need their backsides patted by the same lies.
Some modern history suggests itself at this point.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...
durbster said:
I am not qualified to make my own mind up.
Wow, that's some admission, one that many who have read your posts would agree with. But really, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. the difference between someone 'qualified', passing some test, and the knowledge of someone who has studied the subject for years but who hasn't taken the test can be worlds apart.
Have you ever thought about having a mind of your own and 'thinking' for yourself, rather than be told what to think?
Edited by Bacardi on Thursday 27th July 23:09
traxx said:
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout.
NASA link (to save the hassle of copy/paste) >>>>>>>> https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/zygalski said:
So people here jumping on the fact that NASA publishes data showing the sea level hasn't risen for 2 whole years as some kind of hush-up, yet at the same time quickly discredit the same data from NASA for the previous 20 years.
Ok, really great joined-up thinking there chaps!
As this is the political thread, can you think of anything that has happened in the USA politically in the last two years that could lead to a change of direction, or do you think it's just coincidence ? or do you think political direction will not influence science ?Ok, really great joined-up thinking there chaps!
zygalski said:
So people here jumping on the fact that NASA publishes data showing the sea level hasn't risen for 2 whole years as some kind of hush-up, yet at the same time quickly discredit the same data from NASA for the previous 20 years.
Ok, really great joined-up thinking there chaps!
Which you would do well to emulate.Ok, really great joined-up thinking there chaps!
Commonplace adjustments to data to make a better fit with gigo take place down the line, not contemporaneously,
Remember how karlisation of sea surface temperature was used in an attempt to airbrush away the pause in temperature data - it was nowhere near instant - so the further karlisation of recent sea level data is something for the future. One spot of diddling down the line can alter however many years of data as may be 'required'.
Given your mocking hint that the latest developments are being covered widely in the MSM, just as a single hot day would be, perhaps you could point to the mass MSM coverage? Tick tock.
zygalski said:
So what it boils down to is ignoring the 90% of the graph you don't like the data on, and focusing on the 10% you do like.
I think I'm getting the hang of this denialist thinking malarkey.
Says the people who started temperature recording in the 1960's and ignored millennia before it.I think I'm getting the hang of this denialist thinking malarkey.
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
I am not qualified to make my own mind up.
Wow, that's some admission, one that many who have read your posts would agree with. But really, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. the difference between someone 'qualified', passing some test, and the knowledge of someone who has studied the subject for years but who hasn't taken the test can be worlds apart.
Have you ever thought about having a mind of your own and 'thinking' for yourself, rather than be told what to think?
Edited by Bacardi on Thursday 27th July 23:09
It's not an admission. It's been my position from the start. I have learned a lot on this subject when investigating claims made by in these threads, and have found very little that supports the anti-AGW view (it's mostly circumstantial evidence at best). I've presented everything I've found and provided sources to explain why I think that.
And it's absurd to suggest I don't think for myself. Every time turbobloke makes his daily and comical claims that the data supports his position, I have gone to look at the data to confirm that it doesn't, and encourage everyone to do the same.
But I'm not so arrogant to think that my casual, hobby research makes my opinion equivalent to somebody who studies it professionally.
Do your own research. Make your own mind up. Think for yourself. This is exactly what anti-vaccine people and food propagandists like David Avocado Wolffe say.
Please explain how believing what you read on a fossil-fuel funded advocacy blog or a right-wing propaganda website is considered thinking for yourself, but believing what you read on the NASA website is not?
What it really means is simply: believe this information, not that information. It's a non-argument.
Edited by durbster on Friday 28th July 08:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff