Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[robinessex]

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

Don't hold your breath

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

I will check them out if you can explain why you've posted them.

That the oceans and Sun are the main drivers of climate is well known and not in dispute. That information is then used to give a context to AGW.

There are tens of thousands of papers backing up my position, I couldn't possibly post them all.

Durbster you cannot work on numbers of reports, if what Judith Curry said is correct you will not get anything other than people producing papers to confirm the status, good work may be being done by people all around the world but all of it is dependent on grants, who controlled the grants Government's do, many government's have backed the idea of Global warming, reports under their stewardship will tow the line, politicians interference in science is not new.

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

I will check them out if you can explain why you've posted them.

That the oceans and Sun are the main drivers of climate is well known and not in dispute. That information is then used to give a context to AGW.

There are tens of thousands of papers backing up my position, I couldn't possibly post them all.

There are also thousands that don't, and thousands that the climate establishment claim do, that don't (as in fake consensus surveys).

And after such irrefutable fake consensus shenanigans, it's laughable that you say Notrickszone has been discredited - yes only by the very corrupt climate establishment that sets up a 'debunk site' for every purveyor of alternative or less extreme opinions - you really think they are objective?

BTW Nice how you always dodge any mention of anything that utterly destroys what you are saying - Arctic warming/fish movements etc. - but that's typical of you.

Anyway read and digest this, oh yes, sorry, you're too busy to actually consider an alternative opinion aren't you!

http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happe...

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

No, you implied that I don't know what it means. Enlighten me as I clearly don't know, you said so, see above. (You still don't get this internet thing do you, what you write stays written).

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

No, you implied that I don't know what it means. Enlighten me as I clearly don't know, you said so, see above. (You still don't get this internet thing do you, what you write stays written).

I see. You're prepared to call me a name but don't have the balls to justify it.

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

There are also thousands that don't, and thousands that the climate establishment claim do, that don't (as in fake consensus surveys).

Thousands eh. You make these statements but never back them up (and then call me shallow).

So where are they? Share them and I'll happily have a look.

All I've ever seen is lists like the one turbobloke nicked from No Tricks Zone. I've never found anything on that site that offers evidence against AGW in any way, shape or form.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

No, you implied that I don't know what it means. Enlighten me as I clearly don't know, you said so, see above. (You still don't get this internet thing do you, what you write stays written).

I see. You're prepared to call me a name but don't have the balls to justify it.

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists or stupid etc, now you call me a coward.

You are a troll, plain and simple, I know what the word means in the context of an internet discussion and I know it's etymology. You didn't, you made an incorrect assumption as to its origins then went quiet when you looked it up. You tried to make me look stupid and ended up making yourself look stupid. Shall we leave it there?

[robinessex]

And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?

Worth a try I suppose! Good luck!

Also what's the 'correct' temperature and how is it determined?

Correct level of carbon dioxide? Currently photosynthesising plants et al are barely above starvation point.

[dub16v]

robinessex said:

And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?

Coming into this late, what do you mean by this? (genuine question)

[turbobloke]

dub16v said:

robinessex said:

And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?

Coming into this late, what do you mean by this? (genuine question)

Once you/we get the 'correct' temperature from durbster, things might get easier on that front.

Do you know? It would be good to have the political value of course.

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists or stupid etc, now you call me a coward.

Coward yes, and I explained why. I've also explained why I've used any other labels. Now it's your turn.

XM5ER said:

You are a troll, plain and simple, I know what the word means in the context of an internet discussion and I know it's etymology. You didn't, you made an incorrect assumption as to its origins then went quiet when you looked it up.

You think I had to look it up!

I've been chatting on the internet for over 20 years. I knew what trolling was before it was called trolling.

I'm afraid what's actually happened is you called me a troll but can't justify why when challenged, because I don't actually fit to any of the descriptions you could find. And you're now trying to punch your way out of a hole you've dug.

Anyway, this kind of back and forth is incredibly tedious for everyone so I am done.

[dub16v]

turbobloke said:

Once you/we get the 'correct' temperature from durbster, things might get easier on that front.

Do you know? It would be good to have the political value of course.

Sorry, you've lost me!?

[durbster]

robinessex said:

And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?

Warmer.

[johnfm]

A quick query - what do you guys think is a realistic timetable for the 'great wake up', when the music finally stops on this unscientific 'climate science' merry go round?

I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

There have been numerous times that you have called me and others paranoid and/or conspiracy theorists or stupid etc, now you call me a coward.

Coward yes, and I explained why. I've also explained why I've used any other labels. Now it's your turn.

No it isn't. Troll. And no you haven't explained why you call people paranoid and delusional.

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

You are a troll, plain and simple, I know what the word means in the context of an internet discussion and I know it's etymology. You didn't, you made an incorrect assumption as to its origins then went quiet when you looked it up.

You think I had to look it up!

Yes I do. Otherwise you wouldn't have written what you wrote. It's OK learning is a life long process.

durbster said:

I've been chatting on the internet for over 20 years. I knew what trolling was before it was called trolling.

I may have to keep this quote for posterity, it has so many layers of fail, I love it. My Dad is bigger than your Dad though.

durbster said:

I'm afraid what's actually happened is you called me a troll but can't justify why when challenged, because I don't actually fit to any of the descriptions you could find. And you're now trying to punch your way out of a hole you've dug.

Again, you are not getting the internet thing, what happened is still there for all to see, it doesn't require interpretation (rather like raw temperature data isn't and doesn't).

durbster said:

Anyway, this kind of back and forth is incredibly tedious for everyone so I am done.

Good.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

I just feel sad that I've helped drag this nonsense out to a fourth volume.

re your last reply on the old thread. the pdo was discovered by a fisheries researcher ,it is known to be the driver of fish movements as a result.

Yes, but the PDO is a short-medium term effect, whereas AGW is long term. I doubt we have enough data to have a lot of confidence in this yet but what we do have certainly doesn't suggest the waters are not warming. Do you agree?

wc98 said:

if the current lot of marine biologists can take their eye off the co2 grant train...

Dismissing evidence with this silliness doesn't actually stop it being true.

wc98 said:

the pdo and amo can easily be responsible for just about every change on land and sea you claim to be evidence of agw occurring as predicted.

In the short - medium term, absolutely. Weather patterns obviously have a far more dramatic effect than the drip-drip effects of AGW. AGW is about a long-term warming trend, not seasonal variations.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Durbster you cannot work on numbers of reports, if what Judith Curry said is correct you will not get anything other than people producing papers to confirm the status, good work may be being done by people all around the world but all of it is dependent on grants, who controlled the grants Government's do, many government's have backed the idea of Global warming, reports under their stewardship will tow the line, politicians interference in science is not new.

Yep, but that's true of all science and it hasn't stopped controversial discoveries being made historically, so why would it now?

Let's not kid ourselves, there is quite a lot of money in fossil fuels and their associated industries and infrastructure, and I daresay there would be an enormous chunk of it willingly handed over to anybody that could scientifically disprove AGW. It would take far more than the egos of politicians to prevent that.

Also, the fundamental science behind AGW was established long before it entered the public consciousness, so there would have been no motivation from Governments to support it. Kyoto was the first sign that there was any political will (and they cocked that up pretty well, which is why we're having this silly debate).

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Also, the fundamental science behind AGW was established long before it entered the public consciousness, so there would have been no motivation from Governments to support it. Kyoto was the first sign that there was any political will (and they cocked that up pretty well, which is why we're having this silly debate).

I think you really need to read up on the history of the CAGW issue and its roots. Also the UN and Agenda 21, Club of Rome, George Soros, Climate gate 1 and 2, James Hansen and the air conditioning.
Also check out Arrhenius' later works that showed a significant reduction of the potential warming from CO2 (which was a problem as warming was considered a benefit)