Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Northbloke said:
turbobloke said:
Thanks for that, love Matt Ridley (read a load of his books), very intelligent chap. Spot on as usual.He's a scientist, why don't the Beeb get him on to provide balance if they don't like Lawson.
(Went to Warwick Uni (Maths), never met JoA, not an innumerate Green)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-...
kerplunk said:
Good find K but sort of proves the point (I've never seen or heard that before). Supposedly the most pressing problem of our time and he made it on to some obscure radio programme in 2015. And the fact that he attracted the massed ranks of climate science to shoot down his live comments at their leisure suggests he was close to the truth (when you're over the target you attract the most flak etc). I notice the overt smear in big letters in the opening paragraph too: pretty sure he's more famous as a prominent author than as Northern Rock Chairman (although granted an embarrassing episode) .I would love to see a similar style dissection of all Harabin's pronouncements.
However, that exchange is exactly what I would like to see given prominence, not in some one-sided hatchet job (where Ridley can't reply). This is the biggest danger to our future remember. What's happened to Horizon, Panorama or even a Great Global Warming Swindle style special. If you believe the hype surely it deserves at least that. Even in your link Ridley comes out very well I would say (many hand-waving replies as per usual), which is probably why that programme will never happen.
Bring it on.
kerplunk said:
What do you think of the comments in the article you linked to?ETA: It's actually funny, in a tragic sort of way, to see eleven of the world's most prominent climatologists, eight of them professors, dissecting every word of his interview with Harrabin.
And the Beeb have the nerve to complain about balance!
Edited by Engineer792 on Saturday 28th October 09:47
Great opening...Matt Ridley is a Conservative hereditary peer and journalist, who used to be best known for writing about genetics in the same way that Paul Nurse is a geneticist and George Monbiot is a zoologist who is best known for writing about indulgences.
The best bit is that a list of opinion holders who are some of believers' appealed authorities offers anything other than a mixture of vested interest protectionism and political activism wrapped up in a logical fallacy.
Ridley's points included widely available windymill figures and, for Paris, calculations by Lomborg using the IPCC's own junkscience modelling. The Lawson situation is a matter of record.
Providing credible unmolested data with a visible causal human signal in temperature data, and a visible measurable energy signal in TOA radiative imbalance would do nicely, data rather than diddums, but both temps and energy have nothing to offer and the required causal data (aka evidence) is missing without trace. Faithful believership relies on "the data don't matter" in any case.
This sums up the hopeless rebuttal to Ridley.
The best bit is that a list of opinion holders who are some of believers' appealed authorities offers anything other than a mixture of vested interest protectionism and political activism wrapped up in a logical fallacy.
Ridley's points included widely available windymill figures and, for Paris, calculations by Lomborg using the IPCC's own junkscience modelling. The Lawson situation is a matter of record.
Providing credible unmolested data with a visible causal human signal in temperature data, and a visible measurable energy signal in TOA radiative imbalance would do nicely, data rather than diddums, but both temps and energy have nothing to offer and the required causal data (aka evidence) is missing without trace. Faithful believership relies on "the data don't matter" in any case.
This sums up the hopeless rebuttal to Ridley.
Of course, the non-scientist Al Gore is always given a hard time on the Beeb and rigorously cross examined with grovelling apologies forth-coming when impartiality rules are breached.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/1...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/1...
Even The Guardian said:
· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult
· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"
· This article was amended on Friday October 12 2007. A panel in the article above listing the significant errors found by a high court judge in Al Gore's documentary on global warming was labelled The nine points, but contained only eight. The point we omitted was that the film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist". The missing point has been added.
· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult
· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"
· This article was amended on Friday October 12 2007. A panel in the article above listing the significant errors found by a high court judge in Al Gore's documentary on global warming was labelled The nine points, but contained only eight. The point we omitted was that the film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist". The missing point has been added.
Edited by Ali G on Saturday 28th October 10:02
I remember, many years back, nearly choking on my cornflakes upon hearing Al Gore pronounce, live on TV, that the temperature of the earth a few thousand miles down, is "several million degrees".
And I don't recall a single person pulling him up about it.
NOTE: The bit about choking on my cornflakes was meant to be figurative, and not to be taken literally.
And I don't recall a single person pulling him up about it.
NOTE: The bit about choking on my cornflakes was meant to be figurative, and not to be taken literally.
Ali G said:
Of course, the non-scientist Al Gore is always given a hard time on the Beeb and rigorously cross examined with grovelling apologies forth-coming when impartiality rules are breached.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/1...
What does that have to do with the BBC?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/1...
Cold is the real killer
‘The most recent study doesn't project what its findings could mean for the future, particularly with climate change warming much of the globe over the next century.
Extrapolating the results of this study for this purpose would only provide speculations not based on evidence," Gasparrini said. However, he has received a grant from the United Kingdom to study that and hopes "we will answer this question soon," he said.
So, in simple terms, give me money and i’ll make s
t up, any st you want.
Science today in a nutshell, sold to the highest bidder.
‘The most recent study doesn't project what its findings could mean for the future, particularly with climate change warming much of the globe over the next century.
Extrapolating the results of this study for this purpose would only provide speculations not based on evidence," Gasparrini said. However, he has received a grant from the United Kingdom to study that and hopes "we will answer this question soon," he said.
So, in simple terms, give me money and i’ll make s
t up, any st you want.Science today in a nutshell, sold to the highest bidder.
Greeny said:
Any thoughts on today’s BBC anouncement regarding ‘shocking’ 2016 rises in CO2
Beeb hysterical AGW & CC crap. CO2 is at it’s lowest level ever. That’s in 4.5 billion years. Just above the level the planet needs to sustain life. There is no way to PROVE what the minuscule amount of CO2 us humans contribute is a problem at all. And PROVE that CO2 causes planets warming. And PROVE that a minute rise in the planets temperature (whatever that is) is a problem.An example of the b
ks in the articleConcentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Edited by robinessex on Monday 30th October 11:46
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
robinessex said:
Greeny said:
Any thoughts on today’s BBC anouncement regarding ‘shocking’ 2016 rises in CO2
Beeb hysterical AGW & CC crap.Or, Any thoughts on today's Bloomberg announcement.
Or, Any thoughts on today's Channel News Asia announcement.
or......
Every channel is reposting this but I’ve yet to see anyone moan about the other channels.
It must be this conspiracy that is being peddled and that the Beeb are supposedly heading up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff