Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

Here's another article from the supposedly impartial BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41469911

Absolutely nothing in there about how vaccines are dangerous and contain poisons and toxins and stuff.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Here's another article from the supposedly impartial BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41469911

Absolutely nothing in there about how vaccines are dangerous and contain poisons and toxins and stuff.

Ah, maybe the excuse for your present status then Durbster ?

[Ali G]

The fact is, that the Beeb published an WMO (Met Office branch of the UN) press release:

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/gree...

Under a BBC banner here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4177...

Comments are worth a read - so hardly worth repeating that discussion here in the interests of lowering carbon footprint etc. etc.

However, perhaps worth pointing out,

Beeb said:

"It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network," Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO's global atmosphere watch programme

Beeb said:

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years

Beeb said:

Emissions from human sources have slowed down in the last couple of years according to research

So El Nino then.

[Terminator X]

gadgetmac said:

It must be this conspiracy that is being peddled and that the Beeb are supposedly heading up.

It's only "you guys" that keep mentioning a conspiracy. None of those that doubt the "man made" element of CO2 or indeed that CO2 is even an issue at such low levels have ever (?) mentioned it, even if they have I bet it rarely gets a mention. This sort of thing sells papers hence multiple publications reporting the same or similar, simple as that.

TX.

[robinessex]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

FFS - its not just on the BBC.

And it is factual.

Remember Paddy et al that the BBC is funded by the State using its tax payers (and Capita) to collect the revenue based on the ability to receive their output.

You don't have to watch it to be legally obliged to couch up. Just be ABLE to watch or listen to what they pump out.

As I recall to fail to pay is still a criminal offence.

Thus almost no one is assumed to be exempt from paying for the BBC service unless they can prove they are old enough to qualify for a free licence.

I can choose freely which other media to buy into - but not if I do so via TV services where to be legally acceptable I have to buy a licence that help to fund the BBC.

That is the special privilege the BBC has and has always had from back when a licence was required for Radio receivers.

The fact of reporting a press release is no more than reporting a press release. I would think that at the time of release most of them are reported with little or no analysis due to the news time factor for newness and the lack of ability to do any analysis in house.

You get the message out that the press release wanted to push and then file it in the archives. Job done. It is very unlikely in most cases that anyone will revisit the content and even less likely that a resulting commentary will be given any prominence in the general media.

The BBC's charter should mean it functions differently to the mass media rabble that has to scrabble for revenue rather than receive government largess. It is meant to be balanced to reflect the broader interests of the whole society since pretty much the whole society pays for it whether they wish to or not.

It seems in most things news related it is not the case that they seek balance or alternative interpretations in a non-partisan way. Thus is not unreasonable to criticise them specifically given their funding arrangements, charter and somewhat global reach.

You too seem to be dodging the actual question I asked.
Despite the fact that it was on the BBC and multiple other outlets.

Robinessex essentially called the report bullst 'because' BBC.
He's since come back to say it is actually fake news.

I am asking him / you :

Has the CO2 levels risen to a higher level / rate than ever seen before ?

Nope !!



PS Note the complete absense of any correlation between CO2 and planet temperature

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 31st October 13:44

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Nope !!



PS Note the complete absense of any correlation between CO2 and planet temperature

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 31st October 13:44

Why do you keep posting that graph. It actually proves that the BBC were correct in their analysis of the report.

Did you even read the BBC article or any of the others?

This is what they said about CO2 levels

“According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.”

Which is what your graph shows

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 31st October 14:00

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Nope !!



PS Note the complete absense of any correlation between CO2 and planet temperature

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 31st October 13:44

Why do you keep posting that graph. It actually proves that the BBC were correct in their analysis of the report.

Did you even read the BBC article or any of the others?

This is what they said about CO2 levels

“According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.”

Which is what your graph shows

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 31st October 14:00

4,500,000,000,000 - 5,000,000 = 4,495,000,000 which we'll ignore then, ok ?

[Ali G]

Aunty looks a little confused..

Beeb said:

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

But..

Beeb also said:

According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. , in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.

[turbobloke]

“According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.”

In which case let's go with that and, if we do, it demonstrates nicely how today's temperature is 'wrong' since with carbon dioxide driving climate as the faith claims, it should be 2 - 3 deg C warmer. Or, to put it another way, carbon dioxide is not the planet's thermostat as (falsely) claimed by the doctrine of faith.

Also today's sea levels are 'wrong' aka not linked to CO2.

This very obvious situation wasn't spelt out because...

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

Aunty looks a little confused..

Beeb said:

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

But..

Beeb also said:

According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. , in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.

At least they didn't claim energy is measured in kW/h or MW/h

When handwaving any problem away Al Gore said:

The world was wobbly back then.

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

Aunty looks a little confused..

Beeb said:

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

But..

Beeb also said:

According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. , in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.

At least they didn't claim energy is measured in kW/h or MW/h

When handwaving any problem away Al Gore said:

The world was wobbly back then.

The anomaly appears in the original WMO press release, which demonstrates lack of critical review during proof reading.

The BBC has then regurgitated this verbatim, which demonstrates a lack of critical review of source material.

Lose/lose.

[turbobloke]

GIGO

[LongQ]

durbster said:

Here's another article from the supposedly impartial BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41469911

Absolutely nothing in there about how vaccines are dangerous and contain poisons and toxins and stuff.

It's from BBC Wales. I expect they put the warnings you mention (or a link to them) in the Welsh Language version of the article.

Here is a US article about the Nasal Spray version not being pushed in the USA this season

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-20...

and here is a UK article that says it is because UK and Finnish results are very different to those that the USA is seeing.

http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/nasal-flu-vaccine

Seems quite a balancedpairing for a quick search I suppose.

[Ali G]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

Here's another article from the supposedly impartial BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41469911

Absolutely nothing in there about how vaccines are dangerous and contain poisons and toxins and stuff.

It's from BBC Wales. I expect they put the warnings you mention (or a link to them) in the Welsh Language version of the article.

Here is a US article about the Nasal Spray version not being pushed in the USA this season

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-20...

and here is a UK article that says it is because UK and Finnish results are very different to those that the USA is seeing.

http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/nasal-flu-vaccine

Seems quite a balancedpairing for a quick search I suppose.

Alternatively, given that the 'flu virus mutates on a regular but unpredictable basis, and that 'innoculation' is provided via already experienced viruses, there is the distinct possibility that providing ' flu jabs is a worthless (with financial cost) exercise which may expose those with unfound immunity deficiency to unnecessary risk and useless for the more robust.

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

LongQ said:

durbster said:

Here's another article from the supposedly impartial BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41469911

Absolutely nothing in there about how vaccines are dangerous and contain poisons and toxins and stuff.

It's from BBC Wales. I expect they put the warnings you mention (or a link to them) in the Welsh Language version of the article.

Here is a US article about the Nasal Spray version not being pushed in the USA this season

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-20...

and here is a UK article that says it is because UK and Finnish results are very different to those that the USA is seeing.

http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/nasal-flu-vaccine

Seems quite a balancedpairing for a quick search I suppose.

Alternatively, given that the 'flu virus mutates on a regular but unpredictable basis, and that 'innoculation' is provided via already experienced viruses, there is the distinct possibility that providing ' flu jabs is a worthless (with financial cost) exercise which may expose those with unfound immunity deficiency to unnecessary risk and useless for the more robust.

What's missing is a cholesterol test

[Cold]

I wish they'd just pick a suitable Earth temperature and stick with it. Then all this nonsense would stop being relevant.

[Ali G]

Cold said:

I wish they'd just pick a suitable Earth temperature and stick with it. Then all this nonsense would stop being relevant.

The suitable temperature is that which you are presented with, then adapt to.

Mammals are quite good at this (particularly homo sapiens) - for a reason.

Evolution.

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

Aunty looks a little confused..

Beeb said:

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

But..

Beeb also said:

According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. , in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets.

Both statements are accurate but I can see how it could confuse.

To summarize what the WMO GHG Bulletin says; CO2 levels today far exceed anytime in the 800,000 years of the Antarctic ice-core record, and geological evidence shows the last time the earth had similar levels to today was 3-5 million years ago in the Pliocene.

[Diderot]

Plunky, Durbster, et al do you really believe that the earth will warm by up to 3 degrees by the end of the century as claimed in the UN report? I mean really? Or, put another way, do you really believe that if we abandon coal (that'll be fun for Germany), go fully windymill and solar, humans can actually prevent temperatures from increasing?

That's what it really boils down to; the cold hard truth of the matter.

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

Both statements are accurate but I can see how it could confuse.

To summarize what the WMO GHG Bulletin says; CO2 levels today far exceed anytime in the 800,000 years of the Antarctic ice-core record, and geological evidence shows the last time the earth had similar levels to today was 3-5 million years ago in the Pliocene.

Since an 800,000 year- old ice-core sample from the Antarctic serves as a proxy for global CO2 levels, which are recognised as variable both in terms of time and location, and is measurable to what error bars?

Excuse this contrarian!