Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[HairyPoppins]

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

It's all armwaving from believers, as usual...there's neither credible empirical data nor sound science to assist them, only climate model gigo and the faith of other disciples. Naturally boith are believed oh so truly.

I saw this and thought of you:

[Ali G]

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

Can you prove that?

[HairyPoppins]

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

Can you prove that?

Even now you can't get the logic right

You made the statement - not me.

I'm off for the day - its like clown school in here.

[Ali G]

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

Can you prove that?

Even now you can't get the logic right

You made the statement - not me.

I'm off for the day - its like clown school in here.

It can only improve now!

[wc98]

HairyPoppins said:

I'm off for the day - its like clown school in here.

it certainly has been since you and zyggy turned up

[anonymous-user]

zygalski said:

Must be pretty frustrating for you that it's not in any single organisation or nation's best interest to challenge all this AGW mumbo-jumbo in court.
A real piss-boiler for you PH AGW in-the-knows.

Must boil your piss that for example Shell fked up deep coral on Brent Spar rather than doing what they wanted (which was the right thing) supported by their actual evidence, but instead did the wrong thing because it wasn't worth the effort and money arguing with politically powerful idiots.

Like that you mean?

[The Don of Croy]

Anybody else notice that little bit of weather pass over the UK in the last 24 hours?

Strange it had 'no name' yet seems to have made headlines for flooding, wind damage, and some snowfall.

Is this allowed?

Simultaneously the cricket reports that Brisbane is unseasonally chilly. What's going on?

[XM5ER]

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

Perhaps you have an opinion on why Michael Mann is in contempt of court because he will not submit his data for examination? Remember the links i posted that you ignored a few days ago.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

I saw this and thought of you:

I saw this and thought of you:

[PRTVR]

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.

Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

The reason their is different answers to your question is that we are not oil companies, we can only guess at their actions.
If GW is as serious as is claimed, why are the main counties with the highest emissions not doing anything, China India, but the UK is pointlessly shutting down coal fired power stations,
It's all about politics not science. Occam's razor applies.
Edit to add a link.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/co...

And here's your answer, it wasn't hard to find.

---

China’s daunting pollution in part reflects its population — 1.37 billion people, more than any other country. As Chinese people have become richer, buying cars, bigger homes, refrigerators and air-conditioners, their emissions have risen, although their emission per capita remains much lower than Americans’.

But more than sheer population lies behind China’s rising emissions. Although China is still relatively poor, its average emissions per person have already passed the European Union average.

Another cause is China’s galloping industrial growth, fueled by coal. China’s economic takeoff has been propelled by high-polluting factories, steel mills, cement and power plants.

“The Chinese emissions story is really a coal story,” Glen Peters, a senior researcher at Cicero, a climate and environmental research institute in Oslo, wrote recently.

China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy, and coal demand has cooled since 2012. But coal still provides about two-thirds of China’s total energy needs. And each unit of energy from burning coal creates more carbon dioxide than oil or gas.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chin...

So occums razor does apply only not how you imagined.

It depends on your metric for "poor" China has a lot of people who are happy to be subsistence farmers, the government has chosen to have a space program over helping it's poor, how they choose to spend money must have an effect on how a country is defined in the wealth table, so are we saying that CO2 output from China is irrelevant due to the wealth of the country ? I thought it was global warming, look at coal fired power stations in Asia and the number of new ones planned and building, it's all about politics.

You make lots of statements there - can I have your proof for just the first one and we'll move on or else your whole comment can be disregarded.

"China has a lot of people who are happy to be subsistence farmers".

Thats opinion unless you have something to back it up.

In fact that's all there is on this thread to be honest. Opinions built on opinions.

Did you also miss the part that says "China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy"?

I don't know how the the regular CC believers do this stuff with you lot on a day-to-day basis

Thank god all your 'opinions' counts for nothing in the real world.

china is moving away from coal, but for very different reasons, non concerned with CO2
it has built so many over the last 10 years that they are running at part capacity, they have no need of extra capacity , at one point they were building one a week, smog is a problem for them but they are not shutting down coal stations they are building less. but hey they are poor they can destroy the world right ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/chin...

[LongQ]

Ali G said:

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

Overturning the Paris Agreement is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.

Better to adapt and see what happens. It would be an act of madness to attempt to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected governments let alone suffer the endless demos and adverse publicity that a certain demographic is already too eager to dish out.

Is there much to overturn?

Or indeed anything to overturn?

[LongQ]

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.

Or, the most obvious and unanswerable without invoking lots of opinions plucked from thin air.

Why would it need an answer? It starts out as a strawman argument and consistently stays that way.

Edited by LongQ on Thursday 23 November 14:49

[Ali G]

LongQ said:

Ali G said:

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

Overturning the Paris Agreement is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.

Better to adapt and see what happens. It would be an act of madness to attempt to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected governments let alone suffer the endless demos and adverse publicity that a certain demographic is already too eager to dish out.

Is there much to overturn?

Or indeed anything to overturn?

Probably, there would be, although what sanctions are available, above political humiliation, public unrest instigated by a certain demographic, are unclear to me.

Presumably there may be EU fines for EU states not fully compliant.

Paris Agreement

[LongQ]

TTwiggy said:

Ali G said:

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

Almost every single ocean-going sailing vessel since about 1830 has had some form of engine 'back-up'.

There you go. The source of the modern problem with shipping. And most of the development of humanity through trade.

What was wrong with oars?

And why does a backup engine need to be capable of delivering 11kts?

In fact why do they need a boat at all, let alone use it to pollute the seas?

[wc98]

The Don of Croy said:

Anybody else notice that little bit of weather pass over the UK in the last 24 hours?

Strange it had 'no name' yet seems to have made headlines for flooding, wind damage, and some snowfall.

Is this allowed?

Simultaneously the cricket reports that Brisbane is unseasonally chilly. What's going on?

remember that 92 million quid the met spent on the super duper forecasting computer ? it really was a waste of money. the computer said one thing, the weather did another. denmark had its coldest summer in 38 years , bet that was never forecast either. we are pushing toward the cooler phase of the amo so expect more of the same in the coming decade or two. all those heat spreading algorithms used to extrapolate temperatures to places where no measurements take place up to over 1000km away will really come home to bite them in arse if the slight warming trend reverses ,as the same effect will apply in reverse to the global data sets. fun times ahead.

brisbane may be down to wind direction , current sea temps a bit chillier than the norm for time of year there http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/ano...

[XM5ER]

wc98 said:

remember that 92 million quid the met spent on the super duper forecasting computer ? it really was a waste of money. the computer said one thing, the weather did another. denmark had its coldest summer in 38 years , bet that was never forecast either. we are pushing toward the cooler phase of the amo so expect more of the same in the coming decade or two. all those heat spreading algorithms used to extrapolate temperatures to places where no measurements take place up to over 1000km away will really come home to bite them in arse if the slight warming trend reverses ,as the same effect will apply in reverse to the global data sets. fun times ahead.

brisbane may be down to wind direction , current sea temps a bit chillier than the norm for time of year there http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/ano...

I've been getting snow reports from the alps since early November as well, all the way down into Italy.

[wc98]

XM5ER said:

I've been getting snow reports from the alps since early November as well, all the way down into Italy.

you sure ? i remember some bloke called david something saying the kids wouldn't know what that was a fair while back. i had some white stuff falling in the garden two weeks back (i am in the lomond foothills, can be a foot of snow in the garden and raining less than ten miles away at the coast) but i just assumed it was ash from a barbecue as snow is now a thing of the past

[dickymint]

wc98 said:

XM5ER said:

I've been getting snow reports from the alps since early November as well, all the way down into Italy.

you sure ? i remember some bloke called david something saying the kids wouldn't know what that was a fair while back. i had some white stuff falling in the garden two weeks back (i am in the lomond foothills, can be a foot of snow in the garden and raining less than ten miles away at the coast) but i just assumed it was ash from a barbecue as snow is now a thing of the past

Barbecue thought they got banned just after log burners were!!

[dickymint]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

It's all armwaving from believers, as usual...there's neither credible empirical data nor sound science to assist them, only climate model gigo and the faith of other disciples. Naturally boith are believed oh so truly.

I saw this and thought of you:

So here we have it, since posting this..................

durbster said:

mybrainhurts said:

Our durbs is something of a borderline obnoxious obsessive stalker.

What say we dump him in a warm ocean with no socks?

Look, I generally ignore you yet a huge number of your posts in this thread are personal comments about me.

You've looked up my website to try and dig up some st to throw at me.

You've referred to posts I've made about completely different topics elsewhere on this site.

You've requested that your team-mates here go and harass me on other threads.

Who's the obnoxious obsessive stalker?

You come back after a ten day break being your usual hypocritical self! Well done for being so predictable