Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[zygalski]

Oh ok.
So now we're discrediting global legal systems because of historical miscarriages of justice.
Conspiracy theorist whac-a-mole.
Let's just whine on a car forum then, like a bunch of spoilt brats.

[wc98]

zygalski said:

Oh ok.
So now we're discrediting global legal systems because of historical miscarriages of justice.
Conspiracy theorist whac-a-mole.
Let's just whine on a car forum then, like a bunch of spoilt brats.

lol, remind us who is doing the whining again

[mondeoman]

zygalski said:

Oh ok.
So now we're discrediting global legal systems because of historical miscarriages of justice.
Conspiracy theorist whac-a-mole.
Let's just whine on a car forum then, like a bunch of spoilt brats.

Ooh the stupidity is strong in this one

[zygalski]

mondeoman said:

Ooh the stupidity is strong in this one

At least I'm no paranoid conspiracy nut.

If the evidence against AGW is so obvious and overwhelming, let your boys have their day in court to prove it.
That's all I'm saying. It's perfectly reasonable.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-07-08-%E2%80%98100s-...
The title of which is
‘100s of deaths in two cities in 2003 heatwave due to man-made climate change’
'...The paper concludes that with climate change projected to increase the frequency and severity of future heatwaves, these results highlight an emerging trend. It suggests that further research should focus on possible changes in future death rates, taking into account population and demographic changes.
For further information, please contact the University of Oxford News Office at [e-mail]; Tel: [phone].
Alternatively contact Dr Daniel Mitchell (Oxford University): [e-mail]; Tel:[phone]...'


Should be child's play for the resident PH climate experts to prove that faleshood. Off you trot.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 25th November 07:13

[HairyPoppins]

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

[mondeoman]

zygalski said:

mondeoman said:

Ooh the stupidity is strong in this one

At least I'm no paranoid conspiracy nut.

Are you sure about that?

[PRTVR]

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

All the data supports AGW.

The anti-AGW side in this thread is utterly relentless with the bullying, intimidation and personal insults.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

Very much same old.

It cuts both ways, there are religious believers in the ranks of agw believers, but in both cases it's irrelevant to the agw team's lack of credible empirical data which is why the views of individuals are neither here nor there.

The junkscience of agw collapses on its own with such a lack of evidence - gigo output from models can never be evidence, not least as they are programmed with a CO2 effect as an assumption. Beyond that they fail too badly to be credible even as junk. Their only salvation is from altering the data in various ways and even then it's not enough. We still have a lack of anthropogenic forcing in the TOA radiative imbalance and there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data.

So, merely for the record, not as a reflection on agw bunk, the witterings of an evangelical former (UK) head of the IPCC (a scientist) include a proclamation that climate change is "a moral issue" and that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." As far as I know, no climate realist has invoked their religious beliefs to promote climate realism in policymaking.

As usual the irony runs deep when an agw supporter goes for the cheap shot.

[grumbledoak]

durbster said:

All the data supports AGW.

If that were true these threads would not exist and no-one would have ever used the word "consensus". We would never have heard the name Oreskes, and "97%" wouldn't be a running joke.

[HairyPoppins]

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

The graph supplied was debunked as hogwash too however you've chosen to ignore that which surprises nobody ever.

[PRTVR]

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

The graph supplied was debunked as hogwash too however you've chosen to ignore that which surprises nobody ever.

But you still chose to mention his beliefs, says it all really.

[HairyPoppins]

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

Ali G said:

HairyPoppins said:

Did they call in the creationists as expert witnesses? Some on here have.

How dumb can you go?

If searching desperately dumb then this is possibly the apex

Are you saying that a graph by some creationist chap wasn't posted as evidence on here? I seem to remember it getting plenty of laughs and comments.

Play the man not the data is the normal modus operandi of people who have no answers to the data, witnessed many times over the years, nothing new.

The graph supplied was debunked as hogwash too however you've chosen to ignore that which surprises nobody ever.

But you still chose to mention his beliefs, says it all really.

It speaks more of the type of characters chosen to represent the deniers cause. Which, along with the debunked graphs "says it all" as you put it.

[MikeyC]

durbster said:

The case for AGW denial has been made in court in the United States by Peabody.

They even called in some of this thread's favourite bloggers - the ones we're told to believe over the peer reviewed science.

They lost, obviously.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...

Article said:

A Minnesota judge found the preponderance of evidence did not favor coal industry climate science denial

Article said:

The coal company called forth witnesses that represented the fringe 2–3% of experts who reject the consensus

I see they're still using the 97% then
says it all really !

[wc98]

zygalski said:

At least I'm no paranoid conspiracy nut.

If the evidence against AGW is so obvious and overwhelming, let your boys have their day in court to prove it.
That's all I'm saying. It's perfectly reasonable.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-07-08-%E2%80%98100s-...
The title of which is
‘100s of deaths in two cities in 2003 heatwave due to man-made climate change’
'...The paper concludes that with climate change projected to increase the frequency and severity of future heatwaves, these results highlight an emerging trend. It suggests that further research should focus on possible changes in future death rates, taking into account population and demographic changes.
For further information, please contact the University of Oxford News Office at [e-mail]; Tel: [phone].
Alternatively contact Dr Daniel Mitchell (Oxford University): [e-mail]; Tel:[phone]...'


Should be child's play for the resident PH climate experts to prove that faleshood. Off you trot.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 25th November 07:13

when it comes to scientific paradigm shifts i don't think the courts have ever been involved. i don't recall anyone going to court to get people to change their minds on the cause of stomach ulcers.

i tell you what, i will label those claiming those heat waves were due to man made climate change liars. there is no evidence to prove that. now go and tell them someone on a car forum has libeled them and see if they will take me to court and provide evidence they are not liars.

note the usual weasel words , projection not prediction, possible not definite. the authors are the usual hand waving liars. note i am calling the authors liars , let them know, let them take me to court and prove what they say is true .

Edited by wc98 on Saturday 25th November 10:11

[turbobloke]

The linked paper assumes human climate change exists and swiftly moves on to bogus calculations on deaths, there's still no credible empirical evidence for it, as a result papers are written and pal-reviewed on the bases of accepted belief.

Contemporary article said:

At Hopital Avicenne near Paris, a nurse complained that she was not able to care properly for the sick because the hospital has no air conditioning and no ice.

"We really do feel quite desperate," said Katia Guiermet, an emergency services nurse. "We don't feel incompetent, but it's really difficult for people suffering from heat stroke when you don't have any ice."

At the time, French officials blamed the high death toll on the fact that Parisian buildings including hospitals typically lack air conditioning.

This led to an inability of elderly/young/sick individuals to cope with the heat which was within natural variation, and blame was only assigned to humans after the fact on the basis of belief in a human component to climate change, not on credible empirical evidence for it, as this didn't and doesn't exist.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

At the time, French officials blamed the high death toll on the fact that Parisian buildings including hospitals typically lack air conditioning.

This led to an inability of elderly/young/sick individuals to cope with the heat which was within natural variation, and blame was only assigned to humans after the fact on the basis of belief in a human component to climate change, not on credible empirical evidence for it, as this didn't and doesn't exist.

i am sure the scientists will be willing to take this denier to court to prove they are right

[zygalski]

I picked the Oxford University paper purely at random.
I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?

Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.

[turbobloke]

Keep the faith - some have no need for it.

The data do matter; politicking suborned science long ago.

[wc98]

zygalski said:

Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.

on that we agree ,certainly not those involved in receiving public funding for nothing, absolutely nothing of value to those paying the bill.