Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
Durbster had awoken, and again diligently ignored my previous 5 requests to read and comment on:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
California wildfires: Governor brands fires 'new normal'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42297370
Devastating wildfires fuelled by climate change are "the new normal", California's governor has said.
Jerry Brown said vast fires, such as the ones that have ravaged southern California in recent days, "could happen every year or every few years".
"We're facing a new reality in this state," he said. Mr Brown made the comments after surveying the damage in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles.
Thousands of firefighters have been battling the fires since Monday.
Mr Brown, a Democrat who has attacked the Trump administration's stance on climate change, said: "We're facing a new reality in this state, where fires threaten people's lives, their properties, their neighbourhoods, and of course billions and billions of dollars.
"With climate change, some scientists are saying southern California is literally burning up.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues
What qualifications do you need to be a state governor in the USA? Intelligence obviously isn't one of them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42297370
Devastating wildfires fuelled by climate change are "the new normal", California's governor has said.
Jerry Brown said vast fires, such as the ones that have ravaged southern California in recent days, "could happen every year or every few years".
"We're facing a new reality in this state," he said. Mr Brown made the comments after surveying the damage in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles.
Thousands of firefighters have been battling the fires since Monday.
Mr Brown, a Democrat who has attacked the Trump administration's stance on climate change, said: "We're facing a new reality in this state, where fires threaten people's lives, their properties, their neighbourhoods, and of course billions and billions of dollars.
"With climate change, some scientists are saying southern California is literally burning up.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues
What qualifications do you need to be a state governor in the USA? Intelligence obviously isn't one of them
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
... a bloke called Viner...
A Bloke? Dr David Viner, senior researcher at CRU for 17 years, a 'qualified expert' in Climate research? Isn't he the sort of guy you spend all your time on your knees brown nosing and urging us all to only listen to the qualified experts... rather than some 'blokes' on a car forum?Bacardi said:
He also suggested that by 2020, the med will be too hot to bear with water shortages and tourists will be flocking to Blackpool. Only 2 1/2 years to go before I can book my sun-drenched fortnight, yippee! 
Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...
And which research paper was this? Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...If you get your information about climate change from tabloid newspapers, you probably would think it was sensationalist, yes.
Kawasicki said:
yes, because sensationalism is definitely not normal for climate science.
This is like getting your weather forecasts from the Daily Express, then blaming the Met Office for being sensationalist.robinessex said:
California wildfires: Governor brands fires 'new normal'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42297370
Devastating wildfires fuelled by climate change are "the new normal", California's governor has said.
Jerry Brown said vast fires, such as the ones that have ravaged southern California in recent days, "could happen every year or every few years".
"We're facing a new reality in this state," he said. Mr Brown made the comments after surveying the damage in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles.
Thousands of firefighters have been battling the fires since Monday.
Mr Brown, a Democrat who has attacked the Trump administration's stance on climate change, said: "We're facing a new reality in this state, where fires threaten people's lives, their properties, their neighbourhoods, and of course billions and billions of dollars.
"With climate change, some scientists are saying southern California is literally burning up.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues
What qualifications do you need to be a state governor in the USA? Intelligence obviously isn't one of them
Does this mean that if Clinton had become President 11 months ago, the wildfires wouldn’t have happened?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42297370
Devastating wildfires fuelled by climate change are "the new normal", California's governor has said.
Jerry Brown said vast fires, such as the ones that have ravaged southern California in recent days, "could happen every year or every few years".
"We're facing a new reality in this state," he said. Mr Brown made the comments after surveying the damage in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles.
Thousands of firefighters have been battling the fires since Monday.
Mr Brown, a Democrat who has attacked the Trump administration's stance on climate change, said: "We're facing a new reality in this state, where fires threaten people's lives, their properties, their neighbourhoods, and of course billions and billions of dollars.
"With climate change, some scientists are saying southern California is literally burning up.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,continues
What qualifications do you need to be a state governor in the USA? Intelligence obviously isn't one of them
durbster said:
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
... a bloke called Viner...
A Bloke? Dr David Viner, senior researcher at CRU for 17 years, a 'qualified expert' in Climate research? Isn't he the sort of guy you spend all your time on your knees brown nosing and urging us all to only listen to the qualified experts... rather than some 'blokes' on a car forum?Bacardi said:
He also suggested that by 2020, the med will be too hot to bear with water shortages and tourists will be flocking to Blackpool. Only 2 1/2 years to go before I can book my sun-drenched fortnight, yippee! Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...
And which research paper was this? Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...If you get your information about climate change from tabloid newspapers, you probably would think it was sensationalist, yes.
Kawasicki said:
yes, because sensationalism is definitely not normal for climate science.
This is like getting your weather forecasts from the Daily Express, then blaming the Met Office for being sensationalist.
t they’re peddling at university in order to recruit/terrify students to the faith.wc98 said:
talking about advocacy and climate scientists i wonder would you have an opinion on this sorry debacle ? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-... note the authors ,one in particular i think you referred to as no longer relevant a while back . seems the unscrupulous little fat git just can't help himself. now regardless of the actual science involved (the only hard evidence is polar bears are indeed doing fine, numbers are up) i don't think many scientists of any discipline would support this sort of nonsense.
Sorry, forgot to reply to this. I tend to skip over stories about polar bears so I skipped past this when I saw it. Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth.
Also, polar bear stories are always designed to appeal to the emotions which is obviously the worst route to objective judgement.
On the surface this looks like professional bickering and Crockford looks hard done by, and that was the end of my post.
Then I remembered that it's always worth checking whether this brave rogue scientist going against the mainstream just happens to be receiving money from the Heartland Institute. They almost always are and it looks like that may be the case here.
According to: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/1...
Make of that what you will.
durbster said:
Wobbegong said:
This sensationalism is in education too. Look at the st they’re peddling at university in order to recruit/terrify students to the faith.
You mean they're teaching the current scientific understanding. How sensationalist!t they’re peddling at university in order to recruit/terrify students to the faith.durbster said:
wc98 said:
talking about advocacy and climate scientists i wonder would you have an opinion on this sorry debacle ? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-... note the authors ,one in particular i think you referred to as no longer relevant a while back . seems the unscrupulous little fat git just can't help himself. now regardless of the actual science involved (the only hard evidence is polar bears are indeed doing fine, numbers are up) i don't think many scientists of any discipline would support this sort of nonsense.
Sorry, forgot to reply to this. I tend to skip over stories about polar bears so I skipped past this when I saw it. Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth.
Also, polar bear stories are always designed to appeal to the emotions which is obviously the worst route to objective judgement.
On the surface this looks like professional bickering and Crockford looks hard done by, and that was the end of my post.
Then I remembered that it's always worth checking whether this brave rogue scientist going against the mainstream just happens to be receiving money from the Heartland Institute. They almost always are and it looks like that may be the case here.
According to: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/1...
Make of that what you will.
3) “Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from corporate-funded think tanks that downplay AGW (e.g., the Heartland Institute) and/or receive direct funding from fossil-fuel companies (Oreskes and Conway 2011).”
I am not “linked with” nor do I “receive support” from The Heartland Institute or any other corporate-funded think tank. I was paid $750 a month from 2011 to 2013 (through a contract, not a salary) to make summaries of published papers relating to vertebrate animals that I thought might not be covered by the next IPCC report. These summaries were to be included in the NIPCC report to ensure that a balanced perspective of the literature was available to the public, which the Heartland Institute published. I chose which papers to examine and what to write. The monthly payments ended (as did the contract) when my work on the NIPCC report was finished in early 2014. I have not received any money from Heartland since, except for travel expenses to their 2017 conference.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has occasionally paid me for summary papers and video content (see item 1b above, for example), just as science magazines that publish lengthy features would do. I have also written articles for magazines aimed at general readers, for which I have also been paid.
No one pays me to write my Polar Bear Science blog.
durbster said:
Sorry, forgot to reply to this.
I tend to skip over stories about polar bears so I skipped past this when I saw it. Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth.
Also, polar bear stories are always designed to appeal to the emotions which is obviously the worst route to objective judgement.
On the surface this looks like professional bickering and Crockford looks hard done by, and that was the end of my post.
Then I remembered that it's always worth checking whether this brave rogue scientist going against the mainstream just happens to be receiving money from the Heartland Institute. They almost always are and it looks like that may be the case here.
According to: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/1...
Make of that what you will.
Clearly scientific politics in play. I tend to skip over stories about polar bears so I skipped past this when I saw it. Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth.
Also, polar bear stories are always designed to appeal to the emotions which is obviously the worst route to objective judgement.
On the surface this looks like professional bickering and Crockford looks hard done by, and that was the end of my post.
Then I remembered that it's always worth checking whether this brave rogue scientist going against the mainstream just happens to be receiving money from the Heartland Institute. They almost always are and it looks like that may be the case here.
According to: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/1...
Make of that what you will.
Personally I think polar bears get for too much tolerant coverage.
They are, basically, very aggressive murders of almost anything that moves if they can catch it. Heck, the males even eat any cubs they can catch - how come that plays well to the luvvies who like them so much?
They also kills thousands of seals every year.
I thought we, as humans, liked seals. After all, they only eat fish, right? So they are ok and tend to have appealing faces that humans like. Why, therefore, do we not seem tpo be upset when they are viciously murdered by bi-Polar bears?
As far as
"Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth."
is concerned - evidence, or lack of it, has never really been a full on driver for politicians. But you are right. One could of course observe that something strikingly similar is true for, say, temperatures or proxies for them. Not only for the past of course. Future observations for accurate planning purposes also tend to be a little thin on the ground but that rarely stops a truly political person from heading off on their own fantastic journey involving pet projects and publicity with a bit of wealth accumulation on the side.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 10th December 13:26
durbster said:
"Watching the Deniers"? Unpleasant and vaguely threatening, is what I make of that. 
micky g said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
talking about advocacy and climate scientists i wonder would you have an opinion on this sorry debacle ? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-... note the authors ,one in particular i think you referred to as no longer relevant a while back . seems the unscrupulous little fat git just can't help himself. now regardless of the actual science involved (the only hard evidence is polar bears are indeed doing fine, numbers are up) i don't think many scientists of any discipline would support this sort of nonsense.
Sorry, forgot to reply to this. I tend to skip over stories about polar bears so I skipped past this when I saw it. Somebody posted a thing on here ages ago saying polar bear numbers were massively up since the 1970s so I looked into it and it was pretty clear there are absolutely no reliable historical stats about polar bear populations. How could there be? There were nowhere near enough resources available to produce any accurate figures for a reclusive animal across one of the largest remote places on Earth.
Also, polar bear stories are always designed to appeal to the emotions which is obviously the worst route to objective judgement.
On the surface this looks like professional bickering and Crockford looks hard done by, and that was the end of my post.
Then I remembered that it's always worth checking whether this brave rogue scientist going against the mainstream just happens to be receiving money from the Heartland Institute. They almost always are and it looks like that may be the case here.
According to: https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/1...
Make of that what you will.
3) “Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from corporate-funded think tanks that downplay AGW (e.g., the Heartland Institute) and/or receive direct funding from fossil-fuel companies (Oreskes and Conway 2011).”
I am not “linked with” nor do I “receive support” from The Heartland Institute or any other corporate-funded think tank. I was paid $750 a month from 2011 to 2013 (through a contract, not a salary) to make summaries of published papers relating to vertebrate animals that I thought might not be covered by the next IPCC report. These summaries were to be included in the NIPCC report to ensure that a balanced perspective of the literature was available to the public, which the Heartland Institute published. I chose which papers to examine and what to write. The monthly payments ended (as did the contract) when my work on the NIPCC report was finished in early 2014. I have not received any money from Heartland since, except for travel expenses to their 2017 conference.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has occasionally paid me for summary papers and video content (see item 1b above, for example), just as science magazines that publish lengthy features would do. I have also written articles for magazines aimed at general readers, for which I have also been paid.
No one pays me to write my Polar Bear Science blog.
Ali G said:
Another extreme weather event caused by CAGW?
Yes, this amount of snow is unprecedented, it is the worst on record since the last snowfall.In other, unrelated news (well make your own mind up, duh), atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches record levels, since the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high.
Oooooohhhhh, I wonder if they could be related? The extreme weather and the high carbon levels. I"ll check Wikipedia!
micky g said:
What I make of it is that you didn't read the article. Google detective work is unnecessary when the article includes the following: -
Fair enough. As I said, I don't really think polar bears have much relevance to the topic so I only skimmed over the article and didn't see that.It does sound like she's been unfairly treated.
Totally unrelated, I know, but I worked in the private sector for 13 years where I had to occasionally risk my life to get into work to avoid being deducted pay. Well, now as a trainee teacher, I have a snow day tomorrow.
Next up, I'm teaching Y10's another plot-twist; Wind farms are actually powered to generate wind to change the climate.
Next up, I'm teaching Y10's another plot-twist; Wind farms are actually powered to generate wind to change the climate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff