Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
SpeedMattersNot said:
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.
What??Next up, I'm teaching Y10's another plot-twist; Wind farms are actually powered to generate wind to change the climate.
Snowfalls Are a Thing of the Past
It's been Vinering for 19 hours here in Shropshire.
I remember doing doughnuts in a Mk 1 MX-5 in a snowy deserted car park near Cannock in 2009. I had a meeting near Brighton in December 2010, which ended at 16:30. Got home to Salop at 23:30 thanks to snow on the M25.
No wonder The Independent deleted the Viner article
It's been Vinering for 19 hours here in Shropshire.
I remember doing doughnuts in a Mk 1 MX-5 in a snowy deserted car park near Cannock in 2009. I had a meeting near Brighton in December 2010, which ended at 16:30. Got home to Salop at 23:30 thanks to snow on the M25.
No wonder The Independent deleted the Viner article
durbster said:
And which research paper was this?
It was a report, no doubt permanently erased for stupidity:"Academic David Viner, a researcher at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, produced the report after analysing the work of experts around the globe.
"The likelihood [is] that Mediterranean summers may be too hot for tourists after 2020, as a result of too much heat and water shortages," the study said.”
Having a PHD in Hydrology, he should know… or perhaps he now looks like a bell end?
He deserves all the ridicule he has earned…
SpeedMattersNot said:
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.
I've been self employed since leaving school, if I don't turn up I don't get paid, I believe that's the way it should be. I find the attitude of my employed mates frightening, they all expect something for nothing. Enjoy your snow day 
Bacardi said:
And just to add...
Keep up the good work... cheers up my day no end
In fairness though, he probably genuinely believes that the science, data and evidence supports AGW theory.durbster said:
I'm asking people to listen to the science, data and evidence.
You are pure comedy gold Keep up the good work... cheers up my day no end
I think most of us here already do seek out and study the science, data and evidence, but it draws us to a different conclusion.
Sadly, anybody who relies on only media coverage will be indoctrinated with AGW or simply CC as they have chosen to call it now.
deeps said:
I think most of us here already do seek out and study the science, data and evidence, but it draws us to a different conclusion.
Sadly, anybody who relies on only media coverage will be indoctrinated with AGW or simply CC as they have chosen to call it now.
Anybody see the blue planet last night ? Indoctrination in full flow, the part when they put shell's in acid had me shouting at the TV Sadly, anybody who relies on only media coverage will be indoctrinated with AGW or simply CC as they have chosen to call it now.
then they went on to the Antarctic melting and flooding the world's coastal regions, I am sure I heard that the CC part is not shown in all countries.cherryowen said:
Strange, I don't recall all these people turning up in this thread when we had hot days in the summer. I wonder why that is 
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
And which research paper was this?
It was a report, no doubt permanently erased for stupidity:"Academic David Viner, a researcher at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, produced the report after analysing the work of experts around the globe.
"The likelihood [is] that Mediterranean summers may be too hot for tourists after 2020, as a result of too much heat and water shortages," the study said.”
deeps said:
In fairness though, he probably genuinely believes that the science, data and evidence supports AGW theory.
I think most of us here already do seek out and study the science, data and evidence, but it draws us to a different conclusion.
Can you give an example? Or do you mean you draw a different conclusion from the science than the scientists themselves?I think most of us here already do seek out and study the science, data and evidence, but it draws us to a different conclusion.
deeps said:
Sadly, anybody who relies on only media coverage will be indoctrinated with AGW or simply CC as they have chosen to call it now.
Anybody relying on media coverage about pretty much any field of science will be pretty clueless. And anybody who relies exclusively on internet sources that confirm their bias will be suitably indoctrinated too, don't you think?
Edited by durbster on Monday 11th December 07:39
durbster said:
Anybody relying on media coverage about pretty much any field of science will be pretty clueless.
And anybody who relies exclusively on internet sources that confirm their bias will be suitably indoctrinated too, don't you think?
But the media is were most people get their information, think of the viewing figures for Blue planet 2 and the influence it has, it shows totally false science with the sole purpose to scare, that for me is wrong, do you feel it's acceptable.And anybody who relies exclusively on internet sources that confirm their bias will be suitably indoctrinated too, don't you think?
Edited by durbster on Monday 11th December 07:39
PS I had no problem with the part of the program that was concerning plastic pollution of the seas.
PRTVR said:
But the media is were most people get their information, think of the viewing figures for Blue planet 2 and the influence it has, it shows totally false science with the sole purpose to scare, that for me is wrong, do you feel it's acceptable.
PS I had no problem with the part of the program that was concerning plastic pollution of the seas.
AIUI the BBC BP final episode served up the usual weasel words i,e, "think that there may be". How convincing PS I had no problem with the part of the program that was concerning plastic pollution of the seas.
Attenbluff is incorrigible in his belief.
How some thoughtless people dispose of plastics is different altogether from false science and fake news courtesy of climate fairytales.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
But the media is were most people get their information, think of the viewing figures for Blue planet 2 and the influence it has, it shows totally false science with the sole purpose to scare, that for me is wrong, do you feel it's acceptable.
PS I had no problem with the part of the program that was concerning plastic pollution of the seas.
^^^ Proof ?PS I had no problem with the part of the program that was concerning plastic pollution of the seas.
Antarctic ice, it's increasing not decreasing as reported.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-an...
Another stocking filler.
New history of global warming science reveals that discovery of man-made influence was a political demand.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0993118992/?utm_source...
New history of global warming science reveals that discovery of man-made influence was a political demand.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0993118992/?utm_source...
GWPF said:
A new book on the origins of the Intergovernmental iPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global warming movement reveals that the 1995 discovery of 'discernible' evidence for a man-made influence on climate was a response to demands of politicians keen to regulate energy usage.
It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded "a discernible human influence on global climate".
Whodathunkit, but still no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance (energy) and still no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data. Just the same old politically mandated speculation from IPCC and The Team dressed up as scientific stats.It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded "a discernible human influence on global climate".
turbobloke said:
Another stocking filler.
Merry Christmas Tiny Tim “What shall we get dad for Christmas?”
Mrs TB “Just get another of those climate change books, don’t get the ones by scientists though, he doesn’t like them. Just the ones that say it isn’t real ”
Tiny Tim “Can we go and do something fun?”
Mrs TB “Only after we’ve finished our chores looking for bias on the BBC remember”
grumbledoak said:
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff