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.
i hope the material you are using provides the information that they do indeed change the climate, locally anyway. they actually cause localised warming. also inform the children that no studies have been done to determine the long term effect of removing large amounts of energy from the atmosphere either locally or globally. (that i can find anyway).Next up, I'm teaching Y10's another plot-twist; Wind farms are actually powered to generate wind to change the climate.
durbster said:
Fair enough. As I said, I don't really think polar bears have much relevance to the topic
they have a shedload of relevance to the topic politically. they were the poster bear for anthropogenic climate change for a while until the facts didn't support the rhetoric.within the text of the crockford debate there is a far more relevant story where a previous bear expert that had completed more in field work than any other bear specialist was drummed out of the top tier due to his position not being conducive to rent seeking, sorry grant applications.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Fair enough. As I said, I don't really think polar bears have much relevance to the topic
they have a shedload of relevance to the topic politically. they were the poster bear for anthropogenic climate change for a while until the facts didn't support the rhetoric.wc98 said:
within the text of the crockford debate there is a far more relevant story where a previous bear expert that had completed more in field work than any other bear specialist was drummed out of the top tier due to his position not being conducive to rent seeking, sorry grant applications.
Maybe that's what's happened. I'm not sure what you want from me on this really. Polar bear figures are highly disputable so it's not a huge surprise to see findings being debated. You've projected your own bias onto it to make it about funding and oppression because of climate change. I could say it's actually a story about misogyny in science.
Diderot said:
What about it? durbster said:
Diderot said:
What about it? durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Fair enough. As I said, I don't really think polar bears have much relevance to the topic
they have a shedload of relevance to the topic politically. they were the poster bear for anthropogenic climate change for a while until the facts didn't support the rhetoric.PRTVR said:
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...
turbobloke said:
Oceans aren't acidic and, as the world's largest buffer solution, won't be - that demo as described was pure propaganda.
Healthy growing corals partially neutralise (acidify in beebpseak propaganda terms) the oceans around them.
You mean corals cause ocean acidification. Woah..scary.Healthy growing corals partially neutralise (acidify in beebpseak propaganda terms) the oceans around them.
Kawasicki said:
turbobloke said:
Oceans aren't acidic and, as the world's largest buffer solution, won't be - that demo as described was pure propaganda.
Healthy growing corals partially neutralise (acidify in beebpseak propaganda terms) the oceans around them.
You mean corals cause ocean acidification. Woah..scary.Healthy growing corals partially neutralise (acidify in beebpseak propaganda terms) the oceans around them.
PRTVR said:
PRTVR said:
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...
Not entirely dissimilar to Rachel Carson and Silent Spring 55 years ago.
On the basis of saving some American flying raptors (to make them available for soaring into Californian wind turbines a few years later?), DDT was pilloried in the US and World media on the basis of, apparently, some rather dodgy experiments that involved hugely overdosing selected bird species with DDT, compared to anything but especially compared any likely dosage they may have received from everyday life, whilst at the same time restricting their diet in terms of the nutritional requirements for making strong egg shells. Egg shells turn out weak, DDT get the blame. DDT gets worldwide ban meaning a well regarded and effect and CHEAP anti-mosquito chemical is not longer available to millions of the poorest people in the world whose lives are daily affected and shortened by Malaria.
There are other products of course - not all as effective (any as effective?) - but all of them still in patent and therefore more expensive and more profitable for the Chemical companies that produce them.
It's a scare and ban model that has been repeated in many arenas with remarkable success. The REACH regulations in the EU for one example.
It's not so difficult to scare people into supporting something that will have a major and usually restrictive influence on their lives.
And it's not dissimilar to the approach that James Hansen was able to engineer for a session a the American Senate on a hot Summer's day in 1988.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L2ziAgAAQBAJ&a...
It seems to be the only operational model for activists that produces any sort of results of the type that they might be aiming for.
Edited by LongQ on Monday 11th December 20:39
How 'Black Smokers' have not been banned by now is mystery - PC madness presumably.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/vents.html
Pure filth nsfw or before watershed.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/vents.html
Pure filth nsfw or before watershed.
durbster said:
Let me guess, this is from your mystery source of truth that you won't reveal but is definitely not an advocacy blog?
Not an advocacy blog or mystery ketchup of truth, just an article in the Gruniad: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/28/tra...Perhaps it was made up and he didn’t produce a report? Perhaps you could contact him and get a copy and post it up here so we can all have (another) good laugh...
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
Let me guess, this is from your mystery source of truth that you won't reveal but is definitely not an advocacy blog?
Not an advocacy blog or mystery ketchup of truth, just an article in the Gruniad: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/28/tra...Perhaps it was made up and he didn’t produce a report? Perhaps you could contact him and get a copy and post it up here so we can all have (another) good laugh...
And although it's not 2020 yet, wasn't there a heatwave in the Mediterranean this year?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/04/weather...
durbster said:
Maybe that's what's happened.
I'm not sure what you want from me on this really. Polar bear figures are highly disputable so it's not a huge surprise to see findings being debated. You've projected your own bias onto it to make it about funding and oppression because of climate change. I could say it's actually a story about misogyny in science.
no argument on nailing down exact numbers, you are correct the data is incomplete. what i do have a problem with is scientists of any discipline acting as advocates, particularly when that advocacy can have a big impact on others . the job of scientists is to discover new things. whether anyone wants to act on those discoveries is not up to the scientist/s ,their job is to provide factual information to inform choice.I'm not sure what you want from me on this really. Polar bear figures are highly disputable so it's not a huge surprise to see findings being debated. You've projected your own bias onto it to make it about funding and oppression because of climate change. I could say it's actually a story about misogyny in science.
the letter here is a good example, i am copy pasting it in full in case you don't read the accompanying link to what i imagine you will say is a denier website. the link provides the full context behind the letter. this is rent seeking at its worst, the attitude is what will make us all the most money,not what is the best knowledge we have. personally i would feed the fkers to the bears, but then again i am known for getting very angry about stuff that doesn't bother most people and not bothering my arse about stuff that would appear to infuriate the majority.
Hi Mitch,
The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.
I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.
I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.
Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.
Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.
Best regards,
Andy (Derocher)
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-bel...
for the benefit of kerplunk , yes this is something i read on a website.
mko9 said:
That is a pretty ironic statement given that climate scientists are trying to forecast 100 years into the future with about 30-40 years of "data" that wouldn't see the light of day in any other scientific/engineering discipline.
that is more like it please note i have altered the original post by mk09 , for anyone skimming the thread and attributing the above to mk09.
durbster said:
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
Let me guess, this is from your mystery source of truth that you won't reveal but is definitely not an advocacy blog?
Not an advocacy blog or mystery ketchup of truth, just an article in the Gruniad: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/28/tra...Perhaps it was made up and he didn’t produce a report? Perhaps you could contact him and get a copy and post it up here so we can all have (another) good laugh...
And although it's not 2020 yet, wasn't there a heatwave in the Mediterranean this year?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/04/weather...
durbster said:
You get your climate change information from newspapers?
No, I read 'qualified experts' who work for CRU, it just happens to have been reported in a newspaper.The ketchup is irrelevant. Did he or did he not write the report after consulting global 'experts'? If not, prove it...
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
You get your climate change information from newspapers?
No, I read 'qualified experts' who work for CRU, it just happens to have been reported in a newspaper.The ketchup is irrelevant. Did he or did he not write the report after consulting global 'experts'? If not, prove it...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff