Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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).

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.
Facts? There are no facts about the polar bear population; there isn't enough data.

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.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
Diderot said:
What about it? confused

dickymint

24,096 posts

257 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Diderot said:
What about it? confused
It’s about what PRTV posted about Blue Planet lies (not watched it so can’t confirm)

mko9

2,328 posts

211 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.
Facts? There are no facts about the polar bear population; there isn't enough data.
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 decent quality climate data.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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 ?
They showed shell's in acid dissolving, but for the oceans to become acidic because of CO2 is impossible , as the oceans become warmer they would outgas CO2, not take more in, at present the oceans are alkaline, they become less alkaline not more acidic, they only become acidic at less than 5 PH, ironically if you look on the BBC website and search for acids and alkaline it explains it well.
Antarctic ice, it's increasing not decreasing as reported.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-an...
I think I have a car analogy to describe acid/ alkaline, imagine you are going forward and you slow down, you are still going forward not backwards, you only start going backwards after you stop and select reverse and push the eccelerator.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Durbster, Plunky, Zyg, Stovey
The 3% club on here.
wink

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.
Indeed; wipe the destructive little feckers out now, before it's too late.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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 ?
They showed shell's in acid dissolving, but for the oceans to become acidic because of CO2 is impossible , as the oceans become warmer they would outgas CO2, not take more in, at present the oceans are alkaline, they become less alkaline not more acidic, they only become acidic at less than 5 PH, ironically if you look on the BBC website and search for acids and alkaline it explains it well.
Antarctic ice, it's increasing not decreasing as reported.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-an...
I think I have a car analogy to describe acid/ alkaline, imagine you are going forward and you slow down, you are still going forward not backwards, you only start going backwards after you stop and select reverse and push the eccelerator.
Politically this sounds like it has come straight out to the political activist's Operations Handbook.

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

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.

Bacardi

2,235 posts

275 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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? hehe
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...

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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? hehe
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...
You get your climate change information from newspapers?

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...

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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 wink

please note i have altered the original post by mk09 , for anyone skimming the thread and attributing the above to mk09.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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? hehe
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...
You get your climate change information from newspapers?

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...
i take it blackpool was booming this summer past then wink. had a couple of 40 degree days in the canaries this year, was lovely in the sea. still not a patch on a warm summer in tehran back in the 70's though.

Bacardi

2,235 posts

275 months

Monday 11th December 2017
quotequote all
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...

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Tuesday 12th December 2017
quotequote all
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...
What report? Since you don't get your information from newspapers, you must have read the report you're referring to. Did the newspaper article portray it accurately?
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED