Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

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?

No report needed, I remember Dr Viners on the news talking about children not knowing what snow would be, what do you think,perhaps we shouldn't trust climate scientists?

[Diderot]

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...

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...

Clutching at straws Durbster? You're seriously not going to try to defend the fkwittery of the tt by claiming he didn't write that or somehow the bods at the Guardian misquoted him?

[kerplunk]

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...

BP2 discussed collapsing ice shelves in antarctica, not sea ice trends.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

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.

"statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute"

Sounds like MT's been doing a spot of 'advocacy' so presumably you would feed him to the bears too.

[LongQ]

wc98 said:

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...

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 . 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.

Summer of '76 in the UK was especially long and hot.

All down hill since then although one or two years have managed the odd few days of highish temperatures - especially in large and ever growing conurbations.

[robinessex]

The Beebs CC piece today

Climate change: Trump will bring US back into Paris deal - Macron

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42322968

French President Emmanuel Macron has said he believes President Donald Trump will bring the US back into the Paris deal on combating climate change.......continues

Politics in full AGW mode here of course. French president saving the planet.

[AreOut]

it's crazy some of them really believe they could regulate Earth's climate through meaningless contracts

[PRTVR]

kerplunk 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...

BP2 discussed collapsing ice shelves in antarctica, not sea ice trends.

Sea ice land ice it's as important as polar bears, if you read the link I posted it explains that sea ice has extended due to high levels of snow, now I am no scientists but logic would say that higher snow fall on land would lead to higher levels of ice collapse due to the extra weight, but if you wish to believe all coastal areas are going to be swamped as was explained on the program that's your choice, it's poor science with massive scare tactics attached, nothing more .

[Ali G]

Antarctic supervolcano?

Pure speculation, but some support from NASA, so must be right!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/10/is-there...

Now that would cause a spot of sea-level rise and a bit more besides!

[durbster]

Diderot said:

Clutching at straws Durbster? You're seriously not going to try to defend the fkwittery of the tt by claiming he didn't write that or somehow the bods at the Guardian misquoted him?

Not sure how you reached that interpretation but anyway, it's a call back to Bacardi claiming people who get their science information from scientists and science organisations are "sheep, incapable of thinking for themselvse"; I'm trying to discover his source of ultimate truth.

Ali G said:

Antarctic supervolcano?

Pure speculation, but some support from NASA, so must be right!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/10/is-there...

Now that would cause a spot of sea-level rise and a bit more besides!

Fox News has a science section!?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clutching at straws Durbster? You're seriously not going to try to defend the fkwittery of the tt by claiming he didn't write that or somehow the bods at the Guardian misquoted him?

Not sure how you reached that interpretation but anyway, it's a call back to Bacardi claiming people who get their science information from scientists and science organisations are "sheep, incapable of thinking for themselvse"; I'm trying to discover his source of ultimate truth.

Ali G said:

Antarctic supervolcano?

Pure speculation, but some support from NASA, so must be right!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/10/is-there...

Now that would cause a spot of sea-level rise and a bit more besides!

Fox News has a science section!?

Good swerve there Durbs, but par for the course for you, and again diligently ignored my previous 6 requests to read and comment on:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Antarctic supervolcano?

Pure speculation, but some support from NASA, so must be right!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/10/is-there...

Now that would cause a spot of sea-level rise and a bit more besides!

Fox News has a science section!?

NASA study pillock!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JB0...

Y'know the ones you love most.

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Politics in full AGW mode here of course. French president saving the planet.

I thought it was young French President in full personal promotion mode.

Does that mean that Donald will also convert the US to French Speakers in line with other Macron dreams?

Or is his green leaning daughter putting pressure on her Old Man behind the scenes in some way?

Or is Macron making it up?

I guess, as a businessman, Trump might see a way to "turn a buck or two", possibly.

After all it was money that spoke to him as the reason for backing away in the first place.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clutching at straws Durbster? You're seriously not going to try to defend the fkwittery of the tt by claiming he didn't write that or somehow the bods at the Guardian misquoted him?

Not sure how you reached that interpretation but anyway, it's a call back to Bacardi claiming people who get their science information from scientists and science organisations are "sheep, incapable of thinking for themselvse"; I'm trying to discover his source of ultimate truth.

Ali G said:

Antarctic supervolcano?

Pure speculation, but some support from NASA, so must be right!

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/10/is-there...

Now that would cause a spot of sea-level rise and a bit more besides!

Fox News has a science section!?

Good swerve there Durbs, but par for the course for you, and again diligently ignored my previous 6 requests to read and comment on:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

Jesus Christ let it go. He's not going to watch it no matter how many times you say it. The first video is 75 minutes long and the second is 90 minutes long. Why would anyone give up that sort of time for some no-name on the internet? I wouldn't, you probably wouldn't and I'm Damn sure nobody else on here would either.

Move on.

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

Jesus Christ let it go. He's not going to watch it no matter how many times you say it. The first video is 75 minutes long and the second is 90 minutes long. Why would anyone give up that sort of time for some no-name on the internet? I wouldn't, you probably wouldn't and I'm Damn sure nobody else on here would either.

Move on.

6 requests,

[wc98]

LongQ said:

Summer of '76 in the UK was especially long and hot.

All down hill since then although one or two years have managed the odd few days of highish temperatures - especially in large and ever growing conurbations.

i missed it, was living in iran at the time. it was fairly warm there i seem to remember. how i don't know as co2 levels were much lower then

[wc98]

LongQ said:

robinessex said:

Politics in full AGW mode here of course. French president saving the planet.

I thought it was young French President in full personal promotion mode.

Does that mean that Donald will also convert the US to French Speakers in line with other Macron dreams?

Or is his green leaning daughter putting pressure on her Old Man behind the scenes in some way?

Or is Macron making it up?

I guess, as a businessman, Trump might see a way to "turn a buck or two", possibly.

After all it was money that spoke to him as the reason for backing away in the first place.

it might just be me , but if i found out in a few years that macron was the first artificial intelligence human replicant i would not be surprised .very trudeau like , both come across as psychopaths if they are indeed human . i also seriously struggle to understand how anyone could possibly vote for people that present in their manner. the problem is obviously mine as so many did indeed vote for both.

[wc98]

robinessex said:

Good swerve there Durbs, but par for the course for you, and again diligently ignored my previous 6 requests to read and comment on:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

just to balance the let it go request.i like tenacity, it is a good quality to have .
edited to add, remind me never to piss you off

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

robinessex said:

Good swerve there Durbs, but par for the course for you, and again diligently ignored my previous 6 requests to read and comment on:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpxP7R4aLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs

just to balance the let it go request.i like tenacity, it is a good quality to have .
edited to add, remind me never to piss you off

Yes, in real life its a good quality to have, but this is a forum in a dark pokey corner of the internet and its fecking boring.

He’s made his point and its clear it wont be watched so ffs lets bounce forwards now or they’ll be no end to it.

[durbster]

gadgetmac said:

Jesus Christ let it go. He's not going to watch it no matter how many times you say it. The first video is 75 minutes long and the second is 90 minutes long. Why would anyone give up that sort of time for some no-name on the internet? I wouldn't, you probably wouldn't and I'm Damn sure nobody else on here would either.

Move on.

For one thing, I already commented on one of the videos when somebody else posted it.

But I've found out several times that robinessex simply ignores your answer even if you do take the time to reply, and then will continue to ask you the same question again anyway, so there's very little point posting a response.

Besides, he's already said he will automatically reject evidence if it supports AGW anyway so it would be futile.