Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[mybrainhurts]

gadgetmac said:

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.

Not sure if serious....

Compared to the amount of time durbster spends doing his research and blathering about it here, that stuff constitutes a mere coffee break.

He's driven, is our durby.

God knows why, and he won't tell why, but he is.

[Bacardi]

durbster said:

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?

The report referred to in the article... with relevant quotes from the article, so unless you are saying the newspaper made up the quotes, then yes the article portrays the report accurately.

There are a number of reports:

Amelung and Viner (2006) we are starting to see a decline in the suitability of the Mediterranean for tourism during the productive summer season while in parallel the suitability for tourism of the source countries in northern Europe Improves. (never met anyone who's booked Blackpool instead of the med, so cobblers)

The European heatwave of 2003 provided for the first time an indication of a climate event that can be attributable to climate change (Schar, 2004). (cobblers)

The broad impacts of the decline in suitability of the Mediterranean during the 21st Century and the increasing suitability of Northern European Zones for tourism, were summarised in Pinnegar et al., (2006) and Viner et al., (2006):
• Decline in the numbers of UK outbound tourists visiting the Mediterranean during the summer months;
• Increase in domestic tourism within the UK;
• Increase in overseas tourists visiting Britain during the summer months for coastal
(sun, sea, sand) tourism;

I'll believe it when I see it, just like snow-free winters.The 2003 heatwave was the last scorcher we had and that was nearly 15 years ago! Surely we should have had more?

It was at this time when the mantra was 'worse than previously thought, rising at unprecedented rates, worst on record!' The snow is still on Kilimanjaro and the Maldives are still there, so more cobblers.

[Bacardi]

mybrainhurts said:

He's driven, is our durby.

God knows why, and he won't tell why, but he is.

Or he's being paid?

[mybrainhurts]

Bacardi said:

durbster said:

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?

The report referred to in the article... with relevant quotes from the article, so unless you are saying the newspaper made up the quotes, then yes the article portrays the report accurately.

There are a number of reports:

Amelung and Viner (2006) we are starting to see a decline in the suitability of the Mediterranean for tourism during the productive summer season while in parallel the suitability for tourism of the source countries in northern Europe Improves. (never met anyone who's booked Blackpool instead of the med, so cobblers)

The European heatwave of 2003 provided for the first time an indication of a climate event that can be attributable to climate change (Schar, 2004). (cobblers)

The broad impacts of the decline in suitability of the Mediterranean during the 21st Century and the increasing suitability of Northern European Zones for tourism, were summarised in Pinnegar et al., (2006) and Viner et al., (2006):
• Decline in the numbers of UK outbound tourists visiting the Mediterranean during the summer months;
• Increase in domestic tourism within the UK;
• Increase in overseas tourists visiting Britain during the summer months for coastal
(sun, sea, sand) tourism;

I'll believe it when I see it, just like snow-free winters.The 2003 heatwave was the last scorcher we had and that was nearly 15 years ago! Surely we should have had more?

It was at this time when the mantra was 'worse than previously thought, rising at unprecedented rates, worst on record!' The snow is still on Kilimanjaro and the Maldives are still there, so more cobblers.

Kevin Trenberth said:

it’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming

[durbster]

Bacardi said:

The report referred to in the article... with relevant quotes from the article, so unless you are saying the newspaper made up the quotes, then yes the article portrays the report accurately.

There are a number of reports:

Amelung and Viner (2006) we are starting to see a decline in the suitability of the Mediterranean for tourism during the productive summer season while in parallel the suitability for tourism of the source countries in northern Europe Improves. (never met anyone who's booked Blackpool instead of the med, so cobblers)

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced by that and I doubt the Med is going to suffer too badly from climate change unless they really do keep getting heatwaves like the one this year. As far as I can tell, the link between extreme weather events like heatwaves and climate change isn't well understood yet.

Bacardi said:

I'll believe it when I see it, just like snow-free winters.

Not sure where you live but there have been plenty of snow free winters in recent years

Bacardi said:

It was at this time when the mantra was 'worse than previously thought, rising at unprecedented rates, worst on record!' The snow is still on Kilimanjaro and the Maldives are still there, so more cobblers.

Then simply don't get your information from newspaper headlines.

Who said the Maldives wouldn't still be here?

Do you accept the ice on Kilimanjaro is retreating?

Bacardi said:

Or he's being paid?

By who to do what?

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

By who to do what?

By “Enormous Green”!

Either that or “The Team” has infected you with “The Cause”!

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

Bacardi said:

I'll believe it when I see it, just like snow-free winters.

Not sure where you live but there have been plenty of snow free winters in recent years

:bullst:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/snow/snow-in...


UK snow

Snow in the UK
How much snow do we get in the UK each year?

The UK gets on average 23.7 days of snow fall or sleet a year (1981 - 2010). Most of this is snow falling on higher ground where temperatures are lower, as can be seen on the maps below.

Where gets the most snow?
In Scotland, the figure is much higher, with snow or sleet falling on 38.1 days on average. Statistically, the snowiest place in the UK is the Cairngorms in in Scotland, with 76.2 days of snow or sleet falling on average. Cornwall is the least likely to get snow, with an average of only 7.4 days of snow or sleet falling a year.

[deeps]

durbster 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 mean I draw the same conclusion as the scientists themselves, obviously, I shouldn't need to even explain that. I think you're trying to be clever and imply that all scientists believe in CAGW, which is obviously nonsense.

durbster said:

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?

I'm glad you agree that the media are indoctrinating viewers, but I don't think that makes them clueless, maybe naive, inexperienced and gullible would be more accurate.

I don't think it's possible to rely exclusively on internet sources, it's almost impossible to avoid media coverage and other social interaction, don't you think?

[deeps]

durbster said:

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced by that and I doubt the Med is going to suffer too badly from climate change unless they really do keep getting heatwaves like the one this year. As far as I can tell, the link between extreme weather events like heatwaves and climate change isn't well understood yet.

There's not much logic in that.

What's the point in either believing or doubting the Med is going to "suffer too badly" from MMGW?

If they "really do" keep getting heatwaves, will that mean the heatwaves are man made? Or might they be naturally occurring heatwaves? Or if they don't get any heatwaves at all will that be man made too?

The link between normal extreme weather events and climate is well understood, they are events that have always, are now, and will always occur.

The link between normal extreme weather events and "climate change" or more accurately MMGW as you are no doubt inferring, is surely not "well understood yet" because there is no proven MMGW "climate change" to have a link with. Any unproven theory is obviously going to be not well understood, apart from within the walls of the BBC of course, who present it as fact every day.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

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.

bks Durbs. You still can't tell us whether the planet 'temp' is better up or down a minute amount. If you've seen one of the vids, refute it then. The point I'm making, is you are the worst hypocrite I've ever come across. U castigate us because we don't believe the science. yet resolutely refuse to even acknowledge that information exists to expose CC as a fairy story. I believe I've proved my point now. You’re a believer, brain washed by the CC preachers.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

By who to do what?

By “Enormous Green”!

Hulk?

Kawasicki said:

Either that or “The Team” has infected you with “The Cause”!

Can you not see that you're accusing me of being brainwashed while using terms you've got from turbobloke?

mondeoman said:

durbster said:

Not sure where you live but there have been plenty of snow free winters in recent years

:bullst:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/snow/snow-in...

Yeah OK, that was a bad sentence; I just meant I haven't seen much snow in recent years.

Do you accept the data shows snowfall is declining though, as per climate science projections?

deeps said:

deeps said:

durbster 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.

Can you give an example? Or do you mean you draw a different conclusion from the science than the scientists themselves?

I mean I draw the same conclusion as the scientists themselves, obviously, I shouldn't need to even explain that. I think you're trying to be clever and imply that all scientists believe in CAGW, which is obviously nonsense.

Ah, I see you've added C to AGW which, let's be honest, isn't really a position as it is entirely dependent on how you define "catastrophic".

Just to clarify: I accept AGW because the evidence is overwhelming but am happy to accept the C bit is up for dispute.

deeps said:

... because there is no proven MMGW "climate change" to have a link with. Any unproven theory is obviously going to be not well understood,

...but here you're disputing AGW itself, which is contrary to the science. Sorry but I'm confused, do you accept the science or not?

deeps said:

...apart from within the walls of the BBC of course, who present it as fact every day.

As does every major scientific establishment on earth.

[AreOut]

"but here you're disputing AGW itself, which is contrary to the science. "

how is disputing unproven theory contrary to the science?

[dickymint]

AreOut said:

"but here you're disputing AGW itself, which is contrary to the science. "

how is disputing unproven theory contrary to the science?

In Disturbsters world it's not allowed to be disputed!

[turbobloke]

There's no credible empirical data revealing the claimed agw effect, it's all about model gigo as confirmed by a UKMO IPCC team member - so, what science?!

“The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

That was 1992 and off the went the junkscience bandwagon.

The data do matter and therefore science is still awol.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Either that or “The Team” has infected you with “The Cause”!

Can you not see that you're accusing me of being brainwashed while using terms you've got from turbobloke?

Just so you know, those terms were coined by the subjects of the climategate leak. Its in their emails and it's how they refer to each other and their mission. Have you had a read?

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/

http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Clima...

Here's one about models for you.

"[Tim Barnett, 2007] the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's preempt any potential problems."

[wc98]

XM5ER said:

Just so you know, those terms were coined by the subjects of the climategate leak. Its in their emails and it's how they refer to each other and their mission. Have you had a read?

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/

http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Clima...

Here's one about models for you.

"[Tim Barnett, 2007] the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's preempt any potential problems."

i had assumed ,possibly incorrectly, that anyone investing the amount of time durbs does on the debate just on here would have knowledge of and had read at least the main ticket items in the climate gate series. i am starting to wonder though.

[XM5ER]

wc98 said:

XM5ER said:

Just so you know, those terms were coined by the subjects of the climategate leak. Its in their emails and it's how they refer to each other and their mission. Have you had a read?

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/

http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Clima...

Here's one about models for you.

"[Tim Barnett, 2007] the actual forcing data is a must. right now we have some famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer....so let's preempt any potential problems."

i had assumed ,possibly incorrectly, that anyone investing the amount of time durbs does on the debate just on here would have knowledge of and had read at least the main ticket items in the climate gate series. i am starting to wonder though.

I'm not sure he has as they've kind of dropped off most people's radar these days, but I'm sure he'll tell us himself soon enough.

[wc98]

XM5ER said:

I'm not sure he has as they've kind of dropped off most people's radar these days, but I'm sure he'll tell us himself soon enough.

yep, amazing how short memories certain quarters have when it comes to climate science.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

i had assumed ,possibly incorrectly, that anyone investing the amount of time durbs does on the debate just on here would have knowledge of and had read at least the main ticket items in the climate gate series. i am starting to wonder though.

The climategate emails get a massive meh from me. It was a long time ago and absolutely nothing came of them, but I understand why you might relentlessly cling to them when there's so little else to go off.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

i had assumed ,possibly incorrectly, that anyone investing the amount of time durbs does on the debate just on here would have knowledge of and had read at least the main ticket items in the climate gate series. i am starting to wonder though.

The climategate emails get a massive meh from me. It was a long time ago and absolutely nothing came of them, but I understand why you might relentlessly cling to them when there's so little else to go off.

Can you point to the huge leaps forward in the "science" since they were leaked? Anyway, I cant say I'm surprised by your ignorance, otherwise you would have known about "the cause" and "the team".