Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
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. 
That was the whole point of the leak - to stop things happening to "save the world" . Jinx said:
durbster said:
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.
That was the whole point of the leak - to stop things happening to "save the world" . XM5ER said:
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".
again short memory syndrome seems to be a warmist trait , while the ipcc reports suggest not one single step forward in defining the climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2. best guess appears to be the same as 100 years ago. hasn't stopped the climate science community with coming up with ever more catastrophic possibilities as a result of that which they cannot define 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. The 97% consensus.
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
The 97% consensus.
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
Consensus means there’s general agreement in the scientific community that global surface temperatures have been increasing in the last few decades, and that it has been caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
The small % against is just the normal amount of disagreement when experts are generally in consensus.
The consensus should absolutely be challenged with any new evidence.If new evidence emerges showing AGW to be wrong, scientists will then change their view and a new consensus will be reached.
It shouldn’t take long though, because people in a car forum have aparently proved the consensus to not only be wrong but to have been based on no evidence whatsoever. For some odd reason, they haven’t been able to convince the actual experts yet.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th December 19:14
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
The 97% consensus.
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
I think it's because 10+ years ago the public still generally believed there was still a lot of debate about the underlying science of AGW. Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
The point of putting a figure on a consensus was simply to show that wasn't the case, and that the scientific case was in-fact well established and overwhelmingly accepted.
Of course a consensus has no scientific merit but it helped correct the public misconception that it's scientifically controversial.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
The 97% consensus.
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
Goto the begining of this forum, read ALL of it,and then you will know the 97% is complete bCan someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
ks. I think the actual figure is circa 6% from memory.El stovey said:
The consensus should absolutely be challenged with any new evidence.If new evidence emerges showing AGW to be wrong, scientists will then change their view and a new consensus will be reached.
Given that there is no 'evidence' showing AGW theory is proven, why would they change their minds when their careers, egos, reputation and pension funds are at stake? It would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas, there would be no point in their existence, so.... of course, they are happy to keep the gravy train rolling...El stovey said:
It shouldn’t take long though, because people in a car forum have apparently proved the consensus to not only be wrong but to have been based on no evidence whatsoever. For some odd reason, they haven’t been able to convince the actual experts yet.
It has been proved by other people outside of a car forum who have blown the consensus crap to bits... many times over, but hey, carry on appealing to authority and 'experts' rather than having a mind of your own...El stovey said:
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
The 97% consensus.
Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
Consensus means there’s general agreement in the scientific community that global surface temperatures have been increasing in the last few decades, and that it has been caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases Can someone on the global warming advocate side of the argument explain the significance of this figure?
As far as I can see, it appears on the surface that because some % of the scientific establishment may agree with the position of AGW then thats that and theres no further room for discussion.
Why not?
Isnt real science open to question any more?
As I understand it science is more or less a method of establishing truth, whatever it may be and regardless of the individuals personal biases, at least it used to be.
But again, just what is the significance of the so called consensus and why shouldnt it be challenged or ignored?
The small % against is just the normal amount of disagreement when experts are generally in consensus.
The consensus should absolutely be challenged with any new evidence.If new evidence emerges showing AGW to be wrong, scientists will then change their view and a new consensus will be reached.
It shouldn’t take long though, because people in a car forum have aparently proved the consensus to not only be wrong but to have been based on no evidence whatsoever. For some odd reason, they haven’t been able to convince the actual experts yet.
Edited by El stovey on Wednesday 13th December 19:14
Bacardi said:
El stovey said:
The consensus should absolutely be challenged with any new evidence.If new evidence emerges showing AGW to be wrong, scientists will then change their view and a new consensus will be reached.
Given that there is no 'evidence' showing AGW theory is proven, why would they change their minds when their careers, egos, reputation and pension funds are at stake? It would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas, there would be no point in their existence, so.... of course, they are happy to keep the gravy train rolling...El stovey said:
It shouldn’t take long though, because people in a car forum have apparently proved the consensus to not only be wrong but to have been based on no evidence whatsoever. For some odd reason, they haven’t been able to convince the actual experts yet.
It has been proved by other people outside of a car forum who have blown the consensus crap to bits... many times over, but hey, carry on appealing to authority and 'experts' rather than having a mind of your own...You’re appealing to the authority of a minority of non experts and believing conspiracy theories.
If that’s independent thinking then go for it,
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th December 06:26
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Based on evidence of posts in this forum?
Do you know what questions - 'they' - these scientists were asked? And how many of them responded? And I'm assuming you're not aware that consensus is a political term a rather than a scientific one? If there is really a vast number of climate scientists who don't accept that AGW is real, do you have some evidence they exist? Can you show us their Twitter accounts, show us their research, show us anything that proves they are out there.
The fact that a handful of bloggers always get referenced here simply proves they are the exceptions.
Stand by for a vague survey from twenty years ago...
Edited by durbster on Thursday 14th December 07:57
durbster said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Based on evidence of posts in this forum?
Do you know what questions - 'they' - these scientists were asked? And how many of them responded? And I'm assumeng you're not aware that consensus is a political term a rather than a scientific one? For that matter, how many thousand climate scientists are there in total, and how did this backwater get so many followers so quickly?
IPCC attribution speculation involves a few dozen hand-picked individuals not thousands. That paper from Hulme and a postgrad confirming the daring dozens has been posted in several attrition loops on this matter already.
Your comment is reminiscent of the old 'peer reviewed' taunt back in the day when The Team had a stranglehold on peer review, acting as gatekeepers for opposing views and pal reviewers for their own efforts. These days times are changing.
On top of that there's no public funding available in the UK at any rate for non-agw research. What do you suspect the implications of that lack of funding will be in terms of numbers? If funding largesse became available for counter-agw research what do you suspect would happen to the numbers?
Non-points like yours don't provide the missing anthropogenic forcing signal in TOA radiative imbalance data (energy) nor the missing visible causal human signal in global climate data (temperature).
No amount of political or religious zeal will create either, your position remains untenable.
World Bank to end financial support for oil and gas exploration
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/12/u...
Bank announces in Paris it ‘will no longer finance upstream oil and gas’ after 2019 in response to threat posed by climate change
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Tuesday 12 December 2017 22.19 GMT
The World Bank will end its financial support for oil and gas exploration within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change.
In a statement that delighted campaigners opposed to fossil fuels, the Bank used a conference in Paris to announce that it “will no longer finance upstream oil and gas” after 2019.
The Bank ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010 but has been under pressure from lobby groups also to halt the $1bn (£750m) a year it has been lending for oil and gas in developing countries.
The Bank said it saw the need to change the way it was operating in a “rapidly changing world”, adding that it was on course to have 28% of its lending going to climate action by 2020. At present, 1-2% of the Bank’s $280bn portfolio is accounted for by oil and gas projects.
Who are the supposed intelligent people running this organisation ?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/12/u...
Bank announces in Paris it ‘will no longer finance upstream oil and gas’ after 2019 in response to threat posed by climate change
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Tuesday 12 December 2017 22.19 GMT
The World Bank will end its financial support for oil and gas exploration within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change.
In a statement that delighted campaigners opposed to fossil fuels, the Bank used a conference in Paris to announce that it “will no longer finance upstream oil and gas” after 2019.
The Bank ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010 but has been under pressure from lobby groups also to halt the $1bn (£750m) a year it has been lending for oil and gas in developing countries.
The Bank said it saw the need to change the way it was operating in a “rapidly changing world”, adding that it was on course to have 28% of its lending going to climate action by 2020. At present, 1-2% of the Bank’s $280bn portfolio is accounted for by oil and gas projects.
Who are the supposed intelligent people running this organisation ?
robinessex said:
World Bank to end financial support for oil and gas exploration
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/12/u...
Bank announces in Paris it ‘will no longer finance upstream oil and gas’ after 2019 in response to threat posed by climate change
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Tuesday 12 December 2017 22.19 GMT
The World Bank will end its financial support for oil and gas exploration within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change.
In a statement that delighted campaigners opposed to fossil fuels, the Bank used a conference in Paris to announce that it “will no longer finance upstream oil and gas” after 2019.
The Bank ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010 but has been under pressure from lobby groups also to halt the $1bn (£750m) a year it has been lending for oil and gas in developing countries.
The Bank said it saw the need to change the way it was operating in a “rapidly changing world”, adding that it was on course to have 28% of its lending going to climate action by 2020. At present, 1-2% of the Bank’s $280bn portfolio is accounted for by oil and gas projects.
Who are the supposed intelligent people running this organisation ?
I expect the "developing countries", whoever they are, will be delighted by this news.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/12/u...
Bank announces in Paris it ‘will no longer finance upstream oil and gas’ after 2019 in response to threat posed by climate change
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Tuesday 12 December 2017 22.19 GMT
The World Bank will end its financial support for oil and gas exploration within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change.
In a statement that delighted campaigners opposed to fossil fuels, the Bank used a conference in Paris to announce that it “will no longer finance upstream oil and gas” after 2019.
The Bank ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010 but has been under pressure from lobby groups also to halt the $1bn (£750m) a year it has been lending for oil and gas in developing countries.
The Bank said it saw the need to change the way it was operating in a “rapidly changing world”, adding that it was on course to have 28% of its lending going to climate action by 2020. At present, 1-2% of the Bank’s $280bn portfolio is accounted for by oil and gas projects.
Who are the supposed intelligent people running this organisation ?
No wonder the businesses best known for fossil fuel development are rapidly diversifying. Especially now that "plastics" are becoming the new bete noire of the green movement and a few others.
So once oil, gas and plastics have followed coal into oblivion and metal production becomes more challenging .... how long will the tree huggers have before there are no trees left to hug?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff