Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
mko9 said:
The more important question would be: why the heck are there any climate scientisits working at NASA?? They are a space agency. NOAA or EPA, sure. NASA???
Yes fair point but the green shilling (or dime) is worth far more than a shilling if you align your work with what the government wants people to do in order to bolster its agenda.Several backwater faculties at the universities of wherever have scored large financial wins with grant largesse which is freely available to those pushing climate fairytales but not those who take a more realistic view. A reply in Hansard confirmed this one-way funding in the UK (at least at the time of the reply).
Follow the money, kerching. If missionary zeal is a part of the deal...the rest is history.
turbobloke said:
Remembering of course that it's not "NASA" which became wedded to climate fairlytales under Obama but a small number of loud-mouthed activists giving the agency a hard time.
Somebody on PH was innocently (!) unaware of these NASA climate activists a while ago, not sure if it was you.
interesting form from a select few. make a claim that supposedly shows "deniers" are talking nonsense. "denier" posts evidence to show appeal to authority sucker is wrong. appeal to authority sucker disappears for a while (usually claims their life is far too interesting to check this thread every 5 mins,hours,days etc) then reappears with more nonsense. nonsense that could yet again be shown to be bSomebody on PH was innocently (!) unaware of these NASA climate activists a while ago, not sure if it was you.
ks if i could be arsed to look for the study on the use of global warming vs climate change in papers over a 30 year period.El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
:yawn:
Looping is such fun.
Primary school kids can get the gist of causality but it escapes either the notice or the understanding (or both) of certain grown-ups.
El stovey said:
If you got the gist of it you’d actually be doing the science, not trying get to discredit real scientists on a car forum.
More absolute nonsense. How would climate science accommodate every scientist who understands the science involved, as far as that understanding has evolved to date?Also by definition I can't be trying to discredit real scientists, even on a car forum with plenty of scientists around. Real scientists understand causality, the primacy of empirical data and how the scientific method operates. I'm addressing a small number of activists, not a large number of scientists. Kindly RTFP.
The subject is well-funded but many scientists have better things to do with their time and don't remain washing thermometers or test tubes in the field for long. Some do, particularly if they see that grant funding largesse is operating in a particular area which has political patronage.
Along with many other scientists who studied/researched in natural sciences there are many other areas of enquiry I understand and could work in, does it not occur to you that those who enter one particular field are not by any means alone in their grip of the subject? There's no basis to expect any limitation on where such people work. Certainly not subject to your bias and whim!
After wondering exactly what level of science education you reached in order to not understand causality and not understand how the scientific method operates, I'm now wondering how your awareness and understanding of career paths for scientists can be so weak.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
:yawn:
Looping is such fun.
Primary school kids can get the gist of causality but it escapes either the notice or the understanding (or both) of certain grown-ups.
Does the other hand sport a post-it note explaining that a decent proportion of old guard climate activists including those at the non-climate body NASA have qualifications in subjects other than 'climate science'?
El s should have a lot of time for geologists, geographers, astronomers and mathematicians. They've managed to re-invent themselves as climate scientists and El s is swooning.
There are numerous posts in PH climate threads / loops explaining this point which is oft-forgotten by the appeals to authority brigade who applaud such activists in non-climate bodies.
zygalski said:
mko9 said:
The more important question would be: why the heck are there any climate scientisits working at NASA?? They are a space agency. NOAA or EPA, sure. NASA???
We all know all the best, least biased climate experts are PH'ers.
Meanwhile back on topic in the climate politics thread, some examples of hypocrisy within the faithful have emerged over at WattsUp.
True Believer said:
No children, happy to go extinct...I'm thinking of a vasectomy...last week an artist had herself sterilised for similar reasons
True Believer then said:
My wife and I just had a baby and it's quickly becoming the best decision we ever made
None of those words are from Mr Watts, they're horse's mouth words from a prominent activist who has managed to meet the demands of the hypocritical oath of belief. AW does have some words to say about a conference at the root of the hypocrisy:Watts said:
Although the conference itself (look at the program below) is essentially little more than a gigantic condemnation of humankind’s carbon footprint, the vast majority of the participants took long-distance commercial airplane flights to reach the conference (and return home afterwards); because they’re special and the rules don’t apply to them.
Basically it’s a life-lesson posing as a conference about why people shouldn’t ride on carbon-spewing airplanes – attended exclusively by people who rode on carbon dioxide-spewing airplanes to get there.
I found this all quite amusing, and also politically significant, because it reveals that these people are not really serious about their “policy recommendations”: They themselves feel completely free to spew as much carbon as they want into the atmosphere, which means they actually aren’t really concerned about the issue (i.e. the whole field is a hoax) or they’re flaming hypocrites of the worst sort.
There are dozens of conferences like this every year, year after year, all over the planet, all similarly purposeless and unnecessary – part of the endless academic gravy train of grants and free travel.
Very politically significant. Do-as-I say activism which does exactly the opposite. Clothes pegs on noses time (again). Basically it’s a life-lesson posing as a conference about why people shouldn’t ride on carbon-spewing airplanes – attended exclusively by people who rode on carbon dioxide-spewing airplanes to get there.
I found this all quite amusing, and also politically significant, because it reveals that these people are not really serious about their “policy recommendations”: They themselves feel completely free to spew as much carbon as they want into the atmosphere, which means they actually aren’t really concerned about the issue (i.e. the whole field is a hoax) or they’re flaming hypocrites of the worst sort.
There are dozens of conferences like this every year, year after year, all over the planet, all similarly purposeless and unnecessary – part of the endless academic gravy train of grants and free travel.
zygalski said:
mko9 said:
The more important question would be: why the heck are there any climate scientisits working at NASA?? They are a space agency. NOAA or EPA, sure. NASA???
We all know all the best, least biased climate experts are PH'ers.If you wanted facts where would you look?
NASA or any other reputable scientific organisation or some weird confirmation bias cult of non climate scientists on a car forum insisting these institutions are full of actual scientists are full of boffins on the take.
Astonishing really.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
mko9 said:
The more important question would be: why the heck are there any climate scientisits working at NASA?? They are a space agency. NOAA or EPA, sure. NASA???
We all know all the best, least biased climate experts are PH'ers.If you wanted facts where would you look?
El stovey said:
Astonishing really.
It sure is. Data vs political advocacy and you opt for the political advocacy,
Just out of interest have you figured out causality yet?
turbobloke said:
There are numerous posts in PH climate threads / loops explaining this point which is oft-forgotten by the appeals to authority brigade who applaud such activists in non-climate bodies.
You posting the same dogma repeatedly doesn’t ever make facts. You constantly then quote your own non facts as evidence. Then oddly say these posts are numerous and often pointed out. Well yes, by you. It’s you pointing out your own posts. Do you do this on science forums rather than car forums where lots of actual scientists would laugh at this nonsense. Here it works because you’ve got a handful of car enthusiasts to bang on to.
You’re posting politics not science. You’re simply letting your own dislike of these institutions cloud your logic.
If you’re right and all these scientific institutions are wrong, why aren’t you publishing peer reviewed climate appears and influencing the debate rather than quoting yourself constantly on a car forum?
El stovey said:
You posting the same dogma repeatedly doesn’t ever make facts. You constantly then quote your own non facts as evidence.
I do indeed post evidence including data, which you and a few others then ignore and conveniently forget about while making bogus claims.El stovey said:
Do you do this on science forums rather than car forums where lots of actual scientists would laugh at this nonsense.
Yes as also mentioned previously, and there's no consensus or settled science in sight there either.El stovey said:
Here it works because you’ve got a handful of car enthusiasts to bang on to.
Plenty of scientists here, you would appear not to be one of them, or (as also mentioned previously) you hide your expertise very well.El stovey said:
You’re posting politics not science.
In the climate politics thread, wtf would you expect? You're really excelling yourself here. In this thread and others I've also cited many a peer-reviewed paper when the need arose.
El stovey said:
You’re simply letting your own dislike of these institutions cloud your logic.
Massive irony there. I have no dislike for any institution, all I do is indicate the nonsense emanating from a few activists holed up there.El stovey said:
If you’re right and all these scientific institutions are wrong...
It's nothing to do with me being right or wrong. I indicate what the data is and what it says, data which is being ignored by you and a few others on a regular basis due to your preference for political advocacy which suits your position.El stovey said:
...why aren’t you publishing peer reviewed climate appears and influencing the debate rather than quoting yourself constantly on a car forum?
Because, as also pointed out several times including recently, it's neither my job nor my aim.All I do is point to data, and in this thread to politics, also to the rubbish posted from time to time as in this case.
Have you managed to get to grips with causality and its implications yet? It might help you to get something right.
So there are no climate scientists on this thread that agree with you, are there any scientists at all on this thread that agree with you?
Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
El stovey said:
So there are no climate scientists on this thread that agree with you, are there any scientists at all on this thread that agree with you?
Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
It's the facts supporting the opinions that are important, not the sector in which the opinionator operates.Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
El stovey said:
So there are no climate scientists on this thread that agree with you, are there any scientists at all on this thread that agree with you?
Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Such agreement has taken place previously, is your memory selective or just bad? Tallbloke for example has published not too long ago and as happens the vilification from believers followed swiftly enough. Not saying he agrees with everything I post as I can't speak for others but he's not a true believer.Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
El stovey said:
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything.
Yet another misrepresentation of my position. I've made it clear several times that I don't dislike any institution or attribute credit / discredit in the manner you falsely allege - it's a small number of activists who aren't worthy of the credit you bestow upon them.El stovey said:
If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
I have done exactly that and do exactly that, as already pointed out, so yet again you launch another baseless accusation. The data is clear enough.Monnin et al
Petit et al
Fischer et al
Jouzel et al
Humlum et al
In the data no causal link exists between carbon dioxide and temperature on timescales ranging from interglacial to decadal (^^^^^)
Stephens et al
There is no visible anthropogenic signal in top of atmosphere radiative imbalance data (^)
As posted n times with no alternative at all available from you or anyone else that doesn't involve faith statements or model gigo, neither of which constitute data.
Your focus on me rather than on the compelling data and evidence which roundly refutes your position (and that of activists not institutions) does at least say one thing: you are completely useless at countering the content of my posts so you opt for the misleading personal angles instead. That's a good sign - for me not you, obviously!
After half a dozen peer-reviewed papers it's time to get back on topic once again with more politics, courtesy of A Watts as the messenger not the message:
examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first Earth Day in 1970
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples...
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
There's a number 18 on ice age scaremongering which morphed into global warming scaremongering when the need arose. For a similarly slick sidestep see 'ocean acidification' misdirection.
turbobloke said:
More irrefutable data and facts
Why not present this evidence to scientists in science forums or somewhere where policy change can happen rather than to non experts in a car forum?Are you a scientist? If you are, why not do something useful with this consensus changing data you have? Is it not your duty? Shame on you for instead reducing yourself to self-aggrandizement amongst non experts.
If I thought I had real evidence that disproved current scientific consensus,I wouldn’t be promoting myself, I’d be doing something about it. If you’re a scientist, ought you not to be challenging this consensus amongst experts? Not throwing stones from the sidelines?
All you’re doing here is confirming yours and the biases of about 5 posters. You can’t be very confident of your facts otherwise you’d be publishing them and making historic change to scientific theory and benefiting mankind.
If the experts in my job were all wrong and leading the industry or even science itself down the wrong course, I’d be doing something about it, not posting in here. Obviously then though, you have to be able to convince real experts not car forum members.
Can you see where you’re going wrong? You’ve got science changing facts but you’re only presenting them to a handful of people that agree with you on pistonheads.
You really need to be knocking, or banging even, on the door of the Royal society or any of these eminent scientific bodies that disagree with you.
Academy of Medical Sciences, Academy of Social Sciences, British Academy, British Ecological Society, Challenger Society for Marine Science, Geological Society, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institute of Physics, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Institution of Environmental Sciences, Learned Society of Wales, London Mathematical Society, Royal Astronomical Society, Royal Economic Society, Royal Geographical Society, Royal Meteorological Society, Royal Society, Royal Society of Arts, Royal Society of Biology, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of Edinburgh, Society for General Microbiology, Wellcome Trust, Zoological Society of London.
These are just the UK ones, posted for your convenience.
Please post the transcripts from the meetings you have with them, so the other 5 posters can enjoy this truly momentous and historic, science changing moment.
V8 Fettler said:
El stovey said:
So there are no climate scientists on this thread that agree with you, are there any scientists at all on this thread that agree with you?
Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
It's the facts supporting the opinions that are important, not the sector in which the opinionator operates.Why aren’t you arguing this on a climate science forum with actual climate scientists?
Trying to discredit scientific institutions on a car forum isn’t ever going to achieve anything. If you actually had any data and facts worth anything you’d be doing this amongst climate experts not in here.
Have many great scientific discoveries been made in the NPandE? I’ve not often seen it up there with CERN and those other boffins.
If you did in fact have science changing facts, would you be presenting them to a handful of pistonheaders or to the scientific community and enacting change?
robinessex said:
While El Stovey is blasting away, any chance he can answer, if the planet gets warmer (whatever that is) by a minute amount, whether it actually matters?
The Royal society produce a nice fact sheet for you.https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
But essentially yes is the answer.
The UKs most eminent scientific bodies said:
Risks. Climate change poses risks to people and ecosystems by exacerbating existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and societal threats, and generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the temperature increases. Many systems are already at risk from climate change. A rise of 2°C above pre-industrial levels would lead to further increased risk from extreme weather and would place more ecosystems and cultures in significant danger. At or above 4°C, the risks include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, and fundamental changes to human activities that today are taken for granted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff