Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Countdown said:
"freely funded by business....." 
Why do you think that might be?
OTOH we have governments who are supposedly looking after the interests of the people who elected them and OTOH we have businesses whose sole interests are to look after the interests of their shareholders. People vs. profit..... tough choice!
lol, if you believe that first line i have a bridge to sell you. regarding funding for either side, the warmist position receives funding orders of magnitude greater than that of the sceptics.Why do you think that might be?
OTOH we have governments who are supposedly looking after the interests of the people who elected them and OTOH we have businesses whose sole interests are to look after the interests of their shareholders. People vs. profit..... tough choice!
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Cute use of 'elected' as though that makes any difference once the lizards are in office.
Have you finally gone full David Icke?turbobloke said:
In the first half of 2018 there have been 254 new peer-reviewed papers affirming the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate change, demonstrating that climate science isn't settled, and therefore questioning the non-consensus position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing climate change. However a believer somewhere has allegedly claimed there's no consensus on the 254 figure and that the number isn't setttled, unlike the disputed science in the papers which is undisputed and settled. Obviously.
WC98 - According to Turbobloke there's plenty of research going on to undermine the consensus (but then his source could be selectively quoting from papers that in general agree with the consensus to come to that conclusion)...Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 18:11
Lotus 50 said:
According to Turbobloke there's plenty of research going on to undermine the consensus (but then his source could be selectively quoting from papers to come to that conclusion)...
there would be a lot more if it was able to receive government funding from any western government.wc98 said:
so what. how many periods of two decades or more has the temperature of the atmosphere risen before ? then subsequently fallen.it has happened before and will again.
The point is that Turbobloke is putting forward solar forcing(s) as a cause of the temperature changes we've experienced since the industrial revolution. But there appears to be neither correlation nor causality to back that assertion up (ie any influence they have is less than the current forcing behind global surface temp increases) even the author TB refers to appears to recognise this. If there is a time series showing correlation between solar forcings and surface temps over the last, say 200 years, and that demonstrates causality behind the warming I'd like to see it.Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 18:28
wc98 said:
so what. how many periods of two decades or more has the temperature of the atmosphere risen before ? then subsequently fallen.it has happened before and will again.
Long term trends when it suits, short term trends when it suits....Were you one of those in here who was posting about the chilly week in May, touting that as conclusive proof of the AGW scam?
Lotus 50 said:
wc98 said:
there would be a lot more if it was able to receive government funding from any western government.
Why would Governments fund work where the evidence thus far has shown that the work is a red-herring and would be a waste of public money? They're all out to get us!!1!!1!!!
Lotus 50 said:
Why would Governments fund work where the evidence thus far has shown that the work is a red-herring and would be a waste of public money?
is that a serious statement ? since when was science a defined rigid path ? if we knew all the answers do you think all that money would have been spent on cern ?zygalski said:
Long term trends when it suits, short term trends when it suits....
Were you one of those in here who was posting about the chilly week in May, touting that as conclusive proof of the AGW scam?
when you bother your arse to keep up with the posts or even contribute to the debate i will bother my arse responding to your odd yaps before you disappear for weeks.Were you one of those in here who was posting about the chilly week in May, touting that as conclusive proof of the AGW scam?
Lotus 50 said:
WC98 - According to Turbobloke there's plenty of research going on to undermine the consensus (but then his source could be selectively quoting from papers that in general agree with the consensus to come to that conclusion)...
there is some, it is orders of magnitude less than the warmist position receives. when a world renowned climate scientists can make the statement "what if it's all natural,they will probably kill us" or something close to that (i can dig the quote out if required) i really do think laymen of a warmist position should be a bit more open minded.Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 18:11
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Long term trends when it suits, short term trends when it suits....
Were you one of those in here who was posting about the chilly week in May, touting that as conclusive proof of the AGW scam?
when you bother your arse to keep up with the posts or even contribute to the debate i will bother my arse responding to your odd yaps before you disappear for weeks.Were you one of those in here who was posting about the chilly week in May, touting that as conclusive proof of the AGW scam?
wc98 said:
there is some, it is orders of magnitude less than the warmist position receives. when a world renowned climate scientists can make the statement "what if it's all natural,they will probably kill us" or something close to that (i can dig the quote out if required) i really do think laymen of a warmist position should be a bit more open minded.
The same refers to you with respect to the non-warmest position.There are always levels of doubt - even in a relationship that has 99.99% proof statistically so it doesn't surprise me that scientists worry about being wrong. Indeed it would be very nice if it was wrong (I like driving/flying/boating etc) but the evidence says otherwise. And as I've pointed out to Robinessex several times the last time CO2 was at current levels sea level was 6-9m higher than it is now. It may take 300 hundred years or so to get there from where we are now but it will still be somewhat inconvenient for Essex, big chunks of the East Coast, London, the Netherlands, New York, Tokyo, Bngladesh etc etc. That said it's not an insolvable problem or something we can't adapt to - the issue is how difficult we make it for ourselves.
wc98 said:
is that a serious statement ? since when was science a defined rigid path ? if we knew all the answers do you think all that money would have been spent on cern ?
As serious as the suggestion that there's a conspiracy to starve science of funding where it may contradict the view that the primary cause of temp change since the industrial revolution is CO2. The reality is that most work can get funded if it demonstrates sufficient value/priority. There's value in primary research like they do at Cern and there's value in research to understand/refine climate change and the potential impacts from it so that we can try to do something about it. If someone makes sufficient case to do research that shows that CO2 isn't a key factor in recent climate change then it would very likely get funded. The problem is that there isn't a sufficient case. It's not down to a conspiracy.Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 19:51
Lotus 50 said:
The same refers to you with respect to the non-warmest position.
There are always levels of doubt - even in a relationship that has 99.99% proof statistically so it doesn't surprise me that scientists worry about being wrong. Indeed it would be very nice if it was wrong (I like driving/flying/boating etc) but the evidence says otherwise. And as I've pointed out to Robinessex several times the last time CO2 was at current levels sea level was 6-9m higher than it is now. It may take 300 hundred years or so to get there from where we are now but it will still be somewhat inconvenient for Essex, big chunks of the East Coast, London, the Netherlands, New York, Tokyo, Bngladesh etc etc. That said it's not an insolvable problem or something we can't adapt to - the issue is how difficult we make it for ourselves.
Levels of CO2 reflect the amount of animal life on the planet - not temperatures (800 year lag minimum) . Sea level acceleration is risible and the rise is barely at the limits of measurable.There are always levels of doubt - even in a relationship that has 99.99% proof statistically so it doesn't surprise me that scientists worry about being wrong. Indeed it would be very nice if it was wrong (I like driving/flying/boating etc) but the evidence says otherwise. And as I've pointed out to Robinessex several times the last time CO2 was at current levels sea level was 6-9m higher than it is now. It may take 300 hundred years or so to get there from where we are now but it will still be somewhat inconvenient for Essex, big chunks of the East Coast, London, the Netherlands, New York, Tokyo, Bngladesh etc etc. That said it's not an insolvable problem or something we can't adapt to - the issue is how difficult we make it for ourselves.
What "evidence" have you seen that convinces you that a poor correlation in limited time bands (and zero correlation at other times) is a concern? Remember the consensus is only that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (50% of which is absorbed very quickly by nature doing what nature does) and that the world is warmer now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no consensus that the warming is dangerous.
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.
Jinx said:
Levels of CO2 reflect the amount of animal life on the planet - not temperatures (800 year lag minimum) . Sea level acceleration is risible and the rise is barely at the limits of measurable.
What "evidence" have you seen that convinces you that a poor correlation in limited time bands (and zero correlation at other times) is a concern? Remember the consensus is only that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (50% of which is absorbed very quickly by nature doing what nature does) and that the world is warmer now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no consensus that the warming is dangerous.
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.
Yes CO2 levels are driven by levels of plant/animal life. They then have an impact on surface temps and can cause positive feedback in terms of methane releases/additional CO2 emissions (as well as negative ones such as increased plant growth/coverage). Where did I say that the warming was dangerous? I did say that research in to past CO2 levels and sea level indicates significant change may happen over the next few centuries. Whether that's dangerous or not depends on what we do to manage them. What "evidence" have you seen that convinces you that a poor correlation in limited time bands (and zero correlation at other times) is a concern? Remember the consensus is only that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (50% of which is absorbed very quickly by nature doing what nature does) and that the world is warmer now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no consensus that the warming is dangerous.
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff