Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
DocJock said:
El stovey, have you ever thought of running for political office? Your skill at avoiding answering questions and your wilful ignorance would make you an ideal candidate.
Why are you asking me questions? I’m not the one with proof of this massive fraud. Turbobloke can prove scientists, scientific institutions and whole governments are colluding in this deception.
Why is he wasting his time posting in a car forum?
If you wanted to reveal such a historically large deception involving governments and scientific institutions would you be posting about it in here? I’d hope not because that would be pointless.
And if this is just "a car forum" why are you here anyway? A quick glance and not once in 90 days have you posted anything relevant about cars - your profile is totally void of anything automotive as well
I quite enjoy your posts elsewhere but in this thread you are quite simply a Troll.
El stovey said:
DocJock said:
El stovey, have you ever thought of running for political office? Your skill at avoiding answering questions and your wilful ignorance would make you an ideal candidate.
Why are you asking me questions? I’m not the one with proof of this massive fraud. Turbobloke can prove scientists, scientific institutions and whole governments are colluding in this deception.
Why is he wasting his time posting in a car forum?
If you wanted to reveal such a historically large deception involving governments and scientific institutions would you be posting about it in here? I’d hope not because that would be pointless.
Furthermore, responding to a question with further, tangential questions without answering the original question, is just ignorant. I won't trouble you with further interaction and let you get back to trolling.
turbobloke said:
Comedy gold nonsense from Trolls Inc. The team working with NASA JPL scientist G Stephens PhD were responsible for 'uncovering' the lack of any visible anthropogenic forcing in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance, a key empirical result showing that in effect agw doesn't exist.
What happens on PH is that this type of 'heretical' information contrary to agw doctrine is available rather than being suppressed, as it obviously is elsewhere.
You're having a laugh - you're terrible at providing refs to source material and asking for them is like pulling teeth. What happens on PH is that this type of 'heretical' information contrary to agw doctrine is available rather than being suppressed, as it obviously is elsewhere.
It's like you don't want people checking up on your claims.
Where can the work that you refer to above be found please?
turbobloke said:
Clearly NASA isn't the amorphous green blob that uninformed believers like to portray, and if somebody wants to appeal to its authority then don't forget Graeme Stephens given he's the Director of the Center for Climate Sciences at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a Fellow of the Royal Society too smile
I did a search on NASA JPL scientist G Stephens radiative imbalance and this popped up:NASA Study Solves Case of Earth's 'Missing Energy'
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=201...
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 6th July 11:32
This article, snips below and everything else at the link, may be of potential interest to polical climate thread followers. It focuses on one of the many meaningless climate fairytale soundbites "contributes to climate change" frequently used by activists and supine media hacks as though it means something.
Summary: 'Political leaders and newscasters - understand that the phrase “contributing to climate change” is meaningless, so please try to use something a little more intelligent.'
Note: 'snips' means extracts and these have been selected to preserve the narrative, everything else is at the link - and note also that the two italicised inserts are from me, not the author of the article.
Dr Heinz Hug has shown experimentally that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its key 15 micron line in about ten meters. CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space measured from the ground up. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. A shorter distance is measured in metres not degrees C. In any case there's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for so-called global warming purposes because convection currents, and bulk motions (wind and turbulent near-surface flow), combine to mix the air well over such short distances.
Summary: 'Political leaders and newscasters - understand that the phrase “contributing to climate change” is meaningless, so please try to use something a little more intelligent.'
Note: 'snips' means extracts and these have been selected to preserve the narrative, everything else is at the link - and note also that the two italicised inserts are from me, not the author of the article.
Article snips said:
Earlier this month, the New York Times featured an article titled “Hockey in the Desert.” The article concluded that by building a hockey stadium in Las Vegas, the National Hockey League was contributing to climate change. The phrase “contributing to” is used over and over by political leaders and the media to voice concern about human-caused global warming, but “contributing to climate change” is a meaningless phrase.
In his address at Georgetown University in June of 2013, President Barack Obama stated, “… the planet is warming, and human activity is contributing to it.” In 2011, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “… climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role.” In congressional confirmation hearings, Energy Secretary Rick Perry affirmed that man-made activity was contributing to climate change.
The real question is “What is the size of human contribution compared to natural factors?” Insert: As Stephens et al, Monnin et al, Humlum et al and others have shown using empirical data, any human contribution is invisibly small, something we can't see, can't measure, can't analyse; it requires faith to be seen, and carbon dioxide is ruled out as a cause on timescales spanning decades to interglacials because the order of events is the wrong way round for causality to CO2.
Earth’s climate is amazingly complex. It’s driven by gravitational forces of our solar system, radiation from the sun and cosmic rays from stars in deep space. Climate is a chaotic, interdependent system of atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and deep oceans. Climate has been changing through cycles of warming and cooling, tropical ages, temperate ages and ice ages throughout all of Earth’s history. Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous.
The oceans have a powerful effect on Earth’s climate. The Gulf Stream current in the Atlantic Ocean dominates weather and temperatures in Europe. The El Niño cycle in the Pacific Ocean affects weather all over the world. The oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold more than 1,000 times the heat.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 molecules in our atmosphere are CO2, and the amount that human industry could have added over all of our history is only a fraction of one of those four molecules. Insert: and this tiny fraction can only absorb at a small number of wavelengths in the far infrared. This was unknown to e.g. Arrhenius as quantum molecular spectroscopy wasn't available back then.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/07/contributing-to-climate-change-meaningless-words/In his address at Georgetown University in June of 2013, President Barack Obama stated, “… the planet is warming, and human activity is contributing to it.” In 2011, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “… climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role.” In congressional confirmation hearings, Energy Secretary Rick Perry affirmed that man-made activity was contributing to climate change.
The real question is “What is the size of human contribution compared to natural factors?” Insert: As Stephens et al, Monnin et al, Humlum et al and others have shown using empirical data, any human contribution is invisibly small, something we can't see, can't measure, can't analyse; it requires faith to be seen, and carbon dioxide is ruled out as a cause on timescales spanning decades to interglacials because the order of events is the wrong way round for causality to CO2.
Earth’s climate is amazingly complex. It’s driven by gravitational forces of our solar system, radiation from the sun and cosmic rays from stars in deep space. Climate is a chaotic, interdependent system of atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and deep oceans. Climate has been changing through cycles of warming and cooling, tropical ages, temperate ages and ice ages throughout all of Earth’s history. Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous.
The oceans have a powerful effect on Earth’s climate. The Gulf Stream current in the Atlantic Ocean dominates weather and temperatures in Europe. The El Niño cycle in the Pacific Ocean affects weather all over the world. The oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold more than 1,000 times the heat.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 molecules in our atmosphere are CO2, and the amount that human industry could have added over all of our history is only a fraction of one of those four molecules. Insert: and this tiny fraction can only absorb at a small number of wavelengths in the far infrared. This was unknown to e.g. Arrhenius as quantum molecular spectroscopy wasn't available back then.
Dr Heinz Hug has shown experimentally that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its key 15 micron line in about ten meters. CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space measured from the ground up. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. A shorter distance is measured in metres not degrees C. In any case there's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for so-called global warming purposes because convection currents, and bulk motions (wind and turbulent near-surface flow), combine to mix the air well over such short distances.
DocJock said:
The clue is in the thread title...
Furthermore, responding to a question with further, tangential questions without answering the original question, is just ignorant. I won't trouble you with further interaction and let you get back to trolling.
every now and then someone pops in to debate certain points, lotus 50 being one such person. el stovey and zyggy are not interested in debate, just flaming as is obvious from their responses. el stovey posts plenty stuff worth reading elsewhere, zyggy, not so much.your last sentence is probably the best approach.Furthermore, responding to a question with further, tangential questions without answering the original question, is just ignorant. I won't trouble you with further interaction and let you get back to trolling.
edit for mixing up posters.
Can anybody answer my simple question?
If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
I asked previously why nobody like ExxonMobil or any other vested interest had initiated legal proceedings against the IPCC if irrefutable evidence of the AGW scam existed. If I recall, the answers I got from the learned gents on here were that big oil is now so heavily invested in cleaner energy, that they too are part of the conspiracy!
Indeed, it appears the only people who aren't part of the conspiracy are the right wing blog writers, and they don't have the wherewithal to start any kind of legal action against global governments, seats of learning, the IPCC, world media outlets, individual scientists, scientific corporations, politicians, schools, universities......
Not tin foil hattery at all
Indeed, it appears the only people who aren't part of the conspiracy are the right wing blog writers, and they don't have the wherewithal to start any kind of legal action against global governments, seats of learning, the IPCC, world media outlets, individual scientists, scientific corporations, politicians, schools, universities......
Not tin foil hattery at all
turbobloke said:
The Director of NASA's climate group leads research that shows no visible anthropogenic forcing exists in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance, i.e. any agw there is cannot be anything other tha immeasurably small - it cannot be analysed, obviously - in effect agw doesn't exist, and cannot be seen except through the eye of faith...so faith still sees it. Faith argues that NASA is some holy grail for the green religion when that's as daft as a brush but no data and no rational argument will shake it.
Hey turbobloke, these are big claims - can you link to the source material please.kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
The Director of NASA's climate group leads research that shows no visible anthropogenic forcing exists in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance, i.e. any agw there is cannot be anything other tha immeasurably small - it cannot be analysed, obviously - in effect agw doesn't exist, and cannot be seen except through the eye of faith...so faith still sees it. Faith argues that NASA is some holy grail for the green religion when that's as daft as a brush but no data and no rational argument will shake it.
Hey turbobloke, these are big claims - can you link to the source material please.https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
'The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.'
El stovey said:
Can anybody answer my simple question?
If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
read the thread man. there is no irrefutable evidence either way,if there was this debate would not be ongoing. many claims were made regarding the effects of catastrophic anthropogenic induced global warming. none of them have come to pass. the world has warmed a little bit since the little ice age. the rate of warming is no different to the past. sea level has been on the rise since the little ice age,the rate has not accelerated. extreme weather events are not on the increase, there are no climate refugees and the poles are still covered in ice. (any paper you can find to the contrary involves modeling modeled data, or disregarding measured results for spurious reasons.If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
every single modern method for measuring all this stuff is constantly under review,new papers out all the time,the level of ambiguity surrounding it all is such that in commercial fields no one would be spending a tenner never mind billions on the "data". the fact that the main method used to address the "problem" is extracting more money from the masses through various taxes should be an indicator to proceed with care.
El stovey said:
Can anybody answer my simple question?
If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
I am definitely doing something about it, whenever global warming (or climate change) comes up in a discussion I ask people to do their own research, and make their own minds up. My favourite one is to ask them to have a look at global temps over the last half million years. The response is usually either stumped silence, or they ask the excellent question "why don't I see this graph on the news or in the papers?"If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
Humans like to believe we are both powerful and living in special times, but really we aren't.
There are other parallels to AGW in the environmental world. One of my favourites is the honey bee population crash crisis, which is another well meaning, ideologically driven fabrication. Honey bee populations are increasing globally, yet I read exactly the opposite in the press. Why is that?
There's this, from the start of 2018. It claims that diminished snow cover (agw, ho ho ho) puts species in peril.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/warming-signs-how-d...
Then there's this.
From the most recent minimum (1990) onwards for ca 30 yrs globally, snow cover has increased sharply In particular N hemisphere snow cover has been above the long-term mean for most of the last 25 years.
Meanwhile...as we in the UK have been enjoying a spell of natural climate variation of late, courtesy of the Atlantic Oscillation, we should think of those elsewhere past and present who've been similarly affected, particularly in the past. It's the right thing to do, even if it gives lie to the increased tax gas = warming and records mythology, as it refers to a time when lemonade fizz was more of an atmospheric shortage as opposed to merely a food and drink shortage.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/warming-signs-how-d...
Then there's this.
From the most recent minimum (1990) onwards for ca 30 yrs globally, snow cover has increased sharply In particular N hemisphere snow cover has been above the long-term mean for most of the last 25 years.
Meanwhile...as we in the UK have been enjoying a spell of natural climate variation of late, courtesy of the Atlantic Oscillation, we should think of those elsewhere past and present who've been similarly affected, particularly in the past. It's the right thing to do, even if it gives lie to the increased tax gas = warming and records mythology, as it refers to a time when lemonade fizz was more of an atmospheric shortage as opposed to merely a food and drink shortage.
Article on the N America 1911 heatwave said:
In Hartford, crowds gathered around the Thermograph near City Hall to watch as it fluctuated between 110 and 112 degrees in the shade. At Colwell’s store in Cumberland, R.I., the thermometer hit 130. A farmer in Woodbury left his field when the temperature reached 140 degrees F, 60 deg C, in the sun.
Kawasicki said:
There are other parallels to AGW in the environmental world. One of my favourites is the honey bee population crash crisis, which is another well meaning, ideologically driven fabrication. Honey bee populations are increasing globally, yet I read exactly the opposite in the press. Why is that?
The other one that springs to mind is butter - thirty years of scaremongering!!!El stovey said:
Can anybody answer my simple question?
If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
You have to understand how this and other threads came about, it all started many moons ago with a thread started by TB about climategate, myself I was quite happy with the scientists doing their stuff, Climate change was happening,If you had irrefutable evidence of something (anything) being wrong in your own field of expertise or even just something you are interested in.
Do you think this is the place to post the evidence?
I think most people would say no. It’s just a discussion forum.
So why aren’t any of you actually doing anything with this evidence?
You’ve got proof of a massive mistake or deception on a global scale but none of you are actually doing anything about it?
but the more I read up on the subject the more it made no sense at all, if you put aside all the hype and look at facts climate change and it's connections to CO2 are impossible to measure, the only claim that can be made is it might have an effect, is that good enough for me the answer is no, the whole climate change thing is at a point were it's to big to fail, how could scientists go back on what has been said?
in the original climategate emails discussions were had on how to remove anything from reports that did not conform to the climate change belief , the gate keepers did a very good job of silencing alternative views,
how could you challenge such a huge industry that is backed by environmentalists, all TB and others do is keep us informed, you are free to believe what you want as am I.
What I find interesting over the years is the hostility from believers to people who post on here, why does it matter? This little backwater of the internet matters nothing in the scheme of things but still they come, strange.
Some news from the usual suspects, ideal for politicians everywhere.
Greenland Continues To Gain Ice - 2 years in a row in which there has been 'a large increase in ice’.
Summer Arctic Ice Remains Stubborn as Volume Grows and North Atlantic Cools
2018 Hurricane Season Might Not Be Very Active After All
Gaia be praised
Greenland Continues To Gain Ice - 2 years in a row in which there has been 'a large increase in ice’.
Summer Arctic Ice Remains Stubborn as Volume Grows and North Atlantic Cools
2018 Hurricane Season Might Not Be Very Active After All
Gaia be praised
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff