Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

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?"

Humans like to believe we are both powerful and living in special times, but really we aren't.

That your friends are as easily fooled by standard talking points as you are doesn't prove much.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

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?"

Humans like to believe we are both powerful and living in special times, but really we aren't.

That your friends are as easily fooled by standard talking points as you are doesn't prove much.

I don’t need to prove anything, the existing data does that. It is so liberating.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

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?"

Humans like to believe we are both powerful and living in special times, but really we aren't.

That your friends are as easily fooled by standard talking points as you are doesn't prove much.

Massive irony.

Believer standard talking points:

-consensus / non consensus, irrelevant

-appeals to authority including irony e.g. NASA/RS, irrelevant

-computer gigo, this is not data and it's not even pure science, in any case it's a circular argument as carbon dioxide effects are assumed and programmed in, other forcings are omitted to make room, overall an ongoing fail from inadequate modelling which doesn't use science so much as tuned paramaterisations which are tuned and re-tuned by vested interests

-sarc, name calling, trolling, etc as there's no alternative with no empirical evidence to cite, and irrelevant

-repetition of the above in a seemingly endless series of attrition loops going over the same stale ground with nothing new and nothing remotely relevant on offer, irrelevant and tedious

The longer-term climate picture is entirely reasonable as a point to make, given that a few decades is neither here nor there. Information that the general public don't see and which defeat agw include the data (and its implications) that appear in PH climate threads to the dismay of believers who would prefer the censored msm 'discussion' in which agw nonsense is trotted out as though it even makes sense.

This information is available on PH for anyone to check out and includes, as posted n times:

-no visible anthropogenic forcing is present in TOA radiative imbalance data (Stephens et al) so agw is immeasurably small, no human signal can be identified, no analysis of this non-entity can be carried out, armwaving claims of extra energy in the atmosphere must refer to natural causes as anthropogenic carbon dioxide is having an invisible effect

-no visible causal human signal exists in any global climate (temperature) data, the notion that there is such a signal is a matter of conjecture on the part of those paid IPCC government appointees whose pay allows them to speculate and use % to make it look like some sort of statistical analysis when it's speculation as acknowledged in footnote form within IPCC documentation

-carbon dioxide changes occur after temperature changes - and experimental error is insufficient to change the order - on timescales from interglacial to decadal (Monnin et al, Humlum et al) so carbon dioxide cannot cause and is not causing the agw that can't be seen except through the eyes of faith

-solar forcing dominates the climate change picture in terms of eruptivity as well as irradiance (from Wilson to Newell et al supported by Svensmark et al and Bucha) with other natural forcings visible such as volcanism, modest natural variation totally swamps the non-signal from tax gas effects that only faith can see

AGW junkscience and politics make a great combination

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

I don’t need to prove anything, the existing data does that. It is so liberating.

But you are "trying" and showing your friends temperature graphs of the last 500k yrs etc, so it appears you do need to prove something.

Btw you realise the scale on that graph you posted of temps for the last 500k is useless for comparing rates of change with the modern warming period right? Or perhaps not.

(Thought I'd better mention that in case you were interpretting the lack of replies as 'stumped silence')

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

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?"

Humans like to believe we are both powerful and living in special times, but really we aren't.

That your friends are as easily fooled by standard talking points as you are doesn't prove much.

Massive irony.

Believer standard talking points:

-consensus / non consensus, irrelevant

-appeals to authority including irony e.g. NASA/RS, irrelevant

-computer gigo, this is not data and it's not even pure science, in any case it's a circular argument as carbon dioxide effects are assumed and programmed in, other forcings are omitted to make room, overall an ongoing fail from inadequate modelling which doesn't use science so much as tuned paramaterisations which are tuned and re-tuned by vested interests

-sarc, name calling, trolling, etc as there's no alternative with no empirical evidence to cite, and irrelevant

-repetition of the above in a seemingly endless series of attrition loops going over the same stale ground with nothing new and nothing remotely relevant on offer, irrelevant and tedious

The longer-term climate picture is entirely reasonable as a point to make, given that a few decades is neither here nor there. Information that the general public don't see and which defeat agw include the data (and its implications) that appear in PH climate threads to the dismay of believers who would prefer the censored msm 'discussion' in which agw nonsense is trotted out as though it even makes sense.

This information is available on PH for anyone to check out and includes, as posted n times:

-no visible anthropogenic forcing is present in TOA radiative imbalance data (Stephens et al) so agw is immeasurably small, no human signal can be identified, no analysis of this non-entity can be carried out, armwaving claims of extra energy in the atmosphere must refer to natural causes as anthropogenic carbon dioxide is having an invisible effect

-no visible causal human signal exists in any global climate (temperature) data, the notion that there is such a signal is a matter of conjecture on the part of those paid IPCC government appointees whose pay allows them to speculate and use % to make it look like some sort of statistical analysis when it's speculation as acknowledged in footnote form within IPCC documentation

-carbon dioxide changes occur after temperature changes - and experimental error is insufficient to change the order - on timescales from interglacial to decadal (Monnin et al, Humlum et al) so carbon dioxide cannot cause and is not causing the agw that can't be seen except through the eyes of faith

-solar forcing dominates the climate change picture in terms of eruptivity as well as irradiance (from Wilson to Newell et al supported by Svensmark et al and Bucha) with other natural forcings visible such as volcanism, modest natural variation totally swamps the non-signal from tax gas effects that only faith can see

AGW junkscience and politics make a great combination

As previous, do you have a link or title for Stephens et al? He's a prolific chap.

[Ali G]

zygalski said:

Plenty of people troll flat Earth sites & mumsnet.
I'd put this thread in that sort of company.

What's mumsnet?

Feel free to let us know - since you're obviously a frequent visiter!

[Ali G]

It would be possible to have a decent discussion - along political lines - something like
"is the cure worse than the disease?"
"Should the West self flagellate and prostrate itself at the feet of the 3rd worild and hand over all the dosh?"
"Is the Western world guilt of crimes against humanity?"
"Development - f*ck that - lets get back to the stoneage when everyone was happy"

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

I don’t need to prove anything, the existing data does that. It is so liberating.

But you are "trying" and showing your friends temperature graphs of the last 500k yrs etc, so it appears you do need to prove something.

Btw you realise the scale on that graph you posted of temps for the last 500k is useless for comparing rates of change with the modern warming period right? Or perhaps not.

(Thought I'd better mention that in case you were interpretting the lack of replies as 'stumped silence')

No, I don’t need to prove anything, the data shows the last interglacial period was significantly warmer than the current.

No data exists over super short time spans to make any reliable determination as to whether the recent increase rate is anything unusual. All we can see is that over the last half million years there have been a few interglacial periods, and the current one is a relatively cool one.

Or do you dispute the data?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

I don’t need to prove anything, the existing data does that. It is so liberating.

But you are "trying" and showing your friends temperature graphs of the last 500k yrs etc, so it appears you do need to prove something.

Btw you realise the scale on that graph you posted of temps for the last 500k is useless for comparing rates of change with the modern warming period right? Or perhaps not.

(Thought I'd better mention that in case you were interpretting the lack of replies as 'stumped silence')

No, I don’t need to prove anything, the data shows the last interglacial period was significantly warmer than the current.

No data exists over super short time spans to make any reliable determination as to whether the recent increase rate is anything unusual. All we can see is that over the last half million years there have been a few interglacial periods, and the current one is a relatively cool one.

Or do you dispute the data?

I'm not disputing the data.

Do you tell your friends that in the last glacial period there were hippos on the Thames and sea level was several metres higher or do you leave that bit out? Just curious.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

I don’t need to prove anything, the existing data does that. It is so liberating.

But you are "trying" and showing your friends temperature graphs of the last 500k yrs etc, so it appears you do need to prove something.

Btw you realise the scale on that graph you posted of temps for the last 500k is useless for comparing rates of change with the modern warming period right? Or perhaps not.

(Thought I'd better mention that in case you were interpretting the lack of replies as 'stumped silence')

No, I don’t need to prove anything, the data shows the last interglacial period was significantly warmer than the current.

No data exists over super short time spans to make any reliable determination as to whether the recent increase rate is anything unusual. All we can see is that over the last half million years there have been a few interglacial periods, and the current one is a relatively cool one.

Or do you dispute the data?

I'm not disputing the data.

Do you tell your friends that in the last glacial period there were hippos on the Thames and sea level was several metres higher or do you leave that bit out? Just curious.

So can I trust you to tell your friends and associates that we are living in a relatively cool period at the moment? And that you have data to prove it...you read it on pistonheads!

No, I haven’t mentioned the hippos and the high water level, though I will definitely, as it shows just how amazing our planet is. Cheers.

[Ali G]

They were rescued by Greenpeace though?

Concerned of the ministry for the concerned is concerned.

[dickymint]

I’ll park this here for the sheeple on here that have probably never heard of Agenda 21 .......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/07/whatever-ha...

Just about sums it all up for me.

Now go check your local council and realise just how much Agenda 21 effects your lives.

[seveb]

dickymint said:

Now go check your local council and realise just how much Agenda 21 effects your lives.

I would like to know how many councils are still re-combining household waste after the public have separated it and seen it collected by different vehicles, only for it to be shipped to a less wealthy country for the children/poor there to work it over recovering what they can. We pay the corrupt governments to take it and their population suffers for our lack of investment. All done because it's cheaper not because it's the best solution. Stifles innovation and job creation in the UK as well as harms children and the poor in the receiving country.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

I’ll park this here for the sheeple on here that have probably never heard of Agenda 21 .......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/07/whatever-ha...

Just about sums it all up for me.

Now go check your local council and realise just how much Agenda 21 effects your lives.

This is the second time I’ve seen a Creationist qouted by the deniers on this thread. Turbobloke did it a while back.

Here’s a few things about the man you’re so happy to hold up as an avenger for the truth;

——
Ball seems to be a creationist of some sort. In an op-ed in Canada Free Press, he wrote:

“Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.”

On his website, he attacks Richard Dawkins and claims science, evolution, and environmentalism are religions. He also believes that the Bible's predictions have been just as verified as those made by science;

“Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the biblical views on nature, human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including modern environmentalism”.

When you take his global warming denialism together with creationism and his admiration for Immanuel Velikovsky, there's clear evidence for crank magnetism.
——

You need to look at the people you qoute if you want your post to be afforded credibility.

[gadgetmac]

Yes its a simple google away..

Here’s more on Ball

In 2011, Ball found himself at the receiving end of a couple of libel suits. In February, University of Victoria climatologist (and now a member of the British Columbia legislature) Andrew Weaver filed a lawsuit against Ball for his op-eds that accused Weaver of incompetence and corruption. In March, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Ball and his think tank for publishing statements on their websites that claimed Mann was complicit in a "cover-up" of Climategate and that he had committed scientific fraud.

Since the suits were launched Canada Free Press has retracted one of the interviews with Ball on the website. Furthermore, they seem to have scrubbed a good deal of Ball's articles and Ball-related material.

In February, 2018, the suit by Weaver was dismissed on the grounds that Ball's attack on Weaver was so stupid and inept that it couldn't be considered libelous thus doing no injury to Weaver's reputation to an informed reader. Therefore the official judgement of the Canadian court system is that Tim Ball is either an incompetent idiot or someone pretending to be an incompetent idiot.

[zygalski]

Why doubt someone's scientific credentials if they believe the Universe was created in 7 days, and that woman was created from the rib of Adam?
They could still be correct about the 97% being wrong.

[gadgetmac]

What concerns me is that of all of the thousands of denier scientsts there appaently are the ones that are quoted appear to be at least half-loon with their other beliefs.

They should stick to quoting the ones whom a simple google search can’t throw up anything at all ‘quacky’ about.

Simple scientists with no beef or agenda or financial misgivings in the background will be fine.

[dickymint]

I can’t be arsed to quote some of the above responses to Agenda 21

But do any of you deny ( lol ) it exists and actually influences your day to day life?

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

Yes its a simple google away..

Here’s more on Ball

In 2011, Ball found himself at the receiving end of a couple of libel suits. In February, University of Victoria climatologist (and now a member of the British Columbia legislature) Andrew Weaver filed a lawsuit against Ball for his op-eds that accused Weaver of incompetence and corruption. In March, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Ball and his think tank for publishing statements on their websites that claimed Mann was complicit in a "cover-up" of Climategate and that he had committed scientific fraud.

Since the suits were launched Canada Free Press has retracted one of the interviews with Ball on the website. Furthermore, they seem to have scrubbed a good deal of Ball's articles and Ball-related material.

In February, 2018, the suit by Weaver was dismissed on the grounds that Ball's attack on Weaver was so stupid and inept that it couldn't be considered libelous thus doing no injury to Weaver's reputation to an informed reader. Therefore the official judgement of the Canadian court system is that Tim Ball is either an incompetent idiot or someone pretending to be an incompetent idiot.

For balance, here's more on Weaver, the scientist turned politician.

Just an opinion piece of course.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/with-his-antics-th...


Perhaps Weaver's suit against Ball was at no cost to Weaver who, surely, as a younger Professor, should have been able to recognise that the court would spot that Ball's apparent attack would not be considered libellous. Does he not have that competence of judgement? Or was it worth it for raising his local profile in BC as he moved towards a more political approach to making his mark - one that perhaps, as with politics in general, relies less on competence and more on political wrangling and a survival at any cost instinct.

As the leader of the Green Party locally one might wonder about his ability to stay scientifically objective. Presumably he can feel comfortable enough of his ability to persuade people that he is.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

I can’t be arsed to quote some of the above responses to Agenda 21

And yet you’ll freely quote the blog of a creationist as evidence of an active worldwide conspiracy. A person who even the courts have decided is effectively an idiot.

Have you got the same take on this but from somebody with a more credible status.

I’m not even saying he’s wrong more that he’s whats deemed an unreliable witness.

Like a book, I always look to see who’s written it before I buy it. I have no David Icke books in my library