Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
El stovey said:
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
You forgot NHS. Don't ever forget NHS. And Obama, cleverly called 'Obummer' by cultists. Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
Anyway, with all of that expertise ranged against him he’s frequently under seige over there
I love PH.
This is as fishy as agw. Apparently in the future fish won't smell so good...or should that be bad.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/f...
Modern-day fish derive from the late Silurian period about 420 million years ago in the paleozoic era, and have survived / thrived under atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide more than 7x current levels (i.e. 3000 ppmv) and ambient temperatures more than 10 deg C higher than now. To read the above, they should have had their chips long ago.
This prompts questions about whether researchers applying for and receiving grants for this type of study also research the meaning of 'adaptation' and for longer timescales 'evolution'.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/f...
Modern-day fish derive from the late Silurian period about 420 million years ago in the paleozoic era, and have survived / thrived under atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide more than 7x current levels (i.e. 3000 ppmv) and ambient temperatures more than 10 deg C higher than now. To read the above, they should have had their chips long ago.
This prompts questions about whether researchers applying for and receiving grants for this type of study also research the meaning of 'adaptation' and for longer timescales 'evolution'.
gadgetmac said:
jjlynn27 said:
El stovey said:
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
You forgot NHS. Don't ever forget NHS. And Obama, cleverly called 'Obummer' by cultists. Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
Anyway, with all of that expertise ranged against him he’s frequently under seige over there
I love PH.
I’ve not looked at that thread, what a depressing find.
You’re right, it’s exactly the same people as here (Ali G turbobloke wc98 jinx longQ etc) proving experts wrong again with the same expert knowledge and insights about greenblob and scientists on the take and nefarious government schemes to control the masses. Extraordinary.
Wtf is that all about?
I’ve asked repeatedly if there was other aspects of science they disbelieved. How modest of them to not mention they are also experts on renewables!
It looks like the "believers" who come here to play have formed a mutually satisfying circle.
Cute.
Doing exactly what they claim to identify and despise in others.
Disappointing that the grouping add so little to the subject matter, especially as by posting in the Political thread and ignoring the science thread could be understood as an acceptance that the matter of public discussion of Climate Change is intrinsically Political and not dependent on any science to be persistent.
Politics has the possibility of being the primary influence, for better or worse, that enables or disables the rules by which our societies live. Beyond that comes anarchy with no overall control that is concerned with the niceties of a mutually beneficial social system.
So Politics has, at least notionally, the "power" to allow or disallow what are perceived as bad influences within our social system and the wider environment that supports it, whether the environment is primarily a human creation or a somewhat more natural system at its heart.
So, for example, we might move from a position of accepting smoking, encouraging it as a source of tax revenue and, as a country in which are based a number of large international business bringing in money from smokers in other parts of the world, enjoying its cash flows, to using the tax system to redistribute individual wealth to pay for stuff that politicians do not want to be seen to fund by direct taxation.
At some point the economics start to fall apart for some reasons - usual related to aspects of health targeting a population that subconsciously believes it should be almost immortal. Within a generation a large part of the world can be persuaded to give up smoking "for their health" base do the concept that entire nations will become healthier and those benefits will more than outweigh (by cost savings and improved personal productivity) the loss of taxation that will ensue - though such tax income loss is likely to be re-distributed to other sources of course.
The methodology could also be applied to Climate Change once one has a simple and clear and globally ubiquitous target to take the role of tobacco.
CO2 got the job.
Or maybe the show was written because someone wanted to make CO2 the central character, it being so popular in so many ways on a global basis.
So what is stopping the politicians from taking the first steps towards real action beyond the usual taxation and vilification route? I mean, this is a major problem, right? And just like smoking there are personal addictions that are entirely unnecessary that could be eliminated simply and quickly in much the same way that tobacco use has been targetted.
OK, one might think of wind and solar based renewables as the equivalent of the "vaping" trait for smokers but where is the non-branded plain packaging with health warnings aspect? Surely the Climate is much more important than smoking isn't it?
I mean smoking had the benefit of easy taxation and early death thus providing up front cash flow and reduced overheads down stream with just a potential negative per-user cash flow situation for a few years in the third quarter of life expectancy. It dd not threaten the entire planet as is suggested for Climate Change.
How difficult can it be, given the claimed world consensus of the threat, to take immediate steps that would indisputably reduce CO2 output as the solutions presented so far seem to demand?
Do people really need ever more powerful vehicles to travel fewer miles at lower speeds?
In the longer term - do people need transport at all in the scale that has developed in the past generation or two?
Why are thy even thinking of building an extra runway somewhere near London when it is quite clear that there should be an immediate policy for air travel reduction leading to elimination by, say, 2040. After all readily available global travel for the masses is a very recent development and has no historic basis that would make it a "freedom" that politicians might be wary of trying to remove form the masses.
Why do we need ship good around the world? Greatly reduce the global shipments of food and other goods and a large reduction in CO2 emissions should follow.
Breeding, why is uncontrolled breeding allowed and indeed encouraged (at some fiscal as well as climate change costs) even for those who are naturally unable to reproduce. Is this something we can afford in terms of CO2 release?
Overcomplexity. How much energy sapping complexity do we require for humanity and the planet to survive? Does anyone really know or are we into "we do it because we can" territory?
The entertainment industry - do we need it? Consider that question on the basis that if some of the points above are addressed there should be fewer people with less free time available that they might choose to fill with globally influenced content.
Infrastructure projects. Would it make more sense to pour less concrete? On what basis, taking into account the other opportunities for behavioural change mooted above, do large infrastructure projects make sense as they pump out huge quantities of CO2 in their realisation?
These are just a few of the subjects that seem to be avoided by the politicians despite claims that they, or very similar provisions or actions, could be fundamental to the survival of the planet. Claims that the politicians seem willing to regurgitate without thinking about them much - or indeed at all.
If it is that urgent and that simple to eliminate so much of a problem that might be attributed to human activity - why don't they just do it? Who could possibly object?
In the UK alone we could make huge steps by eliminating private vehicle ownership, significantly restricting or penalising travel, seeking routes to population reduction, defining individual energy consumption limits per person, restricting food allowances and so many other simple but effective policy decisions.
It seems that only Mayor Khan in London is prepared to take on the challenge, at least in respect of personal transport. Why is that?
Cute.
Doing exactly what they claim to identify and despise in others.
Disappointing that the grouping add so little to the subject matter, especially as by posting in the Political thread and ignoring the science thread could be understood as an acceptance that the matter of public discussion of Climate Change is intrinsically Political and not dependent on any science to be persistent.
Politics has the possibility of being the primary influence, for better or worse, that enables or disables the rules by which our societies live. Beyond that comes anarchy with no overall control that is concerned with the niceties of a mutually beneficial social system.
So Politics has, at least notionally, the "power" to allow or disallow what are perceived as bad influences within our social system and the wider environment that supports it, whether the environment is primarily a human creation or a somewhat more natural system at its heart.
So, for example, we might move from a position of accepting smoking, encouraging it as a source of tax revenue and, as a country in which are based a number of large international business bringing in money from smokers in other parts of the world, enjoying its cash flows, to using the tax system to redistribute individual wealth to pay for stuff that politicians do not want to be seen to fund by direct taxation.
At some point the economics start to fall apart for some reasons - usual related to aspects of health targeting a population that subconsciously believes it should be almost immortal. Within a generation a large part of the world can be persuaded to give up smoking "for their health" base do the concept that entire nations will become healthier and those benefits will more than outweigh (by cost savings and improved personal productivity) the loss of taxation that will ensue - though such tax income loss is likely to be re-distributed to other sources of course.
The methodology could also be applied to Climate Change once one has a simple and clear and globally ubiquitous target to take the role of tobacco.
CO2 got the job.
Or maybe the show was written because someone wanted to make CO2 the central character, it being so popular in so many ways on a global basis.
So what is stopping the politicians from taking the first steps towards real action beyond the usual taxation and vilification route? I mean, this is a major problem, right? And just like smoking there are personal addictions that are entirely unnecessary that could be eliminated simply and quickly in much the same way that tobacco use has been targetted.
OK, one might think of wind and solar based renewables as the equivalent of the "vaping" trait for smokers but where is the non-branded plain packaging with health warnings aspect? Surely the Climate is much more important than smoking isn't it?
I mean smoking had the benefit of easy taxation and early death thus providing up front cash flow and reduced overheads down stream with just a potential negative per-user cash flow situation for a few years in the third quarter of life expectancy. It dd not threaten the entire planet as is suggested for Climate Change.
How difficult can it be, given the claimed world consensus of the threat, to take immediate steps that would indisputably reduce CO2 output as the solutions presented so far seem to demand?
Do people really need ever more powerful vehicles to travel fewer miles at lower speeds?
In the longer term - do people need transport at all in the scale that has developed in the past generation or two?
Why are thy even thinking of building an extra runway somewhere near London when it is quite clear that there should be an immediate policy for air travel reduction leading to elimination by, say, 2040. After all readily available global travel for the masses is a very recent development and has no historic basis that would make it a "freedom" that politicians might be wary of trying to remove form the masses.
Why do we need ship good around the world? Greatly reduce the global shipments of food and other goods and a large reduction in CO2 emissions should follow.
Breeding, why is uncontrolled breeding allowed and indeed encouraged (at some fiscal as well as climate change costs) even for those who are naturally unable to reproduce. Is this something we can afford in terms of CO2 release?
Overcomplexity. How much energy sapping complexity do we require for humanity and the planet to survive? Does anyone really know or are we into "we do it because we can" territory?
The entertainment industry - do we need it? Consider that question on the basis that if some of the points above are addressed there should be fewer people with less free time available that they might choose to fill with globally influenced content.
Infrastructure projects. Would it make more sense to pour less concrete? On what basis, taking into account the other opportunities for behavioural change mooted above, do large infrastructure projects make sense as they pump out huge quantities of CO2 in their realisation?
These are just a few of the subjects that seem to be avoided by the politicians despite claims that they, or very similar provisions or actions, could be fundamental to the survival of the planet. Claims that the politicians seem willing to regurgitate without thinking about them much - or indeed at all.
If it is that urgent and that simple to eliminate so much of a problem that might be attributed to human activity - why don't they just do it? Who could possibly object?
In the UK alone we could make huge steps by eliminating private vehicle ownership, significantly restricting or penalising travel, seeking routes to population reduction, defining individual energy consumption limits per person, restricting food allowances and so many other simple but effective policy decisions.
It seems that only Mayor Khan in London is prepared to take on the challenge, at least in respect of personal transport. Why is that?
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
jjlynn27 said:
El stovey said:
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
You forgot NHS. Don't ever forget NHS. And Obama, cleverly called 'Obummer' by cultists. Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
Anyway, with all of that expertise ranged against him he’s frequently under seige over there
I love PH.
I’ve not looked at that thread, what a depressing find.
You’re right, it’s exactly the same people as here (Ali G turbobloke wc98 jinx longQ etc) proving experts wrong again with the same expert knowledge and insights about greenblob and scientists on the take and nefarious government schemes to control the masses. Extraordinary.
Wtf is that all about?
I’ve asked repeatedly if there was other aspects of science they disbelieved. How modest of them to not mention they are also experts on renewables!
It's surprising that Haymarket doesn't utilise this & publish it's own scientific journal.
I'm sure Google has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Todays Beeb weather/AGW fairy story
Regular heatwaves 'will kill thousands'
The current heatwave could become the new normal for UK summers by 2040 because of climate change, MPs say.
The Environmental Audit Committee warns of 7,000 heat-related deaths every year in the UK by 2050 if the government doesn't act quickly.
Higher temperatures put some people at increased risk of dying from cardiac, kidney and respiratory diseases.
The MPs say ministers must act to protect people - especially with an ageing population in the UK.
Scientists differ on whether the current global rash of heatwaves is definitely caused by climate change.
But all agree that future heatwaves will be hotter and more frequent thanks to carbon emissions.
The MPs point to a warning from the Met Office that UK summer temperatures could regularly reach 38.5C by the 2040s.................continues
Since when have MP's, had the intelligence and technical knowledge to make this statement? Still, never mind, the 3rd word into the article says 'could'. So that's ok, we can go ahead, and publish any b
ks we want. The whole story looks as if it was written by a 10yr old for 5yr olds to read and understand.
Regular heatwaves 'will kill thousands'
The current heatwave could become the new normal for UK summers by 2040 because of climate change, MPs say.
The Environmental Audit Committee warns of 7,000 heat-related deaths every year in the UK by 2050 if the government doesn't act quickly.
Higher temperatures put some people at increased risk of dying from cardiac, kidney and respiratory diseases.
The MPs say ministers must act to protect people - especially with an ageing population in the UK.
Scientists differ on whether the current global rash of heatwaves is definitely caused by climate change.
But all agree that future heatwaves will be hotter and more frequent thanks to carbon emissions.
The MPs point to a warning from the Met Office that UK summer temperatures could regularly reach 38.5C by the 2040s.................continues
Since when have MP's, had the intelligence and technical knowledge to make this statement? Still, never mind, the 3rd word into the article says 'could'. So that's ok, we can go ahead, and publish any b
ks we want. The whole story looks as if it was written by a 10yr old for 5yr olds to read and understand.robinessex said:
Todays Beeb weather/AGW fairy story
Regular heatwaves 'will kill thousands'
The current heatwave could become the new normal for UK summers by 2040 because of climate change, MPs say.
MPs are the go-to people for this Regular heatwaves 'will kill thousands'
The current heatwave could become the new normal for UK summers by 2040 because of climate change, MPs say.
Better than this (or worse if you're an MP) occurred already in 1976 so it's clearly natural variation, what's new pussycat. My shilling on the side says they will get a causality-free overnight non-record from a sensor in an urbanised / car park / airport / aircon location probably London based.
We'd know a bit more about the quality of data relating to UHI impacts except that the data held by Jones was lost/deleted/eaten by his dog. When it was available the position was no better. Warwick Hughes asked Jones for access to data, as data sharing is standard scientific procedure, but was told there was no reason to hand it over as all he (Hughes) would do is try and find something wrong with it. Exactly! See 'how science works except for climate'. That's sciencewang propping up climatewang.
robinessex said:
Since when have MP's, had the intelligence and technical knowledge to make this statement? Still, never mind, the 3rd word into the article says 'could'.
Weasel wordsmithery, s.o.p. Temperature-related deaths are regrettable and typically affect vulnerable groups including young, elderly and those already seriously ill. MPs although blessed with genius insights into climate
have short memories, The Beast From The East has barely faded from memory before hot-heads are ramping climate fairytales. As far back as 2006 there were more than 23,000 excess winter deaths as a result of being too cold. Cold is far more of a threat to life in the UK for vulnerable people than hot summer weather. Assisted by TBFTE there were 153,000 deaths in England between January and March 2018 the highest figure for the same quarter since 2013. The UK's age-standardised death rate was the highest since previous global warming warm wet winters
around 2008/9/10. Faith held strong as freezing is the new warming. zygalski said:
We are truly blessed to have so many climate/energy/environment polymaths all in one corner of a car owners forum.
It's surprising that Haymarket doesn't utilise this & publish it's own scientific journal.
I'm sure Google has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's not science, it's political and environmental,It's surprising that Haymarket doesn't utilise this & publish it's own scientific journal.
I'm sure Google has absolutely nothing to do with it.
We live on a planet where the difference in minimum maximum temperature is around 100°C
Surprisingly we survive, when the predicted rise in global temperature is in low single figures, forgive me if I fail to see the apocalyptic future that is portrayed
Here is a link to some more wonderful science relate to climate change,
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/health/climate-...
In their defence they do go on to say that suicide is a complex subject and temperature rise is probably not the main factor, can you tell the difference of 1° C ? But more scientific data to add to the overwhelming evidence.
Ali G said:
10 degree UHI effect!
Is that quotable?
Yes.Is that quotable?
"On average, the difference in daytime surface temperatures between developed and rural areas is 18 to 27°F (10 to 15°C); the difference in nighttime surface temperatures is typically smaller, at 9 to 18°F (5 to 10°C)."
Sources:
The above quote is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008 "Urban Heat Island Basics." In: Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. Draft. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06... . See p2.
The figures in the above quote are from: Voogt and Oke (2003), one of the most highly cited papers in this field on this very subject: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222677053...
For a minute there the prospect loomed (zygalski) of faith 'resorting' to new credible empirical data i.e. evidence rather than today's coping strategy of choice (shooting the messenger/sarc/abuse/fallacies/google-irony/verbiage). False alarm. Credible data for the faith doesn't exist.
Some climate politics ('opinon matters') to feed the starving thread, following Folland 2018. Remember Chris Folland "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data, we're basing them on the climate models." This established gigo climate modelling as profoundly politically significant.
Some German scientists have offered their view on some political science including in particular Folland on models.
Some climate politics ('opinon matters') to feed the starving thread, following Folland 2018. Remember Chris Folland "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data, we're basing them on the climate models." This established gigo climate modelling as profoundly politically significant.
Some German scientists have offered their view on some political science including in particular Folland on models.
German snips as above said:
Folland and his colleagues are pulling tricks like real troopers. In the abstract the authors mention the sun putting the brakes on the recent slow warming...And if the sun can put the brakes on, then it can also accelerate. Yet in the models there is no room for that...Whenever there’s need for some cooling, volcanic dust gets sprinkled in the computer climate world.
Cooling confetti to taste, sunscreen models remain inadequate.El stovey said:
I’ve not looked at that thread, what a depressing find.
You’re right, it’s exactly the same people as here (Ali G turbobloke wc98 jinx longQ etc) proving experts wrong again with the same expert knowledge and insights about greenblob and scientists on the take and nefarious government schemes to control the masses. Extraordinary.
Wtf is that all about?
I’ve asked repeatedly if there was other aspects of science they disbelieved. How modest of them to not mention they are also experts on renewables!
Maybe I should get a whole set of these done - mugs, mouse mats, T-shirts.
Jinx said:
If it requires belief - it ain't science.
Maybe I should get a whole set of these done - mugs, mouse mats, T-shirts.
Belief has a few different meanings, it also means 'have confidence in' or 'trust in' something, so your statement isn't really true is it.Maybe I should get a whole set of these done - mugs, mouse mats, T-shirts.
Belief isn't equal to blind faith.
chrispmartha said:
Jinx said:
If it requires belief - it ain't science.
Maybe I should get a whole set of these done - mugs, mouse mats, T-shirts.
Belief has a few different meanings, it also means 'have confidence in' or 'trust in' something, so your statement isn't really true is it.Maybe I should get a whole set of these done - mugs, mouse mats, T-shirts.
Belief isn't equal to blind faith.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff