Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LoonyTunes

3,362 posts

74 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Why Climate Alarmists Are Not Really Interested in Humans or the Environment

http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4526

Reminder Why Climate Politics Is All About Taxes and Levies Not The Environment

Why are you repeating that one? It's completely out of context.

turbobloke

103,739 posts

259 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
No; this is what classic is all about.

Another model failure said:
Portugal’s Met Office has retracted its prediction that temperatures in the country could reach 50ºC — the hottest ever recorded on mainland Europe — this week, drastically revising the forecast down by 10 degrees.

In a statement, the IPMA said forecasts published to its website and app on Tuesday had been “overestimated” for the region between Melides and Vila Nova de Milfontes, and in particular the city of Sines, where temperatures were predicted to reach 50ºC on Thursday and 46°C on Friday.

The forecasts were the result of a "statistical method" applied to numeric models, it said.

The IPMA said the actual temperatures expected for these days were between 40°C and 42°C.
http://www.euronews.com/amp/2018/08/01/portugal-s-met-office-retracts-hottest-day-prediction-blames-extreme-weather-for-mistake

Now too low in order to get another headline? Hapless and hopeless. Spot the URL boob...inadequate models blamed for mistake.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
And still we have no idea if a minute temperature rise of the planet (whatever that is) is actually a problem. Until that's answered, AGW & CC goes in my bks bin. Sorry to repeat myself, but I’ve always worked with the problem stated, then the answer.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Another reason why there is less balance than there should be on the BBC...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/scientists-u...

'No free speach, when do we want it, we want it now'

hehe

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
robinessex said:
And still we have no idea if a minute temperature rise of the planet (whatever that is) is actually a problem. Until that's answered, AGW & CC goes in my bks bin. Sorry to repeat myself, but I’ve always worked with the problem stated, then the answer.
It’s actually difficult to tell if you’re joking or not.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
And still we have no idea if a minute temperature rise of the planet (whatever that is) is actually a problem. Until that's answered, AGW & CC goes in my bks bin. Sorry to repeat myself, but I’ve always worked with the problem stated, then the answer.
It’s actually difficult to tell if you’re joking or not.
Answer the bloody question then. With facts, not conjecture or guessing. While we’re at it, can you tell me/us why the present planet temperature and CO2 is the ‘correct’ level. Both have been all over the place for the last 4.5 billion years. Finally, if we did manage to start cooling the planet down, how we stop it becoming a bloody great ice ball?

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Here's a bit on heatwaves from the Met

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/temperature/...

Pre-emptive action before that becomes fully climate-wanged!

The jet-stream has something to do with for those who are UK-centric (and we don't mean UKIP)

That has given rise to a far larger than 1 deg temperature rise for a prolonged period and is called 'weather'

drink

LoonyTunes

3,362 posts

74 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Another reason why there is less balance than there should be on the BBC...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/scientists-u...

'No free speach, when do we want it, we want it now'

hehe
To Rupert Read it's like being asked to go on and debate with a flat-earther. He's wondering why he should waste his time. He's also wondering if giving flat-earthers oxygen is wise and by indeed a good way for the BBC to spend it's money.

Still, by envisaging such a debate it shows that the beeb are open to the argument - it's the Scientist who's against it.

Oh well, guess the flat-earther will just have to take his argument to some small thread in a corner of the internet. scratchchin

LoonyTunes

3,362 posts

74 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
robinessex said:
While we’re at it, can you tell me/us why the present planet temperature and CO2 is the ‘correct’ level. Both have been all over the place for the last 4.5 billion years.
Surely it's the 'correct' level because it allows us to comfortably exist. We don't want a deviation from that do we?

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
Another reason why there is less balance than there should be on the BBC...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/scientists-u...

'No free speach, when do we want it, we want it now'

hehe
To Rupert Read it's like being asked to go on and debate with a flat-earther. He's wondering why he should waste his time. He's also wondering if giving flat-earthers oxygen is wise and by indeed a good way for the BBC to spend it's money.

Still, by envisaging such a debate it shows that the beeb are open to the argument - it's the Scientist who's against it.

Oh well, guess the flat-earther will just have to take his argument to some small thread in a corner of the internet. scratchchin
Well it's actually more like asking a Greenpeace activist/philosopher to debate climate science with a Cambridge Uni Nat Sciences (PHYSICS) grad, and one of them ran away cried foul and called for fellow activists to shut down any further discussion.

nuts

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
If you had to cross the Atlantic and I gave you the choice of two ships. One was built buy an amateur and one was built by professionals, which one would you get on?

Imagine you or one of you family was ill and needed a big operation or life saving treatment.

Would you rather get medical advice from a qualified medical practitioner following medical consensus or from someone on PHs who was googling alternative medicine blogs?



Edited by El stovey on Thursday 2nd August 22:40
hyperbole much ? how did you view the advice given by the experts pre referendum ? i was slightly surprised to see you voted leave, given the consensus from the experts was it would be a very bad thing starting the day after the vote.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Well it's actually more like asking a Greenpeace activist/philosopher to debate climate science with a Cambridge Uni Nat Sciences (PHYSICS) grad, and one of them ran away cried foul and called for fellow activists to shut down any further discussion.

nuts
It’s only like that if the green peace guy was going against consensus science (like the flat earther) and trying to do it on a car forum.

Here it’s the other way around. Here you’re the flat earthers.

Unfortunately your leader has let his political views dictate his scientific views. That’s why he’s had to rely on support from you and your cult brothers rather than the vast majority of proper scientists and scientific institutions.

If you had actual evidence that consensus science was wrong, would you be publishing loads of spam and waffke your findings on a car forum?

Is that what fellow “Cambridge grads” like Stephen Hawking or Alan Turing or David Attenborough would do?

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
durbster said:
Oh no, that sounds like an appeal to authority which, according to your teachings, means I have to automatically reject everything you say. Sorry.
it might do to someone reading your snipped quote,for others reading the entire post it indicates you like avoiding the point being made.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
Well it's actually more like asking a Greenpeace activist/philosopher to debate climate science with a Cambridge Uni Nat Sciences (PHYSICS) grad, and one of them ran away cried foul and called for fellow activists to shut down any further discussion.

nuts
It’s only like that if the green peace guy was going against consensus science (like the flat earther) and trying to do it on a car forum.

Here it’s the other way around. Here you’re the flat earthers.

Unfortunately your leader has let his political views dictate his scientific views. That’s why he’s had to rely on support from you and your cult brothers rather than the vast majority of proper scientists and scientific institutions.

If you had actual evidence that consensus science was wrong, would you be publishing loads of spam and waffke your findings on a car forum?

Is that what fellow “Cambridge grads” like Stephen Hawking or Alan Turing or David Attenborough would do?
Stovey's finest subject is the non-sequitur.

And by the way Turing killed himself for being outside of the 'consensus' at the time.

Jinx

11,344 posts

259 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
It’s only like that if the green peace guy was going against consensus science (like the flat earther) and trying to do it on a car forum.

Here it’s the other way around. Here you’re the flat earthers.

Unfortunately your leader has let his political views dictate his scientific views. That’s why he’s had to rely on support from you and your cult brothers rather than the vast majority of proper scientists and scientific institutions.

If you had actual evidence that consensus science was wrong, would you be publishing loads of spam and waffke your findings on a car forum?

Is that what fellow “Cambridge grads” like Stephen Hawking or Alan Turing or David Attenborough would do?
[Cough] Null Hypothesis[/Cough]

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Another reason why there is less balance than there should be on the BBC...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/scientists-u...

'No free speach, when do we want it, we want it now'

hehe
that is fking hilarious and shows their hypocrisy at it's worst. they complain about the credentials of the climate science "denier" that completed an undergraduate degree in Natural Science at the University of Cambridge and then champion the climate science believer that refused to go on the bbc and debate him. his credentials ? a philosopher at UEA and former Green party candidate for Cambridge.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
wc98 said:
hyperbole much ? how did you view the advice given by the experts pre referendum ? i was slightly surprised to see you voted leave, given the consensus from the experts was it would be a very bad thing starting the day after the vote.
Bit weird you telling people my job earlier in the thread and now how I voted on Brexit etc.

But to add to your scrap book. The Brexit experts simply want continuity and the least uncertainty. I don’t want to live in a federal Europe. My dislike for living in a federal Europe is greater than my fear of short term financial uncertainty.

If I want financial advice, I’d still go to a qualified FA.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
wc98 said:
that is fking hilarious and shows their hypocrisy at it's worst. they complain about the credentials of the climate science "denier" that completed an undergraduate degree in Natural Science at the University of Cambridge and then champion the climate science believer that refused to go on the bbc and debate him. his credentials ? a philosopher at UEA and former Green party candidate for Cambridge.
It really is - 'I can't possibly have a debate with that chap about this subject that I am so passionate about, because he may know more about it than me and he disagrees with me' - type of funny.

It would be funny - but that appears to be the state of the debate - which is worrying.


Pan Pan Pan

9,777 posts

110 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
robinessex said:
While we’re at it, can you tell me/us why the present planet temperature and CO2 is the ‘correct’ level. Both have been all over the place for the last 4.5 billion years.
Surely it's the 'correct' level because it allows us to comfortably exist. We don't want a deviation from that do we?
Whether by design or just luck, humans arrived on the planet during a window of the most stable climate, the Earth has ever known. That that window might close at some point is entirely possible, and there will be nothing we can do about it.
Since we don't know how to make children who don't want to eat, drink, wear clothes, travel further from where they were born than they can walk to, Children who don't want to be warm in winter, and cool in summer, or have a home of their own,children who don't want computers, Ipads, cinemas, shops, schools and universities, and transport to and from them, holidays abroad, and crucially children who don't want to have children of the own, then every new human added to the planet represents a resource consuming, emissions producing entity, and we are globally increasing their net numbers at rates between 287 and 342 thousand per DAY.
How long can a finite element such as the Earth continue produce resource consuming entities such as ourselves? Are we going to breed ourselves into extinction?
We may not be able to do anything when the climate window we arrived in closes, but by giving ourselves more time, we may be able to achieve access to other planets, that will allow the continuation of the human race, All we are doing now is bringing forward in time, the point at which the earth will no longer be able to sustain our numbers, bringing forward the Soylent Green time.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd August 2018
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
We may not be able to do anything when the climate window we arrived in closes, but by giving ourselves more time, we may be able to achieve access to other planets, that will allow the continuation of the human race, All we are doing now is bringing forward in time, the point at which the earth will no longer be able to sustain our numbers, bringing forward the Soylent Green time.
Ah, but what our robin of Essex demands (again) are facts about what the earth will be like (in the future) if the temperature keeps rising.

He stated ‘no conjecture’. He wants people to state what will happen in the future. Obviously this creates difficulty as we cannot travel forward in time and observe the results but he’s only going to believe any of it when someone from the future can tell him what will definitely happen.

Multiple scientific organisations have produced many predictions based on past data and their scientific knowledge but that’s not enough obviously.

What’s required are facts from the future.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED