Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
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.
given i only know what you do and how you voted due to you posting both on ph, so no, i don't think it is a bit weird.i know what the brexit experts wanted to achieve that wasn't really the question though was it. did you believe what they said would happen if we voted leave and ignored their claims, or did you think they were being overly dramatic ? overly dramatic is about as kind a way of saying they were telling lies i can think of.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 said:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-sceptic-is-fine-with-all-other-science-20151214104699PH climate cult members
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-sceptic-is-fine-with-all-other-science-20151214104699PH climate cult members
El Stovey, please can you highlight where anybody has denied climate change not the continually changing mantra that as far as I am aware is not on its fourth iteration of statement?
Now if you and the advocates who support the manmade affect on the climate and want to shout, please can you explain the adjustments on the raw data that have been made, explaining why and being open about the changes, also why and how in the real scheme so few data measuring points can be used to model anything. Its a large earth and in Africa the number of sites maps out at a very low sample number, so to in western Europe.
Please explain the selection of data sets and the timescales chosen, also explain the fact that after adjustments known historical data sets alter.
Also since I believe you are a pilot, and have done the meteorological foundation required, can you explain how a Williamson screen at Heathrow allowed for the very variation it is designed to stop?
Or in a simple question, please provide a proven experiment not consensus as to man made climate change. Which as you must know given you go on about science, is able to be repeated and provides the same results irrespective as to where in location and by whom this experiment is conducted.
So all of the changes, in a science basis must be against a starting point, please can you provide the basis for this starting point? Who has determined the starting point and who agreed it parameters?
Now if you and the advocates who support the manmade affect on the climate and want to shout, please can you explain the adjustments on the raw data that have been made, explaining why and being open about the changes, also why and how in the real scheme so few data measuring points can be used to model anything. Its a large earth and in Africa the number of sites maps out at a very low sample number, so to in western Europe.
Please explain the selection of data sets and the timescales chosen, also explain the fact that after adjustments known historical data sets alter.
Also since I believe you are a pilot, and have done the meteorological foundation required, can you explain how a Williamson screen at Heathrow allowed for the very variation it is designed to stop?
Or in a simple question, please provide a proven experiment not consensus as to man made climate change. Which as you must know given you go on about science, is able to be repeated and provides the same results irrespective as to where in location and by whom this experiment is conducted.
So all of the changes, in a science basis must be against a starting point, please can you provide the basis for this starting point? Who has determined the starting point and who agreed it parameters?
LoonyTunes said:
All aboard the CAGW plane!dickymint said:
turbobloke said:
Purely out of interest at this point, for those interested (!) in squeezed out tax gas, see the exchange here between TheHeretic / kerplunk / me from back on 02 March 2012.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.
Haha the old 2nd Law debate.......back when ice cubes could boil a kettle https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.
We got a 'holy cow' from kerplunk about that and the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect ref the 2nd Law, when it's obvious that a cooler atmosphere cannot heat an already warmer surface, just delay cooling at times and not by much or for long.
This quickly gave rise to the believer version of the 2nd 'Law of Thermos Dynamics'
ETA another question for believers to ignore for the Nth time relates to tax gas being squeezed out.
I recently posted the NASA claim of 0.6 to 0.8 deg C warming since ~1900. This is simply not alarming when adjustments to the data account for 0.6 deg C of that warming according to NOAA (as also posted recently) and there's still solar and other natural forcings at play.
Several decades ago Hansen claimed that tax gas effects would/should be visible above natural forcings by 2000 but as Christy & McKitrick showed using Hansen's own scenarios, no tax gas warming since then fits the data and as per Hansen there was insufficient tax gas before the 90s. Well squeezed out.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd August 12:30
turbobloke said:
wc98 said:
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.I'm afraid I don't read the turbowaffles - it's just an auto-generated stream of gibberish and it's not written to engage with. It's written to maintain the illusion of being right to people who are desperate for him to be right. It's the Trump strategy of rhetoric: never mind reality, just keep feeding the base.
durbster said:
There was a point in there was there? Oh well.
I'm afraid I don't read the turbowaffles - it's just an auto-generated stream of gibberish and it's not written to engage with. It's written to maintain the illusion of being right to people who are desperate for him to be right. It's the Trump strategy of rhetoric: never mind reality, just keep feeding the base.
He said he has disks full of it. Just click loads of files and paste them in ever so often. Nobody ever reads them. I'm afraid I don't read the turbowaffles - it's just an auto-generated stream of gibberish and it's not written to engage with. It's written to maintain the illusion of being right to people who are desperate for him to be right. It's the Trump strategy of rhetoric: never mind reality, just keep feeding the base.
The one time someone read the links, the first paper was even arguing against the point he was making.
Ali G said:
I'll post this up as representative of the level of discussion that takes place in the more activist areas of 'climate science'.
This can be posted here, since it is political, snide and countians no discussion of the points that Curry has been trying to highlight and whether they have any validity whatsoever.
Desmogblog does Curry...
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
All standard DeSmogblog PR from a PR company that had some interesting founders.This can be posted here, since it is political, snide and countians no discussion of the points that Curry has been trying to highlight and whether they have any validity whatsoever.
Desmogblog does Curry...
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
I've always had the impression that RealClimate - as what appears to be a semi-official NASA blog given how much time people like Gavin Schmidt have spent posting - were happy to use DeSmogblog as their attack pack for anyone, but especially other Scientists, when to do so directly them selves might be career threatening. Or maybe not a good approach for the "public" to see from a "Scientist".
As a PR company DeSmog was in a much better position then mere climate industry associated Bloggers to put in the time and add the bite to the content.
Believer snowflake melts in the summer heat of debate.
PR fluffing is indeed everything with The Cause.
University of East Anglia Philosopher said:
Rupert Read
Thu 02 Aug 2018
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky – I’ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance”, when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer.
In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn’t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, “Is climate change real?” The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, “Maybe it’s just a natural cycle?” And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.
Thu 02 Aug 2018
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky – I’ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance”, when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer.
In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn’t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, “Is climate change real?” The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, “Maybe it’s just a natural cycle?” And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.
PR fluffing is indeed everything with The Cause.
LongQ said:
Ali G said:
I'll post this up as representative of the level of discussion that takes place in the more activist areas of 'climate science'.
This can be posted here, since it is political, snide and countians no discussion of the points that Curry has been trying to highlight and whether they have any validity whatsoever.
Desmogblog does Curry...
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
All standard DeSmogblog PR from a PR company that had some interesting founders.This can be posted here, since it is political, snide and countians no discussion of the points that Curry has been trying to highlight and whether they have any validity whatsoever.
Desmogblog does Curry...
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
I've always had the impression that RealClimate - as what appears to be a semi-official NASA blog given how much time people like Gavin Schmidt have spent posting - were happy to use DeSmogblog as their attack pack for anyone, but especially other Scientists, when to do so directly them selves might be career threatening. Or maybe not a good approach for the "public" to see from a "Scientist".
As a PR company DeSmog was in a much better position then mere climate industry associated Bloggers to put in the time and add the bile to the content.
LoonyTunes said:
durbster said:
Ah, I see the repeatotron has reached the made-up-text-on-a-picture phase again. That one's on a bi-monthly cycle I think.
What's noticeable is that non of the flat-earthers make any comment about it. 
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
durbster said:
Ah, I see the repeatotron has reached the made-up-text-on-a-picture phase again. That one's on a bi-monthly cycle I think.
What's noticeable is that non of the flat-earthers make any comment about it. Some comments on denying to participate from the believer's favourite blog.
Hokey Schtick
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, the other side goes away and you win. Used to work in the playground every time.
jeanparisot
Is there something in the water at UEA?
Apparentl the person who declined to participate has complained to the BBC "“because the BBC cannot defend the practice of allowing a climate change denier to speak unopposed.”
Hokey Schtick
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, the other side goes away and you win. Used to work in the playground every time.
jeanparisot
Is there something in the water at UEA?
Apparentl the person who declined to participate has complained to the BBC "“because the BBC cannot defend the practice of allowing a climate change denier to speak unopposed.”
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd August 13:20
turbobloke said:
I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.
There can't be many on the whole internet. There was that flourish of 'dragonslayers' years ago that spouted similar stuff to you about the greenhouse effect breaking the 2nd Law of thermo etc but haven't heard much from them lately - that could be because they've been disavowed form many of the sceptic sites I visit though. Too nutty even for Wattsupwiththat!
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.
There can't be many on the whole internet.Marvellous!
turbobloke said:
Believer snowflake melts in the summer heat of debate.
PR fluffing is indeed everything with The Cause.
And this is from a non-scientific Green party representative?University of East Anglia Philosopher said:
Rupert Read
Thu 02 Aug 2018
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky – I’ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance”, when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer.
In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn’t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, “Is climate change real?” The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, “Maybe it’s just a natural cycle?” And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.
Thu 02 Aug 2018
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio, BBC TV, Channel 4, Sky – I’ve done them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought. This summer, of all times?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC should be ashamed of its nonsensical idea of “balance”, when the scientific debate is as settled as the “debate” about whether smoking causes cancer.
In the end, the broadcast went ahead without me. Much of it wasn’t bad. The scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful, and framing is everything, so far as the message that most listeners receive is concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, “Is climate change real?” The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards such as, “Maybe it’s just a natural cycle?” And, of course, a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an equal basis to his opponent.
PR fluffing is indeed everything with The Cause.
Much though there is to be admired in philosophy - it is not a scientific discipline!
And that was a Green party representative being given how much airtime?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff