Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Ali G said:
Aye - but you (kerplunk0 cannot walk away from Arrhenius unscathed in any discussion based upon science concerning the effects that CO2 may or may not have.
Absolutely. Arrhenius wasn't able to avail himself of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the time of his original publication which is, as a result, misleading in its treatment of the subject (kind description) but believers hang on to its coat-tails like the holy gaia grail.. robinessex said:
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?gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
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?Keep that in mind.
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
Aye - but you (kerplunk0 cannot walk away from Arrhenius unscathed in any discussion based upon science concerning the effects that CO2 may or may not have.
Absolutely. Arrhenius wasn't able to avail himself of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the time of his original publication which is, as a result, misleading in its treatment of the subject (kind description) but believers hang on to its coat-tails like the holy gaia grail.. Ali G said:
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
Aye - but you (kerplunk0 cannot walk away from Arrhenius unscathed in any discussion based upon science concerning the effects that CO2 may or may not have.
Absolutely. Arrhenius wasn't able to avail himself of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the time of his original publication which is, as a result, misleading in its treatment of the subject (kind description) but believers hang on to its coat-tails like the holy gaia grail.. I am not able to get my head around the sheer hypocrisy of those who claim that climate change has been caused by `man' but who then can see no problem, or cannot explain how globally creating up to 347 thousand more `man' per DAY is somehow not going to be a problem.
To meet the increasing demands of the already colossal, and massively growing population we will be taking more, not less resources out of the Earth. Even well before now we have had war, after war to secure resources, when those resources become scarcer and scarcer the wars will increase in number and intensity. Soylent Green anyone?
Of course, the prime biological imperative of all species is to reproduce, Humans have got very good at doing that, but as supposedly thinking beings, we should perhaps be considering what the end game of this strategy will ultimately be.
David Attenborough in concluding his Planet Earth series stated that for most of our existence we have been seeking ways of controlling the Earth for the benefit of humans, but that now, we should perhaps be thinking of ways of controlling humans for the benefit of the Earth.
To meet the increasing demands of the already colossal, and massively growing population we will be taking more, not less resources out of the Earth. Even well before now we have had war, after war to secure resources, when those resources become scarcer and scarcer the wars will increase in number and intensity. Soylent Green anyone?
Of course, the prime biological imperative of all species is to reproduce, Humans have got very good at doing that, but as supposedly thinking beings, we should perhaps be considering what the end game of this strategy will ultimately be.
David Attenborough in concluding his Planet Earth series stated that for most of our existence we have been seeking ways of controlling the Earth for the benefit of humans, but that now, we should perhaps be thinking of ways of controlling humans for the benefit of the Earth.
After Trump had Juncker scuttling over to the White House to ditch previous EU red lines on green blob trade costs as a sop to de-escalate the trade war he (EU) would lose, Canada is the latest to feel the pain of the blob and backtrack on taxing the air.
Article said:
Two Canadian provinces — Saskatchewan and Ontario — are suing the central government over its carbon tax, but the industry is chafing against Trudeau’s carbon tax because of pressures south of the border.
President Donald Trump’s protectionist tariffs and tax cuts are putting competitive pressures on Canadian industries. Trudeau’s carbon tax, they fear, would only make them less competitive.
Trump slapped tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports in June, sparking retaliatory tariffs from Canada. The U.S. is now suing Canada and other countries in the World Trade Organization over these retaliatory tariffs.
Tax cuts signed into law by Trump late in 2017 also put competitive pressures on Canada, according to news reports. GOP-led tax relief lowered the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21 percent.
Now, Canadian regulators are adjusting the threshold at which a carbon tax kicks in for large industries.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/08/02/trumps-tax-cuts-tariffs-force-trudeau-to-retreat-on-carbon-tax/President Donald Trump’s protectionist tariffs and tax cuts are putting competitive pressures on Canadian industries. Trudeau’s carbon tax, they fear, would only make them less competitive.
Trump slapped tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports in June, sparking retaliatory tariffs from Canada. The U.S. is now suing Canada and other countries in the World Trade Organization over these retaliatory tariffs.
Tax cuts signed into law by Trump late in 2017 also put competitive pressures on Canada, according to news reports. GOP-led tax relief lowered the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21 percent.
Now, Canadian regulators are adjusting the threshold at which a carbon tax kicks in for large industries.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am not able to get my head around the sheer hypocrisy of those who claim that climate change has been caused by `man' but who then can see no problem, or cannot explain how globally creating up to 347 thousand more `man' per DAY is somehow not going to be a problem.
To whom in particular do you refer? I’ve not heard that argument from (m)any AGW supporters at all.Did you make that up?
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am not able to get my head around the sheer hypocrisy of those who claim that climate change has been caused by `man' but who then can see no problem, or cannot explain how globally creating up to 347 thousand more `man' per DAY is somehow not going to be a problem.
To meet the increasing demands of the already colossal, and massively growing population we will be taking more, not less resources out of the Earth. Even well before now we have had war, after war to secure resources, when those resources become scarcer and scarcer the wars will increase in number and intensity. Soylent Green anyone?
Of course, the prime biological imperative of all species is to reproduce, Humans have got very good at doing that, but as supposedly thinking beings, we should perhaps be considering what the end game of this strategy will ultimately be.
David Attenborough in concluding his Planet Earth series stated that for most of our existence we have been seeking ways of controlling the Earth for the benefit of humans, but that now, we should perhaps be thinking of ways of controlling humans for the benefit of the Earth.
Obviously the solutions to be discussed are:To meet the increasing demands of the already colossal, and massively growing population we will be taking more, not less resources out of the Earth. Even well before now we have had war, after war to secure resources, when those resources become scarcer and scarcer the wars will increase in number and intensity. Soylent Green anyone?
Of course, the prime biological imperative of all species is to reproduce, Humans have got very good at doing that, but as supposedly thinking beings, we should perhaps be considering what the end game of this strategy will ultimately be.
David Attenborough in concluding his Planet Earth series stated that for most of our existence we have been seeking ways of controlling the Earth for the benefit of humans, but that now, we should perhaps be thinking of ways of controlling humans for the benefit of the Earth.
to eat each other,
arrange for a further mass 'killing everyone who disagrees' event,
or something else.
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'
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.https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/scientists-u...
'No free speach, when do we want it, we want it now'
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.
Who is Rupert Read?
Is it also significant that DeSmogblog confuse Phil Jones and Steve Jones?
But then, it's DeSmogblog writing PR pieces so why should we care?
Edited by LongQ on Friday 3rd August 19:21
LoonyTunes said:
To Rupert Read it's like being asked to go on and debate with a flat-earther.
And risk losing, which would be even more embarrassing than running away.Not that the smear is in any way accurate, but the reason these types won't debate is that 'the science is settled' and 'the time for debate is over' - however each figleaf is a clear attempt to shut down debate and avoid losing it.
hairykrishna said:
...They are a waste of time. I decided that a large problem is that many of the participants don't know enough to realise how 'out there' their views are. Most of the things they disagree with are not controversial.
I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.
Well exactly. Even I as a layman have been able to see through the propaganda armed only with some basic Google-fu, so for anyone who has studied relevant subjects and already knows their stuff it must be mind-numbing.I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.
And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
Gore won't debate with Monckton (1)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6639
Gore won't debate with Monckton (2)
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warmin...
Hooey Schtick Michael Mann refuses to debate
& Why Global Warming Alarmists Fear Debate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/2...
Insights into why Jones The Data won't share (and then debate) the data
https://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/...
Related general articles setting the scene for runaways refusing to debate:
Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/0...
Climate change campaigners fear debate, can't face climate skeptics any more
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/climate-cha...
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6639
Gore won't debate with Monckton (2)
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warmin...
Hooey Schtick Michael Mann refuses to debate
& Why Global Warming Alarmists Fear Debate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/2...
Insights into why Jones The Data won't share (and then debate) the data
https://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/...
Related general articles setting the scene for runaways refusing to debate:
Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/0...
Climate change campaigners fear debate, can't face climate skeptics any more
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/climate-cha...
durbster said:
Well exactly. Even I as a layman have been able to see through the propaganda armed only with some basic Google-fu, so for anyone who has studied relevant subjects and already knows their stuff it must be mind-numbing.
And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
Is hilarious - layman armed wiith google-fu.And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
sorry - am editing that -on the basis that this has to be a fake post.
Edited by Ali G on Friday 3rd August 18:53
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
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!
The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...
Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...
another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
Fred S said:
Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Here's some of Monckton's reply:
There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming.
...
Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.
No mention there of the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect, so nothing to debate 
It's not the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that's at the core of agw failure, there is accepted science that carbon dioxide absorbs far IR at a wavelenght or two, it's the issue of incremental additions and the impact of these.
Nothing wrong with calling the interaction between radiation and an atmosphere 'the greenhouse effect' beyond it not resembling a greenhouse in any way shape or form (a greenhouse remains warmer than its surroundings mostly by preventing convection losses, try one without a roof).
It's not the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that's at the core of agw failure, there is accepted science that carbon dioxide absorbs far IR at a wavelenght or two, it's the issue of incremental additions and the impact of these.
Nothing wrong with calling the interaction between radiation and an atmosphere 'the greenhouse effect' beyond it not resembling a greenhouse in any way shape or form (a greenhouse remains warmer than its surroundings mostly by preventing convection losses, try one without a roof).
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd August 19:08
kerplunk said:
How could I forget Lord-lite Monckton of Brenchley - he was contacted by skydragon-slayer Hans Schreude (presumably expecting a receptive ear from his Lordship for his wacky claims).
Here's some of Monckton's reply:
There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming.
...
Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.
Shoving a stick into a nest of hornets does spring to mind.Here's some of Monckton's reply:
There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming.
...
Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.
And he was (allegedly) well able to cope.
Ali G said:
durbster said:
Well exactly. Even I as a layman have been able to see through the propaganda armed only with some basic Google-fu, so for anyone who has studied relevant subjects and already knows their stuff it must be mind-numbing.
And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
Is hilarious - layman armed wiith google-fu.And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
sorry - am editing that -on the basis that this has to be a fake post.
Edited by Ali G on Friday 3rd August 18:53
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
...They are a waste of time. I decided that a large problem is that many of the participants don't know enough to realise how 'out there' their views are. Most of the things they disagree with are not controversial.
I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.
Well exactly. Even I as a layman have been able to see through the propaganda armed only with some basic Google-fu, so for anyone who has studied relevant subjects and already knows their stuff it must be mind-numbing.I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.
And, as you say, the side-effect of getting all your information from limited sources is that I'm sure some don't realise just how far off the track they've gone.
The most important thing to remember about this thread is that it is absolutely not a debate about the facts. This is all about tribalism and ideology.
Are our politicians doing such a wonderful job in your eyes?
Or is there no longer anything at all to discuss because paths are set and nothing much actually deviates from them - just like in the Ivory tower area of Science it seems. Nothing new to discuss.
Edited by LongQ on Friday 3rd August 19:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff