Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
Turboblokes 15 minutes ran out at 9:16 this morning 
Which means your understanding of averages ran out at 7.46 this evening BTW where was the climate politics in your post? Here's some.
If it’s not in the bag, when is the last straw not the last straw?
https://apnews.com/71082d3bb77e44a59408a69bc58caf8...
If there's evidence supporting the article content that this can do good, has done good, and by jolly it does more good in future, then good.
Better would have been to convert the entire match concept to a virtual game that the would be spectators could watch on-line.
The carbon savings would be a far greater benefit, we would no doubt be told, than the benefits of not releasing a few thousand balloons (although I didn't spot them mentioning what the balloons were filled with - may have missed something significant there.)
However with no team travelling and no spectator travelling there would be no need for balloons.
Excellent results all round.
Who could possibly object?
durbster said:
mko9 said:
The argument against fossil fuels is that we should be using alternative energy sources like wind, or solar, or tide, or whatever. Fossil fuel companies could start providing any of those things, they can just make more money pumping oil.
No, the argument against fossil fuels is that their continued use is warming the planet. The switch to renewable sources is only because it's the only alternative we have at the moment.
durbster said:
mko9 said:
Your analogy to the tobacco industry is terrible.
Apart from the fact it's the same organisation behind much of turbobloke's propaganda that was behind the smoking propaganda, and they're using the exact same tactics (to create uncertainty in the public consciousness around the science, in order to delay counter-measures for as long as possible).mko9 said:
durbster said:
mko9 said:
The argument against fossil fuels is that we should be using alternative energy sources like wind, or solar, or tide, or whatever. Fossil fuel companies could start providing any of those things, they can just make more money pumping oil.
No, the argument against fossil fuels is that their continued use is warming the planet. The switch to renewable sources is only because it's the only alternative we have at the moment.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
mko9 said:
Your analogy to the tobacco industry is terrible.
Apart from the fact it's the same organisation behind much of turbobloke's propaganda that was behind the smoking propaganda, and they're using the exact same tactics (to create uncertainty in the public consciousness around the science, in order to delay counter-measures for as long as possible).The difference being this one has precedent, evidence, motive and is plausible.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
mko9 said:
Your analogy to the tobacco industry is terrible.
Apart from the fact it's the same organisation behind much of turbobloke's propaganda that was behind the smoking propaganda, and they're using the exact same tactics (to create uncertainty in the public consciousness around the science, in order to delay counter-measures for as long as possible).The difference being this one has precedent, evidence, motive and is plausible.
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
Turboblokes 15 minutes ran out at 9:16 this morning
Which means your understanding of averages ran out at 7.46 this evening BTW where was the climate politics in your post? Here's some.
If it’s not in the bag, when is the last straw not the last straw?
https://apnews.com/71082d3bb77e44a59408a69bc58caf8...
If there's evidence supporting the article content that this can do good, has done good, and by jolly it does more good in future, then good.
Better would have been to convert the entire match concept to a virtual game that the would be spectators could watch on-line.
The carbon savings would be a far greater benefit, we would no doubt be told, than the benefits of not releasing a few thousand balloons (although I didn't spot them mentioning what the balloons were filled with - may have missed something significant there.)
However with no team travelling and no spectator travelling there would be no need for balloons.
Excellent results all round.
Who could possibly object?
The above approach would also be helpful for eco-activists seeking to promote their latest book. They would no longer need to fly around the world in order to tell other people not to fly around the world.
Political advocates in the IPCC could hold online climate boondoggles running VT clips of momentous moments from previous political gestures (as per the still below). Who was Lobby Lud they may well ask
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 17th August 13:05
It looks as though Turnbull really is ready to dump Paris.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/turnbull-dum...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/turnbull-dum...
At one time recently the thread was pondering false climate prophets who had politicians in thrall to their erroneous crystal balling on ice (TV prog?) resulting in pointless and astronomically expensive policies. With USA / Canada / Australia and Brazil questioning the belief that "We'll always have Paris" more evidence has come to light this year confirming politicians' folly in using agw false prophets for policymaking.
Today a pugilistic Lobby Lud, well-known politician and one-time climatefest attendee also remembered for his subsurface solecisms, was featured in disguise. This chap would have been relieved to know that thanks to Kamenos and Hennige (2018) we know that coral bleaching was far worse in the 1890s and 1750s than today, and similar in the 1670s. All au naturel. Ridd had a point as we know regarding the brazen politicisation of this area of study.
On Big Oil getting bigger more slowly, a federal judge's decision is seen as a blow to Trump here: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/16/review-keystone-...
mko9 said:
Why is it really a problem if the Arctic Ocean is ice free in the summer time? It was probably ice free during the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc, right? It was as hot or hotter than today for a couple hundred years.
Good call. A team of researchers led by Kolling (2018) have found that the present-day position and the Little Ice Age correspond to the Arctic summer sea melt starting in the late spring e.g. May. However during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period the sea ice melt began in March, two months earlier than today The paper authors offers an explanation which doesn't imvolve a single mention of a certain gas.Today a pugilistic Lobby Lud, well-known politician and one-time climatefest attendee also remembered for his subsurface solecisms, was featured in disguise. This chap would have been relieved to know that thanks to Kamenos and Hennige (2018) we know that coral bleaching was far worse in the 1890s and 1750s than today, and similar in the 1670s. All au naturel. Ridd had a point as we know regarding the brazen politicisation of this area of study.
On Big Oil getting bigger more slowly, a federal judge's decision is seen as a blow to Trump here: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/16/review-keystone-...
Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Relatively quiet in here today, has Turboblokes Internet connection gone down?
I'm just patiently waiting for the arch conspiracy theorist Durbster to provide some proof ... ), look up the people involved and simply trace them back to the Heartland Institute. Easy. durbster said:
Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Relatively quiet in here today, has Turboblokes Internet connection gone down?
I'm just patiently waiting for the arch conspiracy theorist Durbster to provide some proof ... ), look up the people involved and simply trace them back to the Heartland Institute. Easy. "The people" don't "trace back". A one-liner with no evidence, It's not unusual. It would also be unusual if one or two didn't have some connection (see below). Any perceived issue of that nature is wider in agw circles where political / public funding contaminates the entire lot. By the same token anybody associated with the politically funded political advocacy group the IPCC is tainted. That's a lot of people facing guilt-by-association and as per Heartland for no good reason.
Take the Russian scientist Khabibullo Abdussamatov DSc who's the head of one of the institutions listed. This chap, who features in a US Senate Report (climate politics!) considers with reason that carbon dioxide is "insignificant” in climate change. He's mentioned in Heartland web pages for that reason but that's hardly the same thing as you suggested ^
Info and FAQ for anyone who wants to take a look:
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critic...
What happened to your inclusion on one of your lists of the International Arctic Research Centre? They make absolutely no claim to be sceptical of AGW yet you claimed they were by associating a long since gone (anti AGW) directors stance as being that organisations stance too.
Sorry, but your credibility is shot where lists are concerned.
Sorry, but your credibility is shot where lists are concerned.
gadgetmac said:
Sorry, but your credibility is shot where lists are concerned.
An unbiased view from an independent arbiter, that'll do nicely. The research centre you mention has very little if any alarmist material associated with it. The founding director and institution research programmes aren't agw-centric even though together they examine the relative roles of natural and (alleged) dangerous anthropogenic influences.My credibility has nothing to do with this because none of the post content relates to my work. Repeated and failed attempts to attack me personally aren't surprising or new as it's all agw supporters have left. It'll always be pointless and always fail because the authors, institutions and politicians in my posts are nothing to do with me. I'm just the messenger, Amazingly it's not about you either.
AGW supporters' tactic of attempting to shoot the messenger as above is one of the most transparent failures it's possible to use in a discussion. Thanks and nice work!
Try some climate politics to cheer you up a bit...where there's muck there's climate change.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3679428/...
LoonyTunes said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
enuinely interested in this question, for all involved.
I ask, as I've got a Masters in Engineering and I'm currently a secondary Physics teacher.
Interesting - what's your take on the politics of AGW?I ask, as I've got a Masters in Engineering and I'm currently a secondary Physics teacher.
Do I believe human activity is solely responsible for climate change? No.
Do I believe human activity has the capacity to affect climate change? Yes.
Do I believe there is a global effort to ensure the majority of citizens believe human activity is responsible for climate change? No.
Do I believe there is a global opinion that if you oppose the idea that human activity is the sole contributor to climate change, you're insane? Yes.
Do I believe the science is settled? No.
Do I believe the term 'the science is settled' implicates my core beliefs as a scientist? Yes.
This is taken from the AQA GCSE Specification and it allows me to interpret this within my scientific core values. I've only delivered it once, but my chosen method to deliver it has been very effective for the learners;
"Based on peer-reviewed evidence, many scientists believe that human activities will cause the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to increase at the surface and that this will result in global climate change. However, it is difficult to model such complex systems as global climate change. This leads to simplified models, speculation and opinions presented in the media that may be based on only parts of the evidence and which may be biased."
SpeedMattersNot said:
Do I believe human activity is solely responsible for climate change? No.
Do I believe human activity has the capacity to affect climate change? Yes.
Adding "solely" to the sentence is just disingenuous. Nobody says human activity is the only thing that affects the climate.Do I believe human activity has the capacity to affect climate change? Yes.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Do I believe the science is settled? No.
Do I believe the term 'the science is settled' implicates my core beliefs as a scientist? Yes.
But what are you referring to when you ask whether the "science is settled"? Are you disputing the greenhouse effect, or that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do I believe the term 'the science is settled' implicates my core beliefs as a scientist? Yes.
Or are you talking about the consequences of those things, in which case nobody is claiming that the "science is settled".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff