Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[DocJock]

We can all play that game of asking ambiguous, open-ended questions Durbster.

"Are you disputing the greenhouse effect?" You need to define more accurately what you mean by 'greenhouse effect'. Do you mean the fact that certain compounds have the effect of making the atmosphere retain heat? Nobody I know disputes that. That does not mean that everyone agrees that the effect is linear or whether it has feedback controls. Was that you being disingenuous?

"we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere" I know nobody who disputes that. I know plenty who are awaiting empirical evidence that this is causing CC and if it is, by how much.

"are you talking about the consequences of those things, in which case nobody is claiming that the "science is settled". I wonder, did you manage to keep a straight face when typing that? "science is settled" and "97% consensus" are the two most common claims made by AGW proponents, they come up in just about every discussion of the subject. They must have been posted over several hundred times on the several volumes of this thread alone.

This sort of thing is done by posters on both sides of the argument. I'd like to think it is done accidentally, but I find it hard to believe.

This thread, which always was a classic example of people not answering, or corrupting the question, has hit a new low this last week. Summed up in one picture...

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

The problem with volcanic activity is sadly you can't tax it, which is the primary method of dealing with CO2 emissions, perhaps in the future we can make the west responsible for volcanoes, remember you heard it here first.

Ah the old "its all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute the wealth". Lets guess where you got that from

I'll file this under "Flat Earth and Fake Moon Landings".

And still nothing from the deniers about turbo’s misrepresentations. Who can spot a global conspiracy but not an outright lie when it's thrust in front of their faces. Why am I not surprised

As this is the political thread ,perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions. ? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow,
giving us more expensive energy thus reducing the cost effectiveness of energy hungry industries, aluminium gone, steel on the way out, but hey we are reducing out CO2 emissions, fantastic ?
well not quite , all we are doing is moving CO2 production overseas, along with jobs, that sounds like wealth redistribution to me, people are still consuming, less goods are just not produced here.
In the future we may be dependent on interconnections with the Europe, great we can import German coal generated electricity as they have been building coal power stations recently.
Do you think anything concerning political plans to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense ?
I do not.

[turbobloke]

It’s the sooth not the sayer when it comes to actual misreprentations rather than differing interpretations, and when it comes to credibility.

Holdren was Obama’s science adviser. Holdren the Younger “Towards a Rational Strategy for Man” (Ehrlich and Holdren): Population increase coupled to greater pollution levels will produce a new ice age. Human activities are responsible for the (then) present world cooling trend. E&H pointed to jet exhausts and albedo via man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts as triggers for a new ice age. They cautioned that man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and thus “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history”. Check in with modern history to see how that sooth turned out.

Holdren the Elder: Man-made catastrophic climate impact in the form of global warming justifies phasing out fossil fuel use. Holdren has predicted a billion deaths from climate-related famine by 2020. Currently we’re seeing record crop yields due to marginally higher atmpospheric carbon dioxide levels as evidenced in this thread not long ago. Over the years USA policy pre-Trump ignored sooth from Holdren the Younger and agreed with Holdren the Elder: “the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues”. Aye. Warming is due to global warming and cooling is due to global warming. What’s the null hypothesis in this case, to avoid misrepresentation to congress?!

Prof Christy of UAH has, like Hansen, testified before congress. In the past the Christy team has examined output from the IPCC’s sayers aka 73 UN IPCC computer models, comparing their sooth against the temperature record for the tropical troposphere where agw should be showing itself first and foremost (if there was one validated model that performed as it should, the other 72 would not be needed to form the unprecedented 70+ sides of a remarkable tossed coin). The projected warming levels were in error, being exaggerations of between 3x and 4x reality. “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations (to politicians) on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” Somebody supporting agw with irony turned up to the max mentioned credibility.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

An unbiased view from an independent arbiter, that'll do nicely.

This from you?

turbobloke said:

The research centre you mention has very little if any alarmist material associated with it.

EXACTLY. It also has Zero mention of anti-AGW material yet you included it in your list of institutions that were anti-AGW. This was based solely on the paper of one long since gone director acting independently of the Institution. Guilt by association eh?

The default isn’t that if there is no mention of something they are against it. They are not, try e-mailing them the question and as a fellow academic I’m sure you’ll get a response.

turbobloke said:

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.

Again, wrong. This is the politics thread and politics is all about You and I. You spread a political message across the internet (or this corner of it anyway) and so politicize yourself as do I by responding. If I feel that your message is incorrect then like any politician I will challenge it. The Science thread would not be about You and I unless you publish something which we can discuss.

turbobloke said:

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!

If you have an agenda, which I suspect you do have even if its only to promote your Libertarian/Conservative/anti-Left viewpoint then this is the thread I would expect it to be challenged in...again not in the Science thread.

When you deliberately misrepresent other Scientists work in this thread where would you like that challenged...the Ferrari Owners thread?

So yes, your credibility with lists or quotes of any kind is shot and as you post them here to back up your claims so, if they are shown to be false, I shall call them out on here along with others.

Politics involves everybody. I’m sorry if that displeases you.

Finally, I’m not attacking you personally. I’m sure you are a fine chap who would be interesting to meet. I’m attacking what you say on this subject which is merely one of ten thousand on PH where I’m sure we would share many common interests or viewpoints - just not this one.

And Renewables, obviously, but thats really linked to this thread anyway...

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

[jjlynn27]

Diderot said:

jjlynn27 said:

Diderot said:

I'm just patiently waiting for the arch conspiracy theorist Durbster to provide some proof ...

LOL.

You calling someone, anyone, 'arch conspiracy theorist'.

Bless.

Congratulations, you managed to read. So still no proof forthcoming?

Given your posts, it's still something that you are aiming for. It's good to have goals.

Cultist calling anyone "conspiracy theorist". It's very funny.

To give turd-o-spam an opportunity to wheel out his, rather overused, "appeal to authority";

https://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-ill-pay-...

On the other hand, you have;

https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/media/rush-limbau...

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

Because they are believers !!

[kerplunk]

DocJock said:

We can all play that game of asking ambiguous, open-ended questions Durbster.

"Are you disputing the greenhouse effect?" You need to define more accurately what you mean by 'greenhouse effect'. Do you mean the fact that certain compounds have the effect of making the atmosphere retain heat? Nobody I know disputes that. That does not mean that everyone agrees that the effect is linear or whether it has feedback controls. Was that you being disingenuous?

"we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere" I know nobody who disputes that. I know plenty who are awaiting empirical evidence that this is causing CC and if it is, by how much.

"are you talking about the consequences of those things, in which case nobody is claiming that the "science is settled". I wonder, did you manage to keep a straight face when typing that? "science is settled" and "97% consensus" are the two most common claims made by AGW proponents, they come up in just about every discussion of the subject. They must have been posted over several hundred times on the several volumes of this thread alone.

This sort of thing is done by posters on both sides of the argument. I'd like to think it is done accidentally, but I find it hard to believe.

This thread, which always was a classic example of people not answering, or corrupting the question, has hit a new low this last week. Summed up in one picture...

I would dispute that AGW proponents here have used the phrase 'the science is settled' hundreds of times, but it has been projected onto us by sceptics hundreds of times!

The 97% consensus is just that increasing CO2 by humans is causing warming via an enhanced greenhouse effect so you can't use that to suggest what durbster said about the consequences is disingenuous. It would be true to say the survey results are used inappropriately by people all around though. You just did it, and for balance Obama's tweet “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” includes the words 'and dangerous' which isn't in the survey.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:46

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 18th August 12:51

[robinessex]

The 97% bks was done her ages ago. How come you don't know that?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

Because they are believers !!

Politicians in many western nations have taken the bad decision to believe people whose forecasts based on inadequate agw climate models have been shown to be wrong. This is why we in the UK have a wrong-minded energy policy, based not just on following the wrong advice but also on politicians' other agenda items as expressed by Miliband (UK LP) and Edenhofer (UN IPCC).

When considering the greenhouse effect no doubt we all remember that it's the enhanced greenhouse effect impacts being wrongly predicted, the reason for which is clear enough in the data which show that an already warm atmosphere can lose energy to space faster than models 'allow'. Incremental additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere don't result in the same impact as previous additions of the same increment since the effect decreases logarithmically. Below in brackets 'enhanced' is my added note.

Rasool and Schneider: the runaway (enhanced) greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 micron CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, saturates

Hug: 15 micron carbon dioxide absorption saturates 10m from the surface

Christy & McKitrick: the scenario which fits the data is a 'new' Hansen scenario D in which carbon dioxide effects start to vanish around the year 2000

Hansen: CO2 effects to become visible above the noise of natural variation around the year 2000 (invisibly small before then)

Lindzen and Choi using data: existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative

Buy Damart and candles. I have no personal interest in either Damart or candles.

[turbobloke]

I won't pre-empt the expected desaturation myth attrition loop but reserve the option if it's needed.

Climate politics continues with Al Gore sitting down.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/the-weekly-hammer/gore-p...

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?
Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

[robinessex]

The reason is all these the governments have all swallowed this belief, and they’re saving the planet!

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

if it is not going to make any measurable difference the only reason can be political virtue signalling.

[gadgetmac]

So a Tory government is going to cost business and the tax payer billions of pounds over the next x amount of years all because they want to 'virtue signal' to socialist govts and/or a socialist conspiracy...and not because they believe the science?

A Tory govt! FFS.

Did I just wake up in an alternative universe.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

As this is the political thread, perhaps you can explain to me why our government is targeting reducing CO2 emissions? Shutting down coal fired power stations when Asia was building them like there was no tomorrow

Why do YOU think they are targeting reducing CO2 emissions.

My answer is obvious, the question you pose infers a different take on it.

At the time the decision was taken to shut down our few remaining coal stations,China alone was building one coal fired power station a week, that doesn't include India or Germany or the rest of Asia, the difference that we made to world wide CO2 production was so insignificant as to be pointless, so you tell me what was the point ?

Because it sure was not anything to do with MMGW.

So, following your reasoning through to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s not anything to do with MMGW why is our Govt ‘targeting reducing CO2 emissions’?

Can’t wait to hear this

Another question instead of an answer , so predictable,
it's obvious you have no answers,
It's not me who believes in this rubbish, not the theory of the stupid attempts to mitigate it,
You support it, so it should be easy for you to explain to me the logical reasoning behind the actions.

Ok, I’ll answer only because I want to hear your answer which I suspect won’t come.

Our Govt are targeting reducing CO2 emissions in order to contribute to trying to reduce greenhouse gases. We have signed up to the Paris accord and various other agreements so are obliged to follow through with this.

Now, lets hear your reason...

I asked for a logical reason, that is not, as I pointed out it made no difference to global CO2 production , remember the global part in Man Made Global Warming, all the data was available,unless your telling me that they did something knowing that it made no difference,made UK electricity prices higher and nearly pushed us to blackouts when we had problems with gas supplies,only saved by coal ?
Try again and this time use some logic please.
Agreements are there to be broken it appears, many are pulling out.

[LoonyTunes]

I could supply links of Turbobloke proportions of govt ministers at one time or another commenting on climate change policy and I don't think I've ever heard anything but AGW being the reason behind it.