Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
If Trump tweeted that he was against the random killing of children, would you de-align yourself from that position (or expect others to do so) just because it was Trump?
It would appear so. Otherwise your point in reply to Kawasicki is pointless.
Maybe. Then again maybe he's closer to Trump than he might like to declare. Talking of which - how about my points to you? You kinda missed that one in your haste to answer the question I asked to somebody who isn't you. It would appear so. Otherwise your point in reply to Kawasicki is pointless.
LoonyTunes said:
Diderot said:
It was a question. The clue was the use of the question mark.
You seem to conflate or view ‘climate change’ and ‘MMGW’ as interchangeable terms. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
You seem, despite being told, to be unable to comprehend the answer given. Is that a correct assessment of your position?You seem to conflate or view ‘climate change’ and ‘MMGW’ as interchangeable terms. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Diderot said:
It was a question. The clue was the use of the question mark.
You seem to conflate or view ‘climate change’ and ‘MMGW’ as interchangeable terms. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
You seem, despite being told, to be unable to comprehend the answer given. Is that a correct assessment of your position?You seem to conflate or view ‘climate change’ and ‘MMGW’ as interchangeable terms. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
As has been said..
durbster said:
And trying to score points from these kinds of silly semantics is just feeble, but indicative of the position you're arguing from.
Lets move on - I'm bored with this.PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Everybody believes Climate Change is happening it's the Man Made bit that is in question yes?
Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
Is it ? My view is that it can have an effect but it is that small it is unable to be recorded and will not bring the end of the world.Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
“Global warming is already having significant and costly effects on our communities, our health, and our climate.
Unless we take immediate action to reduce global warming emissions, these impacts will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet — “
Have you taken “immediate action”? .....any action at all?
Unless we take immediate action to reduce global warming emissions, these impacts will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet — “
Have you taken “immediate action”? .....any action at all?
UoCS is so what. Sure they 'believe' but others have a different view.
Life expectancy @ 1800 ~ 40 years and @ 2018 ~80 years; thanks 'global warming'
Weather is chaotic and like climate unpredictable over longer timescales, getting tomorrow right can go wrong.
Buy Damart and candles (I have no personal interest in Damart or candles).
Cofounder of Greenpeace Dr Moore said:
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife and human well-being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends.
Climate optima are so named for a reason, check out how civiliastion got on in historical climate optima.Life expectancy @ 1800 ~ 40 years and @ 2018 ~80 years; thanks 'global warming'
Weather is chaotic and like climate unpredictable over longer timescales, getting tomorrow right can go wrong.
Buy Damart and candles (I have no personal interest in Damart or candles).
LoonyTunes said:
It may not bring about armageddon but the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) believes it will make it extremely uncomfortable for us and and our descendents.
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
the union of concerned scientists, lol. you realise one of their members is a dog.yes, an actual four legged furry friend. at least they are on topic, a purely political organisation.https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Everybody believes Climate Change is happening it's the Man Made bit that is in question yes?
Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
Is it ? My view is that it can have an effect but it is that small it is unable to be recorded and will not bring the end of the world.Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
robinessex said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Everybody believes Climate Change is happening it's the Man Made bit that is in question yes?
Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
Is it ? My view is that it can have an effect but it is that small it is unable to be recorded and will not bring the end of the world.Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
robinessex said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Everybody believes Climate Change is happening it's the Man Made bit that is in question yes?
Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
Is it ? My view is that it can have an effect but it is that small it is unable to be recorded and will not bring the end of the world.Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
Even the Union of Concerned Scientists don't all agree according to an agw supporter who posted that, in a survey, 5% of UoCS members disagreed with agw. That's from way back, when a PH climate thread did the UoCS loop in 2o13. Is that disagreement allowed - and isn't it a bit odd?! Surely if the post was accurate the 5% aren't concerned (enough) and ought to resign if for no other reason than to protect the magnitude of the cobnsensus which should be 97% not a paltry 95%. The previous UoCS loop was in 2009 and the original mention earlier than that. Are we in another?
This recent alleged quote (below) is quite a beaut. Anyone interested in following it up - prepare to be surprised, or not if you like that sort of thing.
“I just feel that all these various diseases that we have and all that is happening in the world in part is because there are those who don’t believe in global warming."
What's the part...97% possibly?
Meanwhile here's some climate politics history involving a US government document which brings back memories of Rasool & Schneider (saturation heresy awkwardness).
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Everybody believes Climate Change is happening it's the Man Made bit that is in question yes?
Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
Is it ? My view is that it can have an effect but it is that small it is unable to be recorded and will not bring the end of the world.Interested to hear the answer to this one from the deniers all the same
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sci...
“Global warming is already having significant and costly effects on our communities, our health, and our climate.
Unless we take immediate action to reduce global warming emissions, these impacts will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet — “
Have you taken “immediate action”? .....any action at all?
LoonyTunes said:
Well done some politics (keep it up) 
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
Global warming isn't harmful? I'm afraid the Pew survey is pretty damning as 77% of “domain experts who are Earth scientists” say it is “a very serious problem” and another 17% say it is “somewhat serious”.
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
dickymint said:
Well done some politics (keep it up)
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
This was a better bit........I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
"In these politically charged circumstances, there is no safe space for the facts to retreat to. That was made clear by the so-called “climategate” scandal of 2009, when a series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia was held up as evidence that the scientific evidence was being distorted to fit a political agenda. The emails showed no such thing. What they did reveal is that in an environment of highly politicised scepticism, climate scientists were forced to think about guarding the evidence against opponents looking for any excuse to discredit it."
Maybe they read PHLoonyTunes said:
Global warming isn't harmful? I'm afraid the Pew survey is pretty damning as 77% of “domain experts who are Earth scientists” say it is “a very serious problem” and another 17% say it is “somewhat serious”.
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
I suppose they would considering their income(s) depend on AGW & CC bhttp://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
ksLoonyTunes said:
Global warming isn't harmful? I'm afraid the Pew survey is pretty damning as 77% of “domain experts who are Earth scientists” say it is “a very serious problem” and another 17% say it is “somewhat serious”.
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
Post a link with a barbed comment and hey presto anti-turbobloke for the AGW crowd.http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AA...
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Well done some politics (keep it up)
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
This was a better bit........I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
"In these politically charged circumstances, there is no safe space for the facts to retreat to. That was made clear by the so-called “climategate” scandal of 2009, when a series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia was held up as evidence that the scientific evidence was being distorted to fit a political agenda. The emails showed no such thing. What they did reveal is that in an environment of highly politicised scepticism, climate scientists were forced to think about guarding the evidence against opponents looking for any excuse to discredit it."
Maybe they read PHClimate scientists are fully convinced that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are the primary cause...global action is required, and now...but, no, you can’t see the evidence. Odd, that. If I was convinced by the data I would be stuffing the inboxes of the sceptics full it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff