Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[V8 Fettler]

gadgetmac said:

V8 Fettler said:

gadgetmac said:

El stovey said:

I find it really creepy how you keep going on about my job and what you think about me and TB.

I’m very good at my job and am quite comfortable flying with unreliable instruments or conflicting information and having “to think”. That’s why I’ve been in command of large aircraft carrying hundreds of people, for many years and have had to prove my competency and ability “to think” many times and am required to do so on a regular basis.

What’s your job btw? You seem very interested and keep mentioning mine. Perhaps you can tell us what you do so we can analyse your ability to think and speculate on why it might lead you to adopt the position that you have?

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

Is questioning not permitted then?

There’s questioning and there’s arguing with them whereupon your own background should be revealed so we can make an assessment of who’s interpretation of the data is likely the correct one, who has done the proper research etc...the scientists or the sparkies.

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

I don’t side with anyone on the basis of blind faith and ignorance. I have not been indoctrinated or inculcated; I simply try to examine all the evidence and make up my own mind. Do some research!

That’s simply not true.

You guys blindly follow turbobloke and refuse to accept that he posts blagging doctored data all the time.

Even when one of your team posts complete nonsense about the BBC or climate change being used for population controll you all keep quiet. You only ever respond if someone posts something against your ideologically influenced position.

If you were basing your views on facts, there’s no way you'd be adopting the stance you do.

You’re obsessed with Turbobloke Stovey. Not my issue, that’s yours.

Are you suggesting that CAGW is based on facts and not ideological or political? What facts would those be? Enlighten me.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

This may well be good news for politicians amd good news for scientists but it's not really any news in a part of the planet where significant short-term climate variation is the norm.

Arctic Sea Ice Back To 2007 Levels (and at the SII 11-year average),
Date: 01/09/18

https://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-200...

Context:



From the source of the data:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Also, regarding the inclusion of MASIE data on that graph - their FAQ clearly says to not use that data to identify trends:

National Snow and Ice Data Center said:

When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important...

https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_faq

But oh yes, it's the AGW activists who cherry pick data:

turbobloke said:

AGW activists work with periods of 1 day or even less when it suits ('record' jetwash temperature).

Or decadally e.g. three of the hottest apple pies have been sold in the past ten years.

Make the rules, play the game.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 1st September 16:38

What is so significant about the baseline on that graph Durbster?

[durbster]

Diderot said:

What is so significant about the baseline on that graph Durbster?

That's the whole dataset with cherries unpicked.

What's significant about 2007?

[turbobloke]

In other news, the independently apolitical UN has bowed to pressure from activists and ditched a video about climate change because it was unable to resist green pressure objecting to attempts at humour about a subject greens consider far too serious for any applied jocularity. I mean, seriously? Apparently the 'Climate Neutral Now' effort was interpreted as mocking green lifestyle choices (eek) and downplaying the urgency of the climate challenge. PHers on the thread who go in for facebooking and twittering may have seen it while the rest of us have descriptions to work from. Apparently the vid shows a man trying to give up his car, flights, steak and even breathing to cut his carbon footprint. Hmmm. Either way the video is settled! The time for amusement is over!! Immediate action is needed so recycled hair shirts on now and forget that Sunday roast!!!

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/08/29/keep-c...

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The point is, if you want financial advice are you going to listen to an IFA or a taxi driver? Nothing wrong with taxi drivers but they’re not so good for financial advice.

Sure the taxi driver can offer advice but you’re not going to follow it really are you?

Most people acknowledge this, that’s why we see posters on your side frequently trying to over egg each other’s qualifications and expertise. We have lawyers being described as scientists and boiler engineers being described as engineers because engineer sounds more vague and scientific than boiler engineer.

So overall people come on and read your theories and think, who are these people suggesting NASA and the royal society and the scientific consensus are wrong, are they experts, should I listen to them?

If you’re all experts it adds weight to your arguments. If you’re all doing completely unrelated jobs and are deliberately vague about your qualifications and are constantly quoting bloggers, it makes it sound like you’re talking bks.

If you went on a medical thread and a load of plumbers and boiler engineers were saying an aspect of medicine, where there was a medical consensus amongst surgeons and experts was wrong and the PHers who had no medical expertise were saying it was all made up, would you be likely to listen to the PHers? Their evidence all comes from political blogs. Of course not.

So yes of course debate is allowed on a car forum, it’s just that you’d be foolish to get your world view from the one side.

So really what’s going on is that it’s nothing to do with science but for many of you, this is part of a political package, it’s about distrust and dislike of experts and the government and institutions and organisations and the media. It’s about linking it all together so it’s about the BBC and the government being involved and scientists being on the take and scientific institutions being influenced by political agents all for wealth distribution. Which as you’re all mainly right wingers is a pretty bad thing.

So the bottoms line is that most of you have no scientific qualifications or expertise at all but believe theirs a massive fraud going on because you think there is a political aim to redistribute wealth. You’re against that because it’s a bit lefty and involves government and the media telling you how to go about your lives and maybe take your stuff.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

What is so significant about the baseline on that graph Durbster?

That's the whole dataset with cherries unpicked.

What's significant about 2007?

No, I asked you what was so significant about the baseline.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

What is so significant about the baseline on that graph Durbster?

That's the whole dataset with cherries unpicked.

What's significant about 2007?

No, I asked you what was so significant about the baseline.

I don't know. Ask NOAA.

If you think you have a point, please just make it rather than forcing us to endure this tedious provocation.

[Randy Winkman]

El stovey said:

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The point is, if you want financial advice are you going to listen to an IFA or a taxi driver? Nothing wrong with taxi drivers but they’re not so good for financial advice.

Sure the taxi driver can offer advice but you’re not going to follow it really are you?

Most people acknowledge this, that’s why we see posters on your side frequently trying to over egg each other’s qualifications and expertise. We have lawyers being described as scientists and boiler engineers being described as engineers because engineer sounds more vague and scientific than boiler engineer.

So overall people come on and read your theories and think, who are these people suggesting NASA and the royal society and the scientific consensus are wrong, are they experts, should I listen to them?

If you’re all experts it adds weight to your arguments. If you’re all doing completely unrelated jobs and are deliberately vague about your qualifications and are constantly quoting bloggers, it makes it sound like you’re talking bks.

If you went on a medical thread and a load of plumbers and boiler engineers were saying an aspect of medicine, where there was a medical consensus amongst surgeons and experts was wrong and the PHers who had no medical expertise were saying it was all made up, would you be likely to listen to the PHers? Their evidence all comes from political blogs. Of course not.

So yes of course debate is allowed on a car forum, it’s just that you’d be foolish to get your world view from the one side.

So really what’s going on is that it’s nothing to do with science but for many of you, this is part of a political package, it’s about distrust and dislike of experts and the government and institutions and organisations and the media. It’s about linking it all together so it’s about the BBC and the government being involved and scientists being on the take and scientific institutions being influenced by political agents all for wealth distribution. Which as you’re all mainly right wingers is a pretty bad thing.

So the bottoms line is that most of you have no scientific qualifications or expertise at all but believe theirs a massive fraud going on because you think there is a political aim to redistribute wealth. You’re against that because it’s a bit lefty and involves government and the media telling you how to go about your lives and maybe take your stuff.

Well said. A couple of pages ago we were told by a PHer to do our own research make our own minds up. Where can a layperson start on the millions of pages on the internet? I guess that what lots of people would do is look for the pages that support what they already think. The most rational thing for me is just to accept the majority scientific view and keep watching Henry Cole on Steve McQueen. (As I'm doing now.)

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The point is, if you want financial advice are you going to listen to an IFA or a taxi driver? Nothing wrong with taxi drivers but they’re not so good for financial advice.

Sure the taxi driver can offer advice but you’re not going to follow it really are you?

Most people acknowledge this, that’s why we see posters on your side frequently trying to over egg each other’s qualifications and expertise. We have lawyers being described as scientists and boiler engineers being described as engineers because engineer sounds more vague and scientific than boiler engineer.

So overall people come on and read your theories and think, who are these people suggesting NASA and the royal society and the scientific consensus are wrong, are they experts, should I listen to them?

If you’re all experts it adds weight to your arguments. If you’re all doing completely unrelated jobs and are deliberately vague about your qualifications and are constantly quoting bloggers, it makes it sound like you’re talking bks.

If you went on a medical thread and a load of plumbers and boiler engineers were saying an aspect of medicine, where there was a medical consensus amongst surgeons and experts was wrong and the PHers who had no medical expertise were saying it was all made up, would you be likely to listen to the PHers? Their evidence all comes from political blogs. Of course not.

So yes of course debate is allowed on a car forum, it’s just that you’d be foolish to get your world view from the one side.

So really what’s going on is that it’s nothing to do with science but for many of you, this is part of a political package, it’s about distrust and dislike of experts and the government and institutions and organisations and the media. It’s about linking it all together so it’s about the BBC and the government being involved and scientists being on the take and scientific institutions being influenced by political agents all for wealth distribution. Which as you’re all mainly right wingers is a pretty bad thing.

So the bottoms line is that most of you have no scientific qualifications or expertise at all but believe theirs a massive fraud going on because you think there is a political aim to redistribute wealth. You’re against that because it’s a bit lefty and involves government and the media telling you how to go about your lives and maybe take your stuff.

Yes, that pretty much encapsulates it.

[durbster]

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The only way to challenge proven scientific theories and observable data is to do better experiments and get more accurate data.

Barking opinions at strangers on a car forum can be fun, but is achieving neither of those things. Nobody has been able to present a credible challenge to the science that AGW is based on and the supporting evidence has only grown as time has passed. The anti-AGW campaign is not about addressing the scientific aspects of AGW, it is primarily about creating an illusion in the minds of the public that the science is still controversial, when it's simply not. Same as with smoking, vaccinations etc.

That's why all the anti-AGW stuff is found on blogs and car forums and not in the science literature. It's easier to chuck together a misleading graph to convince a casual-reading layman that the data record doesn't support AGW, than to do the same with people who already know the data inside and out. It's pretty easy to check this stuff for yourself but most people simply can't be arsed, and the propagandists know this.

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The only way to challenge proven scientific theories and observable data is to do better experiments and get more accurate data.

Barking opinions at strangers on a car forum can be fun, but is achieving neither of those things. Nobody has been able to present a credible challenge to the science that AGW is based on and the supporting evidence has only grown as time has passed. The anti-AGW campaign is not about addressing the scientific aspects of AGW, it is primarily about creating an illusion in the minds of the public that the science is still controversial, when it's simply not. Same as with smoking, vaccinations etc.

That's why all the anti-AGW stuff is found on blogs and car forums and not in the science literature. It's easier to chuck together a misleading graph to convince a casual-reading layman that the data record doesn't support AGW, than to do the same with people who already know the data inside and out. It's pretty easy to check this stuff for yourself but most people simply can't be arsed, and the propagandists know this.

This is all correct. It’s simple logic, unpoluted by the politics of the reader.

For the anti AGW influencers on here, it’s all about repetition of propaganda and misleading tables and graphs. Ever so often someone actually reads them or looks into it and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Real scientists pop in and show where the “misrepresentations” have occurred.

And the scientific consensus can be changed. We see out often quoted friend, the Australian who proved the scientific consensus about ulcers wrong. Science accepted his new evidence based theory and that became the new consensus.

The reason the scientific consensus hasn’t been changed over AGW isn’t because of lefties and the BBC and influtration of scientific bodies. Despite what posters on here would like to believe.

The anti AWG people then have to suggest there isn’t a consensus or that even scientific consensus isn’t “a thing” in science. It’s simply confirmation bias.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

What is so significant about the baseline on that graph Durbster?

That's the whole dataset with cherries unpicked.

What's significant about 2007?

No, I asked you what was so significant about the baseline.

I don't know. Ask NOAA.

If you think you have a point, please just make it rather than forcing us to endure this tedious provocation.

So you post up a graph in support of something or other and you have no idea why it uses the baseline it does or what the issues with such graphs might be? Oh dear.

You think my questions are tedious? The problem for you is they go to the heart of your belief system and you have no idea why you believe in it except that many other people have also been told it’s the truth.

The point is your belief system is a fabrication of false assumptions, estimations, fudges, and downright scientific incompetence masquerading as research. The models are wrong; they are fundamentally flawed and their outputs are pure fiction; a fiction clearly exposed by the data. You deny that data exists just like you deny the pause existed because like some fanatical religious adherent you see these challenges to your blind faith as blasphemy.

[anonymous-user]

Diderot said:

The point is your belief system is a fabrication of false assumptions, estimations, fudges, and downright scientific incompetence masquerading as research. The models are wrong; they are fundamentally flawed and their outputs are pure fiction; a fiction clearly exposed by the data. You deny that data exists just like you deny the pause existed because like some fanatical religious adherent you see these challenges to your blind faith as blasphemy.

It’s not a belief system. It’s the overwhelming scientific view and thus the scientific consensus.

Your’s is a belief system based on your politics.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

It’s not a belief system. It’s the overwhelming scientific view and thus the scientific consensus.

No, that is belief. You just can't/won't see it.

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

It’s not a belief system. It’s the overwhelming scientific view and thus the scientific consensus.

No, that is belief. You just can't/won't see it.

A scientific belief based on facts and data. Are there any other scientific consensus that you disbelieve?

Are you being deliberately perverse? The models are wrong; the observed data show that to be the case. Those are the facts and data or are you denying that the models are wrong?

[durbster]

Diderot said:

So you post up a graph in support of something or other and you have no idea why it uses the baseline it does or what the issues with such graphs might be? Oh dear.

No, I posted the full dataset to give a context to the misleading graph posted by turbobloke. I said nothing else about it so your assumptions are based entirely on your own prejudice.

Diderot said:

You think my questions are tedious? The problem for you is they go to the heart of your belief system and you have no idea why you believe in it except that many other people have also been told it’s the truth.

Oh wow, you think your posts have caused me deep concern?

You're really flattering yourself. All you seem to do is make a bunch of vague, baseless statements with no evidence or reasoning, or just invent positions that people hold and then fail start an argument against it.

I'm afraid for me personally, I've barely seen anything you've yet posted that warranted the effort of a reply, let alone thrown me into the existential turmoil you appear to be imagining.

Diderot said:

The point is your belief system is a fabrication of false assumptions, estimations, fudges, and downright scientific incompetence masquerading as research. The models are wrong; they are fundamentally flawed and their outputs are pure fiction; a fiction clearly exposed by the data. You deny that data exists just like you deny the pause existed because like some fanatical religious adherent you see these challenges to your blind faith as blasphemy.

See italics above.

[V8 Fettler]

El stovey said:

V8 Fettler said:

Let me see if I've understood this correctly:

Polite questioning is permitted, perhaps with some forelock touching and doffing of caps to certain professions and some organisations. However, rigorous debate and dissent are definitely forbidden, is that correct?

The point is, if you want financial advice are you going to listen to an IFA or a taxi driver? Nothing wrong with taxi drivers but they’re not so good for financial advice.

Sure the taxi driver can offer advice but you’re not going to follow it really are you?

Most people acknowledge this, that’s why we see posters on your side frequently trying to over egg each other’s qualifications and expertise. We have lawyers being described as scientists and boiler engineers being described as engineers because engineer sounds more vague and scientific than boiler engineer.

So overall people come on and read your theories and think, who are these people suggesting NASA and the royal society and the scientific consensus are wrong, are they experts, should I listen to them?

If you’re all experts it adds weight to your arguments. If you’re all doing completely unrelated jobs and are deliberately vague about your qualifications and are constantly quoting bloggers, it makes it sound like you’re talking bks.

If you went on a medical thread and a load of plumbers and boiler engineers were saying an aspect of medicine, where there was a medical consensus amongst surgeons and experts was wrong and the PHers who had no medical expertise were saying it was all made up, would you be likely to listen to the PHers? Their evidence all comes from political blogs. Of course not.

So yes of course debate is allowed on a car forum, it’s just that you’d be foolish to get your world view from the one side.

So really what’s going on is that it’s nothing to do with science but for many of you, this is part of a political package, it’s about distrust and dislike of experts and the government and institutions and organisations and the media. It’s about linking it all together so it’s about the BBC and the government being involved and scientists being on the take and scientific institutions being influenced by political agents all for wealth distribution. Which as you’re all mainly right wingers is a pretty bad thing.

So the bottoms line is that most of you have no scientific qualifications or expertise at all but believe theirs a massive fraud going on because you think there is a political aim to redistribute wealth. You’re against that because it’s a bit lefty and involves government and the media telling you how to go about your lives and maybe take your stuff.

I'd listen to both and implicitly trust neither. It's apparent that many are prepared to implicitly trust the word of an individual purely on the basis of that individual's stated profession, similar in many ways to religion. I prefer "On the word of no one."

There's enough information and data posted on this thread alone to undermine the statement that mankind is primarily responsible for climate change.

Is rigorous debate and dissent OK with you then?

[chrispmartha]

V8 Fettler said:

I'd listen to both and implicitly trust neither. It's apparent that many are prepared to implicitly trust the word of an individual purely on the basis of that individual's stated profession, similar in many ways to religion. I prefer "On the word of no one."

There's enough information and data posted on this thread alone to undermine the statement that mankind is primarily responsible for climate change.

Is rigorous debate and dissent OK with you then?

So you don’t trust the opinion of someone purely on the basis of their profession? What, never?

Do you go to several GPs? How many Dentists do you go to before deciding on treatment? And if you did vist a few would you go with the consensus among the professionals?

[robinessex]

Try getting a consensus from a group of economists !!