Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

AGW is not the overwhelming scientific view or consensus, it's merely the current overriding media message based on political patronage in the developed world (albeit slipping at the mo). Political blinkerism and climate activism in general might want to rethink their approach and move away from repetition of dogma in agw statement banks. When asked earlier this year, Americans came up with 35+ answers to a Gallup poll asking about the biggest problem currently facing the country. Nobody answered “climate change”. Only 2% mentioned the environment/pollution. Big Green is outspending Big Oil over the pond in a concerted effort to keep the propaganda going strong and nobody surveyed truly believes. Don't take my word for it, gallop over to Gallup (pdf p7/7).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237392/satisfaction-i...

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

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?

Distrust of professionals and experts and institutions and the media and the state. It’s all part of their political identity. It would all be great if it was based on a position of knowledge but as usual it’s based on political blogs and misinterpreted data and of course their ideological leader.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

AGW is not the overwhelming scientific view or consensus, it's merely the current overriding media message based on political patronage in the developed world (albeit slipping at the mo). Political blinkerism and climate activism in general might want to rethink their approach and move away from repetition of dogma in agw statement banks. When asked earlier this year, Americans came up with 35+ answers to a Gallup poll asking about the biggest problem currently facing the country. Nobody answered “climate change”. Only 2% mentioned the environment/pollution. Big Green is outspending Big Oil over the pond in a concerted effort to keep the propaganda going strong and nobody surveyed truly believes. Don't take my word for it, gallop over to Gallup (pdf p7/7).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237392/satisfaction-i...

This is simply lies. AGW is indeed the overwhelming scientific consensus.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Many year ago, I put some savings into an investment with an IFA. After 10yrs, I got back just about what I put In. During one of the best periods for financial investment. We put all my daugs child allowance into another investment, when she was 18, got back half what was promised. Would've done better in an ISA or similar.

When I asked my (unqualified) uncle, who ran a small restaurant, what he did for a pension, he took me out side, and pointed to various properties in the street. That was his pension. Again, the pension I paid into turned out to be st.

So much for professional advisors

[turbobloke]

When it rains it pours, this must be due to global warming

New York Times: A survey has found that climate ‘worry’ comes in at 2nd to last out of 18 reasons cited for why young adults are not having children. Goodnight to claims that people were forgoing having kids due to climate fears - see 'Eric Holthaus' for an outlier case study.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/american...

[durbster]

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

AGW is not the overwhelming scientific view or consensus, it's merely the current overriding media message based on political patronage in the developed world (albeit slipping at the mo). Political blinkerism and climate activism in general might want to rethink their approach and move away from repetition of dogma in agw statement banks. When asked earlier this year, Americans came up with 35+ answers to a Gallup poll asking about the biggest problem currently facing the country. Nobody answered “climate change”. Only 2% mentioned the environment/pollution. Big Green is outspending Big Oil over the pond in a concerted effort to keep the propaganda going strong and nobody surveyed truly believes. Don't take my word for it, gallop over to Gallup (pdf p7/7).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237392/satisfaction-i...

This is simply lies. AGW is indeed the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Yep.

This is a point that exposes turbobloke's agenda vividly. It's so obviously true there is widespread acceptance of AGW, and it's ridiculously easy for anyone to check, yet he's determined to perpetuate the lie that the science behind AGW is controversial.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

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.

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

That the models are demonstrably wrong is not a baseless, vague assertion. Are you still denying they are wrong?

[durbster]

Diderot said:

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

Enlighten us.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

Enlighten us.

Enlighten yourself. Do some research and think for yourself for a change.

[turbobloke]

Politics (IPCC)
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010 (high confidence). The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.”
(IPCC, 2013)

Science (Wunsch, Heimbach)
"The (upper ocean) temperature change corresponds to a 20-year average ocean heating rate of ?0.48 ±0.1 W/m2 of which 0.1W/m2 arises from the geothermal forcing. The mean slope implies a change over 20 years [1994-2013] of 0.0213±0.0014°C Trends are estimated as (…) 0.0011±0.0001°C per year, with formal 2-standard deviation uncertainties.”
(Wunsch 2018)

"“A very weak long-term (1993-2011) cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth [2000 m], including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.”
(Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)

Ocean warming? Oceans are innocent, a dog ate the global warming after all.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 2nd September 12:58

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

Enlighten us.

Enlighten yourself. Do some research and think for yourself for a change.

Come on, you implied you had a devastating point about the graph. Don't run away, please let us know what it is.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

Enlighten us.

Enlighten yourself. Do some research and think for yourself for a change.

Come on, you implied you had a devastating point about the graph. Don't run away, please let us know what it is.

Not a devastating point, but an important one notwithstanding. But clearly you don’t know what type of graph you posted so I’m not going to spoon feed you. Enlighten yourself,

[durbster]

Diderot said:

Not a devastating point, but an important one notwithstanding. But clearly you don’t know what type of graph you posted so I’m not going to spoon feed you. Enlighten yourself,

So stop hiding behind childish excuses and share this point with us. Because at the moment, it's looking rather a lot like you don't have anything.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Not a devastating point, but an important one notwithstanding. But clearly you don’t know what type of graph you posted so I’m not going to spoon feed you. Enlighten yourself,

So stop hiding behind childish excuses and share this point with us. Because at the moment, it's looking rather a lot like you don't have anything.

Childish excuses? .

I’m not going to spoon feed you and indulge your intellectual laziness. If you can, think for yourself. In the meantime, if that proves too difficult, how are those models looking? Still wrong I take it,

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Not a devastating point, but an important one notwithstanding. But clearly you don’t know what type of graph you posted so I’m not going to spoon feed you. Enlighten yourself,

So stop hiding behind childish excuses and share this point with us. Because at the moment, it's looking rather a lot like you don't have anything.

Childish excuses? .

I’m not going to spoon feed you and indulge your intellectual laziness. If you can, think for yourself. In the meantime, if that proves too difficult, how are those models looking? Still wrong I take it,

Won’t or can’t?

[turbobloke]

This should go down well with agw supporters who like experts and authorities, for others it relates to empirical data which do matter.

From ICECAP Political Climate:

"For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal."

"The rebuttals demonstrate the falsity of EPA’s claims merely by citing the most credible empirical data on the topic."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Not a devastating point, but an important one notwithstanding. But clearly you don’t know what type of graph you posted so I’m not going to spoon feed you. Enlighten yourself,

So stop hiding behind childish excuses and share this point with us. Because at the moment, it's looking rather a lot like you don't have anything.

Childish excuses? .

I’m not going to spoon feed you and indulge your intellectual laziness. If you can, think for yourself. In the meantime, if that proves too difficult, how are those models looking? Still wrong I take it,

Won’t or can’t?

Shan’t. .

[DocJock]

Just popped back in to say, Diderot, Durbster posted data in good faith and you claim there is a problem with it.

The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate the problem. Scientific method and all that...unless you're just trolling of course.

(Back off into my box.)

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Clearly you don’t understand the type of graph you posted. Thanks for confirming that.

Enlighten us.

It's there for you to find on your favourite search engine Google Scholar - you know how to use it so go learn about graphs ...... but you wont.

Meanwhile you again dodged (because you snipped it out) the question from Diderot about models...."Are you still denying they are wrong?"

[durbster]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Not a devastating point, but an important one ...

So stop hiding behind childish excuses and share this point with us. Because at the moment, it's looking rather a lot like you don't have anything.

Childish excuses? .

I’m not going to spoon feed you and indulge your intellectual laziness. If you can, think for yourself. In the meantime, if that proves too difficult, how are those models looking? Still wrong I take it,

Won’t or can’t?

Obviously can't

The best bit is the accusation of not checking things for myself, while quoting my post in which I had quite clearly gone and checked something for myself.

I think this one's still learning the ropes. Keep working at it diderot, you'll get there. I see you've got the attempted diversion bit at the end again. It's a bit feeble but along the right lines.