Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

Jinx said:

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

i don't think the chuggers for greenpiss get to cash the cheques, only hand them in to the head hypocrite

When you’re reduced to these kind of comments he really has fked you over.

You wouldn’t call him a denier to his face!

I know, scary right?

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

El stovey said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

Jinx said:

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

i don't think the chuggers for greenpiss get to cash the cheques, only hand them in to the head hypocrite

When you’re reduced to these kind of comments he really has fked you over.

You wouldn’t call him a denier to his face!

I know, scary right?

He looks forward to the day someone does though. . .

wc98 said:

i actually look forward to the day someone uses the term to my face.have had a few debates with true believers in person but the term denier is never used. .

[gadgetmac]

Do you think the 98 in his PH name is his bicep size?

[LoonyTunes]

More likely the hit his pension fund's investment in Exxon is taking.

[dickymint]

wc98 said:

With This Staff said:

BSc and PhD Physics may have relevance.

'Climate denier' (sic) is a label deployed by certain activists which is similar to 'Kick Me'

i actually look forward to the day someone uses the term to my face.have had a few debates with true believers in person but the term denier is never used. it appears that in a real discussion people tend to be more civil with each other, thankfully.

It's Troll speak and thankfully they don't come out from under their bridges in real life

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

It's Troll speak and thankfully they don't come out from under their bridges in real life

The only people I’ve ever met who think AGW is all made up are you 5. Perhaps I’ve met more but it’s not something I ever really discuss with people.

Do you actually honestly share your nutty denier conspiracy theories outside this forum? I assumed that was the whole point of this thread? A safe space for you, all free from science and facts and stuff.

[dickymint]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

It's Troll speak and thankfully they don't come out from under their bridges in real life

The only people I’ve ever met who think AGW is all made up are you 5. Perhaps I’ve met more but it’s not something I ever really discuss with people.

Do you actually honestly share your nutty denier conspiracy theories outside this forum? I assumed that was the whole point of this thread? A safe space for you, all free from science and facts and stuff.

Who rattled your cage? Begone with you.

[PRTVR]

El stovey said:

The only people I’ve ever met who think AGW is all made up are you 5. Perhaps I’ve met more but it’s not something I ever really discuss with people.

Do you actually honestly share your nutty denier conspiracy theories outside this forum? I assumed that was the whole point of this thread? A safe space for you, all free from science and facts and stuff.

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

Of course. The propaganda engine has been running for some time and many have fallen for it.

[Vanden Saab]

PRTVR said:

El stovey said:

The only people I’ve ever met who think AGW is all made up are you 5. Perhaps I’ve met more but it’s not something I ever really discuss with people.

Do you actually honestly share your nutty denier conspiracy theories outside this forum? I assumed that was the whole point of this thread? A safe space for you, all free from science and facts and stuff.

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

While the number of people who believe AGW is not a thing at all is still small, The number of people who are coming to realise that the difference it will make to the world is so small as to make no difference to anybody's life is growing by the day. 30 years of failed climate change models and frankly ridiculous prophesies of doom will do that to any normal thinking person.
The problem and worry that many of us have is that the sensible changes put forward to reduce pollution and make the world a nicer place for everybody will be lost in the inevitable rejection of all climate science once enough time has passed to show it up as the fake science it is.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

Of course. The propaganda engine has been running for some time and many have fallen for it.

agreed, the worlds going to end in 5,10,15 or even 50 years if we do not do something about CO2, just had a look outside and thankfully it hasn't happened yet even with all the terrible predictions.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

Cheers.

The minute he said that the IPCC disagreed with my stance on AGW I was out.

I have a very short list of people who I ignore - but he's on it.

Ignore, conveniently coincides with you actually having to put money where your mouth is.

Show us your credentials to determine which is a credible or not to appear on your "credible list" or it is just useless spamming, to try and drown out other opposing voices ?

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 16th October 08:47

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

Well not quite.

The 49 ex-NASA signatories?

Here's a quick overview:

The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as “top astronauts, scientists, and engineers” and “NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience.” Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-...


So, here's another question you deniers probably won't answer, prove the emboldened text wrong.

These are people who can spot garbage a mile away. Engineers and especially astronauts, understand the difference between talking a good game and actually doing. Astronauts understand true risk, they actually live it, as do engineers, when their models fail, people died in a huge balls of fire, especially astronauts. Bullsh*ne results in death. Climate Scientists can make whatever outrageous claim, we are all going to die in x days/years/ hours supported by dubious modelling and poor data, when prediction is wildly wrong, just results in more funding and notoriety, double win. Micheal Mann is a great example of this.

Something you seem to have difficulty understanding, put up or shut up, show us your expertise in this climate area?

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 16th October 08:52

[LoonyTunes]

Todays new entry in at number 41 is a University which doesn't agree with the cult


1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
41. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

You can hear a pin drop

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

Todays new entry in at number 41 is a University which doesn't agree with the cult


1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
41. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

You can hear a pin drop

More spam. Come on, you are very vocal about this, show us what reason you have to be vocal or is bluff and bluster, trying to drown out dissenting voices. Here is your hammer drop.

[wc98]

El stovey said:

You wouldn’t call him a denier to his face!

not twice anyway

[LoonyTunes]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

Of course. The propaganda engine has been running for some time and many have fallen for it.

agreed, the worlds going to end in 5,10,15 or even 50 years if we do not do something about CO2, just had a look outside and thankfully it hasn't happened yet even with all the terrible predictions.

Found a Climate Science paper published by even one of the 49 ex-NASA signatories yet PRTVR?

Come on, I even gave you a link to a list of them.

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

You wouldn’t call him a denier to his face!

not twice anyway

I agree. It would have to be a minimum of 3 times to make it through the outer layers and possibly one more to help it sink in

[wc98]

Vanden Saab said:

While the number of people who believe AGW is not a thing at all is still small, The number of people who are coming to realise that the difference it will make to the world is so small as to make no difference to anybody's life is growing by the day. 30 years of failed climate change models and frankly ridiculous prophesies of doom will do that to any normal thinking person.
The problem and worry that many of us have is that the sensible changes put forward to reduce pollution and make the world a nicer place for everybody will be lost in the inevitable rejection of all climate science once enough time has passed to show it up as the fake science it is.

your last paragraph is the crux of the matter for me. given there are many real environmental issues that could have been addressed with the money spent to date on promoting the magical properties of tax gas it surprises me how many people don't seem interested in the waste of tax payers money.
my brother in law has recently returned from an attempt at filming a documentary with a major uk broadcaster on the continued destruction of rain forest in a certain country to make way for yet more palm oil plantations. the authorities put obstructions in their way at every point,gear and supplies disappearing at customs etc. the people involved in the filming have been told they face heavy sanctions, including jail should the film they did manage to take be broadcast. as some of those involved were born, live and work in the region despite being a uk broadcaster it is possible the film will never see the light of day.

co2 armageddon is a convenient vehicle for the virtue signalers of the west to hang their coat on while ignoring genuine issues like the above that need addressing now struggle to get the attention they deserve. speaking of virtue signalers, the above trip involved people from an organisation associated with a well known ,maybe the most well known in the uk, naturalist. when it came time to head to the jungle where those involved in the filming would be kipping a couple of hundred feet up in the jungle they made their excuses and pissed off to a hotel.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

Of course. The propaganda engine has been running for some time and many have fallen for it.

agreed, the worlds going to end in 5,10,15 or even 50 years if we do not do something about CO2, just had a look outside and thankfully it hasn't happened yet even with all the terrible predictions.

Found a Climate Science paper published by even one of the 49 ex-NASA signatories yet PRTVR?

Come on, I even gave you a link to a list of them.

What is this ?

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

Huge errors in the main global temperature database ! can it be true. Oh yes it is. So models built on garbage data are garbage. I wonder how a single Phd student managed to find these quite huge anomalies in the dataset, and yet all these institutions that are being repeatedly listed, did not? A questions worth asking.

An example of the issues found.

Data coverage was found to vary between 12% and 91% of the Earth's surface, which means that any declared "global average" assumes that temperatures over the part of the world for which no data was available were identical to that average. It also assumes that meaningful trends can be calculated even though the coverage varies. Also revealed was that when coverage was low it was found to be concentrated on particular regions, meaning for example that less than 13% of a hemisphere might account for more than 60% of the data coverage for that hemisphere in a given month.

Sample size was another problem. A single observation station in the entire Southern hemisphere reported data in the first three years of the HadCRUT4 record and only nine were reporting by 1859. The data is processed and presented on a monthly basis as values for each grid cell, each of which covers 5° latitude x 5° longitude. More than 30% of the grid cells derived from sea surface temperature do so from 1850 to about 1950 on the basis of from one to five measurements in the entire month.

Outliers were also discovered in the data, even in the 30-year period from 1961 to 1990 over which long-term average temperatures are calculated and sometimes in the longer period over which standard deviations were calculated. Their presence in these periods firstly widens the range of acceptable values (i.e. includes the inclusion of other outliers) and secondly distorts the crucial long-term average temperatures.

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/