Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LoonyTunes]

With This Staff said:

Nah - getting in touch with my inner 'Green'

A troglodytic existence has its charms!

A constant temperature for a start.

It was anything but constant we're told by the deniers.

Still the thought processes are roughly similar.

[With This Staff]

LoonyTunes said:

With This Staff said:

Nah - getting in touch with my inner 'Green'

A troglodytic existence has its charms!

A constant temperature for a start.

It was anything but constant we're told by the deniers.

Still the thought processes are roughly similar.

Caverns tend to maintain a constant temp - caverns may be unaware of this and certainly lack either the conscience to be aware of their surroundings nor the ability to control them.

I like caverns!

[wc98]

Jinx said:

The denier meme was coined for its antisemitic connotations. It was a deliberate attempt to equate holocaust denial with climate change denial.

not surprising given they think this is acceptable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkfEX0sqAI .

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

Closer than you think. I too have a PhD. So I guess that makes me a doctor. I am also a university professor.

Fantastic. Dr Diderot. That’s going to sound great when you’re involved in the PHs scientific consensus changing paper.

What’s your PHD in? Why have you kept these impressive qualifications quiet for so long?

Neither fantastic nor impressive really to be honest Stovey. One serves one's time. That’s the nature of doctoral research. Post Doc wise it’s more interesting as one starts to gain some traction and so called reputation. In my case I chose to pursue a more practice based research agenda, but then I also got pulled back into writing book chapters etc which was like pulling bloody teeth. All for the sake of the next REF. Publish or be damned. That is one's lot in UK unis.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

It was anything but constant we're told by the deniers.

Still the thought processes are roughly similar.

You know the etymology and yet you still use the term......

At least we have thought processes.....

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Sense slowly returning. ADB Financing fossil fuel projects again. Seems there is money in keeping the lights on. Who knew !

https://climatechangedispatch.com/major-african-ba...

[wc98]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Sense slowly returning. ADB Financing fossil fuel projects again. Seems there is money in keeping the lights on. Who knew !

https://climatechangedispatch.com/major-african-ba...

when virtue signaling and reality collide

[wc98]

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

i largely agree with you, but to be fair to gadgettunesloonymac it did prompt a rather informative email exchange between myself and a professor stark after it claimed an article i linked didn't mention climate change and by implication current issues in the rest of the entire scientific world didn't apply to climate science. (note that last bit is my interpretation of its post, wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in its mouth )

Fortunately professor stark didn't agree with gadgetloonymactunes and sent me some links to other articles he has authored/co authored
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/sal...
https://www.nature.com/articles/532177a

[stew-STR160]

wc98 said:

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

i largely agree with you, but to be fair to gadgettunesloonymac it did prompt a rather informative email exchange between myself and a professor stark after it claimed an article i linked didn't mention climate change and by implication current issues in the rest of the entire scientific world didn't apply to climate science. (note that last bit is my interpretation of its post, wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in its mouth )

Fortunately professor stark didn't agree with gadgetloonymactunes and sent me some links to other articles he has authored/co authored
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/sal...
https://www.nature.com/articles/532177a

I'm sure LT will be along soon to say that Prof Stark is in the pay of big oil now and can't be trusted/used as an unbiased example of his religious beliefs.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

stew-STR160 said:

wc98 said:

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

i largely agree with you, but to be fair to gadgettunesloonymac it did prompt a rather informative email exchange between myself and a professor stark after it claimed an article i linked didn't mention climate change and by implication current issues in the rest of the entire scientific world didn't apply to climate science. (note that last bit is my interpretation of its post, wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in its mouth )

Fortunately professor stark didn't agree with gadgetloonymactunes and sent me some links to other articles he has authored/co authored
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/sal...
https://www.nature.com/articles/532177a

I'm sure LT will be along soon to say that Prof Stark is in the pay of big oil now and can't be trusted/used as an unbiased example of his religious beliefs.

I will quickly summarise the reaction you can expect.

1. He does not agree with me, thus must be wrong,

2. Heartland institute

3. Discredited, sorry, character assassination, by some random warming website i quickly googled

4. his qualifications are not PROPER climate science

5. I cannot find anything, so will make up random garbage about consensus being the new real true science.

I will put him on my naughty list. So there !!!!! And repeat this message continually, to drown out any serious discussion.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 18th October 08:51

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

wc98 said:

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

i largely agree with you, but to be fair to gadgettunesloonymac it did prompt a rather informative email exchange between myself and a professor stark after it claimed an article i linked didn't mention climate change and by implication current issues in the rest of the entire scientific world didn't apply to climate science. (note that last bit is my interpretation of its post, wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in its mouth )

Fortunately professor stark didn't agree with gadgetloonymactunes and sent me some links to other articles he has authored/co authored
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/sal...
https://www.nature.com/articles/532177a

I'm sure LT will be along soon to say that Prof Stark is in the pay of big oil now and can't be trusted/used as an unbiased example of his religious beliefs.

Well is he? Because all of your other sources fit the bill

Not sure it's even worth checking any more

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

It was anything but constant we're told by the deniers.

Still the thought processes are roughly similar.

You know the etymology and yet you still use the term......

At least we have thought processes.....

Yeah, warped ones.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Yeah, warped ones.

Only way to understand quantum theory is with a warped mind

[wc98]

stew-STR160 said:

I'm sure LT will be along soon to say that Prof Stark is in the pay of big oil now and can't be trusted/used as an unbiased example of his religious beliefs.

given he is big on consensus another link (to the worlds most popular website on global warming and climate change) showing how consensus science fails yet again might be an idea .

"So much for “consensus” based predictions. Not just a basic consensus mind you, but a supermajority, like, ummm 97% or something like that. They even wrote a paper about that consensus, which you can read here https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/imag...

Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?

With the exception of Svalgaard, the panel of consensus scientists were all wrong , and Cycle 24 is turning out to be a complete forecast bust, and the the lowest in 100 years, and it was neither extreme, nor average.
So much for consensus based science! "
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/09/how-consens...

[clyffepypard]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

stew-STR160 said:

wc98 said:

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

i largely agree with you, but to be fair to gadgettunesloonymac it did prompt a rather informative email exchange between myself and a professor stark after it claimed an article i linked didn't mention climate change and by implication current issues in the rest of the entire scientific world didn't apply to climate science. (note that last bit is my interpretation of its post, wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in its mouth )

Fortunately professor stark didn't agree with gadgetloonymactunes and sent me some links to other articles he has authored/co authored
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/sal...
https://www.nature.com/articles/532177a

I'm sure LT will be along soon to say that Prof Stark is in the pay of big oil now and can't be trusted/used as an unbiased example of his religious beliefs.

I will quickly summarise the reaction you can expect.

1. He does not agree with me, thus must be wrong,

2. Heartland institute

3. Discredited, sorry, character assassination, by some random warming website i quickly googled

4. his qualifications are not PROPER climate science

5. I cannot find anything, so will make up random garbage about consensus being the new real true science.

I will put him on my naughty list. So there !!!!! And repeat this message continually, to drown out any serious discussion.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 18th October 08:51

More likely he'll just ignore the inconvenient truth, and continue to spam the thread with his pathetic list of political statements from those piling onto the CAGW bandwagon. Followed by more "holocaust" Denier slurs against those that call him out for such behaviour. Definitely best to ignore the obnoxious trolls.

[LoonyTunes]

Todays latest entry in at number 43 is from the former colony of Australia and they appear to have many PhD's between them but strangely don't agree with the cult either.


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)
42. European Federation of Geologists
43. Australian Institute of Physics


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

Don't forget to wake me when you've got one

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/09/how-consensus-science-blew-the-solar-cycle-24-prediction-which-turned-out-to-be-the-lowest-in-100-years/

I could really feel that global-cooling kicking in this morning. Very chilly.

[LoonyTunes]

clyffepypard said:

Definitely best to ignore the obnoxious trolls.

I try to, but it's difficult, it's like whack-a-mole in here with you trolls.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

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

If you were to ask a question that actually made any sense, maybe you would be given an answer Troll.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

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

If you were to ask a question that actually made any sense, maybe you would be given an answer Troll.

If you were a REAL Professor/Doctor you have the gumption to know what I'm talking about - Troll.

Frankly, you'd also be a bit above name calling on the Internet but your about as much a Professor as I'm a Brain Surgeon.