Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
1. No one knows if a minute rise in the planets temperature will be a problem.
2. Planet temperature. What exactly is this?
3. Planet temperature has never been constant in 4,5 Billion years. Do you really believe humans can now control it for ever?
4. Why is todays planet temperature and CO2 level correct?
5. The CO2 level is the lowest it’s ever been in planets 4.5 Billion years life.
6. We're supposedly going to fix the planets 'temp problem' by a minute drop in the CO2 level ?
7. CO2 had been much higher in the past. No Armageddon
8. Climate models are useless. You can’t model a chaotic system, therefore all models are simplistic models, a mathematical guess/fudge.
9. We’re wasting money on a crystal ball gazing, when much more important problems are affecting the planet. Plastic dumping for example.
10. CC doctrine is screwing up the planets energy requirements prediction.
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
Kawasicki said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
1. No one knows if a minute rise in the planets temperature will be a problem.
2. Planet temperature. What exactly is this?
3. Planet temperature has never been constant in 4,5 Billion years. Do you really believe humans can now control it for ever?
4. Why is todays planet temperature and CO2 level correct?
5. The CO2 level is the lowest it’s ever been in planets 4.5 Billion years life.
6. We're supposedly going to fix the planets 'temp problem' by a minute drop in the CO2 level ?
7. CO2 had been much higher in the past. No Armageddon
8. Climate models are useless. You can’t model a chaotic system, therefore all models are simplistic models, a mathematical guess/fudge.
9. We’re wasting money on a crystal ball gazing, when much more important problems are affecting the planet. Plastic dumping for example.
10. CC doctrine is screwing up the planets energy requirements prediction.
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
gadgetmac said:
gadgetmac said:
So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.
Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?
Oh, and about my question this morning..?
wc98: I’ve asked the same question before? Any chance of a reply?Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?
Oh, and about my question this morning..?
i just posted a link to an article where hundreds of people turned up in private jets up to a conference on how to deal with the impact of rising co2 levels. can you not see the utterly gross hypocrisy in that ?
Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 18th September 16:24
chrispmartha said:
Jasandjules said:
chrispmartha said:
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
Cui Bono.El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
Jasandjules said:
chrispmartha said:
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
Cui Bono.AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
wc98 said:
the vast majority of scientists don't appear to be raising alarm over this a small cabal of alarmist scientists and activists are raising most of the alarm.
Absolute conspiratorial bunk. A small group are responsible for all of the scientific institutions and Governments across the globe disagreeing with you. Jesus.Can you please arrange to ignore me as well from now on if your answer is as ridiculous as that.
Cheers.
El stovey said:
He thinks the NASA website answer to his endlessly repeated question regarding temperature rise is fairytales but won’t state his opinions except to say turbobloke speaks for me. 
Well on the one hand him admitting TB speaks for him is just confirmation of the cults hierarchy but on the other hand he will argue that there is no warming whereas TB's stance is slightly different no?In summary, they like having their cake and eating it.
LoonyTunes said:
El stovey said:
He thinks the NASA website answer to his endlessly repeated question regarding temperature rise is fairytales but won’t state his opinions except to say turbobloke speaks for me.
Well on the one hand him admitting TB speaks for him is just confirmation of the cults hierarchy but on the other hand he will argue that there is no warming whereas TB's stance is slightly different no?In summary, they like having their cake and eating it.
And full of irony plus hypocrisy as expected.
When do agw supporters do anything other than put forward a supposed consensus of a satisfyingly vague (and not evidenced) number or percentage of individuals / institutions to speak for them?
The only individual opinions I can remember that don't arise from a logical fallacy is durbster saying in essence that it was obvious that the Sun is a major climate forcing...specific quote: "nobody has said that the sun is not a powerful climate driver" which despite the generalisation and unwitting error (it's not difficult to find agw supporters who adopt untenable positions on solar forcing) still qualifies as an opinion; and several points made by kerplunk in attrition loops over the years, though there may have been another odd occasion lost in all the excitment. Not usually,
Hansen's fellow physicist Prof Happer has pointed out, correctly,. that agw aka manbearpig has grown into a rather silly cult over the past 5 to 10 years.
The key issues still relate not to PH people or other people but to credible empirical data and establishing causality. No opinions, individual or collective, can do anything without support from both and neither are available to agw supporters.
To adopt and adapt a famous quote for an undeserving cause:
It doesn't matter how beautiful a climate model is.
It doesn;t matter how smart agw supporters think their experts are.
If model gigo doesn't agree with credible empirical data, it's wrong.
So, with manbearpig, wrong it is.
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
AGW/CC advocates. Ignore ANY anti posting here, and carry one swiping at those who happen to have a different view. Can’t actually offer any more than “we believe the scientist(s)”.
PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
How can we ignore your view if you don’t post it.PS Forget politicians being on the AGW side, just a load of sheep who swallow anything to make themselves look like clever, important people.
Why if what you say is true do you think that the scientists, governments and institutions are lying?
Meanwhile...
In the febrile world of climate politics we have Florence and Mangkhut causing death and destruction which are disgustingly exploited by national politicians including Al Gore, local politicians (e.g. USA State Governors), activists, media outlets such as the Washington Post, various uninformed but vocal celebs and sundry agw hangers-on who are all frothing at the gills in faux indignation they risibly think is justified.
Those heretics not bending a knee to agw's baseless hurricane hysteria get all manner of abuse.
How wonderful it is under this tide of tripe to see the data putting hystericals, mystics and infantile name-callers in their place once again.
Truchelut and Staeling 2018 "We introduce an extended climatology of US tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity...scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950"
LitRep in Zhao et al 2018: "A vigorous debate has currently focused on the relationship between increasing tropical cyclone activity and increasing sea surface temperatures(Knutson et al. 2010). … Over the Western North Pacific basin,a significant decrease of tropical cyclone frequency TCF has been observed since 1998 (Liu and Chan 2013; Lin and Chan 2015; Zhao and Wang 2016). Global TCF has shown a similar reduction since the late 1990s" (NB therefore it should say 'supposedly increasing tropical cyclone activity')
Without doubt here ^ shouty pro-agw wrong people are wrong.
Finally this saga involving an ex-IPCC chief (below) has been mentioned in more than one previous climate thread and although it's partly O|T for this one here's an update.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/09/17/ex-un-clim...
In the febrile world of climate politics we have Florence and Mangkhut causing death and destruction which are disgustingly exploited by national politicians including Al Gore, local politicians (e.g. USA State Governors), activists, media outlets such as the Washington Post, various uninformed but vocal celebs and sundry agw hangers-on who are all frothing at the gills in faux indignation they risibly think is justified.
Those heretics not bending a knee to agw's baseless hurricane hysteria get all manner of abuse.
How wonderful it is under this tide of tripe to see the data putting hystericals, mystics and infantile name-callers in their place once again.
Truchelut and Staeling 2018 "We introduce an extended climatology of US tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity...scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950"
LitRep in Zhao et al 2018: "A vigorous debate has currently focused on the relationship between increasing tropical cyclone activity and increasing sea surface temperatures(Knutson et al. 2010). … Over the Western North Pacific basin,a significant decrease of tropical cyclone frequency TCF has been observed since 1998 (Liu and Chan 2013; Lin and Chan 2015; Zhao and Wang 2016). Global TCF has shown a similar reduction since the late 1990s" (NB therefore it should say 'supposedly increasing tropical cyclone activity')
Without doubt here ^ shouty pro-agw wrong people are wrong.
Finally this saga involving an ex-IPCC chief (below) has been mentioned in more than one previous climate thread and although it's partly O|T for this one here's an update.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/09/17/ex-un-clim...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff