Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
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:
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.
you really are a a bit stupid aren't you. did you miss this that i posted yesterday.as said before,none of you bar chris and durbs are interested in anything posted in relation to the debate, just blethering rubbish. as per request your wish is my command,or should that be your pish is on remand Can you please arrange to ignore me as well from now on if your answer is as ridiculous as that.
Cheers.
some proper climate politics to balance out the stuff that should be on the science forum smile the name of the website suggests it might be slightly on the mentalist side. i have no idea, it was contained in another link i was reading and found it interesting.the first line in bold is not surprising.
Though the strategy in the Steyer-Lehane memo aimed to win policy victories, it was also deeply political and sought to use "wedge" issues to force Republicans into politically difficult positions on climate and energy policy.
The memo stressed the importance of "demonstrating the efficacy of climate as a winning political issue (i.e., during competitive elections, climate can be deployed both to support Democratic voter performance, as well as to raise basic trust issues with individual candidates that further degrade the Republican brand)."
It recommended that Obama pursue policies that "can be accomplished through regulation or executive powers by the end of 2014" in order to either enact left-wing climate goals or implicate Republicans in attempting to block them.
The memo recommended enlisting every federal agency in the effort, appointing a climate policy lead in each agency, and regularly coordinating messaging and policy efforts with a point person at the White House.
It also proposed the creation of an "extreme weather SWAT team" that would immediately seize on natural disasters and other extreme weather events to advance a political and communications agenda.
The team would "work together and engage when extreme weather happens — including response; local outreach; media; science information about historic nature of the event; and coordinating possible principal travel (POTUS, FLOTUS, VPOTUS, Cabinet)," the memo explained.
All of those efforts would reinforce a central component in what the memo dubbed the "Big Idea": that the administration and its allies on climate policy are the "good guys," while those who oppose its agenda are morally compromised.
"The energy for any campaign involving social change is to define what is at stake in very simple terms of who is right and who is wrong," the memo explained. "To succeed, the issue must always be framed as taking action for the right reason while being opposed for the wrong reason."
As a corollary to that strategy, the memo cautioned against getting bogged down in facts. "One cannot be handcuffed by data on a fundamental moral issue of this kind," it explained.
Steyer and Lehane did not respond to questions about the memo and subsequent White House climate policy.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/hacked-memo-reveal...
turbobloke said:
Good news. McKitrick and Christy have published a major peer-reviewed paper which is not long out in the journal Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. This is the latest nail in the nail-filled coffin of agw and nonsensical demands for decarbonisation plus other political action arising from it. In USA parlance models amount to nothing but a hill of beans and those beans came from taxpayers darnit.
‘Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
i posted a link to it this morning at 9.00 am ‘Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
. none of them have read it yet. the only one that might will be chris.turbobloke said:
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
What error? 
As I explain every time you try and use that sentence for your propaganda purposes, it had absolutely nothing to do with endorsing your position (whatever that happened to be that day). It is simply acknowledging the sun is the biggest influence on our climate. How controversial.
If I recall that was after I'd contacted several scientists that you had cited, including some researching solar activity, and they all told me they had no problem with AGW, and that you had been misrepresenting their work.
So not content with consistently misrepresenting the words and work of scientists, including ones you cite, you're now grossly misrepresenting my words too, and I would appreciate it if you didn't.
durbster said:
So not content with consistently misrepresenting the words and work of scientists, including ones you cite, you're now grossly misrepresenting my words too, and I would appreciate it if you didn't.
It’s quite deliberate. I think it’s called ‘post truth’ or ‘alternative facts’. It’s a new kind of politics where facts and experts are distrusted, no need for encyclopaedias and a baseline of facts, and you can find or even make your own facts from distortion of others facts.
We used to call it making stuff up.
wc98 said:
turbobloke said:
Good news. McKitrick and Christy have published a major peer-reviewed paper which is not long out in the journal Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. This is the latest nail in the nail-filled coffin of agw and nonsensical demands for decarbonisation plus other political action arising from it. In USA parlance models amount to nothing but a hill of beans and those beans came from taxpayers darnit.
‘Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
i posted a link to it this morning at 9.00 am ‘Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
. none of them have read it yet. the only one that might will be chris.durbster said:
What error?
As I explain every time you try and use that sentence for your propaganda purposes, it had absolutely nothing to do with endorsing your position (whatever that happened to be that day). It is simply acknowledging the sun is the biggest influence on our climate. How controversial.
If I recall that was after I'd contacted several scientists that you had cited, including some researching solar activity, and they all told me they had no problem with AGW, and that you had been misrepresenting their work.
So not content with consistently misrepresenting the words and work of scientists, including ones you cite, you're now grossly misrepresenting my words too, and I would appreciate it if you didn't.
Do the other Deniers on here who either support or quote Turbobloke (ie robinessex and others) not have anything to say on this?As I explain every time you try and use that sentence for your propaganda purposes, it had absolutely nothing to do with endorsing your position (whatever that happened to be that day). It is simply acknowledging the sun is the biggest influence on our climate. How controversial.
If I recall that was after I'd contacted several scientists that you had cited, including some researching solar activity, and they all told me they had no problem with AGW, and that you had been misrepresenting their work.
So not content with consistently misrepresenting the words and work of scientists, including ones you cite, you're now grossly misrepresenting my words too, and I would appreciate it if you didn't.
I’d ask but it would be yet another question they wouldn’t answer.
durbster said:
If I recall that was after I'd contacted several scientists that you had cited, including some researching solar activity, and they all told me they had no problem with AGW, and that you had been misrepresenting their work.
did you contact leif svalgaard ? the only solar scientist that has actually made a correct prediction regarding solar cycles ?[b]leif said "Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, just to mention some of the
(increasingly scary) monikers that are being deployed these days have become a divisive
political issue, seemingly divorced from scientific discourse.[/b] If it were not for the highjacking
of the subject by politicians, environmental pressure groups, and plain wishful
eco-thinking, one would conclude from the present overview that Climate Science is a
vigorous field with healthy debate and exciting interdisciplinary facets rather than a
moribund body of ‘Settled Science’ without prospects for further progress, perhaps like
Physics at the end of the 19th century. However, science is ultimately a self-correcting
process where the scientific community plays a crucial and collective role, so we will
eventually get it right, with or without political and societal interference, if the last two
millennia are any guide. In the meantime we “may hope to enjoy future ages with more
equable and better climates”, Svante Arrhenius [the originator of the GHG theory, 1896].
http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie...
chrispmartha said:
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?
[/quote
Good. I've a brick wall here at home I can bang my head against if I want a headache. PS. If you bother to trawl though the first 4 Vols of this debate, your question will be answered. I've posted enough there.
durbster said:
If I recall that was after I'd contacted several scientists that you had cited, including some researching solar activity, and they all told me they had no problem with AGW, and that you had been misrepresenting their work.
You've missed or forgotten two key points even if you did pester anyone as claimed.Interpreting data one way or another isn't misrepresenting anything. This tired old chestnut was roasted long ago. Claiming it's misrepresentation is misleading. Also you're asking people operating in a febrile arena to put their heads over the parapet with opinion, to a stranger (you), and the result is obvious.
The other point is that in my recently posted list of peer-reviewed science which demonstrated multiply that there's nothing unprecedented in the hyped areas of politicised climate science I listed, I specifically pointed out - check the wording by all means - that I was not appealing to anybody's opinion but to the data involved.
Too personal. Too much on opinions which are ten a penny. Nothing on credible empirical data and the reasonableness of interpretation. Your post hasn't got a valid point anywhere in sight.
king. You're fooling NOBODY.So, every 'scientist' who supports AGW is beyond reproach. Their research and models are perfect. And all who support a (laughable) consensus are the ones we should trust?
And on the other side, any who disagree with any of the above are funded by big oil/Heartland/something else and their entire work can be laughed off and dismissed?
Right...
And on the other side, any who disagree with any of the above are funded by big oil/Heartland/something else and their entire work can be laughed off and dismissed?
Right...
chrispmartha said:
dickymint said:
Isn’t John Christy a Climate Scientist
And an expert for, wait for it......The Heartland Institute.
The data and science from Christy stand on their merits. His role is not with Heartland, he's Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Using your logic or tather the lack of it, are you really OK with experts for the IPCC? The biggest advocacy outfit in this field funded by politicians for a purpose and run by people who are almost all political placements. Funded by politicians and operated such that the science must conform to the political summaries written for, wait for it, politicians. As bad as it gets...but pause for your thought is that Christy is an IPCC Lead Author, a rare non-political appointee. Lovely. Or appalling in your (il)logical approach.
turbobloke said:
chrispmartha said:
dickymint said:
Isn’t John Christy a Climate Scientist
And an expert for, wait for it......The Heartland Institute.
The data and science from Christy stand on their merits. His role is not with Heartland, he's Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Using your logic or tather the lack of it, are you really OK with experts for the IPCC? The biggest advocacy outfit in this field funded by politicians for a purpose and run by people who are almost all political placements. Funded by politicians and operated such that the science must conform to the political summaries written for, wait for it, politicians. As bad as it gets...but pause for your thought is that Christy is an IPCC Lead Author. Lovely. Or appalling in your (il)logical approach.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff