Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Thoughts from ICECAP about thoughts from Hansen while at NASA said:
James Hansen while at NASA in 1999 said about the U.S. temperature record “In the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934”.
When NASA was challenged on the declining heat records in the U.S, the reply was that the U.S. is just 2% of the world. However, all the continents recorded their all-time record highs before 1980.
Interestingly while the media gives a great deal of coverage to even minor heat waves to support the case that man-made global warming is occurring, the media tends to ignore deadly cold waves. But in actual fact, worldwide cold kills 20 times as many people as heat.
That tax gas holiday has a lot to answer for When NASA was challenged on the declining heat records in the U.S, the reply was that the U.S. is just 2% of the world. However, all the continents recorded their all-time record highs before 1980.
Interestingly while the media gives a great deal of coverage to even minor heat waves to support the case that man-made global warming is occurring, the media tends to ignore deadly cold waves. But in actual fact, worldwide cold kills 20 times as many people as heat.
robinessex said:
I noticed you ignored TB. I wonder why?
It’s because when people have actually checked his posts, they’re usually ‘misrepresenting’ facts and data or just click and pasted from advocacy blogs. If you point it out, followers get upset and accuse you of stalking him.
That’s why I, and most other people apparently, ignore his posts.
Why do you think I ignored it?
Presumably if he was an actual scientist and had actual evidence of the scientific community being wrong, he’d be doing something more useful with it than posting it on here?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Stovey
If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Why should I resign? People will still want to fly to places. If I resign someone else will just take my place. They might be a less efficient pilot than me. If you really do believe global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2, then you are part of the problem being an airline pilot. Do the decent thing, resign and help save the planet from climategeddon.
Like most professional pilots, I’m safely flying as efficiently as possible, getting direct routings, finding the best winds and levels, not carrying loads of extra fuel, reducing taxi time and APU burn, flying efficient approaches and departures and as a workforce we’re helping to introduce and develop loads of other fuel saving measures.
Fuel is the major cost for an airline. Pretty much everything we do is about saving fuel.
I’m not sure why you’re making judgments about me or my job though, I’ve made no comments about how you or anybody else should live.
Edited by El stovey on Saturday 10th November 11:48
robinessex said:
According to AGW scientists, many cataclysmic events were predicated to happen in the last 30yrs. None did. I rest my case!!
During geography GCSE back in 1996, the books were predicting London, most of Wales and various other parts of the country would be under water by 2010 (possibly 2015, I know it was within 20 years at the time) due to rising sea levels. El stovey said:
robinessex said:
I noticed you ignored TB. I wonder why?
It’s because when people have actually checked his posts, they’re usually ‘misrepresenting’ facts and data or just click and pasted from advocacy blogs. If you point it out, followers get upset and accuse you of stalking him.
That’s why I, and most other people apparently, ignore his posts.
Why do you think I ignored it?
Presumably if he was an actual scientist and had actual evidence of the scientific community being wrong, he’d be doing something more useful with it than posting it on here?
turbobloke said:
NASA is a space outfit not a climate body, how come you think their handful of activists deserve your true belief? Why not go for bee keepers? The Flat Earth Society would be a slam dunk as they already believe in manbearpig.
Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
Only you would have the bare faced cheek to post that about NASA whilst simultaneously quoting the GWPF and other discredited organisations as being sources of truth.Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
NASA is a space outfit not a climate body, how come you think their handful of activists deserve your true belief? Why not go for bee keepers? The Flat Earth Society would be a slam dunk as they already believe in manbearpig.
Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
Only you would have the bare faced cheek to post that about NASA whilst simultaneously quoting the GWPF and other discredited organisations as being sources of truth.Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
NASA is a space outfit not a climate body, how come you think their handful of activists deserve your true belief? Why not go for bee keepers? The Flat Earth Society would be a slam dunk as they already believe in manbearpig.
Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
Only you would have the bare faced cheek to post that about NASA whilst simultaneously quoting the GWPF and other discredited organisations as being sources of truth.Every other scientific institution of note - not so unless you need to note them (probably).
The Heartland Institute? Where to start? But then this has all been pointed out to you many many times. In fact there's a list somewhere, about time he updated that.
Wobbegong said:
robinessex said:
According to AGW scientists, many cataclysmic events were predicated to happen in the last 30yrs. None did. I rest my case!!
During geography GCSE back in 1996, the books were predicting London, most of Wales and various other parts of the country would be under water by 2010 (possibly 2015, I know it was within 20 years at the time) due to rising sea levels. New York was submerged in 2015.
No, hold that thought, it wasn't - just another hilariously bonkers false prediction in an absurdly long list of ecoclaptrap based on junkscience. And yet, people belieeeeeeve.
In 1988, a WaPo reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 years' time i.e. 2008 not 2015.
Hansen said:
West Side Highway - which runs along the Hudson River - will be under water.
This is just as hilarious. Check out the names of the included deluded.
ABC News Good Morning America on air12th June 2008 said:
8:34am
BOB WOODRUFF: You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.
[NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention.
JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it.
Graphic: Welcome to 2015
PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem.
JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.
UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE : Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are
rising.
HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.
CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?
WOODRUFF: It's very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you've got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You've got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we're approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.
WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we're going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that's going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we've gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look.
UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.
SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon.
Remarkable interviews BOB WOODRUFF: You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.
[NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention.
JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it.
Graphic: Welcome to 2015
PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem.
JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.
UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE : Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are
rising.
HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.
CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?
WOODRUFF: It's very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you've got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You've got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we're approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.
WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we're going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that's going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we've gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look.
UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.
SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon.
if remarkable means being serially erroneous. On the same day in June 2015, New York wasn't underwater, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39 and gas cost an average of $2.75
Such are the fruits of ecological nuts. In reality even by 2018...
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al, Dansgaard et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Highly entertaining anthropogenic gobbledigook warming but foolish politicians are still basing policy on it at great and pointless cost.
Read this letter to President Trump and look at who has signed it and then wonder how you ever quote him as a source for anything.
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stori...
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stori...
gadgetmac said:
They discredit themselves when they quote Lindzen as the world's greatest climate scientist whilst over 20 of his fellow climate scientists are busy writing to the president disassociating themselves from him. They also refuse to name their financial backers.
Why? Because they don't like what he says ? Silence the disbelievers eh? Why not let the science stand on its truth and correctness. Like all other science does.Scientific verification
The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data. What does this require? Two concepts are fundamental in discussing scientific method: truth and justification (warrant). A hypothesis is true if it corresponds to the way the world is. Justification has to do with the grounds we have for believing a given statement to be true. A hypothesis is rationally warranted if a body of evidence and inference has been provided in support of it. Ideally, the fact that a statement is rationally warranted ought to make it likely that the statement is true. (This treatment makes apparent the relevance of Baysian theory to scientific inference. The questions have to do with the transmission of rational credibility from one body of beliefs to another.) Philosophers have introduced several concepts and theories on the basis of which to analyze the logical and inferential relations between empirical data and scientific hypotheses, including observation, falsifiability, confirmation, and experimental method. One of the most important consequences of this extended and complex debate is the conclusion that theories cannot be verified, but they can be confirmed, warranted, or falsified.
The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data. What does this require? Two concepts are fundamental in discussing scientific method: truth and justification (warrant). A hypothesis is true if it corresponds to the way the world is. Justification has to do with the grounds we have for believing a given statement to be true. A hypothesis is rationally warranted if a body of evidence and inference has been provided in support of it. Ideally, the fact that a statement is rationally warranted ought to make it likely that the statement is true. (This treatment makes apparent the relevance of Baysian theory to scientific inference. The questions have to do with the transmission of rational credibility from one body of beliefs to another.) Philosophers have introduced several concepts and theories on the basis of which to analyze the logical and inferential relations between empirical data and scientific hypotheses, including observation, falsifiability, confirmation, and experimental method. One of the most important consequences of this extended and complex debate is the conclusion that theories cannot be verified, but they can be confirmed, warranted, or falsified.
gadgetmac said:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed...
Who failed miserably.
Oh well, lets keep the grants coming, so we can continue guessing.
robinessex said:
Oh look, lots of very clever professors predicting planet Armageddon. Just like this lot:-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed...
Who failed miserably.
Oh well, lets keep the grants coming, so we can continue guessing.
whatsupwiththat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed...
Who failed miserably.
Oh well, lets keep the grants coming, so we can continue guessing.
Carry on ignoring the discrediting of your pin up boy by the climate scientists.
You wanted proof, I supplied it.
Job jobbed. Have a nice evening.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, lots of very clever professors predicting planet Armageddon. Just like this lot:-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed...
Who failed miserably.
Oh well, lets keep the grants coming, so we can continue guessing.
whatsupwiththat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed...
Who failed miserably.
Oh well, lets keep the grants coming, so we can continue guessing.
Carry on ignoring the discrediting of your pin up boy by the climate scientists.
You wanted proof, I supplied it.
Job jobbed. Have a nice evening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff