Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LongQ]

wc98 said:

as a kid i used to idolise him. watched and read everything he did. these days not so much. i think the kindest applicable term i can think of is "gone emeritus" .

It seems his 'role' at COP24 is to present some sort of emotional, tugging at the heart strings, presentation of the 'fears' of the masses. The masses are being asked to provide a supply of fear statements that he can present. Presumably now that head of the UN Environment organisation has resigned over excessive CO2 liberation through the medium of travel their PR operation needs a figurehead of some sort to give them a form of credibility.

Probably a good role for him. Emotion rather than understanding. That said it might be easier for him if the comments were to be provided by animals other than humans.

Maybe he will have an opportunity to push his population reduction message once again.

On the positive side, at least it is all clearly politics rather than science.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Hey Mr. El Stovey, you've not answered my earlier question to you.

Sorry missed it. Was it a good question?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Hey Mr. El Stovey, you've not answered my earlier question to you.

Sorry missed it. Was it a good question?

Repeat

Mr El Stovey, while you are here. As a professional Plane driver, do you 100% believe what your instruments are indicating, and that they’re never ever ever ever ever wrong ?

[gadgetmac]

And you haven't answered mine.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Hey Mr. El Stovey, you've not answered my earlier question to you.

Sorry missed it. Was it a good question?

Repeat

Mr El Stovey, while you are here. As a professional Plane driver, do you 100% believe what your instruments are indicating, and that they’re never ever ever ever ever wrong ?

No, there are usually a few different versions of the same instrument with different sources of information and backups, sometimes they give conflicting information. You have to evaluate the information and work out which ones are correct.

Much like this climate change stuff.

If my artificial horizon and the first officers are showing something different we can cross check with the standby one and other sources of information and work out which is right. You guys are a bit like the first officers instrument that’s wrong as it’s getting the corrupted data or misinterpreting it. The captain’s and the standby and all the other instruments are contradicting you. You’re not correct.

Actually what you’re really doing is being the person that walks into the flight deck on the ground and says they know all about it and asks which is the chemtrail button.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 22 November 13:14

[robinessex]

So, despite the enormous effort that goes into your flight instruments to make them almost infallible, you are rightly taught to interpret them with a degree of scepticism. So why then do you not show a similar degree of scepticism re climate change science, when it's shockingly poor, with holes in it all over the place?

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

So, despite the enormous effort that goes into your flight instruments to make them almost infallible, you are rightly taught to interpret them with a degree of scepticism. So why then do you not show a similar degree of scepticism re climate change science, when it's shockingly poor, with holes in it all over the place?

I’ve pointed it out above. Was that just your saved answer regardless of what I posted?

You review all the sources of information and make a decision. If all the instruments apart from one are saying one thing and one is saying another, it’s likely that the one is malfunctioning.

What you’re doing is saying the one instrument is right and ignoring the multiple instruments and sources of information contradicting it.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

So, despite the enormous effort that goes into your flight instruments to make them almost infallible, you are rightly taught to interpret them with a degree of scepticism. So why then do you not show a similar degree of scepticism re climate change science, when it's shockingly poor, with holes in it all over the place?

I’ve pointed it out above. Was that just your saved answer regardless of what I posted?

You review all the sources of information and make a decision. If all the instruments apart from one are saying one thing and one is saying another, it’s likely that the one is malfunctioning.

What you’re doing is saying the one instrument is right and ignoring the multiple instruments and sources of information contradicting it.

Oh dear. Was that an deliberate swerve, or didn't you read and understand the point I'm making?

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Oh dear. Was that an deliberate swerve, or didn't you read and understand the point I'm making?

I’ve quite clearly answered your question twice now.

TBH after pestering me on different threads about it, I was hoping for something a bit better.

For the third time. You don’t just blindly follow your instruments, you gather information and cross check them with others and if you get conflicting information and one is showing different data than the others it’s likely to be the one that’s wrong.

That’s what’s going on here you’re saying one thing and all of the scientific community and scientists and scientific institutions and pretty much everyone who has a clue is disagreeing with you.

So the likelihood is that you’re the malfunctioning instrument is it not?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Oh dear. Was that an deliberate swerve, or didn't you read and understand the point I'm making?

I’ve quite clearly answered your question twice now.

TBH after pestering me on different threads about it, I was hoping for something a bit better.

For the third time. You don’t just blindly follow your instruments, you gather information and cross check them with others and if you get conflicting information and one is showing different data than the others it’s likely to be the one that’s wrong.

That’s what’s going on here you’re saying one thing and all of the scientific community and scientists and scientific institutions and pretty much everyone who has a clue is disagreeing with you.

So the likelihood is that you’re the malfunctioning instrument is it not?

I've concluded that you don't want to see the point. I will therefore finish with this:-

I’ll rephrase part of your reply for you

“You don’t just blindly follow the science, you gather information and cross check them with others and if you get conflicting information and one is showing different data than the others it’s likely to be the science that’s wrong.”

[anonymous-user]

I must say robinessex.

This is possibly the worst point I’ve ever seen you make.

It’s unwieldy and inaccurate and ends with some misquoted text that makes no sense.

Have you really been bothering me on different threads with this nonsense?

You must admit, it’s not exactly your finest work?

Shall we just move on?

[motco]

robinessex said:

Climate change: Warming gas concentrations at new record high

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Concentrations of key gases in the atmosphere that are driving up global temperatures reached a new high in 2017
Since 1990 the warming impact of these long lived gases on the climate has increased by 41%....................continues

Can they proove that ?

2017 continues the rise in concentrations of CO2 which are now 46% greater than the levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution.

And Armageddon didn't happen. Oh dear !!!

A doubling of fk all is still fk all. Or rather 0.0405% CO2 in the atmosphere.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

I must say robinessex.

This is possibly the worst point I’ve ever seen you make.

It’s unwieldy and inaccurate and ends with some misquoted text that makes no sense.

Have you really been bothering me on different threads with this nonsense?

You must admit, it’s not exactly your finest work?

Shall we just move on?

Might as well, as you've deliberately decided not to see my point. You could look up the word analogy though, might help. Leopard never changes it's spots and all that. I’m sure others here will see it though.

[robinessex]

motco said:

robinessex said:

Climate change: Warming gas concentrations at new record high

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...

Concentrations of key gases in the atmosphere that are driving up global temperatures reached a new high in 2017
Since 1990 the warming impact of these long lived gases on the climate has increased by 41%....................continues

Can they proove that ?

2017 continues the rise in concentrations of CO2 which are now 46% greater than the levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution.

And Armageddon didn't happen. Oh dear !!!

A doubling of fk all is still fk all. Or rather 0.0405% CO2 in the atmosphere.

They could've added that it's still at it's lowest level since the planet was born

[Kawasicki]

Blogger corrects peer reviewed and widely publicised paper from climate scientists....the correction doesn't make waves

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046...

[dickymint]

Kawasicki said:

Blogger corrects peer reviewed and widely publicised paper from climate scientists....the correction doesn't make waves

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046...

Headline news when it hit.........tucked away in the Science section when found to be bullst

[wc98]

Kawasicki said:

Blogger corrects peer reviewed and widely publicised paper from climate scientists....the correction doesn't make waves

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046...

note comments still refer to original article and comments are closed for the updated correction. i wonder why ? no ,actually i don't, they wouldn't like all their virtue signaling watermelon mates that turn up to comment on the articles to be rightly ridiculed for jumping on yet another trash paper claiming thermageddon.

to be fair the authors in the case are at least attempting to do the right thing,as much as it must grate. i believe the lead author keeling is the son of ralph keeling so i would imagine he has a good grounding in traditional science as opposed to climate sceance. should stand him in good stead among that crowd. gavin the schit making a big fuss about it on real climate apparently. wtf it has to do with that narcisstic toss bag i have no idea. maybe trump is making him nervous.

[Diderot]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Oh dear. Was that an deliberate swerve, or didn't you read and understand the point I'm making?

I’ve quite clearly answered your question twice now.

TBH after pestering me on different threads about it, I was hoping for something a bit better.

For the third time. You don’t just blindly follow your instruments, you gather information and cross check them with others and if you get conflicting information and one is showing different data than the others it’s likely to be the one that’s wrong.

That’s what’s going on here you’re saying one thing and all of the scientific community and scientists and scientific institutions and pretty much everyone who has a clue is disagreeing with you.

So the likelihood is that you’re the malfunctioning instrument is it not?

Still flying and destroying the planet I see?

Beyond the hypocrisy which is of course entirely aligned with the UNIPCC's grand narrative, have you actually bothered to read the Climategate emails? If you haven't yet done so, then please do as I feel confident that given your background as a pilot you would be more than a little alarmed at the appalling lack of integrity demonstrated by the soi-disant scientists involved. In particular I think you would find the comments by one of the poor PhD lackeys crunching numbers most enlightening if not very very frightening. Mama mia et hoc genus omne.

I fecking hate flying and haven't been on a plane since 1990 - so I is virtuous innit - but I would like to imagine that when I do have to board one of those infernal flying contraptions that the pilot is vaguely sentient. Please give me at least one non plastic straw to clutch onto.

[Diderot]

LongQ said:

wc98 said:

as a kid i used to idolise him. watched and read everything he did. these days not so much. i think the kindest applicable term i can think of is "gone emeritus" .

It seems his 'role' at COP24 is to present some sort of emotional, tugging at the heart strings, presentation of the 'fears' of the masses. The masses are being asked to provide a supply of fear statements that he can present. Presumably now that head of the UN Environment organisation has resigned over excessive CO2 liberation through the medium of travel their PR operation needs a figurehead of some sort to give them a form of credibility.

Probably a good role for him. Emotion rather than understanding. That said it might be easier for him if the comments were to be provided by animals other than humans.

Maybe he will have an opportunity to push his population reduction message once again.

On the positive side, at least it is all clearly politics rather than science.

Am I imagining it or does he not belong to an organisation that seeks to limit population growth?

[Diderot]

Kawasicki said:

Blogger corrects peer reviewed and widely publicised paper from climate scientists....the correction doesn't make waves

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046...

But but but, the science is settled. Surely? What do you mean, there is some debate about the numbers? But Al Gore swore on US TV and in cinemas that the science was settled.

Kawasicki are you really saying that those experts, who would have indubitably appeared on one of the erstwhile alarmist's tiresome and meaningless lists were, like, er, like, er, wrong? But the science is settled innit?

Is this like er the few billion new trees they found down the back of the sofa when they actually looked?