Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[jet_noise]

El stovey said:

gadgetmac said:

As I've said before, I've been reading this thread for years and can't remember one denier quote that didn't fall down on one of those points.

They must wonder why they’re always on the opposite side to all the scientists and scientific institutions and all their evidence comes from dodgy websites.

BUT IT’S SNOWED! THEREFORE THERE’S NO WARMING!

Got to balance out the similar-styled but opposing claims:
But there's a wildfire. Catastrophic climate chaos* is proven! And its all the fault of humans using (shudders, holds keyboard at arms length) fossil fuels

*Or whatever its brand is these days.

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

They must wonder why they’re always on the opposite side to all the scientists and scientific institutions and all their evidence comes from dodgy websites.

Not at all. That misdirection involving the expected logical fallacy 'appeal to activists in organisations' was always destined to fail badly.

Check out this thread for a plethora of peer-reviewed papers showing how the.false claims around wildfires / corals / ice / hurricanes / floods / drought / temps / bears etc have no basis in empirical data.

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 have increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al

You / other pro-agw folks have nothing to offer beyond same old fallacies + sarc + ad homs.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

No, because I actually read the article and Viner doesn't say it will never snow again.

As gets pointed out every year, this particular bullst is based on a misrepresentation of a single sentence from a sensationalist tabloid article written a dozen years ago. Ooh, devastating.

As is usually the case with turbospam, it's presented to appear significant, but anyone with scepticism will see through it. I'm not surprised you didn't.

It was in the Independent (since deleted)
PDF link Have a read.

I've read it, hence what I said.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

durbster said:

gadgetmac said:

We’re all still waiting for Turboblokes downturn in Global Temps due to the new Solar Minimum. He made a big deal about this a while back and how we were all going to look silly when it begins, this year.

Oh course the irony of denier forecasting the future isn’t lost on me.

I found Don Easterbrook when having a giggle at Terminator X's list yesterday.

He declared in 2001 that global cooling was about to start. Then was found to be fiddling the data, prompting a letter

It's funny that the so called self-labelled sceptics haven't mentioned him

I saw Don Easterbrook pretty much admit his global cooling predictions were politically motivated once on Roy Spencer's blog. He was being harassed to comment about his failed predictions until he finally snapped back that while his predictions were wrong he was on the 'right' side of history and if his predictions served to delay CO2 mitigation he was glad to have made them.

So basically the same sort of message that Stephen Schneider used but perhaps from a different perspective.

[Dindoit]

El stovey said:

BUT IT’S SNOWED! THEREFORE THERE’S NO WARMING!

I HAD TO SCRAPE ICE OFF MY WINDSCREEN THIS MORNING. EXPLAIN THAT!

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Not at all. That misdirection involving the expected logical fallacy 'appeal to activists in organisations' was always destined to fail badly.

Check out this thread for a plethora of peer-reviewed papers showing how the.false claims around wildfires / corals / ice / hurricanes / floods / drought / temps / bears etc have no basis in empirical data.

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 have increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al

You / other pro-agw folks have nothing to offer beyond same old fallacies + sarc + ad homs.

The GWPF have been in touch I see. Half a dozen cobbled together papers (one from 1993 I believe) that won’t even agree with each other does not a coherent argument make. Throwing loads of mud at something and hoping some of it sticks is one strategy I suppose.

I wont go through them all but even a quick look at the first one is enlightening.

If you go with Dansgaard-Oeschger events (as I assume you want to do given the reference to Dandgaard) as your villian then you have to admit that Global Warming is a real thing and it’s really happening, its just that the cause is some millenial and a half event instead of MMGW.

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming? Or are the goal posts shifting yet again? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

It also shows the paucity of papers available if these are the best examples of the denier genre. But they’re not, they’re just what has come to be termed ‘Turbospam’ on NP & E.

[jet_noise]

Dindoit said:

El stovey said:

BUT IT’S SNOWED! THEREFORE THERE’S NO WARMING!

I HAD TO SCRAPE ICE OFF MY WINDSCREEN THIS MORNING. EXPLAIN THAT!

Stop it, you'll give him a seizure
Oh, and the answer to your question:

You haven't got a Ford

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Dear oh dear. Durbster, does Viner's utter and unadulterated BS send shivers down your spine every year around this time? Is it as if your face is thrust into that lovely pristine powder that was never meant to be seen or known again. Get it wrong did he? Just like every single climate model gets it wrong every single time?

No, because I actually read the article and Viner doesn't say it will never snow again.

As gets pointed out every year, this particular bullst is based on a misrepresentation of a single sentence from a sensationalist tabloid article written a dozen years ago. Ooh, devastating.

As is usually the case with turbospam, it's presented to appear significant, but anyone with scepticism will see through it. I'm not surprised you didn't.

You what? Tabloid article? It was in the Independent. Are you sure you've read it, or is this yet another case of you believing what Skeptical Science tells you to?

The laughable claims by Viner are just one in a very long list of failed predictions about MMGW.

And this shows up all of your posts on this particular subject for what they are, garbage. And this is from the independent too.

Of course you contrarians once again snatch at part of a speech and then deliberately go on to ignore the rest of it as it doesn't fit your narrow unscientific view. Misrepresentation 101.

No surprise there.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co....

Where did I say Viner said it would never snow again? Or are you just misrepresenting me? And dredging up an article by an activist journalist in the Indy in defence of the fantastical assertions by so-called scientists at the CRU does nothing to lessen the embarrassment of their failed predictions.

If you had read the original article, this is what is reported (verbatim):

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'. "Children just aren't going to know what snow is", he said."

[....]

"David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experiences of snow. Via the internet, the might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold."


No wonder the Indy pulled the comic strip and tried to bury it in a snow drift.

Like I said, just another in a very long list of failed predictions.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Where did I say Viner said it would never snow again? Or are you just misrepresenting me?

Here y'go:

Diderot said:

Dear oh dear. Durbster, does Viner's utter and unadulterated BS send shivers down your spine every year around this time? Is it as if your face is thrust into that lovely pristine powder that was never meant to be seen or known again. Get it wrong did he? Just like every single climate model gets it wrong every single time?

[gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Where did I say Viner said it would never snow again? Or are you just misrepresenting me?

Here y'go:

Diderot said:

Dear oh dear. Durbster, does Viner's utter and unadulterated BS send shivers down your spine every year around this time? Is it as if your face is thrust into that lovely pristine powder that was never meant to be seen or known again. Get it wrong did he? Just like every single climate model gets it wrong every single time?

Dear oh dear, hoist with his own petard.

[kerplunk]

There's a magnificence about Diderot's dissonance.

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Not at all. That misdirection involving the expected logical fallacy 'appeal to activists in organisations' was always destined to fail badly.

Check out this thread for a plethora of peer-reviewed papers showing how the.false claims around wildfires / corals / ice / hurricanes / floods / drought / temps / bears etc have no basis in empirical data.

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 have increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al

You / other pro-agw folks have nothing to offer beyond same old fallacies + sarc + ad homs.

The GWPF have been in touch I see.

No they haven't. You can see invlsible things and/or believe that others can but you can't see how many papers were listed? A reader could be forgiven for thinking you're spinning for The Cause.

It's not 'dodgy websites' as El stovey wrongly asserted, it's about the peer-reviewed literature and as per my earlier post quoted above, all that you and other pro-agw people have to offer is same old sarc/fallacies/ad homs.

gadgetmac said:

Half a dozen cobbled together papers

Hopeless counting there, well done!

Try 16 not 6 and as clearly seen from the list (as well as 1 book, 1 RS minutes and 1 communication so 19 sources in total) not cobbled in any way but selected to refute each of the common misdirections of the junkscience associated with your position.

gadgetmac said:

that won’t even agree with each other does not a coherent argument make.

They're on different topics. Y

gadgetmac said:

I wont go through them all but even a quick look at the first one is enlightening.

I very much doubt you have access to (m)any of them in terms of the journals but the first one is certainly likely to be discussed on believer advocacy websites.

gadgetmac said:

If you go with Dansgaard-Oeschger events (as I assume you want to do given the reference to Dandgaard) as your villian then you have to admit that Global Warming is a real thing and it’s really happening, its just that the cause is some millenial and a half event instead of MMGW.

Natural climate change has been happening for billions of years, both global warming and global cooling.

Dansgaard has published individually - and jointly with co-authors - more than one paper, and they have no inherent sell-by date. Are you suggesting that the science in any of the papers is now refuted? Citation(s) needed if so.

gadgetmac said:

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming?

No, and exaggerations / generalisations such as the above are a waste of pixels.

There is no permanent dangerous manmade global warming.

gadgetmac said:

It also shows the paucity of papers available if these are the best examples of the denier genre.

No, it doesn't. It's a selection, a selection of papers selected to refute the nonsense around agw propaganda. This they do very well indeed, which is why you're throwing nonsense around in a vain attempt to discredit those cited.

There are many more papers, as posted in this thread. For example Svensmark et al and Bucha on two major climate forcings omitted from IPCC considerations. Also Gregory et al and Hamlington et al on sea level changes. Not forgetting McKitrick and Christy demonstrating the failure of the agw hypothesis, another 2018 paper as per e.g. Kamenose & Hennige and Xu et al.

That takes the total number of peer-reviewed papers in two posts alone to 21.

As will be obvious to any unbiased individual giving the matter a dose of rational thought, those cited originally in no way imply any limitation of any kind by way of numbers. That's your invention, in place of the rational argument that you lack.

gadgetmac said:

they’re just what has come to be termed ‘Turbospam’ on NP & E.

They are obviously peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature, which refute fanciful fairytales associated with agw junkscience. You don't seem to like that, and therefore mislabel them as spam.

Transparent fail is transparent.

Based on the above evidence however your post content is exactly what the thread can expect from the few pro-agw people trolling it: no credible empirical data, no substance, but plenty of sarc / fallacies / ad homs. Thanks for demonstrating once again the lack of substantive arguments available to those adopting the agw position - worse than previously thought.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Where did I say Viner said it would never snow again? Or are you just misrepresenting me?

Here y'go:

Diderot said:

Dear oh dear. Durbster, does Viner's utter and unadulterated BS send shivers down your spine every year around this time? Is it as if your face is thrust into that lovely pristine powder that was never meant to be seen or known again. Get it wrong did he? Just like every single climate model gets it wrong every single time?

Dear oh dear, hoist with his own petard.

Did I say: 'Viner said it would never snow again'? Or can you not read? (that last question was rhetorical as the answer is self-evident).

[robinessex]

Climate change: Protecting the poor from green taxes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46522126

As President Macron caved into the yellow vest fuel tax protests, President Trump was triumphant.
The French humiliation showed people rejected the sort of carbon taxes supported by the UN’s climate deal, he tweeted.
Of course it’s more complicated than that, because it depends on what sort of carbon taxes and how they are imposed.
Green economists say carbon taxes are a good idea - but they insist that governments must protect the poor from the side-effects....continues

[Kawasicki]

gadgetmac said:

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming? Or are the goal posts shifting yet again? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Point A.
There is no reliable data to suggest that current warming is anything other than unremarkable in amplitude and rate of change.

Point B.
Humans are probably responsible for a proportion of that warming, but nobody knows how much.

All pretty boring, really, kind of the opposite of alarming when you consider points A and B together.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming? Or are the goal posts shifting yet again? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Point A.
There is no reliable data to suggest that current warming is anything other than unremarkable in amplitude and rate of change.

Point B.
Humans are probably responsible for a proportion of that warming, but nobody knows how much.

All pretty boring, really, kind of the opposite of alarming when you consider points A and B together.

You're missing Point C which is that humans may be responsible for all of the warming and then some, because natural factors may be countering the man-made element at the moment.

So-called sceptics only see natural variation working in the background in the direction they like (despite the solar-climate theorists who think the climate should be cooling now).

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming? Or are the goal posts shifting yet again? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Point A.
There is no reliable data to suggest that current warming is anything other than unremarkable in amplitude and rate of change.

Point B.
Humans are probably responsible for a proportion of that warming, but nobody knows how much.

All pretty boring, really, kind of the opposite of alarming when you consider points A and B together.

You're missing Point C which is that humans may be responsible for all of the warming and then some, because natural factors may be countering the man-made element at the moment.

So-called sceptics only see natural variation working in the background in the direction they like (despite the solar-climate theorists who think the climate should be cooling now).

People thought the world should be warming but then it didn’t during the never predicted pause/hiatus. Point is KP humans cannot see into the future. Epistemology 101.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

Aren’t all of the deniers saying there is no global warming? Or are the goal posts shifting yet again? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Point A.
There is no reliable data to suggest that current warming is anything other than unremarkable in amplitude and rate of change.

Point B.
Humans are probably responsible for a proportion of that warming, but nobody knows how much.

All pretty boring, really, kind of the opposite of alarming when you consider points A and B together.

You're missing Point C which is that humans may be responsible for all of the warming and then some, because natural factors may be countering the man-made element at the moment.

Point C added to my list. Thanks.

Point D should be added too. Humans are potentially responsible for cooling the climate, and natural factors have driven the warming we have experienced.

Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 12th December 07:43

[dickymint]

Father Christmas in delivery price hike shock due to Climate Change....................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-465...

[robinessex]

dickymint said:

Father Christmas in delivery price hike shock due to Climate Change....................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-465...

Lots of things atributed to CC. Like to see actual numbers to back all this up.