Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

Climate change talks lead to renewed pledge to cut emissions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...

Oh yeah, it's simple really...

Very strange, but that's expected.

Interim COP wafflings don't mean diddly. We're yet to see the final weasel-worded fudge / COP-out.

As it happens your link has one of the 'basically says' comments in my recent post. It's the nutty UN example involving Guterres spouting hot air at Katowice. Very good of you to demonstrate my accuracy, and your motive, in the same post. Ta.

Link from gadgetmac said:

To waste this opportunity would compromise our last best chance to stop runaway climate change.

It's (yet another) tipping point he tells ya. Now waste time finding the other non-spam example

The EU failure is also as posted. To save you time and your further embarrassment here you go, a link to media using the Reuters story on EU tax gas failure as per my post.

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/eu-talks...

A pic is worth a thousand.



Thanks for the continued flattering personal attention, always appreciated, but it's not about me it's about agw junkscience / climate model gigo / EU failure / politicians' foolishness including hot air at Katowice.

Shooting the messenger ad hom fallacies is all you have super work, now the metoos can follow on - wonderful.

[robinessex]

Earth’s subterranean ecosystem uncovered

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/earth-s-subterr...

There is no light, little nutrition and extreme heat. But in the crust deep beneath our feet scientists have uncovered a wilderness to rival the most diverse ecosystems in the world.
Some 70 per cent of the microbial life on the planet exists underground, according to a project to reveal the secrets of the Earth’s crust. The researchers said that the microbes they had discovered lock up a quantity of carbon hundreds of times that contained in humans, and occupied an ecosystem twice the size of the oceans.................it means we have a significant biomass that takes up a significant amount of the carbon on Earth, that has been doing its thing for billions of years and WE'VE NEVER NOTICED IT

There you go. The science is settled, we have models that can accurately predict the planets CC, etc, etc. Oh yea, along with the above, we've found 10 times more trees than we thought, and the oceans are gobbling up CO2 that we just found out. I wonder when the Crystal Ball light will go out

[robinessex]

Climate change: Failure to tackle warming 'suicidal'

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

The UN secretary-general has warned negotiators at a major meeting that failing to increase efforts on climate change would be "not only immoral but suicidal" for the planet.
Antonio Guterres has flown back to Poland to try and push COP24 to a successful conclusion.............continues

[robinessex]

Climate change is 'shrinking winter'

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

Snowy mountain winters are being "squeezed" by climate change, according to scientists in California.
Researchers who studied the winter snowfall in the mountains there revealed that rising temperatures are reducing the period during which snow is on the ground in the mountains - snow that millions rely on for their fresh water.
They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union meeting - the world's largest gathering of Earth and space scientists.
"Our winters are getting sick and we know why," said Prof Amato Evan, from the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, who carried out the investigation. "It's climate change; it's rising temperatures."...continues

[stew-STR160]

gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

You believers love a good ol' circle jerk don't ya.

You deniers are like an offshoot of the flat earth society.

Or an anti vaccination group.

I wonder where you stand on the Moon Landings

That there is the problem. If it doesn't fit into your belief system, it's a lie/conspiracy/other nut job theory.


What gets me, is that a vast majority of belivers suggest us non sheeple actually don't agree or believe with any form of climatic change, be it natural or AGW.
Yet the goal of the AGW faith is to basically stop any climatic change.

Bit mental that isn't it.

[Kawasicki]

gadgetmac said:

Let's see if I can also spam the thread...like tb.

Australians fed up with climate inaction

Australia wouldn’t be a good example of a country supporting drastic action on catastrophic man made climate change.

I also think most of those protesters will head home to gigantic air conditioned houses.

Nowhere is cognitive dissonance stronger!

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

Australia wouldn’t be a good example of a country supporting drastic action on catastrophic man made climate change.

I also think most of those protesters will head home to gigantic air conditioned houses.

Nowhere is cognitive dissonance stronger!

Heading home will equal driving home for many, as opposed to unicycling.

The hypocrisy element has always been strong and is destined to remain so. When surveyed 31 businesses, foundations and individuals agitating for climate action had an opportunity to state if and how they’d support banning private jets.

Most didn’t respond, including representatives for Al Gore, a father of global warming activism. Pro-agw supporters will no doubt want to spend lots of time verifying this, which would have an incidental benefit.

[robinessex]

Climate change: 'Hell to pay' if COP24 talks fail

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

Amid impassioned pleas for progress, negotiators at the UN climate talks in Poland are facing the final day with many issues undecided.
Former Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed said there would be "hell to pay" if countries failed to take significant steps.
Countries are struggling to complete the complex "rulebook" of the Paris climate agreement.
But they are also under pressure to boost their promises to cut carbon.....................continues

Is "hell to pay" cheaper than a few £billions to these countries, which will probably be diverted to some dictators/corrupt politicians Swiss bank account anyway

[zygalski]

Nice to see you got over the whole BBC thing.

[Kawasicki]

Either you are a climate catastrophe alarmist or you are an anti-science, flat-earther, non moon-landing, 9/11 conspiracy believing, climate change denier.

Sad for the individual himself, but funny on many other levels....

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-vict...

[PRTVR]

Kawasicki said:

Either you are a climate catastrophe alarmist or you are an anti-science, flat-earther, non moon-landing, 9/11 conspiracy believing, climate change denier.

Sad for the individual himself, but funny on many other levels....

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-vict...

Splitter,
The comment from Don1 are good, especially the last part.

Oreskeism: the practice of stifling scientific debate by poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks, and by cherry-picking evidence to make it appear that all the facts are on one side.

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

Kawasicki said:

Either you are a climate catastrophe alarmist or you are an anti-science, flat-earther, non moon-landing, 9/11 conspiracy believing, climate change denier.

Sad for the individual himself, but funny on many other levels....

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-vict...

Splitter,
The comment from Don1 are good, especially the last part.

Oreskeism: the practice of stifling scientific debate by poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks, and by cherry-picking evidence to make it appear that all the facts are on one side.

I liked this bit

Don123 said:

Skeptics are painted as paid-off, anti-science, depraved, deranged, or a combination of these things. This is the picture the general public has of skeptics, and I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.

He doesn’t consider that skeptics are painted as these things as often it’s actually true.

This thread shows numerous posters regularly showing these behaviours.

Our Don wonders why this happens (discounting that it’s because it’s true) but he can’t see why, so he imagines ANOTHER conspiracy is the reason, this time it involves PR firms.

Don123 said:

I don’t know who orchestrates this and why, but I have a strong suspicion that PR (public relations) firms are involved in shaping public perception on climate. It seems there are those in power and authority who have a vested interest in convincing the public of catastrophic climate change.

Yes, as he said earlier

“I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.”

[Kawasicki]

The comments under the post summarise perfectly the current situation.

[Kawasicki]

El stovey said:

PRTVR said:

Kawasicki said:

Either you are a climate catastrophe alarmist or you are an anti-science, flat-earther, non moon-landing, 9/11 conspiracy believing, climate change denier.

Sad for the individual himself, but funny on many other levels....

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-vict...

Splitter,
The comment from Don1 are good, especially the last part.

Oreskeism: the practice of stifling scientific debate by poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks, and by cherry-picking evidence to make it appear that all the facts are on one side.

I liked this bit

Don123 said:

Skeptics are painted as paid-off, anti-science, depraved, deranged, or a combination of these things. This is the picture the general public has of skeptics, and I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.

He doesn’t consider that skeptics are painted as these things as often it’s actually true.

This thread shows numerous posters regularly showing these behaviours.

Our Don wonders why this happens (discounting that it’s because it’s true) but he can’t see why, so he imagines ANOTHER conspiracy is the reason, this time it involves PR firms.

Don123 said:

I don’t know who orchestrates this and why, but I have a strong suspicion that PR (public relations) firms are involved in shaping public perception on climate. It seems there are those in power and authority who have a vested interest in convincing the public of catastrophic climate change.

Yes, as he said earlier

“I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.”

What’s interesting is that I see myself as a lover of science and technology. It’s why I work in this area. I see the CAGW alarmists as the anti-science group.

Funny, isn’t it!?

[wc98]

El stovey said:

Don123 said:

Skeptics are painted as paid-off, anti-science, depraved, deranged, or a combination of these things. This is the picture the general public has of skeptics, and I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.

He doesn’t consider that skeptics are painted as these things as often it’s actually true.

This thread shows numerous posters regularly showing these behaviours.

of course you will have numerous examples of this you can cite ? in particular i look forward to all the depraved posts from forum members you can find.

[stew-STR160]

El stovey said:

PRTVR said:

Kawasicki said:

Either you are a climate catastrophe alarmist or you are an anti-science, flat-earther, non moon-landing, 9/11 conspiracy believing, climate change denier.

Sad for the individual himself, but funny on many other levels....

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-vict...

Splitter,
The comment from Don1 are good, especially the last part.

Oreskeism: the practice of stifling scientific debate by poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks, and by cherry-picking evidence to make it appear that all the facts are on one side.

I liked this bit

Don123 said:

Skeptics are painted as paid-off, anti-science, depraved, deranged, or a combination of these things. This is the picture the general public has of skeptics, and I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.

He doesn’t consider that skeptics are painted as these things as often it’s actually true.

This thread shows numerous posters regularly showing these behaviours.

Our Don wonders why this happens (discounting that it’s because it’s true) but he can’t see why, so he imagines ANOTHER conspiracy is the reason, this time it involves PR firms.

Don123 said:

I don’t know who orchestrates this and why, but I have a strong suspicion that PR (public relations) firms are involved in shaping public perception on climate. It seems there are those in power and authority who have a vested interest in convincing the public of catastrophic climate change.

Yes, as he said earlier

“I think it’s no accident that this narrative is the predominant one.”

You really can't see the problem, can you?

Just another 'cultist denier skeptic lunatic who's probably in the employ of big oil'...

[anonymous-user]

stew-STR160 said:

You really can't see the problem, can you?

Just another 'cultist denier skeptic lunatic who's probably in the employ of big oil'...

I can see the problem perfectly.

Sceptics (or our friend Dom in the comments above), hold a view on AGW. It turns out that view is at odds with the scientific community.

This is uncomfortable as he recognises that it’s unlikely that he’s right and the scientific community are wrong so he rationalises this by deciding that there isn’t a consensus or that the scientific community are lying or have been politicised or are making false findings for funding etc

He then see that the media agrees with the scientific community so they decide that the media are doing it to push a liberal agenda.

He sees that most of the world’s government are also holding this view so he decides that governments are doing it for taxation and control and wealth redistribution.

He then sees that the general public are now also viewing sceptics in a negative light so he decides that the public are being influenced by PR firms also pushing an agenda.

All these people (scientific community,media,governments,the public) basically everyone but him, with vested interests and pushing agendas.

Isn’t it actually much more likely that he’s in the wrong?

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

What’s interesting is that I see myself as a lover of science and technology. It’s why I work in this area. I see the CAGW alarmists as the anti-science group.

Funny, isn’t it!?

What is a "CAGW alarmist"?

[zygalski]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

What’s interesting is that I see myself as a lover of science and technology. It’s why I work in this area. I see the CAGW alarmists as the anti-science group.

Funny, isn’t it!?

What is a "CAGW alarmist"?

I assume the C stands for catastrophic.
CAGW is being used a bit in this thread by deniers because they are having to lurch to ever new heights of imposing extreme views on anyone opposing their global scientific conspiracy theory.
It's no longer just ok to think that AGW is real. If you're a believer you have to subscribe to it never snowing again & Western Europe being entirely underwater by 2035.

[stew-STR160]

El stovey said:

stew-STR160 said:

You really can't see the problem, can you?

Just another 'cultist denier skeptic lunatic who's probably in the employ of big oil'...

I can see the problem perfectly.

Sceptics (or our friend Dom in the comments above), hold a view on AGW. It turns out that view is at odds with the scientific community.

This is uncomfortable as he recognises that it’s unlikely that he’s right and the scientific community are wrong so he rationalises this by deciding that there isn’t a consensus or that the scientific community are lying or have been politicised or are making false findings for funding etc

He then see that the media agrees with the scientific community so they decide that the media are doing it to push a liberal agenda.

He sees that most of the world’s government are also holding this view so he decides that governments are doing it for taxation and control and wealth redistribution.

He then sees that the general public are now also viewing sceptics in a negative light so he decides that the public are being influenced by PR firms also pushing an agenda.

All these people (scientific community,media,governments,the public) basically everyone but him, with vested interests and pushing agendas.

Isn’t it actually much more likely that he’s in the wrong?

So, no then. You don't see the problem.