Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
COP24: Environmental Groups Criticise ‘Morally Unacceptable’ Climate Deal Reached After Major Poland Summit
Dickinson gets better deals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop24-cl...
Article said:
climate campaigners warned the deal – effectively a set of rules for how to govern the 2015 Paris climate accord – agreed between almost 200 countries lacked ambition or a clear promise of enhanced climate action
Even that level of failure is dreamworld. Paris was already a dead duck before the hot air started blowing in Katowice and the dead duck was then paraded...in Paris of all places. They just managed to make a rule book for how to get a dead duck to quack so the media think it's a live USA pulling out / Brazil doing a USA / political damage in Australia and France with both now backtracking like Canada. Germany on the slide. China building new airports and new coal-fired power stations like billy-o. Climate Tracker revealing Paris failure as almost global.
What are these activists smoking? The duck is dead.
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
He keeps saying the tide is turning quoting things like the French fuel riots being a rejection of AGW science . Hans Brinker springs to mind.
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
Repeatedly regurgitating AGW & CC don't make it true. I thought the science was settled? Hans Brinker springs to mind.
PS. Has science responded to the planet tree count error of a factor of 10?
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
Repeatedly regurgitating AGW & CC don't make it true. I thought the science was settled? Hans Brinker springs to mind.
PS. Has science responded to the planet tree count error of a factor of 10?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
Repeatedly regurgitating AGW & CC don't make it true. I thought the science was settled? Hans Brinker springs to mind.
PS. Has science responded to the planet tree count error of a factor of 10?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
Repeatedly regurgitating AGW & CC don't make it true. I thought the science was settled? Hans Brinker springs to mind.
PS. Has science responded to the planet tree count error of a factor of 10?
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
Repeatedly regurgitating AGW & CC don't make it true. I thought the science was settled? Hans Brinker springs to mind.
PS. Has science responded to the planet tree count error of a factor of 10?
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
He keeps saying the tide is turning quoting things like the French fuel riots being a rejection of AGW science . Hans Brinker springs to mind.
The rioters aren't demanding that Macron scrap his climate change policies in general.
But all that aside the bhagwan managed to get his daily 4 or 5 post spamming quotient met today so the cult will be happy tonight.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
I see the new season of turbobloke's propaganda campaign has started. Oh joy.
You should be renamed dumbster for that rubbish. TB has posted more genuine CC stuff than all you belivers together your only recourse is "we believe"
LittleBigPlanet said:
Genuine question (you can look at my post history to check if I'm on the wind up), can you provide a link to the original paper? Interested to read it.
My educated guess, based on the fact that the 'skeptics' here generally recycle whatever's popular on climate blogs is that the paper in question is;Crowther, Thomas W., et al. "Mapping tree density at a global scale." Nature 525.7568 (2015): 201.
Open access versions are available if you google the title.
JustALooseScrew said:
Almost feels like they are fearing 'The End Of Days'.
To me as an AGW CO2 skeptic (I do not consider CO2 a threat to the planet or humanity), I'm finding it harder and harder to believe either side.
Any useful data just seems to be so corrupted, corrected or polluted/politisised that 'the message' is driven on nothing more than computer models - at which point observational science is lost, out of the window.
I wish there was some other research going on that looked at counter claims regarding CO2 being the cause of any difficult to really determine global warming. (How do you measure the temperature of a planet anyway?)
The whole affair to me is a sham and colossal waste of money.
yep. it is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. someone posted a link to no tricks zone recently. i have probably done so myself in the past, and been burnt the same way. satellite "data" is a favourite of many sceptics, it was for me to until i read what goes into creating it. as a result i personally believe a "global average temperature" is impossible to know. in reality we have cold bits at the poles and it gets progressively warmer toward the equator with a bit of intermixing due to weather events.To me as an AGW CO2 skeptic (I do not consider CO2 a threat to the planet or humanity), I'm finding it harder and harder to believe either side.
Any useful data just seems to be so corrupted, corrected or polluted/politisised that 'the message' is driven on nothing more than computer models - at which point observational science is lost, out of the window.
I wish there was some other research going on that looked at counter claims regarding CO2 being the cause of any difficult to really determine global warming. (How do you measure the temperature of a planet anyway?)
The whole affair to me is a sham and colossal waste of money.
there are so many ways the planet can shed heat and the fact we have never seen catastrophic runaway warming since man inhabited earth leads me to believe we never will. there are many ways humans do contribute to some warming,but for me it is and always will be inconsequential in the big scheme of things.come the next glaciation we will need all the warming we can get. i will be dead by then so i don't really care.
hairykrishna said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Genuine question (you can look at my post history to check if I'm on the wind up), can you provide a link to the original paper? Interested to read it.
My educated guess, based on the fact that the 'skeptics' here generally recycle whatever's popular on climate blogs is that the paper in question is;Crowther, Thomas W., et al. "Mapping tree density at a global scale." Nature 525.7568 (2015): 201.
Open access versions are available if you google the title.
wc98 said:
"global average temperature" is impossible to know. in reality we have cold bits at the poles and it gets progressively warmer toward the equator with a bit of intermixing due to weather events.
there are so many ways the planet can shed heat and the fact we have never seen catastrophic runaway warming since man inhabited earth leads me to believe we never will. there are many ways humans do contribute to some warming,but for me it is and always will be inconsequential in the big scheme of things.come the next glaciation we will need all the warming we can get. i will be dead by then so i don't really care.
It's worse than that - "global average temperature" is a fairly meaningless metric given the "averages" used. Apart from the satellites (and their known issues) we don't have the global coverage required to reduce the error bars to a degree we can "measure" the changes (the anomalies are within the range of error) . there are so many ways the planet can shed heat and the fact we have never seen catastrophic runaway warming since man inhabited earth leads me to believe we never will. there are many ways humans do contribute to some warming,but for me it is and always will be inconsequential in the big scheme of things.come the next glaciation we will need all the warming we can get. i will be dead by then so i don't really care.
The normal technique used is an abuse of the law of large numbers - that law does not apply to different places and different times (it needs to be the measure the exact same phenomenon not a similar phenomenon in different places at different times with different equipment).
We don't know the extent of the problem and we don't know even if there is a problem (for there to be a problem the "positive feedbacks" that so far have not materialised need to kick in) - and we certainly can't make judgements on the probabilities that keep popping up in some of the worse papers ever written.
gadgetmac said:
You've been spouting this drivel for years and years and yet Climate Change belief still keeps growing with more and more papers being published by scientists and scientific institutions as each year passes.
Hans Brinker springs to mind.
i am fairly sure there are quite a few religions that see growing numbers at the moment as well. given the current indoctrination of children in schools re the unsettled science it is hardly surprising the "belief" keeps growing. the fact you say "belief" says it all, imo.Hans Brinker springs to mind.
as for more and more papers , that is nothing more than a result of increased funding. halve the funding and you will see a commensurate drop in the amount of papers published. given some of the dross published on the topic reducing the funding massively would be a good idea.
Jinx said:
It's worse than that - "global average temperature" is a fairly meaningless metric given the "averages" used. Apart from the satellites (and their known issues) we don't have the global coverage required to reduce the error bars to a degree we can "measure" the changes (the anomalies are within the range of error) .
The normal technique used is an abuse of the law of large numbers - that law does not apply to different places and different times (it needs to be the measure the exact same phenomenon not a similar phenomenon in different places at different times with different equipment).
We don't know the extent of the problem and we don't know even if there is a problem (for there to be a problem the "positive feedbacks" that so far have not materialised need to kick in) - and we certainly can't make judgements on the probabilities that keep popping up in some of the worse papers ever written.
your post is the intelligent version of what i was trying to say The normal technique used is an abuse of the law of large numbers - that law does not apply to different places and different times (it needs to be the measure the exact same phenomenon not a similar phenomenon in different places at different times with different equipment).
We don't know the extent of the problem and we don't know even if there is a problem (for there to be a problem the "positive feedbacks" that so far have not materialised need to kick in) - and we certainly can't make judgements on the probabilities that keep popping up in some of the worse papers ever written.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff