Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Half right TB, it’s overall warming leading to increased record weather events which might be hot or cold or wet or dry etc depending on where you are in the world.
This is exactly what was predicted with AGW and makes sense and has proved to be correct.
anyone that believes that knows absolutely nothing about the science beyond tabloid headlines written by climate science communicators. tb is fully right, extreme weather is far more prevalent in a cooler regime. the science will actually tell you that if you took a bit of time to look at it.you won't though, you will just keep parroting headlines. as the amo heads into the cool regime we will get to see first hand. This is exactly what was predicted with AGW and makes sense and has proved to be correct.
here is another question, given you voted to leave the eu against all the expert advice, what makes you ignore financial and political experts but believe 100% in climate experts ?
Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Half right TB, it’s overall warming leading to increased record weather events which might be hot or cold or wet or dry etc depending on where you are in the world.
This is exactly what was predicted with AGW and makes sense and has proved to be correct.
anyone that believes that knows absolutely nothing about the science beyond tabloid headlines written by climate science communicators. tb is fully right, extreme weather is far more prevalent in a cooler regime. the science will actually tell you that if you took a bit of time to look at it.you won't though, you will just keep parroting headlines. as the amo heads into the cool regime we will get to see first hand. This is exactly what was predicted with AGW and makes sense and has proved to be correct.
here is another question, given you voted to leave the eu against all the expert advice, what makes you ignore financial and political experts but believe 100% in climate experts ?
See 'eco frequent flyer has been brought down to planet earth':
environment chief criticized by UN internal audit for ‘extensive’ frequent flying
The top UN environmental chief who has championed “climate action” is under fire by an internal UN audit which turns up the heat on its chief for his “extensive travel patterns” that “presents a reputation risk to the organization.”
“Erik Solheim, executive director of UN Environment, was traveling for 529 out of the 668 days audited, spending $488,518 (£370,380)” says The Guardian of the UN draft audit report.
Do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do hypocritical greenism, lovely.
A draft report on UN politicians flying off the evidence trail to the land of mere opinion is unlikely be published.
turbobloke said:
Climatologist and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas Uni Andrew Dessler said:
The people who know the least about climate science are the ones who are most fixated on climate models. Models are the most visible part for people who don’t know much about climate science.
Another bunch of scientists join the list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution or Government body arguing against AGW. 
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
El stovey said:
Because I don’t want to live in a federal Europe brought about by creeping integration.
Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
similar reason to myself. however,are you saying you believed what the chancellor said would happen immediately after a vote to leave and you ignored it ? you really expected an emergency budget and immediate recession ?Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
turbobloke said:
Whoever is next on the pester roster seeking opinion not el;usive and awol data with-established-causality might like to email climate scientist Prof Dessler (this was 2017 but time flies). A consensual reply would be most likely based on other statements and the parapet factor. Agreement rules OK - except it doesn't exist in that sense - and the science is settled, except that it isn't.
The people who know the least about climate science are the ones who are most fixated on climate models. Models are the most visible part for people who don’t know much about climate science.
Is that the same Climatologist and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas Uni Andrew Dessler said:
The people who know the least about climate science are the ones who are most fixated on climate models. Models are the most visible part for people who don’t know much about climate science.
Dr Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
who said this;
Andrew Dessler said:
I have confidence that the climate is warming, it is due to human activities, the warming will amount to a few degrees this century, and it will carry catastrophic impacts. The evidence includes a mountain of data.
and this;https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...
Andrew Dessler from the above link said:
Climate skeptics and those opposed to action on climate change make trashing climate scientists a key part of their arguments. They routinely claim that scientists are (pick your favorite): communists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, ivory-tower liberal elitists, corrupt sycophants feasting at the teat of government research funding, evil masterminds, manufacturing data to push their hidden agenda, or incompetent and sloppy scientists who don't understand any physics.
Same guy?jjlynn27 said:
Same guy?
You wasted your time, if you'd read my post more carefully you should have noted that I already looked up other statements and predicted that a pester email to the chap would return a concensus/everyone agrees/science settled type of response. Was that about right? I didn't need a computer model for it either.If you like that lot, and it's the same chap, do you believe truly the quote I gave and if not why not?
LoonyTunes said:
Another bunch of scientists join the list.
That has nothing to do with what's happening in the planet's climate system.If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.turbobloke said:
That has nothing to do with what's happening in the planet's climate system.
If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.
I know all about logical fallacies thanks.If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.I'm just displaying the ever growing weight of the consensus in favour of AGW. The consensus you appear to think doesn't exist.
turbobloke said:
jjlynn27 said:
Same guy?
You wasted your time, if you'd read my post more carefully you should have noted that I already looked up other statements and predicted that a pester email to the chap would return a concensus/everyone agrees/science settled type of response. Was that about right? I didn't need a computer model for it either.Please tell me that you are not trying to misrepresent yet another actual scientist.
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
durbster said:
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
DocJock said:
durbster said:
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
durbster said:
Einion Yrth said:
Good. Now take that last small step and don't take anyone else's word for it either.
Where do you suggest we get our information from?The objective physical evidence (declining polar ice extent, glacier retreat, permafrost melting etc.)? That supports AGW.
All known temperature data records? They all support AGW.
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. There's plenty of evidence out there.
Never mind the MWP, let's go back 55 million years......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQc--6dBxiw
(0:00 - 0:45 specifically of interest)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQc--6dBxiw
(0:00 - 0:45 specifically of interest)
cherryowen said:
Never mind the MWP, let's go back 55 million years......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQc--6dBxiw
(0:00 - 0:45 specifically of interest)
Aye those were the days ............nice hockey stick graph at the end too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQc--6dBxiw
(0:00 - 0:45 specifically of interest)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff