Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

I prefer the other definition

"an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale"

Maybe but a catastrophic event is not an apocalyptic event.

No, but both are derived from crystal ball gazing

To be fair I think most sane people would prefer to look through NASA's Hubble telescope than the PH man-in-the-pub's crystal ball.

[Jinx]

El stovey said:

The apocalypse is the complete and final destruction of the world. Not really the same as a “global emergency” is it?

Here's wiki to help

An apocalypse (Ancient Greek:ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω, literally meaning "an uncovering") is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation.

So given most CACC or soon to be named Global bit of bother that will be over by next Tuesday (GBoBTWBoBNT- roles off the tongue) papers are all about the bad things happening in the future the are all Apocalypses.

QED

[durbster]

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

The apocalypse is the complete and final destruction of the world. Not really the same as a “global emergency” is it?

Here's wiki to help

An apocalypse (Ancient Greek:?????????? apokálypsis, from ??? and ???????, literally meaning "an uncovering") is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation.

So given most CACC or soon to be named Global bit of bother that will be over by next Tuesday (GBoBTWBoBNT- roles off the tongue) papers are all about the bad things happening in the future the are all Apocalypses.

QED

I love that!

Unable to provide an example of a predicted "apocalypse", you instead decide to convince us that the word "apocalypse" means something else.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

El stovey said:

The apocalypse is the complete and final destruction of the world. Not really the same as a “global emergency” is it?

Here's wiki to help

An apocalypse (Ancient Greek:?????????? apokálypsis, from ??? and ???????, literally meaning "an uncovering") is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation.

So given most CACC or soon to be named Global bit of bother that will be over by next Tuesday (GBoBTWBoBNT- roles off the tongue) papers are all about the bad things happening in the future the are all Apocalypses.

QED

I love that!

Unable to provide an example of a predicted "apocalypse", you instead decide to convince us that the word "apocalypse" means something else.

? El stovey was arguing that Global emergency did not equal impending apocalypse.

I argued that not only was global emergency equal to impending apocalypse but also that the papers all are apocalyptic given the etymology of the word.
So can we all agree that CO2 caused GBoBTWBoBNT isn't that big a deal and we can instead focus our energies on real problems?

[dickymint]

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[zygalski]

dickymint said:

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Well PH N,P&E does seem to be playing host to your final stand.

[robinessex]

dickymint said:

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

An AGW advocate crying foul ? As an example, a repost to a recent posting which I made, and was quite neutral and none confrontational, contained the following "strange behaviour for any sane person" from a pro AGW poster. Speaks for itself I think.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Well you lot certainly hit the report button enough demanding that something you don't like be removed.

Fortunately PH have taken action this time to try to maintain the facade of impartiality.

[Kawasicki]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.

All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one.

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...?

So you say the scientists have predicted rather mundane events.
But the UN says catastrophe is imminent.

So,do you think that the UN has a fringe view, not supported by the scientific consensus?
Why are all the scientific organisations not extremely vocal/up in arms about that? That is blatant misrepresentation of their work, with far reaching consequences.

Hello Durbster
I'm curious what your answer is to the above couple of questions.

[gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.

All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one.

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...?

So you say the scientists have predicted rather mundane events.
But the UN says catastrophe is imminent.

So,do you think that the UN has a fringe view, not supported by the scientific consensus?
Why are all the scientific organisations not extremely vocal/up in arms about that? That is blatant misrepresentation of their work, with far reaching consequences.

Hello Durbster
I'm curious what your answer is to the above couple of questions.

I think we are all curious to know the answer to quite a few questions.

For instance I'm still waiting to hear what the link is between the RS and TATA.

Hey ho.

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.

All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one.

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...?

So you say the scientists have predicted rather mundane events.
But the UN says catastrophe is imminent.

So,do you think that the UN has a fringe view, not supported by the scientific consensus?
Why are all the scientific organisations not extremely vocal/up in arms about that? That is blatant misrepresentation of their work, with far reaching consequences.

Hello Durbster
I'm curious what your answer is to the above couple of questions.

Stand by for a swerve !!

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

I think we are all curious to know the answer to quite a few questions.

For instance I'm still waiting to hear what the link is between the RS and TATA.

Hey ho.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-us/

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

I think we are all curious to know the answer to quite a few questions.

For instance I'm still waiting to hear what the link is between the RS and TATA.

Hey ho.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-us/

Yes, I get that, but where's the corruption/subterfuge/skulduggery/fraud etc?

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Well you lot certainly hit the report button enough demanding that something you don't like be removed.

Fortunately PH have taken action this time to try to maintain the facade of impartiality.

[mondeoman]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

Never was or will be "annoyed". Your silly games amuse me as did your pedantic post above. You'll note that your reply IS diversionary and off topic

Edit: and lo and behold your mate drops in the usual pincer movement and attack

Someone is saying an apocalypse is the same as a global emergency in the context of climate papers. Which it isn’t.

That’s what we’re discussing and it’s on topic.

You’re the one banging on about pincer movements and other nonsense.

Wrong twice now.

More wriggling than a maggot on a hook

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

You are actually joking aren’t you?

deeps said:

I fear not, but anyway it was a very good laugh for me

Prove me wrong.

There are thousands of research pieces on climate. Show me one scientific paper from the last half century that has predicted something that can be described as "an apocalypse" as its most likely scenario.

Stand by for absolute silence from Diderot and a link to an advocacy blog post of newspaper and magazine articles from somebody else.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

What Is at Stake?
Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (12, 39, 49, 50) (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.

An uninhabitable planet sounds kinda apocalyptic to me.

[deeps]

dickymint said:

Apparently us “deniers” are getting preferential treatment..............

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Since returning I have noticed a certain 'pack' or 'group' like desperation from the Believer side, it is palpable.

[deeps]

The laugh is the fact that an article demonstrating the nonessential nature of government scientists, is titled “The Shutdown Shows Just How Vital Government Scientists Are”…

INSTEAD OF FIGURING out how many Pacific hake fishermen can catch sustainably, as his job demands, scientist Ian Taylor is at home with his four-month old daughter, biding his time through the partial government shutdown.

[…]

Some federal science agencies are open, such as the National Institutes for Health and the Department of Energy, since their appropriations bills were already signed by Trump. Others, such as NASA, are continuing to operate key programs such as the International Space Station, although 95 percent of its 15,000 workers were sent home on Dec. 22.

[…]

The shutdown has led to a hodgepodge of federal science-based activity across the country. A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is sitting on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral ready for a planned launch on Jan. 17, but without NASA personnel to oversee testing, that liftoff will be delayed. Crews that fly over the Atlantic to check on endangered Atlantic right whales and send those positions to commercial ships are still working, but they aren’t being paid.

Weather forecasters are working during the shutdown, but hundreds of scientists from NOAA and the National Weather Service have been banned from attending the annual American Meteorological Society meeting this week in Phoenix.

[…]

The Environmental Protection Agency furloughed about 14,000 of its employees, leaving just 753 “essential” workers on the job.

[…]

Leslie Rissler, an evolutionary biologist and program director at the NSF, tweeted last week that she had applied for unemployment benefits.

[…]



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-de...

[durbster]

Jinx said:

? El stovey was arguing that Global emergency did not equal impending apocalypse.

I argued that not only was global emergency equal to impending apocalypse ...

mondeoman said:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

What Is at Stake?
Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (12, 39, 49, 50) (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.

An uninhabitable planet sounds kinda apocalyptic to me.

Impending apocalypse, 200 years in the future? That's not what we're talking about. The claim was the prediction of an apocalypse that's supposed to have happened already. To remind you:

Kawasicki said:

Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community.

Both these papers are requesting action now to prevent further damage in the future.

[durbster]

deeps said:

The laugh is the fact that an article demonstrating the nonessential nature of government scientists, is titled “The Shutdown Shows Just How Vital Government Scientists Are”…

You're just against science in general then. Interesting (but not unusual).

Yay for ignorance!