Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
I think I preferred it when Turbobloke produced his own propaganda rather than just regurgitating whatever the GWPF post of the day is.
Yeah, his heart isn’t in it anymore. He used to have loads of click and paste spam and anti BBC ranting. He’s lost his climate sceptic mojo for sure. Now robinessex is in charge of bbc watch and it’s not the same.
Even this very evening half the cult seem to have said they think AGW is real and they’re now just bickering about the exact amounts it’s responsible for.
I suppose they had to see the light in the end. They couldn’t honestly keep going with their ‘know more than NASA pantomime’ act for ever.
It’s the end of an era though.
So what are you de radiacalised deniers going to do now? Make a documentary about your time in a cult? Find another consensus to say is lies or just enjoy the rest of your retirement in peace?
gadgetmac said:
kerplunk said:
zygalski said:
I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
It's being trumpeted in some quarters as a 'retired scientist changes his tune' story and naturally the so-called sceptics here have latched onto that theme unquestioningly, but a bit of checking soon reveals he's been saying the same things for years.Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
Perhaps the only notable 'change' about his Washington Post article is that he no longer mentions the 30-year natural cycle hypothesis that he published a paper about in 2009, which made him popular with sceptics back then too, because he concluded there'd been a natural variation regime shift around the turn of the century and we were in for 30 years of flat-lining (or even cooling) temperatures - which has subsequently proved contrary to the obs of course.
Co-author Kyle Swanson wrote an article for Real Climate (who aren't known for promoting AGW denialism) at the time if you'd like to read more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...
gadgetmac said:
hairykrishna said:
I think I preferred it when Turbobloke produced his own propaganda rather than just regurgitating whatever the GWPF post of the day is.
Deeps is proving an excellent padawan, he’s mastered the GWPF site and is rapidly getting to grips with wattsupwiththat.
You read them and think it’s more dogma and nonsense . . .but then you remember he’s involved in data, you better be sure before you say something.
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
hairykrishna said:
I think I preferred it when Turbobloke produced his own propaganda rather than just regurgitating whatever the GWPF post of the day is.
Deeps is proving an excellent padawan, he’s mastered the GWPF site and is rapidly getting to grips with wattsupwiththat.You read them and think it’s more dogma and nonsense . . .but then you remember he’s involved in data, you better be sure before you say something.
And when they come up a bit short there’s dicky on standby to goad and then report posters to the mods...
Its terrifying.
Climate Change Denial strongly linked to right wing nationalism..
“Building on a brand-new research publication showing the links between conservatism, xenophobia and climate change denial, the network will study how the growth of right-wing nationalism in Europe has contributed to an increase in climate change denial.”
https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pa...
Tell us something we don’t know.
“Building on a brand-new research publication showing the links between conservatism, xenophobia and climate change denial, the network will study how the growth of right-wing nationalism in Europe has contributed to an increase in climate change denial.”
https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pa...
Tell us something we don’t know.
I’m on a TurboRoll after todays football result.
Even psychologists know climate change denial is a mental issue:
“Hence psychology is very useful for explaining why politicians and other people continue to hold beliefs that are contrary to the available evidence and to the interests of billions of people. It is less obvious what can be done to overcome denial of a world-threatening problem. Providing more evidence that global warming is accelerating as the result of human carbon emissions is only part of a solution. We also need to convince people that the needs of the vast majority of the world's people are more important than the interests of an industrial minority and the anti-government ideology that supports them. Overcoming motivated inference requires recognizing and changing motivations.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-though...
To summarise, they’re all
and need therapy.
Again, tell us something....
Even psychologists know climate change denial is a mental issue:
“Hence psychology is very useful for explaining why politicians and other people continue to hold beliefs that are contrary to the available evidence and to the interests of billions of people. It is less obvious what can be done to overcome denial of a world-threatening problem. Providing more evidence that global warming is accelerating as the result of human carbon emissions is only part of a solution. We also need to convince people that the needs of the vast majority of the world's people are more important than the interests of an industrial minority and the anti-government ideology that supports them. Overcoming motivated inference requires recognizing and changing motivations.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-though...
To summarise, they’re all
and need therapy.Again, tell us something....
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
hairykrishna said:
I think I preferred it when Turbobloke produced his own propaganda rather than just regurgitating whatever the GWPF post of the day is.
Deeps is proving an excellent padawan, he’s mastered the GWPF site and is rapidly getting to grips with wattsupwiththat.You read them and think it’s more dogma and nonsense . . .but then you remember he’s involved in data, you better be sure before you say something.
And when they come up a bit short there’s dicky on standby to goad and then report posters to the mods...
Its terrifying.
Back to reality for a moment and worth a read - the thoughts of Dr Edmeades...
Article said:
Year in Review: The Country kicked off 2018 with this controversial opinion piece from Dr Doug Edmeades that proved to be one of the most popular articles of the year.
OPINION: The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has recently said that she would like her administration to be remembered by two things; the elimination of poverty and climate change – I assume that means a zero carbon economy.
Although I am not a rabid socialist I can understand the need for and hence can agree with policies which result in a more equitable distribution of wealth. I cannot however get my head around the idea of a zero carbon economy.
You see – I am a sceptic. But let me be very clear about what I mean. The word sceptic means "a person unconvinced by a particular fact, theory or hypothesis" And the hypothesis I am sceptical about is "That global temperatures are rising mainly due to mans activities, specifically via an increase on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)."
Yes the climate on earth is changing and indeed has always changed both up and down and long before mankind discovered fossil fuels, suggesting that some other mechanism(s) is (are) at play.
This is consistent with the fact that the ice core data shows that temperature increases about 600 to 800 years before CO2 concentrations increase. CO2 does not, it appears, determine the earth's climate.
These facts are fatal to the dangerous man-induced (anthropogenic) global warming theory. And I could add to them many other contingent but relevant arguments. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but water vapour makes up about 90% of the greenhouse effect and - this is important in the context of the supposed consensus - scientists are still arguing as to whether water vapour reduces or increases the CO2 warming effect.
Yes, since civilisation as we know it began about 10-12,000 years ago, it has been warmer (the Medieval Warm Period) and cooler (the Little Ice Age) than the present with ne'er a bag of coal or barrel of oil to be seen.
Yes sea levels have risen and glaciers have retreated as the earth has emerged from the Little Ice Age (approx. 1600-1800 AD) but there is no evidence that the rate of change in these processes has increased over the last 50 years, despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations have increased significantly.
More recently the satellite data shows that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 – almost 20 years now - despite an increase in global CO2 concentrations.
I became exposed to this issue because I work with farmers and they would say to me – "you are a scientist – what do you think about global warming." Initially I would say "sorry not my speciality."
I came to see this as a cop-out and started reading. To clarify my thinking I then wrote a paper outlining the 10 reasons why I am a sceptic and I sent this paper to people on both sides of the argument, specifically inviting them to consider if there were any flaws in logic in my arguments. None were raised.
I continue to keep an eye out for any evidence that would contradict my logic. If anything I find that what is being offered to the public as evidence of human induced global warming is becoming increasingly fragile.
White plumes of gas from smoke stacks are not CO2, which is colourless and odourless. Pictures of air pollution in China are evidence of poor air quality and not CO2 induced global warming. The fact that polar bear numbers are increasing removes the emotional implication held in pictures of lonely isolated bears on ice flows.
And I am left infuriated (pre-whiskey) and bemused (post whisky), at the never ending pictures of extreme storm events, whether snow storms on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA or heat waves in NSW, purporting to be further evidence of man–induced global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing as a consequence of global warming. Where is the fourth estate when we most need them?
And beware. The press is full of stories of a particular form: For example: an issue is identified – it may be to do with sea level rise, an endangered species, climate refugees, retreating glaciers or ice sheets breaking up. It is then predicted that the problem or issue will get worse because of global warming. The claims, if you read carefully, will, in all likelihood, be based on a desktop studies using predictions from climate models.
But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.
Finally I will leave you with a prediction: Because of the views expressed above I will be accused of being a "denier" and/or a "rejectionist". Just what it is I am rejecting or denying will not be spelt out but Mark Twain, that irascible American wit provides some comfort: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
OPINION: The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has recently said that she would like her administration to be remembered by two things; the elimination of poverty and climate change – I assume that means a zero carbon economy.
Although I am not a rabid socialist I can understand the need for and hence can agree with policies which result in a more equitable distribution of wealth. I cannot however get my head around the idea of a zero carbon economy.
You see – I am a sceptic. But let me be very clear about what I mean. The word sceptic means "a person unconvinced by a particular fact, theory or hypothesis" And the hypothesis I am sceptical about is "That global temperatures are rising mainly due to mans activities, specifically via an increase on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)."
Yes the climate on earth is changing and indeed has always changed both up and down and long before mankind discovered fossil fuels, suggesting that some other mechanism(s) is (are) at play.
This is consistent with the fact that the ice core data shows that temperature increases about 600 to 800 years before CO2 concentrations increase. CO2 does not, it appears, determine the earth's climate.
These facts are fatal to the dangerous man-induced (anthropogenic) global warming theory. And I could add to them many other contingent but relevant arguments. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but water vapour makes up about 90% of the greenhouse effect and - this is important in the context of the supposed consensus - scientists are still arguing as to whether water vapour reduces or increases the CO2 warming effect.
Yes, since civilisation as we know it began about 10-12,000 years ago, it has been warmer (the Medieval Warm Period) and cooler (the Little Ice Age) than the present with ne'er a bag of coal or barrel of oil to be seen.
Yes sea levels have risen and glaciers have retreated as the earth has emerged from the Little Ice Age (approx. 1600-1800 AD) but there is no evidence that the rate of change in these processes has increased over the last 50 years, despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations have increased significantly.
More recently the satellite data shows that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 – almost 20 years now - despite an increase in global CO2 concentrations.
I became exposed to this issue because I work with farmers and they would say to me – "you are a scientist – what do you think about global warming." Initially I would say "sorry not my speciality."
I came to see this as a cop-out and started reading. To clarify my thinking I then wrote a paper outlining the 10 reasons why I am a sceptic and I sent this paper to people on both sides of the argument, specifically inviting them to consider if there were any flaws in logic in my arguments. None were raised.
I continue to keep an eye out for any evidence that would contradict my logic. If anything I find that what is being offered to the public as evidence of human induced global warming is becoming increasingly fragile.
White plumes of gas from smoke stacks are not CO2, which is colourless and odourless. Pictures of air pollution in China are evidence of poor air quality and not CO2 induced global warming. The fact that polar bear numbers are increasing removes the emotional implication held in pictures of lonely isolated bears on ice flows.
And I am left infuriated (pre-whiskey) and bemused (post whisky), at the never ending pictures of extreme storm events, whether snow storms on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA or heat waves in NSW, purporting to be further evidence of man–induced global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing as a consequence of global warming. Where is the fourth estate when we most need them?
And beware. The press is full of stories of a particular form: For example: an issue is identified – it may be to do with sea level rise, an endangered species, climate refugees, retreating glaciers or ice sheets breaking up. It is then predicted that the problem or issue will get worse because of global warming. The claims, if you read carefully, will, in all likelihood, be based on a desktop studies using predictions from climate models.
But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.
Finally I will leave you with a prediction: Because of the views expressed above I will be accused of being a "denier" and/or a "rejectionist". Just what it is I am rejecting or denying will not be spelt out but Mark Twain, that irascible American wit provides some comfort: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
deeps said:
Back to reality for a moment and worth a read - the thoughts of Dr Edmeades...
Is it now 90+ inaccurate models to date? There's a message there somewhere.Article said:
Year in Review: The Country kicked off 2018 with this controversial opinion piece from Dr Doug Edmeades that proved to be one of the most popular articles of the year.
OPINION: The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has recently said that she would like her administration to be remembered by two things; the elimination of poverty and climate change – I assume that means a zero carbon economy.
Although I am not a rabid socialist I can understand the need for and hence can agree with policies which result in a more equitable distribution of wealth. I cannot however get my head around the idea of a zero carbon economy.
You see – I am a sceptic. But let me be very clear about what I mean. The word sceptic means "a person unconvinced by a particular fact, theory or hypothesis" And the hypothesis I am sceptical about is "That global temperatures are rising mainly due to mans activities, specifically via an increase on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)."
Yes the climate on earth is changing and indeed has always changed both up and down and long before mankind discovered fossil fuels, suggesting that some other mechanism(s) is (are) at play.
This is consistent with the fact that the ice core data shows that temperature increases about 600 to 800 years before CO2 concentrations increase. CO2 does not, it appears, determine the earth's climate.
These facts are fatal to the dangerous man-induced (anthropogenic) global warming theory. And I could add to them many other contingent but relevant arguments. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but water vapour makes up about 90% of the greenhouse effect and - this is important in the context of the supposed consensus - scientists are still arguing as to whether water vapour reduces or increases the CO2 warming effect.
Yes, since civilisation as we know it began about 10-12,000 years ago, it has been warmer (the Medieval Warm Period) and cooler (the Little Ice Age) than the present with ne'er a bag of coal or barrel of oil to be seen.
Yes sea levels have risen and glaciers have retreated as the earth has emerged from the Little Ice Age (approx. 1600-1800 AD) but there is no evidence that the rate of change in these processes has increased over the last 50 years, despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations have increased significantly.
More recently the satellite data shows that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 – almost 20 years now - despite an increase in global CO2 concentrations.
I became exposed to this issue because I work with farmers and they would say to me – "you are a scientist – what do you think about global warming." Initially I would say "sorry not my speciality."
I came to see this as a cop-out and started reading. To clarify my thinking I then wrote a paper outlining the 10 reasons why I am a sceptic and I sent this paper to people on both sides of the argument, specifically inviting them to consider if there were any flaws in logic in my arguments. None were raised.
I continue to keep an eye out for any evidence that would contradict my logic. If anything I find that what is being offered to the public as evidence of human induced global warming is becoming increasingly fragile.
White plumes of gas from smoke stacks are not CO2, which is colourless and odourless. Pictures of air pollution in China are evidence of poor air quality and not CO2 induced global warming. The fact that polar bear numbers are increasing removes the emotional implication held in pictures of lonely isolated bears on ice flows.
And I am left infuriated (pre-whiskey) and bemused (post whisky), at the never ending pictures of extreme storm events, whether snow storms on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA or heat waves in NSW, purporting to be further evidence of man–induced global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing as a consequence of global warming. Where is the fourth estate when we most need them?
And beware. The press is full of stories of a particular form: For example: an issue is identified – it may be to do with sea level rise, an endangered species, climate refugees, retreating glaciers or ice sheets breaking up. It is then predicted that the problem or issue will get worse because of global warming. The claims, if you read carefully, will, in all likelihood, be based on a desktop studies using predictions from climate models.
But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.
Finally I will leave you with a prediction: Because of the views expressed above I will be accused of being a "denier" and/or a "rejectionist". Just what it is I am rejecting or denying will not be spelt out but Mark Twain, that irascible American wit provides some comfort: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
OPINION: The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has recently said that she would like her administration to be remembered by two things; the elimination of poverty and climate change – I assume that means a zero carbon economy.
Although I am not a rabid socialist I can understand the need for and hence can agree with policies which result in a more equitable distribution of wealth. I cannot however get my head around the idea of a zero carbon economy.
You see – I am a sceptic. But let me be very clear about what I mean. The word sceptic means "a person unconvinced by a particular fact, theory or hypothesis" And the hypothesis I am sceptical about is "That global temperatures are rising mainly due to mans activities, specifically via an increase on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)."
Yes the climate on earth is changing and indeed has always changed both up and down and long before mankind discovered fossil fuels, suggesting that some other mechanism(s) is (are) at play.
This is consistent with the fact that the ice core data shows that temperature increases about 600 to 800 years before CO2 concentrations increase. CO2 does not, it appears, determine the earth's climate.
These facts are fatal to the dangerous man-induced (anthropogenic) global warming theory. And I could add to them many other contingent but relevant arguments. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but water vapour makes up about 90% of the greenhouse effect and - this is important in the context of the supposed consensus - scientists are still arguing as to whether water vapour reduces or increases the CO2 warming effect.
Yes, since civilisation as we know it began about 10-12,000 years ago, it has been warmer (the Medieval Warm Period) and cooler (the Little Ice Age) than the present with ne'er a bag of coal or barrel of oil to be seen.
Yes sea levels have risen and glaciers have retreated as the earth has emerged from the Little Ice Age (approx. 1600-1800 AD) but there is no evidence that the rate of change in these processes has increased over the last 50 years, despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations have increased significantly.
More recently the satellite data shows that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 – almost 20 years now - despite an increase in global CO2 concentrations.
I became exposed to this issue because I work with farmers and they would say to me – "you are a scientist – what do you think about global warming." Initially I would say "sorry not my speciality."
I came to see this as a cop-out and started reading. To clarify my thinking I then wrote a paper outlining the 10 reasons why I am a sceptic and I sent this paper to people on both sides of the argument, specifically inviting them to consider if there were any flaws in logic in my arguments. None were raised.
I continue to keep an eye out for any evidence that would contradict my logic. If anything I find that what is being offered to the public as evidence of human induced global warming is becoming increasingly fragile.
White plumes of gas from smoke stacks are not CO2, which is colourless and odourless. Pictures of air pollution in China are evidence of poor air quality and not CO2 induced global warming. The fact that polar bear numbers are increasing removes the emotional implication held in pictures of lonely isolated bears on ice flows.
And I am left infuriated (pre-whiskey) and bemused (post whisky), at the never ending pictures of extreme storm events, whether snow storms on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA or heat waves in NSW, purporting to be further evidence of man–induced global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing as a consequence of global warming. Where is the fourth estate when we most need them?
And beware. The press is full of stories of a particular form: For example: an issue is identified – it may be to do with sea level rise, an endangered species, climate refugees, retreating glaciers or ice sheets breaking up. It is then predicted that the problem or issue will get worse because of global warming. The claims, if you read carefully, will, in all likelihood, be based on a desktop studies using predictions from climate models.
But remember models are not evidence. Models can be useful tools if they accurately predict the empirical (actual) evidence and none of the 90 odd climate models developed by scientists to date, have predicted the 20 years hiatus in warming that we are now experiencing. The normal practice in science in such circumstances is to set the models aside.
Finally I will leave you with a prediction: Because of the views expressed above I will be accused of being a "denier" and/or a "rejectionist". Just what it is I am rejecting or denying will not be spelt out but Mark Twain, that irascible American wit provides some comfort: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
deeps said:
Back to reality for a moment and worth a read - the thoughts of Dr Edmeades...
Just so you know, you shouldn't be copying and pasting entire articles from other websites, especially without a link. it's a breach of copyright. Article said:
Year in Review: The Country kicked off 2018 with this controversial opinion piece from Dr Doug Edmeades that proved to be one of the most popular articles of the year....
See rule 11:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.asp
robinessex said:
Diderot said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is it now 90+ inaccurate models to date? There's a message there somewhere.
And 60+ explanations for all that missing heat. Maybe Durbster could email Viner and ask him whether we're misrepresenting his almost limitless f
kwittery? Diderot said:
robinessex said:
Diderot said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is it now 90+ inaccurate models to date? There's a message there somewhere.
And 60+ explanations for all that missing heat. Maybe Durbster could email Viner and ask him whether we're misrepresenting his almost limitless f
kwittery? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff