Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.

Great, you now accept that your constant assertion about chaotic systems is a massive oversimplification. Can you give up repeating now?

[deeps]

One side of a debate labels the other mentally ill. But isn't the block labelling of millions of people that disagree with you because you are unable to articulate a viable response but instead repetitively appeal to authority, closer to mental illness than scepticism?

Psychiatrist at Psychology Today said:

We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.

Responding Article said:

This time the game has a truly funny twist. It seems all of us millions of “deniers” are in medical denial. I am not making this up. The denial syndrome is a psychological defense mechanism first postulated by Freud. It means refusing to accept an obvious fact because it is too unpleasant, such as that one has a fatal disease. Apparently this actually happens to some people.

Of course the threat of catastrophic human caused climate change is not an obvious fact, as it is not a fact at all. It is a conjecture at best, and an unlikely one at that. This is obvious given the widespread and detailed scientific debate going on wherever one chooses to look. My own view is that this politically motivated conjecture has been well and truly falsified by observation. Others still find it debatable, but in no case is it an established fact, much less an obvious one.

[anonymous-user]

deeps said:

stuff

The problem is that you’ve been given loads of viable responses but you guys refuse to accept them and instead imagine that the scientific community are wrong or lying to gain funding and governments and all the scientific institutions are in on it for wealth redistribution.

There is actually no viable response that you would accept because your position isn’t based on science or logic at all but on political dogma.

I think there’s a actually few posters on your side that are mentally unwell.

[turbobloke]

It couild be to do with whether the idea has climate in it. Look out for the psychs' next proposal. There's no denying the funding largesse.

After a large and ancient arctic circle forest over 1,000 years old was found 'mummified' in a glacier (warmer times, nice) it's been announced that ancient life has been found over 1,000 metres below the surface of a thick sheet of antatctic ice (warmer times, nice).

A press release from the journal Nature claims that the Subglacial Antarctic Lakes Scientific Access (SALSA) mission has discovered the remains of creatures which entered the lake during warm periods (warmer times, nice) when glaciers receded.

Warmer times, both poles, a bipolar climate phenomenon. Good to know

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

I see you have gone back to personal attacks instead of commenting on the subject matter or posting fake pictures of glaciers,
probably for the best, stick to what you understand,

any comment on the replies to your pretty pictures ?

Which bit of this didn’t you understand?

gadgetmac said:

For those deniers who like to post random pictures here’s a couple I’ve just bumped into. THEY PROVE NOTHING but then hey, when has that ever stopped deniers posting them

I’d tell you to “stick to what you understand” but as you’ve demonstrated here that’s a very limited range.

Perhaps you can explain why no scientific institutions anywhere on the globe agree with your stance on AGW?

Everyone has failed miserably at this litmus test question or they’ve said its a global conspiracy

What’s YOUR answer?

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.

Great, you now accept that your constant assertion about chaotic systems is a massive oversimplification. Can you give up repeating now?

Er no. Why, because it shows up CC models as bks?

[zygalski]

El stovey said:

The problem is that you’ve been given loads of viable responses but you guys refuse to accept them and instead imagine that the scientific community are wrong or lying to gain funding and governments and all the scientific institutions are in on it for wealth redistribution.

There is actually no viable response that you would accept because your position isn’t based on science or logic at all but on political dogma.

I think there’s a actually few posters on your side that are mentally unwell.

Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38

[turbobloke]

UK Climate and Energy Policies in Tatters

Here's a GWPF version (of what's in The Times) which has open access.

https://www.thegwpf.com/britains-climate-policy-in...

For unknown reasons likely related to being a politician, Clark imagines some sort of equivalence between nuclear and unreliables when assessing their treatment by government, what a numpty. He thinks the actual cost of unreliables is known - as opposed to the price, a different matter. Nuclear isn't intermittent yet has comparable emissions compared to wind or PV. This from data in Pehl et al in Nature Energy 2, 939–945, 2017.

[dickymint]

zygalski said:

El stovey said:

The problem is that you’ve been given loads of viable responses but you guys refuse to accept them and instead imagine that the scientific community are wrong or lying to gain funding and governments and all the scientific institutions are in on it for wealth redistribution.

There is actually no viable response that you would accept because your position isn’t based on science or logic at all but on political dogma.

I think there’s a actually few posters on your side that are mentally unwell.

Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38

Debate? In here?

[Jabbah]

robinessex said:

Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.

I find it strange that you can accept that there are many levels to a system such as the oceans but can't accept the same about our atmosphere. You accept that the oceans have chaotic characteristics (e.g. currents) and that tides whilst predictable are so with noise - the high tide never happens exactly at the predicted time or the level, but are within a certain error range. The causes of the tides (gravitational bodies that affect the Earth) are predictable for many many years, even though they are a chaotic system in themselves. Yet when it comes to the atmosphere you mention that the weather cannot be predicted beyond a few days as it is chaotic so what hope do we have of predicting the climate in 100 years. Does it not occur to you that weather and climate are different levels of a system? If we can't predict the weather accurately next week does that mean we can't predict that it will be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter? You mention noise; has it not occurred to you that the weather is the chaotic noise on the more predictable climatic system? If the climate was as chaotic as the weather we would really be in trouble. One poster has claimed that because the overall temperature of the climate doesn't increase every year then that disproves climate change. Isn't this yearly fluctuation just noise in the system like current flows in the ocean?

If the difference between high and low tides suddenly started increasing then we would assume that something is very wrong. We would look towards the major influences of the tides and check if something was changing like the Moon getting closer to the Earth. Some scientists might even try denying the Moon was getting closer.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

UK Climate and Energy Policies in Tatters

Here's a GWPF version (of what's in The Times) which has open access.

https://www.thegwpf.com/britains-climate-policy-in...

For unknown reasons likely related to being a politician, Clark imagines some sort of equivalence between nuclear and unreliables when assessing their treatment by government, what a numpty. He thinks the actual cost of unreliables is known - as opposed to the price, a different matter. Nuclear isn't intermittent yet has comparable emissions compared to wind or PV. This from data in Pehl et al in Nature Energy 2, 939–945, 2017.

Isn’t this in the wrong thread?

I appreciate that you like to spread your expertise ( ) in renewables around the the whole of NP & E though.

Of course as has been pointed out above your political dogma drives that agenda too.

[deeps]

El stovey said:

Stuff

My position is based on science, facts, data and logic, whereas yours appears to be based on repetition of appeals to authority.

[deeps]

zygalski said:

Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38

The naming of organisations is irrelevant. I won't be responding to the continued parroting of that line.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

Did TB teach you that?

Only you use his sayings, ask for his thoughts, and quote from his favourite websites.

I can't be the only one to have noticed your obsession with TB, you mention him in many of your posts, often with spite. Unlike you I'm not interested in getting personal, I try to weigh up what's been said more so than who said it.

It's quite funny, if you look back through the thread you can easily identify the posters that make lots of noise but say pretty much nothing, apart from personal snide comments, and pretty much all of them are from the Believer side.

[zygalski]

deeps said:

zygalski said:

Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38

The naming of organisations is irrelevant. I won't be responding to the continued parroting of that line.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

How is it irrelevant?
You and others in this dark little corner of the internet say there's no global scientific consensus about AGW.
I simply ask you to name any scientific organisations that refute IPCC's stance on AGW.
If, as you suggest, there is no consensus amongst scientists about this issue, there should logically be several organistions which fail to back the IPCC.
I ask anyone here to name one.

QED...
no scientific organistions oppose the IPCC's stance = scientific consensus.

Now, where's that list of organisations that back the IPCC...?

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

Did TB teach you that?

Only you use his sayings, ask for his thoughts, and quote from his favourite websites.

I can't be the only one to have noticed your obsession with TB, you mention him in many of your posts, often with spite. Unlike you I'm not interested in getting personal, I try to weigh up what's been said more so than who said it.

Trust me you certainly aren't the only one to have noticed yours (in particular) and others fawning over TB's every word. You even mimic his sayings and use his chosen websites to get your information from. It's all a bit pathetic really.

Frankly he's the only one on the denier side on here with half a brain proven by the fact that you try to copy his modus operandi.

At least he has an agenda and it's pretty obvious what that is. He's your cults very own Donald Trump. You on the other hand just come across as sheeple.

However, if you'd care to answer the question of why you think there are zero scientific institutions on the entire planet that agree with your agw argument then I can switch my attention to you.

Why can none of the scientific institutions or scientists in the field see the flaws in the Climate Change argument that are apparently so obvious to your small group on this thread?

Is it a global conspiracy?

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

Trust me you certainly aren't the only one to have noticed yours (in particular) and others fawning over TB's every word. You even mimic his sayings and use his chosen websites to get your information from. It's all a bit pathetic really.

Frankly he's the only one on the denier side on here with half a brain proven by the fact that you try to copy his modus operandi.

At least he has an agenda and it's pretty obvious what that is. He's your cults very own Donald Trump. You on the other hand just come across as sheeple.

However, if you'd care to answer the question of why you think there are zero scientific institutions on the entire planet that agree with your agw argument then I can switch my attention to you.

Why can none of the scientific institutions or scientists in the field see the flaws in the Climate Change argument that are apparently so obvious to your small group on this thread?

Is it a global conspiracy?

Spot on.

It’s like they’re under some kind of schoolgirl crush, copying TB’s advocacy sites, reporting people on his behalf, fawning after him and defending him.

Then you realise that these are the ONLY sources of facts that back up their view.

They’d love to be quoting proper scientists and scientific institutions but none of them agree with them.

[V8 Fettler]

zygalski said:

deeps said:

zygalski said:

Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.

Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38

The naming of organisations is irrelevant. I won't be responding to the continued parroting of that line.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

How is it irrelevant?
You and others in this dark little corner of the internet say there's no global scientific consensus about AGW.
I simply ask you to name any scientific organisations that refute IPCC's stance on AGW.
If, as you suggest, there is no consensus amongst scientists about this issue, there should logically be several organistions which fail to back the IPCC.
I ask anyone here to name one.

QED...
no scientific organistions oppose the IPCC's stance = scientific consensus.

Now, where's that list of organisations that back the IPCC...?

Ninety different models, none of them work. Where is the consensus based on the scientific principle of published Theory?

[turbobloke]

"no scientific organistions oppose the IPCC's stance = scientific consensus"

Complete rubbish. Firstly it's activists on committees not the memberships that issue statements. This is amply demonstrated by the 'not in our name' open letter from Fellows of the Royal Society pointing out to the RS that the organisation's stance on manmadeup warming is baslcailly unscientific and contrary to 'nullius in verba'.

Secondly there are several scientific organsations that don't back permanent dangerous manmade warming, I've posted these before at which time one or two are selected for some messenger shooting, so it's not even all scientific organisations and a translation of the above false claim would include 'activists on committees in organisations approved of by agw supporters'.

Thirdly there is disagreement within the IPCC itself as witnessed and evidenced by an IPCC Lead Author present at the meetings (Christy) so the idea that there's no disagreement outside that political advocacy group is risible.

Finally the Oreskes, Cook and Doran 97% (etc) claims have been demolished many times.

If only science operated via consensus rather than hypothesis testing using empirical data, all those wasted pixels would be worth it. The (non-)consensus brigade will doubtless carry on with this nonsense, nothing has prevented it so far - faith after all is impervious to objective evidence as it's a matter of faith. That's agw summed up in four words, a matter of faith.

[Jasandjules]

Why is there so much discussion over "consensus" - I appreciate this is the political debate but science does not operate via consensus thus so much discourse is of no relevance whatsoever to the underlying facts or questions.