Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Harsh but true said:
Jail time for the Climate Con-men!
Recently resigned World bank Leader Jim Yong Kim should be behind bars waiting on a trial for crimes against humanity.
He imposed his green energy poverty regime on the very people he was supposed to be helping, no reliable and cheap coal powered electricity for you he said, I have to prevent a slight increase in a trace gas that increases food crops and greens deserts and is fundamental to life itself.
Dr Jim Yong Kim should be given the opportunity to prove that Carbon Dioxide is so evil it was necessary for him to keep whole populations in poverty, if he can’t, then throw away the key.
Recently resigned World bank Leader Jim Yong Kim should be behind bars waiting on a trial for crimes against humanity.
He imposed his green energy poverty regime on the very people he was supposed to be helping, no reliable and cheap coal powered electricity for you he said, I have to prevent a slight increase in a trace gas that increases food crops and greens deserts and is fundamental to life itself.
Dr Jim Yong Kim should be given the opportunity to prove that Carbon Dioxide is so evil it was necessary for him to keep whole populations in poverty, if he can’t, then throw away the key.
Washington Times said:
The unexpected departure of Dr. Jim Yong Kim as president of the World Bank gives President Donald J. Trump the perfect opportunity to reverse the anti-fossil fuel, energy poverty agenda the bank has pursued since Dr. Kim’s appointment by President Barack Obama in 2012.
The World Bank is the world’s premier development bank. Its knowledge of developing countries means that its participation is often essential to leverage private sector investment into some of the world’s poorest countries.
Rather than development, Dr. Kim saw the bank’s principal job as waging President Obama’s war on coal across the developing world. One of his first acts was instituting a ban on World Bank participation in any funding of new electrical generation projects using coal, other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
The United States is the bank’s largest funder, but Dr. Kim behaved as if Hillary Clinton had won Barack Obama’s third term in the 2016 presidential election. In no area was the policy rupture between the two administrations sharper than on energy, where Mr. Obama’s war on coal has been replaced by the Trump administration’s doctrine of American energy dominance. ...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/g...The World Bank is the world’s premier development bank. Its knowledge of developing countries means that its participation is often essential to leverage private sector investment into some of the world’s poorest countries.
Rather than development, Dr. Kim saw the bank’s principal job as waging President Obama’s war on coal across the developing world. One of his first acts was instituting a ban on World Bank participation in any funding of new electrical generation projects using coal, other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
The United States is the bank’s largest funder, but Dr. Kim behaved as if Hillary Clinton had won Barack Obama’s third term in the 2016 presidential election. In no area was the policy rupture between the two administrations sharper than on energy, where Mr. Obama’s war on coal has been replaced by the Trump administration’s doctrine of American energy dominance. ...
gadgetmac said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...
"A US research team (note: not made up of professors from the PH climate threads) examined ice cores from western Greenland that record the behaviour of the ice sheet dating back to 1650.
The group's analysis indicated that an uptick in melting began soon after the onset of industrial-era Arctic warming in the mid-1800s, and that the decade 2004-2013 experienced more sustained and intense melting than any other 10-year period in the 350-year record."
Where was the ice before 1650? "A US research team (note: not made up of professors from the PH climate threads) examined ice cores from western Greenland that record the behaviour of the ice sheet dating back to 1650.
The group's analysis indicated that an uptick in melting began soon after the onset of industrial-era Arctic warming in the mid-1800s, and that the decade 2004-2013 experienced more sustained and intense melting than any other 10-year period in the 350-year record."
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
We keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting hotter.
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
Funniest most laughable statement on here for ... well at least a day or two.As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
We keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting hotter.
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Cooling approx 1900-1910 and 1945-1975 or have the data diddlers managed to erase that lot already?As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
No need to mention The Pause (just did anyway),
No comprehensive and accurate list of scientific institutions 'on the face of the planet' exists and nobody has surveyed all of them. Soundbite fail.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 22 January 20:50
Name one institution, I've asked 3 times now
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
We keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting hotter.
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Cooling approx 1900-1910 and 1945-1975 or have the data diddlers managed to erase that lot already?As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
No need to mention The Pause (just did anyway),
No comprehensive and accurate list of scientific institutions 'on the face of the planet' exists and nobody has surveyed all of them. Soundbite fail.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 22 January 20:50
Name one institution, I've asked 3 times now
And are you denying the pause existed once again? This is getting tiresome. Surely you do understand that there are more than 60 peer reviewed papers from climate scientists (from your favoured consensus institutions) in a variety of journals including Nature which attempt to explain where the missing heat went on holiday? BTW, in case you were wondering, none of them thar God-like models that you blindly worship foretold the pause/hiatus. I wonder why ...
BBC in new impartiality shocker.
Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated b
ks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event.
I am convinced. Yes indeed.
Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated b
ks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event. I am convinced. Yes indeed.
Diderot said:
BBC in new impartiality shocker.
Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated bks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event.
I am convinced. Yes indeed.
i could support a small population cull i think. start with those in davos at the moment then move onto all politicians. that will sort the majority of the world's problems out fairly rapidly Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated b
ks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event. I am convinced. Yes indeed.
Diderot said:
BBC in new impartiality shocker.
Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated bks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event.
I am convinced. Yes indeed.
I don't watch any BBC climate reports anymore. To any logical mind, the fact that an organisation as massive as the BBC is broadcasting one side of a debate into peoples living rooms, daily, presenting theories as fact, telling lies that are later corrected only after complaints from viewers with a small retraction on their website, and most of all not permitting any voice to be heard from the opposing side, speaks for itself. Dumbo’s offspring interviews Mr I hate the surplus population Attenborough at a rather snowy Davos and spews out the usual unsubstantiated b
ks about the end of days. Then Newsnight sees fit (due to the unique way the BBC is funded) to get Monbigot and a Prof from the Grantham Instituit to ‘debate’ the only way forward to save the planet from some kind of imminent extinction event. I am convinced. Yes indeed.
I find it truly shocking, I'm not sure why I actually feel ashamed of the BBC, I can simply turn it off and do. But in some way it saddens me to see what it has been allowed to become.
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
We keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting hotter.
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
Funniest most laughable statement on here for ... well at least a day or two.As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
Diderot said:
You never mention your education, qualifications or occupation, (but you keep slighting those who have) but it would appear from your irrational, illogical and ill-conceived outbursts that there are sharper tools than the sandwich that’s evidently missing from the proverbial picnic.
As you know. He’s not the one saying the scientific community are wrong. He doesn’t need to state his credentials.
You on the other hand find yourself on the other side of the scientific community, so your credentials are relevant. As usual, it seems you’re at least elusive about them.
Are you a professor?
What are you a professor of?
If you are a scientist and have evidence of the biggest fraud in the history of science, why aren’t you doing anything about it?
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
We keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting hotter.
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
Funniest most laughable statement on here for ... well at least a day or two.As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
You never mention your education, qualifications or occupation, (but you keep slighting those who have) but it would appear from your irrational, illogical and ill-conceived outbursts that there are sharper tools than the sandwich that’s evidently missing from the proverbial picnic.
As you know. He’s not the one saying the scientific community are wrong. He doesn’t need to state his credentials.
You on the other hand find yourself on the other side of the scientific community, so your credentials are relevant. As usual, it seems you’re at least elusive about them.
Are you a professor?
What are you a professor of?
If you are a scientist and have evidence of the biggest fraud in the history of science, why aren’t you doing anything about it?
gadgetmac said:
V8 Fettler said:
durbster said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Glad to see Vinerism falling heavily across many parts of the UK today.
In the 5 favourite denier strategies that comes under cherry picking with a side order of slight misrepresentation. One scientist out of tens of thousands, talking about an unspecified time in the future, in an incident that happened almost 20 years ago.
Well that's all the proof I need!
As the models show. Without exception.
And the vast majority of scientists actually in the field(s) agree.
As does EVERY Scientific institution on the face of the planet.
Unless you can name a dissenting one.
Go on then, I’ll wait.
Has any scientific institution supported their claims with accurate models or published Theories?
V8 Fettler said:
The flawed data derived from the various inaccurate models indicates that the earth's climate varies over time. In the real world, the earth's climate does indeed vary over time; however, the flawed data derived from various models does not match reality. There are likely to be lots of causes of the continuing variation.
The definition of variation would require the temperature to not follow a trend, yet each decade has been warmer than the last. What's your explanation for that? Everything in nature is driven by some kind of mechanism, so what's your alternative explanation for the warming trend over the last century that just happens to match model projections?V8 Fettler said:
Has any scientific institution supported their claims with accurate models or published Theories?
Are you still insisting there's no scientific theory behind AGW? If that were true, what on earth do you think the models are based on? 
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Read any academic journal on any subject matter and you will witness healthy argument.
Show us an academic journal where there is a "healthy argument" about whether human-caused global warming is real.It's like the real scientific community are actually even debating that CO2 is causing the warming of the planet anymore and that man isn't contributing to this.
All of the models show this as do the vast majority of studies taking place. Only the likes of Big oil funded Heartland are disputing it.
Their denial that CO2 is contributing to global warming as seen in the comments above is akin to flat earthers arguing that the horizon is flat so the earth is flat.
In fact the similarities don't end there, the flat earthers also say that NASA is a government propaganda machine on this subject.
Who does that mesh with on here?
Diderot said:
Gadgetmac, are you attempting something resembling irony? Or is this the accidental byproduct of something more intellectually moribund? You never mention your education, qualifications or occupation, (but you keep slighting those who have) but it would appear from your irrational, illogical and ill-conceived outbursts that there are sharper tools than the sandwich that’s evidently missing from the proverbial picnic.
And are you denying the pause existed once again? This is getting tiresome. Surely you do understand that there are more than 60 peer reviewed papers from climate scientists (from your favoured consensus institutions) in a variety of journals including Nature which attempt to explain where the missing heat went on holiday? BTW, in case you were wondering, none of them thar God-like models that you blindly worship foretold the pause/hiatus. I wonder why ...
Diderot, you do know that all of the latest studies are finding that the pause didn't happen don't you.And are you denying the pause existed once again? This is getting tiresome. Surely you do understand that there are more than 60 peer reviewed papers from climate scientists (from your favoured consensus institutions) in a variety of journals including Nature which attempt to explain where the missing heat went on holiday? BTW, in case you were wondering, none of them thar God-like models that you blindly worship foretold the pause/hiatus. I wonder why ...
The 2 latest were only last month.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/1812...
Of course if you want to believe their was a pause (and the IPCC did mention it) then the warming since the end of it taken on its own is dramatic.
Of course you've been told this before but your own scientific investigations in the field and the lab (or by referencing WUWT and the Heartland Institute, who knows with you armchair professors) have concluded that these 2 studies are flawed in some way.
More studies showing the same are incoming as our knowledge increases. It's a relentless one-way flow of evidence that builds every day and must be terribly dispiriting for you. You end up having to rant about 20 year old data being wrong and using dubious sources to make your point.
Bad luck I'm afraid.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Gadgetmac, are you attempting something resembling irony? Or is this the accidental byproduct of something more intellectually moribund? You never mention your education, qualifications or occupation, (but you keep slighting those who have) but it would appear from your irrational, illogical and ill-conceived outbursts that there are sharper tools than the sandwich that’s evidently missing from the proverbial picnic.
And are you denying the pause existed once again? This is getting tiresome. Surely you do understand that there are more than 60 peer reviewed papers from climate scientists (from your favoured consensus institutions) in a variety of journals including Nature which attempt to explain where the missing heat went on holiday? BTW, in case you were wondering, none of them thar God-like models that you blindly worship foretold the pause/hiatus. I wonder why ...
Diderot, you do know that all of the latest studies are finding that the pause didn't happen don't you.And are you denying the pause existed once again? This is getting tiresome. Surely you do understand that there are more than 60 peer reviewed papers from climate scientists (from your favoured consensus institutions) in a variety of journals including Nature which attempt to explain where the missing heat went on holiday? BTW, in case you were wondering, none of them thar God-like models that you blindly worship foretold the pause/hiatus. I wonder why ...
The 2 latest were only last month.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/1812...
Of course if you want to believe their was a pause (and the IPCC did mention it) then the warming since the end of it taken on its own is dramatic.
Of course you've been told this before but your own scientific investigations in the field and the lab (or by referencing WUWT and the Heartland Institute, who knows with you armchair professors) have concluded that these 2 studies are flawed in some way.
More studies showing the same are incoming as our knowledge increases. It's a relentless one-way flow of evidence that builds every day and must be terribly dispiriting for you. You end up having to rant about 20 year old data being wrong and using dubious sources to make your point.
Bad luck I'm afraid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff