Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Similarly much has been trumpeted by deniers about a letter signed by 25 current Geological Society of London fellowes along the same lines.
Out of 12,000 who could of signed it...well...you can do the math on that one.
So that's 11,975 whose income depend on keeping their mouths shutOut of 12,000 who could of signed it...well...you can do the math on that one.
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
Wow!
You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
It's a sight to behold isn't it You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
I think it’s to get his posts away from the last page.
gadgetmac said:
Can you post the list of fellowes who didn't believe in it enough to put their name to it.
I'm sure PH's servers can store that amount of data.
If not, just take that post and in your mind multiply it by 364.
What the x 364 who’s livelihoods probably depends on ‘knuckling down’ and not putting their careers/families well being at risk?I'm sure PH's servers can store that amount of data.
If not, just take that post and in your mind multiply it by 364.
You do realise that being a “scientist” is just a job?
Jinx said:
gadgetmac said:
Or any of the 69 climate science denier groups that Exxonmobile continues to fund
Still scientific institutions irrespective of the funding model. 
You'll find businesses the world over fund research. As do NGOs and to be honest I would not trust either.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot, you do know that all of the latest studies are finding that the pause didn't happen don't you.
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.
wow, a real live pause denier 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.
The science being reported is almost all from grants made using public funds.
Funding for any secondary source organisation which gives a reference to this peer-reviewed research is irrelevant.
It's good to have a varied funding base for reporting, particularly as the UK offers no public funds for explicitly anti-agw research (Hansard) and as Jinx points out, all science needs to be judged on its merits not the nature and funding of a secondary source reporting on it.
After all we can't expect full coverage of agw research in The Guardian or on the BBC website (regrettably).
Funding for any secondary source organisation which gives a reference to this peer-reviewed research is irrelevant.
It's good to have a varied funding base for reporting, particularly as the UK offers no public funds for explicitly anti-agw research (Hansard) and as Jinx points out, all science needs to be judged on its merits not the nature and funding of a secondary source reporting on it.
After all we can't expect full coverage of agw research in The Guardian or on the BBC website (regrettably).
durbster said:
hairykrishna said:
zygalski said:
Wow!
You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
It's TB's version of the Gish gallop.You've initiated full spam mode.
He always does this when on the ropes. Usually every third page or so.
The International Arctic Research Centre is an out-and-out LIE as was discovered last August.
My questions about that particular entry on the 12th August were never answered despite being asked at least 4 times.
It’s like he’s the Donald Trump of denial.
Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 23 January 19:04
Will Climate Hysteria Unravel Canada?
Date: 23/01/19
Holman W. Jenkins Jr., The Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-politics-and-gl...
Full access here:
https://www.thegwpf.com/will-climate-hysteria-unra...
Date: 23/01/19
Holman W. Jenkins Jr., The Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-politics-and-gl...
Full access here:
https://www.thegwpf.com/will-climate-hysteria-unra...
durbster said:
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? 
As previously: in general usage, "theory" generally means "guess" or "hunch". In science, "theory" is supported by repeatable experiments or accurate models. In general usage, scientific theory broadly equates to proof, although a scientist will tell you that "proof" doesn't exist in science.
What are the believers basing their models on? Primarily guesswork.
2019: 'Climate change will affect (increase) how many boys are born worldwide, scientists say' - CNN
2005: 'Men Warm The Globe, Women Feel the Heat' - Feminist Climate Group
Oooer...more boys born, more global warming, more boys born...
That is, if this wasn't the usual pile of manure.
2005: 'Men Warm The Globe, Women Feel the Heat' - Feminist Climate Group
Oooer...more boys born, more global warming, more boys born...
That is, if this wasn't the usual pile of manure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff