Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[PRTVR]

deeps said:

El stovey said:

deeps said:

?

Lost for words...

Fingers crossed.

I'll just correct that for you...

deeps said:

Quote of the week from the BBC News channel :

BBC News said:

The Drax power station in North Yorkshire has become the first in the world to reverse climate change on a tiny scale in a process known as carbon negative...

How are they allowed to state such lies and nonsense and even worse present it as news?

Lost for words...

To me this is very important and goes right to the heart of the entire AGW issue. The BBC has just broadcast this into millions of living rooms prime time, and it's nonsense presented as fact. Look at it again, I invite anyone to attempt to justify it...

BBC News channel prime time said:

The Drax power station in North Yorkshire has become the first in the world to reverse climate change...

...to me this sums up the farce and bias of the entire AGW debate, but El stovey dismisses it with a question mark and an ad hom, which speaks for itself too.

Yet again the UK energy costs will increase, for no effect on worldwide CO2 emissions, the BBC did a small piece when the limit on electricity prices was increased, it pointed to people having to choose between heating or food, sadly they appear not to be able to join the dots and connect the two.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

It’s regularly mentioned on this thread that “some of the sceptics actually believe in AGW”...as if that somehow makes us not really sceptics at all. It’s not a black or white issue. I don’t mind being insulted by strangers, so don’t let that stop you answering my question.

I have answered it, I think you're a believer ie someone who believes something without much evidence to support that view, and in the face of lots of evidence that contradicts it. Definitely NOT what in my view constitutes scientific scepticism and thus you ain't no sceptic bruv

Hope that's clear.

So, if I am the believer that makes you the sceptic. Have I at least got that right?

That's twisted your noodle hasn't it. Yes, I would be very sceptical of the claim that humans have contributed next to nothing to global warming. And more generally I would say I see a lot of deeply unsceptical argumentation, motivated reasoning to 'believe', and confirmation bias coming from the supposedly 'sceptic' side.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

It’s regularly mentioned on this thread that “some of the sceptics actually believe in AGW”...as if that somehow makes us not really sceptics at all. It’s not a black or white issue. I don’t mind being insulted by strangers, so don’t let that stop you answering my question.

I have answered it, I think you're a believer ie someone who believes something without much evidence to support that view, and in the face of lots of evidence that contradicts it. Definitely NOT what in my view constitutes scientific scepticism and thus you ain't no sceptic bruv

Hope that's clear.

So, if I am the believer that makes you the sceptic. Have I at least got that right?

That's twisted your noodle hasn't it. Yes, I would be very sceptical of the claim that humans have contributed next to nothing to global warming. And more generally I would say I see a lot of deeply unsceptical argumentation, motivated reasoning to 'believe', and confirmation bias coming from the supposedly 'sceptic' side.

Yeah, you’ve twisted my noodle.

So you think the CAGW sceptics are actually the unsceptical confirmation biased believers in the non existence of CAGW, whilst the believers in CAGW theories are actually the ones asking the tough questions, they need to see solid evidence.

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

[fakenews]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687889/F...

More stupidity. Meanwhile real environmental/economic problems become ever harder to reverse - and these will impact this generation more than any other before.

[mko9]

Yes, the climate may be 3-4C warmer in 100 years, +/-100C.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-...

[PRTVR]

fakenews said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687889/F...

More stupidity. Meanwhile real environmental/economic problems become ever harder to reverse - and these will impact this generation more than any other before.

It's only to be expected, my nephew has been at university for a few years now and what a change, he now is a strong labour supporter, extolling the virtues of Corbin and Abbott,
I really do wonder what they teach them.
I see in the link they have the normal poster about saving the polar bears, when scientists have proved the numbers to be increasing, even the Inuits have been saying the same, but what would they know they have only lived alongside the polar bears for thousands of years.
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/pola...

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?

You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect.
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere.
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere.
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes.
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements.
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt etc.
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming.
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world.
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields.
You have acceptance from every source of all related data.

What else can you possibly need?

[robinessex]

fakenews said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687889/F...

More stupidity. Meanwhile real environmental/economic problems become ever harder to reverse - and these will impact this generation more than any other before.

From that link

"The National Association of Head Teachers, which is chaired by Andy Mellor, has welcomed the day and 'applauded' students for being prepared to take action.
A spokesman said: 'When you get older pupils making an informed decision, that kind of thing needs to be applauded."

How is it an 'informed decision ? Teachers in schools are just parrots re CC.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Since the CAGW believers are actually convinced sceptics, they have obviously access to clear evidence of CAGW. Where is it?

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?

You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect.
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere.
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere.
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes.
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements.
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt etc.
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming.
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world.
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields.
You have acceptance from every source of all related data.

What else can you possibly need?

Every time you awake from you hibernation, you post that bks again. Example. Models are bks, you can't model (hence predict) chaotic systems. I've told you that many times. And while I’m bothering to reply, just remind us what will happen on Armageddon day, and how anyone on the planet would know that for certain? On second thoughts don’t bother, you’ll only be using crystal ball predictions

PS. Good troll Durbs, because that’s what you are really

[gadgetmac]

...they’re just smarter than you. Thats why they teach and you lot don’t - because nobody would want their kids taught by people with no qualifications in a subject when qualified people with experience in the field are available.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

I've told you that many times.

Who the hell cares what you say??? You know damn all about the subject as you demonstrate daily.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I've told you that many times.

Who the hell cares what you say??? You know damn all about the subject as you demonstrate daily.

That's brilliant, from someone who still can't understand that no matter how big or complex a mathmatical statistical computation is, it will still end with a probability

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Which bit of evidence do you believe is missing that might convince you that AGW is happening as predicted?


You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century.
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world.

What else can you possibly need?

Just taking 3 of your claims from what resembles the stony decalogue of CAGW belief.

Models are fundamentally flawed by their very nature. They couldn't predict/project/guess the way out of a paper bag. They are always wrong - often massively wrong - in their forecasting of future climate states.

Consistent warming trend? Except for the pause/hiatus hernia that NONE of the models predicted/projected and that 60+ scientists in peer reviewed articles have sought to explain away. Indeed, just one more failure in a litany of failures for the models.

There is very little evidence in the data of record breaking extreme weather events cf. hurricanes. The media and believer focus on record breaking this, that and the other is epistemologically illiterate.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

...they’re just smarter than you. Thats why they teach and you lot don’t - because nobody would want their kids taught by people with no qualifications in a subject when qualified people with experience in the field are available.

My niece is a teacher. She's confirmed the CC stuff is all pre-written, and just needs regurgitating.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I've told you that many times.

Who the hell cares what you say??? You know damn all about the subject as you demonstrate daily.

That's brilliant, from someone who still can't understand that no matter how big or complex a mathmatical statistical computation is, it will still end with a probability

This from the bloke who still doesn’t realise the paper was all about probabilities and even had it in the title.

It’s highly probable that man is the cause of the warming was the summary.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

...they’re just smarter than you. Thats why they teach and you lot don’t - because nobody would want their kids taught by people with no qualifications in a subject when qualified people with experience in the field are available.

My niece is a teacher. She's confirmed the CC stuff is all pre-written, and just needs regurgitating.

And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of st, and her dog agrees.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I've told you that many times.

Who the hell cares what you say??? You know damn all about the subject as you demonstrate daily.

That's brilliant, from someone who still can't understand that no matter how big or complex a mathmatical statistical computation is, it will still end with a probability

This from the bloke who still doesn’t realise the paper was all about probabilities and even had it in the title.

It’s highly probable that man is the cause of the warming was the summary.

How would you like 100 soldiers to aim and fire their rifles at you, but with only 1 having a loaded gun ? Statisticaly, you’d probably survive.

[fakenews]

robinessex said:

How is it an 'informed decision ? Teachers in schools are just parrots re CC.

I read into this a little more (away from the dire Daily Mail) and the word 'justice' keeps cropping up. Whether you believe or not, climate change in this instance is being used to achieve political aspirations.

I truly believe those who seek unpopular Socialist, Marxist or Communist policies in the West see MMGW as an opportunity - it's effectively an unstoppable Trojan horse stuffed full of such backward objectives.

[robinessex]

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

I think the last few posts my Mr. G says it all really. I suppose I should get him dumped from here, but I'll let him carry own digging an even bigger hole for himself. Just don't get near him when he throws his toys out of his pram.

How are you going to get me dumped from here??? Delusions of granduer.

You post rubbish and you’ll get called out on it.