Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. durbster said:
It seems you're mistaking scientists with politicians and journalists here.
How naive you are Durbster (note I didn't construct that as a question). Kawasicki said:
We‘ve been promised a cgi blockbuster, where is it then?
Come on, we debunked the apocalypse prediction myth on this thread not long ago. Nobody could produce a single paper that predicted anything even remotely resembling an apocalypse to have happened by now. All we got was one paper that was presenting a scenario long into the future.You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
durbster said:
Diderot said:
You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
- and scientists, science, evidence and data
How does it feel to be easily led and manipulated by internet blogs written by people who don't publish work on the subject? That must be embarrassing for you.
Can the science prove that any change in temperature is not natural ?
I believe not, to be able to prove and associate any temperature rise to CO2 would require a full understanding of a variable chaotic system, something they have proved that is not possible,
the pause that wasn't a pause but had scientists explaining how it had gone somewhere, until the time that the numbers were adjusted and the pause disappeared show how little they understand and are dependent on models that do not reflect reality.
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
- and scientists, science, evidence and data
How does it feel to be easily led and manipulated by internet blogs written by people who don't publish work on the subject? That must be embarrassing for you.
Can the science prove that any change in temperature is not natural ?
I believe not, to be able to prove and associate any temperature rise to CO2 would require a full understanding of a variable chaotic system, something they have proved that is not possible,
the pause that wasn't a pause but had scientists explaining how it had gone somewhere, until the time that the numbers were adjusted and the pause disappeared show how little they understand and are dependent on models that do not reflect reality.
robinessex said:
Oh dear, not the models wrong again !! Who'd have guessed it?
He just said any temperature change is natural and he doesn’t think AGW is real. You don’t think that do you? It’s clearly rubbish. Why not point it out instead of finding the one little bit about models you agree with.
PRTVR said:
the pause that wasn't a pause but had scientists explaining how it had gone somewhere, until the time that the numbers were adjusted and the pause disappeared show how little they understand and are dependent on models that do not reflect reality.
IPCC global warming scientist Dr Trenberth said:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't
Trenberth said:
We are no where (sic) close to knowing where energy is going
Clue: it went thataway ^^Trenberth also said:
We are not close to balancing the energy budget.
That's settled!Some threaders may recall the wiggling on a stick involved in The Team and itsfaithful acolytes trying to explain those confessions away as 'nothing to see here' we may even get to laugh at them again soon.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh dear, not the models wrong again !! Who'd have guessed it?
He just said any temperature change is natural and he doesn’t think AGW is real. You don’t think that do you? It’s clearly rubbish. Why not point it out instead of finding the one little bit about models you agree with.
The IPCC/political understanding of what the greenhouse effect is, is totally wrong.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bauq42SxwLc
Global government policies based upon ignorance. (And arrogance and a lot of other things of course!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bauq42SxwLc
Global government policies based upon ignorance. (And arrogance and a lot of other things of course!)
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. durbster said:
It seems you're mistaking scientists with politicians and journalists here.
How naive you are Durbster (note I didn't construct that as a question). Kawasicki said:
We‘ve been promised a cgi blockbuster, where is it then?
Come on, we debunked the apocalypse prediction myth on this thread not long ago. Nobody could produce a single paper that predicted anything even remotely resembling an apocalypse to have happened by now. All we got was one paper that was presenting a scenario long into the future.You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
It's not sceptics who create the myths, unless you're still maintaining that you're a sceptic?
Jasandjules said:
Atomic12C said:
Global government policies based upon money
EFA'Money talks'.
And that there are many people out there who are regarded as 'experts', who are as far removed as possible from being so.
Hence, the introduction of the appropriate hyphenated two words to describe vast swathes of them: 'So-called'.
LittleBigPlanet said:
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:
- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
personally i think rob has a point re the bbc. there was an item on about monarch butterflies yesterday, warning of their potential demise in 20 years. trouble was when the actual filmed piece was played the first thing the narrator mentioned was the problem was habitat destruction. not surprising given the temperature variation over their distribution range would indicate temp variation due to "climate change" would have no negative effect on them.- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
wc98 said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:
- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
personally i think rob has a point re the bbc. there was an item on about monarch butterflies yesterday, warning of their potential demise in 20 years. trouble was when the actual filmed piece was played the first thing the narrator mentioned was the problem was habitat destruction. not surprising given the temperature variation over their distribution range would indicate temp variation due to "climate change" would have no negative effect on them.- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
That is rightly seen as ridiculous and I'm glad the BBC do report on issues and mention MMGW where it is appropriate.
The day they start pandering to to the far flung fantasies of a handful of Internet denialists is the day the BBC will truly die. Until then, if it appears to have MMGW links then long may they contribute to be broadcast.
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:
- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
personally i think rob has a point re the bbc. there was an item on about monarch butterflies yesterday, warning of their potential demise in 20 years. trouble was when the actual filmed piece was played the first thing the narrator mentioned was the problem was habitat destruction. not surprising given the temperature variation over their distribution range would indicate temp variation due to "climate change" would have no negative effect on them.- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
That is rightly seen as ridiculous and I'm glad the BBC do report on issues and mention MMGW where it is appropriate.
The day they start pandering to to the far flung fantasies of a handful of Internet denialists is the day the BBC will truly die. Until then, if it appears to have MMGW links then long may they contribute to be broadcast.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:
- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
personally i think rob has a point re the bbc. there was an item on about monarch butterflies yesterday, warning of their potential demise in 20 years. trouble was when the actual filmed piece was played the first thing the narrator mentioned was the problem was habitat destruction. not surprising given the temperature variation over their distribution range would indicate temp variation due to "climate change" would have no negative effect on them.- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
That is rightly seen as ridiculous and I'm glad the BBC do report on issues and mention MMGW where it is appropriate.
The day they start pandering to to the far flung fantasies of a handful of Internet denialists is the day the BBC will truly die. Until then, if it appears to have MMGW links then long may they contribute to be broadcast.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:
- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
personally i think rob has a point re the bbc. there was an item on about monarch butterflies yesterday, warning of their potential demise in 20 years. trouble was when the actual filmed piece was played the first thing the narrator mentioned was the problem was habitat destruction. not surprising given the temperature variation over their distribution range would indicate temp variation due to "climate change" would have no negative effect on them.- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
That is rightly seen as ridiculous and I'm glad the BBC do report on issues and mention MMGW where it is appropriate.
The day they start pandering to to the far flung fantasies of a handful of Internet denialists is the day the BBC will truly die. Until then, if it appears to have MMGW links then long may they contribute to be broadcast.
LittleBigPlanet said:
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
This. I'd come into this thread more often if there were more science actually being discussed instead of petty little spats.
esxste said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
This. I'd come into this thread more often if there were more science actually being discussed instead of petty little spats.
esxste said:
This.
I'd come into this thread more often if there were more science actually being discussed instead of petty little spats.
To be fair this is the politics thread so it's going to be more of a bh fest than the Science thread. Look upon it as the equivalent of the Brexit thread but for MMGW.I'd come into this thread more often if there were more science actually being discussed instead of petty little spats.
The Science thread is in the Science forum, obviously.
As for the other stuff, LBP nailed it earlier.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff