Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Both LittleBigPlanet and El stovey have covered all of the bases here.

Unfortunately I get drawn in to arguing with the deniers on here when I really shouldn't as life is too short. Thankfully they will change nothing because as the evidence grows the number of deniers shrinks.


kerplunk

3,538 posts

145 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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. smile
Goalpost moving. Now that’s something i could learn from the climate science field! How many times have we been told that we have only x years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds left to save the planet.
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 have debunked absolutely nothing of the sort. Did you sleep through the latest round of fantastical apoplectic and apocalyptic climaggedon spew from Davos? And didn't you receive the latest memo about the 1.5 degrees tipping point boolax? Did you really believe Winky when he said we had 50 odd days to save the planet? Did you worship and genuflect at the altar of Dumbo the Homeopath when he claimed we had 6 or 7 years or so to save the planet from something bad or other 12 years or more ago?

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?
But behind the hyperbole in the headline they're usually saying something like "we have X amount of time to commit to targets that will put us on a trajectory to avoid X amount of warming in the future" don't they, so still nothing to support the claim that 'the apocalypse' should have happend by now. Just the usal myth-creation by the so called sceptics.



PRTVR

4,561 posts

160 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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
It feels great diet-turbobloke, thanks for asking. It makes my position really easy to argue.

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. frown
The problem is the science is flawed, but is driven by grants that must be maintained, how else will the scientists in this field survive, who will believe them if they suddenly change course?
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

6,907 posts

120 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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
It feels great diet-turbobloke, thanks for asking. It makes my position really easy to argue.

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. frown
The problem is the science is flawed, but is driven by grants that must be maintained, how else will the scientists in this field survive, who will believe them if they suddenly change course?
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.
Oh dear, not the models wrong again !! Who'd have guessed it?

El stovey

25,158 posts

202 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
Advertisement

turbobloke

84,347 posts

199 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
yes

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.

PRTVR

4,561 posts

160 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
Small correction , I think it is impossible to tell whether AGW is real or not.

Atomic12C

4,766 posts

156 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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!) wink



Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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. smile
Goalpost moving. Now that’s something i could learn from the climate science field! How many times have we been told that we have only x years/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds left to save the planet.
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 have debunked absolutely nothing of the sort. Did you sleep through the latest round of fantastical apoplectic and apocalyptic climaggedon spew from Davos? And didn't you receive the latest memo about the 1.5 degrees tipping point boolax? Did you really believe Winky when he said we had 50 odd days to save the planet? Did you worship and genuflect at the altar of Dumbo the Homeopath when he claimed we had 6 or 7 years or so to save the planet from something bad or other 12 years or more ago?

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?
But behind the hyperbole in the headline they're usually saying something like "we have X amount of time to commit to targets that will put us on a trajectory to avoid X amount of warming in the future" don't they, so still nothing to support the claim that 'the apocalypse' should have happend by now. Just the usal myth-creation by the so called sceptics.
It's all hyperbole and indeed hypothesis; that is the point KP. Where are the scientists critiquing the media and the politicians? They should be providing some balance and objectivity to counteract the sensationalist headlines. But no, the old Turkeys-do-not-vote-for-Christmas adage seems appropriate here.

It's not sceptics who create the myths, unless you're still maintaining that you're a sceptic? wink


Jasandjules

62,166 posts

168 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
Global government policies based upon money
EFA

dandarez

9,974 posts

222 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Atomic12C said:
Global government policies based upon money
EFA
I learnt very early on in my life that there are two words that have since been rife throughout it.

'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'.






gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
dandarez said:
I learnt very early on in my life that there are two words that have since been rife throughout it.

'Money talks'.
yes See Willie Soon for details


wc98

7,529 posts

79 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
You seen to think that MMGW on the BBC should be treated as if it were somehow not accepted as fact by the vast majority of Scientists and 100% of the Scientific Institutions and that the BBC should be not reporting or commenting on it. That they should give equal air time to both denial and acceptance sides or failing that say nothing at all.

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

6,907 posts

120 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
You seen to think that MMGW on the BBC should be treated as if it were somehow not accepted as fact by the vast majority of Scientists and 100% of the Scientific Institutions and that the BBC should be not reporting or commenting on it. That they should give equal air time to both denial and acceptance sides or failing that say nothing at all.

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.
You should emigrate to Russia. Or maybe N. Korea. China even. Should suit you perfectly in a media controlled state. Probably the most ludicrous posting you’ve ever made.

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
You seen to think that MMGW on the BBC should be treated as if it were somehow not accepted as fact by the vast majority of Scientists and 100% of the Scientific Institutions and that the BBC should be not reporting or commenting on it. That they should give equal air time to both denial and acceptance sides or failing that say nothing at all.

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.
You should emigrate to Russia. Or maybe N. Korea. China even. Should suit you perfectly in a media controlled state. Probably the most ludicrous posting you’ve ever made.
Didn't expect the BBC hater to say anything else. Thankfully, where it matters, your climate change opinions are seen as an irrelevance.

robinessex

6,907 posts

120 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
You seen to think that MMGW on the BBC should be treated as if it were somehow not accepted as fact by the vast majority of Scientists and 100% of the Scientific Institutions and that the BBC should be not reporting or commenting on it. That they should give equal air time to both denial and acceptance sides or failing that say nothing at all.

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.
You should emigrate to Russia. Or maybe N. Korea. China even. Should suit you perfectly in a media controlled state. Probably the most ludicrous posting you’ve ever made.
Didn't expect the BBC hater to say anything else. Thankfully, where it matters, your climate change opinions are seen as an irrelevance.
It only seems to matter to you, apparently.

esxste

1,530 posts

45 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.

robinessex

6,907 posts

120 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.
We shouldn't be discussing science specifically here, although it's difficult when arguing a point not to need it. The whole post goes downhill when perfectly reasonable contrary views to the establishment are posted. Then the AGW believers start to throw their toys out of the pram, and as they only have a belief, have nothing to reply with, so begin shooting the messenger, swerving, and other disruptive tactics. I think if you read from the beginning this Vol, it will soon become apparent from where the rot starts and comes from. The ‘banning’ episode is one example.

gadgetmac

5,057 posts

47 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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.

The Science thread is in the Science forum, obviously.

As for the other stuff, LBP nailed it earlier.