Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

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.

your mind must work in mysterious ways if you can interpret that lot of drivel from my post. the bbc just made themselves look stupid by making a climate change related claim when the subject expert said the issue was habitat destruction. it is a good example of virtue signalling around climate change detracting from real and immediate issues like habitat destruction that could and should be addressed now.

[gadgetmac]

Virtue signalling?

The WWF said Climate Change was one of the factors that has led to the reduction of the Monarch butterflies in Mexico.

And they said it before the BBC. Are they "virtue signalling" too?

Yes, it's not the only factor but it is seen as a factor all the same. Are you saying that the BBC shouldn't report that?

Try looking at more than just the BBC's site to see if they are misrepresenting the story.

Edited by gadgetmac on Monday 11th February 17:47

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

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.

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?

Ok well now you're just talking about things that are synonymous with journalism in general, though you're working hard to lay the blame at the feet of climate scientists of course

I'm minded to say 'heal thyself' but everybody employs hyperbole don't they - this place is rife with it.

But you should be more careful about attributing the headline to the author of the copy btw (eg Gordon Brown). It's SOP for the sub-editor to write the headline and he's got selling more newspapers on his mind.

"unless you're still maintaining that you're a sceptic?"

That just makes me laugh because from my point of view just about everything I write here is an expression of my scepticism (see above) but you obviously see it as something else

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 11th February 18:23

[gadgetmac]

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

[kerplunk]

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

[JustALooseScrew]

I was only half listening as it was an advert on the #tv - but I swear I just heard an advert for Microsoft AI/Cloud where they stated 'By 20xx we need to produce 20%? more food'.

Yey - so what makes plants grow? Water, Light, CO2 and Warmth.

Win win - all bases are covered.

[gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

Professor Tom Oliver on Channel 4 also talked about the need for the Govt to live up to it’s Carbon reduction targets as one of the things that needs to be done to try halt this decline.

But hell, what do Doctors in the Lab and Professors know eh?

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Virtue signalling?

The WWF said Climate Change was one of the factors that has led to the reduction of the Monarch butterflies in Mexico.

And they said it before the BBC. Are they "virtue signalling" too?

Yes, it's not the only factor but it is seen as a factor all the same. Are you saying that the BBC shouldn't report that?

Try looking at more than just the BBC's site to see if they are misrepresenting the story.

Edited by gadgetmac on Monday 11th February 17:47

wwf are a fund raising company, that's what they do. they are also wrong re climate change and monarch butterflies. explain to me how they will be stricken down by climate change when even a shift in temp predicted by your beloved climate models over the next twenty years would not take many of them outside the range of temps they currently live in ?

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

carbon ? is someone throwing lumps of coal at spiders now ? dumb and dumber strike again and i am supposed to be making myself look stupid

The researchers found that declines in almost all regions may lead to the extinction of 40% of insects over the next few decades. One-third of insect species are classed as Endangered.

"The main factor is the loss of habitat, due to agricultural practices, urbanisation and deforestation," lead author Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney, told BBC News.

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. now before you start trying to wriggle out of your stupidity by claiming climate change has had a particularly large impact in the tropics i would suggest you do some reading to see if that notion can be supported. here is a starter for ten https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/public...

what about dr donkersley's comments today on the bbc ? well i haven't seen the program to see if gm has misrepresented what he said, but it is certainly at odds with what he has said previously.
"Dr Philip Donkersley, of Lancaster University and author of the study, said: "Given how great these resources are for pollinators, their loss could easily be a contributing factor to our current pollinator crisis across the world.

"By removing these key resources from the environment, and making insufficient efforts to replace them with wildflower strips, we are effectively starving our pollinators of food and places to nest."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/1811...

now you both look like clowns because you couldn't admit that in the report on monarch butterflies the reporter added in the climate change meme with no justification. expected by gm. he has done zero research on the subject, couldn't explain the greenhouse effect and just parrots the rantings of the alarmist element . expect better of kp though.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 20:36

[durbster]

On the baseless myth often posted in these threads that there is actually huge disagreement among scientists about climate change, and the 97% in agreement is therefore incorrect, I saw this today.



https://twitter.com/BiologaSamantha/status/1094716...

Basically a scientist (non-climate) put an open poll to scientists on Twitter about acceptance of climate change. I just thought I'd share it because, amusingly, right now exactly 97% of respondents have currently voted in favour.

I've asked countless times on here for anything resembling evidence of this apparent enormous dissent among scientists but there just isn't any. Obviously a Twitter poll is hardly scientific but the ratio is clearly notable, and it's a reminder of which side of the argument is fringe.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed as being down to brainwashing or mysterious activists infiltrating Twitter or something equally daft.

[wc98]

durbster said:

On the baseless myth often posted in these threads that there is actually huge disagreement among scientists about climate change, and the 97% in agreement is therefore incorrect, I saw this today.



https://twitter.com/BiologaSamantha/status/1094716...

Basically a scientist (non-climate) put an open poll to scientists on Twitter about acceptance of climate change. I just thought I'd share it because, amusingly, right now exactly 97% of respondents have currently voted in favour.

I've asked countless times on here for anything resembling evidence of this apparent enormous dissent among scientists but there just isn't any. Obviously a Twitter poll is hardly scientific but the ratio is clearly notable, and it's a reminder of which side of the argument is fringe.

But I'm sure this will be dismissed as being down to brainwashing or mysterious activists infiltrating Twitter or something equally daft.

they will be the same crew that rattle about the alarmist blogs liking all things alarmist. someone has even posted the john cook crap. people that have an interest in the subject tend to pop up in climate related posts on multiple platforms,unless you are suggesting that samantha woke up this moring and decided to post a poll on climate change belief despite having no previous interest ? her claims climate scientists will have responded lead me to believe it is not a new subject to her.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. n

What, there's no grant money from pharma companies?

wc98 said:

they will be the same crew that rattle about the alarmist blogs liking all things alarmist. someone has even posted the john cook crap. people that have an interest in the subject tend to pop up in climate related posts on multiple platforms,unless you are suggesting that samantha woke up this moring and decided to post a poll on climate change belief despite having no previous interest ? her claims climate scientists will have responded lead me to believe it is not a new subject to her.

Remember folks, if it makes uncomfortable reading you can save yourself from the inconvenience of reality by just blaming it on the conspiracy.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

carbon ? is someone throwing lumps of coal at spiders now ? dumb and dumber strike again and i am supposed to be making myself look stupid

The researchers found that declines in almost all regions may lead to the extinction of 40% of insects over the next few decades. One-third of insect species are classed as Endangered.

"The main factor is the loss of habitat, due to agricultural practices, urbanisation and deforestation," lead author Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney, told BBC News.

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. now before you start trying to wriggle out of your stupidity by claiming climate change has had a particularly large impact in the tropics i would suggest you do some reading to see if that notion can be supported. here is a starter for ten https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/public...

what about dr donkersley's comments today on the bbc ? well i haven't seen the program to see if gm has misrepresented what he said, but it is certainly at odds with what he has said previously.
"Dr Philip Donkersley, of Lancaster University and author of the study, said: "Given how great these resources are for pollinators, their loss could easily be a contributing factor to our current pollinator crisis across the world.

"By removing these key resources from the environment, and making insufficient efforts to replace them with wildflower strips, we are effectively starving our pollinators of food and places to nest."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/1811...

now you both look like clowns because you couldn't admit that in the report on monarch butterflies the reporter added in the climate change meme with no justification. expected by gm. he has done zero research on the subject, couldn't explain the greenhouse effect and just parrots the rantings of the alarmist element . expect better of kp though.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 20:36

What a load of old codswallop.

Which bit of...

gadgetmac said:

Yes, it's not the only factor but it is seen as a factor all the same.

...didn’t make it through your skull to your brain?

Try Dr Donkersley on tonights news at 10pm (if it’s repeated) and then come back and tell me I’ve misrepresented him. Unfortunately for you my names not Turbomac or you might have a point.

Once again though it’s the giant conspiracy to keep all of the Scientists in grants.

You really are a special kind of stupid.

[wc98]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. n

What, there's no grant money from pharma companies?

wc98 said:

they will be the same crew that rattle about the alarmist blogs liking all things alarmist. someone has even posted the john cook crap. people that have an interest in the subject tend to pop up in climate related posts on multiple platforms,unless you are suggesting that samantha woke up this moring and decided to post a poll on climate change belief despite having no previous interest ? her claims climate scientists will have responded lead me to believe it is not a new subject to her.

Remember folks, if it makes uncomfortable reading you can save yourself from the inconvenience of reality by just blaming it on the conspiracy.

christ, you lot are getting weirder by the day. if i ran a poll on a gwpf twitter feed regarding the 97% ,how much stock would you place on the results ?

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

carbon ? is someone throwing lumps of coal at spiders now ? dumb and dumber strike again and i am supposed to be making myself look stupid

The researchers found that declines in almost all regions may lead to the extinction of 40% of insects over the next few decades. One-third of insect species are classed as Endangered.

"The main factor is the loss of habitat, due to agricultural practices, urbanisation and deforestation," lead author Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney, told BBC News.

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. now before you start trying to wriggle out of your stupidity by claiming climate change has had a particularly large impact in the tropics i would suggest you do some reading to see if that notion can be supported. here is a starter for ten https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/public...

what about dr donkersley's comments today on the bbc ? well i haven't seen the program to see if gm has misrepresented what he said, but it is certainly at odds with what he has said previously.
"Dr Philip Donkersley, of Lancaster University and author of the study, said: "Given how great these resources are for pollinators, their loss could easily be a contributing factor to our current pollinator crisis across the world.

"By removing these key resources from the environment, and making insufficient efforts to replace them with wildflower strips, we are effectively starving our pollinators of food and places to nest."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/1811...

now you both look like clowns because you couldn't admit that in the report on monarch butterflies the reporter added in the climate change meme with no justification. expected by gm. he has done zero research on the subject, couldn't explain the greenhouse effect and just parrots the rantings of the alarmist element . expect better of kp though.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 20:36

What a load of old codswallop.

Which bit of...

gadgetmac said:

Yes, it's not the only factor but it is seen as a factor all the same.

...didn’t make it through your skull to your brain?

Try Dr Donkersley on tonights news at 10pm (if it’s repeated) and then come back and tell me I’ve misrepresented him. Unfortunately for you my names not Turbomac or you might have a point.

Once again though it’s the giant conspiracy to keep all of the Scientists in grants.

You really are a special kind of stupid.

special kind of stupid ? that is reserved for you. given you are a child i won't go too far with the insults. have a read of the bold in your post i replied to above. now who said "and by extension climate change" ? did you add that in or it is a direct quote of donkersley ? how is carbon harming insects ? still waiting on that pearl of wisdom.

"its not the only factor but it's seen as a factor" ,only a factor now, not a major issue as you previously stated.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 21:16

[durbster]

wc98 said:

christ, you lot are getting weirder by the day. if i ran a poll on a gwpf twitter feed regarding the 97% ,how much stock would you place on the results ?

Erm... ok... I'm not sure you understand what Twitter is. It's probably the world's largest public forum, so contains a vast range of views. Very tolerant of nazis and conspiracy theorists.

The GWPF is an advocacy group. And they are on Twitter.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98

Presumably you just watched the 6pm National BBC News. There was an article on a major new study into why Insect numbers are in serious decline across the world now. They interviewed a Lab Scientist who explained about the factors involved in this decline and guess what? Yep, Dr Philip Donkersley from Lancaster University quoted Carbon as being a major issue and by extension Climate Change.

Is the Study “virtue signalling”?

Is the good Dr Donkersley “virtue signalling”?

Should the BBC not be reporting this?

The 10pm news tonight will rerun the item. In the words of the arch denier, Check it out.

oops looks like wc98 just made himself look stupid

carbon ? is someone throwing lumps of coal at spiders now ? dumb and dumber strike again and i am supposed to be making myself look stupid

The researchers found that declines in almost all regions may lead to the extinction of 40% of insects over the next few decades. One-third of insect species are classed as Endangered.

"The main factor is the loss of habitat, due to agricultural practices, urbanisation and deforestation," lead author Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, from the University of Sydney, told BBC News.

"Second is the increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture worldwide and contamination with chemical pollutants of all kinds. Thirdly, we have biological factors, such as invasive species and pathogens; and fourthly, we have climate change, particularly in tropical areas where it is known to have a big impact."

he did a good job squeezing the climate change phrase in, should be enough to keep him on the grant list. now before you start trying to wriggle out of your stupidity by claiming climate change has had a particularly large impact in the tropics i would suggest you do some reading to see if that notion can be supported. here is a starter for ten https://www.jcu.edu.au/state-of-the-tropics/public...

what about dr donkersley's comments today on the bbc ? well i haven't seen the program to see if gm has misrepresented what he said, but it is certainly at odds with what he has said previously.
"Dr Philip Donkersley, of Lancaster University and author of the study, said: "Given how great these resources are for pollinators, their loss could easily be a contributing factor to our current pollinator crisis across the world.

"By removing these key resources from the environment, and making insufficient efforts to replace them with wildflower strips, we are effectively starving our pollinators of food and places to nest."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/1811...

now you both look like clowns because you couldn't admit that in the report on monarch butterflies the reporter added in the climate change meme with no justification. expected by gm. he has done zero research on the subject, couldn't explain the greenhouse effect and just parrots the rantings of the alarmist element . expect better of kp though.

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 20:36

What a load of old codswallop.

Which bit of...

gadgetmac said:

Yes, it's not the only factor but it is seen as a factor all the same.

...didn’t make it through your skull to your brain?

Try Dr Donkersley on tonights news at 10pm (if it’s repeated) and then come back and tell me I’ve misrepresented him. Unfortunately for you my names not Turbomac or you might have a point.

Once again though it’s the giant conspiracy to keep all of the Scientists in grants.

You really are a special kind of stupid.

special kind of stupid ? that is reserved for you. given you are a child i won't go too far with the insults. have a read of the bold in your post i replied to above. now who said "and by extension climate change" ? did you add that in or it is a direct quote of donkersley ? how is carbon harming insects ? still waiting on that pearl of wisdom.

I added “and by extension climate change”. Watch tonight on the BBC news, you’ll see he mentions both Carbon and then goes on to mention Climate Change.

If it’s rerun then you’ll have to revert to the conspiracy theory I’m afraid

[wc98]

durbster said:

Erm... ok... I'm not sure you understand what Twitter is. It's probably the world's largest public forum, so contains a vast range of views. Very tolerant of nazis and conspiracy theorists.

The GWPF is an advocacy group. And they are on Twitter.

erm ok i think you might be due a parrot unless i missed out on world governments making policy on twitter ? do you have an opinion on dumb and dumber above regarding butterflies, insects etc ?

don't bother with the opinion on their recent posts, it appears they have fked off to sks to ask someone that actually bothers to read sources as well as alarmist msm press releases to come up with one for them;)

Edited by wc98 on Monday 11th February 21:25

[durbster]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

Erm... ok... I'm not sure you understand what Twitter is. It's probably the world's largest public forum, so contains a vast range of views. Very tolerant of nazis and conspiracy theorists.

The GWPF is an advocacy group. And they are on Twitter.

erm ok i think you might be due a parrot unless i missed out on world governments making policy on twitter ?

What are you on about? Nobody has said anything about making government policy on Twitter.

[gadgetmac]

Shall I get you Dr Donkersley’s email address?

Perhaps you can ask him what its like having to lie on the main national BBC news in order to maintain his “grant income”

Income that you don’t even know that he’s getting.

The amount of contortion you have to go through in order to cover your basic lack of common sense is hilarious.