Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

wc98

6,961 posts

78 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
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
i'm just going to quote these again for posterity and to see how it ties in with gm's last few posts .

Vanden Saab

1,613 posts

12 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
I've just done the same and you are right I've got confused. However download the Channel 4 news and you'll see it mentioned by the professor.
ffs .it's bad enough listening to bbc alarmists never mind the channel 4 lot.
It's not the Channel 4 lot it's Professor Tom Oliver...

"What can we do to help reverse the decline?"

"We can ban the most dangerous insecticides and maintain the caps on CO2 emissions...."

My point is made, just with the wrong TV interview 45 minutes later. biggrin
banghead

kerplunk

3,507 posts

144 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
nono We saw the same one in England. It was an abbreviated interview.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't see the 6pm one.
i was correct. the segment with donkersley was the same length and stated exactly what i said laugh. the rest of the piece was victoria gill over egging the climate change pudding yet again by mentioning it first in the list in an attempt to make it sound the major contributor. note they all say climate change as well, no mention of anthropogenic climate change.

today's 6pm bbc news will be available for download on sky until 5.30pm tomorrow,so anyone that wants to see who is bullstting here can easily check the above.gm doesn't seem to understand the mere mention of the word carbon is not always bad.
You are bullstting I'm afraid biggrin

She briefly mentioned climate change and something else (I've forgotten - invasive species?) as preamble to the main factor which was agriculture and pesiticides which then became the complete focus of the report. You're just projecting meaning onto the fact that climate change was mentioned first that you can't really justify. It's entirely reasonable to briefly mention the 'also rans' before the main course.

gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
It's not the Channel 4 lot it's Professor Tom Oliver...

"What can we do to help reverse the decline?"

"We can ban the most dangerous insecticides and maintain the caps on CO2 emissions...."

My point is made, just with the wrong TV interview 45 minutes later. biggrin
so a different news program on a different channel and an interview with a different academic , but i'm the stupid one rolleyes how about you say you were wrong when arguing about what donkersley said ? nah, i don't see that happening. i am surprised you admitted to even being confused.
Well the bottom line is that the Main Study had it as a cause and you've dismissed it as part of the conspiracy to attain more climate grants. An ecological study.

It was also mentioned by at least one professor interviewed on the evening news.

And so as to clear up any confusion Robinessex diatribe against the Mexican Butterfly article is - by extension - also against this study which being global encompasses that Mexican issue. The Doctor on the Channel 4 news with Professor Oliver was, if I recall correctly, particularly interested in Moths and Butterflies

And yet you feel that Rob was right and that the MMGW angle was introduced by the BBC purely for bias reasons when it clearly wasn't.

I'll apologise for the confusion sure...you admit you were wrong and that the BBC were just reporting what scientists and the study are saying with no ulterior motive of their own.

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 12th February 06:44

durbster

7,123 posts

160 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
deeps said:
I'm surprised she even got 3% to answer "it's a bunch of st".

How can climate change not be real?
The poll explains what the poll options mean.

If that's the best response you can come up with, it seems the point has been made.
Advertisement

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
durbster said:
deeps said:
I'm surprised she even got 3% to answer "it's a bunch of st".

How can climate change not be real?
The poll explains what the poll options mean.

If that's the best response you can come up with, it seems the point has been made.
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.

Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".

And if that's the best response you have to this Durbs, then there really is no point in any further discussion on anything related to this. The question will just change to get your desired answer.

turbobloke

84,080 posts

198 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
Alarmist false assumptions from the UN stables? Never!

Governments and activists have spent decades fighting the specter of overpopulation, but now face the looming demographic calamity of global population collapse. So why exactly is everyone still worried about the opposite problem? The authors pin the blame on faulty assumptions by the population establishment, as represented by the UN Population Division.
The Wall Street Journal, February 2019


Yet another agw duffer is heading towards the buffer.
A paper, by US scientists Lister and Garcia has claimed that a rapid decline in insect populations in a rainforest in Puerto Rico was the result of rising temperatures due to global warming. The Washington Post headlined this study “hyperalarming” and The Guardian discussed climate change causing “insect collapse”.However, the authors’ evidence that temperatures had risen turns out to be based on a single weather station which is known to be unreliable because of undocumented changes to equipment and location resulting in a substantial and abrupt increase in recorded temperatures in September 1992. Since 1992, temperatures at this station have actually declined. The journal PNAS has been formally petitioned to withdraw the paper but that's no guarantee of any action.


Thought for the day:


gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.

Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
The bit in bold. Let's see you squirm a little biggrin

Robinessex doesn't believe climate change is real.

Are you saying he's "very stupid".

Not that I'd disagree it's just good to hear one partial denier call another total denier "very stupid".

laugh



Awaits incoming retraction or further waffle.

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.

Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
The bit in bold. Let's see you squirm a little biggrin

Robinessex doesn't believe climate change is real.

Are you saying he's "very stupid".

Not that I'd disagree it's just good to hear one partial denier call another total denier "very stupid".

laugh



Awaits incoming retraction or further waffle.
If I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure he and every other poster on my side of the argument are against the religious like faith in AGW which you and some others hold.


durbster

7,123 posts

160 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.

Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
So you agree that climate change is happening and we need to treat it as urgent?

Obviously climate change is shorthand for human-caused climate change. Everybody knows that and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
durbster said:
stew-STR160 said:
That's the problem here. We don't deny climate change is real, only the very stupid out there do.

Even I, and I think most of the others on this thread would answer "yes, it's real".
So you agree that climate change is happening and we need to treat it as urgent?

Obviously climate change is shorthand for human-caused climate change. Everybody knows that and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Nope, never said that. And no, climate change is not short for human caused climate change. Never has been. Never will be. If that's your take on it, then explain any other climate change to have occurred in history!

robinessex

6,795 posts

119 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
[quote=gadgetmac

Robinessex doesn't believe climate change is real.


[/quote]

Another of your misrepresentations. I never said CC isn't real. The bloody climate on planet earth has change since it was created. It's just the human bit is so miniscule, it's not worth bothering with. Storm in a tea cup thing

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
So, Gadget, care to issue an apology for being an utter cretin? Or will you attempt to twist this somehow with a quote from NASA?

turbobloke

84,080 posts

198 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
hehe apart from the intolerant totalitarianism as expected these days when somebody puts their head over the parapet.

Skiers won't know what snow is wink so protect our warm wet winters!


gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Alarmist false assumptions from the UN stables? Never!

Governments and activists have spent decades fighting the specter of overpopulation, but now face the looming demographic calamity of global population collapse. So why exactly is everyone still worried about the opposite problem? The authors pin the blame on faulty assumptions by the population establishment, as represented by the UN Population Division.
The Wall Street Journal, February 2019


Yet another agw duffer is heading towards the buffer.
A paper, by US scientists Lister and Garcia has claimed that a rapid decline in insect populations in a rainforest in Puerto Rico was the result of rising temperatures due to global warming. The Washington Post headlined this study “hyperalarming” and The Guardian discussed climate change causing “insect collapse”.However, the authors’ evidence that temperatures had risen turns out to be based on a single weather station which is known to be unreliable because of undocumented changes to equipment and location resulting in a substantial and abrupt increase in recorded temperatures in September 1992. Since 1992, temperatures at this station have actually declined. The journal PNAS has been formally petitioned to withdraw the paper but that's no guarantee of any action.


Thought for the day:
The GWPF again hehe

"The journal PNAS has been formally petitioned to withdraw the paper but that's no guarantee of any action"

4 people, ALL from the GWPF signed one letter to the PNAS.

The main signatory, Dr Benny Peiser, has no expertise in Climate Science or Climate Policy Analysis and has NEVER had a paper on any Climate Science topic published.

He's a Sports Scientist.

Yet he's listed at The Heartland Institute as a "Global Warming Expert".

This comes under the heading "Fake Expert" which, as has been mentioned before, is one of the 5 climate change denier strategies.

Excellent post TB,hehe

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Alarmist false assumptions from the UN stables? Never!

Governments and activists have spent decades fighting the specter of overpopulation, but now face the looming demographic calamity of global population collapse. So why exactly is everyone still worried about the opposite problem? The authors pin the blame on faulty assumptions by the population establishment, as represented by the UN Population Division.
The Wall Street Journal, February 2019


Yet another agw duffer is heading towards the buffer.
A paper, by US scientists Lister and Garcia has claimed that a rapid decline in insect populations in a rainforest in Puerto Rico was the result of rising temperatures due to global warming. The Washington Post headlined this study “hyperalarming” and The Guardian discussed climate change causing “insect collapse”.However, the authors’ evidence that temperatures had risen turns out to be based on a single weather station which is known to be unreliable because of undocumented changes to equipment and location resulting in a substantial and abrupt increase in recorded temperatures in September 1992. Since 1992, temperatures at this station have actually declined. The journal PNAS has been formally petitioned to withdraw the paper but that's no guarantee of any action.


Thought for the day:
The GWPF again hehe

"The journal PNAS has been formally petitioned to withdraw the paper but that's no guarantee of any action"

4 people, ALL from the GWPF signed one letter to the PNAS.

The main signatory, Dr Benny Peiser, has no expertise in Climate Science or Climate Policy Analysis and has NEVER had a paper on any Climate Science topic published.

He's a Sports Scientist.

Yet he's listed at The Heartland Institute as a "Global Warming Expert".

This comes under the heading "Fake Expert" which, as has been mentioned before, is one of the 5 climate change denier strategies.

Excellent post TB,hehe
Taken from the Wiki entry on him-
"Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that"

Not quite what you make him out to be...

gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
So, Gadget, care to issue an apology for being an utter cretin? Or will you attempt to twist this somehow with a quote from NASA?
Why? As Durbster says, modern day Climate Change is short hand for Man Made Climate Change.

Rob believes man is almost irrelevant in it but you surely believe man has a hand don't you?

Also, how come you engage in a circle jerk when TB publishes a link to an item that says the temperatures are not going up at all together with wonky graphs?

gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
So, Gadget, care to issue an apology for being an utter cretin? Or will you attempt to twist this somehow with a quote from NASA?
Why? As Durbster says, modern day Climate Change is short hand for Man Made Climate Change.

Rob believes man is almost irrelevant in it but you surely believe man has a hand don't you?

Also, how come you engage in a circle jerk when TB publishes a link to an item that says the temperatures are not going up at all together with wonky graphs?

gadgetmac

4,572 posts

46 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
Taken from the Wiki entry on him-
"Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that"

Not quite what you make him out to be...
He has ZERO climate qualifications. That's my point.

Are letters flooding in from any other REPUTABLE sources to the PNAS or is it just the sports scientist from the GWPF?

stew-STR160

7,206 posts

176 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
stew-STR160 said:
Taken from the Wiki entry on him-
"Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that"

Not quite what you make him out to be...
He has ZERO climate qualifications. That's my point.

Are letters flooding in from any other REPUTABLE sources to the PNAS or is it just the sports scientist?
So, anyone who is in support of AGW without any relevant qualifications should equally be dismissed?