Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
They’re just arguing to save face about how bad it might be now.
Oh and exactly how bad would that be (AGW)? Want to add to the litany of failed guesses and predictions? If it's that bad, then of course you need to do something about it, but you don't really believe it's that bad otherwise you'd not be a 'climate criminal' would you? Unless of course, like so many alarmists, you're a hypocrite? Shouldn’t you be busy hinting you’re a scientist and droning on about your scientific research?
Atomic12C said:
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
What a load of b
ks. And most of it has been done to death on here before.gadgetmac said:
Atomic12C said:
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
What a load of b
ks. And most of it has been done to death on here before.Diderot said:
Quelle surprise. No way of responding (if you were actually able to read them), so you resort to the last refuge of the intellectually moribund. Bravo.
Not only that, surely the appropriate question should have been...
El stovey said:
What hasn't been discredited about man made global warming?
deeps said:
Diderot said:
Quelle surprise. No way of responding (if you were actually able to read them), so you resort to the last refuge of the intellectually moribund. Bravo.
Not only that, surely the appropriate question should have been...
El stovey said:
What hasn't been discredited about man made global warming?
ks but has no idea what such bks really means for da world innit, really doesn't believe in it, so keeps on Diderot said:
Indeed. The resident PH 'climate criminal' with a carbon dioxide footprint of armageddon proportions seems to have scant regard for the rest of humanity. There's a climate emergency apparently and Stovey, who promotes such bks but has no idea what such bks really means for da world innit, really doesn't believe in it, so keeps on bussing
trucking flying his jet planes with remarkably cold engines on his very own route that he determines independently of all other air traffic. He is simply amazing. Nay a hero without a clue.
Weird how my job excites you so much. You keep asking about it and snidely bringing it up and calling me a bus driver (how it hurts me so) but when I answer your questions, you seem surprised that anyone answers honestly on here. ks but has no idea what such bks really means for da world innit, really doesn't believe in it, so keeps on Is it because I’m actually telling the truth and you turn out to be a philosophy teacher who’s been grandstanding for months to easily led simpletons like deeps by pretending to be a scientist. Making hints about your PhD and your research to add weight to your posts but it was all a load of rubbish.
Have you presented any of your climate research to the science thread or any science forum whatsoever yet?
Thought not.
I quite like wc98 and Robinessex but unfortunately some of the rest of you are often being quite misleading or actually just plain dishonest.
No wonder you’re all so evasive, most of you have been caught exaggerating your relevant qualifications and expertise. Which is strange when you all bang on about appeals to authority so much.
El stovey said:
Weird how my job excites you so much. You keep asking about it and snidely bringing it up and calling me a bus driver (how it hurts me so) but when I answer your questions, you seem surprised that anyone answers honestly on here.
You've quoted us both in this post so I'll respond. Your job doesn't excite, that's in your own head, and there's certainly nothing snide about bringing it up. We openly bring it up, obviously, because your hypocrisy is fascinating. You and your partner, gadget, having the largest CO2 footprints on the entire PH website while at the same time being the most vocal climate alarmists is more than coincidence, and how can that fact be ignored and not continually brought up? We would be hypocrites not to bring it up, it is the very subject of discussion on this thread.El stovey said:
Is it because I’m actually telling the truth and you turn out to be a philosophy teacher who’s been grandstanding for months to easily led simpletons like deeps by pretending to be a scientist. Making hints about your PhD and your research to add weight to your posts but it was all a load of rubbish.
Have you presented any of your climate research to the science thread or any science forum whatsoever yet?
Thought not.
Ad Homs will get you nowhere bar looking like a fool.Have you presented any of your climate research to the science thread or any science forum whatsoever yet?
Thought not.
El stovey said:
I quite like wc98 and Robinessex but unfortunately some of the rest of you are often being quite misleading or actually just plain dishonest.
No wonder you’re all so evasive, most of you have been caught exaggerating your relevant qualifications and expertise. Which is strange when you all bang on about appeals to authority so much.
Yeah right, you "quite like them" in the same context as the beauty you came up with last week, as an attempted slur aimed at TB which back fired.No wonder you’re all so evasive, most of you have been caught exaggerating your relevant qualifications and expertise. Which is strange when you all bang on about appeals to authority so much.
Who is being evasive? Who is exaggerating? Why chat such nonsense?
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Atomic12C said:
El stovey said:
What’s been discredited about man made global warming?
The failure of the models that were used when MMGW was the political tool to create policy back in the early 2000's.The un-predicted/unwanted 'pause in rising temps'.
The 'settled' science claim - when brand new warmist claims of the sea eating up all the warming.
The fact that Al Gore's claim of "millions will die by the year 2012"? was it? - because cities would be under water.
The fact that observed sea level rise and atmospheric temps are within a generalised region of natural variance.
The fact that published data seems to have undergone an amount of manipulation to hide the warm periods of the past and increase the warming trends of the present.
The media reporting that sea ice melt would increase sea levels.
The 97% consensus - widely discredited as nothing more than a political activism exercise of meaningless numbers.
Climate gate - The CRU and their 'data math tricks' to make more or less any input of large data to form a hockey stick graph.
The polar bears - no mention that human hunting of seals was an issue - bear population now stronger than ever.
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Now all this of course is not denying that the global temps are varying..... its not denying that humans have some cause and effect in that..... but there is great discredit in saying that humans are the main cause - trying to assert that as fact or as "settled science".
Who's done the discrediting.....reality has and continues to do it.
As the data rolls in over the past numerous years since the original MMGW prediction by Al Gore, and as reality fails to behave itself in terms of not running away with catastrophic warming, as per the predictions, ....it results that reality is discrediting the MMGW religion.
Of course I now wait for a point by point rebuttal and something along the lines that only certain approved members of the global population are 'allowed' to discredit anything regarding the religion.
Being that numerous climate scientists that have already discredited the science and the politics in the past are quickly subject to a witch hunt to
discredit their personality and integrity. The usual tactics of playing the man rather than their findings.
What a load of b
ks. And most of it has been done to death on here before.Got that Scientific Institute yet faux pro?
We've got denier consensus confusion in profusion!
Denier bingo.
Eyes down for a full house...
There's no consensus.
The dog ate my list of scientific institutions which fail to back the IPCC on climate change.
There is consensus... but it's all a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the wrong word - it's more a case of all these scientific institutions jumping on the bandwagon.
It's all for funding!
But - Judith Curry.
Denier bingo.
Eyes down for a full house...
There's no consensus.
The dog ate my list of scientific institutions which fail to back the IPCC on climate change.
There is consensus... but it's all a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the wrong word - it's more a case of all these scientific institutions jumping on the bandwagon.
It's all for funding!
But - Judith Curry.
deeps said:
eah right, you "quite like them" in the same context as the beauty you came up with last week, as an attempted slur aimed at TB which back fired.
Who is being evasive? Who is exaggerating? Why chat such nonsense?
Oooo, defending your hero TB again eh deeps? Watch you don’t tug that forlock too hard, you’ll pull your own hair out.Who is being evasive? Who is exaggerating? Why chat such nonsense?
Hypocrisy eh?
Lets look at the description for that:
Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham.
According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold".
Hmmm, looks like those descriptions suit the man with the mega IQ and the fake professor more than anyone else.
zygalski said:
We've got denier consensus confusion in profusion!
Denier bingo.
Eyes down for a full house...
There's no consensus.
The dog ate my list of scientific institutions which fail to back the IPCC on climate change.
There is consensus... but it's all a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the wrong word - it's more a case of all these scientific institutions jumping on the bandwagon.
It's all for funding!
But - Judith Curry.
Denier bingo.
Eyes down for a full house...
There's no consensus.
The dog ate my list of scientific institutions which fail to back the IPCC on climate change.
There is consensus... but it's all a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the wrong word - it's more a case of all these scientific institutions jumping on the bandwagon.
It's all for funding!
But - Judith Curry.
Human Climate Change Signal Claim Dismantled by Scientists
Click
The reason why certain pro-agw persons make so many unsubstantiated claims while relying on bilge rhetoric rather than data (which fails to support agw so not surprising) is more grant-worthy than the claims.
Click
Article said:
(agw) theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S.—the frequency of those temps is declining
Prof Christy said:
I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.
Tax gas holiday worse than previously thought.The reason why certain pro-agw persons make so many unsubstantiated claims while relying on bilge rhetoric rather than data (which fails to support agw so not surprising) is more grant-worthy than the claims.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Indeed. The resident PH 'climate criminal' with a carbon dioxide footprint of armageddon proportions seems to have scant regard for the rest of humanity. There's a climate emergency apparently and Stovey, who promotes such bks but has no idea what such bks really means for da world innit, really doesn't believe in it, so keeps on bussing
trucking flying his jet planes with remarkably cold engines on his very own route that he determines independently of all other air traffic. He is simply amazing. Nay a hero without a clue.
Weird how my job excites you so much. You keep asking about it and snidely bringing it up and calling me a bus driver (how it hurts me so) but when I answer your questions, you seem surprised that anyone answers honestly on here. ks but has no idea what such bks really means for da world innit, really doesn't believe in it, so keeps on Is it because I’m actually telling the truth and you turn out to be a philosophy teacher who’s been grandstanding for months to easily led simpletons like deeps by pretending to be a scientist. Making hints about your PhD and your research to add weight to your posts but it was all a load of rubbish.
Have you presented any of your climate research to the science thread or any science forum whatsoever yet?
Thought not.
I quite like wc98 and Robinessex but unfortunately some of the rest of you are often being quite misleading or actually just plain dishonest.
No wonder you’re all so evasive, most of you have been caught exaggerating your relevant qualifications and expertise. Which is strange when you all bang on about appeals to authority so much.
deeps said:
eah right, you "quite like them" in the same context as the beauty you came up with last week, as an attempted slur aimed at TB which back fired.
Who is being evasive? Who is exaggerating? Why chat such nonsense?
Although I'm reluctant to respond again to you because you’re obviously easily led, vulnerable and unfortunately, an idiot. Who is being evasive? Who is exaggerating? Why chat such nonsense?
I’m not sure why you struggle so much with this concept?
Some of the posters I argue with on here like wc98 and Robinessex, I respect and like. I trust them and think they’re honest, although I might disagree with them in this topic.
We’re not all slavishly attached to dogma like you are to TB, most people can see nuances and shades of grey. Are you perhaps on the spectrum?
You and Diderot and TB have all been evasive and dishonest. You about this 1% nonsense ,TB as frequently pointed out about plagiarism and hiding sources and providing links he knows aren’t accurate and deliberately misrepresenting papers and scientists and Diderot for constantly hinting about his relevant expertise.
though fortunately for the collective USA reputation 23% reckon the cold is due to “natural variation,” turbobloke said:
Human Climate Change Signal Claim Dismantled by Scientists
Click
The reason why certain pro-agw persons make so many unsubstantiated claims while relying on bilge rhetoric rather than data (which fails to support agw so not surprising) is more grant-worthy than the claims.
Conspiracy theory again Click
Article said:
(agw) theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S.—the frequency of those temps is declining
Prof Christy said:
I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.
Tax gas holiday worse than previously thought.The reason why certain pro-agw persons make so many unsubstantiated claims while relying on bilge rhetoric rather than data (which fails to support agw so not surprising) is more grant-worthy than the claims.
Marc Morano....John Christy
Credibility = Zero
Not worth the 20 seconds reading it.
Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer were the first researchers to analyze temperatures in the troposphere, a lower atmospheric layer, using satellite records. They identified cooling — not warming — in recent decades, a surprise in an era of global warming. But when others, including Carl Mears, a senior research scientist at the research company Remote Sensing Systems, reexamined Christy’s work in the early 2000s, they found errors that when corrected revealed warming in the troposphere. Christy acknowledged the error, according to the New York Times. As recently as 2017, multiple scientists corrected or raised concerns about how Christy’s team was analyzing satellite data.
“He has made many statements before Congress and elsewhere that are at odds with the scientific evidence because of his personal value system. He is not an appropriate appointee for this advisory panel, unfortunately,” said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was one of Christy’s graduate school supervisors.
gadgetmac said:
“He has made many statements before Congress and elsewhere that are at odds with the scientific evidence because of his personal value system. He is not an appropriate appointee for this advisory panel, unfortunately,” said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was one of Christy’s graduate school supervisors.
That’s exactly what any supervisors would say about the sceptic ‘academics’ on this thread. People letting their personal value system (politics) cloud any judgement they might have on the subject.That’s the politics of climate change.
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
“He has made many statements before Congress and elsewhere that are at odds with the scientific evidence because of his personal value system. He is not an appropriate appointee for this advisory panel, unfortunately,” said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was one of Christy’s graduate school supervisors.
That’s exactly what any supervisors would say about the sceptic ‘academics’ on this thread. People letting their personal value system (politics) cloud any judgement they might have on the subject.That’s the politics of climate change.
It’s what drives TB as well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff