Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Thanks Gents - I see from the Wiki link (as below in case of any interest to anybody else) the trends are upward, but one of the things I find difficult is to get my head around that the rises seem so small! Appreciate this is primarily a lack of understanding of my behalf of course 
The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar.
0.161°C/decadeThe lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar.
0.160°C/decade
0.158°C/decade
Wow. Three different datasets constructed using different methods from fairly shonky data and they all agree within 0.003°C/decade. Colour me impressed.
Edited by Kawasicki on Friday 29th March 21:28
Interesting piece over at WUWT...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
Article said:
The big lie that humans are causing climate change spreads as it is promoted by those with a political agenda and their use of a familiar technique to ensnare high profile people. This practice is a fallacious form of argument called Argumentum Ad Verecundiam defined as
…an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise.
The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists. The truth is that we are all naturalists and environmentalists. It simply denotes that a person cares, but it is not a measure of their knowledge or understanding.
Unfortunately, if you don’t know or understand it is very easy to fall for the biggest lie in scientific history, especially if you are politically and emotionally disposed. The question is, how could Attenborough spend all that time looking at the geology of the planet and not see the extent to which climate changes naturally throughout 4.5 billion years? If he looked, it is startlingly apparent that the current climate situation is well within that natural range. You can only conclude that his lack of scientific objectivity and human response to hero worship, made him easy prey to purveyors of a false message.
More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...…an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise.
The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists. The truth is that we are all naturalists and environmentalists. It simply denotes that a person cares, but it is not a measure of their knowledge or understanding.
Unfortunately, if you don’t know or understand it is very easy to fall for the biggest lie in scientific history, especially if you are politically and emotionally disposed. The question is, how could Attenborough spend all that time looking at the geology of the planet and not see the extent to which climate changes naturally throughout 4.5 billion years? If he looked, it is startlingly apparent that the current climate situation is well within that natural range. You can only conclude that his lack of scientific objectivity and human response to hero worship, made him easy prey to purveyors of a false message.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
Evanivitch said:
Not followed thread but happy to be signposted...
To those that disagree with the scientific claims of manmade climate change influence, what's your position on Ozone layer depletion? Are we equally insignificant?
Welcome to the thread.To those that disagree with the scientific claims of manmade climate change influence, what's your position on Ozone layer depletion? Are we equally insignificant?
Most of us here agree with the scientific claims that CO2 is wholly beneficial to life, and that adding trace amounts to trace amounts is beneficial to life, so we're not entirely insignificant
Most of us don't take words from the colossal gravy train of vested interests as gospel, and so seek information from scientists and other sources that aren't involved in that gravy train.
I'm not 'up' on ozone because there is no redistribution of wealth legislation and the associated gravy train of vested interests attached to it. But my understanding is the problem is improving due to CFC control.
deeps said:
More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
You didn't answer:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
durbster said:
deeps, do you have some kind of incentive to drive traffic to that website?
durbster said:
deeps said:
More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
You didn't answer:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/time-to-str...
(quite a lengthy article - 5 minute read time)
durbster said:
deeps, do you have some kind of incentive to drive traffic to that website?
For most people some kind of warning bell would tell them something’s not right but our deeps lacks that internal safe guard and just keeps endlessly posting links to it.
deeps said:
I'm not 'up' on ozone because there is no redistribution of wealth legislation and the associated gravy train of vested interests attached to it. But my understanding is the problem is improving due to CFC control.
CFC fear was another success of un-science. The hole (or more accurately thinning) of Ozone is making a bit of a come back and this is being blamed (without evidence) on China secretly making more CFCs. Of course though our understanding of the thickening and thinning of ozone isn't particularly as strong as the zeitgeist would have you believe - and measurements are in parts per trillion which is at the error-margins of detection.There is a chapter on the origins of the ozone scare in Searching for the catastrophe signal which is worth a quick read.
deeps said:
Welcome to the thread.
Most of us here agree with the scientific claims that CO2 is wholly beneficial to life, and that adding trace amounts to trace amounts is beneficial to life, so we're not entirely insignificant
Most of us don't take words from the colossal gravy train of vested interests as gospel, and so seek information from scientists and other sources that aren't involved in that gravy train.
I'm not 'up' on ozone because there is no redistribution of wealth legislation and the associated gravy train of vested interests attached to it. But my understanding is the problem is improving due to CFC control.
In other words when it comes to the science, best ignore the scientists & go for the right wing blogs & conspiracy theory sites.Most of us here agree with the scientific claims that CO2 is wholly beneficial to life, and that adding trace amounts to trace amounts is beneficial to life, so we're not entirely insignificant
Most of us don't take words from the colossal gravy train of vested interests as gospel, and so seek information from scientists and other sources that aren't involved in that gravy train.
I'm not 'up' on ozone because there is no redistribution of wealth legislation and the associated gravy train of vested interests attached to it. But my understanding is the problem is improving due to CFC control.
By 'most of us' what you actually mean is a small portion of PH forum users, the majority of whom think that this thread is a laughing stock.
zygalski said:
In other words when it comes to the science, best ignore the scientists & go for the right wing blogs & conspiracy theory sites.
By 'most of us' what you actually mean is a small portion of PH forum users, the majority of whom think that this thread is a laughing stock.
He actually believes wattsupwiththat is a reputable source of information. At least TB tried to hide the source or even change the wording so nobody could google it. By 'most of us' what you actually mean is a small portion of PH forum users, the majority of whom think that this thread is a laughing stock.
Did you read deeps’s nonsense before about hiding the source of his quotes but when caught pretended he did it deliberately so people would check and drive traffic to the site?
Something very wrong with him, at least Robinessex has stopped quoting the bbc every day.
There’s definitely a link between this kind of manic and unhealthy behaviour and believing in global conspiracies involving scientists and politicians and the media.
El stovey said:
Something very wrong with him, at least Robinessex has stopped quoting the bbc every day.
That's because they've run out of fairy stories and propaganda at the moment. McGrath will be along soon, as it's probably getting near his payday. Think I missed his latest b
ks though, so here it isCyclone Idai: What's the role of climate change?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-476...
Unless a rich benefactor steps in, the role of human-induced climate change in Cyclone Idai is unlikely to be clearly determined.
The scientists with the expertise simply don't have the resources to do the large amount of computer modelling required....................continues
And then proceeds to produce a load of waffle, conjecture and crystal ball gazing to link storms with CC. Desperate guy eh?
durbster said:
If you're interested, Remote Sensing Systems have an article considering the discrepancies between the satellite and land temperature records:
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
I found it useful to give their data some context.
as do uah. for me given the output of the satellite sensing systems go through more mathturbation than surface temp derived "data" sets i think they need to be treated with just as much caution.http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
I found it useful to give their data some context.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
In other words when it comes to the science, best ignore the scientists & go for the right wing blogs & conspiracy theory sites.
By 'most of us' what you actually mean is a small portion of PH forum users, the majority of whom think that this thread is a laughing stock.
He actually believes wattsupwiththat is a reputable source of information. At least TB tried to hide the source or even change the wording so nobody could google it. By 'most of us' what you actually mean is a small portion of PH forum users, the majority of whom think that this thread is a laughing stock.
Did you read deeps’s nonsense before about hiding the source of his quotes but when caught pretended he did it deliberately so people would check and drive traffic to the site?
Something very wrong with him, at least Robinessex has stopped quoting the bbc every day.
There’s definitely a link between this kind of manic and unhealthy behaviour and believing in global conspiracies involving scientists and politicians and the media.
Each sentence says far more about the pair of you and what goes on in your heads, than what you have actually typed. Keep it up.
Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-476...
A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies.
British Columbia-based Carbon Engineering has shown that it can extract CO2 in a cost-effective way.
It has now been boosted by $68m in new investment from Chevron, Occidental and coal giant BHP.
But climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil...............continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-476...
A technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air has received significant backing from major fossil fuel companies.
British Columbia-based Carbon Engineering has shown that it can extract CO2 in a cost-effective way.
It has now been boosted by $68m in new investment from Chevron, Occidental and coal giant BHP.
But climate campaigners are worried that the technology will be used to extract even more oil...............continues
robinessex said:
Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step
....
So I've always asked, if MMGW theory is to be followed; once the technology arrives to remove the deadly toxic plant gas from the atmosphere, which nation/politician then decides what temperature the earth should be?....
And if there is a disagreement over this desired 'stable earth temperature'?
Do the politicians enact WWIII for the sake of "saving the planet" ?
Atomic12C said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step
....
So I've always asked, if MMGW theory is to be followed; once the technology arrives to remove the deadly toxic plant gas from the atmosphere, which nation/politician then decides what temperature the earth should be?....
And if there is a disagreement over this desired 'stable earth temperature'?
Do the politicians enact WWIII for the sake of "saving the planet" ?
I think perhaps the big difference is that over the last x billion years up until the last couple of hundred, there has been no human impact regards Co2 and climate change.
The long term effect of our activities exacerbating any changes is obviously unknown.
Deniers somehow know this is not a problem.
They just can't cite any scientific organisations to back it up, so quote WuWT, renowned liar Marc Morono & various blogs.
Those that go along with the 97%+ of the scientific community think we should limit any factors which may increase Co2 and reduce our effect on climate change as much as possible.
The long term effect of our activities exacerbating any changes is obviously unknown.
Deniers somehow know this is not a problem.
They just can't cite any scientific organisations to back it up, so quote WuWT, renowned liar Marc Morono & various blogs.
Those that go along with the 97%+ of the scientific community think we should limit any factors which may increase Co2 and reduce our effect on climate change as much as possible.
zygalski said:
I think perhaps the big difference is that over the last x billion years up until the last couple of hundred, there has been no human impact regards Co2 and climate change.
The long term effect of our activities exacerbating any changes is obviously unknown.
Deniers somehow know this is not a problem.
They just can't cite any scientific organisations to back it up, so quote WuWT, renowned liar Marc Morono & various blogs.
Those that go along with the 97%+ of the scientific community think we should limit any factors which may increase Co2 and reduce our effect on climate change as much as possible.
A very misplaced application of the precautionary principle. If freeing CO2 reduces the likelihood of an Ice age isn't that a good thing?The long term effect of our activities exacerbating any changes is obviously unknown.
Deniers somehow know this is not a problem.
They just can't cite any scientific organisations to back it up, so quote WuWT, renowned liar Marc Morono & various blogs.
Those that go along with the 97%+ of the scientific community think we should limit any factors which may increase Co2 and reduce our effect on climate change as much as possible.
I won't believe 'they' are serious about C02 until they ban it from cola. All that dangerous venting...can't be good.
However, given current political intransigence, one could see an argument for a supra-national body to take the big decisions out of local hands (if only for the populace's own good) to be sure of anything getting done.
Now, who could we turn to?
However, given current political intransigence, one could see an argument for a supra-national body to take the big decisions out of local hands (if only for the populace's own good) to be sure of anything getting done.
Now, who could we turn to?
Not the wmo.
^^^ Based on empirical data that matter; models fail (again).
AGW faith and weasel words 
it's not unusual
Precis of what Svalbard based climate scientist Prof Ole Humlum just said:
- no acceleration in global warming
- no acceleration in sea level rise
- no acceleration in hurricane activity
Another precis of what Prof Ole Humlum also said:
- WMO report tries and fails to suggest that global warming is getting worse
- the report is carefully worded to give a false impression
it's not unusual Hot off the press, Zipper et al 2019: "Here, we show that remote land-atmosphere feedbacks caused by historical European LULC change led to widespread changes in the energy and water balances, drought, and heat."
All good, inadequte climate models and their politician worshippers will have it covered
All good, inadequte climate models and their politician worshippers will have it covered
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff