Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
The usual ironic vacuous personal angle drivel with nothing evidence-based, on-topic political or otherwise. It's good to see so little on offer in response, so offen.
You have something in common with Alanis Morissette, how ironic 
The NYT is badmouthing (USA) well-kept lawns as they are a symbol of racism, disregard for the environment, and cause gloopal wombling.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006542254/c...
turbobloke said:
A (journal) Nature Communications study just outgunned PH trolls by going uber-personal in an attempt to stifle debate : "Prominent climate change contrarians (CCCs) and scientists (CCSs) in the media...In the new research, Petersen and colleagues looked at 386 prominent climate deniers and 386 climate scientists. They looked at 200,000 scientific journals and 100,000 media articles—from both traditional and new formats."
Forget playing the unplayable ball just play the men and women using science and logic to take down climate fairytales.
Stand-over thuggery takes on a new hue (green) but bizarrely it's a good sign (of increasing pro-agw desperation).
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/08/15/judith-cur...
This is surely a soon-to-be award-winning paper. In the Worst Ever category of course.Forget playing the unplayable ball just play the men and women using science and logic to take down climate fairytales.
Stand-over thuggery takes on a new hue (green) but bizarrely it's a good sign (of increasing pro-agw desperation).
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/08/15/judith-cur...
The method, the mislabelling, conducting experiments on people without their knowledge or consent. It's got the lot!
And how in the name of all that's holey (pun intended) did such a steaming poo-pile get through peer and editorial review?
Did no-one, not a single person, say "hang on a minute"?
The range of responses are rather entertaining. From Judith Curry's understated criticism to Chris Monkton's litigation and Marc Morano's #1 badge of honour the whole of life is there.
Cold said:
That might just be a dramatic, virtuous, signal-like act.Obviously it isn't the first Iceland glacier to disappear, the planet has been completely ice-free previously i.e. with no polar ice caps either.
For millions of years too. How did life ever manage to survive...and how come politicians know so little. What's PPE in Icelandic?
turbobloke said:
Cold said:
That might just be a dramatic, virtuous, signal-like act.If the reverse were true? If glaciers suddenly appeared in the UK after millennia of absence you'd be completely unconcerned about the implications for the economy and the livelihoods of those effected?
China coal mine approvals surge in spite of climate pledges. China plays Paris like a fiddle... a broken fiddle at that.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-co...
What odds beef sales are on the up.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-co...
What odds beef sales are on the up.
Memo to politicians.
Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Expelling intestinal gas into a jar, recycling yoghurt and mowing the lawn have no significant beneficial effect, apparently, otherwise they'd have got a special mention.
Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Expelling intestinal gas into a jar, recycling yoghurt and mowing the lawn have no significant beneficial effect, apparently, otherwise they'd have got a special mention.
turbobloke said:
Memo to politicians.
Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
That... quote? "Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity..." is either so badly garbled that Google can't find it, is a different author, or both.Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Certainly O'Sullivan et al (2019) Global Biogeochemical Cycles. does not contain that particular sentence.
Cold said:
did anyone check on the activity of the dormant volcano it covered,just in case it got a bit warmer in recent times ? i'm thinking if it was on top of a dormant volcano then it hadn't always been there, unless it was special climate change snow and ice that doesn't melt in a volcanic eruption.wc98 said:
Cold said:
did anyone check on the activity of the dormant volcano it covered,just in case it got a bit warmer in recent times ? i'm thinking if it was on top of a dormant volcano then it hadn't always been there, unless it was special climate change snow and ice that doesn't melt in a volcanic eruption.Five ways UK farmers are tackling climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49044072
Farmers are on the front line of climate change - vulnerable to changes in temperature and rainfall, as well as increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
They also face criticism, in particular over greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry, with calls for a move to a more plant-based diet.
Agriculture is currently responsible for about 9% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from methane.
The National Farmers' Union (NFU), which represents 55,000 UK farmers, has set a target of net-zero emissions in British farming by 2040.
That is not enough for some environmentalists, who say a comprehensive overhaul of farming practices and a move to less intensive production is long overdue.
But some new and surprising changes are happening on the UK's farms...................continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49044072
Farmers are on the front line of climate change - vulnerable to changes in temperature and rainfall, as well as increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
They also face criticism, in particular over greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry, with calls for a move to a more plant-based diet.
Agriculture is currently responsible for about 9% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from methane.
The National Farmers' Union (NFU), which represents 55,000 UK farmers, has set a target of net-zero emissions in British farming by 2040.
That is not enough for some environmentalists, who say a comprehensive overhaul of farming practices and a move to less intensive production is long overdue.
But some new and surprising changes are happening on the UK's farms...................continues
wc98 said:
Cold said:
did anyone check on the activity of the dormant volcano it covered,just in case it got a bit warmer in recent times ? i'm thinking if it was on top of a dormant volcano then it hadn't always been there, unless it was special climate change snow and ice that doesn't melt in a volcanic eruption.As a theatrical stunt based on the arrival of a foreign politician the timing was immaculate and the presence of some concerned foreigners , including a German Professor and his family who presumably flew in especially, made for international news.
The Press release must have have been very carefully prepared as I have now read it from several news sources using it verbatim.
Meanwhile here is a 10 year history of the weather in Reykjavik.
https://www.worldweatheronline.com/reykjavik-weath...
Best to scroll down and look at the 10 year charts for various weather measurements.
Overall no change or a slight cooling perhaps although the various values seems to be a little erratic and uncooridinated.
A weird amount of rain and snow over the end of 2018 and so far in 2019 but also low wind speeds and a slightly unusual Pressure pattern.
Some odd things this year but not extreme heat in comparison to recent times and the 2014 "Death" of the alleged glacier (is it really a glacier?) came in a short period of apparent warmth that seems to have peaked around 2016.
LongQ said:
wc98 said:
Cold said:
did anyone check on the activity of the dormant volcano it covered,just in case it got a bit warmer in recent times ? i'm thinking if it was on top of a dormant volcano then it hadn't always been there, unless it was special climate change snow and ice that doesn't melt in a volcanic eruption.As a theatrical stunt based on the arrival of a foreign politician the timing was immaculate and the presence of some concerned foreigners , including a German Professor and his family who presumably flew in especially, made for international news.
The Press release must have have been very carefully prepared as I have now read it from several news sources using it verbatim.
Meanwhile here is a 10 year history of the weather in Reykjavik.
https://www.worldweatheronline.com/reykjavik-weath...
Best to scroll down and look at the 10 year charts for various weather measurements.
Overall no change or a slight cooling perhaps although the various values seems to be a little erratic and uncooridinated.
A weird amount of rain and snow over the end of 2018 and so far in 2019 but also low wind speeds and a slightly unusual Pressure pattern.
Some odd things this year but not extreme heat in comparison to recent times and the 2014 "Death" of the alleged glacier (is it really a glacier?) came in a short period of apparent warmth that seems to have peaked around 2016.
turbobloke said:
Memo to politicians.
Whole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Expelling intestinal gas into a jar, recycling yoghurt and mowing the lawn have no significant beneficial effect, apparently, otherwise they'd have got a special mention.
Memo to PHWhole-planet terrestrial net primary productivity has gone up from 56 to 66 Pg C/year over the last 118 years and fossil fuel burning is the explanation behind the improvement.
O'Sullivan et al (2019) in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Expelling intestinal gas into a jar, recycling yoghurt and mowing the lawn have no significant beneficial effect, apparently, otherwise they'd have got a special mention.
Turbobloke used to argue the CO2 increase isn't from fossil fuel burning.
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
Cold said:
That might just be a dramatic, virtuous, signal-like act.If the reverse were true? If glaciers suddenly appeared in the UK after millennia of absence you'd be completely unconcerned about the implications for the economy and the livelihoods of those effected?
Randy Winkman said:
Good questions. If things are goings tits up and we can do something about it I think we should. Rather than go on about what it was like a million years ago.
My concern is in relation to risk. Even if the risk is small the impact is almost immeasurable. The sad thing is many of the deniers here will be dead in the not too distant future and certainly before the third quarter of 2000s. They seem to care little as long as there lives are not impacted now.
They will have be long since been forgotten before the impacts are felt globally.
Nickgnome said:
Randy Winkman said:
Good questions. If things are goings tits up and we can do something about it I think we should. Rather than go on about what it was like a million years ago.
My concern is in relation to risk. Even if the risk is small the impact is almost immeasurable. The sad thing is many of the deniers here will be dead in the not too distant future and certainly before the third quarter of 2000s. They seem to care little as long as there lives are not impacted now.
They will have be long since been forgotten before the impacts are felt globally.
On the other hand if Extinction Rebellion somehow succeed in their objective (whatever it may be) and as part of that trash the global economy, with all of its faults. and succeed in persuading people that the world's way of life was better 300 years ago ... then yes the impacts may well be felt somewhat globally much sooner than any possible CO2 connection alone would suggest.
If you want to endure that those born in the 21st century will be guaranteed to be stuffed or at the least thinned out with about a 1 in 7 chance of survival (although less because they will be old) and the experience that follows then by all means follow the ultra green movement. Be part of the solution.
Just don't claim that the children and grandchildren will inherit anything close to the lifestyle that you might aspire to if it matches in any way what we current think of as 'normal'. There is not 'green' objective that thinks humanity can exist in its current structure into the future even by 'going green'.
Nothing in the green philosophy works without significant human population reduction and handing over the planet to non-humans. At which point conflict can be guaranteed.
turbobloke said:
Apparently it was Sir Elton's private jet (and home) behind the flight.
"To support Prince Harry’s commitment to the environment, (Sir Elton and David) ensured their flight was carbon neutral by making the appropriate contribution to Carbon Footprint™"
Memories are made of this.
As if that will make anyone reconsider whether that couple are a bunch of hypocritical "To support Prince Harry’s commitment to the environment, (Sir Elton and David) ensured their flight was carbon neutral by making the appropriate contribution to Carbon Footprint™"
Memories are made of this.
s.Take all the private planes you want Harry, just don't preach to the world about climate change you sanctimonious w
ker.Hope all this press coverage ruined your holiday.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff