Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Vanden Saab

14,179 posts

75 months

Monday 26th August 2019
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
That’s not a wetsuit. It is an acid proof swim suit, due to ocean acidification we could all need one within the next 12 years.
clap

turbobloke

104,130 posts

261 months

Monday 26th August 2019
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s not a wetsuit. It is an acid proof swim suit, due to ocean acidification we could all need one within the next 12 years.
clap
clap

caustic wit at its best...

Vizsla

923 posts

125 months

Monday 26th August 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s not a wetsuit. It is an acid proof swim suit, due to ocean acidification we could all need one within the next 12 years.
clap
clap

caustic wit at its best...
pH matters (on PH) laugh

skwdenyer

16,622 posts

241 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
I’m just going to put this out there: if climate change is not a thing, but if attempting to avoid it helps to wean the U.K. population off of a resource over which other powers hold sway, is that not a useful end in itself?

Pesty

42,655 posts

257 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/...


Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.

Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would b

Pesty

42,655 posts

257 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
Oh dear poor old Michael Mann

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/mic...

MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

zygalski

7,759 posts

146 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
...says right wing blog.
:yawn:

wc98

10,431 posts

141 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
zygalski said:
...says right wing blog.
:yawn:
is it true or not ?

wc98

10,431 posts

141 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
Vizsla said:
turbobloke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s not a wetsuit. It is an acid proof swim suit, due to ocean acidification we could all need one within the next 12 years.
clap
clap

caustic wit at its best...
pH matters (on PH) laugh
laugh

turbobloke

104,130 posts

261 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
Vizsla said:
turbobloke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Kawasicki said:
That’s not a wetsuit. It is an acid proof swim suit, due to ocean acidification we could all need one within the next 12 years.
clap
clap

caustic wit at its best...
pH matters (on PH) laugh
laugh
hehe

stew-STR160

8,006 posts

239 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
...says right wing blog.
:yawn:
is it true or not ?
Facts don't matter in this instance. Only political leaning and affiliation...

Kind of like the whole Climate Science debacle...

Not-The-Messiah

3,621 posts

82 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
...says right wing blog.
:yawn:
is it true or not ?
I know, is this a GCSE, A level answer these days and that's why everyone getting better grades.

Question 1: Assess the validity of the information presented within the article show.

Answer: It's from a conservative/ right wing news outlet so I don't need to.

Correct full marks.

Do people not see that it's a good thing to have range of news publication with different editorial stances? With it you get a far better idea what is actually going on.
If you surround yourself in a echo chamber of news all coming from people who all want to you to see what they want you to see and not see other things. Its not a good thing.

turbobloke

104,130 posts

261 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
Not-The-Messiah said:
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
...says right wing blog.
:yawn:
is it true or not ?
I know, is this a GCSE, A level answer these days and that's why everyone getting better grades.

Question 1: Assess the validity of the information presented within the article show.

Answer: It's from a conservative/ right wing news outlet so I don't need to.

Correct full marks.

Do people not see that it's a good thing to have range of news publication with different editorial stances? With it you get a far better idea what is actually going on.

If you surround yourself in a echo chamber of news all coming from people who all want to you to see what they want you to see and not see other things. Its not a good thing.
Well said, but it's even worse than that! The people who continue to 'shoot the messenger' as their one and only knee-jerk form of response are showing they have a culpable lack of knowledge regarding primary and secondary sources, and are equally ignorant of the fact that shooting the messenger isn't a valid form of argument (it's a type of ad hominem logical fallacy). However as already pointed out, when there's nothing left in the larder the stale crumbs of old faithful ad hom get re-heated and served up. Pathetic.

That, or these ad hommers know exactly what they're doing but keep on trolling the thread anyway.

As anyone with an ounce of sense and ten seconds to spare will know, this news about Mann behaving badly and refusing to disclose data, losing the Court case and having to put his hand in his pocket are accurate and can be found in other locations. The original news came from the plaintiff as the primary source who chose to release it initially via the science blog WUWT. Quite possibly that news is not given a suitably prominent position by left-field outlets such as the BBC or The Guardian, what a shocker that would be, but a few mnoments spent looking elsewhere is all that's needed to verify the outcome of the case.

jshell

11,057 posts

206 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
I'm sensing a slight turning of the tide here. More and more people are starting to challenge the misturths surrounding climate change. It'll gain some critical mass, I believe, and then hopefully the truth will out.

With a bit of luck, the shills will just fade away.

zygalski

7,759 posts

146 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?

jshell

11,057 posts

206 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?
I know you don't like questions as you never answer, but let's try. Why do you suppose 'big oil' supports the IPCC on AGW?

Your words, take your time and add something worth while to the thread rather than your repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...

Wayoftheflower

1,332 posts

236 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
jshell said:
...repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...
turbobloke said:
..These ad hommers know exactly what they're doing but keep on trolling the thread anyway.
I'll just leave these here for everyone to make their own minds up on who's relying on the personal attacks.

wc98

10,431 posts

141 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?
i would say in general more people are becoming sceptical. the incessant barrage of scary "climate news" is having the opposite effect of that intended, as more people actually start looking at the evidence behind the claims when previously climacatastrophe didn't even register in their thoughts.

all imo of course,but i certainly hear the phrase "did you hear the pish the bbc came out with last night" more and more these days. smile

jshell

11,057 posts

206 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
Wayoftheflower said:
jshell said:
...repetetive, vacuous sniping with absolutely zero content...
I'll just leave these here for everyone to make their own minds up on who's relying on the personal attacks.
And I'll leave it for folks to personally review his posts for content and value, and make up their own minds whether it's ad-hom or not...

Nice that he needs another member of the faithful to stick up for him. Good drone, good drone!

jshell

11,057 posts

206 months

Tuesday 27th August 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Well it'd no doubt help your cause if big oil didn't support the IPCC on AGW.
What turning of the tide do you mean? Have a few more bloggers appeared on WUWT?
i would say in general more people are becoming sceptical. the incessant barrage of scary "climate news" is having the opposite effect of that intended, as more people actually start looking at the evidence behind the claims when previously climacatastrophe didn't even register in their thoughts.

all imo of course,but i certainly hear the phrase "did you hear the pish the bbc came out with last night" more and more these days. smile
Yuo, and I'm starting to see more facebook groups (not US Repulican ones) openly questioning the faithful line. But, that's basic psychology, the more you scream, the more people thinkk that there's something not quite right. They are also seeing the bile, vitriol and phlegm spitting hysteria that remains almost the preserve of left wing poitics.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED