Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Etypephil]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of the truth like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

EFA.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of hogwash like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

Have you taken dodging the question from Durbster then? Typical response from someone whose only ammunition is 'I believe'. No knowledge of the subject, so unable to contribute constructively.

Obviously untrue and further evidence that you're not worth spending any time on.

Every time you answer like that, you're digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself.

Only in your head.

You're obviously to dumb to see what you've done in the past 6 of your posts, but I'm sure the others here have worked it out. Thanks. Saves us having to take any more notice of your pointless offerings. Into the Iggy bin from now on.

I tell you what - you're good at lazily demanding others perform tasks for you, so I have one for you for a change. Debunk just one part of Heller's video for yourself using some of those high powers of scepticism and common sense that you claim to possess. Nothing highly technical, just the part where he claims those stoopid scientists have got the cart before the horse in the ice core record section (4 mins in) in a 'misunderstanding of basic scientific principles'. Let's see if you can do it. Feel free to use google if you can't do it off the top of your head.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 21st October 11:54

[kerplunk]

Etypephil said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of the truth like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

EFA.

ooh what a devastating argument.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of hogwash like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

Have you taken dodging the question from Durbster then? Typical response from someone whose only ammunition is 'I believe'. No knowledge of the subject, so unable to contribute constructively.

Obviously untrue and further evidence that you're not worth spending any time on.

Every time you answer like that, you're digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself.

Only in your head.

You're obviously to dumb to see what you've done in the past 6 of your posts, but I'm sure the others here have worked it out. Thanks. Saves us having to take any more notice of your pointless offerings. Into the Iggy bin from now on.

I tell you what - you're good at lazily demanding others perform tasks for you, so I have one for you for a change. Debunk just one part of Heller's video for yourself using some of those high powers of scepticism and common sense that you claim to possess. Nothing highly technical, just the part where he claims those stoopid scientists have got the cart before the horse in the ice core record section (4 mins in) in a 'misunderstanding of basic scientific principles'. Let's see if you can do it. Feel free to use google if you can't do it off the top of your head.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 21st October 11:54

I think he's correct, don't have to debunk anything. For the record, ice cores do show temperature rising BEFORE CO2 increases. You suggested Google, so here you go then:-

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima...

[PRTVR]

I thought it was accepted science that as oceans warm they outgas CO2 ?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of hogwash like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

Have you taken dodging the question from Durbster then? Typical response from someone whose only ammunition is 'I believe'. No knowledge of the subject, so unable to contribute constructively.

Obviously untrue and further evidence that you're not worth spending any time on.

Every time you answer like that, you're digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself.

Only in your head.

You're obviously to dumb to see what you've done in the past 6 of your posts, but I'm sure the others here have worked it out. Thanks. Saves us having to take any more notice of your pointless offerings. Into the Iggy bin from now on.

I tell you what - you're good at lazily demanding others perform tasks for you, so I have one for you for a change. Debunk just one part of Heller's video for yourself using some of those high powers of scepticism and common sense that you claim to possess. Nothing highly technical, just the part where he claims those stoopid scientists have got the cart before the horse in the ice core record section (4 mins in) in a 'misunderstanding of basic scientific principles'. Let's see if you can do it. Feel free to use google if you can't do it off the top of your head.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 21st October 11:54

I think he's correct, don't have to debunk anything. For the record, ice cores do show temperature rising BEFORE CO2 increases. You suggested Google, so here you go then:-

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima...

Very good you've found an article and the answer to the challenge is contained there. So in your own words why is Heller's claim that those stoopid scientists have put the cart before the horse in a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles clearly bogus? What is the retort to that claim?

[Etypephil]

kerplunk said:

ooh what a devastating argument.

As valid as the evidence which you have presented.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of hogwash like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

Have you taken dodging the question from Durbster then? Typical response from someone whose only ammunition is 'I believe'. No knowledge of the subject, so unable to contribute constructively.

Obviously untrue and further evidence that you're not worth spending any time on.

Every time you answer like that, you're digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself.

Only in your head.

You're obviously to dumb to see what you've done in the past 6 of your posts, but I'm sure the others here have worked it out. Thanks. Saves us having to take any more notice of your pointless offerings. Into the Iggy bin from now on.

I tell you what - you're good at lazily demanding others perform tasks for you, so I have one for you for a change. Debunk just one part of Heller's video for yourself using some of those high powers of scepticism and common sense that you claim to possess. Nothing highly technical, just the part where he claims those stoopid scientists have got the cart before the horse in the ice core record section (4 mins in) in a 'misunderstanding of basic scientific principles'. Let's see if you can do it. Feel free to use google if you can't do it off the top of your head.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 21st October 11:54

I think he's correct, don't have to debunk anything. For the record, ice cores do show temperature rising BEFORE CO2 increases. You suggested Google, so here you go then:-

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima...

Very good you've found an article and the answer to the challenge is contained there. So in your own words why is Heller's claim that those stoopid scientists have put the cart before the horse in a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles clearly bogus? What is the retort to that claim?

You've been answered.

[Randy Winkman]

jet_noise said:

turbobloke said:

More climate politics.

The hysterics out there now give us not 10, not 12 but 20 years before we're eating Insect Pizza with gustopesto

https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-hysteria...

EF(even more) H

I like the way that the goal of that website is to "to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming."

But presumably to ignore anything supports it? That sums up the intent for me. I can find something to prove or disprove anything and pick the option I prefer.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

The latest video from Tony Heller, nothing new for people who have been following the subject for some time, but may be informative to some.
https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

Yes just the usual misdirections by a serial huckster - nothing new.

Over to you to produce a 20-minute video refuting what he says. I can't wait to see it.

Unsceptical lovers of hogwash like you are unconvincable so there'd be no point.

Have you taken dodging the question from Durbster then? Typical response from someone whose only ammunition is 'I believe'. No knowledge of the subject, so unable to contribute constructively.

Obviously untrue and further evidence that you're not worth spending any time on.

Every time you answer like that, you're digging an ever-bigger hole for yourself.

Only in your head.

You're obviously to dumb to see what you've done in the past 6 of your posts, but I'm sure the others here have worked it out. Thanks. Saves us having to take any more notice of your pointless offerings. Into the Iggy bin from now on.

I tell you what - you're good at lazily demanding others perform tasks for you, so I have one for you for a change. Debunk just one part of Heller's video for yourself using some of those high powers of scepticism and common sense that you claim to possess. Nothing highly technical, just the part where he claims those stoopid scientists have got the cart before the horse in the ice core record section (4 mins in) in a 'misunderstanding of basic scientific principles'. Let's see if you can do it. Feel free to use google if you can't do it off the top of your head.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 21st October 11:54

I think he's correct, don't have to debunk anything. For the record, ice cores do show temperature rising BEFORE CO2 increases. You suggested Google, so here you go then:-

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima...

Very good you've found an article and the answer to the challenge is contained there. So in your own words why is Heller's claim that those stoopid scientists have put the cart before the horse in a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles clearly bogus? What is the retort to that claim?

You've been answered.

Ok, and yes indeed I've been answered - even with the internet you can't see through basic and obvious bogosity for yourself.

[robinessex]

Randy Winkman said:

jet_noise said:

turbobloke said:

More climate politics.

The hysterics out there now give us not 10, not 12 but 20 years before we're eating Insect Pizza with gustopesto

https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-hysteria...

EF(even more) H

I like the way that the goal of that website is to "to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming."

But presumably to ignore anything supports it? That sums up the intent for me. I can find something to prove or disprove anything and pick the option I prefer.

Quite true, but? The climate is mathematically a chaotic system, hence effectively random, so can't be modeled. Yet CC believers still believe in them !!

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

jet_noise said:

turbobloke said:

More climate politics.

The hysterics out there now give us not 10, not 12 but 20 years before we're eating Insect Pizza with gustopesto

https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-hysteria...

EF(even more) H

I like the way that the goal of that website is to "to share with you all the studies and papers that consistently contradict the theory of CO2-driven global warming."

But presumably to ignore anything supports it? That sums up the intent for me. I can find something to prove or disprove anything and pick the option I prefer.

In which case you'll be used to getting busy on the follow-up after reading any IPCC reports which come your way. Under their advocacy Ts&Cs there's no balance in the papers selected. Those involved in pushing The Cause within The Team even wrote about how papers are either blocked at source in peer review (gatekeeping) or at the IPCC front door if all else fails.

Ed Cook to Keith Briffa said:

Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically
...
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.
...
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated.

Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is!

[robinessex]

Climate change: Peatlands 'turning into carbon sources'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-501...

Peatlands are a natural carbon sink, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it in the soil.
In Europe alone, they lock up about five times more carbon than forests.
But according to a new study, the continent's peatlands are in such a dry and fragile state, they could go into reverse, releasing rather than absorbing carbon.
Scientists say it is more important than ever that we restore and safeguard these boggy landscapes......continues

About as much chance of being able to do that as making rain when you want it.

[turbobloke]

"could"

[Kawasicki]

From the boggy paper

“It is impossible to separate the effects of climate and direct human impacts in our records, as they are superimposed upon one another.”

[Diderot]

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby? Our Govt was compelled by Ed Minigland to SPUNK £18BN per year for multiple DECADES on a LIE. And YOU have the temerity to suggest that Government's do more? HOW MANY fkING HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS COULD £18BN PER YEAR BUILD INSTEAD OF PISSING IT UP THE WALL ON POINTLESS CLIMATE CHANGE ACT wkERY? Are you EFFING serious??? It's expressed in capitals in case it doesn't get through your thick skull. Unbelievable.

I know whose post makes it look like they were dropped on their head.

Indeed, which is precisely why you were unable to answer any of the substantive questions ... So I ask you once again: how many hospitals and schools could £18bn per year for next 30 years build instead of wasting/spunking/spaffing that money up the wall? And YOU have the temerity to suggest that Government's do more?

[Randy Winkman]

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby? Our Govt was compelled by Ed Minigland to SPUNK £18BN per year for multiple DECADES on a LIE. And YOU have the temerity to suggest that Government's do more? HOW MANY fkING HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS COULD £18BN PER YEAR BUILD INSTEAD OF PISSING IT UP THE WALL ON POINTLESS CLIMATE CHANGE ACT wkERY? Are you EFFING serious??? It's expressed in capitals in case it doesn't get through your thick skull. Unbelievable.

I know whose post makes it look like they were dropped on their head.

Indeed, which is precisely why you were unable to answer any of the substantive questions ... So I ask you once again: how many hospitals and schools could £18bn per year for next 30 years build instead of wasting/spunking/spaffing that money up the wall? And YOU have the temerity to suggest that Government's do more?

What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?

[Etypephil]

Randy Winkman said:

What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?

Perhaps we should have a referendum on the subject, the result of which our MPs could ignore, if they don't like it.

[PRTVR]

Randy Winkman said:

What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?

Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.

[zygalski]

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?

Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.

I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.