Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Murph7355]

alfaspecial said:

Interesting to add to the debate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690

Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?

Why are they bothering? I thought all science on this topic was settled??

Earth adapts...who knew.

[kerplunk]

alfaspecial said:

Interesting to add to the debate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690





Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?

Not sure what this brings to the debate. We already know half of our emissions are being absorbed by carbon sinks - the big unkown is whether they'll continue to do so or whether they'll start to slow down meaning the 'airborne fraction' will start to rise even faster if we carry on emitting at the same rate.

[Randy Winkman]

Kawasicki said:

Randy Winkman said:

Kawasicki said:

Randy Winkman said:

Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.

And when the “Big Oil” funded climate reports that show that AGW is very weak are peer reviewed and published will you change your mind?

I might do. Where are they?

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2080584864_Willie_Soon

So the oil industry does pay people do such work? Even if in this case they are an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. I cant claim I've read much of what's on that link (I don't think many people would) but my question is that if he can provide such arguments why isn't the oil industry making much more of all this? I'm not really going to change my own view based on one link when I could look at a thousand other things on the internet that give me views to the contrary. It's the balance of such evidence that I rely on to form a view. If I don't I'll just be picking out a few things on the internet that suit my own bias.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

alfaspecial said:

Interesting to add to the debate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690

Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?

Not sure what this brings to the debate. We already know half of our emissions are being absorbed by carbon sinks - the big unkown is ...

Snipped there for brevity.

There are several big unknowns of great consequence. One is how climate models have been adapted to the shock discovery that our planet is home to over 3 trillion trees rather than the pre-2015 miscount of a mere 400 billion. Another big unknown according to IPCC climate gurus is "where the energy is going" and why they're "nowhere near" balancing the planet's energy budget, why "it's a travesty" that the lack of predicted warming cannot be accounted for within agw climate voodoo and that all forms of geoengineering are hopeless. Another highly relevant big unknown is who's hiding the missing sink, and how dare they. This and other 'settled science' is a sight for sore eyes to behold. Politicians might swallow it, you never know...

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

alfaspecial said:

Interesting to add to the debate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690

Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?

Not sure what this brings to the debate. We already know half of our emissions are being absorbed by carbon sinks - the big unkown is ...

Snipped there for brevity.

There are several big unknowns of great consequence. One is how climate models have been adapted to the shock discovery that our planet is home to over 3 trillion trees rather than the pre-2015 miscount of a mere 400 billion. Another big unknown according to IPCC climate gurus is "where the energy is going" and why they're "nowhere near" balancing the planet's energy budget, why "it's a travesty" that the lack of predicted warming cannot be accounted for within agw climate voodoo and that all forms of geoengineering are hopeless. Another highly relevant big unknown is who's hiding the missing sink, and how dare they. This and other 'settled science' is a sight for sore eyes to behold. Politicians might swallow it, you never know...

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

[Etypephil]

kerplunk said:

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

What a well considered argument. Climatology is becoming a little like Scientology; a pseudo religion with not much of interest to say, yet able to do enormous harm

[kerplunk]

Etypephil said:

kerplunk said:

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

What a well considered argument. Climatology is becoming a little like Scientology; a pseudo religion with not much of interest to say, yet able to do enormous harm

More boring meme-spouting.

[jshell]

Randy Winkman said:

So the oil industry does pay people do such work? Even if in this case they are an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. I cant claim I've read much of what's on that link (I don't think many people would) but my question is that if he can provide such arguments why isn't the oil industry making much more of all this? I'm not really going to change my own view based on one link when I could look at a thousand other things on the internet that give me views to the contrary. It's the balance of such evidence that I rely on to form a view. If I don't I'll just be picking out a few things on the internet that suit my own bias.

When I worked for 'Big Oil', they decided to capitlise on global warming. They support efforts in combatting climate change by trying to establish a carbon floor price which prices coal out of the market compared to the gas that big oil want to sell... The sell gas as the transtitional fuel.

The warmests called their bluff by wanting to completely electrify which is the scorched earth, return to tilling the fields, option.

[Wayoftheflower]

kerplunk said:

Etypephil said:

kerplunk said:

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

What a well considered argument. Climatology is becoming a little like Scientology; a pseudo religion with not much of interest to say, yet able to do enormous harm

More boring meme-spouting.

Turbobloke and his sock puppets aren't really worth interacting with. They fell out of the sane plane when NASA started being conspirators along with "big green" in order to enact a New World Order or some other Illuminati rubbish.

The important thing is that normal people are buying less of their BS and making their votes count.

[kerplunk]

Wayoftheflower said:

kerplunk said:

Etypephil said:

kerplunk said:

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

What a well considered argument. Climatology is becoming a little like Scientology; a pseudo religion with not much of interest to say, yet able to do enormous harm

More boring meme-spouting.

Turbobloke and his sock puppets aren't really worth interacting with. They fell out of the sane plane when NASA started being conspirators along with "big green" in order to enact a New World Order or some other Illuminati rubbish.

The important thing is that normal people are buying less of their BS and making their votes count.

Not sure about the sock puppet part - I'd go for 'suckerfish'

[Randy Winkman]

jshell said:

Randy Winkman said:

So the oil industry does pay people do such work? Even if in this case they are an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. I cant claim I've read much of what's on that link (I don't think many people would) but my question is that if he can provide such arguments why isn't the oil industry making much more of all this? I'm not really going to change my own view based on one link when I could look at a thousand other things on the internet that give me views to the contrary. It's the balance of such evidence that I rely on to form a view. If I don't I'll just be picking out a few things on the internet that suit my own bias.

When I worked for 'Big Oil', they decided to capitlise on global warming. They support efforts in combatting climate change by trying to establish a carbon floor price which prices coal out of the market compared to the gas that big oil want to sell... The sell gas as the transtitional fuel.

The warmests called their bluff by wanting to completely electrify which is the scorched earth, return to tilling the fields, option.

Perhaps they decided that since climate change is probably happening they might as well make the best of it. I'd have thought they could have done far better by showing that it wasn't happening.

[PRTVR]

Randy Winkman said:

jshell said:

Randy Winkman said:

So the oil industry does pay people do such work? Even if in this case they are an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. I cant claim I've read much of what's on that link (I don't think many people would) but my question is that if he can provide such arguments why isn't the oil industry making much more of all this? I'm not really going to change my own view based on one link when I could look at a thousand other things on the internet that give me views to the contrary. It's the balance of such evidence that I rely on to form a view. If I don't I'll just be picking out a few things on the internet that suit my own bias.

When I worked for 'Big Oil', they decided to capitlise on global warming. They support efforts in combatting climate change by trying to establish a carbon floor price which prices coal out of the market compared to the gas that big oil want to sell... The sell gas as the transtitional fuel.

The warmests called their bluff by wanting to completely electrify which is the scorched earth, return to tilling the fields, option.

Perhaps they decided that since climate change is probably happening they might as well make the best of it. I'd have thought they could have done far better by showing that it wasn't happening.

You do understand that you cannot prove or disprove the theory of AGW ?
Unless you have a B planet finding the effects of a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere is impossible, there are to many variables, both know and unknown.

[zygalski]

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

jshell said:

Randy Winkman said:

So the oil industry does pay people do such work? Even if in this case they are an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer. I cant claim I've read much of what's on that link (I don't think many people would) but my question is that if he can provide such arguments why isn't the oil industry making much more of all this? I'm not really going to change my own view based on one link when I could look at a thousand other things on the internet that give me views to the contrary. It's the balance of such evidence that I rely on to form a view. If I don't I'll just be picking out a few things on the internet that suit my own bias.

When I worked for 'Big Oil', they decided to capitlise on global warming. They support efforts in combatting climate change by trying to establish a carbon floor price which prices coal out of the market compared to the gas that big oil want to sell... The sell gas as the transtitional fuel.

The warmests called their bluff by wanting to completely electrify which is the scorched earth, return to tilling the fields, option.

Perhaps they decided that since climate change is probably happening they might as well make the best of it. I'd have thought they could have done far better by showing that it wasn't happening.

You do understand that you cannot prove or disprove the theory of AGW ?
Unless you have a B planet finding the effects of a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere is impossible, there are to many variables, both know and unknown.

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

[turbobloke]

With one year and a couple of months to go before the Pentagon's climate prediction flunks just like the rest, they've kicked the can again. That was unexpected

The UK was meant to have a Siberian climate "by 2020" with European cities underwater just like New York was in 2015, ooops.



A hefty kick of the can has supposedly spared their blushes. Now it's 2039-2040 and we may be spared Siberia but the US military gets it in the privates



Obviously as the first prediction was ridiculously spot on or just plain ridiculous this latest punt has to be even more credible.

[Randy Winkman]

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

This "Global greening"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate...

… which is described as "terrible".

[Jinx]

Randy Winkman said:

This "Global greening"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate...

… which is described as "terrible".

Science fail on that one. Already shown how the nutrient reduction paper was nonsense (reflection of the nutrients available in the soil - not a reflection of CO2 enhancement) and the "extra photosynthesis" being a "bad thing" because plants respire at night? FFS they do know what the plant is fecking made of don't they?

The greening is a good thing (tm) and nothing in that piece actually refutes this.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

Randy Winkman said:

This "Global greening"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate...

… which is described as "terrible".

Science fail on that one. Already shown how the nutrient reduction paper was nonsense (reflection of the nutrients available in the soil - not a reflection of CO2 enhancement) and the "extra photosynthesis" being a "bad thing" because plants respire at night? FFS they do know what the plant is fecking made of don't they?

The greening is a good thing (tm) and nothing in that piece actually refutes this.

It was good for a chuckle though.

[Wayoftheflower]

kerplunk said:

Wayoftheflower said:

kerplunk said:

Etypephil said:

kerplunk said:

blah blah - just the usual meme-spouting.

What a well considered argument. Climatology is becoming a little like Scientology; a pseudo religion with not much of interest to say, yet able to do enormous harm

More boring meme-spouting.

Turbobloke and his sock puppets aren't really worth interacting with. They fell out of the sane plane when NASA started being conspirators along with "big green" in order to enact a New World Order or some other Illuminati rubbish.

The important thing is that normal people are buying less of their BS and making their votes count.

Not sure about the sock puppet part - I'd go for 'suckerfish'

Perhaps Parrotfish?

[turbobloke]

According to an Office for National Statistics study, China is the biggest single source of Britain’s imported emissions, but the EU is also co-naughty. Exporting emissions, how dare they/we.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uk...

You have to laugh at this bit, even kerplunk agreed it was only delayed escape not trapping, something about dead people wearing pullovers.

ONS "heat being trapped in the atmosphere"