Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Last year: warm globe scientists blamed global warming for decreasing snowfall in the Himalayas
This year: warm globe scientist blames record-breaking snowfall in the Himalayas on global warming
More junkybunk than a bunk full of junk.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stor...
This year: warm globe scientist blames record-breaking snowfall in the Himalayas on global warming
More junkybunk than a bunk full of junk.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stor...
turbobloke said:
Last year: warm globe scientists blamed global warming for decreasing snowfall in the Himalayas
This year: warm globe scientist blames record-breaking snowfall in the Himalayas on global warming
More junkybunk than a bunk full of junk.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stor...
magic tax gas, it can be all things to all climate scientists This year: warm globe scientist blames record-breaking snowfall in the Himalayas on global warming
More junkybunk than a bunk full of junk.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stor...
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Perhaps you can get them to remove all the examples of you making stuff up? Thankfully Google has got around to removing the fraud who claimed he was Greenpeace co-founder now.
Onwards and upwards.
Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
gadgetmac said:
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
Oooo, defending your hero TB again eh deeps? Watch you don’t tug that forlock too hard, you’ll pull your own hair out.
The irony is palpable! You keep stating this, yet i wasn't even addressing you. Your partner was being addressed. You're very loyal, I'll give you that.gadgetmac said:
Hypocrisy eh?
A simple definition : They that own the greatest CO2 footprint on the entire website, at the same time as being the greatest climate CO2 Alarmists. The gadget/stovey doth protest too much.Hypocrisy is when I tell you to do something whilst I do the opposite or preaching that you should all be adjusting your behaviour whilst I do the opposite.
Neither of which we do.
Telling you AGW is real whilst flying a plane or travelling on a plane is not hypocrisy.
Telling you we’re all contributing to AGW whilst continuing in our polluting jobs is not hypocrisy.
Driving a petrol car whilst believing in AGW is not hypocrisy.
Running my tumble dryer whilst knowing how the electricity was produced to do that is not hypocrisy.
IQ in the top 1%? Are you one of Diderot’s students?
Can you go away as you are hindering the development of the thread. Please do so, as we all tire of reading this kind of hypocrisy input on both the Politics thread and the Science thread.
Gadget and partner, you are the very definition of hypocrites, dress it up any which way, but he with the largest CO2 footprint talking with the largest climate alarmist mouth, can be nothing but a hypocrite.
gadgetmac said:
Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
Ian Stirling. Hmm. Neither the most impartial nor reliable of sources. He's joint author of a paper described by Prof Curry as the stupidest she's ever seen. Also claimed a poster bear had died of climate change!Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
On "declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline".
It is not Crockford who is making this claim. It is the position of mainstream polar bear scientists (and of course based on models). She is making the point that observational evidence of polar bear numbers is contrary to models. Sound familiar?
jet_noise said:
gadgetmac said:
Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
Ian Stirling. Hmm. Neither the most impartial nor reliable of sources. He's joint author of a paper described by Prof Curry as the stupidest she's ever seen. Also claimed a poster bear had died of climate change!Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
On "declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline".
It is not Crockford who is making this claim. It is the position of mainstream polar bear scientists (and of course based on models). She is making the point that observational evidence of polar bear numbers is contrary to models. Sound familiar?
What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
micky g said:
status by country canada : special concern.
too right, i would be especially f
king concerned that 60-80% of the total population of polar bears was wandering around my home country if i was canadian. have you seen the teeth and claws on the feckers gadgetmac said:
Judith Curry...criticised Ian Stirling?
What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
nope, they are deemed vulnerable and they only met the iucn red list criteria for that designation due to the fact no one has a clue how many there really are but the area they live in has been subject to decreasing sea ice levels at certain times of year that may or may not have an impact on them. we might actually know if the clown stirling hadn't fallen out with the highest time in the field researcher that knows more about them in the modern day than he does.What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
can't be upsetting the tenured establishment rule makers though, it just wouldn't do. like the rest of the soft sciences once the current self appointed head man kicks the bucket the science will take another leap forward.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
Judith Curry...criticised Ian Stirling?
What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
nope, they are deemed vulnerable and they only met the iucn red list criteria for that designation due to the fact no one has a clue how many there really are but the area they live in has been subject to decreasing sea ice levels at certain times of year that may or may not have an impact on them. we might actually know if the clown stirling hadn't fallen out with the highest time in the field researcher that knows more about them in the modern day than he does.What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
can't be upsetting the tenured establishment rule makers though, it just wouldn't do. like the rest of the soft sciences once the current self appointed head man kicks the bucket the science will take another leap forward.
Righto.
Stovey, was this you flying off piste again perchance, trying to save fuel and thus the planet from CAGW? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47691478
gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
gadgetmac said:
Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
Ian Stirling. Hmm. Neither the most impartial nor reliable of sources. He's joint author of a paper described by Prof Curry as the stupidest she's ever seen. Also claimed a poster bear had died of climate change!Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
On "declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline".
It is not Crockford who is making this claim. It is the position of mainstream polar bear scientists (and of course based on models). She is making the point that observational evidence of polar bear numbers is contrary to models. Sound familiar?
What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
Seems like a clear enough statement to me.
Diderot said:
Stovey, was this you flying off piste again perchance, trying to save fuel and thus the planet from CAGW? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47691478
"BA flight lands in Edinburgh instead of Düsseldorf by mistake".
The BBC didn't realise it was just Stovey lessening his footprint
"From NASA JPL: Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Thinning Greenland Glacier".
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/25/inconvenien...
Article said:
NASA research shows that Jakobshavn Glacier, which has been Greenland’s fastest-flowing and fastest-thinning glacier for the last 20 years, has made an unexpected about-face. Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise – it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation – but at a slower rate.
The researchers conclude that the slowdown of this glacier, known in the Greenlandic language as Sermeq Kujalleq, occurred because an ocean current that brings water to the glacier’s ocean face grew much cooler in 2016. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they have been since the mid-1980s.
More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...The researchers conclude that the slowdown of this glacier, known in the Greenlandic language as Sermeq Kujalleq, occurred because an ocean current that brings water to the glacier’s ocean face grew much cooler in 2016. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they have been since the mid-1980s.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/25/inconvenien...
micky g said:
gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
gadgetmac said:
Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.
Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
Ian Stirling. Hmm. Neither the most impartial nor reliable of sources. He's joint author of a paper described by Prof Curry as the stupidest she's ever seen. Also claimed a poster bear had died of climate change!Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.
In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.
Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.
On "declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline".
It is not Crockford who is making this claim. It is the position of mainstream polar bear scientists (and of course based on models). She is making the point that observational evidence of polar bear numbers is contrary to models. Sound familiar?
What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?
As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.
You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.
Seems like a clear enough statement to me.
Full statement:
Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.
Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff