Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
A new and rigorous study involving 12 cities in Germany supports previous international research of the same type (which reached the same conclusions) and reveals that cold is far more fatal than warm (Huber et al, 2020)
This latest study showed that of the 6.3% of deaths across the cities that were attributed to very high or very low temperatures, only 0.81% were attributed to heat while 5.49% were attributed to cold.
Severe cold was shown to be 677% more dangerous to human life than hotty warm.
Feel the heat, it's an emergency! Believe, repent, accept restrictions and pay more tax, it's the only way and you know it makes sense.
This latest study showed that of the 6.3% of deaths across the cities that were attributed to very high or very low temperatures, only 0.81% were attributed to heat while 5.49% were attributed to cold.
Severe cold was shown to be 677% more dangerous to human life than hotty warm.
Feel the heat, it's an emergency! Believe, repent, accept restrictions and pay more tax, it's the only way and you know it makes sense.
turbobloke said:
A new and rigorous study involving 12 cities in Germany supports previous international research of the same type (which reached the same conclusions) and reveals that cold is far more fatal than warm (Huber et al, 2020)
This latest study showed that of the 6.3% of deaths across the cities that were attributed to very high or very low temperatures, only 0.81% were attributed to heat while 5.49% were attributed to cold.
Severe cold was shown to be 677% more dangerous to human life than hotty warm.
Feel the heat, it's an emergency! Believe, repent, accept restrictions and pay more tax, it's the only way and you know it makes sense.
You do realise that when people have concerns about the climate getting warmer they aren't actually that worried about dropping down dead from heat stroke? This latest study showed that of the 6.3% of deaths across the cities that were attributed to very high or very low temperatures, only 0.81% were attributed to heat while 5.49% were attributed to cold.
Severe cold was shown to be 677% more dangerous to human life than hotty warm.
Feel the heat, it's an emergency! Believe, repent, accept restrictions and pay more tax, it's the only way and you know it makes sense.
Memos which politicians won't get - in any sense of the word:
Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
turbobloke said:
Memos which politicians won't get - in any sense of the word:
Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
Are you suggesting that 1) climate change is happening? 2) We could do something to help stop or limit it? 3) We shouldn't because of those things? Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
Anyway, more good news. Or, not.
Death sentence on nature’: European Parliament accused of killing Green Deal
The Independent, 22 October 2020
U.S. cities failing to meet lofty climate goals
Science Magazin, 22 October 2020
And one that almost got missed.
Current EU plans for farming subsidies won't achieve any CO2 emission cuts
Clean Energy Wire, 12 October 2020
Greenblob failure, the common and recurring theme.
I would suggest I'm sharing news, does it not go down well with those whose green religion faith is being shaken?
Death sentence on nature’: European Parliament accused of killing Green Deal
The Independent, 22 October 2020
U.S. cities failing to meet lofty climate goals
Science Magazin, 22 October 2020
And one that almost got missed.
Current EU plans for farming subsidies won't achieve any CO2 emission cuts
Clean Energy Wire, 12 October 2020
Greenblob failure, the common and recurring theme.
I would suggest I'm sharing news, does it not go down well with those whose green religion faith is being shaken?
turbobloke said:
Anyway, more good news. Or, not.
Death sentence on nature’: European Parliament accused of killing Green Deal
The Independent, 22 October 2020
U.S. cities failing to meet lofty climate goals
Science Magazin, 22 October 2020
And one that almost got missed.
Current EU plans for farming subsidies won't achieve any CO2 emission cuts
Clean Energy Wire, 12 October 2020
Greenblob failure, the common and recurring theme.
So which of the 3 things in my post above do you think are true and which are false?Death sentence on nature’: European Parliament accused of killing Green Deal
The Independent, 22 October 2020
U.S. cities failing to meet lofty climate goals
Science Magazin, 22 October 2020
And one that almost got missed.
Current EU plans for farming subsidies won't achieve any CO2 emission cuts
Clean Energy Wire, 12 October 2020
Greenblob failure, the common and recurring theme.
Was there a question about climate change happening, meaning agw no doubt as opposed to actual climate change which has been happening for billions of years and still is?
Already answered n times but some including politicians refuse to listen..
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showed that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364682...
Already answered n times but some including politicians refuse to listen..
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showed that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364682...
turbobloke said:
Was there a question about climate change happening, meaning agw no doubt as opposed to actual climate change which has been happening for billions of years and still is?
Already answered n times but some including politicians refuse to listen..
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showed that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364682...
You're making me work at this. So you think that 1 (in my list of questions) is true? But 2 isn't? Already answered n times but some including politicians refuse to listen..
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showed that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364682...
turbobloke said:
I won't mention research published this year demonstrating positive effects from modest natural warming and higher CO2 levels on grape vines and potatoes - it's time for tiffin and a jacket spud with wine is in order.
You are clearly a very clever person. Why can't you answer my 3 questions in a way that this thicko can understand? And I'm still wondering why you aren't more visible on the CV19 threads where I'd expect you to give us a view on whether you think that's also a conspiracy and Boris Johnson is a total lump of a prime minister? Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Memos which politicians won't get - in any sense of the word:
Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
Are you suggesting that 1) climate change is happening? 2) We could do something to help stop or limit it? 3) We shouldn't because of those things? Record global wheat production expected
Grain Central, 09 October 2020
Sudan announces largest ever wheat harvest
African Development Bank, 19 October
Brazil expects record harvest
Merco Press, 19 October 2020
Which follow from:
Best Indian rainfall since 1901 raises hopes for record harvest
Economic Times of India, 01 September 2020
Australia prepares for bumper harvest, NSW winter crops boosted 300%
The Guardian, 21 September 2020
Aerial fertilisation (CO2 levels up) and modest natural warming; good news.
It's still an emergency so remain in panic mode.
They quietly abandoned arguing that there hasn't actually been any warming (that was the strategy ten years ago) because the evidence continues to make that position increasingly idiotic.
The new strategy is to convince people that yes the warming is happening but actually it's a good thing.
Who knows how the conspiracy theorists resolve this when it disproves their claims of some all-powerful gatekeepers suppressing any research into the benefits of warming but meh, just add it to the list of contradictions.
More panic is required.
The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
However this so-called “record” is based on numbers which only date back to 1979, in the middle of a period when the arctic was cooling, this was part of the global cooling panic as embodied in countless headlines and numerous scientific papers - as posted on PH previously. This led to a large increase in sea ice extent which is causing fearful records and 'alarm' headlines. The arctic is prone to short-term medium-scale fluctuations, naturally.
Dial back on the panic. It's all happened before (1922 and 1817, more impressive but different sources) as also posted on PH previously.
The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
However this so-called “record” is based on numbers which only date back to 1979, in the middle of a period when the arctic was cooling, this was part of the global cooling panic as embodied in countless headlines and numerous scientific papers - as posted on PH previously. This led to a large increase in sea ice extent which is causing fearful records and 'alarm' headlines. The arctic is prone to short-term medium-scale fluctuations, naturally.
Dial back on the panic. It's all happened before (1922 and 1817, more impressive but different sources) as also posted on PH previously.
durbster said:
This is the latest movement of the ever-shifting sands of AGW denial.
They quietly abandoned arguing that there hasn't actually been any warming (that was the strategy ten years ago) because the evidence continues to make that position increasingly idiotic.
The new strategy is to convince people that yes the warming is happening but actually it's a good thing.
Who knows how the conspiracy theorists resolve this when it disproves their claims of some all-powerful gatekeepers suppressing any research into the benefits of warming but meh, just add it to the list of contradictions.
Yeah it’s pretty transparent and poor from someone claiming to be a scientist, we can look back at TBs past posts and see how he’s constantly been wrong over the years.They quietly abandoned arguing that there hasn't actually been any warming (that was the strategy ten years ago) because the evidence continues to make that position increasingly idiotic.
The new strategy is to convince people that yes the warming is happening but actually it's a good thing.
Who knows how the conspiracy theorists resolve this when it disproves their claims of some all-powerful gatekeepers suppressing any research into the benefits of warming but meh, just add it to the list of contradictions.
Nobody takes his climate change posts seriously any more.
He’s reduced now to posting misleading titles with no links to articles, trying to hide the source, which is invariably his climate change advocacy site the GWPF.
I assume he works for them or something to be churning out their propaganda every other day still.
Seems there’s a couple of followers on here that still buy into it, not surprising when their entire knowledge is based on TBs posts.
It’s been interesting watching their arguments collapse as time went on. It does show though that their arguments were all based on politics and their world view rather than any scientific basis.
turbobloke said:
More panic is required.
The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
Classic turbowaffle. Arctic ice has been in a steady long-term decline, as predicted.The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
And a video explainer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
turbobloke said:
However this so-called “record” is based on numbers which only date back to 1979, in the middle of a period when the arctic was cooling
Here's the longer term record. Oh look, there's nothing special about 1979:
Turbobloke is trying to make you believe that 1979 was chosen deliberately to push an agenda (isn't it amazing that scientists in 1979 were preparing for a left-wing Marxist globalist conspiracy decades into the future!). The reality is 1979 is simply the year we introduced the technology to track the ice using satellites.
turbobloke said:
Dial back on the panic. It's all happened before (1922 and 1817, more impressive but different sources) as also posted on PH previously.
Obviously before satellites it was just about impossible to record the arctic ice extent, let alone its thickness to any useful degree, so historic records are not reliable and mostly anecdotal.All my information is from the NSIDC: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
El stovey said:
It does show though that their arguments were all based on politics and their world view rather than any scientific basis.
The irony is strong here. Just because you don't hear an opposing view doesn't mean it's not there. A recent phenomenon of the silent majority is leaving the believers in disbelief.
What do they say about repeating the same mistake over and over
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
El stovey said:
It does show though that their arguments were all based on politics and their world view rather than any scientific basis.
The irony is strong here. Just because you don't hear an opposing view doesn't mean it's not there. A recent phenomenon of the silent majority is leaving the believers in disbelief.
What do they say about repeating the same mistake over and over
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-repor...
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
The irony is strong here.
Just because you don't hear an opposing view doesn't mean it's not there. A recent phenomenon of the silent majority is leaving the believers in disbelief.
What do they say about repeating the same mistake over and over
100% agree. Green warriors echo chamber this time. Just like all the other Social media echo chambers crying about Brexit. Trump, BLM etc.Just because you don't hear an opposing view doesn't mean it's not there. A recent phenomenon of the silent majority is leaving the believers in disbelief.
What do they say about repeating the same mistake over and over
Edited by blackrabbit on Wednesday 28th October 10:17
Yet more good news.
EU report about vanishing beaches was alarmist and wrong, scientists say
The Times, 27 October 2020
In reality:
-sandy beaches are much less vulnerable than was claimed in a recent European Commission study
-researchers found the EU caused “unnecessary alarm”
-scientists from 12 universities around the world re-examined the data and methodology that underpinned the alarmism
-they found it was based on flawed computer models
-with 'arbitrary and unjustified' assumptions, so conclusions flawed
What a surprise, flawed climate models. Still, it's understandable, they must keep the panic going for our own good. Obviously..
EU report about vanishing beaches was alarmist and wrong, scientists say
The Times, 27 October 2020
In reality:
-sandy beaches are much less vulnerable than was claimed in a recent European Commission study
-researchers found the EU caused “unnecessary alarm”
-scientists from 12 universities around the world re-examined the data and methodology that underpinned the alarmism
-they found it was based on flawed computer models
-with 'arbitrary and unjustified' assumptions, so conclusions flawed
What a surprise, flawed climate models. Still, it's understandable, they must keep the panic going for our own good. Obviously..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff