Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Robinessex: You're being very 'swervy' Rob.

It was a simple question. Are you going to answer it or not?

My question repeated, as obviously understanding what's posted here isn't one of your strong points.

"The temperature of the plane is a useless average. What the hell does that tell you that's of any practical use?"

There you go. (Note the ? at the end of that). That's a question mark.

I don't know the answer to your question.

Now, stop swerving and answer mine.

Is the planet warming up or, as you've started previously, is it not warming up due to data being misused???

If you think the planet isn't warming as there is no way to tell then just say so.

So. No swerving.

Is it Warming or Not or is it impossible to tell?

Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 9th December 12:09

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Robinessex: You're being very 'swervy' Rob.

It was a simple question. Are you going to answer it or not?

My question repeated, as obviously understanding what's posted here isn't one of your strong points.

"The temperature of the plane is a useless average. What the hell does that tell you that's of any practical use?"

There you go. (Note the ? at the end of that). That's a question mark.

I don't know the answer to your question.

Now, stop swerving and answer mine.

Is the planet warming up or, as you've started previously, is it not warming up due to data being misused???

If you think the planet isn't warming as there is no way to tell then just say so.

So. No swerving.

Is it Warming or Not or is it impossible to tell?

Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 9th December 12:09

Impossible to tell. An average tell you nothing useful.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Robinessex: You're being very 'swervy' Rob.

It was a simple question. Are you going to answer it or not?

My question repeated, as obviously understanding what's posted here isn't one of your strong points.

"The temperature of the plane is a useless average. What the hell does that tell you that's of any practical use?"

There you go. (Note the ? at the end of that). That's a question mark.

For the record, you weren't asking me that you were talking to PRTVR and you didn't have a question mark after it in your initial post.

HTH

[Greeny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?

Edited by Greeny on Monday 9th December 12:57

[kerplunk]

Tony427 said:

Greeny said:

Halb said:

I know this is old and has probably been posted here, but it pipped up on my yt list as I was in the gym.
Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union
GWPF
https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY
6mins

Nov 8th 2018, I posted that. He talks a lot of sense

Thanks for that. He certainly does. You could almost see the lightbulbs switching on above peoples heads.

...and then they formed Exctinction Rebellion.

[Gadgetmac]

Greeny said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?

There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.

Here's some research from the net:

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.


So you decide.

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.

Here's some research from the net:

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.


So you decide.

The funding he received does not bother me to be honest, both sides of the story receive funding. The guy you posted a link to a day or so ago had a whole list of companies and institutions funding him.
And if he failed to convince Trump to review his thinking on mainstream research, who did?
Edit to add
So, I assume you think his conclusions are incorrect. Seems to me he knows his stuff, but then again, I have been a Joiner all my life, left school at 14 with absolutely no qualification of any sort. I’m still interested in the whole discussion though.

Edited by Greeny on Monday 9th December 15:08

Edited by Greeny on Monday 9th December 16:11

[robinessex]

Nobody works for free. CC 'scientists' seem to have funded jobs for life though.

[robinessex]

Madrid climate talks will set the tone for Glasgow 2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50706068

World leaders are heading to Madrid for the high-level stage of the COP25 UN climate conference.
The outcome of the talks could have a huge bearing on the Glasgow event next year.
So far the negotiations have been slow and frustration at the speed of progress is growing.
But climate scientist Prof Sandy Tudhope from Edinburgh University believes there is still time to turn them around.
He said: "I'm going to be optimistic about that because it is doable but what it will require is a lot of goodwill - a lot of really open transparent but astute diplomacy.
"I'm optimistic because we have to be optimistic. Climate change is a challenge but we can use it as a way to have a fairer and better environment."
About 29,000 delegates are registered to attend the event in Madrid where the rulebook for the 2015 Paris Agreement is being finalised.....continues

29,000 delegtaes !! See comment above

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Nobody works for free. CC 'scientists' seem to have funded jobs for life though.

Scientists earn approx 30% less working in Academia than they do in Industry.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Nobody works for free. CC 'scientists' seem to have funded jobs for life though.

Scientists earn approx 30% less working in Academia than they do in Industry.

Stop that, you'll have me crying in my beer!

PS. How many of that 29,000 on expenses ?

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Nobody works for free. CC 'scientists' seem to have funded jobs for life though.

Scientists earn approx 30% less working in Academia than they do in Industry.

Stop that, you'll have me crying in my beer!

PS. How many of that 29,000 on expenses ?

I have no idea, do you? How's many are employed in the private sector?

[dangerousB]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50712666

"Finalists in the competition were asked a range of questions on topics such as climate change, protest and social media."

Quite aside from the fact that I thought this sort of thing had become extinct, questions about climate change & protest??

Social media questions I can just about get my head around, but climate change & protest? Err, why? Why on earth would contestant's opinions on either of those be in any way relevant or worthy of interest??

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?

There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.

Here's some research from the net:

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.


So you decide.

This post sums up so much about the debate about CC. The link above is well worth watching for any one interested in the subject. This is a physics professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the US. Discribing some of the serious questions about CC.

The above poster could have disputed any of the claims made in the interview. Rather than that he attacks the man.

So what errors did Harper make in his statements?

[Gadgetmac]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?

There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.

Here's some research from the net:

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.


So you decide.

This post sums up so much about the debate about CC. The link above is well worth watching for any one interested in the subject. This is a physics professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the US. Discribing some of the serious questions about CC.

The above poster could have disputed any of the claims made in the interview. Rather than that he attacks the man.

So what errors did Harper make in his statements?

Sadly your post just about encapsulates the deniers misunderstanding of a topic.

This is the POLITICS thread. If you want to discuss the SCIENCE then guess where you should be posting...?

[JustALooseScrew]

robinessex said:

29,000 delegates !!

Are you sure? I'd heard it was only 25,000.

[JustALooseScrew]

Gadgetmac said:

Sadly your post just about encapsulates the deniers misunderstanding of a topic.

This is the POLITICS thread. If you want to discuss the SCIENCE then guess where you should be posting...?

Ha hah hah, way to try and get out of answering a question.

The science thread is dead because obviously the science is settled, did you not get the memo?

Answer the question asked of you.

[mondeoman]

robinessex said:

Nobody works for free. CC 'scientists' seem to have funded jobs for life though.

Ah, but THEIR funding is GOOD funding dontcha know.

[Gadgetmac]

JustALooseScrew said:

Gadgetmac said:

Sadly your post just about encapsulates the deniers misunderstanding of a topic.

This is the POLITICS thread. If you want to discuss the SCIENCE then guess where you should be posting...?

Ha hah hah, way to try and get out of answering a question.

The science thread is dead because obviously the science is settled, did you not get the memo?

Answer the question asked of you.

Yeah, then we'll pop over to the science thread and talk about ER and Greta shall we?

[kerplunk]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?

There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.

Here's some research from the net:

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.


So you decide.

This post sums up so much about the debate about CC. The link above is well worth watching for any one interested in the subject. This is a physics professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the US. Discribing some of the serious questions about CC.

The above poster could have disputed any of the claims made in the interview. Rather than that he attacks the man.

So what errors did Harper make in his statements?

About CO2 forcing he doesn't say anything particularly interesting - a doubling of CO2 on it's own worth about 1C of warming = standard stuff. So what is the climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing? High? Low? He doesn't know because he rejects models. Not much use.