Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their s
t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!Honestly, every f
ker is a climate scientist now!jshell said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!Honestly, every f
ker is a climate scientist now!Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!Honestly, every f
ker is a climate scientist now!She's a regular on these pages due to a lack of many others to choose from.
Gadgetmac said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!Honestly, every f
ker is a climate scientist now!She's a regular on these pages due to a lack of many others to choose from.
Gadgetmac said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?t. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!Honestly, every f
ker is a climate scientist now!She's a regular on these pages due to a lack of many others to choose from.
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Should be easy for you to refute what she says then. Off you go.
Oh god, now you've done it! You'll be Google-linked to death!!Judith is qualified, but she's a moderate. That means the hysterical shyte-peddlers hate her with a vengeance.
Exxon wins New York climate change fight
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50733127
Exxon Mobil has won a court battle in New York in which it was accused of misleading investors about the costs of addressing climate change.
The state had argued that oil giant used two figures to calculate the risks of climate change, misrepresenting the cost in public disclosures.
Exxon had denied wrongdoing. It said the two figures served different purposes.
A New York judge said the evidence presented supported that claim.
"What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible," Judge Barry Ostrager of Manhattan Supreme Court said.
Exxon, which had called the suit politically motivated, hailed the victory.
"Today's ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General's baseless investigation," it said. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change."
"Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change," it added.
New York's attorney general filed the lawsuit against Exxon in 2018, after years of investigation. The trial started in October. It had been closely watched as one of the most high-profile of a rising number of suits against the company.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to "answer publicly" about its decision-making related to climate change.
"We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change," she said in a statement........continues
That screws up the believers. As for New York Attorney General Letitia James, is she going to offer a guarantee that she will "end climate change" ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50733127
Exxon Mobil has won a court battle in New York in which it was accused of misleading investors about the costs of addressing climate change.
The state had argued that oil giant used two figures to calculate the risks of climate change, misrepresenting the cost in public disclosures.
Exxon had denied wrongdoing. It said the two figures served different purposes.
A New York judge said the evidence presented supported that claim.
"What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible," Judge Barry Ostrager of Manhattan Supreme Court said.
Exxon, which had called the suit politically motivated, hailed the victory.
"Today's ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General's baseless investigation," it said. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change."
"Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change," it added.
New York's attorney general filed the lawsuit against Exxon in 2018, after years of investigation. The trial started in October. It had been closely watched as one of the most high-profile of a rising number of suits against the company.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to "answer publicly" about its decision-making related to climate change.
"We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change," she said in a statement........continues
That screws up the believers. As for New York Attorney General Letitia James, is she going to offer a guarantee that she will "end climate change" ?
robinessex said:
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Should be easy for you to refute what she says then. Off you go.
Oh god, now you've done it! You'll be Google-linked to death!!Judith is qualified, but she's a moderate. That means the hysterical shyte-peddlers hate her with a vengeance.
robinessex said:
Exxon wins New York climate change fight
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50733127
Exxon Mobil has won a court battle in New York in which it was accused of misleading investors about the costs of addressing climate change.
The state had argued that oil giant used two figures to calculate the risks of climate change, misrepresenting the cost in public disclosures.
Exxon had denied wrongdoing. It said the two figures served different purposes.
A New York judge said the evidence presented supported that claim.
"What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible," Judge Barry Ostrager of Manhattan Supreme Court said.
Exxon, which had called the suit politically motivated, hailed the victory.
"Today's ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General's baseless investigation," it said. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change."
"Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change," it added.
New York's attorney general filed the lawsuit against Exxon in 2018, after years of investigation. The trial started in October. It had been closely watched as one of the most high-profile of a rising number of suits against the company.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to "answer publicly" about its decision-making related to climate change.
"We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change," she said in a statement........continues
That screws up the believers. As for New York Attorney General Letitia James, is she going to offer a guarantee that she will "end climate change" ?
But, but, Big oil bhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50733127
Exxon Mobil has won a court battle in New York in which it was accused of misleading investors about the costs of addressing climate change.
The state had argued that oil giant used two figures to calculate the risks of climate change, misrepresenting the cost in public disclosures.
Exxon had denied wrongdoing. It said the two figures served different purposes.
A New York judge said the evidence presented supported that claim.
"What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible," Judge Barry Ostrager of Manhattan Supreme Court said.
Exxon, which had called the suit politically motivated, hailed the victory.
"Today's ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General's baseless investigation," it said. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change."
"Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change," it added.
New York's attorney general filed the lawsuit against Exxon in 2018, after years of investigation. The trial started in October. It had been closely watched as one of the most high-profile of a rising number of suits against the company.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to "answer publicly" about its decision-making related to climate change.
"We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change," she said in a statement........continues
That screws up the believers. As for New York Attorney General Letitia James, is she going to offer a guarantee that she will "end climate change" ?
ks.... 
Watching the TV news tonight going hysterical about rising sea levels my thoughts turned to the cabinet meeting held underwater in the Maldives that was bringing atttention to its waterlogged plight.
Surely it must be underwater by now.
Appears not. In fact according to the University of Aukland the islands are actually growing.
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/09/22/30-...
Bit inconvenient I suppose for the believers.
Cheers,
Tony
Surely it must be underwater by now.
Appears not. In fact according to the University of Aukland the islands are actually growing.
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/09/22/30-...
Bit inconvenient I suppose for the believers.
Cheers,
Tony
Tony427 said:
Watching the TV news tonight going hysterical about rising sea levels my thoughts turned to the cabinet meeting held underwater in the Maldives that was bringing atttention to its waterlogged plight.
Surely it must be underwater by now.
Appears not. In fact according to the University of Aukland the islands are actually growing.
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/09/22/30-...
Bit inconvenient I suppose for the believers.
Cheers,
Tony
Great stuff... Surely it must be underwater by now.
Appears not. In fact according to the University of Aukland the islands are actually growing.
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/09/22/30-...
Bit inconvenient I suppose for the believers.
Cheers,
Tony
report said:
The article went on to suggest the Maldives – along with its 200,000 inhabitants – could ‘end’ sooner than expected if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992 as predicted, Today, more than 417,000 people live in the Maldives
30 years of utter bks and the young along with some nutty older people are still surprised that many of those who have lived through all the claims of doom laugh at their earnest prophesies... robinessex said:
Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-483...
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.
The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.
They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.
It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.................continues
Expected then. Just a guess then. Why is 1990 significant as the datum date?
Greenland that actually used to be green?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-483...
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.
The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.
They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.
It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.................continues
Expected then. Just a guess then. Why is 1990 significant as the datum date?
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6653/2014...
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
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.
He does not say much about forcing but he does cover the fact CO2 warming rate is logarithmic not linear. He does not reject the models he just, correctly, points out the model projections are all showing much higher temperature increase than is actually occurring. 
To put it more accurately, the models have correctly predicted the warming over the last 50 odd years to within a small percentage of the observed data.
But the propagandists will claim that because they're not 100% accurate - which nobody ever expected them to be or claimed they would be - they have failed. It's laughable, really.
The fact is, scientists in the 1970s predicted the global average temperate would steadily increase and they were right to within a small percentage. You have to be utterly consumed by ideology to fail to recognise that as being an amazing achievement.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 11th December 09:05
Climate change: Major emitters accused of blocking progress at UN talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Delegates from developing countries have reacted angrily to what they see as attempts to block progress at the COP25 meeting in Madrid.
One negotiator told the BBC that the talks had failed to find agreement on a range of issues because of the blocking actions of some large emitters.
Carlos Fuller from Belize said that Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and China were "part of the problem".
Other observers said there was a serious risk of failure at the talks.
Ministers from all over the world have arrived in Madrid for the high-end negotiations that will determine the final outcome of this conference.
Despite a huge climate demonstration on the streets of the Spanish capital last Friday, hopes of an ambitious declaration at COP25 have smacked straight into the realities of politics and entrenched positions.......continues
Oh dear, more squabbling among the children at the party. The poor don't like the rich. No surprise there then. I can see this all going down the pan eventually.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Delegates from developing countries have reacted angrily to what they see as attempts to block progress at the COP25 meeting in Madrid.
One negotiator told the BBC that the talks had failed to find agreement on a range of issues because of the blocking actions of some large emitters.
Carlos Fuller from Belize said that Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and China were "part of the problem".
Other observers said there was a serious risk of failure at the talks.
Ministers from all over the world have arrived in Madrid for the high-end negotiations that will determine the final outcome of this conference.
Despite a huge climate demonstration on the streets of the Spanish capital last Friday, hopes of an ambitious declaration at COP25 have smacked straight into the realities of politics and entrenched positions.......continues
Oh dear, more squabbling among the children at the party. The poor don't like the rich. No surprise there then. I can see this all going down the pan eventually.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff