Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Well she's good enough for Senate hearings...
Would it be Republicans inviting her? 
Politics, in the politics thread, it's not rocket science is it.
How are your religious studies going.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I'm referring to the current UK election TV coverage. My observation is correct.
Yes but what's the theory behind it all?Who has instigated it? Who else is involved and why? Climate Scientists? Scientific Institutions? If it's all about making money how does this reconcile to the Marxist agenda? Why are climate scientists simply not moving to industry where there are far higher salaries on offer. From there they could all denounce AGW while earning more cash. Is every type of government from around the globe involved (Communist, Liberal, Fascist) after all they all signed the Paris agreement.
I don't get it, please explain it to me.
durbster said:
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
Not sure what you mean by accurately predict the warming. Most models have only been running 30 or less years. Any thing prior to that is hindcast. While during that period the models are not fixed to fit the data you would never publish a model which did not match the data. Since then no model predicted the hiatus so by now many are showing much higher levels of warming than has actually occurred.
All the details are here:
https://www.ipcc.ch › 2018/02PDF
The problem is the reason for the difference are not understood. While the difference is small so are the numbers and so is the time scale. If the models where just being used for academic study it would not he an issue. But they are not they are being used to predict results 30, 50, 100 years into the future. My own prediction is it will get warmer over that period. The question is how much warmer and at the moment the models are not able to answer that question.
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Well she's good enough for Senate hearings...
Would it be Republicans inviting her? Politics, in the politics thread, it's not rocket science is it.
How are your religious studies going.
k me, that was arrogant! 'I'm accompanied'!! You're a forum sniper with no appreciation of the subject apart from being a nodding dog, like most people. You fail to answer a single question.durbster said:
jshell said:
durbster said:
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st.
Who are these people?t. Please elaborate.
Of course, (non)Skeptical Science (SS) does a character assasination on him, like any moderate, but here's a little biography:
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Well she's good enough for Senate hearings...
Would it be Republicans inviting her? Politics, in the politics thread, it's not rocket science is it.
How are your religious studies going.
k me, that was arrogant! 'I'm accompanied'!! You're a forum sniper with no appreciation of the subject apart from being a nodding dog, like most people. You fail to answer a single question.The rest of your post is the usual flat earther tosh.
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
jshell said:
Well she's good enough for Senate hearings...
Would it be Republicans inviting her? Politics, in the politics thread, it's not rocket science is it.
How are your religious studies going.
k me, that was arrogant! 'I'm accompanied'!! You're a forum sniper with no appreciation of the subject apart from being a nodding dog, like most people. You fail to answer a single question.The rest of your post is the usual flat earther tosh.
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I'm referring to the current UK election TV coverage. My observation is correct.
Yes but what's the theory behind it all?Who has instigated it? Who else is involved and why? Climate Scientists? Scientific Institutions? If it's all about making money how does this reconcile to the Marxist agenda? Why are climate scientists simply not moving to industry where there are far higher salaries on offer. From there they could all denounce AGW while earning more cash. Is every type of government from around the globe involved (Communist, Liberal, Fascist) after all they all signed the Paris agreement.
I don't get it, please explain it to me.
It’s more likely that you’re wrong really isn’t it?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I'm referring to the current UK election TV coverage. My observation is correct.
Yes but what's the theory behind it all?Who has instigated it? Who else is involved and why? Climate Scientists? Scientific Institutions? If it's all about making money how does this reconcile to the Marxist agenda? Why are climate scientists simply not moving to industry where there are far higher salaries on offer. From there they could all denounce AGW while earning more cash. Is every type of government from around the globe involved (Communist, Liberal, Fascist) after all they all signed the Paris agreement.
I don't get it, please explain it to me.
It’s more likely that you’re wrong really isn’t it?
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
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
Not sure what you mean by accurately predict the warming. Most models have only been running 30 or less years. Any thing prior to that is hindcast. While during that period the models are not fixed to fit the data you would never publish a model which did not match the data. Since then no model predicted the hiatus so by now many are showing much higher levels of warming than has actually occurred.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0527-4
Greta Thunberg accuses world leaders of 'creative PR' at climate summit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50740324
Greta Thunberg has called upon world leaders to stop using "clever accounting and creative PR" to avoid real action on climate change.
Speaking at a UN climate change summit, Ms Thunberg said the next decade would define the planet's future.
She accused world leaders of making constant attempts to find loopholes to avoid making substantial changes.
The teenage activist's appearance came after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called her a "brat"....continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50740324
Greta Thunberg has called upon world leaders to stop using "clever accounting and creative PR" to avoid real action on climate change.
Speaking at a UN climate change summit, Ms Thunberg said the next decade would define the planet's future.
She accused world leaders of making constant attempts to find loopholes to avoid making substantial changes.
The teenage activist's appearance came after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called her a "brat"....continues
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
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
Not sure what you mean by accurately predict the warming. Most models have only been running 30 or less years. Any thing prior to that is hindcast. While during that period the models are not fixed to fit the data you would never publish a model which did not match the data. Since then no model predicted the hiatus so by now many are showing much higher levels of warming than has actually occurred.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0527-4
https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science...
jshell said:
We've been through this cycle so many times, so start here: https://www.nas.org/blogs/dicta/the_father_of_glob... and then work your way back through this thread and it's previous iterations.
Of course, (non)Skeptical Science (SS) does a character assasination on him, like any moderate, but here's a little biography:
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
The NIPCC.Of course, (non)Skeptical Science (SS) does a character assasination on him, like any moderate, but here's a little biography:
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
AKA The Heartland Institute and 2 buddies.
They promote literature published by climate contrarians and likewise pay them to contribute their findings to the NIPCC.
This is the same organisation that contested second hand smoke, ozone depletion, acid rain amongst other things. It's now been so damaged by it's backers pulling out it's had to discontinue it's yearly climate conference.
And you highlighted then as if they have some sort of gravitas in the scientific community.
And you said I have no appreciation of the subject
robinessex said:
I'd bet that any potential MP wouldn't get past the selection stage these days. Independent, intellectual thought isn't on the political agenda anymore.
But that’s just glib nonsense that you have to believe to help you explain how everyone else like experts and scientists and politicians etc all seem duped by AGW science. Because you’ve decided it’s “all b
ks” you’ve then had to create these increasingly unlikely scenarios to explain the fact that you’re in a tiny minority with no real expertise of your own.Scientists disagree with you = they’re wrong or lying
Politicians disagree with you = they’re not independent thinkers or are lying to get elected
Governments = wealth redistribution? Lying to get elected?
Isn’t it more likely that you’re the one that’s wrong?
jshell said:
We've been through this cycle so many times, so start here: https://www.nas.org/blogs/dicta/the_father_of_glob... and then work your way back through this thread and it's previous iterations.
Of course, (non)Skeptical Science (SS) does a character assasination on him, like any moderate, but here's a little biography:
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
Of course, (non)Skeptical Science (SS) does a character assasination on him, like any moderate, but here's a little biography:
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).
kerplunk said:
I'm trying to figure out how people living in mud huts and caves is a moneymaker. It doesn't seem like a very good business model to me 
Indeed, I'm also trying to figure out where all the rare earth natural resources are coming from to build all these electric cars that we'll all be adopting so soon that even then my son likely won't be eligible to take a driving test. But what harm? It'll all be self driving & self mining soon.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff