Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Semantics doesn't change the material fact that 183 people have been implicated ...
And nowhere near as many were arrested, as claimed.Your attempts to backtrack aside, it's not semantics, it's a lie used for propaganda purposes perpetuated by useful idiots.
That you swallow their output hook, line and sinker and seemingly without any critical thinking makes you very much a useful idiot. Look at the actual science, not how activist journos report it.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Semantics doesn't change the material fact that 183 people have been implicated ...
And nowhere near as many were arrested, as claimed.Your attempts to backtrack aside, it's not semantics, it's a lie used for propaganda purposes perpetuated by useful idiots.
That you swallow their output hook, line and sinker and seemingly without any critical thinking makes you very much a useful idiot. Look at the actual science, not how activist journos report it.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Semantics doesn't change the material fact that 183 people have been implicated ...
And nowhere near as many were arrested, as claimed.Your attempts to backtrack aside, it's not semantics, it's a lie used for propaganda purposes perpetuated by useful idiots.
That you swallow their output hook, line and sinker and seemingly without any critical thinking makes you very much a useful idiot. Look at the actual science, not how activist journos report it.
Diderot said:
I didn’t fall for anything. I checked the facts, and I specifically didn’t cite those articles. If you examine the actual research on bushfires you will see a discrepancy between Attenborough’s claims (as reported by the BBC and others) and reality.
Come on. You repeated some fake news about arsonists and then started banging on about Attenborough to divert from your mistake. El stovey said:
Diderot said:
I didn’t fall for anything. I checked the facts, and I specifically didn’t cite those articles. If you examine the actual research on bushfires you will see a discrepancy between Attenborough’s claims (as reported by the BBC and others) and reality.
Come on. You repeated some fake news about arsonists and then started banging on about Attenborough to divert from your mistake. Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
I didn’t fall for anything. I checked the facts, and I specifically didn’t cite those articles. If you examine the actual research on bushfires you will see a discrepancy between Attenborough’s claims (as reported by the BBC and others) and reality.
Come on. You repeated some fake news about arsonists and then started banging on about Attenborough to divert from your mistake. 
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
I didn’t fall for anything. I checked the facts, and I specifically didn’t cite those articles. If you examine the actual research on bushfires you will see a discrepancy between Attenborough’s claims (as reported by the BBC and others) and reality.
Come on. You repeated some fake news about arsonists and then started banging on about Attenborough to divert from your mistake. Diderot said:
That’s not repeating fake news. 183 have been implicated as I commented. Just not all of them arrested (IIRC 53 were arrested). 183 people had ‘legal action’ taken against them. Like I said, I didn’t repeat fake news, nor lie like Attenborough and the BBC that day.
You were commenting originally on a Greta meme saying 183 people had been arrested for starting fires. Implying they’d been arsonists starting these bushfires. Which isn’t true.Looking at the press release (from the Police) 180+ are being dealt with, that includes several forms of fire issues included dropping fag butts and discarded matches. It is not saying 180+ have started the bush fires. It ranges from cautions to charges. 24 charges for lighting bush fires. Doesn't say anymore on what those fires were.
The NSW report is here:
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq...
Note, none of this is unusual in Australia and almost all the major NSW fires were started by lightning.
And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, also lying?
Why are you attacking Attenborough, when presumably he has merely relayed the above? Is it because you're afraid that he's an effective communicator so people will listen and continue to send your irrational views even further out to the fringe?
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq...
Note, none of this is unusual in Australia and almost all the major NSW fires were started by lightning.
Diderot said:
That’s not repeating fake news. 183 have been implicated as I commented. Just not all of them arrested (IIRC 53 were arrested). 183 people had ‘legal action’ taken against them. Like I said, I didn’t repeat fake news, nor lie like Attenborough and the BBC that day.
Are these Australian fire chiefs all "lying" too?Australian fire chiefs said:
Former firefighting leaders today are accusing state and federal governments of ignoring warnings of the bushfire devastation now razing communities in two states.
The 23 frontline fire and rescue chiefs are calling on governments to urgently respond to the bushfire danger they say is a consequence of climate change.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/unprecedented-fire-dangers-plea-from-exfirefighting-leaders/news-story/8c7aedc21828896e4326d659d436ef7aThe 23 frontline fire and rescue chiefs are calling on governments to urgently respond to the bushfire danger they say is a consequence of climate change.
And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, also lying?
BOM said:
These changes affect many Australians, particularly the changes associated with increases in the frequency or intensity of heat events, fire weather and drought. Australia will need to plan for and adapt to some level of climate change.
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/Why are you attacking Attenborough, when presumably he has merely relayed the above? Is it because you're afraid that he's an effective communicator so people will listen and continue to send your irrational views even further out to the fringe?
turbobloke said:
It's worse than that as El stovey knows from several previous runs through this particular attrition loop.
As Albert (not Gore) once said, it's useful to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. NASA is being simple in just citing some pal reviewed results then whistling in the wind.
The Cook version claimed a consensus around the magical 97% derived from published papers. This used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by the survey explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. On this definition any consensus among published scientific papers has been demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97.1% as Cook had claimed.
The Doran survey's 97% result came from 10,256 questionnaires sent to scientists, with only 3,146 respondents, and those responses were then sifted down to a cherry pick of 75 out of 77 “expert” replies from ’active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give another fake news style 97% consensus figure.
Talking of cherry picking there's now a hilarious 100% claim, based on a cherry pick of papers published in the first six months of 2019, yet it missed papers that get cited on PH and more besides.
If only science operated via consensus rather than by hypothesis testing using empirical data, the notion of a non-consensus would be more fun.
Exactly.As Albert (not Gore) once said, it's useful to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. NASA is being simple in just citing some pal reviewed results then whistling in the wind.
The Cook version claimed a consensus around the magical 97% derived from published papers. This used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by the survey explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. On this definition any consensus among published scientific papers has been demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97.1% as Cook had claimed.
The Doran survey's 97% result came from 10,256 questionnaires sent to scientists, with only 3,146 respondents, and those responses were then sifted down to a cherry pick of 75 out of 77 “expert” replies from ’active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give another fake news style 97% consensus figure.
Talking of cherry picking there's now a hilarious 100% claim, based on a cherry pick of papers published in the first six months of 2019, yet it missed papers that get cited on PH and more besides.
If only science operated via consensus rather than by hypothesis testing using empirical data, the notion of a non-consensus would be more fun.
And before anyone tries to shoot this down as the Cook et al study being robust via peer-review, it's not exactly - a small team of just 7 scientists, including John Cook, then examined just 3% of the peer-reviewed papers as a result of the findings above to reject/dismiss the consensus view...
The University of Delaware, Dr William Briggs, Dr David Legates, Dr Nir J Shaviv, Nicola Scafetta, Richard Toll, Dr Ned Nikolov, and Dr Waheed Uddin - an ex-consultant to the UN have all gone on record as disputing the '97%' figure to Science & Education magazine (aug 2013) and the Wall Street Journal (May 2014), among others. That says it all.
durbster said:
The NSW report is here:
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq...
Note, none of this is unusual in Australia and almost all the major NSW fires were started by lightning.
And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, also lying?
Why are you attacking Attenborough, when presumably he has merely relayed the above? Is it because you're afraid that he's an effective communicator so people will listen and continue to send your irrational views even further out to the fringe?
The former firemen aren't lying, they are sadly deluded, probably due to their political beliefs.https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq...
Note, none of this is unusual in Australia and almost all the major NSW fires were started by lightning.
Diderot said:
That’s not repeating fake news. 183 have been implicated as I commented. Just not all of them arrested (IIRC 53 were arrested). 183 people had ‘legal action’ taken against them. Like I said, I didn’t repeat fake news, nor lie like Attenborough and the BBC that day.
Are these Australian fire chiefs all "lying" too?Australian fire chiefs said:
Former firefighting leaders today are accusing state and federal governments of ignoring warnings of the bushfire devastation now razing communities in two states.
The 23 frontline fire and rescue chiefs are calling on governments to urgently respond to the bushfire danger they say is a consequence of climate change.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/unprecedented-fire-dangers-plea-from-exfirefighting-leaders/news-story/8c7aedc21828896e4326d659d436ef7aThe 23 frontline fire and rescue chiefs are calling on governments to urgently respond to the bushfire danger they say is a consequence of climate change.
And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, also lying?
BOM said:
These changes affect many Australians, particularly the changes associated with increases in the frequency or intensity of heat events, fire weather and drought. Australia will need to plan for and adapt to some level of climate change.
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/Why are you attacking Attenborough, when presumably he has merely relayed the above? Is it because you're afraid that he's an effective communicator so people will listen and continue to send your irrational views even further out to the fringe?
Former firemen said:
We also need to tackle the root cause, we need to rapidly bring down emissions and transition Australia beyond coal, oil, and gas.
Surprised you haven't asked for their climate qualifications? Only when it suits you? Following on from the previous reference to Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger's testimony to the House Committee On Science, Space, and Technology last week, Shellenberger quoted this article from 2013 as relevant to the recent Bushfires...
"Climate change and bushfires - you’re missing the point!"
Interestingly he also says...
"Climate change and bushfires - you’re missing the point!"
Article said:
Climate change has yet again been blamed for another natural disaster, this time the recent bushfires in NSW. But much more important is the role of poor land-use planning decisions that are increasing our nation’s vulnerability to fire, and other natural perils. We examine these issues in the light of Australia’s history of building losses to bushfire over the last century.
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-bushfires-youre-missing-the-point-19649Interestingly he also says...
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger said:
Because there are strong incentives for some scientists, journalists,
activists, and policymakers to exaggerate the science, it is incumbent upon other
scientists, journalists, activists, and policymakers to point them out.
Another esteemed climate scientist I interviewed, Tom Wigley, who created one of the main models
for predicting future temperatures, told me: “All these young people have been
misinformed. It really does bother me because it’s wrong."
As for decarbonization, I do not believe human societies will ever
transition from fossil fuels to renewables because of their inherent unreliability,
large land use requirements, and large materials requirements.
activists, and policymakers to exaggerate the science, it is incumbent upon other
scientists, journalists, activists, and policymakers to point them out.
Another esteemed climate scientist I interviewed, Tom Wigley, who created one of the main models
for predicting future temperatures, told me: “All these young people have been
misinformed. It really does bother me because it’s wrong."
As for decarbonization, I do not believe human societies will ever
transition from fossil fuels to renewables because of their inherent unreliability,
large land use requirements, and large materials requirements.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
chrispmartha said:
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
Of course people will disagree on the severity of the predictions or what ought to be or can be done but it’s very odd behaviour, most of them aren’t deniers at all.
Perhaps their positions have changed over time as they’ve gained more understanding but they’re still ideologically attached to the denier side or something.
More common sense prevailing... on Friday a federal appeals court dismissed a kiddies' lawsuit which claimed USA government climate policy put their future in jeopardy. The court decided their futures had not been stolen? How dare they!
In other climate poltiics news, not long after the Shellenberger testimony to congress:
Ocasio-Cortez last year "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
AOC now says “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."
That begs the question, just how many unintelligent sea sponges does AOC believe there are in the world of climate politics and the USA / UK / Sweden in general?
Climate muppetry and the swallowing of information pollution, truly TAOS.
In other climate poltiics news, not long after the Shellenberger testimony to congress:
Shellenberger said:
I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009 I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013 I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.
I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.
No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.
The sheer nonsense of a climate emergency and imminent extinction is being backtracked in surprising places. I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.
No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.
Ocasio-Cortez last year "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
AOC now says “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."
That begs the question, just how many unintelligent sea sponges does AOC believe there are in the world of climate politics and the USA / UK / Sweden in general?
Climate muppetry and the swallowing of information pollution, truly TAOS.
chrispmartha said:
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
Climate change is real. However, how much of an effect humanity has had on it and will be in the future though is yet to be determined. The baseline used is not sufficient to provide an accurate enough picture without significant bias.
The entire climate system has been simplified down to focus solely on CO2 as the culprit of ANY changes to that baseline.
What's your position?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff