Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[robinessex]

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

Wasn't me you were asking, but I wanted to reply. Do you want a percentage of the effect to which we can attribute changes to the climate system caused by humans?
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.

Just tell us what your stance on it is then, to be fair to Rob at least he let us know he’s on the full on conspiracy theory side.

Get your facts correct. I've never claimed that it's, a stupid interpretation by the CC believers here. Normal for them to see something that's not here.

[robinessex]

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

Wasn't me you were asking, but I wanted to reply. Do you want a percentage of the effect to which we can attribute changes to the climate system caused by humans?
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.

Just tell us what your stance on it is then, to be fair to Rob at least he let us know he’s on the full on conspiracy theory side.

I've stated my position previously.

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?

That we are having an increasingly detrimental effect (for humans & wildlife) on the earth’s climate and we should take steps to mitigate that

Please provide the 100% proof of that

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

Wasn't me you were asking, but I wanted to reply. Do you want a percentage of the effect to which we can attribute changes to the climate system caused by humans?
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.

Just tell us what your stance on it is then, to be fair to Rob at least he let us know he’s on the full on conspiracy theory side.

I've stated my position previously.

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?

That we are having an increasingly detrimental effect (for humans & wildlife) on the earth’s climate and we should take steps to mitigate that

Please provide the 100% proof of that

Please provide 100% proof of what, that that’s my stance?

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

Wasn't me you were asking, but I wanted to reply. Do you want a percentage of the effect to which we can attribute changes to the climate system caused by humans?
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.

Just tell us what your stance on it is then, to be fair to Rob at least he let us know he’s on the full on conspiracy theory side.

Get your facts correct. I've never claimed that it's, a stupid interpretation by the CC believers here. Normal for them to see something that's not here.

You never claimed that it’s what?

[turbobloke]

Senator and 'fading presidential candidate' Elizabeth Warren has outlined her Thunbergesque plan for the US of A.

• no houses built unless zero-C
• no cars sold unless zero-C
• all electricity zero-C
• no drilling on federal land or offshore

Strangely there's no zero-C senators line. Fade to carbon.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

I'm not sure. You can have faith in my ignorance.

I believe we don't have sufficient knowledge & data to make a call, though we probably have some effect and we should take logical measures to reduce that.

I am also extremely suspicious of bias in climate science. Climate models designed to show CO2 is potent, show that CO2 is potent. Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past. Every drought and flood seems to be partially attributed to AGW, yet the absence of drought or flood is just natural. I have seen a long list of the negative effects of AGW, but no list of the positives.

Attempting to bully and scare people into action is pathetic, and rather unscientific. I see the silence of climate scientists when the activist politicians or journalists are going fully catastrophic as a clear sign that they are either too frightened to criticise or that they concur.

[zygalski]

Kawasicki said:

...though we probably have some effect and we should take logical measures to reduce that...

Exactly what I've been saying, and the stance any reasonable person should have, imo.

[zygalski]

chrispmartha said:

Please provide 100% proof of what, that that’s my stance?

Rob has total proof that AGW is a fabrication. He just hasn't shared it with the scientific community as yet.

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Kawasicki said:

...though we probably have some effect and we should take logical measures to reduce that...

Exactly what I've been saying, and the stance any reasonable person should have, imo.

McKitrick and Christy (2018) showed using data that the null hypothesis relating to agw in climate models fails against empirical data and should be rejected, so what form of 'logical measures' should be taken when the cause of any so-called effect isn't anthropogenic carbon dioxide?

Fleming (2018) looked at the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the planet's atmosphere and affirmed "the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate".

Extreme weather isn't increasing (Goklany, Pielke) and none of any claims regarding 'unprecedented' are accurate [actual temperature / rate of warming or cooling (it varies every year) / rate of sea level rise / ice extent / hurricanes...].

Some loud politicians, eco-activists and left-wing extremists have spotted a means they think may scare the population into accepting unnecessary extremist politics.

That's the political science of the current climate, and the evidence suggests they're as mistaken as they are with the dreck that forms the basis for their scaremongering.

Those who indulge the scare stories through alignment with extremist politics or pure faith won't be dissuaded by evidence, so the lack of extremism's success is welcome.

[Pesty]

stew-STR160 said:

El stovey said:

stew-STR160 said:

Nuance is the whole point. You label people who don't agree with the mainstream as deniers. The mainstream position is that humans are to blame for the changes seen since the industrial revolution. The last decade being warmest etc etc.
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.

Didn’t you just say you agreed that AGW was real? The mainstream position is that humans are contributing to changes not 100% responsible. You’re not a denier. You’re a believer.

The IPCC fifth report said



You agree with these findings don’t you?

No, I said climate change is real. 'Climate change' does not imply anthropogenic.

In principle I agree with the comments in the 5th report. However, the interpretation is where we clearly diverge.

So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus...probably quite a few like me on this forum who have been labelled various things by you and others because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.

But it’s likely stew. LIKELY

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

chrispmartha said:

Please provide 100% proof of what, that that’s my stance?

Rob has total proof that AGW is a fabrication. He just hasn't shared it with the scientific community as yet.

Which queue were you in when commons sense, skepticism, and logic were dished out then? That's all you need, nowt else. Talking of proof, where is the AGW stuff then?

[robinessex]

People urgently fleeing climate crisis cannot be sent home, UN rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51179931

People fleeing immediate danger due to the climate crisis cannot be forced to return home, the UN has said.
The landmark ruling centres on the case of Ioane Teitiota, whose home - the Pacific Island of Kiribati - is threatened by rising sea levels.
Mr Teitiota applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013.
The UN rejected his claim, saying he wasn't in immediate danger, but the wording of its ruling allows others to claim asylum based on climate change.
Sending asylum seekers home when their lives are threatened by the climate crisis "may expose individuals to a violation of their rights" - specifically, it said, their right to life.
"Given that the risk of an entire country becoming submerged under water is such an extreme risk, the conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with the right to life with dignity before the risk is realised," its decision added.
The UN ruling - which is non-binding - is the clearest warning to countries that they may be breaching a person's human rights if they send them back to a country at immediate risk of climate-related danger...............continues

This could be a big bag of worms

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

No, I said climate change is real. 'Climate change' does not imply anthropogenic.

In principle I agree with the comments in the 5th report. However, the interpretation is where we clearly diverge.

So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus...probably quite a few like me on this forum who have been labelled various things by you and others...

Appreciate you explaining your position and it's good to see the science is increasingly accepted, even in this thread (albeit in this slightly confusing manner ).

stew-STR160 said:

... because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.

But I'm curious about this. What is this viewpoint you're referring to, exactly?

[Kawasicki]

Maybe, just maybe....and I’m guessing here...

The viewpoint of mainstream climate science

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.

How much effect?

I'm not sure. You can have faith in my ignorance.

I believe we don't have sufficient knowledge & data to make a call, though we probably have some effect and we should take logical measures to reduce that.

What do you think we don't know? What data is missing?

We have data from holes dug deep into the ground to orbiting satellites, and everything in between. What more possible data could you expect to see?

All possible factors seem to have been pretty comprehensively studied as far as I can see (hardly surprising given how much money would be available if it could be proved wrong).

Kawasicki said:

I am also extremely suspicious of bias in climate science. Climate models designed to show CO2 is potent, show that CO2 is potent.

So, what, it's just a massive coincidence they have been on the right track since the 1970s?

Kawasicki said:

Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past.

There's simply no basis to cling to this myth. Adjustments overall have actually done the opposite, and you can go and see the data for yourself. A graph of cherry-picked regions on WUWT do not prove otherwise.

Kawasicki said:

Every drought and flood seems to be partially attributed to AGW, yet the absence of drought or flood is just natural.

I agree this is often overplayed, particularly by celebrities and the media. There are links attributable to AGW and there are events that are not proven or impossible to prove that get attributed anyway.

Kawasicki said:

I have seen a long list of the negative effects of AGW, but no list of the positives.

That's because most of the consequences are negative, in terms of human impact.

Kawasicki said:

Attempting to bully and scare people into action is pathetic, and rather unscientific. I see the silence of climate scientists when the activist politicians or journalists are going fully catastrophic as a clear sign that they are either too frightened to criticise or that they concur.

That's predominantly the media you're upset at then, not the scientists. You can't blame an arctic researcher if some trust fund simpleton wants to glue himself to a traffic light.

Edited by durbster on Monday 20th January 21:38

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

chrispmartha said:

Please provide 100% proof of what, that that’s my stance?

Rob has total proof that AGW is a fabrication. He just hasn't shared it with the scientific community as yet.

Which queue were you in when commons sense, skepticism, and logic were dished out then? That's all you need, nowt else. Talking of proof, where is the AGW stuff then?

But you don’t seem to apply the sceptisism to various youtube links or advocacy sites.

[turbobloke]

A real consensus emerges...PwC survey shows climate change is not considered a top ten risk by CEOs, how dare they! That must constitute an emergency with less than a quarter in Greta Panic Mode.

https://apnews.com/8d3a6fea62ebbf9f26975cc34cbce5c...

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past.

Further to this, here's how the adjustments have had the opposite to what the propaganda machine (as endlessly repeated in here by turbobloke) wants you to believe:



https://twitter.com/DekeArndt/status/1217990279279...

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Talking of proof, where is the AGW stuff then?

Here:

Gavin Schmidt said:

Since this comes up a lot, a quick run though of the testable, falsifiable, science that supports a human cause of recent trends in global mean temperature.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1217885474502729728.html

[Tony427]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Adjustments generally appear to warm the present and cool the past.

Further to this, here's how the adjustments have had the opposite to what the propaganda machine (as endlessly repeated in here by turbobloke) wants you to believe:



https://twitter.com/DekeArndt/status/1217990279279...

Hate to do this but as a person has been promoted as an expert and someone of standing in the science communitywe should all listen to, I leave this here.

University of Oklahoma. Batchelor and Masters.

Centre of Excellence in Climate Science . Not. 401st ranking in the world. And a weather forecaster.

Next.



Yep I am convinced.