Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
El stovey said:
durbster said:
I mean, see above - Diderot's even going on about the weather stations at runways thing that he's got off turbobloke, something that I remember debunking myself at least four years ago. Ideally they would be ignored but I'd say there's also value in pointing out their misinformation and misrepresentations. Again. And again.
Yeah when that first came up I explained why the LHR record temperature wasn’t caused by a landing aircraft. The PH experts told me I didn’t know what I was talking about and didn’t know how jet engine work and how aircraft operated then that there was no such thing as reverse idle thrust. I even provided diagrams of Heathrow and the weather at the time and asked them to show me how the weather station was influenced but they still went with the turbobloke’s blogger that clearly had no knowledge whatsoever and said it was a particular landing aircraft. Some pretended they had relevant knowledge but used all the wrong terminology and it turned out they had relatives who used to make engines.
Once Diderot realised I actually land large jets at LHR he then kept banging on about my job and how it’s impossible to save fuel. Again I explained how the route and flight levels you fly can differ from the flight planned routes and why and you can easily negotiate short cuts and more direct routings and levels once airborne plus fly more efficient climb and descent profiles etc and save fuel on every flight, yet again though they knew better and said I was wrong and making it up.
He likes to now call me a bus driver and bang on about my job which is curious because he and his chums are so elusive about their jobs, likely because they’ve been shown many times to have spent years exaggerating their expertise and relevant qualifications and backgrounds. All the more odd when one of them (robinessex) even got banned for saying he wanted to find out exactly where I worked to contact my employer.
It’s a wonder these
Edited by El stovey on Saturday 25th January 09:50
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Seriously, this is not a dig at you personally.
To add, you obviously have some first-hand knowledge on some aspects. If others want to pile-on with infantile rebuttal (not that it can necessarily all be classed as such), but for the obviously trolling, why not just ignore them? If for no other reason, it would make the threads a better read.
FWIW, I lean to your opinion that aircraft movements make little or no contribution to the recorded temps at LHR.
The set-up for an environmental monitoring station is not something that (should be) established without a careful & considered approach.
The principles of science & engineering behind the selection of site, equipment & construction will bore most people to death before getting to page 2 of the guidance notes.
Touting temperatures as a tool to prove a point is like trying to bag that squirrel with a blunderbuss - which applies to both sides of the argument.
A couple of interesting articles:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
hairykrishna said:
chrispmartha said:
He’s one to talk about misrepresentation, didn’t an actual scientist directly say TB was ‘misrepresenting’ what he wrote on here?
Tim Osborn (now director of the UEA CRU ) described turboblokes interpretation of his work as 'nonsense' when I contacted him trying to track down the source of one of TB's many unattributed images. Somewhat astonishingly to me this was just over a decade ago which may well explain why my tolerance for turbo branded propaganda is fairly low these days.I forget who the recent person was who someone contacted. I'm sure there have been lots more.
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 25th January 12:14
Diderot said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
A44RON said:
durbster said:
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning. This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
The thing is though, the evidence is not overwhelming. For starters, that 97% myth was debunked. There's an objective way of proving it too. Simply look for these thousands of scientists studying climate related fields that dispute AGW. If there are tens of thousands of scientists out there with research that disproves AGW, where are they? Where are they working? Where's their research? Where's their Twitter account?
But the 97% figure is only to illustrate to the public how accepted the science is, it's not really useful for anything beyond that.
You won't find them because they don't exist beyond a handful of people linked to the propaganda machine. So then the story goes that these people exist, they're just too frightened to say anything. And the evidence for that amusing claim is non-existent.
A44RON said:
There's just as much evidence out there from scientists stating the other side.
There really isn't any evidence that disproves AGW, let alone "just as much".Edited by durbster on Friday 24th January 07:27
El stovey said:
durbster said:
I mean, see above - Diderot's even going on about the weather stations at runways thing that he's got off turbobloke, something that I remember debunking myself at least four years ago. Ideally they would be ignored but I'd say there's also value in pointing out their misinformation and misrepresentations. Again. And again.
Yeah when that first came up I explained why the LHR record temperature wasn’t caused by a landing aircraft. The PH experts told me I didn’t know what I was talking about and didn’t know how jet engine work and how aircraft operated then that there was no such thing as reverse idle thrust. I even provided diagrams of Heathrow and the weather at the time and asked them to show me how the weather station was influenced but they still went with the turbobloke’s blogger that clearly had no knowledge whatsoever and said it was a particular landing aircraft. Some pretended they had relevant knowledge but used all the wrong terminology and it turned out they had relatives who used to make engines.
Once Diderot realised I actually land large jets at LHR he then kept banging on about my job and how it’s impossible to save fuel. Again I explained how the route and flight levels you fly can differ from the flight planned routes and why and you can easily negotiate short cuts and more direct routings and levels once airborne plus fly more efficient climb and descent profiles etc and save fuel on every flight, yet again though they knew better and said I was wrong and making it up.
He likes to now call me a bus driver and bang on about my job which is curious because he and his chums are so elusive about their jobs, likely because they’ve been shown many times to have spent years exaggerating their expertise and relevant qualifications and backgrounds. All the more odd when one of them (robinessex) even got banned for saying he wanted to find out exactly where I worked to contact my employer.
It’s a wonder these
Edited by El stovey on Saturday 25th January 09:50
Smiler. said:
Why do you bother to engage with people who, in your opinion, are trolling (and not in the fun way)?
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Is it better to ignore misinformation or challenge it?The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
I don't know the answer.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
durbster said:
I mean, see above - Diderot's even going on about the weather stations at runways thing that he's got off turbobloke, something that I remember debunking myself at least four years ago. Ideally they would be ignored but I'd say there's also value in pointing out their misinformation and misrepresentations. Again. And again.
Yeah when that first came up I explained why the LHR record temperature wasn’t caused by a landing aircraft. The PH experts told me I didn’t know what I was talking about and didn’t know how jet engine work and how aircraft operated then that there was no such thing as reverse idle thrust. I even provided diagrams of Heathrow and the weather at the time and asked them to show me how the weather station was influenced but they still went with the turbobloke’s blogger that clearly had no knowledge whatsoever and said it was a particular landing aircraft. Some pretended they had relevant knowledge but used all the wrong terminology and it turned out they had relatives who used to make engines.
Once Diderot realised I actually land large jets at LHR he then kept banging on about my job and how it’s impossible to save fuel. Again I explained how the route and flight levels you fly can differ from the flight planned routes and why and you can easily negotiate short cuts and more direct routings and levels once airborne plus fly more efficient climb and descent profiles etc and save fuel on every flight, yet again though they knew better and said I was wrong and making it up.
He likes to now call me a bus driver and bang on about my job which is curious because he and his chums are so elusive about their jobs, likely because they’ve been shown many times to have spent years exaggerating their expertise and relevant qualifications and backgrounds. All the more odd when one of them (robinessex) even got banned for saying he wanted to find out exactly where I worked to contact my employer.
It’s a wonder these
Edited by El stovey on Saturday 25th January 09:50
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
you look them up
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
For a start Gordon Brown dod not state we have 50 days to save the planet, well not in the context your daft copied and pasted image is trying to say, I’m sure the rest are just as spurious.
Ask yourself why do you deniers on here have to rely on YouTube links and dodgy, well in in deeps case downright fake images with no sources.
You lot should be a tad more sceptical
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
PRTVR said:
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Grants are available for scientists to study the climate.https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Why not apply for one?
Pesty said:
I think that image has so many issues from a picture editor's POV.Absent making St. Great disappear (did not one have something for her to stand on?) the lass on the left is too near the camera and has a rather nasty concrete structure behind her rather than some nice snow dusted mountains and the pine tree.
If you want to make a half attractive image in that sort of format to suite the smart phone screen generation and have ST. G in the middle you don't have many options.
That said I can see that someone who has presumably consumed not a few pounds of CO2 to be able to to stand in a a photo opportunity alongside St. G and would maybe like the image to go global (at least) to show friends back home, might be a tad disappointed that they has not fought harder to be next the great one.
Still, with the full version of the shot now being touted around the world as part of the suggested controversy the is probably much more coverage for all of them than would otherwise have been the case.
It would not surprise me if calls from some American Universities have already been taken.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Grants are available for scientists to study the climate.https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Why not apply for one?
From 2008 ed Miliband started the ball rolling with the climate change act, go look at his views on Marxism and climate change, I remember reading an article he had written, basically climate change was a means to an end.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
durbster said:
Smiler. said:
Why do you bother to engage with people who, in your opinion, are trolling (and not in the fun way)?
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Is it better to ignore misinformation or challenge it?The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
I don't know the answer.
PRTVR said:
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Grants are available for scientists to study the climate.https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Why not apply for one?
From 2008 ed Miliband started the ball rolling with the climate change act, go look at his views on Marxism and climate change, I remember reading an article he had written, basically climate change was a means to an end.
Have you tried to get some funding or a grant?
LongQ said:
Pesty said:
I think that image has so many issues from a picture editor's POV.Absent making St. Great disappear (did not one have something for her to stand on?) the lass on the left is too near the camera and has a rather nasty concrete structure behind her rather than some nice snow dusted mountains and the pine tree.
If you want to make a half attractive image in that sort of format to suite the smart phone screen generation and have ST. G in the middle you don't have many options.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/whit...
the excuse the AP snapper cropped the photo for composition purposes has some merit imo (it is a better shot) but maybe they should've considered how it would look in other ways? I dunno
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff