Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

kerplunk said:

So your answer to my pointing you are asking loaded questions at a gallop is 'William Connelley' - shows you're just chucking jelly at the wall and any effort to engage with you would be met by more of the same. I've been around this long enough to see you coming a mile away.

So you agree with the negative behaviours ive commented on?
Or dont you?
Whys it a problem to call it out?
I suspect youlll be treated in the same manner as sceptics if you espouse that the types of behaviours displayed by alarmists arent desirable and shouldnt be tolerated.
Anything less than showing your hand lays you open to the charge of condoning such tactics.
Be a man.

Wobble on that for a while.

Yeah I get it - you don't want to be called nasty names whilst you're accusing scientists of fraud etc cos that isn't nice is it precious

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 23 February 23:45

[Dont Panic]

kerplunk said:

Yeah I get it - you don't want to be called nasty names whilst you're accusing scientists of fraud etc cos that isn't nice is it precious

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 23 February 23:45

So after many hours of in depth consideration, the odd edit here and there, a zig and a zag and doubtless a few jars, perhaps a joint ot two to smooth the process along, the very best your razor wit and formidable intellect can come up with regarding any of the questions asked is a petty insult? Bravo! Have one of these.

Clearly your powers of observation have failed you miserably dear friend, I got what I wanted from you and you didnt see it coming from the mile away you claimed you could.
its plain that your subscription to the consensus is fully paid up and it can really only be concluded by your total unwillingness to condemn that youre fully onboard with the kinds of behaviours I alluded to previously.

So there we have it, 1 down, Kerplunk apparently agrees with all the kinds of intolerance being displayed by other warmsiders.
If this is the best you lot can do then its unsurprising that those others youre aligned to can only act badly rather than decently. Ta ta.

[turbobloke]

The CCC has resisted attempts to have its calculations on the cost of Net Zero disclosed under FOI legislation, presumably this is why.



From two reports, one covering the cost and security of our future energy supply by former grid engineers Colin Gibson and Capell Aris, the other on decarbonising housing by Professor Michael Kelly FRS.

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah I get it - you don't want to be called nasty names whilst you're accusing scientists of fraud etc cos that isn't nice is it precious

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 23 February 23:45

So after many hours of in depth consideration, the odd edit here and there, a zig and a zag and doubtless a few jars, perhaps a joint ot two to smooth the process along, the very best your razor wit and formidable intellect can come up with regarding any of the questions asked is a petty insult? Bravo! Have one of these.

Clearly your powers of observation have failed you miserably dear friend, I got what I wanted from you and you didnt see it coming from the mile away you claimed you could.
its plain that your subscription to the consensus is fully paid up and it can really only be concluded by your total unwillingness to condemn that youre fully onboard with the kinds of behaviours I alluded to previously.

So there we have it, 1 down, Kerplunk apparently agrees with all the kinds of intolerance being displayed by other warmsiders.
If this is the best you lot can do then its unsurprising that those others youre aligned to can only act badly rather than decently. Ta ta.

Have I not caught your gist? oh well

ps. please make your posts shorter - that one didn't merit the time taken to read it.

[durbster]

BigMon said:

You have believers at one end of the spectrum and deniers at the other end. As always I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Just to expand your definitions here.

A "believer" is a person who holds a position based on:

• Scientifically proven theories that have stood for almost two centuries
• Over a century of recorded data that continue to prove those theories
• Overwhelming physical data that continue to prove those theories
• Accepted by every major scientific institution in the world
• Accepted by the leading experts across any relevant discipline, anywhere in the world

Deniers are people who hold a position based on:

• YouTube videos produced by other laymen
• The same sources regardless of subject, invariably linked to a single organisation in the United States with a history of science-denial to protect a large industry

And the truth is "somewhere in the middle" of those two?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

BigMon said:

You have believers at one end of the spectrum and deniers at the other end. As always I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Just to expand your definitions here.

A "believer" is a person who holds a position based on:

• Scientifically proven theories that have stood for almost two centuries
• Over a century of recorded data that continue to prove those theories
• Overwhelming physical data that continue to prove those theories
• Accepted by every major scientific institution in the world
• Accepted by the leading experts across any relevant discipline, anywhere in the world

Deniers are people who hold a position based on:

• YouTube videos produced by other laymen
• The same sources regardless of subject, invariably linked to a single organisation in the United States with a history of science-denial to protect a large industry

And the truth is "somewhere in the middle" of those two?

A believer is someone who believes that bks above. Did you crack how to solve Chaos theory yet?

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

Just to expand your definitions here.

A "believer" is a person who holds a position based on:

• Scientifically proven theories that have stood for almost two centuries Constant revision of most theories, and some which were held as almost absolute are very close to being proven wrong.
• Over a century of recorded data that continue to prove those theories selective data source, some ignored entirely, many in conflict with models which are held as the standard...
• Overwhelming physical data that continue to prove those theories [b]such as? Changes from a static world? Record cold temps recorded this winter, along side some questionable record warm temps from 1 or 2 specific locations?[b]
• Accepted by every major scientific institution in the world [b]consensus does not imply something is correct, as proven countless times[b/]
• Accepted by the leading experts across any relevant discipline, anywhere in the world and argued against by many leading experts who are branded as heretics or worse by mainstream...

Deniers are people who hold a position based on:

• YouTube videos produced by other laymen strawman
• The same sources regardless of subject, invariably linked to a single organisation in the United States with a history of science-denial to protect a large industry strawman

And the truth is "somewhere in the middle" of those two?

My comments in bold. Not all of us who question the bad science practices and lack of credible evidence get our information from YouTube.
Same sources who constantly push bad science practices, attempts to silence others, hide data and methods, etc etc, like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc etc...

Your post reeks of holier than thou nonsense, as usual.

[durbster]

Dont Panic said:

So there we have it, 1 down, Kerplunk apparently agrees with all the kinds of intolerance being displayed by other warmsiders.
If this is the best you lot can do then its unsurprising that those others youre aligned to can only act badly rather than decently. Ta ta.

While you're congratulating yourself on your "win", somebody should point out that climate scientists are relentlessly and routinely harassed and threatened by the anti-science crowd, and therefore you're cheering yourself down a dead-end I'm afraid.

e.g. talking about the Twitter bots that spread the kind of misinformation you apparently fall for:

Prof. Katharine Hayhoe said:

This finding aligns with my own experience. I have a pretty extensive dataset of thousands of such accounts that have attacked me and about 25-30% rank high on bot detector scores. Sad news? 70-75% don't.

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1230867658687512576

You won't find a climate scientist that doesn't receive this kind of treatment, and not all from the bots.

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

durbster said:

Just to expand your definitions here.

A "believer" is a person who holds a position based on:

• Scientifically proven theories that have stood for almost two centuries Constant revision of most theories, and some which were held as almost absolute are very close to being proven wrong.
• Over a century of recorded data that continue to prove those theories selective data source, some ignored entirely, many in conflict with models which are held as the standard...
• Overwhelming physical data that continue to prove those theories [b]such as? Changes from a static world? Record cold temps recorded this winter, along side some questionable record warm temps from 1 or 2 specific locations?[b]
• Accepted by every major scientific institution in the world [b]consensus does not imply something is correct, as proven countless times[b/]
• Accepted by the leading experts across any relevant discipline, anywhere in the world and argued against by many leading experts who are branded as heretics or worse by mainstream...

Deniers are people who hold a position based on:

• YouTube videos produced by other laymen strawman
• The same sources regardless of subject, invariably linked to a single organisation in the United States with a history of science-denial to protect a large industry strawman

And the truth is "somewhere in the middle" of those two?

My comments in bold. Not all of us who question the bad science practices and lack of credible evidence get our information from YouTube.
Same sources who constantly push bad science practices, attempts to silence others, hide data and methods, etc etc, like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc etc...

Your post reeks of holier than thou nonsense, as usual.

You're going to need to explain.
1) When did the greenhouse effect become "close to being proven wrong"
2a) "selective data source, some ignored entirely" - what data sources are ignored entirely?
2b) "many in conflict with models which are held as the standard" - bizarre statement - of course not all models match the data, they're based on different scenarios
3) "physical data that continue to prove those theories" such as? - are you serious? Sea level rise, glacier melt, ice loss, animal migration patterns, permafrost melt etc. In short; everything expected. You don't think these are happening?
4) Accepted by the leading experts - and argued against by many leading experts - Obviously that's just rubbish. Which leading scientist in any relevant field denies AGW?

[Dont Panic]

durbster said:

Dont Panic said:

So there we have it, 1 down, Kerplunk apparently agrees with all the kinds of intolerance being displayed by other warmsiders.
If this is the best you lot can do then its unsurprising that those others youre aligned to can only act badly rather than decently. Ta ta.

While you're congratulating yourself on your "win", somebody should point out that climate scientists are relentlessly and routinely harassed and threatened by the anti-science crowd, and therefore you're cheering yourself down a dead-end I'm afraid.

Appeals to authority cant help you here, this isnt about the science its about the politics.
Second up to either condemn or condone (or neither is the erstwhile member Durbster.
Questions all still stand, do you wish to comment on them?

Ill lay my cards out for you in regard to the quote above since you made the point.

Hardly "my win" but rather a win for science.
Someone who questions science isnt anti science (another cheap slur from the warmside) theyre doing what yourself should be doing but arent, questioning.
Science dosnt just quit when someone shouts Eureka!

As for the threats and dirty tactics etc Ill condemn them all from whichever side they hail, science shouldnt be about taking sides its about the pursuit of truth whether it supports a personal view or not, the fact that politics has wormed its way into a formerly respectable field of endeavour is tragic, its pitted one against the other favouring belief and consensus over fact and truth.
Theres no place for biases when searching for answers.
Fragile egos can get destroyed when a particular hypothesis isnt supported but theres simply no excuse for the kinds of borderline nazi behaviour we have seen perpetrated from those who are on the pro side for all the reasons I already laid out (UEA etc) which I wanted such as you to comment on.

Condemn or condone. Your choice and an easy one to answer for someone with some morals.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

You're going to need to explain.
1) When did the greenhouse effect become "close to being proven wrong"
2a) "selective data source, some ignored entirely" - what data sources are ignored entirely?
2b) "many in conflict with models which are held as the standard" - bizarre statement - of course not all models match the data, they're based on different scenarios
3) "physical data that continue to prove those theories" such as? - are you serious? Sea level rise, glacier melt, ice loss, animal migration patterns, permafrost melt etc. In short; everything expected. You don't think these are happening?
4) Accepted by the leading experts - and argued against by many leading experts - Obviously that's just rubbish. Which leading scientist in any relevant field denies AGW?

1- I didn't mention greenhouse effect. Neither did you.
2a- I haven't got a list to hand. But plenty have been pointed out before.
2b- Indeed they are, and plenty of the ones which are given them most prominence are based on absolute worst case scenarios that would require some very drastic circumstances to achieve.
3- All of those things occur naturally. Where is the evidence to support a claim of these things being unprecedented or have never happened before?
4- I didn't say they denied AGW. I said there are many who argue against it. That does not imply denial. The topic is open to debate.

[Lotus 50]

Turbobloke's post above piqued my interest... so I went and had a look at the CCC's website to see what they've published re FOI requests:

https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/transparency/freed...

It appears there have been two requests re net zero costs (scroll down to the bottom of the page - the responses are published under 'net zero costs dataset'), they provided the info to the first and then received a follow on ask for more info. Apparently the request would require them to provide a whole series of data related to different sectors etc and would take more than 10 days to service. Under FoI rules they are justified in saying no as a result (and whomever sent in the request can make a complaint to the information commissioner).

Interesting to see some of the other requests they've received!

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

Turbobloke's post above piqued my interest... so I went and had a look at the CCC's website to see what they've published re FOI requests:

https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/transparency/freed...

It appears there have been two requests re net zero costs (scroll down to the bottom of the page - the responses are published under 'net zero costs dataset'), they provided the info to the first and then received a follow on ask for more info. Apparently the request would require them to provide a whole series of data related to different sectors etc and would take more than 10 days to service. Under FoI rules they are justified in saying no as a result (and whomever sent in the request can make a complaint to the information commissioner).

Interesting to see some of the other requests they've received!

If it was all logged on a bloody computer, would only need a few button presses to spit out what's asked been asked for

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

If it was all logged on a bloody computer, would only need a few button presses to spit out what's asked been asked for

If you read the response (and had any idea of the level of data and analysis involved) you'd understand that it brings together a whole heap of data and analysis from lots of different sources into an over-arching synopsis that is way beyond a few button presses to transfer...

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/...

And as I said if the person/organisation sending in the FoI disagreed with the response they can always complain to the IC...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 24th February 12:46

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

If it was all logged on a bloody computer, would only need a few button presses to spit out what's asked been asked for

If you read the response (and had any idea of the level of data and analysis involved) you'd understand that it brings together a whole heap of data and analysis from lots of different sources into an over-arching synopsis that is way beyond a few button presses to transfer...

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/...

And as I said if the person/organisation sending in the FoI disagreed with the response they can always complain to the IC...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 24th February 12:46

Great to know such an organization isn't set up in such a manner it can't be easily accessed and data searched, surely that what it's all about?

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

If it was all logged on a bloody computer, would only need a few button presses to spit out what's asked been asked for

If you read the response (and had any idea of the level of data and analysis involved) you'd understand that it brings together a whole heap of data and analysis from lots of different sources into an over-arching synopsis that is way beyond a few button presses to transfer...

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/...

And as I said if the person/organisation sending in the FoI disagreed with the response they can always complain to the IC...

Great to know such an organization isn't set up in such a manner it can't be easily accessed and data searched, surely that what it's all about?

Politicised climate data and transparency don't go together, but climate and excuses do.

There's a track record going back a long way.

Dr Phil Jones of UEA and Climategate infamy replying to a 2005 iirc climate data disclosure request from Warwick Hughes said:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

The answer is, of course, because that's how science operates (outside climate bunk).

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 24th February 13:59

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Great to know such an organization isn't set up in such a manner it can't be easily accessed and data searched, surely that what it's all about?

Much of the data and analysis is likely to have been held/be held by other organisations and only the outputs forwarded to the CCC - hence they'd need to go back to all of the suppliers and ask for their data etc... Again if you look at the response and the previous reply they did provide the info they had that was readily available.

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

behaviour we have seen perpetrated from those who are on the pro side for all the reasons I already laid out (UEA etc) which I wanted such as you to comment on.

Try laying it out in a form that can be discussed and not a gallop of unreferenced stuff that you assume are givens.

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Great to know such an organization isn't set up in such a manner it can't be easily accessed and data searched, surely that what it's all about?

Much of the data and analysis is likely to have been held/be held by other organisations and only the outputs forwarded to the CCC - hence they'd need to go back to all of the suppliers and ask for their data etc... Again if you look at the response and the previous reply they did provide the info they had that was readily available.

No need at this point, remember? It works out at approx £100,000 per household for zilch deg C benefit

[durbster]

Dont Panic said:

durbster said:

Dont Panic said:

So there we have it, 1 down, Kerplunk apparently agrees with all the kinds of intolerance being displayed by other warmsiders.
If this is the best you lot can do then its unsurprising that those others youre aligned to can only act badly rather than decently. Ta ta.

While you're congratulating yourself on your "win", somebody should point out that climate scientists are relentlessly and routinely harassed and threatened by the anti-science crowd, and therefore you're cheering yourself down a dead-end I'm afraid.

Appeals to authority cant help you here, this isnt about the science its about the politics.
Second up to either condemn or condone (or neither is the erstwhile member Durbster.
Questions all still stand, do you wish to comment on them?

Ill lay my cards out for you in regard to the quote above since you made the point.

Hardly "my win" but rather a win for science.
Someone who questions science isnt anti science (another cheap slur from the warmside) theyre doing what yourself should be doing but arent, questioning.
Science dosnt just quit when someone shouts Eureka!

As for the threats and dirty tactics etc Ill condemn them all from whichever side they hail, science shouldnt be about taking sides its about the pursuit of truth whether it supports a personal view or not, the fact that politics has wormed its way into a formerly respectable field of endeavour is tragic, its pitted one against the other favouring belief and consensus over fact and truth.
Theres no place for biases when searching for answers.
Fragile egos can get destroyed when a particular hypothesis isnt supported but theres simply no excuse for the kinds of borderline nazi behaviour we have seen perpetrated from those who are on the pro side for all the reasons I already laid out (UEA etc) which I wanted such as you to comment on.

Condemn or condone. Your choice and an easy one to answer for someone with some morals.

Honestly, your contributions look like the same old recycled waffles, so I skim over them and don't know what you're on about here. The comment I replied to just caught my eye to save your embarrassment.

If you were really looking for answers you'd have done the research yourself and have them already, so you're probably just looking for an internet argument. Yawn.