Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Dont Panic]

kerplunk said:

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

Psst! Your Consensus is showing!

Its not for me to do any more than ask the questions Id like answers to.

The fact that you still cant commit to calling out bad behaviour and general nastiness speaks volumes, its just one of the reasons your sides not managing to sell the case.

Short response because long ones make you yawn.

[Lotus 50]

turbobloke said:

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

or put another way 2% of GDP per year to prevent additional increases in temp beyond those we're already committed to...

[anonymous-user]

Dont Panic said:

The fact that you still cant commit to calling out bad behaviour and general nastiness speaks volumes, its just one of the reasons your sides not managing to sell the case.

What makes you think “his side” isn’t managing to sell the case?

This threads full of deniers complaining about the public and government and scientific institutions all being on the believers side.

Sure some people don’t believe the wildest predictions but public opinion and government policy is all behind AGW and the associated science.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

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

Update: The data was released 9 years ago.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/at_long_last_...

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

kerplunk said:

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

Psst! Your Consensus is showing!

Nah - you just don't like scepticism being applied to your arguments.

Fake sceptic.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

turbobloke said:

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

or put another way 2% of GDP per year to prevent additional increases in temp beyond those we're already committed to...

Except it won't work, you'll never control the planet, not a hope in hell.

[Dont Panic]

El stovey said:

What makes you think “his side” isn’t managing to sell the case?

If the case had been sold successfully it wouldnt need to keep being hyped at every opportunity.

El stovey said:

This threads full of deniers complaining about the public and government and scientific institutions all being on the believers side.

You think that slur is gaining you any kudos? It makes you look silly but at least I know where you stand on being reasonable unlike t'other two.
Confirming that those on the warm side is comprised of "believers" is going to go someway to your recovery though.

El stovey said:

Sure some people don’t believe the wildest predictions but public opinion and government policy is all behind AGW and the associated science.

In your head perhaps but not in the data.

[Dont Panic]

kerplunk said:

Nah - you just don't like scepticism being applied to your arguments.

Fake sceptic.

Fake science, allied with a fake consensus. Still no climate emergency/crisis on the horizon.

[Dont Panic]

Lotus 50 said:

or put another way 2% of GDP per year to prevent additional increases in temp beyond those we're already committed to...

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

[durbster]

Dont Panic said:

El stovey said:

Sure some people don’t believe the wildest predictions but public opinion and government policy is all behind AGW and the associated science.

In your head perhaps but not in the data.

Yes, that's why none of the political parties had tackling climate change as headline policy in their election campaigns.

Except they all did.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Dont Panic said:

El stovey said:

Sure some people don’t believe the wildest predictions but public opinion and government policy is all behind AGW and the associated science.

In your head perhaps but not in the data.

Yes, that's why none of the political parties had tackling climate change as headline policy in their election campaigns.

Except they all did.

Without exception, they were all stupid and talked bks. Just jumping on the bandwagon action.

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

kerplunk said:

Nah - you just don't like scepticism being applied to your arguments.

Fake sceptic.

Fake science, allied with a fake consensus. Still no climate emergency/crisis on the horizon.

Fake defender of the scientific method.

[Lotus 50]

Dont Panic said:

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

Why would I want to do that for you when you show no inclination to go and have a look on the readily and freely available information and educate yourself as to the reasons and mechanisms?

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

Dont Panic said:

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

Why would I want to do that for you when you show no inclination to go and have a look on the readily and freely available information and educate yourself as to the reasons and mechanisms?

Waffle. You really think we can change the planet temperature, you must be delusional. The planet is Billions of time more powerful than mankind, it's a non-win contest.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Waffle. You really think we can change the planet temperature, you must be delusional. The planet is Billions of time more powerful than mankind, it's a non-win contest.

I didn't say we are/were controlling the planets temperature - however, it is extremely likely that we do and can exert an influence on it and there are tens of thousands of scientific papers showing this (start with the reference lists from the IPCC's work)

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Waffle. You really think we can change the planet temperature, you must be delusional. The planet is Billions of time more powerful than mankind, it's a non-win contest.

I didn't say we are/were controlling the planets temperature - however, it is extremely likely that we do and can exert an influence on it and there are tens of thousands of scientific papers showing this (start with the reference lists from the IPCC's work)

If you believe that bks, you'll believe anything. You got a cast iron, concrete proof, any practical demonstration to prove the theory. You know, like experiments that scientists do to backup and prove their theories.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

Lotus 50 said:

Dont Panic said:

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

Why would I want to do that for you when you show no inclination to go and have a look on the readily and freely available information and educate yourself as to the reasons and mechanisms?

Waffle. You really think we can change the planet temperature, you must be delusional. The planet is Billions of time more powerful than mankind, it's a non-win contest.

yep - cooling or warming, a parasol or a woolly jumper. The side effects might not be desirable but no theoretical barriers.

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Waffle. You really think we can change the planet temperature, you must be delusional. The planet is Billions of time more powerful than mankind, it's a non-win contest.

I didn't say we are/were controlling the planets temperature - however, it is extremely likely that we do and can exert an influence on it and there are tens of thousands of scientific papers showing this (start with the reference lists from the IPCC's work)

There are thousands of papers showing it? No, not showing it, but there are thousands making the same assumption, with nothing more than inadequate climate modeling in support, and that's circular reasoning as the same thing is assumed in the models.

You mention IPCC, why does the IPCC mention, in a footnote for emphasis (!) that the attribution to humans is the opinion of a few IPCCers and not drawn from analysis?

[Silkyskills]

Dont Panic said:

Lotus 50 said:

or put another way 2% of GDP per year to prevent additional increases in temp beyond those we're already committed to...

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

Well we're raising the average temperature globally (but we can't raise it in any particular street tomorrow) so why do you think we can't halt the process?

[turbobloke]

Silkyskills said:

Dont Panic said:

Lotus 50 said:

or put another way 2% of GDP per year to prevent additional increases in temp beyond those we're already committed to...

Explain to me the mechanism how "we" are going to control the temperature even locally in your street tomorrow?
If you cant even control local weather then globally its just a pipedream at least and a delusion at worst.

Well we're raising the average temperature globally (but we can't raise it in any particular street tomorrow) so why do you think we can't halt the process?

Saying that we're raising the temperature globally is assertion, based on opinion. The IPCC describes its approach to attribution (anthropogenic contribution) with phenomena including temperature metrics, heavy precipitation, droughts and cyclones as follows.



AR5 gives a wide range for equilibrium climate sensitivity but adds a footnote excuse as below. How is any future impact from a given contribution aka guess then credible?



No metric is outside natural variation, nothing is unprecedented, whether it's e.g. extent or rate of temperature change, floods or droughts - noting in any case that adjustments to temperature data make a significant contribution to the claimed trend which is still pedestrian .

Claims to the contrary represent accidental or deliberate choice of an inappropriate timescale, or otherwise inadequate database.