Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[robinessex]

Australia fires were far worse than any prediction

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-515...

The Australian bushfires were more catastrophic than any simulation of our changing climate predicted.
This is the conclusion of researchers who described the devastation as a "fiery wake-up call for climate science".

That's because the fires are nothing to do with climate change. Pillocks

[Dont Panic]

kerplunk said:

Ironically your twisted use of 'logic' betrays your anti-science stance and your motivated reasoning to 'believe'.

Another daft slur, your mask is slipping further, are you one of those little helpers that get people fired or have their funding cut off for going against the narrative?
All Im saying is I just dont believe in the so called science that your side is espousing.
Especially as the jury hasnt yet come back with a verdict.
You couldnt convict someone in court with what youre peddling

Convince me! Go for the knockout blow, undeniable proof. Is that so hard?
After all, according to Durbster all the relevant scientific organisations are on board. Or are they?

[kerplunk]

Dont Panic said:

kerplunk said:

Ironically your twisted use of 'logic' betrays your anti-science stance and your motivated reasoning to 'believe'.

Another daft slur, your mask is slipping further, are you one of those little helpers that get people fired or have their funding cut off for going against the narrative?
All Im saying is I just dont believe in the so called science that your side is espousing.
Especially as the jury hasnt yet come back with a verdict.
You couldnt convict someone in court with what youre peddling

Convince me! Go for the knockout blow, undeniable proof. Is that so hard?
After all, according to Durbster all the relevant scientific organisations are on board. Or are they?

I'm not interested in convincing you - I think you've rendered yourself unconvincable like deniers do.

Observing you shoot yourself in the foot, revealing your phoney science-defender stance is reassurring though - confirms my prejudices.

[GroundZero]

kerplunk said:

I'm not interested in convincing you - I think you've rendered yourself unconvincable like deniers do.

Just snipping this line from above.

As with many matters about politics each side will not be convinced the other side is right.
The only solution it would seem for the climate change politics is for time to sort it out.

In time, one side will be laughing with ridicule and the other side will be become quieter and quieter as their narrative makes less and less sense, even to themselves.

I guess we now have 11.5 years to see who is right.

Or should we be basing the conclusion on previous predictions made over the years?

[Dont Panic]

kerplunk said:

I'm not interested in convincing you - I think you've rendered yourself unconvincable like deniers do.

Observing you shoot yourself in the foot, revealing your phoney science-defender stance is reassurring though - confirms my prejudices.

Uh Huh.
Fact is my friend you cant convince me because the evidence isnt there, if it was youd not need to go low.

At least we established your nature, firmly in the camp of supporting rotten behaviour against those who dont hold with the consensus proves you have no real interest in scientific truth whatsoever, its all about an ideology, despite all your waffle I got the answer I was looking for.
Spot the man with only 3 toes.

[anonymous-user]

GroundZero said:

I guess we now have 11.5 years to see who is right.

Or should we be basing the conclusion on previous predictions made over the years?

If you’re bothered why not check back on predictions made on here 12 years ago by the very posters on this thread on pistonheads.

We should be in a cooling period now according to PHs sceptic experts.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th February 13:46

[Dont Panic]

El stovey said:

If you’re bothered why not check back on predictions made on here 12 years ago by the very posters on this thread on pistonheads.

We should be in a cooling period now according to PHs sceptic experts.

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 25th February 13:46

You can find predictions on both sides of the argument granted but all the climate doom predictions are coming from only one direction ( not the group).

New York is not under 300 feet of water, kids do know what snow is, the maldives havent sunk.
Why is this claptrap even given any airttime and why arent supporters of agw shouting it down for the nonsense its been proven to be?
Its damaging their whole argument when such silly predictions are trotted out as a certainty and which dont come even close to fruition.

[jshell]

turbobloke said:

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.

Hold the phone! I hadn't seen this before - yeah, yeah, just me!

Can any of our resident true believers cast light on why we should be globally self-flagellating based on some opinions rather than data?

I'd like to know, as that doesn't seem sound for 'science'.

[AshVX220]

GroundZero said:

kerplunk said:

I'm not interested in convincing you - I think you've rendered yourself unconvincable like deniers do.

Just snipping this line from above.

As with many matters about politics each side will not be convinced the other side is right.
The only solution it would seem for the climate change politics is for time to sort it out.

In time, one side will be laughing with ridicule and the other side will be become quieter and quieter as their narrative makes less and less sense, even to themselves.

I guess we now have 11.5 years to see who is right.

Or should we be basing the conclusion on previous predictions made over the years?

Don't worry, when it all smooths out it will be because of the measures that were taken to mitigate it, not because of natural varience or anything.........

[anonymous-user]

Dont Panic said:

You can find predictions on both sides of the argument granted but all the climate doom predictions are coming from only one direction ( not the group).

New York is not under 300 feet of water, kids do know what snow is, the maldives havent sunk.
Why is this claptrap even given any airttime and why arent supporters of agw shouting it down for the nonsense its been proven to be?
Its damaging their whole argument when such silly predictions are trotted out as a certainty and which dont come even close to fruition.

Are you turbobloke?

[s2art]

El stovey said:

GroundZero said:

I guess we now have 11.5 years to see who is right.

Or should we be basing the conclusion on previous predictions made over the years?

If you’re bothered why not check back on predictions made on here 12 years ago by the very posters on this thread on pistonheads.

We should be in a cooling period now according to PHs sceptic experts.

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 25th February 13:46

Maybe we are;

https://www.thegwpf.com/editorial-dont-tell-anyone...

[Tony427]

Has Prof Michael Mann produced his statistics yet as ordered by the Canadian court?

No he hasn't. Delayed for 8 years and then didn't produce them. Mann's libel case, hinging on whether he lies and manufactures data or not, is thrown out as he cannot or is unwilling to ( or both) prove his data and thus conclusions are bone fide. Or even simply true.

Thus proving without any doubt just what a load of baloney his hockeystick theories really are.

[jshell]

El stovey said:

Dont Panic said:

You can find predictions on both sides of the argument granted but all the climate doom predictions are coming from only one direction ( not the group).

New York is not under 300 feet of water, kids do know what snow is, the maldives havent sunk.
Why is this claptrap even given any airttime and why arent supporters of agw shouting it down for the nonsense its been proven to be?
Its damaging their whole argument when such silly predictions are trotted out as a certainty and which dont come even close to fruition.

Are you turbobloke?

Are you playing the man?

[jshell]

jshell said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Hold the phone! I hadn't seen this before - yeah, yeah, just me!

Can any of our resident true believers cast light on why we should be globally self-flagellating based on some opinions rather than data?

I'd like to know, as that doesn't seem sound for 'science'.

Any of you alarmists?? Or are you over on SS trying to debunk it?

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

Are you playing the man?

No I’m asking if it’s a second account for turbobloke.

[jshell]

El stovey said:

jshell said:

Are you playing the man?

No I’m asking if it’s a second account for turbobloke.

You may have a low opinion of TB, but I think that's a dumb question. Of all the people on here, he's one of the last I would expect to run such a transparent attempt. Especially in this thread. Maybe, just maybe, more and more people are getting fed up with the constant hype, hysteria and ramping...

[Tony427]

jshell said:

El stovey said:

jshell said:

Are you playing the man?

No I’m asking if it’s a second account for turbobloke.

You may have a low opinion of TB, but I think that's a dumb question. Of all the people on here, he's one of the last I would expect to run such a transparent attempt. Especially in this thread. Maybe, just maybe, more and more people are getting fed up with the constant hype, hysteria and ramping...

According to the latest You Gov poll just 68% of the general public think the threat of Climate Change is exaggerated. So the vast majority of the public, having been lectured to for so long, and so stridently, are not convinced.

Seems that the " wisdom of the crowd" is standing up well to the ever increasing hysteria of the AGW proponents. Someone should tell the government that Gove et al are turning the people off.

Cheers,

Tony

[Silkyskills]

And yet here's a YouGov poll of 30,000 people in 28 countries which shows most are very worried about AGW

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-repor...

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

El stovey said:

jshell said:

Are you playing the man?

No I’m asking if it’s a second account for turbobloke.

You may have a low opinion of TB, but I think that's a dumb question. Of all the people on here, he's one of the last I would expect to run such a transparent attempt. Especially in this thread. Maybe, just maybe, more and more people are getting fed up with the constant hype, hysteria and ramping...

Thanks for your input again but you wouldn’t really know the answer.

[turbobloke]

s2art said:

El stovey said:

GroundZero said:

I guess we now have 11.5 years to see who is right.

Or should we be basing the conclusion on previous predictions made over the years?

If you’re bothered why not check back on predictions made on here 12 years ago by the very posters on this thread on pistonheads.

We should be in a cooling period now according to PHs sceptic experts.

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 25th February 13:46

Maybe we are;

https://www.thegwpf.com/editorial-dont-tell-anyone...

Indeed. The process of deeply declining solar eruptivity is underway as predicted particularly for Solar Cycle 25, but we've barely reached the start of 25 yet and the full extent of a lagged climate response lies ahead.

El Stovey is wrong in any case.

PH posts have mentioned the possibility of cooling, based on data not gigo models, but the year posted has typically been around 2030 for my part and I appreciate I've mentioned it once or twice. One of my first offerings on potential future cooling mentioned 2030 and Solar Cycle 25 as posted 14 years ago on Saturday 18th February 2006 in the 'Greenland - Behind the Headlines' thread which is now archived. Those who like to argue and disagree can hunt it down, and then agree. One of my more recent mentions of 2030 and cooling was in 2017 in Vol 4 of this thread when as usual I mentioned the need to keep an eye on data rather than adopt the blind faith paradigm of agw.

On Tuesday 08 August 2017 I said:

When I indicate what solar data is pointing to, I usually remember to add a comment that we need to keep looking at the data to get a better idea of where things are heading.

This is the nature of things when using empirical data, as opposed to the bible of infallible truths from climate model gigo. Pity about the extensive back catalogue of biblical failed forecasts.