Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Tony427 said:
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
Have you misred the results?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
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-b...
This was and is amusing.
Survey on Climate, Opinium 2018: When respondents to an Opinium survey were asked to select from a list what the most important issues facing Britain were, the environment came 13th. Part of this may be because even if there is concern about any impact on them, half of UK adults think the impact will be small rather than large. Personal responsibility or doing something about it came last from the options offered.
Survey on Climate, Opinium 2018: When respondents to an Opinium survey were asked to select from a list what the most important issues facing Britain were, the environment came 13th. Part of this may be because even if there is concern about any impact on them, half of UK adults think the impact will be small rather than large. Personal responsibility or doing something about it came last from the options offered.
El stovey said:
Tony427 said:
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
Have you misred the results?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
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-b...
Silkyskills said:
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...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-repor...
And in that very poll only 17% of Brits think that Climate change will have a large impact on their lives and we rank at 23rd out of 28 in just how little we care or are worried about CC.
The poll was carried out last July so those figures are probably better for the CC activists than they are now as Climate Change Fatigue seems to be becoming more and more prevalent.
.
turbobloke said:
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..
Since you’re calling me out, in 2006 you actually said.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..
turbobloke said:
Within a few years, with emissions of carbon dioxide still rising and levels higher than now, the climate is very likely to be cooling rapidly.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
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..
Since you’re calling me out, in 2006 you actually said.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..
turbobloke said:
Within a few years, with emissions of carbon dioxide still rising and levels higher than now, the climate is very likely to be cooling rapidly.
Turbobloke also said:
said: " we've barely reached the start of 25 yet and the full extent of a lagged climate response lies ahead."
AshVX220 said:
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?
https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-...
This amusing as well.............
https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zhark...
"Even if you believe the IPCC’s worst case scenario, Zharkova’s analysis blows any ‘warming’ out of the water.
Lee Wheelbarger sums it up: “even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.“
Forget the arguments, debates and attempts to win over AGW alarmists — and just prepare.
Time is almost up."
Damart and candles anybody?
LittleBigPlanet said:
El stovey said:
Are you turbobloke?
I have to say, I read posts by Don't Panic without looking at the username and wrongly thought it was Turbobloke. The structure and diction are (coincidentally) rather similar.In the world of climate politics, if Bernie Sanders Is so progressive why Is the AOC-BS Green New Deal so regressive?
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger: AOC - Bernie Sanders Green New Deal "would disproportionately hurt the poor".
NSS
turbobloke said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
El stovey said:
Are you turbobloke?
I have to say, I read posts by Don't Panic without looking at the username and wrongly thought it was Turbobloke. The structure and diction are (coincidentally) rather similar.In the world of climate politics, if Bernie Sanders Is so progressive why Is the AOC-BS Green New Deal so regressive?
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger: AOC - Bernie Sanders Green New Deal "would disproportionately hurt the poor".
NSS
The USA was bound to be a good source of leftist climate wibble around now and Dems rarely disappoint on that score.
Billionaire carbonphobe Tom Steyer: “I will declare a state of emergency on climate on the first day of my presidency. I will use the executive emergency powers of the presidency to tell companies how they can generate electricity, what kind of cars they can build and on what schedule, what kind of buildings we’re gonna have, how we are going to use our public lands."
No news on how often Americans can breathe in and out. Apparently climate means "environmental justice" and it's "a human issue with a huge racial overtone". Hitting the poor with regressive policymaking and crippling industry simply must be the answer.
As he'll never see the first day of his own presidency, this is funnier than it might otherwise be.
Billionaire carbonphobe Tom Steyer: “I will declare a state of emergency on climate on the first day of my presidency. I will use the executive emergency powers of the presidency to tell companies how they can generate electricity, what kind of cars they can build and on what schedule, what kind of buildings we’re gonna have, how we are going to use our public lands."
No news on how often Americans can breathe in and out. Apparently climate means "environmental justice" and it's "a human issue with a huge racial overtone". Hitting the poor with regressive policymaking and crippling industry simply must be the answer.
As he'll never see the first day of his own presidency, this is funnier than it might otherwise be.
LittleBigPlanet said:
El stovey said:
Are you turbobloke?
I have to say, I read posts by Don't Panic without looking at the username and wrongly thought it was Turbobloke. The structure and diction are (coincidentally) rather similar.But the tone isn't right. Turbobloke's wise enough not to engage in arguments he knows he'll lose - his style is more to drop the material and run - whereas Don't panic has the enthusiasm of somebody who's just discovered WUWT but hasn't yet learned the arguments are duds.
A man with little knowledge shares it quickly, as an old saying goes.
durbster said:
I don't think it is. The content and the terminology is the same but they all get their information from the same resources so inevitably repeat the same arguments using the terminology given to them.
But the tone isn't right. Turbobloke's wise enough not to engage in arguments he knows he'll lose - his style is more to drop the material and run - whereas Don't panic has the enthusiasm of somebody who's just discovered WUWT but hasn't yet learned the arguments are duds.
A man with little knowledge shares it quickly, as an old saying goes.
They seem very similar to me. Don't panic is like TB's old style where he'd get stuck into an extended argument for a while before it was was apparent he was losing and he needed to drop in a GIsh gallop. The low effort hit and run, cut and paste of other peoples crappy propaganda is a fairly recent TB development.But the tone isn't right. Turbobloke's wise enough not to engage in arguments he knows he'll lose - his style is more to drop the material and run - whereas Don't panic has the enthusiasm of somebody who's just discovered WUWT but hasn't yet learned the arguments are duds.
A man with little knowledge shares it quickly, as an old saying goes.
Perhaps he's just read a lot of TB's posts recently and it's warped his posting style and brain.
Its funny reading posters "playing the man instead of the ball" style of replies, but come on guys, you should be able to do better than that if you want to retain any credibility in such threads.
I know I've not been on PH all that long in comparison to many others but surely a better style and tactic of argument is expected from all.
I know I've not been on PH all that long in comparison to many others but surely a better style and tactic of argument is expected from all.
hairykrishna said:
They seem very similar to me. Don't panic is like TB's old style where he'd get stuck into an extended argument for a while before it was was apparent he was losing and he needed to drop in a GIsh gallop. The low effort hit and run, cut and paste of other peoples crappy propaganda is a fairly recent TB development.
Perhaps he's just read a lot of TB's posts recently and it's warped his posting style and brain.
I agree. It’s the same old style, same phrases, same threads, same attempts at humour, same politics. Plus joins a car forum mainly to post about climate politics with a couple of random question threads started to look like a different poster. Seems odd but there you go. Perhaps he's just read a lot of TB's posts recently and it's warped his posting style and brain.
He used to get banned from threads more so maybe it’s a new account so he can be a bit more punchy and not get his main one banned again?
GroundZero said:
Its funny reading posters "playing the man instead of the ball" style of replies, but come on guys, you should be able to do better than that if you want to retain any credibility in such threads.
I know I've not been on PH all that long in comparison to many others but surely a better style and tactic of argument is expected from all.
It's not really an argument - at least not from me. More just a side discussion. I don't really care that much if it's TB posting from two accounts. The quality of their/his arguments stand on their own. I know I've not been on PH all that long in comparison to many others but surely a better style and tactic of argument is expected from all.
This page contains the same old hilarious disparity in the level of scepticism shown to the conventional science of global warming vs turbos pet theories about the suns influence.
hairykrishna said:
This page contains the same old hilarious disparity in the level of scepticism shown to the conventional science of global warming vs turbos pet theories about the suns influence.
And being ultra sceptical about scientific consensus and respected scientific institutions but quoting one man blogs like Electrowhatever.net and youtube.And quoting any hint of a failed prediction from any source but ignoring TBs own failed predictions from this forum.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff