Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
jshell said:
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!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.
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'.
durbster 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.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.
For the record: I am NOT Turbobloke.
No Im turbobloke.
No youre not Iam turbobloke.
Wrong Im spartacus...erm turbobloke.
Posting style may be similar but thats probably because Ive read a lot of his posts, yours too Kerplunk and Durbster and previously Ludo.
All other similarities are coincidental Ask the mods if in doubt, im sure they have ways and means of telling.
Im still searching for the climate crisis/emergency btw, can any on the pro side direct me to it, its not in the A-Z.
No Im turbobloke.
No youre not Iam turbobloke.
Wrong Im spartacus...erm turbobloke.
Posting style may be similar but thats probably because Ive read a lot of his posts, yours too Kerplunk and Durbster and previously Ludo.
All other similarities are coincidental Ask the mods if in doubt, im sure they have ways and means of telling.
Im still searching for the climate crisis/emergency btw, can any on the pro side direct me to it, its not in the A-Z.
kerplunk said:
- are there any real sceptics on your side of the room or what?
One here. Still sceptical of your sides claims of the source of any warming, of the settled science behind it and of the doom laden predictions. 
Edited to add
is it any wonder youre not believed?https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-e...
Edited by Dont Panic on Wednesday 26th February 13:04
Silkyskills said:
I've just read that Electroverse article and that's some statement to make. "One way or another, the cold times are returning — it’s just a matter of when."
to be fair , unless you believe the magic tax gas molecule has the power to overcome the natural cycles that produce ice ages it is technically correct.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.
that's what el stovey does. have a look around various threads in npe, spends a lot of time playing the man rather than the ball. appears to look at replies to any topic that is subjective and then take the position of the side that appears to have the least support at the time,a white knight contrarian if you will.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.
he will admit what he has read on this particular topic you could write on the inside of a mouses ear, his only actual on topic contribution to the thread is "because science says" (when it actually doesn't, it is all if's but's and maybe's . the only people making definitive statements are alarmist journalists and politicians).
Dont Panic said:
kerplunk said:
- are there any real sceptics on your side of the room or what?
One here. Still sceptical of your sides claims of the source of any warming, of the settled science behind it and of the doom laden predictions. Edited to add
is it any wonder youre not believed?https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-e...
Edited by Dont Panic on Wednesday 26th February 13:04
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_...
LittleBigPlanet said:
Impartial or not, the articles are accurately represented are they not? Some of them even come from that bastion of truth the guardian.
I couldnt care less where the info comes from as long as its honest, is where it comes from an issue?
Edited to add: The use of the words "climate change denial" on your link dosnt endow me with the confidence it should, theyre using the same words warmsiders all over are to stigmatise sceptics and anyone they see as an opponent.
Edited by Dont Panic on Wednesday 26th February 15:23
Dont Panic said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Impartial or not, the articles are accurately represented are they not? Some of them even come from that bastion of truth the guardian.
I couldnt care less where the info comes from as long as its honest, is where it comes from an issue?
Edited to add: The use of the words "climate change denial" on your link dosnt endow me with the confidence it should, theyre using the same words warmsiders all over are to stigmatise sceptics and anyone they see as an opponent.
Edited by Dont Panic on Wednesday 26th February 15:23
The irony is that the primary source is agw mythology itself. The predictions turned out to be bunk. What a shocker!
CEI reporting that the predictions all failed is of no consequence for the failures, which remain failures, there are numerous other sources showing how the same and other agw predictions have been failing for decades. Many have been posted on PH.
When all else fails and nothing else is available, agw supporters typically fall back on the non-consensus, shoot the messenger as above, or go for the personal attack angle. Or a combination of the above.
Climate politics: the Anti-Greta is going to address climate alarmists at a carbonfest climate boondoggle in the USA.
Naomi Seibt said:
I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think.
That won't go down well given the demands of the politicised agw religion...just believe etc.Talking of failed predictions, this one is right up there with the best...
You would be forgiven for thinking it had been written yesterday, but actually it was reported by The Guardian way back in February 2004.
You would be forgiven for thinking it had been written yesterday, but actually it was reported by The Guardian way back in February 2004.
Article said:
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.
among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.
‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserverA secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.
among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.
‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.
turbobloke said:
Awesome. There were tens of millions of people wondering why the British climate had become Siberian by 2020, not any more!
Then again snow in the UK was to be a thing of the past by now due to climate wibble. Children just wouldn't know what snow was.
Then again snow in the UK was to be a thing of the past by now due to climate wibble. Children just wouldn't know what snow was.
turbobloke in 2006 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.
hairykrishna said:
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.
I have wondered about several posters in here before. It's happened a few times when somebody's on the ropes and suddenly there's an influx of accounts coming to protect them, who disappear just as quickly. Propaganda accounts are rife on social media but I'm not sure PH has the reach to make that worthwhile.
But ultimately, that's probably less harmful than the relentless misrepresenting of scientist's work.
durbster said:
Yep. I don't care either. The arguments are the usual recycled stuff, prepared by propagandists then faithfully distributed by the followers. It makes no difference how much bluster they're presented with.
I have wondered about several posters in here before. It's happened a few times when somebody's on the ropes and suddenly there's an influx of accounts coming to protect them, who disappear just as quickly. Propaganda accounts are rife on social media but I'm not sure PH has the reach to make that worthwhile.
But ultimately, that's probably less harmful than the relentless misrepresenting of scientist's work.
The media's work is never done, is it.I have wondered about several posters in here before. It's happened a few times when somebody's on the ropes and suddenly there's an influx of accounts coming to protect them, who disappear just as quickly. Propaganda accounts are rife on social media but I'm not sure PH has the reach to make that worthwhile.
But ultimately, that's probably less harmful than the relentless misrepresenting of scientist's work.
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
But ultimately, that's probably less harmful than the relentless misrepresenting of scientist's work.
The media's work is never done, is it.They do it because it sells papers / generates clicks. What's turbobloke's motivation?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff