Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Author
Discussion

Gadgetmac

11,014 posts

72 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
The "partial vacuum" is in the honesty and integrity of your posts, quotes and sources as demonstrated above.

To prove the point the article you link to doesn't have an author, is on a deniers website and ends with the words "hat tip (h/t) to the GWPF."

Some things never change rolleyes

kerplunk

4,899 posts

170 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
kerplunk said:
Once again turbobloke tells it how it isn't.
Are you living in a parallel universe where the predictions referenced have been satisfied?
(unless I'm due a whoosh parrot, won't be the first time smile )
I'm referring to the narrative turbobloke is trying to flog of scientists back-rowing from earlier failed predictions. Like I said a couple of days ago, the arctic sea-ice has declined more rapidy than predicted in the IPCC assessments. One or two people have stuck their necks out about when the arctic will be ice-free (that were decades ahead of the IPCC predictions) but that doesn't change the fact the ice has been declining faster than expected. Even at the time Maslowski made his extreme prediction it was pointed out his team were "well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams" (see the 2007 BBC article) - it's just the usual trick of defining a field by the most extreme prediction that never came to pass, which then sets things up nicely to portray a new paper as 'kicking the can down the road'. Read the refs and you'll see that new paper is actually putting forward a 'sooner than previously thought' argument due to a change in ocean currents that favour a warmer north pacific.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th October 16:55

turbobloke

92,904 posts

224 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
I'm referring to the narrative turbobloke is trying to flog of scientists back-rowing from earlier failed predictions.
All predictions to date have failed where a deadline has passed.

kerplunk said:
Like I said a couple of days ago, the arctic sea-ice has declined more rapidy than predicted in the IPCC assessments.
I acknowledged at the time that this was the case and pointed out how it demonstrates very neatly the point that inadequate models are useless. You forgot to mention that. Wrong is wrong, the direction of the error is unimportant.

kerplunk said:
One or two people have stuck their necks out about when the arctic will be ice-free

If that was an election result there would be an urgent need for a recount.

Arctic ice mass is changing due to natural variation involving oceanic and atmospheric circulation, solar activity and sub-surface volcanism (Gakkel Ridge) again involving circulation effects. Recently and previously I've cited several papers going back to Slonosky et al 1997 including Deser et al 2000, Lassen and Thejll 2005, Reeves-Sohn et al 2008, Overland et al 2009, Opel et al 2013, Kolling et al 2018 and now Porter et al 2019. The only answers to date are failed predictions and the inadequate models responsible none of which is evidence beyond in-house agw failure.

The data, not opinions, matter. There is no need for carbon dioxide non-effects which in agw climate models give erroneous predictions as listed by me/others and noted ^ by kerplunk. Politicians and other gullible types are being gulled, some more willingly than others.

jakesmith

9,032 posts

135 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
Sorry to interrupt can someone put the link up to the IPCC bloke who said Greta and XR should stop. I have searched and can’t see it

Esceptico

3,921 posts

73 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-clima...

I posted this link on another thread but thought it was relevant here too.

I was a bit depressed when I found this on the internet because I remember reading the original article and was shocked to see it is from 2007. Not sure how twelve years went by so quickly.

When you look at the climate change myths in the special edition they are pretty much the ones still being used on here despite having been debunked.

Perhaps I should print out the article and play climate change bingo. How long do you think I would have to wait until I had crossed them all off?

turbobloke

92,904 posts

224 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
Another important paper from the political policy perspective has emerged with Cheng et al 2019, looking at heatwave and severe cold impacts on mortality in Australia. 708,751 total deaths were studied, and the relative contribution of temperature exposures and impacts were as follows, in the authors' own words "most of the attributable deaths were from cold (61.4%), and then from temperature variability (28%) and heat (10.6%)". The Obama era EPA ruling goes out the window; political policy in western nations needs a re-think.


kerplunk

4,899 posts

170 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
I'm referring to the narrative turbobloke is trying to flog of scientists back-rowing from earlier failed predictions.
All predictions to date have failed where a deadline has passed.

kerplunk said:
Like I said a couple of days ago, the arctic sea-ice has declined more rapidy than predicted in the IPCC assessments.
I acknowledged at the time that this was the case and pointed out how it demonstrates very neatly the point that inadequate models are useless. You forgot to mention that. Wrong is wrong, the direction of the error is unimportant.

kerplunk said:
One or two people have stuck their necks out about when the arctic will be ice-free

If that was an election result there would be an urgent need for a recount.

Arctic ice mass is changing due to natural variation involving oceanic and atmospheric circulation, solar activity and sub-surface volcanism (Gakkel Ridge) again involving circulation effects. Recently and previously I've cited several papers going back to Slonosky et al 1997 including Deser et al 2000, Lassen and Thejll 2005, Reeves-Sohn et al 2008, Overland et al 2009, Opel et al 2013, Kolling et al 2018 and now Porter et al 2019. The only answers to date are failed predictions and the inadequate models responsible none of which is evidence beyond in-house agw failure.

The data, not opinions, matter. There is no need for carbon dioxide non-effects which in agw climate models give erroneous predictions as listed by me/others and noted ^ by kerplunk. Politicians and other gullible types are being gulled, some more willingly than others.
^None of which substantiates the distorted narrative of scientists 'can-kicking' that you were trying to flog.

turbobloke

92,904 posts

224 months

Monday 28th October 2019
quotequote all
PS

With the Cheng et al paper I should have added that the Oz data showed no temporal trend in mortality due to any of the temperature exposure variables. This therefore included a lack of increase in heat-related deaths despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rising by 5% over the period under study. Tax gas on holiday.

Jinx

10,296 posts

224 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-clima...

I posted this link on another thread but thought it was relevant here too.

I was a bit depressed when I found this on the internet because I remember reading the original article and was shocked to see it is from 2007. Not sure how twelve years went by so quickly.

When you look at the climate change myths in the special edition they are pretty much the ones still being used on here despite having been debunked.

Perhaps I should print out the article and play climate change bingo. How long do you think I would have to wait until I had crossed them all off?
I stopped reading new scientist after the change in editor turned it into a AGW advocacy magazine - used to be a regular reader. Read though that link and highlight the hyperbole and stawmen arguments - not particularly professional for a supposed science magazine.

Might want to check the polar bear numbers one again (we are well above the 25,000 estimated in 2007) hehe

El stovey

38,013 posts

227 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
“IPCC mob” aka Climate Scientists hehe
Yeah, who needs experts and climate scientists, when you can listen to retired old blokes on a car forum exaggerating their expertise, constantly trying to deceive people and quoting right wing advocacy blogs.

What’s fascinating about these climate politics threads is that the AGW deniers and fake experts on here all actually disagree with each other about the science but stick together in a coalition of internet conspiracy theorists, as they’re in such a minority and have to unite against the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Vol 6 and despite apparently knowing that it’s all a lefty conspiracy, PHs fake boffins haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus.

Q) Why haven’t they actually used their fake charts and misquoted scientific papers and endless GWPF links and wattsupwith articles to change the scientific consensus and expose what must be the greatest deceit humanity has ever known?

A) Because they’re talking utter bks. Still.

robinessex

9,188 posts

145 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
“IPCC mob” aka Climate Scientists hehe
Q) Why haven’t they actually used their fake charts and misquoted scientific papers and endless GWPF links and wattsupwith articles to change the scientific consensus and expose what must be the greatest deceit humanity has ever known?

A) Because they’re talking utter bks. Still.
Because that would kill of their money supply. All aboard the money bandwagon !!

Gadgetmac

11,014 posts

72 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-clima...

I posted this link on another thread but thought it was relevant here too.

I was a bit depressed when I found this on the internet because I remember reading the original article and was shocked to see it is from 2007. Not sure how twelve years went by so quickly.

When you look at the climate change myths in the special edition they are pretty much the ones still being used on here despite having been debunked.

Perhaps I should print out the article and play climate change bingo. How long do you think I would have to wait until I had crossed them all off?
On here? Not long at all.

But for gods sake what are you doing referencing magazines with the word 'scientist' in their name? And ones that claim a consensus on climate change at that!


ETA There you go, Robinessex has just left you your first box to tick already, the 'funding conspiracy' box. laugh

Here's what the New Scientist article you linked too says...

Under pressure

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts. is the evidence. And the evidence – that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects – is very strong and getting stronger.

Next box up will likely be the Marxist plot.


Edited by Gadgetmac on Tuesday 29th October 11:07

turbobloke

92,904 posts

224 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
With RU/XR using climate as a trojan horse for far left politics, here's more on the reality of climate politics and the use of scientism not science to create false narratives with the aim of foisting undemocratic extremism on society.

Climate Stalinism The Radical Left Green Movement

Link said:
The Left’s fixation on climate change is cloaked in scientism, deploying computer models to create the illusion of certainty.

Even more convinced of their role as planetary saviours, radical greens are increasingly intolerant of dissent or any questioning of their policy agenda.

“Democracy,” a writer for Foreign Policy suggests, constitutes “the planet’s biggest enemy.”
https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-radical-green-movement/

Gadgetmac

11,014 posts

72 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
As if by magic the Marxist plot appears almost before I've had time to make my post.

I've got to buy a lottery ticket tonight.

Gadgetmac

11,014 posts

72 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
El stovey said:
What’s fascinating about these climate politics threads is that the AGW deniers and fake experts on here all actually disagree with each other about the science but stick together in a coalition of internet conspiracy theorists, as they’re in such a minority and have to unite against the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Spot on.

The last 2 denier posts highlight that. One attacks from the funding side the other from the political side. If I also recall correctly one thinks there is no change in climate temperature at all, just fluctuation whilst the other thinks there is change but it's not down to CO2.

As you say, a coalition of disparate views.

El stovey

38,013 posts

227 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
As if by magic the Marxist plot appears almost before I've had time to make my post.

I've got to buy a lottery ticket tonight.
And everyone is in on it. The majority of Governments, scientists, scientific institutions etc

They’re all lying to enable a far left plot to redistribute wealth. hehe

Why are the U.K. conservative government leading the way in a far left plot to redistribute wealth?

Gadgetmac

11,014 posts

72 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Even the arch Victorian land owning millionaire conservative MP for the 18th century, Jacob Rees Mogg, doesn't think it's all a Marxist plot. He disputes the accuracy of the forecasts as apparently we can't even forecast the weather correctly.

Just shows you how far to the right some on here are hehe

El stovey

38,013 posts

227 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
As if by magic the Marxist plot appears almost before I've had time to make my post.

I've got to buy a lottery ticket tonight.
I hope turbobloke is actually getting paid by someone for continuing to spout this misleading nonsense. Years of lying and misrepresenting scientists and doctoring quotes and hiding sources of his ”data”.

Shown up time and time again on the climate threads for trying to deceive people. It can’t just be based on an irrational hatred of lefties, it must be a job. Maybe he’s one of the lucky ones, getting paid for his hobby.



turbobloke

92,904 posts

224 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
Results involving data with direct relevance to misguided UK/EU climate and energy policies based on inadequate climate modelling keeps arriving.

No Direct Negative Impact of Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentrations on Human Health

Monsé et al 2019 supports earlier studies from Rodeheffer et al 2018 (plus Liu et al 2017) showing no adverse health impacts from rising carbon dioxide levels, adding to the evidence base from submariner data by examining miners.

The authors found:
-no signs of acute or chronic health hazard from prolonged exposure to elevated CO2 levels
-no adverse effects of CO2 exposure on blood
-no evidence of adverse influence on lung function from CO2 exposure including at 15,000 ppmv (current atmospheric level ~410 ppmv)

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide levels are greening the earth, improving crop yields and generally supporting the global food chain with 90% of recent increased global net ecosystem production rate 1995 to 2014 arising from increased aerial fertilisation i.e. elevated carbon dioxide levels (Fernández-Martínez et al 2018).

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-i...

Just for good measure we also have an earlier paper (Fernández-Martínez et al 2014) and "the finding that nutrient availability exerts a stronger control on NEP than on carbon input (GPP) conflicts with assumptions of nearly all global coupled carbon cycle–climate models, which assume that carbon inputs through photosynthesis drive biomass production and carbon sequestration" Data says models get it wrong again, false assumptions abound with good ol' garbage-in-gospel-out.

M4cruiser

2,371 posts

114 months

Tuesday 29th October 2019
quotequote all
If they want me to switch off my engine at red traffic lights, then they first need to make intelligent lights that don't stop me in the first place!
https://youtu.be/J088UgOb8SU