Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Author
Discussion

zygalski

6,176 posts

93 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Remind us what the findings of the 8 enquiries in to Climategate were...

Were the scientists found to be guilty of misrepresenting the over all temperature data and trends from 1000 to 1990 as a result of excluding tree ring data from 1960 on?
there were no enquiries at all. there were various hearings where some people had the chance to waffle their way through some easy questions, but no actual detailed enquiries into what was going on and certainly no exoneration of michael one tree liar mann. if the tree data was fit for purpose there would have been no need to splice the data. the fact is even the temp data the tree ring proxy data was spliced with was a load of ste.

anyone that says we know the average temp of the earth on a given day never mind for hundreds or thousands of years, or the far more important ocean heat content number is an out and out liar and charlatan. regardless the effect of the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2, the numbers needed to begin doing actual science are not known.
8 hoops to jump through not enough for your personal satisfaction? wink
Oh well. never mind.

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
zygalski said:
8 hoops to jump through not enough for your personal satisfaction? wink
Oh well. never mind.
This is why the denial camp is constricting in size all the time. biggrin

Where climategate is concerned it's basically shrunk down to this small enclave and WUWT who still protest from what I'm reading.

Baby Shark doo doo doo doo

11,777 posts

117 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
https://youtu.be/AUgi0t2EpP8

Interesting chat on celebrity climate hypocrisy

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
https://youtu.be/AUgi0t2EpP8

Interesting chat on celebrity climate hypocrisy
That's not a "chat" it's a diatribe.

I'm conflicted about this because so-called celebrities would be subject to nutters approaching them all day long if they join the queue at the bus stop or airport.

It's likely that they use these forms of private transit as much for their own safety as anything else. From my point of view I don't want to be sat on a plane/train etc next to one of say the Royal Family when some terrorist decides that now is his chance.

I'd rather the Royal or Celeb be in a plane on his own.

It has the whiff of hypocrisy about it but in reality what are these peoples real options?

El stovey

28,959 posts

211 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
This is why the denial camp is constricting in size all the time. biggrin

Where climategate is concerned it's basically shrunk down to this small enclave and WUWT who still protest from what I'm reading.
Even on here the climate realists/deniers all believe in different bits “of science”. One of the less frothy ones will come on and say everyone believes in AGW nowadays, its just about the effects and whether they’re exaggerated.

Then another comes on and says it’s all bks there’s no evidence of AGW and the people before, who said AGW is real and everyone agrees, keep quiet.

Then you come on and say there’s a scientific consensus and they ALL suddenly go nuts. hehe

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
https://youtu.be/AUgi0t2EpP8

Interesting chat on celebrity climate hypocrisy
That's not a "chat" it's a diatribe.

I'm conflicted about this because so-called celebrities would be subject to nutters approaching them all day long if they join the queue at the bus stop or airport.

It's likely that they use these forms of private transit as much for their own safety as anything else. From my point of view I don't want to be sat on a plane/train etc next to one of say the Royal Family when some terrorist decides that now is his chance.

I'd rather the Royal or Celeb be in a plane on his own.

It has the whiff of hypocrisy about it but in reality what are these peoples real options?
Practice what they preach perhaps. They could stay at home; nobody has to travel by any means other than by walking; we do it because it suits us for social or business reasons..

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Celebs, Royals and other World Leaders employ a lot of people. Staying at home isn't really an option or a sensible argument.

zygalski

6,176 posts

93 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
This is why the denial camp is constricting in size all the time. biggrin

Where climategate is concerned it's basically shrunk down to this small enclave and WUWT who still protest from what I'm reading.
Even on here the climate realists/deniers all believe in different bits “of science”. One of the less frothy ones will come on and say everyone believes in AGW nowadays, its just about the effects and whether they’re exaggerated.

Then another comes on and says it’s all bks there’s no evidence of AGW and the people before, who said AGW is real and everyone agrees, keep quiet.

Then you come on and say there’s a scientific consensus and they ALL suddenly go nuts. hehe
But then yet others add to denier confusion by accepting that there is a scientific consensus, but only because 'they're' all in on a global conspiracy & want more funding.

I'm so glad I'm not an AGW denier. It'd be so damn confusing!

Vanden Saab

3,941 posts

22 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
zygalski said:
But then yet others add to denier confusion by accepting that there is a scientific consensus, but only because 'they're' all in on a global conspiracy & want more funding.

I'm so glad I'm not an AGW denier. It'd be so damn confusing!
The climate change side seems no better, some say we will be extinct by 2030, yes I know, while others say we will be ok as long as we spend a few trillion a year sorting it all out..while others suggest we should abandon travel and heating... . Some advocates even continue to drive planes, after all he says what difference can one person make... People still need to fly...
It is so confusing I agree...

El stovey

28,959 posts

211 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
The climate change side seems no better, some say we will be extinct by 2030, yes I know, while others say we will be ok as long as we spend a few trillion a year sorting it all out..while others suggest we should abandon travel and heating... . Some advocates even continue to drive planes, after all he says what difference can one person make... People still need to fly...
It is so confusing I agree...
Weird how you’re always going on about my job.

You were on one thread saying I was a dangerous pilot due to my opinions on the 737 max now you’re saying this drivel.

I don’t turn up on threads and tell you how to tile bathrooms or fix showers or whatever it is you do and try to link your job to other threads.

First robinessex saying he wants to contact my employer now others on here who are always elusive about their jobs constantly going on about mine. Bit weird tbh.

You wonder why people get put off posting anything related to their jobs or sharing their experience and knowledge when there’s weirdos like you about.

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Celebs, Royals and other World Leaders employ a lot of people. Staying at home isn't really an option or a sensible argument.
If they believe in Gretianity, as they claim, perhaps you'd like to explain why they "must" travel.

Surely they don't wish for humanity to become extinct in a matter of years as a result of their global roaming, and I'm certain that just like all the climatescientologists who attend international meetings, can all afford telephones and internet access, possibly even video conference facilities.

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Etypephil said:
If they believe in Gretianity, as they claim, perhaps you'd like to explain why they "must" travel.

Surely they don't wish for humanity to become extinct in a matter of years as a result of their global roaming, and I'm certain that just like all the climatescientologists who attend international meetings, can all afford telephones and internet access, possibly even video conference facilities.
Seriously, this is your response?

Why should world leaders and others famous people travel?

And WTF is Gretianity?

laugh

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Etypephil said:
If they believe in Gretianity, as they claim, perhaps you'd like to explain why they "must" travel.

Surely they don't wish for humanity to become extinct in a matter of years as a result of their global roaming, and I'm certain that just like all the climatescientologists who attend international meetings, can all afford telephones and internet access, possibly even video conference facilities.
Seriously, this is your response?

Why should world leaders and others famous people travel?

And WTF is Gretianity?

laugh
Yes.

Yes, if they truly believe in climate emergency, and what they claim are its causes, why exactly? What is wrong with video conferencing?

The new Greta led AGW religion, of which I understand you are a member. smile

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Etypephil said:
Gadgetmac said:
Etypephil said:
If they believe in Gretianity, as they claim, perhaps you'd like to explain why they "must" travel.

Surely they don't wish for humanity to become extinct in a matter of years as a result of their global roaming, and I'm certain that just like all the climatescientologists who attend international meetings, can all afford telephones and internet access, possibly even video conference facilities.
Seriously, this is your response?

Why should world leaders and others famous people travel?

And WTF is Gretianity?

laugh
Yes.

Yes, if they truly believe in climate emergency, and what they claim are its causes, why exactly? What is wrong with video conferencing?

The new Greta led AGW religion, of which I understand you are a member. smile
Oh I've just realised who you are...you're the bloke that called the teenage girl a rather nasty name.

The mods have removed your post I see.

Good smile

As for the rest of your post I can't be arsed to reply you somebody who doesn't realise why travel is a must for anybody in business.

LongQ

13,716 posts

181 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
As for the rest of your post I can't be arsed to reply you somebody who doesn't realise why travel is a must for anybody in business.
It isn't.

As the High Street stores have discovered much later in the day than many other businesses that have already reduced their reliance on travel.

Indeed many businesses have long since significantly reduced travel allowances in order to cut costs, suggesting that some proportion of previous need may have been unnecessary and probably a hangover from the days when alternative means of communication were far less capable than they are today.

Some businesses, the Banks for example, are even going as far as encouraging their customers not to travel to attempt to do business with them.

Why do you think travel is a must for anybody in business?

Even the prospective governments we are being asked to elect in the next few weeks seem to think that travel could be curtailed and what is left redirected more public (and in some cases publicly "owned") systems.

All part of saving the planet for you.

LongQ

13,716 posts

181 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Celebs, Royals and other World Leaders employ a lot of people. Staying at home isn't really an option or a sensible argument.
Well I'd never thought of you as an apologist for so called celebs and Royals let alone the 'World Leaders', many of whom have extremely questionable rights to being called 'Leaders'.

How does the message go? .... "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

Etypephil

724 posts

26 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Etypephil said:
Gadgetmac said:
Etypephil said:
If they believe in Gretianity, as they claim, perhaps you'd like to explain why they "must" travel.

Surely they don't wish for humanity to become extinct in a matter of years as a result of their global roaming, and I'm certain that just like all the climatescientologists who attend international meetings, can all afford telephones and internet access, possibly even video conference facilities.
Seriously, this is your response?

Why should world leaders and others famous people travel?

And WTF is Gretianity?

laugh
Yes.

Yes, if they truly believe in climate emergency, and what they claim are its causes, why exactly? What is wrong with video conferencing?

The new Greta led AGW religion, of which I understand you are a member. smile
Oh I've just realised who you are...you're the bloke that called the teenage girl a rather nasty name.

The mods have removed your post I see.

Good smile

As for the rest of your post I can't be arsed to reply you somebody who doesn't realise why travel is a must for anybody in business.
Facts are not universally popular, especially with those presenting the Emperor's clothes.

Can't be "arsed", as you so eloquently put it, or can't justify hypocrisy, nor fault the concept of videoconferencing?

Naturally royals, other celebrities, politicians etc don't want to forgo their holidays disguised as perfomance of their function, but that is exactly what they are.



zygalski

6,176 posts

93 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
zygalski said:
But then yet others add to denier confusion by accepting that there is a scientific consensus, but only because 'they're' all in on a global conspiracy & want more funding.

I'm so glad I'm not an AGW denier. It'd be so damn confusing!
The climate change side seems no better, some say we will be extinct by 2030, yes I know, while others say we will be ok as long as we spend a few trillion a year sorting it all out..while others suggest we should abandon travel and heating... . Some advocates even continue to drive planes, after all he says what difference can one person make... People still need to fly...
It is so confusing I agree...
Someone who flies a plane who is also environmentally aware is in precisely the best position to help make a change, using less fuel, mitigating the impact of the flight as best they can.
Wouldn't you agree?

Kawasicki

6,577 posts

183 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
This is why the denial camp is constricting in size all the time. biggrin

Where climategate is concerned it's basically shrunk down to this small enclave and WUWT who still protest from what I'm reading.
Even on here the climate realists/deniers all believe in different bits “of science”. One of the less frothy ones will come on and say everyone believes in AGW nowadays, its just about the effects and whether they’re exaggerated.

Then another comes on and says it’s all bks there’s no evidence of AGW and the people before, who said AGW is real and everyone agrees, keep quiet.

Then you come on and say there’s a scientific consensus and they ALL suddenly go nuts. hehe
I have personal control over our climate.

In my garden I have a floor tile. On one side it is painted matt black, the other side is white. When I want to warm the climate, I turn the black side up. When I want to cool the climate I turn the white side up.

It's great to have this power.

Gadgetmac

6,646 posts

56 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
Celebs, Royals and other World Leaders employ a lot of people. Staying at home isn't really an option or a sensible argument.
Well I'd never thought of you as an apologist for so called celebs and Royals let alone the 'World Leaders', many of whom have extremely questionable rights to being called 'Leaders'.

How does the message go? .... "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."
I'm not defending pop stars, world leaders and the like from using private aircraft I merely posit that it's an essential at this time.

Take Trump meeting Kim in the demilitarized zone...an iconic moment that at the time diffused tensions...what was he supposed to do, take an easy jet flight to get there?

As for business men, celebs and world leaders not needing to fly to go to conferences, meetings and to see things first hand that's just laughable and at this point in time you're living in cloud cuckoo land of you think it's both not necessary and that video conferencing and the like is more secure.

I'd love it to be true (so thanks for advancing the argument against private planes) but sadly it isn't.