Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

[Diderot]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

Indeed, KP seems to be having some difficulty here. He's the rapid/unprecedented warming advocate on here, yet he has no way of knowing or proving the claim (epistemology innit). But that doesn't stop him deliberately misreading Kawasicki's post to suit his own ends. KP also seems to forget that rapid is a relative term and that any assertion claiming that the current warming is 'rapid' is always already spurious.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

Indeed, KP seems to be having some difficulty here. He's the rapid/unprecedented warming advocate on here, yet he has no way of knowing or proving the claim (epistemology innit). But that doesn't stop him deliberately misreading Kawasicki's post to suit his own ends. KP also seems to forget that rapid is a relative term and that any assertion claiming that the current warming is 'rapid' is always already spurious.

Wierd how you think it's down to me to say what rapid means. I'm just trying to make sense of what kawasicki is saying about it. He alludes to posters here saying the current warming is rapid - maybe he means me but my view, as I've explained to him before, is that the current warming rate is rapid, IF it continues leading to several degrees of warming within a couple of centuries. So that's a contingent statement about the future and only falsifiable by time, but kawasicki is claiming something has been falsified already - but also not falsified - because it's unknowable. Or something.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

Indeed, KP seems to be having some difficulty here. He's the rapid/unprecedented warming advocate on here, yet he has no way of knowing or proving the claim (epistemology innit). But that doesn't stop him deliberately misreading Kawasicki's post to suit his own ends. KP also seems to forget that rapid is a relative term and that any assertion claiming that the current warming is 'rapid' is always already spurious.

Wierd how you think it's down to me to say what rapid means. I'm just trying to make sense of what kawasicki is saying about it. He alludes to posters here saying the current warming is rapid - maybe he means me but my view, as I've explained to him before, is that the current warming rate is rapid, IF it continues leading to several degrees of warming within a couple of centuries. So that's a contingent statement about the future and only falsifiable by time, but kawasicki is claiming something has been falsified already - but also not falsified - because it's unknowable. Or something.

So where did I state that the current warming hasn’t happened?

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

Indeed, KP seems to be having some difficulty here. He's the rapid/unprecedented warming advocate on here, yet he has no way of knowing or proving the claim (epistemology innit). But that doesn't stop him deliberately misreading Kawasicki's post to suit his own ends. KP also seems to forget that rapid is a relative term and that any assertion claiming that the current warming is 'rapid' is always already spurious.

Wierd how you think it's down to me to say what rapid means. I'm just trying to make sense of what kawasicki is saying about it. He alludes to posters here saying the current warming is rapid - maybe he means me but my view, as I've explained to him before, is that the current warming rate is rapid, IF it continues leading to several degrees of warming within a couple of centuries. So that's a contingent statement about the future and only falsifiable by time, but kawasicki is claiming something has been falsified already - but also not falsified - because it's unknowable. Or something.

That's the trouble with hypotheses.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

Kawasicki said:

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

Well I have to say, this thread was much more fun when gammons were raging against the teen.

It comes and goes in amusement value.

It’s all a bit flat now that the leaders (rapid cooling) prophecies all turned out to be wrong and the associated conspiracy theories about marxism and whatnot are sounding even less likely.

the rapid warming/“only 30minutes left to save the planet”/“Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000” prophecies have also turned out to be wrong.

Not made by anyone on here were they?

More than once I’ve read comments on this (and the science) thread that the current warming is rapid.

lol, so the current warming hasn't happened?

What has happened has happened, there is no way of knowing whether the current warming is rapid or slow, historical global data with enough temporal resolution simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how qualified the climate scientist is, he/she is as ignorant as the posters on here (myself included) when it comes to this fact.

No way of knowing - but hasn't stopped you claiming rapid warming hasn't happened. Clearly your factual standards are 'flexible'.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 27th June 00:39

I didn’t claim that no warming has happened?

Indeed, KP seems to be having some difficulty here. He's the rapid/unprecedented warming advocate on here, yet he has no way of knowing or proving the claim (epistemology innit). But that doesn't stop him deliberately misreading Kawasicki's post to suit his own ends. KP also seems to forget that rapid is a relative term and that any assertion claiming that the current warming is 'rapid' is always already spurious.

Wierd how you think it's down to me to say what rapid means. I'm just trying to make sense of what kawasicki is saying about it. He alludes to posters here saying the current warming is rapid - maybe he means me but my view, as I've explained to him before, is that the current warming rate is rapid, IF it continues leading to several degrees of warming within a couple of centuries. So that's a contingent statement about the future and only falsifiable by time, but kawasicki is claiming something has been falsified already - but also not falsified - because it's unknowable. Or something.

So where did I state that the current warming hasn’t happened?

I take that back I was just mocking you. It's clear now that your claim about rapid warming 'prohecies' being wrong are just based on garbled non-sequitors about 'unknowable' precedents

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

I take that back I was just mocking you. It's clear now that your claim about rapid warming 'prohecies' being wrong are just based on garbled non-sequitors about 'unknowable' precedents

Well done for finally taking it back.

The rest of your post shows that it was clearly a very painful process for you.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I take that back I was just mocking you. It's clear now that your claim about rapid warming 'prohecies' being wrong are just based on garbled non-sequitors about 'unknowable' precedents

Well done for finally taking it back.

The rest of your post shows that it was clearly a very painful process for you.

Well done for eeking out a small win

[robinessex]

Climate change: Why action still ignites debate in Australia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5760639...

In my first week as the BBC's new Australia correspondent in 2019, a state of emergency was declared in New South Wales. Bushfires blazed and came very close to Sydney.
The orange haze and the smell of smoke will forever be etched in my memory.
As the country woke to pictures of red skies, destroyed homes and burned koalas in smouldering bushland, the climate change debate came to the fore.
But this wasn't a scientific debate. It was political and it was partisan.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison did not answer questions about the issue, while then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack dismissed climate concerns as those of "raving inner-city lefties".
That was my other big memory of my first week in Australia. The leadership - after years of drought and as blazes raged across the east coast - openly throwing doubt on the effects of climate change.
This was a tussle at the heart of Australian politics.
Climate change is a hotly charged issue here. It draws in the powerful fossil fuel industry and regional voters fearful for their livelihoods.
It's a subject that has ended political careers............continues

[Esceptico]

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

Yeah, neither record cold, nor record heat proves or disproves anything.

Mentioning either is a bit silly,

[dickymint]

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

[Esceptico]

dickymint said:

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

I saw headlines about record temperatures and remembered that record lows had been mentioned in this thread.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

dickymint said:

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

I saw headlines about record temperatures and remembered that record lows had been mentioned in this thread.

Maybe the comments on PH are a reaction to the widespread unscientific headlines like this…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprece...

[PRTVR]

Esceptico said:

dickymint said:

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

I saw headlines about record temperatures and remembered that record lows had been mentioned in this thread.

Historically record cold temperatures are not given as a byproduct of global warming, quite the opposite.
Here is another take on the garbage being pushed about record heat and how we need to get rid of fossil fuels and air-conditioning, even if its keeping people alive.
https://youtu.be/x5E4woOGZhc

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

dickymint said:

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

I saw headlines about record temperatures and remembered that record lows had been mentioned in this thread.

Maybe the comments on PH are a reaction to the widespread unscientific headlines like this…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprece...

Based on climate change modelling it has been predicted for years that the probability of extreme weather events will increase as the climate warms. Hardly unscientific.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Historically record cold temperatures are not given as a byproduct of global warming, quite the opposite.
Here is another take on the garbage being pushed about record heat and how we need to get rid of fossil fuels and air-conditioning, even if its keeping people alive.
https://youtu.be/x5E4woOGZhc

Can you please make it clear who you're linking to so it can be more easily ignored? It's starting to look a bit suss that you are constantly trying to drive traffic from Pistonheads to these dumb YouTube channels; traffic which is a great way to get their nonsense get boosted.

This one's yet another Tony Heller video, to save any one else clicking.

[zygalski]

Don't forget, this was from our resident climate change expert who even disagrees with climate change denier darling Judith Curry, that we are not even in a warming phase.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

dickymint said:

Esceptico said:

Unless my memory is faulty, weren’t the deniers on here making references to record cold spells in the US about six months back, implying this disproved “global warming”? Strange how none of them seem to be mentioning the record heat the US is now experiencing.

What prompted you to say that

I saw headlines about record temperatures and remembered that record lows had been mentioned in this thread.

Maybe the comments on PH are a reaction to the widespread unscientific headlines like this…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprece...

Oh noo - the headline contains the word 'unprecedented' which kawasicki thinks can only mean 'since the dawn of the time'

A real strong argument.