The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,264
But Odious, they seem to be predictions? The word LIKELY appears in every one of your statements.

BTW - here is what the IPCC say about tropical cyclones globally -

"Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence"

That's why they call Climate Change a religious cult, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

You're obviously right.

What do 99% of climate scientists know that you haven't already discounted as a hoax anyway?
 


Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,650
You're obviously right.

What do 99% of climate scientists know that you haven't already discounted as a hoax anyway?

99% of scientist's agree on what?. I am always amazed how effective this asinine piece of propaganda is. One really needs their critical faculties turned off to swallow such a thing in the way it is framed. Apparently many of us do.


The below is no less true today then when Dr Bengtsson penned it in 2013.

In the very emotional climate debate today is it hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes as the one recently from the World bank, you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations. Some of our colleagues are exposed to a powerful group pressure or that of a politically correct boss. The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away as the interest is confined to the concept of climate typical of the general public or rather I shall say the predominant or politically correct concept of climate.
Among meteorologists and well educated people the role of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is relatively well understood such that an increased concentration leads to higher temperatures at the surface and a cooling of the lower stratosphere. This has also been observed. The problem is not the direct effect of the greenhouse gases that is relatively minor, with about 1° warming for each doubling of the CO2 concentration, but the feedback processes in the climate system. Some of these are likely to be positive such as water vapour; others such as clouds are still not well understood. The feedbacks of the climate system dominate the outcome but are unfortunately so far not well handled by models. It is the main cause to the large differences between models.

However, the really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible course of action.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523
You're obviously right.

What do 99% of climate scientists know that you haven't already discounted as a hoax anyway?
That's a nonsense figure, designed to confuse the gullible.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,264
The alarmists seem to work off the priciple that "A lie repeated often enough will become the truth"
Except when it is the truth.

Anyway, my attitude to the deniers these days is very uncomplicated; if you still can't see what's happening in front of you you're really not worth discussing the subject with.

Can't fix stupid.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523
Except when it is the truth.

Anyway, my attitude to the deniers these days is very uncomplicated; if you still can't see what's happening in front of you you're really not worth discussing the subject with.
What do you see happening in front of you?
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
5,735
Except when it is the truth.

Anyway, my attitude to the deniers these days is very uncomplicated; if you still can't see what's happening in front of you you're really not worth discussing the subject with.

Can't fix stupid.
This is the problem, there is nothing out the ordinary to see. Here is just one example there being no observational evidence backing up Climate Change.

This is what the IPCC says about tropical storms.

Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity, and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

You think it's clever to go around calling everyone stupid, but open your own eyes and look at the data before you accuse anyone of not being able to see what's in front of them.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523
This is the problem, there is nothing out the ordinary to see. Here is just one example there being no observational evidence backing up Climate Change.

This is what the IPCC says about tropical storms.

Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity, and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

You think it's clever to go around calling everyone stupid, but open your own eyes and look at the data before you accuse anyone of not being able to see what's in front of them.
Hewson seems to be typical of the type, fires labels around but when you ask him about it...just slinks away.

That's climate change 🙄
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
99% of scientist's agree on what?. I am always amazed how effective this asinine piece of propaganda is. One really needs their critical faculties turned off to swallow such a thing in the way it is framed. Apparently many of us do.


The below is no less true today then when Dr Bengtsson penned it in 2013.



Ah, straight from the Church of Saint Delay, loaded with peer-reviewed science and expert recommendation.

Oops, it is only a six-year old blog post from a dodgy meteorologist, not even an energy expert.

Bengtsson is a meteorologist at the University of Reading, who recently decided to join a political advocacy group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The GWPF is known for downplaying the risks posed by human-caused global warming with shoddy scientific arguments, then arguing against taking any meaningful action to address the problem.

In other words, Bengtsson is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Next!
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
You're welcome. I'll send your regards to Donald at our next tea date.
Great!

And that "Pause in Global Warming" you were touting with great gusto a few years ago .... make sure you tell him how it worked out for you. (y)

nasa.jpg
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,701
Ah, straight from the Church of Saint Delay, loaded with peer-reviewed science and expert recommendation.

Oops, it is only a six-year old blog post from a dodgy meteorologist, not even an energy expert.




In other words, Bengtsson is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Next!
You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it shot you in the head. You just parrot mainstream propaganda from one end of the year to the other. Try engaging your brain for a change and cut out the hyperbole and hysteria.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523
Ah, straight from the Church of Saint Delay, loaded with peer-reviewed science and expert recommendation.

Oops, it is only a six-year old blog post from a dodgy meteorologist, not even an energy expert.




In other words, Bengtsson is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Next!
The World Meteorological Organization is the science behind the IPCC. The other partner, the U.N. Environment Program, is the politics. The head of the WMO has categorically rejected the alarmist narrative. We must hope he is listened to and not silenced.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,523
Great!

And that "Pause in Global Warming" you were touting with great gusto a few years ago .... make sure you tell him how it worked out for you. (y)

nasa.jpg
Is that the 'adjusted data'? 😂
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,701
Is that the 'adjusted data'? 😂
The Finnish papper by Kauppinen and Malmi published recently provides a succint mathamatical formula that can be used to separate anthropical and natural influences. Serious debate and alligned research is needed to establish the validy of the variables in the equation. The authors believe the IPCC estimates are well overboard and as things stand I would be inclined to agree. But maybe I should ask the so called 99 per cent?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it shot you in the head. You just parrot mainstream propaganda from one end of the year to the other. Try engaging your brain for a change and cut out the hyperbole and hysteria.
Give me an example of a scientific fact ... ?

Just checking that you know what you are talking about. I suspect not.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
The Finnish papper by Kauppinen and Malmi published recently provides a succint mathamatical formula that can be used to separate anthropical and natural influences. Serious debate and alligned research is needed to establish the validy of the variables in the equation. The authors believe the IPCC estimates are well overboard and as things stand I would be inclined to agree. But maybe I should ask the so called 99 per cent?
Publishing a paper means that it has passed a minimum standard of quality control .... it does not establish what is in the paper as scientific fact. This paper has been published, but it still has to stand the test of replication by others in the field. Signs are that it will not.


If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C.

This paper has just been published on Anthony Watts' notorious denial website, and on Infowars. Seriously, Alex Jones' site is now the go-to place for ground-breaking science?
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
A comparison of predictions made by climate scientists since the 1970s, and the predictions made by climate change deniers.



... climate denier scientists have drafted a letter to be sent to leaders of EU and UN institutions. The letter outlines their case for why climate change isn’t an emergency, but it simply reheats several old and stale climate myths.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top