Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Deliverance]

Why should we be capturing CO2 from the atmosphere when we currently only have around 400ppm anyway? I really don't think this is a great idea.

The Keeling curve is predicting 500 by 2050. I don't think allowing that to happen is a good idea.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

The Keeling curve is predicting 500 by 2050. I don't think allowing that to happen is a good idea.

Oh, shock horror!

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Fadge]

View attachment 898296

Nah, I'll take the predictive models of the alarmists over this list every day of the week...

RIP Climate Change.

 

[Snake_Baker]

For the millionth time.

The. Models. Are. No. Good.

Has there been global warming? Yes.
Do humans impact the weather? Very likely.
What do climate models tell us? Nothing.

 

[quotemokc]

‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls

Environmentalism offers emotional relief and spiritual satisfaction, giving its adherents a sense of purpose and transcendence.

www.wsj.com

He now considers most forms of renewable energy to be impractical for large-scale use. Windmills and solar power are too expensive and unreliable as a primary source of power for people in poor countries, and they cause too much environmental damage because they require vast areas of land and harm flora and fauna. He faults Western activists and governments for trying to force these technologies on Third World countries and prevent them from building hydroelectric and fossil-fuel power plants.


“Rich nations,” he writes, “should do everything they can to help poor nations industrialize.” Instead “many of them are doing something closer to the opposite: seeking to make poverty sustainable rather than to make poverty history.”


While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions, in the long term it’s beneficial to the environment as people move to cities, allowing farmland to revert to nature, and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy. Carbon emissions decline as people move from wood to coal to natural gas, and then ultimately to what Mr. Shellenberger calls the safest and cleanest source: nuclear energy, the only practical technology for drastically curtailing carbon emissions, if only green activists would stop trying to shut down nuclear plants.

 

[Total Power]

Do humans impact the weather? Very likely.

Well, that's the first acknowledgement that you been wrong about AGW. Well done.

And which models? be specific.

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

Evaluation of uninitialized multidecadal climate model future projection performance provides a concrete test of model skill The quasi-linear relationship between model/observed forcings and temper...

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Let me see some of your credentials which makes you an expert in climate science? if past experience is to go by, you are an expert is pretty much nothing outside of trolling.

 

[Deliverance]

Stopped reading at the first point. Because the earth's orbital axis has been considered. Also, the Milankovitch cycles do not correlate with our current global warming trends. Ie. We are at a midpoint in the tilt range and it has been decreasing while temperatures have been rising.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Stopped reading at the first point. Because the earth's orbital axis has been considered. Also, the Milankovitch cycles do not correlate with our current global warming trends. Ie. We are at a midpoint in the tilt range and it has been decreasing while temperatures have been rising.

I stopped reading when I saw it was another un-cited screen cap from old mate. Enough said.

 

[Deliverance]

I stopped reading when I saw it was another un-cited screen cap from old mate. Enough said.

If it was highlighted in yellow, I might've taken it more seriously.

 

[Crankitup]

Let me see some of your credentials which makes you an expert in climate science? if past experience is to go by, you are an expert is pretty much nothing outside of trolling.

You want Snake to have a climate science related degree to speak on the issue but you as a glorified accountant feel free to do the same? Nice.

Then again, since the battle to save us all from catastrophic climate change is being led by a mildly autistic child, it's no biggie.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You want Snake to have a climate science related degree to speak on the issue but you as a glorified accountant feel free to do the same? Nice.

Then again, since the battle to save us all from catastrophic climate change is being led by a mildly autistic child, it's no biggie.

I study molecular physics, which is a lot more relevant to this subject than all the computer programmers in the world combined.

The fact that this "cause" needs a poster child, speaks volumes for the quality of the data.

As for TP, it's clearly evident that he has serious ego issues.

 

[Crankitup]

I study molecular physics, which is a lot more relevant to this subject than all the computer programmers in the world combined.

The fact that this "cause" needs a poster child, speaks volumes for the quality of the data.

As for TP, it's clearly evident that he has serious ego issues.

And before that poster child who led the charge? A failed politician. Says a lot for the confidence they have in their position that they can't allow a climate scientist to be front and centre in case they make a mistake somewhere along the line and thus erode public confidence. Whereas if a child or politician stuffs up, no issue.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And before that poster child who led the charge? A failed politician. Says a lot for the confidence they have in their position that they can't allow a climate scientist to be front and centre.

This is what happens when something as lowbrow as politics interferes with science. It turns to s**t.

 

[medusala]

Let me see some of your credentials which makes you an expert in climate science? if past experience is to go by, you are an expert is pretty much nothing outside of trolling.

Appeal to authority fallacy. See current crisis. Its obvious that the ICL model was wrong but the media all jumped on it for its shock value.

You may as well say unless you have an economics degree / phd you cant criticise the economic policies of the government. As we all know economists have an utterly dire forecasting record.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Appeal to authority fallacy. See current crisis. Its obvious that the ICL model was wrong but the media all jumped on it for its shock value.

You may as well say unless you have an economics degree / phd you cant criticise the economic policies of the government. As we all know economists have an utterly dire forecasting record.

The completely clueless of the internet appeal to authority in order to grant themselves some kind of intellectual imprimatur.



.

I have pulled him up on his pontificating name dropping previously and pointed out that when wielded without knowledge it only serves to impress the completely non educated around the dinner table. He throws the term "peer review" around as if it is some "get out of jail card" for internet debating. You have to wonder what drives this kind of behavior, and some notorious historical figures come to mind.

 

[Total Power]

Appeal to authority fallacy. See current crisis. Its obvious that the ICL model was wrong but the media all jumped on it for its shock value.

You may as well say unless you have an economics degree / phd you cant criticise the economic policies of the government. As we all know economists have an utterly dire forecasting record.

I am not the one who is always picking on peoples qualifications ,Snakey is the one picking on peoples qualifications and judging whether they are 'experts' to comment on a certain topic but again refusing to accept the same standard to his commentaries.

Secondly, economics is not really 'science'. There is no verifiable of testifiable models as peoples behaviour cannot be predicted. However many climate models very fairly accurate in this regard.

Lastly, if i am willing to read a paper on 'climate science', i would rather read it from an expert in this field who dedicated their life to research than MA Music. It's not appeal to authority, it's common sense. You might wanna read about an Astrophysicists opinion on Neurology, i would rather read neurologists! not appeal to authority but common sense.

 

[Crankitup]

I am not the one who is always picking on peoples qualifications ,Snakey is the one ....

What a joke!

LOL!!!!!! LMAO..oh dear. Someone is clueless about the scientific method. Is your scientific qualification Open uni one? cause you are not qualified to talk about it.

What qualification do you think he has?

Obviously nothing very important.

What qualification do you think he has?

Obviously nothing very important.

I didnt see this gem. What was his qualification?

a quick google.

• M.D., Medical Academy in Krakow, 1952.
• Ph.D., Natural Sciences (doktor nauk przyrodniczych), 1963.
• D.Sc., Natural Sciences

That makes him an ice core scientist? he was a professor of atomic radation!

Remind us of your qualifications Snakey, and link us to your work. No?

Thought not.

This is your authors qualification

Education	MA in classics, 1974; diploma in journalism studies

LMAO! you are on fire! i thought pierre gosselin was a low for you. LOL oh dear. Even Deepak would be ashamed of quoting such people!

You are on fire, with your sources, have you checked the author, Dr Snakey? lol@the author, oh dear oh dear!!!!
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.

Can't quote this one because the thread is closed but here's a link #11,233. There's dozens and dozens more but for now let's finish with some hypocrisy.

It's always funny people here are asking "what qualifications do they have to talk about neuroscience" but it looks like the believers of the religion of science have the licence to talk about anything.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh this fine winter's evening.

Every time I see your avatar of Farage it gives me a chuckle too. The fight to keep the UK in the EU is over. Why keep torturing yourself with this glaring reminder of ideological defeat over Brexit?

 

[medusala]

Secondly, economics is not really 'science'. There is no verifiable of testifiable models as peoples behaviour cannot be predicted. However many climate models very fairly accurate in this regard.

No, the models have been shown to have very poor predictive ability. The climate is still poorly understood so the modelling is always going to be dodgy. Regardless climate models depends on economics as well. ie the Chinese growth rate and carbon intensity of their economy will matter hugely to climate change.

Lastly, if i am willing to read a paper on 'climate science', i would rather read it from an expert in this field who dedicated their life to research than MA Music. It's not appeal to authority, it's common sense.

Meh if you did that in economics you would likely be reading from someone who actually believes in magic pudding nonsense. Plenty of people with phds are just academics totally ignorant of the real world.

The UK economy has been trashed due to people relying on a so called expert and his model.

 

[iBeng]

This isnt good reading.

Human-induced climate change reversed 6,500-year global cooling trend

What would Earth’s climate naturally be doing if it weren’t for human intervention? Researchers at Northern Arizona University have now analyzed over 12,000 years of climate data, and found that human-induced warming interrupted and reversed a long-term natural global cooling period.

newatlas.com

 

[Total Power]

No, the models have been shown to have very poor predictive ability. The climate is still poorly understood so the modelling is always going to be dodgy. Regardless climate models depends on economics as well. ie the Chinese growth rate and carbon intensity of their economy will matter hugely to climate change.

I posted a research paper above, did you read? If not please do. Several models have done quite well, several didn't, that's expected out of forecasts. A couple of models from 1970 predicted it absolutely accurate, it depends on what you are reading.

Meh if you did that in economics you would likely be reading from someone who actually believes in magic pudding nonsense. Plenty of people with phds are just academics totally ignorant of the real world.

The UK economy has been trashed due to people relying on a so called expert and his model.

I don't disagree but what appeal to authority are you talking about? if you want to hear about neurology you talk to a neruoscientst, how is that 'appeal' to authority? Economics isn't exactly science. You can argue forecasts are not reliable and you may have a point there, no doctor will be able to tell you accurately you will have xxxx months to live if you have cancer. However you wish to ask a specialist, in the subject, not an astronomer, if you have cancer. This appeal to authority is a 'get out of jail' card when you can't defend your arguments.

 

[medusala]

I posted a research paper above, did you read? If not please do. Several models have done quite well, several didn't, that's expected out of forecasts. A couple of models from 1970 predicted it absolutely accurate, it depends on what you are reading.

Have read a bit of analysis re this and all the Hansen etc models were next to useless.

However you wish to ask a specialist, in the subject, not an astronomer, if you have cancer. This appeal to authority is a 'get out of jail' card when you can't defend your arguments.

Even with doctors its not a great idea. Unless you need a&e and or pregnant its actually best to avoid hospitals and tests as false positives outweigh the risk of false negatives. Take the coronavirus test currently used. Its crap. False results are so high as to render it virtually useless in the eyes of many. However the experts tell us its essential. See also experts at WHO being wrong about stopping international travel, human to human transmission, lack of asymptomatic transmission etc etc.

Its also completely clear that in the field of climate change a vast number of the "experts" there have been utterly FOS. They are heavily incentivised to magnify a problem. Just as these so called health experts want to overemphasise the dangers of coronavirus.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Have read a bit of analysis re this and all the Hansen etc models were next to useless.



Even with doctors its not a great idea. Unless you need a&e and or pregnant its actually best to avoid hospitals and tests as false positives outweigh the risk of false negatives. Take the coronavirus test currently used. Its crap. False results are so high as to render it virtually useless in the eyes of many. However the experts tell us its essential. See also experts at WHO being wrong about stopping international travel, human to human transmission, lack of asymptomatic transmission etc etc.

Its also completely clear that in the field of climate change a vast number of the "experts" there have been utterly FOS. They are heavily incentivised to magnify a problem. Just as these so called health experts want to overemphasise the dangers of coronavirus.

You're wasting your time. He's wholly invested in winning an internet contest, and not obtaining the truth.

 

[Total Power]

Have read a bit of analysis re this and all the Hansen etc models were next to useless.

Read some actual science, instead of reading propaganda papers.

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

Evaluation of uninitialized multidecadal climate model future projection performance provides a concrete test of model skill The quasi-linear relationship between model/observed forcings and temper...

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Even with doctors its not a great idea. Unless you need a&e and or pregnant its actually best to avoid hospitals and tests as false positives outweigh the risk of false negatives. Take the coronavirus test currently used. Its crap. False results are so high as to render it virtually useless in the eyes of many. However the experts tell us its essential. See also experts at WHO being wrong about stopping international travel, human to human transmission, lack of asymptomatic transmission etc etc.

Its also completely clear that in the field of climate change a vast number of the "experts" there have been utterly FOS. They are heavily incentivised to magnify a problem. Just as these so called health experts want to overemphasise the dangers of coronavirus.

And what do you think the Climate denial papers are doing? who funds them? there is no conflict of interest at all? Yet we are being bombarded by denialists with 'scientific paper' funded by Exxon and BP...continiously, specially from the likes of Snakey. I have challenged Snakey to post a single paper without a conflict of interest and he was unable to do that, yet you think all 'climate science' paper are paid to magnify the problem? this is absolute nonsense, 85% of the scientists are in agreement (yes yes i know appeal to authority), i would rather believe in them than people funded by FF industry and random Figbooty posters.

The planet is warming, the relationship between CO2 and temp rise is undeniable..i have posted plenty of evidence in this thread.

And as per as appeal to authority go, next you have a problem with your heart, go consult a gynecologist, you don't want appeal to authority.

 

[Deliverance]

Wonder if either of our parties have a plan for the coalworkers set to lose jobs in coming decades. Or if coal workers themselves will jump ship early.

45,000 renewables jobs are Australia’s for the taking – but how many will go to coal workers?

Some coal workers have the right skills and work in the right location to get a job in renewables. But many, such as semi-skilled machine operators, cannot.

theconversation.com