Jump to content
Peter

Trump is the President

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Prince said:

I admire her passion..... but now can her parents please take her out the back and spank her for catastrophising the issue please. 

 

 

 

I truly believe she could have done that by video-link & saved the carbon cost of the travel.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

I admire her passion..... but now can her parents please take her out the back and spank her for catastrophising the issue please. 

 

 

 

All I hear is a kid that's very heavy on the anger and very light on viable solutions.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

I admire her passion..... but now can her parents please take her out the back and spank her for catastrophising the issue please. 

 

 

 

Some would suggest it's her parents who need a spanking...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All I hear is a kid that's very heavy on the anger and very light on viable solutions.

She's probably pissed off because we know what a lot of the solutions may be but . . . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee's that kid is sad.  I dont know how many of you have crossed picket lines and the like but using kids in that way is just wrong.  The green movement should be ashamed on how they exploit children.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, symo said:

She's probably pissed off because we know what a lot of the solutions may be but . . . 

So why isn't she proposing them, so all the world can hear?  Her audience isn't going to listen the demographic she's ranting at, so they need to listen to her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Oompa Loompa said:

Gee's that kid is sad.  I dont know how many of you have crossed picket lines and the like but using kids in that way is just wrong.  The green movement should be ashamed on how they exploit children.

When you're that far left, the end justifies any and all means

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I truly believe she could have done that by video-link & saved the carbon cost of the travel.

She sailed from London on a yacht. 0 emissions.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So why isn't she proposing them, so all the world can hear?  Her audience isn't going to listen the demographic she's ranting at, so they need to listen to her.

Maybe she has prior to this and you are just using one of her speeches to a bunch of old tossers, and lets face it the chance to rant at the UN would be too good a chance to pass up - maybe she's just a young kid and doesn't have a set of beautifully defined solutions but feels that what is currently happening isn't working so she feels people may need to wake up and lead.  

She certainly seems to have got them talking for a, what 16 year old kid... but hey it covers another angle of attack

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatPom said:

All I hear is a kid that's very heavy on the anger and very light on viable solutions.

 

38 minutes ago, FatPom said:

So why isn't she proposing them, so all the world can hear?  Her audience isn't going to listen the demographic she's ranting at, so they need to listen to her.

Did you listen to her entire speech? I didn't. For all I know, she may have mentioned possible solutions.

As a 16 year old school kid, is it her responsibility to articulate them anyway? Was the gist of her address that the politicians aren't satisfactorily addressing the issue or that was it specifically aimed  at what politicians should be doing?

It's not like there's a common blueprint for every government. Brazil, USA, China, etc all have very different challenges on this front.

I don't have a problem with a passionate and idealistic teenager wanting to change the world. Whatever her politics, I consider it way better seeing kids engaged in the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

She sailed from London on a yacht. 0 emissions.

Except four of the crew had to fly to get the boat returned.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

She sailed from London on a yacht. 0 emissions.

And then they flew crew over from Europe to help sail it home.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

 

Did you listen to her entire speech? I didn't. For all I know, she may have mentioned possible solutions.

As a 16 year old school kid, is it her responsibility to articulate them anyway? Was the gist of her address that the politicians aren't satisfactorily addressing the issue or that was it specifically aimed  at what politicians should be doing?

It's not like there's a common blueprint for every government. Brazil, USA, China, etc all have very different challenges on this front.

I don't have a problem with a passionate and idealistic teenager wanting to change the world. Whatever her politics, I consider it way better seeing kids engaged in the world.

If she wants to be taken seriously, rather than viewed as a mouthpiece for her parents, then I'd say yes.

I really admire her passion just not a fan of her methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Except four of the crew had to fly to get the boat returned.

Phhh.  Details...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul Every said:

Yeah, maybe we should listen to a 93 year old instead.

Not sure I'm following?   How is pointing the fact that the older generation don't have any solutions mitigating the fact that this young lady doesn't either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Not sure I'm following?   How is pointing the fact that the older generation don't have any solutions mitigating the fact that this young lady doesn't either?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/greta-thunberg-we-are-ignoring-natural-climate-solutions

She does

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Well that's been tried before. 'Plant a tree in '73'   there is little detail on who will give up their land for these trees and how it will be funded, or how the trees will grow in the areas that are most affected by CC?

I'm on your side here, I'd love to see some well thought out, viable solutions but all I hear is shouting, which is nauseating.  

I work in the telco industry, the amount of money, effort and initiative the 'old white guys' that this girl is shouting at, to combat CC and become CN, is absolutely staggering.

No everyone over 50 is 'doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice deflection yesterday but back on topic, it looks like the heat is on on DJT.
 

Some pretty serious allegations coming out of this Ukraine whistleblower complain and we haven’t even seen the complain itself yet. 
 

#maga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FatPom said:

Well that's been tried before. 'Plant a tree in '73'   there is little detail on who will give up their land for these trees and how it will be funded, or how the trees will grow in the areas that are most affected by CC?

I'm on your side here, I'd love to see some well thought out, viable solutions but all I hear is shouting, which is nauseating.  

I work in the telco industry, the amount of money, effort and initiative the 'old white guys' that this girl is shouting at, to combat CC and become CN, is absolutely staggering.

No everyone over 50 is 'doing nothing.

bob hawke said he was planting a billion trees in 1989.  did he get it done, or just hooked the beers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FatPom said:

So why isn't she proposing them, so all the world can hear?  Her audience isn't going to listen the demographic she's ranting at, so they need to listen to her.

They have solutions. On the https://globalclimatestrike.net/ website there's a link to this website https://www.peoplesdemands.org/#read-the-demands-section. Entertaining reading 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming. Hmmm, The ski seasons seem to be getting better each year...Was skiing last week and had 10 cms of snow. Even yesterday there was more snow (5cm"s) as low as 560m in some areas.

5 years ago the climate change nutters were say there would be no ski season left in Australia within 10 years ie: 2025. We are nearly there.

Yesterday the base was reported to be 2 metres still, but even I would says that's exaggerated.... But there is still heaps.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Global warming. Hmmm, The ski seasons seem to be getting better each year...Was skiing last week and had 10 cms of snow. Even yesterday there was more snow (5cm"s) as low as 560m in some areas.

5 years ago the climate change nutters were say there would be no ski season left in Australia within 10 years ie: 2025. We are nearly there.

Yesterday the base was reported to be 2 metres still, but even I would says that's exaggerated.... But there is still heaps.  

 

it was cold yesterday what is this global warming scam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oompa Loompa said:

bob hawke said he was planting a billion trees in 1989.  did he get it done, or just hooked the beers.

He was too busy ending childhood poverty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Oompa Loompa said:

bob hawke said he was planting a billion trees in 1989.  did he get it done, or just hooked the beers.

Did he atleast attempt? I have no idea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Global warming. Hmmm, The ski seasons seem to be getting better each year...Was skiing last week and had 10 cms of snow. Even yesterday there was more snow (5cm"s) as low as 560m in some areas.

5 years ago the climate change nutters were say there would be no ski season left in Australia within 10 years ie: 2025. We are nearly there.

Yesterday the base was reported to be 2 metres still, but even I would says that's exaggerated.... But there is still heaps.  

 

HOW DARE YOU!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rog said:

Nice deflection yesterday but back on topic, it looks like the heat is on on DJT.
 

Some pretty serious allegations coming out of this Ukraine whistleblower complain and we haven’t even seen the complain itself yet. 
 

#maga

The 'complaint' you refer to has it's genesis in a corruption allegation involving Joe Biden 

The Democrats have been desperately searching for something impeachable since November 2016, but I really don't think they'd be wise to pick a topic which could easily blow back on their 2020 frontrunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

it was cold yesterday what is this global warming scam

Indeed. The confusion between weather and global climate is one that is made too often as well as the use of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change interchangeably which appears to be either a wilful attempt to cloud the issue or a determined ignorance of the changing awareness of the local impacts of man made carbon emissions. There is also the desire to take a collection of personal anecdotes and somehow use that as a credible argument against vast amounts of actual data collected by actual scientists.

The greatest indicator of the worthiness of what Ms Thunberg has to say is the collection of folk lining up to attempt to discredit her. If she really is a "Petulant Child" then she should be ignored, that's what you do with petulant children. What she is is a threat to the established order and they're running scared.

To FP's comment about solutions, there are solutions but none of them are free. They will require everybody to make changes to their lifestyles (not necessarily for the worse, but people don't like change) and as a global society we're not ready for that yet. See comments in this post as evidence or look back at the outraged frothing over the plastic bag ban.

We live in democracies which means that change will only happen with the consent of people, for them to give that consent they first need to be made aware, and then be persuaded of the facts. Once that is done then we can begin to look at solutions. This is the first step in a long journey.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, monkie said:

We live in democracies which means that change will only happen with the consent of people, for them to give that consent they first need to be made aware, and then be persuaded of the facts. Once that is done then we can begin to look at solutions. This is the first step in a long journey.

Agree 100%

Unfortunately though, this has evolved into yet another topic where opposing views are viewed as heresy, and anyone who doesn't tow the line is branded as dopey and/or morally deficient 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Agree 100%

Unfortunately though, this has evolved into yet another topic where opposing views are viewed as heresy, and anyone who doesn't tow the line is branded as dopey and/or morally deficient 

Or if you look from the other side, a gullible idiot who's fallen for the biggest con in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Or if you look from the other side, a gullible idiot who's fallen for the biggest con in history.

No doubt there are people who share that view, yes

Not helpful stuff from either side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Agree 100%

Unfortunately though, this has evolved into yet another topic where opposing views are viewed as heresy, and anyone who doesn't tow the line is branded as dopey and/or morally deficient 

I think most of that is targeted at Ms Thenburg. I am more than happy for somebody to present credible evidence that contradicts the vast majority of scientific research that exists.

It has to be a bit more than "There's still snow in Australia" though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monkie said:

It has to be a bit more than "There's still snow in Australia" though.

Looking from the other side of the Tasman though, we went to NZ 3 or 4 years ago & were lucky enough to be upgraded to the penthouse of the hotel we were staying at in Queenstown, overlooking the lake. The reason: It was 3 weeks into snow season and only 1 of the fields were was open & it was using only manufactured snow. It was the warmest start to the season they'd ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Looking from the other side of the Tasman though, we went to NZ 3 or 4 years ago & were lucky enough to be upgraded to the penthouse of the hotel we were staying at in Queenstown, overlooking the lake. The reason: It was 3 weeks into snow season and only 1 of the fields were was open & it was using only manufactured snow. It was the warmest start to the season they'd ever had.

Indeed. That's the problem with anecdotes.

The world is heating up at the moment, there can be no disputing that as a fact.

There is some dispute around the causes of this, the effects of this and weather this is anything but usual cycles. The significant majority consensus in the scientific community is that it is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the effects whilst currently manageable will be severe and significant if allowed to go unchecked.

There is then a perfectly sensible debate and discussion to be had about what we do about it but that cannot happen until people stop denying the existence of the issue in the first place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monkie said:

I am more than happy for somebody to present credible evidence that contradicts the vast majority of scientific research that exists.

There is a significant amount of evidence that the warming is being overstated by leading researchers and advocates.  There is ample evidence that many temperature records which should be getting normalised downwards due to changes in local conditions that would act to increase the recorded temperature relative to the original installations are instead being revised upwards.  There is also clear evidence that the trend is not behaving as it should based on CO2 emissions (not that there's no connection, just that there are unknown factors interfering.)  The problem with using a term like credible is that you then get to use it to dismiss anything you don't agree with.

51 minutes ago, monkie said:

The world is heating up at the moment, there can be no disputing that as a fact.

There is some dispute around the causes of this, the effects of this and weather this is anything but usual cycles. The significant majority consensus in the scientific community is that it is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the effects whilst currently manageable will be severe and significant if allowed to go unchecked.

There is then a perfectly sensible debate and discussion to be had about what we do about it but that cannot happen until people stop denying the existence of the issue in the first place.

And yet there is dispute on that "fact" because the data isn't clear enough to be that definitive.

There is significant dispute around the cause, though little of it coming from the group loosely defined as climate scientists.  It's not a big surprise, the profession has all the right settings to be rife with confirmation bias.  Consensus is not and never was science.  We don't believe in gravity because 100% of "gravity scientists" say they believe it, we know it exists because we can consistently, repeatedly and without fail test for its existence.  We STILL don't know why it is though.

Assuming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas is the majority driver though, we actually have zero idea about what the effects will be.  The models themselves give us a broad range of outcomes just in terms of temperature variation, at the extreme highs relying on an uncapped domino effect.  If we look back to what we do know from history, both recorded and observed in the geological records, earth actually does better at warmer temperatures than what we currently have.  Would that be the same for the future?  Maybe, maybe not.  All we can really be confident of is that it would be different.  The human race has never been more mobile or able to overcome difficulties of distance than ever before.

Having said that, I do believe that the globe is warming to at least some extent.  I do think that it may be driven by human activities (greenhouse emissions and other factors) at least in part.  I don't think there is credible evidence that the results will be overall catastrophic, though there will likely be winners and losers.  The one thing that I am 100% certain of is that the earth's population as a whole will be unable to bring themselves to submit to the sacrifices that would be necessary to meet targets set as they stand now let alone what they will be ratcheted up.  Australia, the U.S. and Europe meeting their targets will do little if all it does is shift the emissions to Africa or Asia.  Are the Asian and African countries going to submit their people to a slower advancement to a middle-class society?  Good luck with that.  Wealthy developed nations can't even accept it when they're talking about differences in fractions of percent growth.

To me it makes more sense to spend money on overcoming the potential consequences than to try and stop it happening.  If it pans out as predicted we are prepared(ish).  If it doesn't then we have developed ways to survive and thrive in more extreme conditions which will open up new opportunities on earth and perhaps eventually beyond.  For the human race it's a no-lose scenario.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Paul Every said:

She sailed from London on a yacht. 0 emissions.

But how was the yacht made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Stikman said:

And yet there is dispute on that "fact" because the data isn't clear enough to be that definitive.

No there is not. 

GlobalTemp.png.374e4cea61a870747d8ccab0bb7f4581.png

Unless you are claiming that NASA are lying. In which case we're so far into tinfoil hat territory that there is no hope.

So the world is currently getting hotter. I have already agreed with all your other points. The causes, the severity, whether it is an anomoly or simply part of natural cycles and what to do about it are all under scrutiny.

And you are incorrect to say that science is not about consensus. Of course it is. It is about using the collection of data to form opinions that are based on the balance of probabilities. There are no 100%s in science because we live in a probabilistic world and hence you will always have dissent, the trouble is that that dissent is then seized upon by those who use it as "evidence" that the rest is all wrong and incorrect. It's exactly the same as the anti-vax movement. Scientists will never say vaccines are 100% safe, because there are no certainties in the real world. In the same way scientists will not say that the current warming is 100% due to human behaviour. The majority will say that on the balance of probabilities this is the most likely explanation and a minority will disagree. That's the way of the world. 

This is also much more than "scientists saying" stuff. There is research and data and rigour behind the work that they do. Furthermore, not all scientists or scientific organisations are equal. You will claim that "Climate Scientists" have an inbuilt bias and desire to prove their own theories, I would counter that with the suggestion to look at where the funding is coming from for a lot of the people on the other side of the fence. No science is completely without bias, again, one has to take the balance of probabilities.

The solution to the problem requires global thinking, it will involve a combination of technology and lifestyle changes. Many of those changes are simple and easy to achieve. They also have benefits outside of climate change. Lower emission vehicles improve air quality and hence health outcomes, reducing disposable plastic use reduces pollution in our oceans which means there's more beautiful wildlife for us to enjoy and cleaner beaches, reducing meat consumption (not removing it, just reducing it) improves health outcomes. It won't necessarily be easy, but then very few things that are worth doing are. 

The tired argument of "there's no point in us doing it if China keep doing that" is now outdated. China is already moving on a path to reduce carbon, they already generate 25% of their electricity through renewable resources. I'm using China here as a proxy for "Africa" & "Asia". As technologies improve there will be no need for those countries to replicate the carbon intensive growth that developed countries did. Why would countries building new power stations now use technology that is 50 years old? They won't they will use the most modern tech and hence will achieve similar economic prosperity without either the same level carbon cost or the other environmental costs.

E2A: Could you please provide a link to the sources for the evidence that temperatures are being overstated? I would genuinely like to see it and a Google for "evidence that temperature increase is being overstated" doesn't bring up anything useful. Edit to further add I found this: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf which is very interesting and I think references what you are referring to. It still finds that the earth has warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 250 years.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Turtle said:

But how was the yacht made?

It's a pointless argument anyway. Of course there was a cost associated with her going there but in her calculations (and I agree) the benefit of the awareness she raised outweighs that cost in the long term. 

The idea that anybody who thinks that we should, do something about the environment perhaps for example, reduce our reliance on fossil and not be opening up new coal mines should only be listened to if they completely remove themselves from modern society is simply a straw man argument created by people with no better arguments to fall back on.

mister-gotcha-4-9faefa.png?auto=compress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously Monkie?  We have hacked emails about "tricks" of interpretation and even outright omissions (or should that be emissions) by the organisations that collect that data (including our own BOM) that illustrate that the data being used is at very least compromised.  It doesn't matter how expert your science is after that, any conclusion is suspect.  And it's not just data on temperature that the theory of AGW depends on, from solar activity to land development there are literally hundreds if not thousands of questionable data sets being used.

And no offense intended but for someone that loves data you should be able to recognise good data from bad.  When data series are "homogenised" but those doing so are unable or refuse to explain even how, let alone why, you know that should be treated with suspicion.  Even more so when the adjustments go in the opposite direction to what common sense would dictate (i.e. weather stations gradually surrounded by heat islands get temperatures adjusted up instead of down???)

The only consensus in science is consensus that a theory cannot (on current evidence) be disproved and is therefore the best available explanation.  What climate science is is really statistical analysis.  Statements about consensus in science are nonsensical.  The 97% consensus statement is based upon analysis of published (i.e. peer reviewed) papers, you know that don't you?  It's not a survey of knowledgeable parties and even if it were that could still cover the gamut from those who think it's reasonably possible to those who think it's 100% certain.  If 95 of those 97% are at the lower end of belief it makes a whole heap of difference to the level of certainty but the statement reads the same.

Whether the data is dodgy or not though is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.  If we assume it is fine it doesn't change the pragmatism of the situation that we face.  Spend lots of money on mitigation which only has a benefit if AGW is the threat we are told it is AND we can get global action to the level required AND it has the effect we predict (even if one is taken as a certainty the other two are  far more questionable) is one option.  The other is to put our resources into dealing with the consequences which has benefit whether global warming is real regardless of the cause or not.  The only argument to pursue the mitigation option in preference is the result of ideology rather than rational thought.

1 hour ago, monkie said:

You will claim that "Climate Scientists" have an inbuilt bias and desire to prove their own theories, I would counter that with the suggestion to look at where the funding is coming from for a lot of the people on the other side of the fence.

I don't need claim it, there's ample evidence that the peer review system is essentially set up in a manner that facilitates confirmation bias.  But if you want to play the strawman funding bias card then you can't apply it selectively.  Name me a single significant AGW researcher whose livelihood (and that of his peers, superiors and subordinates) doesn't disappear or significantly diminish along with their prestige if findings start to indicate that it may not be all it's cracked up to be?  I'll wait.  The ones that dissent are blackballed, torn down and dismissed making the payoff (if there is one) very short term.  To borrow a phrase that is often used in terms of doping, you don't spit in the soup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stikman said:

Seriously Monkie?  We have hacked emails about "tricks" of interpretation and even outright omissions (or should that be emissions) by the organisations that collect that data (including our own BOM) that illustrate that the data being used is at very least compromised.  It doesn't matter how expert your science is after that, any conclusion is suspect.  And it's not just data on temperature that the theory of AGW depends on, from solar activity to land development there are literally hundreds if not thousands of questionable data sets being used.

And no offense intended but for someone that loves data you should be able to recognise good data from bad.  When data series are "homogenised" but those doing so are unable or refuse to explain even how, let alone why, you know that should be treated with suspicion.  Even more so when the adjustments go in the opposite direction to what common sense would dictate (i.e. weather stations gradually surrounded by heat islands get temperatures adjusted up instead of down???)

If you are talking about UEA email hacking then some further reading would be useful: https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm.

None of that amounts to "significant evidence" unless you have an alternative source that is not refuted by the comprehensive resource above? If you do, please share it.

I already linked to a resource that addresses the heat islands, it concluded that temperatures increased even controlling for all of that. If you have a resource that disproves it or provides evidence otherwise then again, please share it.

 

"The other is to put our resources into dealing with the consequences which has benefit whether global warming is real regardless of the cause or not."

Could you explain this a bit more please? I gave specific examples of where mitigation would also have benefits. By dealing with the consequences do you mean raising Bangladesh by a bit? What would be the benefit of that if climate change is not the issue?

Edited: My last sentence was unnecessarily forthright, I have corrected to more polite language.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point with the CRU revelations.  The concern is about intent for scientific deception, that someone can find a way to defend the action is irrelevant.  The emails clearly revealed deceptive conduct.  Any scientist who wants to hide data is something we should be VERY concerned about.  Without intellectual honesty science doesn't exist.

The heat island reference was with respect to individual data sets for stations.  Raw temperature data would naturally rise as the effect of surrounding development creating a heat island effect, no?  To adjust for the rise created and normalise against pre-development data you should then decrease the raw numbers, yes?  Why then do some of these actually get increased (or historical data decreased)instead?  And with your misunderstanding of what I was referring to it reveals the issue anyway.  "Controlling for" is simply another way of saying they modified the data which even if based on well educated guesses is significant when we are talking about climate change currently measured in fractions of a degree.  The error margin is significant.

Your examples of mitigation included such great ideas as lower emission vehicles improving health outcomes (the emissions that create health issues have nothing to do with CO2), reducing single use plastics (plastics are actually a carbon sink, especially those not made from crude oil) and eating less meat (which has little evidence of positive health outcomes outside of the developed world where we tend to over-indulge.)  Only the latter is actually a greenhouse gas mitigation.  What I'm talking about is developing methods to allow agriculture in more extreme environments and living in the same.  Whether or not climate change happens these have major benefits to society.

As for Bangladesh being under water you are thinking far too narrow mindedly.  I'd rather lift them out of poverty so that they could move somewhere else if they had too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stikman said:

You miss the point with the CRU revelations.  The concern is about intent for scientific deception, that someone can find a way to defend the action is irrelevant.  The emails clearly revealed deceptive conduct.  Any scientist who wants to hide data is something we should be VERY concerned about.  Without intellectual honesty science doesn't exist.

The heat island reference was with respect to individual data sets for stations.  Raw temperature data would naturally rise as the effect of surrounding development creating a heat island effect, no?  To adjust for the rise created and normalise against pre-development data you should then decrease the raw numbers, yes?  Why then do some of these actually get increased (or historical data decreased)instead?  And with your misunderstanding of what I was referring to it reveals the issue anyway.  "Controlling for" is simply another way of saying they modified the data which even if based on well educated guesses is significant when we are talking about climate change currently measured in fractions of a degree.  The error margin is significant.

Your examples of mitigation included such great ideas as lower emission vehicles improving health outcomes (the emissions that create health issues have nothing to do with CO2), reducing single use plastics (plastics are actually a carbon sink, especially those not made from crude oil) and eating less meat (which has little evidence of positive health outcomes outside of the developed world where we tend to over-indulge.)  Only the latter is actually a greenhouse gas mitigation.  What I'm talking about is developing methods to allow agriculture in more extreme environments and living in the same.  Whether or not climate change happens these have major benefits to society.

As for Bangladesh being under water you are thinking far too narrow mindedly.  I'd rather lift them out of poverty so that they could move somewhere else if they had too.

There was no evidence found of misconduct. Have you read the link I shared? 9 investigations. No misconduct. If you have a source that shows otherwise then for the second time I invite you to share it. Many of the allegations of impropriety come from taking quotes out of context including "the trick" you yourself referred to.

On the second point, again did you read the link? It specifically addressed your concerns. Again if you have evidence other than your hearsay then please do share it, I would be genuinely interested.

On the last point you appear to being deliberately obtuse. Low emission vehicles emit less carbon as well as less particulates, the two go hand in hand.

My suggestion about plastic reduction was referring to a general decrease in disposable consumption. Reducing frivolous throwaway consumption reduces energy consumption.

And yes, eating less meat in the developed world has positive health outcomes... I'm not sure what your point is?

And finally where are you going to put all those people from Bangladesh?  

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, monkie said:

 

To FP's comment about solutions, there are solutions but none of them are free. They will require everybody to make changes to their lifestyles (not necessarily for the worse, but people don't like change) and as a global society we're not ready for that yet. See comments in this post as evidence or look back at the outraged frothing over the plastic bag ban.

 

 

I know they're not free, I live it every day, more than probably anyone on this site. It is literally, how I make my living. Unfortunately, it's extremely expensive and the industry I work in, provides the platform that the under 40s absolutely cannot live without.

Here's the rub though,  everyone wants faster, cheaper MMIMO and multi layer technology and greater geo coverage and that means shipping goods, using land that would have had trees on it and very high energy usage.  It is massively expensive to put solutions in place that offset some of this but guess what, companies and (shock horror) some older white guys are actually doing this.  I know that doesn't fit the agenda but there it is!

I'm not trying to discredit her message, I'm questioning her methods and how much she truly knows about how the real world works, because I have a horrible suspicion that to make a genuine difference, the very generation that is shouting the loudest, is the one that's truly the most ill equipped to 'go without'.

If you want to really know about how to make make massive change, re-cycle and reduce waste, ask someone that grew up during the war. (you know, old people!)

Edited by FatPom
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Friday there was a climate change rally in Dundee. I was walking by it during my lunch break.

Amazed by how many participants were sitting in McDonalds grabbing a bite to eat. 😞

Fully agree that people don't have the will to go without and suffer the consequences of winding down the big Earth damaging industries that got us into this mess.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monkie said:

And finally where are you going to put all those people from Bangladesh?  

Same place you do when the sea level still rises probably.  Better chance of being able to feed them though.

Trump wasn't found to have engage in misconduct with Russia either but as four of the nine "investigations" were from universities actually involved it's no surprise.  The UK Government report however did find evidence of Phil Jones acting illegally to circumvent FOI laws but it was time barred from prosecution.

Your link about the CRU emails is very clear though on "the trick" which demonstrates exactly why the data can't be trusted.  The current (then) observations of tree ring growth didn't marry up with temperature observations according to their model which they had been using to create historical temperature records.  Now a reasonable person might question the accuracy of their model (and therefore their proxy temperatures) and look for a better model that accounts for it all.  Instead they assume the old data is right and make adjustments!  That is simply not solid scientific process.  The truth is that most of the proxy data we have for temperature is imprecise at best, inaccurate at worst, because there are compounding factors yet we are led to believe that it's good enough to state with certainty a trend within a tenth of a degree.  Spare me, please.

In any event, I think we're spoiling this thread with stuff that is mostly irrelevant to it and that we are unlikely to find agreement on so let's either dig up the old AGW thread or leave it alone for now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stikman said:

You miss the point with the CRU revelations.  The concern is about intent for scientific deception, that someone can find a way to defend the action is irrelevant.  The emails clearly revealed deceptive conduct.  Any scientist who wants to hide data is something we should be VERY concerned about.  Without intellectual honesty science doesn't exist.

Exactly 

Why would someone try to 'hide a decline' if they were fair dinkum about objective analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/09/2019 at 7:16 PM, Paul Every said:

 

Did you listen to her entire speech? I didn't. 

I did....... and it’s quite embarrassing. Can’t believe people actually applauded and tried to give it credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting.  

The bit about 5 mins in.  That the USA were going to protect them back in them90s or whenever and then trump shacks them down.  

I still think they have no chance of impeachment but its int History that I didn’t know. 

https://www.pscp.tv/w/cFvG7nR3LTExMDA5ODMyNzkwNDAxOTI1MTJ8MU93R1dkbXZrT2VKUUDsfHuvkpqSD9Ya1uSzUeRMTeGH4u822sv1B76S5LGa?t=5m46s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...