Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

That's a fair point, it's just a pity some bods at the Met office are actually pushing a narrative. There is no climate crisis. There is climate variability and we are in an age where there is an anthropogenic element to that change but how much or even if it is significant enough to do anything about, no one has any idea.

Oh that's reassuring - we're pumping billions of tons of climate affectig stuff into the atmosphere with unknown outcomes.

It cracks me up how 'sceptics' think uncertainty is their friend

[kerplunk]

There is no climate crisis. Nobody knows what the outcome is.

We don't know, but we do know - or something

Ok!

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

Oh that's reassuring - we're pumping billions of tons of climate affectig stuff into the atmosphere with unknown outcomes.

We've had a lot before, didn't seem to be a problem

[turbobloke]

Climate crisis ducks will never be in a row again, they're dead ducks.

Meanwhile Biden EPA Rules Will Cause Blackouts for Millions of Americans, Study Warns (pdf) climatewang strikes again.
https://www.ndic.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/...
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-...

Grid instability? Yes please! Or rather No Thanks. This warning agrees with views that have been aired by the USA grid watchdog, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, regional grid operators and power utility companies.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

Oh that's reassuring - we're pumping billions of tons of climate affectig stuff into the atmosphere with unknown outcomes.

We've had a lot before, didn't seem to be a problem

Ahh someone who *does* know has arrived

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

Oh that's reassuring - we're pumping billions of tons of climate affectig stuff into the atmosphere with unknown outcomes.

We've had a lot before, didn't seem to be a problem

Ahh someone who *does* know has arrived

[turbobloke]

Potentially of interest - climate politics at the climate politics blog Climate Depot, who'd have thought it.

Watermelon Communism: Meta AI Excuses ‘Degrowth Communism’ as Tool to Fight Climate Change
https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/06/13/watermelon...

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

[turbobloke]

Facebook at work:

https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/180029409695275...

[Essarell]

turbobloke said:

Potentially of interest - climate politics at the climate politics blog Climate Depot, who'd have thought it.

Watermelon Communism: Meta AI Excuses ‘Degrowth Communism’ as Tool to Fight Climate Change
https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/06/13/watermelon...

I suppose it comes as no surprise that science which has been flawed by ideology will then be interpreted as fact by a system set up by humans to simplify decision processes will then see humans as the root cause. Rubbish in / rubbish out.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Yes, just look at the remarkable correlation.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Facebook at work:

https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/180029409695275...

I had a post removed once - it was a link (with photo) to a website with lots of photos of baby albatross carcasses that had been fed plastic by the mother. I'm a photograher and mused that they would make attractive pictures for the wall - until you inspect what it is

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Refute it

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Yes, just look at the remarkable correlation.

So? Why hasn't the case for AGW collapsed because of it? It's all you need - simplez

[Essarell]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Yes, just look at the remarkable correlation.

So? Why hasn't the case for AGW collapsed because of it? It's all you need - simplez

It’s a bit like those completely nut job, Stone Age religions that billions of good citizens across the planet subscribe / devote themselves towards. We all know they are complete and utter rubbish and wholly made up but there’s no convincing some people…..

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Refute it

What's the point? The earth has changed a lot over that timeframe. The sun has got steadily hotter and yet earth's temperature has got colder. Does that mean the amount of solar energy received by earth doesn't affect earth's climate? Put that to turbobloke

[kerplunk]

Essarell said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Yes, just look at the remarkable correlation.

So? Why hasn't the case for AGW collapsed because of it? It's all you need - simplez

It’s a bit like those completely nut job, Stone Age religions that billions of good citizens across the planet subscribe / devote themselves towards. We all know they are complete and utter rubbish and wholly made up but there’s no convincing some people…..

Yeah sure - it's that

[robinessex]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Refute it

Temperature doesn't/didn't follow CO2, does it?

[kerplunk]

hey turbobloke, diderot and robinessex say your ideas about el sol are busted - what say you?

[durbster]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Refute it

I showed you that the bloke who made the graph said you are wrong, and you ignored that. If you're not even going to listen to the person who created the graph, why even bother asking? It just looks like attention seeking and it's pitiful.

The only thing your graph achieves is to draw out anyone else dumb enough to think it proves anything. Exhibit a:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Aww your favourite graph again. It's all you need in order to *know* - it was simple all along!

Yes, just look at the remarkable correlation.