Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Pan Pan Pan]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

...
How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

But they are dealing with it?

Yes, exactly.

Despite it being a pain in the arse politically they are* dealing with it because - unlike people posting on internet threads - they can't afford the convenience of ignoring all the evidence and simply pretending it doesn't exist.

*sort of

And yet you are blythely able to ignore, what is at the very root of what is causing the rise in CO2 levels. Why do you do that?

[turbobloke]

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

[beagrizzly]

On this day of days I am mostly wondering, despite this supposedly being the 'immigration election', how many votes Reform have won by virtue of being the only party to call out net zero as expensive bks the country could well do without

[Essarell]

beagrizzly said:

On this day of days I am mostly wondering, despite this supposedly being the 'immigration election', how many votes Reform have won by virtue of being the only party to call out net zero as expensive bks the country could well do without

Farage managed to raise EU membership to the point of a referendum whilst hardly winning a UKIP seat, Net Zero is a walk in the park in comparison.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

Do you know if any other countries have similar policies based on the same data? Or is it just the UK?

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

The desperation to post the same old tripe over and over again is getting weird now. 8 papers over 6 years opposing the scientific consensus against a climate of rising temperatures due to Co2 emissions. Still waiting for at least one retort to my critique of the papers.

Christy is acknowledging maybe CO2 emissions are having an impact.

No papers propose an alternative hypothesis of the current warming trend but only offer a critique of why not CO2.

Someone will no doubt post that hypothesis cannot be proposed because of chaos! or maybe explain my misunderstanding of consensus or a hypothesis? Or maybe post another distraction other than an alternate hypothesis?

[dickymint]

beagrizzly said:

On this day of days I am mostly wondering, despite this supposedly being the 'immigration election', how many votes Reform have won by virtue of being the only party to call out net zero as expensive bks the country could well do without

This one thing has seriously made me think who to vote for - I've a 5 minute walk to decide when I take the dog out in a bit!!

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

beagrizzly said:

On this day of days I am mostly wondering, despite this supposedly being the 'immigration election', how many votes Reform have won by virtue of being the only party to call out net zero as expensive bks the country could well do without

This one thing has seriously made me think who to vote for - I've a 5 minute walk to decide when I take the dog out in a bit!!

They need a good few MPs in the HoC to get reality back in focus.

[dickymint]

Had to stick with Tory in the end as the new boundary changes gives David (TC) Davies a slim chance of hanging on :fingerscrossed:

He is a known MMGW realist

[robinessex]

Labour won the election. Net Zero will be implemented Friday week at 13:00 GMT

[swisstoni]

robinessex said:

Labour won the election. Net Zero will be implemented Friday week at 13:00 GMT

If wet, meet in scout hut.

[Dingu]

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

And happily it shouldn’t be too long till half the climate change deniers are on their way to becoming oil for us to use.

[mike9009]

Dingu said:

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

And happily it shouldn’t be too long till half the climate change deniers are on their way to becoming oil for us to use.

A little harsh. I just want to know what these eminent climate scientists think is driving the increasing temps?

Alas, these great contrary 'scientists' cannot come up with an alternate theory themselves. Just publish crap because it does not agree with their political ideals.

Silence again, team denial??

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

Dingu said:

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

And happily it shouldn’t be too long till half the climate change deniers are on their way to becoming oil for us to use.

A little harsh. I just want to know what these eminent climate scientists think is driving the increasing temps?

Alas, these great contrary 'scientists' cannot come up with an alternate theory themselves. Just publish crap because it does not agree with their political ideals.

Silence again, team denial??

You clearly haven't read the papers, that question ^ is based on a false assumption / statement.

It's at the same level as asking why Labour didn't win the election.

As to deniers, grow up!

[turbobloke]

More backtracking, politicians are losing the game.

https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/europas-groesst...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

Dingu said:

turbobloke said:

Contrary to UK political policy based on inadequate climate models, ignoring any reasons for increasing carbon dioxide levels is fine because when examining empirical data it's clear that:

- CO2 levels do not determine ocean pH or global temperature (Cannell 2024)
-the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emisssions is insufficient to cause systematic changes in the pattern of temperature fluctuations (Dagsvik & Moen 2023)
-there is no climate crisis and no need for prompt CO2 reduction programmes (Ollila 2023)
-the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 300ppmv to 400ppmv+ has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect (Koutsoyiannis & Vournas 2023)
-humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate (Mao et al 2019)
-there is no propensity or capacity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect (Fleming 2018)
-empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change (Fleming 2018)
-the assumption in climate models, relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects, fail against data (McKitrick and Christy 2018)

And happily it shouldn’t be too long till half the climate change deniers are on their way to becoming oil for us to use.

A little harsh. I just want to know what these eminent climate scientists think is driving the increasing temps?

Alas, these great contrary 'scientists' cannot come up with an alternate theory themselves. Just publish crap because it does not agree with their political ideals.

Silence again, team denial??

You clearly haven't read the papers, that question ^ is based on a false assumption / statement.

It's at the same level as asking why Labour didn't win the election.

As to deniers, grow up!

Grow up? from you? mystic met?

I have read most of those 'scientific' papers. I have given my thoughts, but silence? Why?

Why are the temps rising? If not co2, then what is it? Silence, why?

Not a false assumption, I would like to know why the temps are rising?

[turbobloke]

The paper authors do give causes which are consistent with empirical data and causality.

However, UK climate-energy policy isn't based on what the causes are. It's based on what the cause isn't - which the papers also make very clear - so it's ineffective, foolish, ultimately dangerous, and unaffordably expensive too.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

The paper authors do give causes which are consistent with empirical data and causality.

However, UK climate-energy policy isn't based on what the causes are. It's based on what the cause isn't - which the papers also make very clear - so it's ineffective, foolish, ultimately dangerous, and unaffordably expensive too.

Thanks, could you provide an example from the papers of what is causing the rising temperatures as I could not find it.

These are not difficult questions......

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th July 08:36

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

The paper authors do give causes which are consistent with empirical data and causality.

However, UK climate-energy policy isn't based on what the causes are. It's based on what the cause isn't - which the papers also make very clear - so it's ineffective, foolish, ultimately dangerous, and unaffordably expensive too.

Thanks, could you provide an example from the papers of what is causing the rising temperatures as I could not find it.

These are not difficult questions......

No, they're spurious. They're so easy you'd know already if you'd read the papers. Changes in temperature arise from a known range of natural forcings including low level cloud cover, ocean-atmosphere coupling (ENSO), solar variability in particular solar eruptivity (solar wind), UV (irradiance) and, longer-term, Milankovich cycles. Sporadic changes are linked to volcanism.

Kato and Rose 2024, increasing ToA imbalance caused by increases in absorbed shortwave irradiance (CO2 absorbs longwave i.e. IR).
Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, water vapour dominates the greenhouse effect which has shown no discernible change from CO2 increasing 300ppmv to 400 ppmv
Ollila 2023, cloud cover changes amplify TSI variation.

Further back in answer to other time-wasting questions e.g. during previous attrition loops I've cited and quoted from Bucha and Bucha (auroral oval forcing from solar eruptivity) and Svensmark (high energy cosmic ray flux - low level cloud cover changes - albedo changes).

As temperature changes are clearly not caused by CO2 levels, the causes have no relation to wrong-minded government climate policy as they cannot be micromanaged by politicians operating p/t via taxes and behaviourak controls.

In any case temperatures are rising and falling, pick your timescale.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

The paper authors do give causes which are consistent with empirical data and causality.

However, UK climate-energy policy isn't based on what the causes are. It's based on what the cause isn't - which the papers also make very clear - so it's ineffective, foolish, ultimately dangerous, and unaffordably expensive too.

Thanks, could you provide an example from the papers of what is causing the rising temperatures as I could not find it.

These are not difficult questions......

No, they're spurious. They're so easy you'd know already if you'd read the papers. Changes in temperature arise from a known range of natural forcings including low level cloud cover, ocean-atmosphere coupling (ENSO), solar variability in particular solar eruptivity (solar wind), UV (irradiance) and, longer-term, Milankovich cycles. Sporadic changes are linked to volcanism.

Kato and Rose 2024, increasing ToA imbalance caused by increases in absorbed shortwave irradiance (CO2 absorbs longwave i.e. IR).
Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, water vapour dominates the greenhouse effect which has shown no discernible change from CO2 increasing 300ppmv to 400 ppmv
Ollila 2023, cloud cover changes amplify TSI variation.

Further back in answer to other time-wasting questions e.g. during previous attrition loops I've cited and quoted from Bucha and Bucha (auroral oval forcing from solar eruptivity) and Svensmark (high energy cosmic ray flux - low level cloud cover changes - albedo changes).

As temperature changes are clearly not caused by CO2 levels, the causes have no relation to wrong-minded government climate policy as they cannot be micromanaged by politicians operating p/t via taxes and behaviourak controls.

In any case temperatures are rising and falling, pick your timescale.

Phew, thanks. I will take a read. I don't think it is time wasting.

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th July 10:01