COP26 progress or same old
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
ey_tony
Established Member
Don't be lazy you can track down information just as easily as the rest of us.
Though I see it could be difficult if you think you already know it all!
Classic.
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Seems to be nobody then?
The deniers are in a bit of a dilemma as in spite of their dismissal of the science as an elaborate fraud, it seems to be happening anyway, pretty much as forecast!
Or are all the reports we get also faked and exaggerated?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-record-rainfall-graphics-1.6254271
Last edited:
ey_tony
Established Member
As an unswerving believer, you must believe that anthropogenic generated CO2 is entirely responsible for any observable shift in our climate that we see today, am I correct?
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Nothing to do with "belief" it's about the science. You are the one with the unswerving faith in nonsense.
No you are not correct. In fact if anything the holocene was cooling gradually - have a look at the hockey stick graph. The big anthropogenic shift of recent years actually reversed a cooling trend and sent it leaping to unprecedented heights. But it could also be that other human activities were the cause of the slow decline preceding the modern rise, or may even have done the opposite and delayed it.
Lotsa details here in this randomly googled item The Holocene temperature conundrum which how difficult it has been to reach a consensus. It shows how sceptical the science itself is - we have no need of uber sceptics like Piers Corbyn, or the daft berks you find on the internet
But the evidence is now with us loud and strong which seems to prove the general hypothesis, whatever the details, and the deniers are melting away, rather like the ice caps and the glaciers (except in David Bellamy's never-never land
!)
Last edited:
ey_tony
Established Member
OK. So based on your comments and unswerving faith in science, it's safe to assume from what you say that if it wasn't for the intervention of anthropogenic origin CO2 and its effect on the climate, then we would could well be in the grip of an ice advance right now...is that how you see it?
Speaking of the Hockey Stick graph, you still haven't explained why Mann et al thought it necessary to leave out of the Hockey Stick hypothesis, both the MWP and the LIA?
Those events are recorded not only in the Northern Hemisphere which were effectively dismissed as localised non-events by Mann et al in order to make the Hockey stick analogy fit with his flawed data, but those same non-events are evident in proxy studies in several countries in the Southern Hemisphere too where studies were carried out, showing that they are synchronous with these so called 'non-events in the Northern Hemisphere.
How do you explain that?
Droogs
Not the Sharpest Moderator in the box
no, but it is exacerbating it at an exponential level. It is foreshortening the period of change in a way that the bioshpere can not cope with.
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Have a look at the graphs. Do you see them leading to an ice age if not for the modern sudden uplift?
Read the links again. It's not that difficult to understand and it's been gone over at great lengths now for 20 years. You shouldn't still be struggling with it!
True or false - makes no difference to the general hypothesis and the evidence is now with us.
I suspect false as you are very anxious to prove fraud, even though the evidence is now with us loud and strong that the hypothesis was correct. How do you explain that?
And 99% of the world's science agrees with the current hypothesis. How do you explain that?
You really need to do bit of reading if you want to get up to speed on these things - it's a bit futile asking trick questions in a supercilious manner on a woodwork forum.
You could instead try actually answering some of the genuine questions which people raise - after all you claim to know about these things.
You don't seem able to answer simple questions - how do you explain that?
Have you written to the IPCC explaining how mistaken they are? If not - how do you explain that?
Last edited:
ey_tony
Established Member
I'm not asking trick questions. I'm not anxious to prove anything, I'm merely questioning some the science held up as fact and the beliefs of people like yourself who attempt to shut down anyone who dares to even question the data and modelling and who place everyone in the denier pigeon hole when in fact they are nothing of the sort and are simply just asking reasoned questions. Very Orwellian to say the least.
In terms of real and factual science, Mann's HS hypothesis is akin to believing everything a Snake Oil salesman tells you.
To be fair, I have to give him credit in that he and his chums were able to effect a coup of the IPCC which is definitely worthy of recognition but certainly not for his contribution to accurate science.
If reasoned questions can't be asked without derision and insults from those like yourself who follow their AGW beliefs religiously, then they are no better than the follower of any mainstream crack-pot religion which says more about the people who issue the insults than about those who have valid questions.
The reason I ask these questions is not because I'm a denier as you seem to think. I am just as concerned about mankind's negative input into the planet's biosphere and atmosphere as the next person but we have to determine exactly what the anthropogenic contribution actually is rather than base it on the models of Snake Oil science. The actions we take in the near future could impact negatively upon billions of people worldwide for generations to come, particularly the poor if our actions to address the alleged imbalance are based on flawed science.
It's clear you're not going to answer any of the questions I've asked nor are you going to explain why Mann did what he did so it's utterly pointless wasting my time with you as you just throw up links in an attempt to deflect the questions so let's leave it at that.
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
No. They amount to answers to the questions. Mann even answers your question himself in the Scientific American article. You choose to deflect them by ignoring them.
ey_tony
Established Member
As far as I'm concerned Mann is the Andrew Wakefield of climate science!
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Wakefield was an eccentric nutter and fraud, found guilty and struck off.
He still has many anti vax followers and they also tend to be CC deniers. It's a syndrome, linked to creationists, brexiters, libertarians and other strangeness!
Mann was neither, was not found guilty of anything, was exonerated by almost the whole of the scientific community from the hysterical claims of the CC deniers, and the hockey stick graph is still the salient feature of the CC science.
You just need to catch up on your reading.
The reality is just so much more interesting than the crackpot burblings emanating from the deniers. They attract masses of attention, waste millions of hours and have effectively slowed down any efforts to ameliorate CC.
If the science is to blame for anything it is in being too slow and cautious to spell out reality, but then they had a media frenzy of stupidity to contend with.
Last edited:
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Next you'll be telling us the earth isn't flat!
Well bumbling Borris has made a small step in the right direction, scrapping some of HS2 has saved some of our countryside, ancient woodlands and prevented a devastating impact on some peoples lives. Maybe he will realise London is not a destination on peoples minds who live up North and that having local employment is enviromentally better and also gives more family time.
If you live in Norfolk or Holland you could be forgiven for thinking that!
Jameshow
Established Member
I really think the tone here is very bigotted!
Those who believe in creationism, brexit etc have a right to do so without malice from those who don't.
Many thanks
James
Being one of the brainwashed, I take the threat of climate change seriously. Not remotely interested in the tiny minority who think they know better than the overwhelming scientific consensus. I'm currently making plans for a location and lifestyle that might just help protect my family from the extremes of human bahviour that I think may well result. I can't mitigate changes in climate, obviously, but I think the kinds of mass migration of people that could result will make the current conflict on the Belarus/ Poland border look like a scale model.
I also think that public opinion/ action now matters more than ever. Governments are looking for compromises between economic success and climate that we probably can't afford to make. I think this article by Monbiot is rather good:
https://coyotegulch.blog/2021/11/15...ople-we-can-flip-social-attitudes-towards-th/
I also think that public opinion/ action now matters more than ever. Governments are looking for compromises between economic success and climate that we probably can't afford to make. I think this article by Monbiot is rather good:
https://coyotegulch.blog/2021/11/15...ople-we-can-flip-social-attitudes-towards-th/
ey_tony
Established Member
.
Do you really think I'd put myself up for ridicule from pompous asses who are clueless but who think they know everything because they've read an editorial on Wikipedia or in some other science magazine? That's not how I work. I research the facts and data evidence first and then decide if the data fits the claims. Mann's DIDN'T!
If you believe otherwise then you are free to do so but not free to ridicule others if they hold differing beliefs.
I can't get my head around anti-vaxxers nor do I believe in a god even the CC god that people like you worship. I'm NOT a denier of GW and if someone voted for Brexit, good for them! That is their right and they should be free of patronising pratts singling them out for ridicule because they have differing views.
That is their choice and no one including you has the right to take a contemptable prejudiced and bigoted tone and ridicule them.
Now I would like to engage you in a battle of wits but judging by the evidence emanating from your posts so far, it would be unfair as you're clearly unarmed, so it's pointless further arguing with you.
Stop posturing and give us some actual information.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I blame the scientists for ineffectually communicating the real risks of climate change.
Had they done a better job, climate deniers would have a more difficult time in persuading others of their point of view, and governments may have taken more immediate and forceful action.
But as with vaccines, folk should be at liberty to ask questions, believe that which they choose, and need to accept the consequences of their poor judgement.
Had they done a better job, climate deniers would have a more difficult time in persuading others of their point of view, and governments may have taken more immediate and forceful action.
But as with vaccines, folk should be at liberty to ask questions, believe that which they choose, and need to accept the consequences of their poor judgement.
- Status
