Take Back Control

[billpuntonsghost]

Bucksiron-“we should, indeed ,given Labour a chance to fix it.” 😂
The Tories and Labour are on the same page.

The hidden agenda of the “great reset” is the worldview they both agree on,unfortunately.

[Heath]

“In fact all seven just happen to be airports or RAF stations, surrounded by huge lumps of concrete, tarmac and jet-engined aircraft”.

I may be a bit thick here, and I’m certain that someone will confirm it, but didn’t we have concrete, tarmac and airports in the years before 2022?

[Bucksiron]

Deerey, there’s a bit of a difference between today’s economic position and the ‘highway to climate hell’. Millions of young kids are being scared witless by these absurd claims from the UN and other “experts”; and you think this is funny?????

Siderite, I’m not arguing against economic impacts of Brexit, which I’ve accepted are likely to be the case. It’s perfectly correct to say, however, that it will be some time before the real economic impact of Brexit will be known. What we do know is that the EU is in a perilous financial position, with Germany’s economy at the mercy of winter weather. It’s ironic to say the least that Germany — and Italy — are now praying for warm weather.

Regarding your other comment, my point isn’t moot at all. It simply reveals how many media — and, I’m sorry to say many organisations that should know better — aren’t providing all the facts. As I said, people can make up their own minds but in order to do so they need to know the facts behind the claims. As for the “energy coming from nowhere”, ALL of the evidence for CO2 driving climate change comes from computer models. You can argue until you’re blue in the face but that is a 100% fact; and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the computer models are wrong. The question is how wrong? Well, good luck with that because the confidence intervals are never revealed, which is hardly surprising given they’ll be extremely bad. I’ve challenged climate scientists directly about this and not a single one of them has been able to provide an answer. Put simply, we don’t know the answer to how the climate works at anything like the depth required for the absurd claims being made and saying otherwise is just ridiculous. But, hey, it means billions in funding and shiny new computers.

As for this thing about London and Paris. The idea that Paris is a bigger financial centre than London is fanciful to say the least. Market caps come and go, it’s just the way they operate and my point is that it’s highly likely London will overtake Paris again on market valuation. But that is just one part of the financial equation. Taken as a whole London remains much bigger than anywhere apart from New York.

Where I do agree with you 100% is around predictions. It is, indeed, very funny how people want us to trust their predictions. You’re absolutely correct that in 20 years they still say we need to wait. That goes for climate every bit as much as it goes for finance. They’re both non-deterministic systems with a huge number of variables, which makes predicting them in any way that is remotely accurate 100% impossible.

[Iron-awe]

Siderite wrote:

He’s trying to argue that only 7 temperature records this summer statistically different from previous, and these were near air bases, therefore no climate change. Which is an erroneous way of looking at it.

It’s a totally brainless way of looking at it.

[Bucksiron]

I don’t believe you’re thick at all, Heath. We are allowed to disagree with each other.

But the amount of concrete and tarmac have increased dramatically at airports and airfields on top of which the amount of heat they store has also been increasing. Just think of the London Underground, which continues to get warmer as more and more heat is stored through the system.

[Bucksiron]

It isn’t at all brainless, IA, in fact the complete opposite. What you’re revealing very nicely, however, is how ignorance is used by the media to mislead people.

[Siderite]

If you accept the economic arguments, you have to accept people won’t be happy about it and that this wasn’t project fear.

You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t stop your argument being nonsense. I have spoken about the evidence for CO2 driven warming many times and not received anything which changes my mind. Suffice to say, the evidence for CO2 driving climate change doesn’t come from record breaking hot days(nor just models), which was the original point which had morphed into something slightly different to feed your obsession.

You can attach conspiratorial motives all you like, it doesn’t change the evidence and no capital letters of emphasis or proclamations of facts can change that. Your assertions mean little without evidence or addressing of questions and I am unlikely to be swayed when you have demonstrated several key misunderstandings of the science through the years.

[Siderite]

Bucks doesn’t deny climate change, but all change of climate is because of the UHI.

[Deereyme66]

‘Deerey, there’s a bit of a difference between today’s economic position and the ‘highway to climate hell’. Millions of young kids are being scared witless by these absurd claims from the UN and other “experts”; and you think this is funny?????’

No, my dear straw friend, I think you’re ridiculously hilarious!

[Deereyme66]

Bucksiron wrote:

I don’t believe you’re thick at all, Heath. We are allowed to disagree with each other.

But the amount of concrete and tarmac have increased dramatically at airports and airfields on top of which the amount of heat they store has also been increasing. Just think of the London Underground, which continues to get warmer as more and more heat is stored through the system.

‘Get outta my pub!!!’ 🤣

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Iron-awe]

You would think climate change would scare Buck’s, after all a straw man fears too much heat.

[Heath]

Plenty of cold unused and not levelled up concrete and tarmac at Robin Hood at the moment.

[Northumbiron]

Bucksiron wrote:

But the amount of concrete and tarmac have increased dramatically at airports and airfields on top of which the amount of heat they store has also been increasing. Just think of the London Underground, which continues to get warmer as more and more heat is stored through the system.

I think you’ll find that IS man-made climate change!

[Gurnelista]

Bucksiron wrote:

It is, indeed, very funny how people want us to trust their predictions. You’re absolutely correct that in 20 years they still say we need to wait. That goes for climate every bit as much as it goes for finance. They’re both non-deterministic systems with a huge number of variables, which makes predicting them in any way that is remotely accurate 100% impossible.

And that is precisely why it is essential to err on the side of caution with anything as potentially calamitous as climate change.

Your problem is tha there’s no evidence that will ever convince you BI, because you don’t want to be convinced.

It reminds me of those folk who had strong religion as children, which stays with them through adulthood. No argument will ever persuade them that their beliefs might be silly, childish, contradictory or plain wrong. That’s because they don’t want to be persuaded. The facts become irrelevant, and belief is all.

Put simply, people with such beliefs haven’t been reasoned into them, so they can’t be reasoned out of them.

It’s a mindset commonly found in cults. It can be disturbing but it’s mostly harmless, for example those gentle folk of the ‘Sounds Like Rain’ videos. The exception is when it involves violence, like with terrorism – political or religious.

So, the question is whether your manifest ‘belief’ over climate can be explained as cultish, or whether it’s just a posture adopted for political reasons. The evidence would suggest the latter – a PR background, the record in gaslighting, and of course the far-right politics… and when you were little and impressionable, we can imagine global warming wasn’t a ‘thing’ you were forced to deny.

But, there is another possibility. After being so wrong about so much for so long – support for Trump, Johnson, the Tories, Brexit, Swann, climate change and assorted other issues, it must be pretty galling to see all your cherished beliefs confounded and smashed at every turn. To admit this must make the holder feel nothing short of ridiculous, a laughing stock, a clown-car of values and arguments, the wrongest person in wrongland! But denial is one way of dealing it. So, which assumption is correct, BI?

[Iron-awe]

What else is new? He will say that’s a personal insult but it’s more a personal assessment.

[Bucksiron]

So Gurny, it’s OK for the world to spend trillions, which could be used to fight disease, and deny the use of cheap energy, which could pull billions out of poverty, to “err on the side of caution”?! If the odds were in favour of climate change being the disaster claimed by the likes of Guterres you might have a point, but even the majority of climate scientists don’t believe this.

Your comment about evidence is ironic to say the least, as is your reference to cults. If you look at the science and the data we are not heading on a road to climate hell. Nor is it what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. It seems astonishing that for someone who clearly loves to give the impression of having a planet-sized intellect you’re actually taken in by this stuff. Except, of course, that it fits exactly with your left-wing agenda. As I say, ironic to say the least.

The rest of your post is just the same old stuff you always come out with, which for someone who is supposed to understand psychology reveals far more about your own state of mind than anyone else’s. Obsessed with extreme left-wing ideology you simply cannot accept anyone who doesn’t see the world in the same way as you.

None of the above comments surprise me in the slightest. It’s the usual stuff from the usual suspects; and I’ve given up trying to explain to siderite the huge difference between understanding man-made climate change is real, with which I agree, but that it’s going to lead to catastrophe, which is absurd.

The real catastrophe is how billions are being forced into poverty as a result of this nonsense.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Siderite]

“None of the above comments surprise me in the slightest. It’s the usual stuff from the usual suspects; and I’ve given up trying to explain to siderite the huge difference between understanding man-made climate change is real, with which I agree, but that it’s going to lead to catastrophe, which is absurd.”

lol. Bucks isn’t arguing that man-made climate change isn’t real, but only in the last post he says that nature did it, always has done and always will. Your comments about giving up explaining seem to be a reaction to me saying the same towards you. Always the victim, it’s never your fault.

The goalposts have significantly shifted. I have never argued for catastrophe, the planet will survive for one, yet this wasn’t what you used to argue against.

Also, none of what I said was a personal insult, so I don’t know where the usual suspect guff is coming from, while citing this. Seemingly disagreeing with you is wrong and to be frowned upon. We can’t have anyone disagreeing with the great one.

[Siderite]

Oh, and yes, you might not be including me in the ‘usual suspects’, as said before, but it gets tiring seeing my opinion being cited with this. It creates a false impression if so. I would take back my las sentence, as that’s not helpful, but it’s gone past editing time limits.

[Heath]

I’ve given up ttrying to explain…

Hopefully your last post on the subject then.

[Iron-awe]

Rather strange Buck’s should go down the road of mentioning Gurnys ” state of mind “, we all know how sensitive Buck’s is when his ” state of mind ” is occasionally mentioned in passing, indeed he once linked the reference to abuse as I recall. The old pot and kettle once more from Buck’s, was it ever thus.

[Bucksiron]

Siderite, your comment is simply not true. There’s nothing remotely contradictory in what I’m saying. Man-made emissions will undoubtedly be having some effect on climate, but there’s no evidence this is anything other than negligible while the changes we are seeing are far more likely down to natural effects. That is what the data is showing and it’s why climate models never have confidence intervals associated with them.

Regarding the rest of your post, I don’t recall you ever contradicting the currently “accepted” view of the establishment, which is that climate change is man-made. If you don’t believe the stuff about ‘catastrophe’, fine, but again I don’t recall you ever saying this stuff is being blown out of all proportion.

IA, I don’t recall you ever objecting to Gurny’s appalling comments about mental health. Yet you have a problem with me referring to his “state of mind”, which is completely different and not in the slightest bit offensive. We all haver a state of mind but, fortunately, not everyone suffers from mental health illnesses. You’re no doubt one of the lucky ones who has neither suffered such illness nor has someone close to them who does. If you did then I doubt — and certainly hope — you wouldn’t be making such crass comments.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Siderite]

So you don’t accept climate change is man-made, thanks. Therefore your previous comment about trying to tell me that you accept it’s man-made, after I pointed out the fallacies of a natural assumption, is false and I was fair in disagreeing.

I have said many times that I don’t think the planet will end and that I don’t agree with environmentalists. That you have ignored this to straw man really isn’t my problem.

[Iron-awe]

No difference Buck’s just you and your ignorance regarding double standards, pot and kettle entirely appropriate but your arrogance won’t allow you to be truthful.

[Bucksiron]

I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, Siderite. What you’re saying is complete nonsense. You don’t appear to understand that climate change can be generated by natural causes with some contribution from man-made emissions. It isn’t either/or, which I believe is what you’re trying to say?

Your argument, if I’ve understood it correctly, which is difficult to know, appears to rest on what is causing the planet to warm? It’s a good question but the truth is we simply don’t understand enough about the complexity of climate to give a definitive answer. You appear to believe otherwise, which is obviously up to you but the hard evidence simply doesn’t exist to prove this. It depends entirely on computer models, with so many holes in them that they can’t even produce basic confidence intervals. It’s also worth saying that none of them even agree with other.

IA, you clearly think it’s fine for Gurny to make disparaging comments about mental health but not OK for me to make a comment about ‘state of mind’; and that I’m arrogant for raising this. Well, at least we know exactly where you stand. Others can make up their own minds.

[Iron-awe]

At least it won’t be two minds or rather two faced as your good self, you reek of hypocrisy and double standards and smugly run your superior eye over everybody else who dare take an opposite view or challenge your arrogance. I’m fine thank you very much, I will leave you and your state of mind to dwell on that.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Siderite

[Siderite]

Let’s backtrack slightly. The post above the one where you said you are tired of explaining to me that you accept manmade climate change has me saying CO2 is driving climate change. I am going to assume this is what you were referring to, since it’s the only associated comment for this. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that this is not an unfair comment, because it’s clear you don’t think current climate change is CO2 driven. Therefore, responding to my comment about CO2 is driving climate change by saying “of course you accept manmade climate change, and you’re fed up of telling me otherwise” is slippery. You don’t think such and my comments since have been aimed at that alone, and it’s obviously a fair representation to say you don’t think such.

You would have a better time understanding if you read what I was saying and what it was responding to, instead of trying to straw man and twist words all the damn time. My last few points had little to do with the actual debate, so maybe try viewing through that lens instead of jumbling it together with arguments I made posts ago and changing debate focus on a whim to suit you. It’s this kind of behaviour which I am fed up with, and why I am not going into significant debating points. There isn’t a hope in hell of you bothering to understand what I say, because everything gets twisted to suit an agenda.

I would have more trust in your judgement if you hadn’t, repeatedly, failed to understand fundamental elements about climatology. As it is, baseless proclamations are worth very little. I have never argued climate to be simple, we know it isn’t, but complexity doesn’t equal lack of ability to understand. Areas requiring further research do not equate to us not being able to form any theory, otherwise we would have zero confidence in any scientific idea (including gravity, which we know very little about). I have repeatedly talked about positive feedback mechanisms, so this shows that not all warming can be linked directly to CO2. However, these positive feedback mechanisms would not exist without a cause, so to say this shows natural climate change would be eyebrow raising. I have gone into the evidence for such previously, so I am not going to do so again when I have learned it’s futile. I have repeatedly spoken about shorter term climate impacts, from natural sources, but also spoken about why they cannot explain the longer term trend.

To sum up, I accept that you say you think some climate change can be explained by CO2, but your comment about me needing to be explained about how you accept manmade climate change and are fed up of telling it, comes across as a false response to a fair comment about CO2 driving current climate trends. I think it’s obvious that when I say that CO2 is driving warming I mean CO2 is the cause for current climate trends. It may be a misunderstanding on your part, but given everything in the past, I really wouldn’t be surprised if you are twisting words and straw manning me yet again.

[Bucksiron]

I reek of ‘hypocrisy and double standards’, IA? Well, that’s your view and mine is that you and the rest of the usual suspects reek every bit as much. As I said, people can make up their own minds. As for being arrogant, that might well be how I come across but so what? You do very little other than attack me on a personal level, so why should I care what you think.

Siderite, for “CO2 to be driving current climate trends” you need hard evidence. It doesn’t exist. The only evidence is through computer models, which are are as leaky as SUFC’s defence.

I recommend you — and others — watch this brief video, which sums up very nicely the points that I keep making. Whether you agree with his views or not, John Christy is a genuine climate scientist who is highly regarded by others — even by Michael Mann. The point is there are plenty of climate scientists who agree with Christy but are too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. This is an appalling situation generated by the politicisation of climate change, which doesn’t allow anyone to disagree with the supposedly ‘settled’ science:

[Siderite]

No, the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of climate change does not come from climate models about temperature increase. It comes from the empirical evidence we have for current warming, an understanding of physics and looking at observed temperature. The models are used for an estimation of climate change, but we have the evidence of the anthropogenic nature without them and no other explanation can match.

I don’t care about credentials, I care about the argument. The fact is Christy is outnumbered by so many climate scientists, so if climate scientists is of any importance, these others would matter more. Oh, right, everyone who disagrees has to be a shill for a supercomputer. Yawn.

Anyone familiar with Christy knows his arguments are bunkum. Another typical ‘sceptic’ who uses misleading graphs to cherry pick data which agrees with him. For example, he commonly uses inappropriately small baselines for satellite data and measurements of atmospheric temperatures. Other climatologists have argued how this skews the output. This is why, I suspect, Christy shows inappropriate baselines. The model errors are much larger, so it suits his narrative. Look at more appropriate baselines than 20-30 years in the atmosphere and the errors decline, and the evidence shows that the errors decrease. Going beyond that, there are complaints about inconsistent smoothing of data, which sets alarm bells of manipulation to suit his own interpretation and he doesn’t publish uncertainties in his data. He is guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. He is free to spout what he wants, but it’s important to acknowledge the very real questions in what he is saying. That’s all I will say, as I am not getting sucked into this. It’s been done to death and previous arguments have failed to convince me.

Of course, none of this can be in good faith, because anyone who dares to disagree with the ‘sceptics’ have to be in on some conspiracy for a supercomputer (I wish I’d get more money, if so), and it cannot be there are flaws in their work. That’s too much for their ego.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Or, I should say, not from climate models alone.

[Iron-awe]

Buck’s back on the defensive as usual, ” just personal insults ” he says when it’s a matter of defending oneself against Bucksiron hypocrisy and double standards. How’s your state of mind doing dude 🤔.

[Author]

Posts