Climate Change

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

No pal, i'm currently enjoying my spell of outing the forum nice guys as being spiteful, arrogant, self righteous, boastful little saps. It seems to be working rather well. 

Well crack on, just stop complaining to me about it on random threads.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Well crack on, just stop complaining to me about it on random threads.

I complained once, on Sunday night and rightly so, that was the only time though so not sure what you’re on about 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[Fan The Flames]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

What a strange comment. Weren’t you temporarily banned from here a while back for making a “joke” about shagging my dead mum? I wonder what psychology students  would make of that 

It's true you do keep a black book of perceived slights, fuckin sad sack. Those posts were over a decade ago and you purposely misconstruded something and channelled a load of fake anger. And you are still at it. 

I didnt get banned because I didn't say what you think. 

Turkish the saintsweb indignation queen.

[whelk]

47 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Tell us more about your incredible job and salary pal. I’m intrigued.

I’ll leave you guessing mate

[whelk]

Who are the forum good guys? 

[Turkish]

16 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

It's true you do keep a black book of perceived slights, fuckin sad sack. Those posts were over a decade ago and you purposely misconstruded something and channelled a load of fake anger. And you are still at it. 

I didnt get banned because I didn't say what you think. 

Turkish the saintsweb indignation queen.

Or maybe I remember it because you made the “joke” only a few months after my mum had died. Guess that makes me a sad sack.....

 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[Fan The Flames]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Or maybe I remember it because you made the “joke” only a few months after my mum had died. Guess that makes me a sad sack.....

 

I didn't make any joke of the kind.

You are sad because you remember all these things that me and other posters have said from decades of postings, which you then bring up time and time again. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You assume wrongly.  I live 3 miles from the second largest tidal range in the world - we know a little bit about rising waters

3 miles away, but how far above Mean Sea Level ?

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I didn't make any joke of the kind.

You are sad because you remember all these things that me and other posters have said from decades of postings, which you then bring up time and time again. 

Yes you did. You knew exactly which post I was referring to because you immediately went on the defensive launching into a rant about how long ago they were, calling me a fucking sad sack for remembering which is a strange response when you infer you didn’t do anything of the sort. 

Although I’m not surprised you’re denying it. You know what you said and I know you said it because it was only a few months after she died. Despite your claim that it was misconstrued and faux anger from me it seems other people saw it the way I did as I know for a fact at least one person reported the post and you got a short ban. That’s truth and you know it.
 

I see a couple of your good guy mates have liked your last post. Seems it’s fine to make sick comments but not fine for the person they’re aimed at to mention them. Rather than having a pop at me for remembering maybe you shouldn’t make such sick comments in the first place? Same goes for some of the other self righteous types on here. 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, whelk said:

Who are the forum good guys? 

Apparently anybody that Turkish starts sniping at.

[Weston Super Saint]

49 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

3 miles away, but how far above Mean Sea Level ?

12 feet.

[Fan The Flames]

47 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes you did. You knew exactly which post I was referring to because you immediately went on the defensive launching into a rant about how long ago they were, calling me a fucking sad sack for remembering which is a strange response when you infer you didn’t do anything of the sort. 

Although I’m not surprised you’re denying it. You know what you said and I know you said it because it was only a few months after she died. Despite your claim that it was misconstrued and faux anger from me it seems other people saw it the way I did as I know for a fact at least one person reported the post and you got a short ban. That’s truth and you know it.
 

I see a couple of your good guy mates have liked your last post. Seems it’s fine to make sick comments but not fine for the person they’re aimed at to mention them. Rather than having a pop at me for remembering maybe you shouldn’t make such sick comments in the first place? Same goes for some of the other self righteous types on here. 

Brilliant little speech. We can go around like this all night long. I never said what you claim and I've never been banned. You purposely misconstrued something. Of course I remember it because I've never had a posting exchange like it before or since. To you I'm just another poster prick on your long list, do you think your posting behaviour is normal.

Maybe people have responded to my post because you've strutted around this forum for years belittling people, you hone in on something and keep chipping away, provoking people. And when they are provoked, go on and on about it for years afterwards.

This is the last thing I'll say about it, I'm sure it won't be yours.

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

12 feet.

About the same as us, but we're only 200 metres away. 😞

Edited 27 April, 2021 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Brilliant little speech. We can go around like this all night long. I never said what you claim and I've never been banned. You purposely misconstrued something. Of course I remember it because I've never had a posting exchange like it before or since. To you I'm just another poster prick on your long list, do you think your posting behaviour is normal.

Maybe people have responded to my post because you've strutted around this forum for years belittling people, you hone in on something and keep chipping away, provoking people. And when they are provoked, go on and on about it for years afterwards.

This is the last thing I'll say about it, I'm sure it won't be yours.

No reason to go on all night, we both know the truth. Your initial reaction gave the game away as you knew exactly what I was talking about. I’m not surprised you deny it now. Keep up the nice guy act, it’s fooled plenty. 

[SKD]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

I see a couple of your good guy mates have liked your last post. 

Side note - can you still view who has reacted to posts? I seem to have lost the ability to. Even my own, I get a message saying ‘somebody has reacted to your post’ 😔

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, SKD said:

Side note - can you still view who has reacted to posts? I seem to have lost the ability to. Even my own, I get a message saying ‘somebody has reacted to your post’ 😔

No, Don’t think you can anymore mate. 

[The Cat]

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

Side note - can you still view who has reacted to posts? I seem to have lost the ability to. Even my own, I get a message saying ‘somebody has reacted to your post’ 😔

That's all I get too, I didn't realise there was originally an option to see who it was. 

[scally]

On 27/04/2021 at 09:41, Sheaf Saint said:

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works.

A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits.

I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific.

Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.

Another Idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, I love his take on the phrase climate denier. Maybe you're not as clever as you think you are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

[Sheaf Saint]

41 minutes ago, scally said:

Another Idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, I love his take on the phrase climate denier. Maybe you're not as clever as you think you are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

I've not read the book that this article is plugging, so I'm not in a position to discuss everything that's in it. Stephen Koonin is obviously an intelligent man, but he also has a known recent history of making fallacious arguments regarding climate change. He also used to work as the chief scientist for BP, which just further demonstrates the strong links between climate change 'skeptics' and the fossil fuel industry. Why do you automatically assume that this man is more knowledgeable about climate than people who have spent their entire careers studying it?

He acknowledges “it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it.” This statement contradicts the claims you have made in the past that human activity does not influence climate and that it is all just made up.

He claims that CO2 levels are "at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years", but this claim is completely false. They are currently higher than at any time in the last 3.6 million years, according to the most recent research. Yes, it's true that CO2 concentration has been higher in the past, but humans didn't exist at that point, so it is impossible for us to know how those conditions would have impacted on human life.

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, scally said:

Another Idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, I love his take on the phrase climate denier. Maybe you're not as clever as you think you are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

"The warmest temperatures in the US haven't risen in 50 years...", yet the average temperature in all States has risen over that period, and 7 of the warmest years on record have occured in the last 10 years.

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"The warmest temperatures in the US haven't risen in 50 years...", yet the average temperature in all States has risen over that period, and 7 of the warmest years on record have occured in the last 10 years.

The fact that this Koonin guy is unable or unwilling to distinguish between individual peak temperature records and global mean surface temperature tells you all you need to know about him. Yet another of Scally's sources that can be safely ignored. Even if he does make some good points worthy of discussion, this kind of schoolboy 'error' destroys any credibility he may have.

[Weston Super Saint]

24 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Even if he does make some good points worthy of discussion, this kind of schoolboy 'error' destroys any credibility he may have.

Is your argument that unless someone is 100% correct on every single point (and presumably agrees entirely with your opinions / beliefs), then nothing they say can ever hold any credibility?

Presumably that would include James Lovelock who now sits in the camp of never having any credibility?

Seems an odd opinion to hold given that the climate is constantly changing and there is no way that any single person can be correct all the time - unless you've developed a fool proof system to predict the weather short, medium and long term!

[Sheaf Saint]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is your argument that unless someone is 100% correct on every single point (and presumably agrees entirely with your opinions / beliefs), then nothing they say can ever hold any credibility?

Presumably that would include James Lovelock who now sits in the camp of never having any credibility?

Seems an odd opinion to hold given that the climate is constantly changing and there is no way that any single person can be correct all the time - unless you've developed a fool proof system to predict the weather short, medium and long term!

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that if someone is going to release a book essentially telling an entire branch of science that they are all wrong about something, that person needs to demonstrate a decent grasp of the basics if he wants to be taken seriously.

Of course climate is constantly changing, because the Earth's climate is an extremely complex, fluid system and not one single climate scientist claims to fully understand it 100%. Koonin does raise an interesting discussion about exactly how much impact our activities will have on the climate in future and to what degree we should invest in mitigation measures, and there is no absolute right or wrong answer to that. But by failing to distinguish the difference between peak temperature records and long-term average trends, he's displaying a horrendous ignorance of the very basics of climate science.

It would be like someone writing a supposedly comprehensive insight into the world of football but not even understanding the offside rule. 

[scally]

56 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The fact that this Koonin guy is unable or unwilling to distinguish between individual peak temperature records and global mean surface temperature tells you all you need to know about him. Yet another of Scally's sources that can be safely ignored. Even if he does make some good points worthy of discussion, this kind of schoolboy 'error' destroys any credibility he may have.

You're correct, definitely a dinlo who doesn't know what he's talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

[scally]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that if someone is going to release a book essentially telling an entire branch of science that they are all wrong about something, that person needs to demonstrate a decent grasp of the basics if he wants to be taken seriously.

Of course climate is constantly changing, because the Earth's climate is an extremely complex, fluid system and not one single climate scientist claims to fully understand it 100%. Koonin does raise an interesting discussion about exactly how much impact our activities will have on the climate in future and to what degree we should invest in mitigation measures, and there is no absolute right or wrong answer to that. But by failing to distinguish the difference between peak temperature records and long-term average trends, he's displaying a horrendous ignorance of the very basics of climate science.

It would be like someone writing a supposedly comprehensive insight into the world of football but not even understanding the offside rule. 

Maybe he understands a lot better than you do how the data gets tampered with

[buctootim]

The Wall Street Journal has been a hardline climate change denying mag for years since Murdoch's Newscorp - who also own Fox News bought it. The company's increasingly right wing drift is the main reason Murdoch's own son James left the company  

[Sheaf Saint]

43 minutes ago, scally said:

You're correct, definitely a dinlo who doesn't know what he's talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

I literally said in my previous post that he is obviously an intelligent person. 

What is it you think this wiki profile tells you that proves he should be listened to? It doesn't list a single bit of actual climate research he has conducted, because he never has. 

What makes him more qualified than actual climate researchers to be an authority on the subject? 

[Sheaf Saint]

45 minutes ago, scally said:

Maybe he understands a lot better than you do how the data gets tampered with

What data? 

Evidence please. 

[scally]

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I literally said in my previous post that he is obviously an intelligent person. 

What is it you think this wiki profile tells you that proves he should be listened to? It doesn't list a single bit of actual climate research he has conducted, because he never has. 

What makes him more qualified than actual climate researchers to be an authority on the subject? 

Do you have to be a climate scientist to go through records? 

When it comes to the vaunted computer models, Mr. Koonin is persuasively skeptical. It’s a big problem, he says, when models can’t retroactively “predict” events that have already happened. And he notes that some of the “tuning” done to models so that they work better amounts to “cooking the books.” He should know, having written one of the first textbooks on using computers to model physics phenomena.

Mr. Koonin’s science credentials are impeccable—unlike, say, those of one well-known Swedish teenager to whom the media affords great attention on climate matters. He has been a professor of physics at Caltech and served as the top scientist in Barack Obama’s Energy Department. The book is copiously referenced and relies on widely accepted government documents.

Since all the data that Mr. Koonin uses are available to others, he poses the obvious question: “Why haven’t you heard these facts before?” He is cautious, perhaps overly so, in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that “mislead by omission.” Many of the primary scientific reports, he observes repeatedly, are factual. Still, “the public gets their climate information almost exclusively from the media; very few people actually read the assessment summaries.”

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

What data? 

Evidence please. 

I think you’re being a little optimistic there. Scally’s position on the environment isn’t exactly a secret and most of his arguments are along the lines of claiming Chernobyl wasn’t a problem, by providing data to show that cancer deaths have been increasing recently anyway.

[scally]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I think you’re being a little optimistic there. Scally’s position on the environment isn’t exactly a secret and most of his arguments are along the lines of claiming Chernobyl wasn’t a problem, by providing data to show that cancer deaths have been increasing recently anyway.

The Maldives are still there though, when your boys get something right make sure you give me a shout

[Lighthouse]

7 minutes ago, scally said:

The Maldives are still there though

Exactly the kind of asinine remark which loses my interest in any debate with climate change deniers, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and other, "free thinkers who don’t believe everything they’re being told by the MSM."

[Raging Bull]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Exactly the kind of asinine remark which loses my interest in any debate with climate change deniers, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and other, "free thinkers who don’t believe everything they’re being told by the MSM."

.....  

Edited 28 April, 2021 by Raging Bull

[Sheaf Saint]

12 hours ago, scally said:

Do you have to be a climate scientist to go through records? 

When it comes to the vaunted computer models, Mr. Koonin is persuasively skeptical. It’s a big problem, he says, when models can’t retroactively “predict” events that have already happened. And he notes that some of the “tuning” done to models so that they work better amounts to “cooking the books.” He should know, having written one of the first textbooks on using computers to model physics phenomena.

Mr. Koonin’s science credentials are impeccable—unlike, say, those of one well-known Swedish teenager to whom the media affords great attention on climate matters. He has been a professor of physics at Caltech and served as the top scientist in Barack Obama’s Energy Department. The book is copiously referenced and relies on widely accepted government documents.

Since all the data that Mr. Koonin uses are available to others, he poses the obvious question: “Why haven’t you heard these facts before?” He is cautious, perhaps overly so, in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that “mislead by omission.” Many of the primary scientific reports, he observes repeatedly, are factual. Still, “the public gets their climate information almost exclusively from the media; very few people actually read the assessment summaries.”

You've literally just copied and pasted that from the Wall Street Journal article. A notoriously biased publication.

I would like you to explain, in your own words, why you think a man with strong historical links to the fossil fuel industry and no previously published climate research to his name deserves more credence on the subject than people who have dedicated their entire professional careers to research in this field.

I'll wait.

[Sheaf Saint]

11 hours ago, scally said:

when your boys get something right make sure you give me a shout

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Perhaps you missed this when I posted it a couple of days ago. Or maybe you just ignored it because it doesn't fit your narrative (more likely).

Either way, I'll share it again.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

You've literally just copied and pasted that from the Wall Street Journal article. A notoriously biased publication.

I would like you to explain, in your own words, why you think a man with strong historical links to the fossil fuel industry and no previously published climate research to his name deserves more credence on the subject than people who have dedicated their entire professional careers to research in this field.

I'll wait.

Aren't most of them?

[scally]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Perhaps you missed this when I posted it a couple of days ago. Or maybe you just ignored it because it doesn't fit your narrative (more likely).

Either way, I'll share it again.

So 50 year old models predicted it when computer models now can't predict it with any accuracy 

[Sheaf Saint]

35 minutes ago, scally said:

So 50 year old models predicted it when computer models now can't predict it with any accuracy 

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record Scally, what is your evidence for this?

Contemporary models are far more sophisticated than the early ones from the 70s, and include numerous different variables that the older ones could not account for. Yet those old ones have been proven to be mostly accurate.

Models are fed with various different future CO2 emissions scenarios to predict the climatic responses to each one. So how can you possibly say they can't predict with any accuracy when we simply don't know what the future emissions (and other natural forcings) will be yet? 

[CB Fry]

Far be it for me to say that posting on a football forum is an exercise in futility, but this thread in particular is breathtaking in that regard.

This Scally is never ever going to change his view. He's seen some youtubes and "done his research", and thats it really. Turn it in lads.

[whelk]

Exxon exec caught in sting saying how lip service to any move against oil as just for PR as they ensure they lobby senators to ensure nothing serious gets passed. Not a revelation really but should be more of a story. 

And it is fucking hot in Canada

[scally]

Any one care to explain 

 

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, scally said:

Any one care to explain 

 

Go on, you start.

[badgerx16]

Mind you, I am bound to trust the credentials in Climate Science of a PhD in American History who hails from Texas !

[sydney_saint]

16 hours ago, scally said:

Any one care to explain 

 

I've never noticed this thread before, I tend not to go to the lounge. But feel I'm probably quite qualified here given I've worked in the climate change field for over a decade. 

I don't have time to watch that today or tomorrow, but possibly can on Monday. 

What I would ask you though is - if there was genuinely a piece of robust research that demonstrated your claims, why aren't the oil and gas industry screaming about it? The value of their companies would double instantly. 

[scally]

20 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Mind you, I am bound to trust the credentials in Climate Science of a PhD in American History who hails from Texas !

Or maybe ask Al Gore, he has a lot to say on the subject

[badgerx16]

Just now, scally said:

Or maybe ask Al Gore, he has a lot to say on the subject

Seems like you do as well - so explain why what is happening does not have a human assisted element.

[scally]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Seems like you do as well - so explain why what is happening does not have a human assisted element.

I've never said it hasn't I just don't agree with the climate emergency that the media would have you believe it is. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, scally said:

I've never said it hasn't I just don't agree with the climate emergency that the media would have you believe it is. 

So how do you describe it ?

[scally]

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So how do you describe it ?

The temperature is getting warmer but millions won't die. 

[CB Fry]

On 27/08/2021 at 17:03, scally said:

Any one care to explain 

 

Is it a load of old bollocks that twats on Facebook share around as evidence of "I've done my own research"?