Cyclist flips Trump the bird as she joins motorcade procession

srchar wrote:

Quack, quack, quack, studies concluding that it is cooling. Waffle waffle waffle.

No you didn't. Just lie to us and assume because you put some pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo in there you will sound like a learned skeptic. Nope. Where are these 'cooling' papers you speak of?Wattsupwiththat, perhaps. They don't exist. And there was no strong cooling movement in the 70's either, there were more Warming papers then. The Cooling movement has been debunked multiple times.

Sorry, but there just isn't two sides to this story. The Earth is warming rapidly, and it is caused by human pollution. At least have the courage of your convictions and tell us that you don't care about Climate Change. There are avalanches of data and studies. People who say they haven't seen the evidence are liars, you sir, you are a liar. You have seen the evidence and have dismissed it because it did not fit YOUR political opinions. 

srchar wrote:

Another "climate change denier" here, who happens to think that getting everyone on bikes would solve local air quality issues and the preponderance of unhealthy, fat people currently draining the resources of our health service, but do little to change the planet's climate.

It's not that I don't think the climate is changing, just as it has done since the planet developed an atmosphere; it's more that I am not at all convinced by the "science" of climate change, I see gross conflicts of interest in the way that organisations claiming to prove AGW are funded, and I do not trust politicians who have decided that they can change the climate through taxing the CO2 output of carbon-based lifeforms far more heavily than that of industry or large corporations.

I'm an engineer and well-used to evaluating evidence claiming empricism.  I have read studies concluding that the Earth is warming and studies concluding that it is cooling.  If AGW is such a nailed-on fact, why can't the entire climate science community reach consensus and make a convincing case for AGW?  Whereas, the "deniers" can point to holes in computer models, retrospective changes to data to better fit those models, and failure to forecast temperatures or ice coverage on any timescale.  It looks like poor science to these eyes.

That's before we get to why taxing CO2 output has been identified as the fix for the issue, rather than, say, methane, which is a couple of orders of magnitude more potent as a greenhouse gas.

So, rather than point and laugh, throw insults, or wrongly identify people who hold this opinion as Trump-lovers, why not simply link to some irrefutable evidence that climate change is directly linked to man's CO2 output?  I've looked for it many times, but failed to find it.  What I find instead is that, as with most areas of our lives, science has become politicised.  No longer something to agree or disagree with, but something to believe in or to deny.

This is a separate issue to air quality in our cities, which is absolutely horrendous, has been irrefutably linked directly to vehicle emissions and for which our politicians are doing far too little, far too late.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-i...

srchar wrote:

If AGW is such a nailed-on fact, why can't the entire climate science community reach consensus and make a convincing case for AGW? 

It has reached consesus, with 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is happening and that it is as a result of human activity.  That's an incredibly high figure and probably higher than for most other theories, and would be accepted as fact if it wasn't for the oil company funded 3% shouting loudly and getting reported in the media.

You clearly haven't been paying attention, and know little but still feel the need to give your opinion at considerable length.  I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

burtthebike wrote:

<snip>

  I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

Thank you for your support.

FrankH wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

<snip>

  I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

Thank you for your support.

Satisfyingly succinct.

burtthebike wrote:

I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

I'll summarise in bullet points so that you can accuse me of reducing the issue to a few soundbites instead:

- The models are junk; the forecasting is terrible.

- The climate has always changed; nobody can put a figure on how much warming is due to humans and how much is due to other factors.

- Sea levels varied dramatically before industrialisation.

- The field is politicised and incidents like the email leak at East Anglia uni make it look like a scam.

You're right in that I don't care about climate change as much as I care about other forms of pollution, because my family and friends suffer far more from local pollution than they do from changes in climate. I also care about habitat destruction, but think we should be looking at the low-hanging fruit of deforestation, palm plantations, dynamite fishing and industrial pollution as higher priorities than CO2 emissions.

Concorde, thanks for the link.

srchar wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

I'll summarise in bullet points so that you can accuse me of reducing the issue to a few soundbites instead:

- The models are junk; the forecasting is terrible.

- The climate has always changed; nobody can put a figure on how much warming is due to humans and how much is due to other factors.

- Sea levels varied dramatically before industrialisation.

- The field is politicised and incidents like the email leak at East Anglia uni make it look like a scam.

You're right in that I don't care about climate change as much as I care about other forms of pollution, because my family and friends suffer far more from local pollution than they do from changes in climate. I also care about habitat destruction, but think we should be looking at the low-hanging fruit of deforestation, palm plantations, dynamite fishing and industrial pollution as higher priorities than CO2 emissions.

Concorde, thanks for the link.

The slight problem is that none of what you say is true. Sea levels varied over much longer time-scales at a time when we didn't have large cities on the coasts. Much of that variation is for reasons we understand and which aren't happening now.
The leaked emails revealed nothing more than mundane academic politics.

But you appear to be a conspiracy theorist, so no evidence will get through to you.

The underlying science is pretty simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it absorbs radiation in the frequencies that the earth emits, and so acts like a dam (not really a greenhouse), trapping energy till the earth's temperature rises sufficiently to overcome it and escape.

We know CO2 concentrations have been rising. We also know the earth's temperature has been rising in a way that is consistent with that.
We also know that no natural phenomenon (like those that have changed temperatures in the past) can explain it, in particular they can't explain the dramatic speed of that rise (past temperature changes were orders-of-magnitude more gradual).

None of the things you claim deniers can point to are true. There were some things about 20 years ago, but those problems have all since been resolved (including the 'skeptics' of the University of Alabama having to admit their own satellite data, that failed to show the expected warming, was in fact in error).

I've been hearing increasingly weak denialist arguments for more than 20 years now, and they keep changing as each one is debunked in turn... though some still walk the earth like the undead, despite being disproved long ago.

Now if you have some way to (a) explain why basic physics of radiation and emission/absorption is wrong so that more CO2 won't trap more energy, and (b) why the temperature is rising if it isn't that, then go ahead and publish it and win a Nobel prize.

Methane is a greenhouse gas of course, and certainly does contribute, but it has a much shorter lifespan than CO2 (before breaking down to CO2 and water vapor) and there's about 1/200th as much of it in the atmosphere. CO2 is what is driving current temperature rise.

As for the evidence - its all there in the science. Go and read it. You could start with the Realclimate site. Though presumably you'll write those actual scientists off as part of the conspiracy.

srchar wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

I'll summarise in bullet points so that you can accuse me of reducing the issue to a few soundbites instead:

- The models are junk; the forecasting is terrible.

- The climate has always changed; nobody can put a figure on how much warming is due to humans and how much is due to other factors.

- Sea levels varied dramatically before industrialisation.

- The field is politicised and incidents like the email leak at East Anglia uni make it look like a scam.

You're right in that I don't care about climate change as much as I care about other forms of pollution, because my family and friends suffer far more from local pollution than they do from changes in climate. I also care about habitat destruction, but think we should be looking at the low-hanging fruit of deforestation, palm plantations, dynamite fishing and industrial pollution as higher priorities than CO2 emissions.

Concorde, thanks for the link.

Slightly shorter, but just as valid as your previous post; not at all.

burtthebike wrote:

srchar wrote:

If AGW is such a nailed-on fact, why can't the entire climate science community reach consensus and make a convincing case for AGW? 

It has reached consesus, with 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is happening and that it is as a result of human activity.  That's an incredibly high figure and probably higher than for most other theories, and would be accepted as fact if it wasn't for the oil company funded 3% shouting loudly and getting reported in the media.

You clearly haven't been paying attention, and know little but still feel the need to give your opinion at considerable length.  I generally find that the more verbose a person, the less their opinion is worth.

Well said, you beat me to it.

To go back to the topic of the article, having just returned from a business trip to the U I was interested to hear the opinions of Americans on their president. The percentage who find him a total embarassment seems to be growing. One guy I know who is a Republican told me he's really fed up with Trump and that he hopes McCain keeps on sticking the knife into the president.

srchar wrote:

Another "climate change denier" here, who happens to think that getting everyone on bikes would solve local air quality issues and the preponderance of unhealthy, fat people currently draining the resources of our health service, but do little to change the planet's climate.

..cut for space.

Interestingly it's been observed that engineers are over-represented among denialists . It's been speculated that this has something to do with problems in how engineers are taught and the general culture of the profession.

(It's also been observed that engineers are over-represented among terrorists, possibly for related reasons - though I personally think there are confounding factors due to correlation between popularity of engineering as a profession and the countries that produce more terrorists, but I was quite happy to use that particular sociology paper to wind-up engineers).

I don't trust an engineer's opinion on climate science, sorry. They have no special expertise on the subject. The last climate change denier I knew and argued with (who like you thought it was all a conspiracy) was also an engineer and turned out not to understand the basics (he was pushing the saturation argument, a very old misunderstanding of the topic).

And this 'argument from incredulity' deserves a special mention

srchar wrote:

If AGW is such a nailed-on fact, why can't the entire climate science community reach consensus and make a convincing case for AGW

..because it seems entirely circular. You are using your own reluctance to accept the evidence as proof that you are right!

And they have reached concensus (how on earth you can convince yourself otherwise just baffles me.

FrankH wrote:

lork wrote:

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

 

I'd like to speculate on your grasp on reality....

Reality or the alternative reality projected by the climate models?

Sorry for my heretical views by the way, I didn't really intend to disrespect anybody's religion.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Care to point me to some evidence of reality?

hawkinspeter wrote:

FrankH wrote:

lork wrote:

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

 

I'd like to speculate on your grasp on reality....

Reality or the alternative reality projected by the climate models?

Sorry for my heretical views by the way, I didn't really intend to disrespect anybody's religion.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Care to point me to some evidence of reality?

Your imagination does you credit. Why don't you imagine what my imaginary newsletter would contain if I had a newsletter?

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

I'd like to speculate on your grasp on reality....

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

I usually assume that climate change deniers are not very good at evaluating scientific research and balance of probabilities. I'd also assume that they form opinions based on emotion/opinion with little to no reference to facts. Thus, I'd assume that you're probable attitude to cyclists is just an emotional response - probably a positive attitude if you're on this site.

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

Not really, why would I spend more time thinking about your opinion than you spent in forming it?

Simboid wrote:

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

Not really, why would I spend more time thinking about your opinion than you spent in forming it?

Savage. 

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

I'd speculate that any interest in cycling has nothing to do with its environmental benefits. More broadly I'd guess you enjoy being contrary as it gives you a sense of knowing better than others - probably a reaction to deep seated self esteem issues. To be fair this is pure speculation and I'm really just describing the one climate change denier I know quite well.

jasecd wrote:

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

 

I'd speculate that any interest in cycling has nothing to do with its environmental benefits. More broadly I'd guess you enjoy being contrary as it gives you a sense of knowing better than others - probably a reaction to deep seated self esteem issues. To be fair this is pure speculation and I'm really just describing the one climate change denier I know quite well.

Sadly science is as comprised as anything else these days. It's all about keeping that cash coming in rather than absolute truths. Look at all the medical discoveries that are good for us one decade and then vilified in the following ones.

Too many agendas from all sides to ever get down to pure facts.

jasecd wrote:

FrankH wrote:

I'm a "climate change denier". would you like to speculate on my "probable attitude to cyclists"?

 

I'd speculate that any interest in cycling has nothing to do with its environmental benefits. More broadly I'd guess you enjoy being contrary as it gives you a sense of knowing better than others - probably a reaction to deep seated self esteem issues. To be fair this is pure speculation and I'm really just describing the one climate change denier I know quite well.

PARK LIFE!!