What Climate change?

[pjclarke]

ah I see so there's absolutely no problem with the GISS data set, yet there are enquiries being set up

yep I follow:

There is one enquiry being set up into a dataset that has already been analysed ad nauseum. Neither commissioned nor lead by climate scientists but by an organisation that is open about its motives but secretive about its backers. Just in time for the Paris conference (though of course the non-result will come afterwards). Its whole purpose is for numpties to be able to point and say 'Look - no smoke without fire'.

Even I was surprised by the speed with which you bent over to oblige Lord Lawson.

[EternalOptimist]

So far today you have attacked BB, me, McIntyre, Goddard. Everyone who questions you in fact

You will not win the argument with Ad Homs pj

[pjclarke]

So far today you have attacked BB, me, McIntyre, Goddard. Everyone who questions you in fact

You will not win the argument with Ad Homs pj

There are no winners in a dialogue of the deaf. Call that an attack? We had a robust exchange of views, Dodgy kicked off with some nonsense from Coleman (qualification: degree in journalism) and told me that even if I'm right I'm not right because I'm not Right, BB dug out his favourite opinion page subheading and told us that there's no global warming because 10% of US weather stations are flat or there's no recent warming in the troposphere and anyway here's a lie from a liar or something, there was a sprinkling of propaganda from WTFIUWT and I riposted with great good humour, sense, wit and erudition. Of course I have the advantage of being able to quote position statements from every scientific organisation on the planet, and a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, a luxury you don't have ….

[Ticktock]

There are no winners in a dialogue of the deaf. Call that an attack? We had a robust exchange of views, Dodgy kicked off with some nonsense from Coleman (qualification: degree in journalism) and told me that even if I'm right I'm not right because I'm not Right, BB dug out his favourite opinion page subheading and told us that there's no global warming because 10% of US weather stations are flat or there's no recent warming in the troposphere and anyway here's a lie from a liar or something, there was a sprinkling of propaganda from WTFIUWT and I riposted with great good humour, sense, wit and erudition. Of course I have the advantage of being able to quote position statements from every scientific organisation on the planet, and a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, a luxury you don't have ….

Meow

[original PM]

There are no winners in a dialogue of the deaf. Call that an attack? We had a robust exchange of views, Dodgy kicked off with some nonsense from Coleman (qualification: degree in journalism) and told me that even if I'm right I'm not right because I'm not Right, BB dug out his favourite opinion page subheading and told us that there's no global warming because 10% of US weather stations are flat or there's no recent warming in the troposphere and anyway here's a lie from a liar or something, there was a sprinkling of propaganda from WTFIUWT and I riposted with great good humour, sense, wit and erudition. Of course I have the advantage of being able to quote position statements from every scientific organisation on the planet, and a huge body of peer-reviewed literature, a luxury you don't have ….

Forgetting all of that.

Why are you so insistent the Global Warming is true and man made?

What do you stand to gain from it?

Do you own a windfarm?

[pjclarke]

Forgetting all of that.

Why are you so insistent the Global Warming is true and man made?

What do you stand to gain from it?

Do you own a windfarm?

Why do people insist the world is round?

I have no particular vested interest, well no more than any other parent. Believe it or not I would rate AGW rather low on the issues we need to address. The differences between this problem and say, income inequality, or half a dozen others are that (a) nobody is denying the existence of poverty, and (b) AGW is a gradual issue, too slow to register much on the 24 hour news cycle, its hard to engage people, busy making the rent, with a problem that may only bite in their grandchildren's lifetime. But we risk sleepwalking into serious harm.

[DodgyAgent]

Why do people insist the world is round?

I have no particular vested interest, well no more than any other parent. Believe it or not I would rate AGW rather low on the issues we need to address. The differences between this problem and say, income inequality, or half a dozen others are that (a) nobody is denying the existence of poverty, and (b) AGW is a gradual issue, too slow to register much on the 24 hour news cycle, its hard to engage people, busy making the rent, with a problem that may only bite in their grandchildren's lifetime. But we risk sleepwalking into serious harm.

What exactly is wrong with "income inequality" ?

[original PM]

Why do people insist the world is round?

I have no particular vested interest, well no more than any other parent. Believe it or not I would rate AGW rather low on the issues we need to address. The differences between this problem and say, income inequality, or half a dozen others are that (a) nobody is denying the existence of poverty, and (b) AGW is a gradual issue, too slow to register much on the 24 hour news cycle, its hard to engage people, busy making the rent, with a problem that may only bite in their grandchildren's lifetime. But we risk sleepwalking into serious harm.

In 4.5 Billion years the Sun will become a red giant and all life on earth will be extinguished.

More likely though there will be a cataclysmic collision event in the next million years

So really rather than arguing over some figures and fudging them to get more funding would it not be a better idea to put our great minds and resources into a serious attempt to establish human colonies off world and if possible across as many planets as possible to ensure the human races survival?

[DodgyAgent]

In 4.5 Billion years the Sun will become a red giant and all life on earth will be extinguished.

More likely though there will be a cataclysmic collision event in the next million years

So really rather than arguing over some figures and fudging them to get more funding would it not be a better idea to put our great minds and resources into a serious attempt to establish human colonies off world and if possible across as many planets as possible to ensure the human races survival?

Exactly. Whereas the likes of PJC want to return the world to the dark ages, kill enterprise and control the populations of the world in the interests of "eguality".

it wont happen because only enterprise generates wealth and advances science (having said that so does war - the science bit anyway). The left may one day learn the lesson that "entitlements" do not grow on trees or appear from nowhere Defiant Greeks hold firm over bail-out 'red lines' - Telegraph but in the meantime the "free world" - what is left of it will develop technologies that will enable human beings to spread to other planets. If the human race is smart it will segregate all the lefties and leave them behind to "care" for each other in their "world of equality"

[BlasterBates]

income equality is like Climate Change it's the wrong thing to be focused on.

Every country in Western Europe offers a generous and acceptable standard of living for those who either choose not to work or can't work.

These days it tends to be focused on making a big deal about a few rich people. If you distributed their wealth then everyone else would be 10 or 20 pounds better off. Of course incredibly wealthy climate crusaders such as Al Gore are "OK".

Income equality was a problem of the 19th century but was solved several decades ago.