Black Wednesday at the Telegraph

[pjclarke]

Oh dear.

Well I guess that asserting that you know what would have been in my head in an alternate universe when I was alive in Sandwich, 1906 is a small step in the right direction compared with musing publicly about my mastabatory habits (perhaps you need to get out more?). But really, just making your opponents arguments up so you can ridicule them (Straw Man) is not going to convince anyone sensible.

Same goes for Dodgy with his ' Spare us the "I care" bo**ocks'. Here's a hint: read what was actually said and engage with that. I never used the words you decry as bollocks. Again, you'll be be more persuasive if you don't make stuff up.

Debating trick No. 2, reframe the debate

The science is irrelevant as it just contributes to the arguments on both sides according to how it is interpreted.

Really? The science is irrelevant? The science dates back to the work of John Tyndall and later Svante Arrenhuis who in 1896 came up with the first and surprisingly accurate estimates of the greenhouse effect and how it could warm the world if 'carbonic acid' accumulated in the atmosphere...

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was he motivated by a desire to enable George Osbourne to impose green taxes? Seems implausible. What I do find interesting is the well-documented willingness of those on the right to dismiss and deny the science if the policy implications are that some kind of collective action for the common good may be required, to the extent that they will embrace the blatent lies and demonstrably false output of intellectual minnows like Delingpole and Booker (Watts, Goddard) because it suits their ideology even though it stands in implacable opposition to the conclusions of the vast majority of studies, scientists and the position statements of virtually 100% of scientific associations.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science, at its best, is an attempt to discover the truth about our universe, as Wittgenstein proposed to describe: 'everything that is the case.'. It is an imperfect enterprise, constantly self-correcting and self-improving. But to dismiss it as 'irrelevant' and to embrace instead pundits who are quite happy to promulgate stuff that they know, and we know, is not the case... well blow me, that's zealotry.

[Snake Plissken]

The problem you have is that the media insist on putting an expert with experience and knowledge of their subject over many years up against a media troll like Delingpole and calling it a debate. In reality, for a more accurate indiciaiton of the "debate", you should get Delingpole up against the 11,000 scientists and experts with experience and knowledge of their subject and see if he can justify himself.

(Actually, just give Delingpole a big bag of cash. He doesn't believe what he says,he just knows he can make money from it as a professional troll. If you gave him a couple of million quid and said write articles for the other side he would make Greenpeace look like Big Tobacco.)

[pjclarke]

In reality, for a more accurate indiciaiton of the "debate", you should get Delingpole up against the 11,000 scientists and experts with experience and knowledge of their subject and see if he can justify himself.

Or a single bona fide scientist ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU

[DodgyAgent]

Oh dear.

Well I guess that asserting that you know what would have been in my head in an alternate universe when I was alive in Sandwich, 1906 is a small step in the right direction compared with musing publicly about my mastabatory habits (perhaps you need to get out more?). But really, just making your opponents arguments up so you can ridicule them (Straw Man) is not going to convince anyone sensible.

Same goes for Dodgy with his ' Spare us the "I care" bo**ocks'. Here's a hint: read what was actually said and engage with that. I never used the words you decry as bollocks. Again, you'll be be more persuasive if you don't make stuff up.

Debating trick No. 2, reframe the debate



Really? The science is irrelevant? The science dates back to the work of John Tyndall and later Svante Arrenhuis who in 1896 came up with the first and surprisingly accurate estimates of the greenhouse effect and how it could warm the world if 'carbonic acid' accumulated in the atmosphere...

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was he motivated by a desire to enable George Osbourne to impose green taxes? Seems implausible. What I do find interesting is the well-documented willingness of those on the right to dismiss and deny the science if the policy implications are that some kind of collective action for the common good may be required, to the extent that they will embrace the blatent lies and demonstrably false output of intellectual minnows like Delingpole and Booker (Watts, Goddard) because it suits their ideology even though it stands in implacable opposition to the conclusions of the vast majority of studies, scientists and the position statements of virtually 100% of scientific associations.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science, at its best, is an attempt to discover the truth about our universe, as Wittgenstein proposed to describe: 'everything that is the case.'. It is an imperfect enterprise, constantly self-correcting and self-improving. But to dismiss it as 'irrelevant' and to embrace instead pundits who are quite happy to promulgate stuff that they know, and we know, is not the case... well blow me, that's zealotry.

The science is irrelevant to the debate. Both sides of the argument select whichever bits of science they wish to support whatever their standpoint may be. It is not the science it is the prognosis that is the cause of the debate. The science is twisted and exploited to support whatever agenda is behind the person making it. that is why it is irrelevant.

As I have said the existence of the "problem" of climate change suits so many people that there is little or no impetus to "cure it". this is why people who say they "care" are lying.

[EternalOptimist]

For those interested in some science, arctic sea ice is up.
we are 11 days into the summer melt and temperatures are still below freezing. That only leave 60 days or so for all the ice in the north to completely melt away, as predicted by the climate geniuses

[pjclarke]

Up compared to what? This time last year? Woop-de-do.

Hmmm...

[DodgyAgent]

Up compared to what? This time last year? Woop-de-do.

Hmmm...

How does that fit into the context of say the last 10,000 years?

[EternalOptimist]

One of these days, the climate doomsayers will make a prediction so ludicrous that even pj will shout 'Baloney'

at that point, he might be worth listening to.


In the meantime, the climate geniuses said all the ice would be gone this year, and pj went along with it like a nodding dog

[pjclarke]

How does that fit into the context of say the last 10,000 years?

We don't seem to have reliable proxies that far back, and I'm not sure of the relevance if we did, however Kinnard et al 2011 went back before the so-called 'Medieval warm Period"

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming

But the science is irrelevant, right?

[DodgyAgent]

We don't seem to have reliable proxies that far back, and I'm not sure of the relevance if we did, however Kinnard et al 2010 went back before the so-called 'Medieval warm Period"





But the science is irrelevant, right?

It is irrelevant to the agenda of zealots like you. As I have said you exploit information to push an agenda that has nothing to do with "caring". so again I ask how does the decline of sea ice fit with the last 10,000 years and beyond? And why is it such a bad thing that ice disappears?