Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1…1415171920…43

Comments

  • #482
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:


    201703.gif




    With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

    It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

    Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

    For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

    And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

    https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193


  • #483
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:


    201703.gif




    With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

    It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

    Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

    For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

    And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

    https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193

    you continue to not understand sampling.


  • #484
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.

    Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

    Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

    Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #485
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.


    Maybe you're colour blind Franz.


  • #486
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

    Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

    Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore

    When the humour attempts kick in, I know Akrasia is left with nothing else to type.

    jtech-d-11-00103.1-f3.gif
    Finally, although GHCN-Daily has already found applications in climate monitoring and assessments (e.g., Alexander et al. 2006; Caesar et al. 2006), its utility could always be enhanced with additional data for regions outside of North America.
    Didn't happen. Most of the planet is not historically sampled and the data is classed as "missing".


    GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png

    This map shows the 7,280 fixed temperature stations in the GHCN catalog color coded by the length of the available record.

    This image shows 3,832 records longer than 50 years, 1,656 records longer than 100 years, and 226 records longer than 150 years.

    As is evident from this plot, the most densely instrumented portion of the globe is in the United States, while Antarctica is the most sparsely instrumented land area.
    So much for a long term historic global temperature record from the undefined pre industrial era being available.

    But let's try to keep a temperature rise above it to less than 1.5°C.....


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.

    Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.


  • #488
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    jackboy wrote: »
    Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.
    The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #489
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4


    The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



    https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/


    Color me 'unconvinced'
    Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

    As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


    For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


    Is that what you term as a significant margin???

    0.01°C of 1°C?


    This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html


  • #490
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



    https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/



    Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

    As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


    For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


    Is that what you term as a significant margin???

    0.01°C of 1°C?




    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html
    Hottest years on record according to NOAA



    Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
    (1880–2017)
    Rank Year Anomaly °C
    1 2016 0.94
    2 2015 0.90
    3 2017 0.84
    4 2014 0.74
    5 2010 0.70
    6 2013 0.66
    7 2005 0.65
    8 2009 0.64
    9 1998 0.63
    10 2012 0.62

    The difference between 2012 and 2016 was about .3c which is huge

    We're not just talking about natural variability, we're talking about breaking global temperature records consistently where we can be pretty sure that the hottest ever temperature 10 years ago, will be much lower than the expected average temperature for this year.

    How are your 'skeptics' predictions working out? Where's our ice age?

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #491
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Hottest years on record according to NOAA

    Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
    (1880–2017)
    Rank Year Anomaly °C
    1 2016 0.94
    2 2015 0.90
    3 2017 0.84
    4 2014 0.74
    5 2010 0.70
    6 2013 0.66
    7 2005 0.65
    8 2009 0.64
    9 1998 0.63
    10 2012 0.62

    The difference between 2012 and 2016 was about .3c which is huge

    We're not just talking about natural variability, we're talking about breaking global temperature records consistently where we can be pretty sure that the hottest ever temperature 10 years ago, will be much lower than the expected average temperature for this year.

    How are your 'skeptics' predictions working out? Where's our ice age?

    Do you understand what an inter annual margin is?

    The alleged temperature difference between one year and another.

    You were asked for an inter annual margin, instead you post up temperature anomalies from a baseline of 1880 to 2017.

    So have another go at it maybe?

    I know you want to introduce UN world policy based on statistical noise and non existent temperature data, but you'll have to try harder than that!

    Here's an example, from the UNWMO

    Global average temperatures in 2017 and 2015 were both 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels.



    The two years are virtually indistinguishable because the difference is less than one hundredth of a degree, which is less than the statistical margin of error.
    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2017-among-three-warmest-years-record


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Do you understand what an inter annual margin is?

    The alleged temperature difference between one year and another.

    You were asked for an inter annual margin, instead you post up temperature anomalies from a baseline of 1880 to 2017.

    So have another go at it maybe?

    I know you want to introduce UN world policy based on statistical noise and non existent temperature data, but you'll have to try harder than that!

    Here's an example, from the UNWMO

    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2017-among-three-warmest-years-record
    What's with you 'skeptics' and putting 'un' before the accepted acronyms?

    UNIPCC, UNWMO etc

    Oh, yeah, it's because you're all crazy conspiracy theorists who think the UN is some kind of shadowy one world government.

    Inter annual margin?? What are you going on about now. We're talking about climate change. Climate is long term trends. Individual years don't matter on their own, it's the trends that count

    You said that the decadal trend for global warming based on 'recent observations was .06c. That is completely wrong and the true figure is about 3 times as high since the 1970s or if you want to take just the last decade, 6 times higher than the 'recent observations' figure you vomited out (although as i've already said, that would be the wrong figure to quote because the time period is too low to establish a trend)

    Now you're saying that the 'inter annual margin' between 2015 and 2016 is only .01c as if that means anything.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #493
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    What's with you 'skeptics' and putting 'un' before the accepted acronyms?

    UNIPCC, UNWMO etc

    Oh, yeah, it's because you're all crazy conspiracy theorists who think the UN is some kind of shadowy one world government.


    Because they are both UN agencies.
    Why such a weird reaction?
    WMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) with 191 Member States and Territories.
    https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/who-we-are

    https://www.allacronyms.com/UNWMO/United_Nations_World_Meteorological_Organization


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You said that the decadal trend for global warming based on 'recent observations was .06c. That is completely wrong and the true figure is about 3 times as high since the 1970s or if you want to take just the last decade, 6 times higher than the 'recent observations' figure you vomited out (although as i've already said, that would be the wrong figure to quote because the time period is too low to establish a trend)

    Now you're saying that the 'inter annual margin' between 2015 and 2016 is only .01c as if that means anything.

    No, I said the decadal trend for the entire instrumental period was 0.6°C then I told you it was fiction because most of the data is missing.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107932707&postcount=469

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Climate is long term trends.

    Not when you are cherry picking individual years to get a .2°C trend.


  • #494
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,005 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »
    stuff

    "You can't convince me of something I'll never accept therefore my argument must be valid"


  • #495
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Because they are both UN agencies.
    Why such a weird reaction?
    Everyone already knows that the WMO is a UN agency. Nobody cares.

    Why was it a wierd reaction to point out that the only people who call the WMO the 'UNWMO' tend to be crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists?
    https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/who-we-are

    https://www.allacronyms.com/UNWMO/United_Nations_World_Meteorological_Organization


    When you were googling that i'm sure you saw lots of references in the media and official reports referring to the UNWMO right?

    Nah, just kidding, you saw conspiracy theory sites and a twitter hashtag used by conspiracy theorists
    Not when you are cherry picking individual years to get a .2°C trend.
    I didn't cherry pick anything. I did the exact opposite. I picked 3 different start and end points that are notable because the first is the one used by most scientific papers, the 2nd is the warming this century, and the third is the warming over the last 10 years, and i went to lengths to point out that the last two aren't long enough to establish a trend properly so we should use the record going back almost 50 years, which is also the timeframe that has the best instrumentation as it includes the satellite era

    Cherry picking is where you deliberately choose a time series that you know will give you the data that best suits your own narrative while ignoring data that shows the opposite.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #496
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Everyone already knows that the WMO is a UN agency. Nobody cares.

    Why was it a wierd reaction to point out that the only people who call the WMO the 'UNWMO' tend to be crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists?



    When you were googling that i'm sure you saw lots of references in the media and official reports referring to the UNWMO right?

    Nah, just kidding, you saw conspiracy theory sites and a twitter hashtag used by conspiracy theorists


    I didn't cherry pick anything. I did the exact opposite. I picked 3 different start and end points that are notable because the first is the one used by most scientific papers, the 2nd is the warming this century, and the third is the warming over the last 10 years, and i went to lengths to point out that the last two aren't long enough to establish a trend properly so we should use the record going back almost 50 years, which is also the timeframe that has the best instrumentation as it includes the satellite era

    Cherry picking is where you deliberately choose a time series that you know will give you the data that best suits your own narrative while ignoring data that shows the opposite.


    Your narrative that the world is warming out of control due to human actions is based on data that does not exist.

    You don't even accept that the historic data is reliable (the same unreliable historic data which covered just bits of the Northern Hemisphere).
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Also do you accept that the data for the 1880s isn't as reliable as it is for more recent observations. If we can see a good correlation within the satellite era when our data is most reliable. I think it is a reasonable assumption to accept that small deviations from this corrrelation in the past might be down to errors in our about records on historical events

    Contempory data is just as unreliable because major corrections have to be made in order to squeeze the required one hundredths of a degree variations out of it to suit the UN narrative.

    What is your real agenda here endlessly pushing renewables and grants for a transition to a carbon free economy and how many hundredths of a degree can we expect to see the global temperature being reduced by doing so?

    Also, are you a member of any radical environmental groups?


  • #497
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Your narrative that the world is warming out of control due to human actions is based on data that does not exist.
    OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?

    You don't even accept that the historic data is reliable (the same unreliable historic data which covered just bits of the Northern Hemisphere).
    ,Historic data is reliable, just less certain than modern measurements, it just has a wider uncertainty bar. Things can be reliable within known tolerances.
    Contempory data is just as unreliable because major corrections have to be made in order to squeeze the required one hundredths of a degree variations out of it to suit the UN narrative.
    Like all scientific knowledge, as we learn more we adjust our records to more accurately approximate the truth. By your logic modern maps are all a scam because they took the first cartographer drawings of Cook and Magellan and changed them over time.
    What is your real agenda here endlessly pushing renewables and grants for a transition to a carbon free economy and how many hundredths of a degree can we expect to see the global temperature being reduced by doing so?

    Also, are you a member of any radical environmental groups?

    My real agenda is not wanting my children to despise my generation for deliberately failing to prevent an unending procession of the worst environmental disasters our civilisation has ever seen before.

    Radical environmental groups? No, I'm just not so full of ignorance and hubris that I think I know better than essentially all the experts in every relevant field

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #498
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,005 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Akrasia wrote: »
    My real agenda is not wanting my children to despise my generation for deliberately failing to prevent an unending procession of the worst environmental disasters our civilisation has ever seen before.

    Radical environmental groups? No, I'm just not so full of ignorance and hubris that I think I know better than essentially all the experts in every relevant field

    It's extraordinary this needs to be said


  • #499
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's extraordinary this needs to be said


    The poster's unbridled enthusiasm for the take up of renewable energy grants and the calls for government to more pro active in the area of funding them along with transitioning from fossil fuels and the constant talk of our need to reduce emissions sound very like the noises that would come from a member of Friends of the Earth or a flogger of "green energy", so there is nothing extraordinary to ask if that is the case.

    What is extraordinary in the context is their complete inability to explain what impact any of those measures will have on climate change along with the belief that their own emissions (and presumably those of all their similarly alarmed mates) are too small to matter and are of no consequence.

    But we'll gloss over these facts if it suits everyone.


  • #500
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,531 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Creative83 wrote: »
    I could provide with a temperature guideline over the past 2,000 years I think... but it wouldn't fit your narrative so I wont do it

    So the OP thinks a temperature record over the last 2000 years will prove there is no climate change.

    Here is a record of the last 2000 years proving that there is climate change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


  • #501
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrokenArrows wrote: »
    So the OP thinks a temperature record over the last 2000 years will prove there is no climate change.

    Here is a record of the last 2000 years proving that there is climate change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    According to that graph the temperature rose as much in the first half of the period as it has in the second


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    According to that graph the temperature rose as much in the first half of the period as it has in the second

    Wow you really have to squint pretty hard to come away with that conclusion from that graph

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #503
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Wow you really have to squint pretty hard to come away with that conclusion from that graph

    Not really, at the beginning it shows at -.6 and at the end +.6. There is no legend to show what the colours mean, so maybe I am wrong, but I can only say what I see.


  • #504
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really, at the beginning it shows at -.6 and at the end +.6. There is no legend to show what the colours mean, so maybe I am wrong, but I can only say what I see.
    Its not a great graph, it should definitely have the legend included but what the colours are different temperature reconstructions using various proxies and methodologies. Each colour represents all the data in one reconstruction.

    The black line is the instrumental record representing our modern oberservations.

    The -.6 and +.6 figures are temperature anomalies relative to a baseline which isn't stated, I think it might be the standard temperature anomaly used by climate scientists which is the 'pre-industrial temperature' which is set around the temperature it was in the late 19th century.

    What this graph shows is that for 2000 years temperatures fluctuated up and down +- .4c but in the 20th and start of the 21st century there was a .8c spike in temperatures, a rate of warming way in excess of anything we had seen in the past.

    The reason the historical and proxy climate data is overlayed with the observed data is to show that these proxy sources also show the same warming that the instrumental records show.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #505
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,531 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really, at the beginning it shows at -.6 and at the end +.6. There is no legend to show what the colours mean, so maybe I am wrong, but I can only say what I see.

    I dont know what graph your looking at but as far as i can see for the first 1850 years the temperature varied between -.8 and 0 on the graph and taking hundreds of years to vary.

    Then in 1850ish it sharpely rises from -.6 to +.5 degrees. So it increased by almost 1 degree in 150 years. The industrial revolution starting in the late 1700's matches the sharp rise in temperature.

    Just to point out the industrial revolution had a massive increase in fossil fuels being burned.


  • #506
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    There isn't really enough evidence to conclude that the temperature rises in the decades prior to the 1900s were mostly human caused. It's safe to say there were likely a mix of natural and human causes. CO2 concentrations went up exponentially as fossil fuel use increased in the 20th century.By 1900 CO2 had gone from 280ppm to about 300ppm
    By 2018, it's now about 405 -410ppm
    icecore.png

    Scientists say that more than 100% of the warming since the 1950s has been caused by human emitted CO2 (because the earth was in a naturally cooling phase as solar output decreased during this time)

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #507
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The poster's unbridled enthusiasm for the take up of renewable energy grants and the calls for government to more pro active in the area of funding them along with transitioning from fossil fuels and the constant talk of our need to reduce emissions sound very like the noises that would come from a member of Friends of the Earth or a flogger of "green energy", so there is nothing extraordinary to ask if that is the case.

    What is extraordinary in the context is their complete inability to explain what impact any of those measures will have on climate change along with the belief that their own emissions (and presumably those of all their similarly alarmed mates) are too small to matter and are of no consequence.

    But we'll gloss over these facts if it suits everyone.

    I'm shocked that dense ignored my question. Here it is again

    'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #508
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I'm shocked that dense ignored my question. Here it is again

    'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'

    You now want to go down a prehistoric climate rabbit hole that community of earth scientists cant even agree on rather than simply explaining how you think a national transition to a fossil fuel free economy will affect global warming?

    Forget it's me that's asking for a moment, let's pretend I'm a self professed environmentally caring youth, the sort that cries when they see their peers leaving 500 tons of rubbish after themselves at Electric Picnic*, let's say it's one of them who's asking the question?

    Are you still going to clam up and refuse to answer them?

    Are they not entitled to know what you think your policies are supposed to achieve?

    Some of them are probably reading this right now.

    I know the citizens who assembled at the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change don't know what their policies are supposed to achieve but I thought you would.

    It seems you don't either.
    And if you can't explain it there's little point in you incessantly going on about how we need to transition away from fossil fuels.


    *Maybe all that rubbish left behind was a planned protest by the lefties?

    https://greennews.ie/concerned-citizens-dump-plastic-inaction-tackle-plastic-waste/

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-24/littering-climate-marchers-leave-trail-of-rubbish-through-new-york/


  • #509
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    dense wrote: »
    You now want to go down a prehistoric climate rabbit hole that community of earth scientists cant even agree on rather than simply explaining how you think a national transition to a fossil fuel free economy will affect global warming?

    Forget it's me that's asking for a moment, let's pretend I'm a self professed environmentally caring youth, the sort that cries when they see their peers leaving 500 tons of rubbish after themselves at Electric Picnic*, let's say it's one of them who's asking the question?

    Are you still going to clam up and refuse to answer them?

    Are they not entitled to know what you think your policies are supposed to achieve?

    Some of them are probably reading this right now.

    I know the citizens who assembled at the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change don't know what their policies are supposed to achieve but I thought you would.

    It seems you don't either.
    And if you can't explain it there's little point in you incessantly going on about how we need to transition away from fossil fuels.


    *Maybe all that rubbish left behind was a planned protest by the lefties?

    https://greennews.ie/concerned-citizens-dump-plastic-inaction-tackle-plastic-waste/

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-24/littering-climate-marchers-leave-trail-of-rubbish-through-new-york/

    You literally can't answer a question.


  • #510
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,250 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You now want to go down a prehistoric climate rabbit hole that community of earth scientists cant even agree on rather than simply explaining how you think a national transition to a fossil fuel free economy will affect global warming?

    Forget it's me that's asking for a moment, let's pretend I'm a self professed environmentally caring youth, the sort that cries when they see their peers leaving 500 tons of rubbish after themselves at Electric Picnic*, let's say it's one of them who's asking the question?

    Are you still going to clam up and refuse to answer them?

    Are they not entitled to know what you think your policies are supposed to achieve?

    Some of them are probably reading this right now.

    I know the citizens who assembled at the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change don't know what their policies are supposed to achieve but I thought you would.

    It seems you don't either.
    And if you can't explain it there's little point in you incessantly going on about how we need to transition away from fossil fuels.


    *Maybe all that rubbish left behind was a planned protest by the lefties?

    https://greennews.ie/concerned-citizens-dump-plastic-inaction-tackle-plastic-waste/

    http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-24/littering-climate-marchers-leave-trail-of-rubbish-through-new-york/

    I've answered your question about a dozen times. The world needs to go carbon neutral. Ireland is part of the world, therefore, Ireland needs to go carbon neutral. The faster we do it, the less damage we'll do to future generations of life on this planet.

    Your point about people leaving rubbish behind just reenforces my point about incentives. Whatever about people meaning well, incentives change behaviour. If there were incentives for people to leave that campsite clean after them, then it would have been much cleaner. As it stands, the incentives are in the opposite direction. Cheap poorly made single use tents that are not worth the effort of packing up afterwards resulting in loads of them getting abandoned.


    Now, I've answered your questions again. What about answering mine?
    What do you think caused climate change before humans came along?

    Its not controversial btw. There are a small number of variables that drive global average temperature. If you don't know, maybe you could educate yourself and come up with an answer. It's always good to learn new things.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #511
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I've answered your question about a dozen times. The world needs to go carbon neutral. Ireland is part of the world, therefore, Ireland needs to go carbon neutral.

    I'm not sure whether you're being disingenuous or whether you just don't understand the question.

    I didn't ask you whether you think the world needs to go carbon neutral.

    I asked you to explain what affect Ireland will have on global warming by going carbon neutral.

    So for all the young or slightly more naive readers out there looking out for someone they can trust to tell them about Ireland's past affect on climate change and how a fossil fuel free Ireland will affect climate change in the future, here's your chance to give an honest answer.



    The more you avoid the question, or pretend to have been asked something else, the less credible you and the rest of those pushing the carbon neutral racket look.


Advertisement