2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Thargor wrote: »

Oh wow thanks, Ill be sure to spend a few hours digging into these graphs of "Hidden Data" like you tricked Akrasia into doing recently.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I didn’t attack him I just looked at his website and got his angle and then cross checked his claims against with others sources. his theory that NASA fake there climate data appears erroneous to say the least similar to the flat earth conspiracy.

Instead of adopting the standard Akrasia tactic of Googling the man before looking at the content, why don't you (and others) rubbish the actual graphs I posted above? I went to a lot of bother screenshotting them so that you wouldn't have to go through the pain of watch the video (I know, I can't listen to that voice either). If he is, as you say, full of it then it should be very easy for you to post simple evidence highlighting how each one of his graphs is fake.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I had replied to PA before you posted the graphs also the two YouTube clips on my reply explain the flaws. The second clip is an panel interview with Brian Cox the physicist debating an Australian senator, Malcom something I forget his last name, and this guy heller teamed up with that senator to counter the nasa narrative, I know this because it says it on hellers climate science website.

I’ve tried arguing my point before and it’s a waste of time better post up links and let people do there own reading/viewing and make up their own mind if their genuinely interested

Let me try again. Your reply to Pa's video was not about the content but rather about "Who is Tony Heller?". The links and videos were not about the graphs posted. You've again dodged the question.

The substance of your replies and contributions would suggest you don't have much of an idea about the science. I can't remember you ever making any technical argument, instead relying on either childish personal insults or the odd unrelated link or video. This is the Science forum, not After Hours, so why not start contributing your own arguments?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

It’s on his own website https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/longtime-climate-denier-tony-heller-gets-youtube-ban-for-covid-denial/

He was banned after posting a video of a German doctor being arrested during an anti mask/lockdown protest in London. This German guy spoke to the crowd others speakers that day included David Icke the holocaust denier.

#

Was the actual German doctor quoted by Anthony Heller a 'holocaust denier'? That would be pretty strange, given that Heller himself is a Jew, which is something I found this while doing some spot research on him a year or two ago after he was accused of being 'far right' on this thread.

But there does seem to be a pattern emerging with neolib 'rebuttals' this last while:
'Climate denier'
'Covid denier'
'Holocaust denier'
Lockdown denier'
'Mask denier'
'Science denier'
'Vaccine denier'

I've said it before, but there is nothing as dangerous as stupid, unthinking people.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Does the Holocaust denier daivd icke have legitimacy in your opinion.

Can you just answer my very simple question please?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This sums up my view, I have previously posted this in my first reply, not that you even looked at it but there are graphs and all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPkclkZh6o

Yes, sorry, you did post that, I don't know how I missed it. In any case, that video is as bad as he makes out Heller's video is. He seems to change the goalposts and focus away from the actual graphs posted by Heller, making some strange arguments in the process. Examples:

Heatwaves: The original Climate Assessment Report one-pager Heller is "debunking" shows heatwaves, as measured in days (top left bar chart highlighted below). Strangely, Heller superimposes this chart (measured in days) on top of the Heatwave Index chart, which doesn't seem to make sense. It would be more correct to stick to days, as shown in the second highlighted chart below. Baker also does the same and ends up shifting the discussion to daily high and low temperatures, showing an increase in daily lows. He also dismisses the Dust Bowl hot decade as something that may have been to do with poor farming methods or something else, we don't really know, so he says ignore it. If we do, he agrees that the graph that Heller did show (Index) is still otherwise pretty much flat.

So he accepts Heller's analyisis is correct on the one hand, but then claims it's not by switching focus to something unrelated to the topic shown in the one-pager (i.e. heatwave days). An increase in nightime low temperatures is not a reliable metric to base a claim on, as station siting plays a major role in this, as we've seen here ourselves when we talk about Shannon v Dublin Airports (and indeed Dublin v Phoenix Park and Casement, both of which have large concrete structures or areas in close proximity to the sensors, acting as heat sources well into the night).

Baker then goes and posts another graph (blue/red bar graph below), cherrypicking the period from only the 1950s onwards, ignoring before it. That kind of backs up Heller's point, wouldn't you think?





Wildfires total acres burnt graph, he tries to make some argument differentiating "wildfires" from "incendiary" fires in order to try to negate Heller's point, but in reality there is no real difference between the two. Just like today, fires 100 years ago were started both deliberately and naturally. He is right, though, when he says that this is not a reliable metric on which to claim climate doom, a point I've made here in the past when the Australian and Californian fires were being bandied about as signals of impending doom here. He argues that forestry practices may have been much worse back 80-100 years ago, yet when that point was claimed about practices in Australia in recent years it was rubbished. Double standards again.

Arctic Sea Ice: Heller uses an old IPCC graph, showing several years of satellite data prior to the 1979 "start" of the satellite measurement age. These are data that the IPCC back then deemed good enough to be used, but Baker claims that only passive microwave data should be used (though still posts a link to an article showing ice data going back to 1850, implying that that's more reliable). Heller is not wrong in what he posted, showing the lower extent in the early '70s, but Baker simply dismisses that period. Yes, since 1990 the ice has decreased below that of the early '70s, so even Heller's point is lost then.

Sea level: He dismisses Heller's New York graph from 1850 onwards on the basis that it doesn't account for all of the US, and then shows his own graph from only 1990 onwards to try to say that Heller is wrong. But both graphs are showing basically the same thing and with not too dissimilar trends (Heller's 2.84 mm/yr, Baker's 3.3 mm/yr). It's just that Heller shows that this same trend was occuring back to at least 1890 (there's a 20-year large gap in data before that). Baker doesn't prove anything here other than the fact that he's wrong.

Baker simply ignores and skips over Heller's Waverley, OH temperature graph. Why? Maybe he couldn't debunk that one either. He is right about the Edenhofer misquote, though, and agrees with Heller on the ridiculous claims of other doomsayers, such as the New York Times and that stupid bint, Ocasio-Cortez.

So Baker actually does a pretty bad job in this video, himself changing goalposts and cherrypicking time periods himself. Heller is not 100% squeaky clean either, but on the whole, most of his points remain undebunked by this video. Maybe Banana Republic can do a better job than Baker?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I don’t know but he spoke on the same platform as one, that is to say David Icke. The same David Icke that pontificates about lizard people and all sorts of conspiracy theories. The fact that this Tony Hellar guy associates with such people means that serious questions have to be asked about his own agenda.

Donald Trump spun out “facts” also did you believe any of that. (Not a question)

David Icke is a total nutjob, given the nonsense that he spouts. I don't know why Heller or anyone else would associate with him, but as we all know, everyone wants to gain exposure, and if that means swimming with the bottom-feeders then some people will stoop to it.

The theories of David Icke are really one step further along than many of us would care to go, some might say that we face an elitist class without much conscience or compassion for the average person, David Icke says they are reptilian life forms (and presumably look at humans as we might look at higher animal forms of life).

I don't agree with him but I see what causes him to draw such outlandish conclusions. We have separated out into factions in the modern world and it's very difficult for one faction to have any real dialogue or communication with the other factor, partly out of a lack of trust, and partly because the operating assumptions are so different that we are in fact two species now, although biologically still one human race.

This is a problem everyone faces and some try not to choose sides at all but co-exist with both sides. This creates an almost inevitable mental blurring where no definite conclusions can be drawn about anything, because once you do draw a conclusion, you are likely accepting one side and rejecting the other.

There are ways out of this, history is full of cases of deep schisms over things that just puzzle people today, such as old religious feuds about obscure theological points, or debates about things like the ether or phlogiston.

Sometimes a "third way" is found and that seems reasonable to enough people on either side of a schism that the rift is rendered invalid. I was looking for that way forward in my "climate change 3.0" thread and the proposals within that, but the discussion reverted to the schism rather than the proposal and moderators decided it was time to close down the discussion altogether. Unfortunate but predictable I suppose.

The climate change debate won't be resolved by some easy breakthrough in thought processes, it will probably go away more through one of two outcomes, either (a) there won't be much of a melt and people will start to lose interest, or (b) there will be such a melt that we'll need to respond to it, and while both sides may go ahead with different ideas as to cause and effect, the main focus will become either mitigation or survival (depending on how your country sits relative to sea level, I am rather conveniently camped out at 1050 m so will be beyond the reach of the rising seas no matter how much ice melts).

Not being flippant about this, I am convinced we are in the cross-hairs but not for the reasons advanced by orthodox climate change theory. We probably do have a rather limited time available to do things about it, and the current plan is not going to work and cannot work.

Deleted User wrote: »

No private cars ? What a miserable backwards leap. Especially with electric cars being manufactured today. They'll come down in price eventually too.

That's exactly the sort of stuff that makes people wonder if there is an alternate agenda. Alot of people would also prefer, if given the option, of a warmer world with private transport rather than a soylent green/1984 type of so called eco friendly existence where nobody can have a car or light a fire or eat meat and all live crammed in tower blocks.

It's a laughable idea, "designing our countryside better". We shouldn't need to travel from the arsehole of somewhere to the arsehole of somewhere else the other side of the country. No, everywhere should be within walking or cycling distance from everywhere else. Bloody geology and plate techtonics, making different places far from eachother. I'm sure someone will try to claim that human ghgs gave no doubt made the distances further too.

We need to somehow make a black hole, which will remove the distances and hence the need for cars.

Maybe T. Monk was being sarcastic when he posted that. I hope so, because if not then it probably ranks as the most crazy post in the history of Boards.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The idea of moving away from private cars being as dominant in transport as they are is a crazy idea? Many would suggest continuing the status quo with cars is completely crazy as there's only so much room.
Anyway it's hardly the place for this discussion, Infrastructure forum has a discussion on reducing the amount of cars should you wish to join in.

You"re the one who brought up the idea in this thread that we should move away from everyone owning a car. How would you suggest people shouldie move from A to B, especially those living out in the countr Should they be moved to the towns to make a 100% urban demographic and have a hub-spoke model of public transport? How would that work? Has the past century of the car therefore been a complete backward step in human development?

Would you also therefore recommend grounding planes and ships too and just having virtual holidays and family reunions? Virtual hugs...it might catch on.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's been a complete backward step, but designing societies around the private car is a complete disaster in my opinion, and the opinion of many others! It has held back public transport, led to people requiring a car to live, etc. etc.
I can't find my post to see why I brought it up, but cars often come up in discussions on climate change.
The number of cars being sold and on the road is higher than ever, so it's not like anything is going to drastically change any time soon, it doesn't mean some people think we should be doing things in other ways.

Your post was 4 months ago. So what's your solution to the scenario in my previous post?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I never said I had a solution to people living in the middle of nowhere, they are car reliant, I simply believe we should be encouraged and should plan better so people can live in ways where owning a car is not a requirement, we have failed badly in that sense in Ireland in my opinion which has led to congestion and pollution in urban areas.

That's all fluff, but what about actual practical solutions? How can we plan better so people live in a way that owning a car is not a requirement? You made the sweeping statement that you want things to go that way, but how? You can't make a statement like that without having actual practical solutions in mind. People live where theye live, so should we get them to up stick and move to the city?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Look if you think everyone owning a car is sustainable and wont lead and hasn't already led to all kinds of problems that's fine, I don't want to discuss this with you here, the discussion has been done to death in other threads, you win this argument that's fine.

I must have a look for that discussion to see if someone else had solution to no cars. It was done to death, so if it's viable then there must be a way. The science is settled, afterall, and a clear pathway ahead has been set. Just not on roads, it seems.

I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.

When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.

I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
Answer: The Catholic Church.

What an idiotic grasp of English you have there, Banana Republic.

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything and how he's machine-gunned the poor. Maybe I'm just an idiot too. We're all idiots!

Danno wrote: »

Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty?

Your fundemental theory is seriously flawed. The rich are not necessarily the fittest. Or the fittest rich.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
Answer: The Catholic Church.

It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

"President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

In what context is my post, which quoted danno by the why, at all relevant to what your saying?

My post is well in context of your reply. Either you can't see it or you simply just don't want to.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

"President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

I know these people are hypocrites, Leonardo DiCarprio etc., but it doesn't mean that our current rates of consumption and lifestyles are not completely unsustainable, especially in rich countries.