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

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

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.

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.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

stuff

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

BrokenArrows

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

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

Akrasia

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.

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.

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.

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


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)

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?'

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/

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.

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.

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.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

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.

Dense telling me I have no credibility is gas considering that you think NASA aren't trustworthy but Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard is.

Your question has been answered. Ireland's contribution to global warming is greater than our proportion of the global population, therefore we have a greater obligation to act than the majority of the countries in the world, and as a member of the EU we have a much greater global influence than most other countries our size.

I'll wait patiently for you to answer my question now

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense telling me I have no credibility is gas considering that you think NASA aren't trustworthy but Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard is.

The irony of you posting under an anonymous username scoffing at someone else posting under a username seems to have gone over your head.

But I believe NASA when they say they'd created a +0.5°C warming from adjustments for the US for the 20th century.

Your own trustworthiness goes when you can't explain what affect Ireland has had or can have on climate change.

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland's contribution to global warming is greater than our proportion of the global population, therefore we have a greater obligation to act than the majority of the countries in the world, and as a member of the EU we have a much greater global influence than most other countries our size.

This is pure waffle; instead of scouring eco activists sites for moral cliches why not quantify the effect on climate change of this disproportionate global influence you have invented for Ireland?

If you are going to make sweeping claims that Ireland has disproportionately globally influenced climate change you'll have to demonstrate that it is something other than a fuzzy idea you have read somewhere.


Be scientific, use numbers and we'll have a look and see whether your previous faux pas of believing a 0.6%
energy saving from the vacuum cleaner regulations was a "significant" energy saving was a one off or whether your idea of Ireland having a disproportionate global affect on global warming is more of the same hysterics.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

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.

I assume the clever point you think you're making here is that Ireland is a small country and therefore reducing our emissions won't have any significant effect, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with that line of thinking is similar to people saying one vote won't make a difference. Of course it won't, by itself, but if everyone takes that attitude then nothing ever changes.

Is there any actual reason you're against reducing emissions other than the socialist conspiracy stuff?

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I assume the clever point you think you're making here is that Ireland is a small country and therefore reducing our emissions won't have any significant effect, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with that line of thinking is similar to people saying one vote won't make a difference. Of course it won't, by itself, but if everyone takes that attitude then nothing ever changes.

Is there any actual reason you're against reducing emissions other than the socialist conspiracy stuff?

I have already told Akrasia that their carbon footprint could be the trigger that sets off the catastrophic tipping point they're so concerned about, or could have triggered the weather events that they claim were as a result of humans warming the planet but they're not buying it.

If Akrasia doesn't buy into that I can't see them having any legitimacy in this conversation.

They are flip flopping about the responsibility of others to reduce their carbon emissions and reneging on their own responsibilities by conveniently saying they are too small to count.

That is why eco activists have no credibility.

Hiding behind fake profiles trying to have half baked national emissions reduction policies implemented whilst they refuse to explain what affect it will have on global warming may be your cup of tea, but the readers deserve an honest answer even if you don't want it.

Renewable energy currently supplies just 8Twh of Ireland's 163Twh energy demand.

When someone from the green lobby loonies can explain how many extra windmills will be required to reliably supply the remaining 155Twh, the costs involved and then quantify the affect they believe it will have on climate change I will assess their answer.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The irony of you posting under an anonymous username scoffing at someone else posting under a username seems to have gone over your head.

Lol. If anyone ever quoted me as a source to contradict actual climate scientists or published research I'd think they were mad. Bloggers are not reliable sources, especially when they have a track record of fabricating and falsifying data and misrepresenting the conclusions of researchers

But I believe NASA when they say they'd created a +0.5°C warming from adjustments for the US for the 20th century. [\quote] lol. You are such a liar. You can't say you believe someone when the only thing you believe about what they say is that they are dishonest.

Your own trustworthiness goes when you can't explain what affect Ireland has had or can have on climate change.




This is pure waffle; instead of scouring eco activists sites for moral cliches why not quantify the effect on climate change of this disproportionate global influence you have invented for Ireland?

If you are going to make sweeping claims that Ireland has disproportionately globally influenced climate change you'll have to demonstrate that it is something other than a fuzzy idea you have read somewhere.



Be scientific, use numbers and we'll have a look and see whether your previous faux pas of believing a 0.6%
energy saving from the vacuum cleaner regulations was a "significant" energy saving was a one off or whether your idea of Ireland having a disproportionate global affect on global warming is more of the same hysterics.

Ireland produce .11℅ of global co2 emissions but only have. 07% of the global population.

The rest of your blathering is just a transparent effort to avoid answering my question. What are you afraid of dense?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland produce .11℅ of global co2 emissions but only have. 07% of the global population.

And?

You're being asked to explain and quantify the affect this has had on climate change and quantify and explain the affect it will have on future climate change if it is eliminated - not whether you think Ireland's population is proportional to its CO2 emissions.

I don't know who's mentoring you in how to debate, but they're not doing a very good job.

Akrasia

Answer my question

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

I don't know who's mentoring you in how to debate, but they're not doing a very good job.

Again, this is not a debate.

It's one person dogmatically circling the wagons on their personal beliefs with the rest of the participants "trying" to convince them of something they will never accept

It's not a debate, it's a pedantic game of "endurance"

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again
It's one person dogmatically circling the wagons on their personal beliefs with the rest of the participants "trying" to convince them of something they will never accept

The people here who are dogmatic in promoting their belief that Ireland needs to transition off of fossil fuels cannot give any legitimate explanation as to how they belive such a transition will alleviate global warming or prevent climate change.



Nor can they articulate or quantify this alleged "disproportionate" affect that they're now claiming Ireland has had on global warming.

It is clear that you are of the same belief set as Akrasia that Ireland needs to transition off fossil fuels, so what would you say to someone who asks you how will that affect global warming?

You'd obviously invite them to take a hike too even though you probably know that it's a poor response.

I mean if you don't know the answer just get it off your chest now and say you don't know, I dont think anyone will think any less of you for being truthful about it.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

The people here who are dogmatic in promoting their belief that Ireland needs to transition off of fossil fuels cannot give any legitimate explanation as to how they belive such a transition will alleviate global warming or prevent climate change.



Nor can they articulate or quantify this alleged "disproportionate" affect that they're now claiming Ireland has had on global warming.

It is clear that you are of the same belief set as Akrasia that Ireland needs to transition off fossil fuels, so what would you say to someone who asks you how will that affect global warming?

You'd obviously invite them to take a hike too even though you probably know that it's a poor response.

I mean if you don't know the answer just get it off your chest now and say you don't know, I dont think anyone will think any less of you for being truthful about it.

You're great at demanding other people answer questions while ignoring those that people ask you.

xckjoo

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?'

In case you missed it

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

In case you missed it

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're great at demanding other people answer questions while ignoring those that people ask you.

I'm making no demands of anyone.



I'm inviting them to explain how transitioning Ireland off fossil fuels will affect climate change.

It's an open invitation by the way, it extends to any of you who are pushing that agenda.

Look on it as an opportunity to get more like minded people on the Irish climate change bandwagon calling for Ireland to Stop Climate Chaos.

Remember what the activists say, and try not to hide behind the fact that Ireland is a small country with a small population.

“And Ireland cannot hide behind its small size and population. According to Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland has one of the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/call-for-managed-and-just-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.3137175?mode=amp


If quantifying the affect on climate change that is expected to be achieved by eliminating what is clearly one of the highest emissions levels per person in the world is neither possible or important to those who want to direct public policy and to those who support such policies, how can they expect anyone to take their cultish policies seriously?


You folks clearly don't believe it will achieve anything but are too polite and environmentally aware to say so, right?

If you do believe an Irish transition off fossil fuels will affect climate change, you're being given an opportunity to explain why you believe that.

xckjoo

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?'

Did you miss this dense?

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

I'm making no demands of anyone.



I'm inviting them to explain how transitioning Ireland off fossil fuels will affect climate change.

It's an open invitation by the way, it extends to any of you who are pushing that agenda.

Look on it as an opportunity to get more like minded people on the Irish climate change bandwagon calling for Ireland to Stop Climate Chaos.

Remember what the activists say, and try not to hide behind the fact that Ireland is a small country with a small population.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/call-for-managed-and-just-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.3137175?mode=amp


If quantifying the affect on climate change that is expected to be achieved by eliminating what is clearly one of the highest emissions levels per person in the world is neither possible or important to those who want to direct public policy and to those who support such policies, how can they expect anyone to take their cultish policies seriously?


You folks clearly don't believe it will achieve anything but are too polite and environmentally aware to say so, right?

If you do believe an Irish transition off fossil fuels will affect climate change, you're being given an opportunity to explain why you believe that.

Okay then, you're accusing other people of avoiding questions while doing exactly the same yourself. Is that sufficiently accurate for you?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

In case you missed it

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're great at demanding other people answer questions while ignoring those that people ask you.

I'm making no demands of anyone.

I'm inviting them to explain how transitioning Ireland off fossil fuels will affect climate change.

It's an open invitation by the way, it extends to any of you who are pushing that agenda.

Look on it as an opportunity to get more like minded people on the Irish climate change bandwagon calling for Ireland to Stop Climate Chaos.

Remember what the activists say, and try not to hide behind the fact that Ireland is a small country with a small population.

“And Ireland cannot hide behind its small size and population. According to Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland has one of the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/call-for-managed-and-just-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.3137175?mode=amp


If quantifying the affect on climate change that is expected to be achieved by eliminating what is clearly one of the highest emissions levels per person in the world is neither possible or important to those who want to direct public policy and to those who support such policies, how can they expect anyone to take their cultish policies seriously?


You folks clearly don't believe it will achieve anything but are too polite and environmentally aware to say so, right?

If you do believe an Irish transition off fossil fuels will affect climate change, you're just being given an opportunity to explain why you believe that.


Rejection of such an opportunity might raise suspicions that you don't really understand what you're calling for or why you're calling for it.



And that appears to be the case.

xckjoo

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

dense

Would anyone who believes that Ireland needs to transition off of fossil fuels and do so urgently but cannot explain why like to explain where the 155Twh of energy currently supplied by fossil fuels each year is going to come from and what it will cost?


Or have none of you thought this aspect through either?

Doctor Jimbob

Which of the oil companies do you work for dense?

p1akuw47h5r3it

xckjoo wrote: »

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

And again.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Which of the oil companies do you work for dense?

None.

Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

They don't.

Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.

maccored

dense wrote: »

None.

Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

They don't.

Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.

who gives a bollocks if its manmade or not? its happening regardless

dubstepper

dense wrote: »

If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

None.

Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

They don't.

Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.

None. I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

None. I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.

There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.

Doctor Jimbob

xckjoo wrote: »

There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.

Ah yeah, but sure it passes the time until some work lands on my desk if nothing else :pac:

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

None.

I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.

But you haven't ignored it, you're now saying that the lefty eco activists' demands which have somehow been made public policy here will make no difference to global warming.

It's easy to call my posts waffle, but you're the first person here to respond by saying they think Ireland transitioning off fossil fuels will have no effect on climate change.

You could have stated that from the outset instead of dragging it out for so long.

And you could have said you are sceptical of the full on alarmist position adopted by Akrasia and other climate justice activists.

They won't be pleased with people saying all their emissions and eco grant policies for Ireland will have no affect on climate change...

Are you sure you're not a sceptic yourself Doctor Jimbob?

You certainly seem highly sceptical of the alarmists and their demands.

Doctor Jimbob

xckjoo wrote: »

There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.

dense wrote: »

But you haven't ignored it, you're now saying that the lefty eco activists' demands which have somehow been made public policy here will make no difference to global warming.

It's easy to call my posts waffle, but you're the first person here to respond by saying they think Ireland transitioning off fossil fuels will have no effect on climate change.

You could have stated that from the outset instead of dragging it out for so long.

And you could have said you are sceptical of the full on alarmist position adopted by Akrasia and other climate justice activists.

They won't be pleased with people saying all their emissions and eco grant policies for Ireland will have no affect on climate change...

Are you sure you're not a sceptic yourself Doctor Jimbob?

You certainly seem highly sceptical of the alarmists and their demands.

Yep.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yep.

I must be psychic. Time to chuck in the job and join the circus :pac:

Sofiztikated

xckjoo wrote: »

I must be psychic. Time to chuck in the job and join the circus :pac:

I wouldn't bother, there's already a clown here.