Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

again thats a little bit of point missing, isnt it

now thats understandable, ive read a few of your 30 odd posts too and youre clearly shooting with a shotgun and not a rifle. a stylistic choice, nothing wrong with that!

now, i set out very clearly where- on the specific point, and it's important, isnt it, to be specific?- that kyussb of any poster in this thread has no credibility to bandy about accusations of politicisation.

and i set out in the same post the rationale

and while you might think it is incumbent on me, having made such comment, to therefore somehow prove my own credibility in making incessant accusations against other posters in this thread of 'politicisation' id point out that

a) it isn't, really.

b) im not making such incessant accusations, am i?

so while its nice to get yr uh ""feedback"" on what your projections of my views on education, the scientific method and all that might be, and your review of my general performance in the thread- welcome to the thread, btw- its well look its of little interest to me that you would feel compelled to do so.

the point stands.

What credibility do you hold?

When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.

You don't understand your limitations when it comes to this subject. That's fine. Ignorance is fine, but don't proclaim your ignorance over experts(and I'm not talking about kyuss here, though he's clearly more read on this subject than you are)

He does have a point. When people link to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and lassiez faire free marketers, they should be called out. If they keep linking to think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry and laissez faire free marketers, they should then be laughed at.

KyussB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why continue to label people as “climate change deniers” when they have not denied climate change?

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Woodsie1

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

What credibility do you hold?

When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.

You don't understand your limitations when it comes to this subject. That's fine. Ignorance is fine, but don't proclaim your ignorance over experts(and I'm not talking about kyuss here, though he's clearly more read on this subject than you are)

He does have a point. When people link to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and lassiez faire free marketers, they should be called out. If they keep linking to think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry and laissez faire free marketers, they should then be laughed at.

What credibility do you hold?

When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

No one is "dodging" that constant daft obsessive repetitive question. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion in hand. Though I would certainly agree the other obsession of the Green New Deal is certainly political.

So climate change 'experts' who happen to deny the scientific consensus on climate change are 'relevant' - and the reputations and funders of same said 'experts' is irrelevant, that right?

You're happy to back/support those 'experts' - but suddenly any analysis of their funders and reputation is irrelevant and off-topic?

There's a lot of debating over credibility here, now - and defending the above doesn't do your own any favours - which is why I'm happy to keep pressing the point.

An easy way for you/others to restore some kind of credibility though, would be to acknowledge the fairly simple question I put forward. The reason you collectively don't do this, though - is because you know you'll quickly run out of sources you can use to back your views, then - which wouldn't be, in your own potential words (if you had answered the question), discreditable.


That's the only reason any of you refuse to answer and acknowledge Koch funding as discreditable. Everyone reading can see that.

SaintLeibowitz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

What credibility do you hold?

When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.

I'm sure snoop is not in the market for an arselicker(see what I did there?, I sure am funny).

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

...

short of copying and pasting my response to you again, i fail to see what else to say that might draw your attention any further to the salient points.

but what are we here for if not to waste our time nest pas

i. are you asking me about my general credibility? what's the possible relevance? ive set out quite clearly where kyuss has, imo, no credibility on the actual specific point- accusations of politicisation.

now, you either do or dont understand that. nothing wrong with the latter of course. might be mistaken for ....ignorance....but nothing wrong with ignorance!

ii. i fail to see where your (now repeated) claims that im claiming expertise over experts is relevant to the post you keep asking about. or where im claiming any such expertise at all, in fact- though of course, maintaining an interest in such a thread over the course of its shall we say evolution will no doubt have me pooh-poohing plenty of experts, recognised and otherwise, as suits my opinion.

not for me to say you should pay any particular heed to my doing so one way or the other. but kindly don't attempt to put me on a pedestal i havent asked for so you can throw fruit at me for being there.

that would be very odd behaviour from you, after all.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

I'm sure snoop is not in the market for an arselicker(see what I did there?, I sure am funny).

ach i regret thanking woods1es post now, but no going back eh

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

I see no denial in the current discussions by the way. I do see the subject of alarmism and its inherent problems very clearly. Though if you would like to discuss something else entirely or play wiki snap - here is a relevant article. It even features a prominent picture of greta...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-anxiety

Woodsie1

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

I'm sure snoop is not in the market for an arselicker(see what I did there?, I sure am funny).

I see...Wasnt funny or original though.

What credentials have you?

gozunda

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

What credibility do you hold? When it comes to climate change.. I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing.You don't understand your limitations when it comes to this subject. That's fine. Ignorance is fine, but don't proclaim your ignorance over experts(and I'm not talking about kyuss here, though he's clearly more read on this subject than you are) He does have a point. When people link to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and lassiez faire free marketers, they should be called out. If they keep linking to think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry and laissez faire free marketers, they should then be laughed at.

Again not having a go but none of that really makes any sense does it ...

Woodsie1

Deleted User wrote: »

ach i regret thanking woods1es post now, but no going back eh

Its ok snoop I think youre a prick and have no intention of licking your arse:D
Edit:

For the mods Im joking snoop seems to be sound enough,still dont want to arselick though:pac:

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

short of copying and pasting my response to you again, i fail to see what else to say that might draw your attention any further to the salient points.

but what are we here for if not to waste our time nest pas

i. are you asking me about my general credibility? what's the possible relevance? ive set out quite clearly where kyuss has, imo, no credibility on the actual specific point- accusations of politicisation.

now, you either do or dont understand that. nothing wrong with the latter of course. might be mistaken for ....ignorance....but nothing wrong with ignorance!

ii. i fail to see where your (now repeated) claims that im claiming expertise over experts is relevant to the post you keep asking about. or where im claiming any such expertise at all, in fact- though of course, maintaining an interest in such a thread over the course of its shall we say evolution will no doubt have me pooh-poohing plenty of experts, recognised and otherwise, as suits my opinion.

not for me to say you should pay any particular heed to my doing so one way or the other. but kindly don't attempt to put me on a pedestal i havent asked for so you can throw fruit at me for being there.

that would be very odd behaviour from you, after all.

As I've already told you. No two opinions are equal.
As you've shown yourself, through your posts on this thread. That the above is true.

The fact your demanding an apology for an accusation proved instantly... is very odd behaviour.

SaintLeibowitz

gozunda wrote: »

Again not having a go but none of that eally makes any sense does it ...

Eally. What the fcuk those that mean?

ah well, noted.

twont, i presume, be for you to decide whether kyuss's statement was proven true or otherwise, and twont, im sure, be for you to decide what opinions are equal or otherwise.

now, lads-

has greta solved the world ending in 2030 yet? we've been somewhat sidetracked

Beasty

KyussB wrote: »

Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet) - and have repeatedly refused/dodged the simple question, about whether a pattern of funding from the Koch oil oligarchs, is discreditable to people claiming to be 'experts' on climate change.

It is quite simple to discredit these posters - just ask and watch them refuse to answer the simple question: Is Koch funding discreditable to people claiming to be climate 'experts'/'scientists'?

Attack the post(s), not the poster(s)

Any questions, PM me

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

It's a bit odd how the denialist crowd go the "accuse the other side first, of what you're guilty of..." route all the time.

It doesn't help, you know - it just backfires, like so:
You actually visibly have a lot in common with the chemtrail activists - as a chemtrail activist would regularly cite cranks who are in denial of science, to push their views - and this is precisely what you do on a regular basis, with e.g. people like Ray Bates previously.

Same with others paintaing use of the word 'denial' as being religious: It is the position of those denying science - i.e. refusing to accept and contradicting overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence - who are basing their views entirely upon beliefs - beliefs which are so fanatical and rabid, and in contradiction of reality/science/evidence, that they are bordering on religious.

Kyuss, I take it you were having a bad day and this attitude you have is not you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as we all have our bad days.

Now, would you please mind telling me who tf these Koch's (sic) are? I've never heard of them, apart from in your repeated obsessive accusations against anyone who dares question anything. You really are in the chemtrail activist type of paranoia box. You need to calm down.

I never mentioned Bates here, but what that has to do with the topic I was discussing is not clear. Could you please address the points I made about the current bushfires and one by one explain why they're flawed, bearing in mind that I'm just quoting the national meteorological agency of the country in question. Tell me How was unable or unwilling to do so, but even he didn't resort to the foul-mouthed attack that you did. As I said, maybe you were having one of those days. It's alright, you're with friends here.

SaintLeibowitz

Woodsie1 wrote: »

I see...Wasnt funny or original though.

What credentials have you?

It was funny. Its just not funny to you because its at your expense.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

So climate change 'experts' who happen to deny the scientific consensus on climate change are 'relevant' - and the reputations and funders of same said 'experts' is irrelevant, that right? You're happy to back/support those 'experts' - but suddenly any analysis of their funders and reputation is irrelevant and off-topic?There's a lot of debating over credibility here, now - and defending the above doesn't do your own any favours - which is why I'm happy to keep pressing the point.An easy way for you/others to restore some kind of credibility though, would be to acknowledge the fairly simple question I put forward. The reason you collectively don't do this, though - is because you know you'll quickly run out of sources you can use to back your views, then - which wouldn't be, in your own potential words (if you had answered the question), discreditable.
That's the only reason any of you refuse to answer and acknowledge Koch funding as discreditable. Everyone reading can see that.

I'm not sure any of that translates to any type of logic tbh but no matter.

But to try and answer the highlighted bit - No just the claptrap about kochs and oil oligarchs and GND and god knows what. None of that is remotely related to any experts - climate or otherwise. Sorry for bursting that bubble. But hey that's how it is.

Beasty

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Seems none of the Greta arselickers can respond to any points without snidey little insults

Seems you want to act in a similar way to what you are complaining of

I would suggest you back off if you wish to avoid sanctions

Any questions, PM me

gozunda

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Eally. What the fcuk those that mean?

Ditto ...
At least I know I have a dodgy keyboard

Woodsie1

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

It was funny. Its just not funny to you because its at your expense.

Im Irish,Im well able to laugh at myself.
Your attempt at humour was sh1t,dont give up the day job.

Still lacking those credentials your asking of others arent you?

Tuisceanch

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Could you please address the points I made about the current bushfires and one by one explain why they're flawed, bearing in mind that I'm just quoting the national meteorological agency of the country in question.

This is where you have me confused. The article linked https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/old-hat-is-there-a-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539d2.html stated:

"As the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO pointed out in last year's latest State of the Climate report, the number of the most extreme 10 per cent of fire weather days based on the fire danger index "has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia".

The state of the climate report it refers to was produced by the Bureau of Meteorology, the very organization you then linked to refute the articles assertions but in that report it states:

"Australia’s weather and climate continues to change in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed by just over 1 °C since 1910, with
most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions
during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia’s top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005. The year-to-year changes in Australia’s
climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend,which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate.Increases in temperature are observed across Australia in all seasons with both day and night-time temperatures showing warming. The shift to a warmer climate in Australia is accompanied by more extreme daily heat events. Record-warm monthly and seasonal temperatures have been
observed in recent years, made more likely by climate change."

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Kyuss, I take it you were having a bad day and this attitude you have is not you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as we all have our bad days.

Now, would you please mind telling me who tf these Koch's (sic) are? I've never heard of them, apart from in your repeated obsessive accusations against anyone who dares question anything. You really are in the chemtrail activist type of paranoia box. You need to calm down.

I never mentioned Bates here, but what that has to do with the topic I was discussing is not clear. Could you please address the points I made about the current bushfires and one by one explain why they're flawed, bearing in mind that I'm just quoting the national meteorological agency of the country in question. Tell me How was unable or unwilling to do so, but even he didn't resort to the foul-mouthed attack that you did. As I said, maybe you were having one of those days. It's alright, you're with friends here.

No I'm fine, thanks I'm just fairly direct in posting style, and like to rip through all of the (usually blindingly obvious) conflicts of interest in sources people cite.

You made fairly strong claims to being just interested in the science - so the past frequent refernce to the Bates guy, I thought was a very good indication of the opposite - given how discreditable he is.

He is linked to the GWPF - which itself is linked to Koch funding - and the Koch's are some of the biggest propagandists on the planet - funding propaganda on everything from climate change denial, denial of the negative health effects of tobacco, support for racist apartheid in South Africa, mass-privatization-of-literally-everything, stripping workers rights, supporting child labour etc etc..

Pretty much every single source involved with climate change denial, is easly linked back to think tanks they fund - that's why they come up pretty much unendingly.

Gaoth Laidir

Tuisceanch wrote: »

This is where you have me confused. The article linked https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/old-hat-is-there-a-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539d2.html stated:

"As the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO pointed out in last year's latest State of the Climate report, the number of the most extreme 10 per cent of fire weather days based on the fire danger index "has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia".

The state of the climate report it refers to was produced by the Bureau of Meteorology, the very organization you then linked to refute the articles assertions assertions but in that report it states:

"Australia’s weather and climate continues to change in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed by just over 1 °C since 1910, with
most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions
during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia’s top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005. The year-to-year changes in Australia’s
climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend,which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate.Increases in temperature are observed across Australia in all seasons with both day and night-time temperatures showing warming. The shift to a warmer climate in Australia is accompanied by more extreme daily heat events. Record-warm monthly and seasonal temperatures have been
observed in recent years, made more likely by climate change."

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf

Now exactly where have I been refuting anything quoted in that article? I haven't. You're not paying attention. I was referring to this current bushfire - ffs I'm having to repeat myself - which would probably not be happening if the IOD were not so positive. I never once said anything about longterm trends in forecasts conditions. You and some others have been trying to imply that I have, but all you're doing is making yourselves look like fools. So please, go back and quote the parts where I'm supposed to have questioned it. You won't find any.

A new low.

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

No I'm fine, thanks I'm just fairly direct in posting style, and like to rip through all of the (usually blindingly obvious) conflicts of interest in sources people cite.

You made fairly strong claims to being just interested in the science - so the past frequent refernce to the Bates guy, I thought was a very good indication of the opposite - given how discreditable he is.

He is linked to the GWPF - which itself is linked to Koch funding - and the Koch's are some of the biggest propagandists on the planet - funding propaganda on everything from climate change denial, denial of the negative health effects of tobacco, support for racist apartheid in South Africa, mass-privatization-of-literally-everything, stripping workers rights, supporting child labour etc etc..

Pretty much every single source involved with climate change denial, is easly linked back to think tanks they fund - that's why they come up pretty much unendingly.

Ah here, you're definitely of the chemtrail brigade. This nonsense has to stop. Go and refer to the points I made in this thread and stop skipping around them. I think maybe the science is above your head.

Tell me how

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Now exactly where have I been refuting anything quoted in that article? I haven't. You're not paying attention. I was referring to this current bushfire - ffs I'm having to repeat myself - which would probably not be happening if the IOD were not so positive. I never once said anything about longterm trends in forecasts conditions. You and some others have been trying to imply that I have, but all you're doing is making yourselves look like fools. So please, go back and quote the parts where I'm supposed to have questioned it. You won't find any.

A new low.

For the love of God.

If you are deliberately trying to focus on a single bush fire, storm or flood then there will never be a shortage of people saying it cannot be proven definitively that it was as a consequence of human impacted climate change.

Everyone else is talking about the scientific evidence of the growing frequencies and severity of such events, you're detracting from any argument to try to do something about it because of pedantry.

Tuisceanch

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Now exactly where have I been refuting anything quoted in that article? I haven't. You're not paying attention. I was referring to this current bushfire - ffs I'm having to repeat myself - which would probably not be happening if the IOD were not so positive. I never once said anything about longterm trends in forecasts conditions. You and some others have been trying to imply that I have, but all you're doing is making yourselves look like fools. So please, go back and quote the parts where I'm supposed to have questioned it. You won't find any.

A new low.

You brought up the subject of bushfires with me when I hadn't even commented on it so I'm only replying.That's allowed isn't it? You said:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The message that is going out the the people is not one that is based on ALL the facts. The only man-made signal in these latest fires is down to how they were started. The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists way more qualified than me.

Clearly your assertion,in bold, does not accord with what the BOM state in their report. (I assumed you had read it). Clearly they are of the opinion that climate change is a contributing factor. In fact they are quite unequivocal on that point.

From the same report:

"Fire weather is largely monitored in Australia using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). This index estimates the fire danger on a given day based
on observations of temperature,rainfall, humidity and wind speed. The annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI (i.e., the most extreme 10 per cent
of fire weather days) has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia. There has been an
associated increase in the length of the fire weather season. Climate change,including increasing temperatures,is contributing to these changes.
Considerable year‑to‑year variability also occurs, with La Niña years, for example 2010–2011 and 1999–2000,generally associated with a lower
number of days with high FFDI values."






Did you post a link that stated they had actually said that because these are the only three links I saw that you had posted on the subject and they don't make any assertion about 'The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists'. You have to admit that's a potential source of confusion. I'm sure you must have been referring to something else and if not the report I mentioned then perhaps a missing link?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/iod/#tabs=Positive-IOD-impacts
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/overview/summary/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/tropical-note/

As to the cause of the latest bushfires:

"In Victoria, there are at least 60 blazes burning. The exact number is not known as new fires have been sparked by lightning strikes during this afternoon’s storm."

"The Yorketown fire in South Australia was caused by a power network fault, AAP reports:"

https://tinyurl.com/rrk3z5z

Not exactly hysterical reporting.

As to the underlying conditions which you mentioned and linked to it http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/iod/#tabs=Positive-IOD-impacts, it also seems relevant to mention the report from 2018.


It is also relevant to quote from the following article from the very same organization in relation to one of the above mentioned causes:

"In relation to fire ignition, there is some indication that climate change could influence the risk of ignitions from dry-lightning (i.e., lightning that occurs without significant rainfall) while noting relatively large uncertainties in currently available model representations of this phenomenon. Additionally, there has recently been a number of devastating fire events in Australia associated with extreme pyroconvection (including thunderstorm development in a fire plume), with recent research indicating a long-term trend towards increased risk factors associated with pyroconvection in southeast Australia. Bushfire weather conditions in future years are projected to increase in severity for many regions of Australasia, including due to more extreme heat events, with the rate and magnitude of change increasing with greenhouse gas concentrations (and emissions)."

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml

A further note on pyroconvection from a scientific paper published on 11/07/2019 and funded by the National Environmental Science Program of the Australian Government.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46362-x

"Extreme wildfires have recently caused disastrous impacts in Australia and other regions of the world, including events with strong convective processes in their plumes (i.e., strong pyroconvection). Dangerous wildfire events such as these could potentially be influenced by anthropogenic climate change, however, there are large knowledge gaps on how these events might change in the future."

I think the abusive part of your post is best ignored as it doesn't speak well of your bona fides and was surely an error in judgement on your part.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

For the love of God. If you are deliberately trying to focus on a single bush fire, storm or flood then there will never be a shortage of people saying it cannot be proven definitively that it was as a consequence of human impacted climate change. Everyone else is talking about the scientific evidence of the growing frequencies and severity of such events, you're detracting from any argument to try to do something about it because of pedantry.

Who is 'everyone btw? You and? Is God included as well?

I dont believe the poster is doing anything of the sort. The point is that claiming all bush fires (plural) are unequivocally to 100% down to climate change is disingenuous at best

Anyone else correctly pointing out that not all the ducks are lined up in a lovely neat row - is not as you attempt to claim "detracting from any argument to try to do something about it because of pedantry". It is simply stating the status quo.

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

For the love of God.

If you are deliberately trying to focus on a single bush fire, storm or flood then there will never be a shortage of people saying it cannot be proven definitively that it was as a consequence of human impacted climate change.

Everyone else is talking about the scientific evidence of the growing frequencies and severity of such events, you're detracting from any argument to try to do something about it because of pedantry.

Thank you. You've finally admitted that's what I was talking about. Took a while to get there...