Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
socialist

The Truth About The Climate Change Debate

Recommended Posts

nice try - anyone can float something based on their thoughts, understandings and interpretations... but I'll bite: what scientists in a position to directly influence policy are proposing policy to policymakers... and having that policy enacted? Better?

Yes, but he publishes them in his scientific papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - that study is currently undergoing peer-review for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics... why... at this stage, even you have an opportunity to present your most emphatic unsubstantiated one-liner statements of authority!

And it was published before peer-review. Why? In order to try to influence COP21 in Paris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but he publishes them in his scientific papers.

and if one accepts your saying so is accurate... so what? Again, "what scientists in a position to directly influence policy are proposing policy to policymakers... and having that policy enacted?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it was published before peer-review. Why? In order to try to influence COP21 in Paris.

no - again, it's going through peer-review... what you declare as "published" is a part of the first phase of that journal's (Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics) peer-review process. But hey... don't let that get ahead of your presumed influence labeling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and if one accepts your saying so is accurate... so what? Again, "what scientists in a position to directly influence policy are proposing policy to policymakers... and having that policy enacted?"

Because his conclusions are not based on what is in his paper. He goes off on tangents about policy recommendations that are not justified by the results of his paper. It's unscientific.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because his conclusions are not based on what is in his paper. He goes off on tangents about policy recommendations that are not justified by the results of his paper. It's unscientific.

your comment has nothing to do with the quote you put forward. And again, the paper is authored by 17 scientists; although Hansen is the lead author, your proper wording should be "the paper's conclusions". I suggest you wait on the paper author's replies to the first stage of the review process and what changes may be presented in the final version... presuming the journal considers it for acceptance and final publication. And like I said, "at this stage, even you have an opportunity to present your most emphatic unsubstantiated one-liner statements of authority!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because his conclusions are not based on what is in his paper. He goes off on tangents about policy recommendations that are not justified by the results of his paper. It's unscientific.

But he is an anointed scientist priest. That means he gets to say anything he wants and anyone who says he is making crap up is a "denier".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he is an anointed scientist priest. That means he gets to say anything he wants and anyone who says he is making crap up is a "denier".

oh really... I thought your denialsphere brethren have worked feverishly to demonize Hansen! Surely you're not giving up the good theological fight, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your comment has nothing to do with the quote you put forward. And again, the paper is authored by 17 scientists; although Hansen is the lead author, your proper wording should be "the paper's conclusions". I suggest you wait on the paper author's replies to the first stage of the review process and what changes may be presented in the final version... presuming the journal considers it for acceptance and final publication. And like I said, "at this stage, even you have an opportunity to present your most emphatic unsubstantiated one-liner statements of authority!"

Look, I've read many of Hansen's papers, and they all have significant flaws and he always puts policy recommendations and conclusions that are unsupported by the rest of the paper in his conclusion. I don't care how many authors they are. Poor science is poor science, and people concluding things that are not justified by the evidence is not ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I've read many of Hansen's papers, and they all have significant flaws and he always puts policy recommendations and conclusions that are unsupported by the rest of the paper in his conclusion. I don't care how many authors they are. Poor science is poor science, and people concluding things that are not justified by the evidence is not ideal.

bully for you! The day you come out of the shadows and show you've actually had something related published... you have no personal credibility in presuming to challenge any scientific paper... particularly not with your glib and unsubstantiated one-liner nothingness... pointedly not from a smallish, rather obscure political discussion board! There's certainly nothing stopping you from putting forward formal challenge to Hansen... in this latest paper reference, your statements can go online for others to watch how they're replied to by the paper's authors. C'mon... make sure to pointedly say, "Hansen, Hansen, Hansen"... and perhaps he may appear! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Also, you don't know my life. You have no idea what may or may not be stopping me.

oh pleeeese! Your one-sided anonymous 'without foundation' statements/challenges notwithstanding... you make these grandiose claims and expect that same anonymity to give you cover? I'm perfectly accepting to you providing examples of recognized, formal peer-response challenge to anything Hansen has published... because then he has an opportunity to respond in kind. You... you're just another anonymous poster throwing spitballs from afar... on an, again, rather smallish and obscure political discussion board!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which stage of denial are these guys in now?

And how long until they reach acceptance?

Only when their political leaders stop seeking fossil fuel donations. They accept the truth, it's just inconvenient to their politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only when their political leaders stop seeking fossil fuel donations. They accept the truth, it's just inconvenient to their politics.

Pot: meet kettle. I will support CO2 mitigation as soon as I hear a plan that:

1) Has a reasonable chance of actually achieving the stated goal;

2) Costs less than the alleged consequences of climate change.

The only irrational people out there are the religious zealots who think other people's money needs to be pissed away on various scams to create the illusion of 'action'. It is no surprise that economic illiterates from the left are the biggest promoters of CO2 mitigation scams.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Naomi Klein comes out with any book the agenda is anti-capitalism.

If a climate scientist comes out with a book about climate change then it most likely has a climate science agenda.

[/thread]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we now have July 2015 as the hottest month ever recorded on the planet since we have been keeping records (135 years). I'll be interested to see how the "deniers" wrestle with that fact.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820152817.htm

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-january-june-2015

Edited by On Guard for Thee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we now have July 2015 as the hottest month ever recorded on the planet since we have been keeping records (135 years). I'll be interested to see how the "deniers" wrestle with that fact.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820152817.htm

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-january-june-2015

Thanks for posting! I was going to put it up last night since it's official now; but I expect someone in the oil-funded spin zone to already be typing up their blog posts about how July's weather is just part of the natural climate cycle and sunspots or some other excuse will reduce temperatures and bring back all the ice that's been lost in the Arctic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting! I was going to put it up last night since it's official now; but I expect someone in the oil-funded spin zone to already be typing up their blog posts about how July's weather is just part of the natural climate cycle and sunspots or some other excuse will reduce temperatures and bring back all the ice that's been lost in the Arctic.

Just wish it were more positive news to be posting about. But maybe with fossils in the doldrums, and looking like it will stay, maybe we will some investment moving into renewables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't live in Miami so why would I be scared. I may actually benefit as I might just end up with waterfront BC coastal property.

Usually property 1m above the sea level is already considered to be 'coastal'. 5cm/decade equals 1m per 200 years! Hardly worth worrying about. There is more than enough time to build whatever seawalls are required to protect urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually property 1m above the sea level is already considered to be 'coastal'. 5cm/decade equals 1m per 200 years! Hardly worth worrying about. There is more than enough time to build whatever seawalls are required to protect urban areas.

How high are you going to build those walls, since with GW, there will be more numerous severe storms. Then you have to figure out how to make drainage systems keep flowing. Look at the outlook for Florida with what they have already got happening there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high are you going to build those walls, since with GW, there will be more numerous severe storms.

Actually not true. The climate models show that the number of storms *decreases* although they may be more severe. In any case, a 1m increase in sea level is not going to require much in terms of sea walls even after accounting for storm surges. Building the sea walls is certainly more cost effective than engaging in a futile effort to reduce emissions that will likely end up with us spending the money on sea walls anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...