March 5, 2021 at 3:04 pm #203116
It’s been proved many times Buck’s your an idiot why do you seek more humiliating confirmation? What a strange person you are, would you like a bone to go away in the corner and chew on?March 5, 2021 at 3:21 pm #203117
Just popped into say that it should be a piece of cake, but you continuously fail to understand arguments and what I am on about. I do not trust you to understand or accept anything which contradicts your worldview, given your past input on this, so I ask, why should I bother to engage on this?
And, no viewing you as an actor of bad faith does not mean I am inherently undermining you. Perhaps stew on that before you start making claims about why I am not bothering.
It’s been done to death and your past woeful understandings and trust in absolute nonsense does not lead me to believe it’s worth debating. Not because I can’t answer it, but because I don’t see the point.
But of course, as seen in the last sentence, we won’t get any self-introspection and it will be all bluster and projection onto me as to how I am the only one acting in any unfaithful way, while you straw man, cherry pick and misunderstand my points to suit your agenda.
Your final sentence just demonstrates to me that I was correct in my assumption about you having a gargantuan ego and it being not worth bothering. The fact that you immediately assume why I am not debating based on your own prejudices just demonstrates that you cannot look at yourself in the mirror and cannot engage in good faith, nor offer any kind of assumption that you might be wrong.
All in all, it just shows to me that it’s pointless debating with you. You can either self-reflect, just for once in your life, or you can continue to act as if it’s a black and white world where everyone else is a baddy and you’re the goody. I have absolutely no trust it will be the former, based on past experience and there is nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation. I am not obliged to find you a debater in good faith, so stew on that while you act as if you’re reasonable.
I know I said I wouldn’t bother responding, but IA piqued my interest. I won’t be engaging again, because it’s pointless and not worth my time posting out the same evidence, refuting the same half-understood nonsense and goalpost shifting when I have far more important things to do with my time than continuously talk to a brick wall.March 5, 2021 at 3:52 pm #203118
p.s. I see no shame in being wrong about things, I often am. However, of course, because I stated you are I get it thrown back in my face, because it would mean taking some self-reflection. Tedious, and precisely why I see no point debating with you, after debating on this so many times (seriously, what more can be gained?). Your claim that I didn’t debunk Phin is an obvious reason as to why I see no point as well. I did give a rebuttal, one which you failed to counter or offer any kind of explanation for the reasoning, nor did you seem to understand it. Of course, I could be wrong, and gave you chance to offer an explanation, but I am hardly going to change my mind when your responses couldn’t even touch on what was wrong with it. Yes, I have some trust in my own understanding, but that doesn’t mean I think I am always right. It would be easier to take this seriously if you ever engaged with critique of your own side, but you never have done, so you can keep to your playground rhetoric of “actually, you are.” It means little given the history of your own debating on this.
You can pretend it’s because it’s a result of me not knowing what to say, but we all know that’s just you soothing your own ego, since I clearly do not see you as the mega genius you think you are. And you clearly do, given you wouldn’t resort to being so snide and touchy whenever someone dares not to treat you as someone to revere. You wouldn’t set yourself up as someone to prove against if not, but you forget that others do not see the need to demonstrate against such. There is nothing to be gained from this, except more wasted time The sooner you realise that not everyone sees everything you say to be some great gospel truth in this the better.March 5, 2021 at 4:12 pm #203119
“The sooner you realise that not everyone sees everything you say to be some great gospel truth in this the better ”
I have it on very good authority that’ll be very shortly, as soon as next month on the 31st.March 5, 2021 at 4:47 pm #203120
‘Not everyone’? Is there someone?March 5, 2021 at 5:50 pm #203122HeathParticipantOffline
Registered On: August 5, 2017
Yes, the others who don’t post on here all agree with him. He’s asked them all.March 12, 2021 at 10:32 am #203400
Looks like another U-turn in the way: –
“Government intervenes in plan for Cumbria coal mine after climate backlash”March 12, 2021 at 3:25 pm #203427
Heard on the radio earlier that only something like 20% of coal from Whitehaven was planned for use in the UK, specifically for steel making (correct me if I’m wrong). The rest would be exported. Where I’d previously sat on the fence on this debate, having heard all the arguments for and against, I’m against it. Can’t see a compelling a case to extract and use more fossil fuel. I wondered, has anyone else changed their opinion on it?March 12, 2021 at 7:39 pm #203437
As of today 700 have signed the petition in the OP. 150,000 have added their name to the Greenpeace one!
That’s a strong indication of public feeling.
Of course the majority of that 150,000 will live a long way away from West Cumbria and the promise of jobs in a depressed area of the country has absolutely no effect on their lives.
However climate change is affecting everyone on the planet regardless of where they live. So do we really need to burn more fossil fuels?
Do you trade short term jobs for long term environmental welfare? Can the Government really go ahead after committing to the CCC’s 2035 emissions targets?
As always the pawns in this game of chess are the workers of West Cumbria. If the scheme is to be scrapped then I hope similar investments (preferably in green technologies) will be forthcoming.March 16, 2021 at 4:55 pm #203557
“The sooner you realise that not everyone sees everything you say to be some great gospel truth in this the better.”
I don’t expect anyone to think anything that I say is the gospel truth, BRI. None of that alters the fact that if scientists — any scientist in any field — is going to make predictions using a computer model then you have to make it very clear what the errors are, ie the confidence intervals, of the calculations.
Climate scientists NEVER do this and for one extremely “good” reason. Quite simply the variables and errors involved in these models are such that the confidence interval would be so low as to render the predictions invalid.
The other very simple fact is that if you’re going to base predictions on anything other than a computer model then you need to say so. The problem here, of course, is that without some form of statistical/mathematical framework, i.e. computer model, the only prediction you can make is general, e.g. it’s likely the earth will continue to warm for the next 20 to 50 years.
The irony, of course, is that I would entirely agree with such a prediction. But it’s hardly the basis for spending trillions and trillions of dollars because there wouldn’t be enough evidence to justify doing so. The climate scientists — and politicians — need something that’s far more concrete and alarming enough to “justify” their claims.
I can tell you with 99.999999999999999999999% certainty that not building the Cumbrian mine won’t make a scrap of difference to climate change. It will, however, with 100% certainty deprive what I believe would be more than 2,000 people of a job.March 16, 2021 at 5:22 pm #203562
Would you throw an empty plastic bottle in the sea because it wouldn’t make any difference to sea pollution? Of course, it will make a difference, but that’s not the point. It’s about not backtracking on climate change pledges and investing in renewable energy.March 16, 2021 at 5:33 pm #203564
You don’t need computer models. You just need to look around you.March 23, 2021 at 11:29 pm #203808
“You don’t need computer models. You just need to look around you.”
Of course, NI, everything is so obviously down to climate change. All this snow, all these floods, all this hot weather, all these hurricanes, all these wild fires, all these droughts, all these record hot temperatures, all these record cold temperatures.
Never had ’em when I were a lad.
QEDMarch 24, 2021 at 12:02 am #203810
Bet they still had Dodos! 🦤March 24, 2021 at 1:15 pm #203843
I wonder if ‘he’ used a computer model last year, when he got herd immunity so wrong. 😜March 24, 2021 at 5:06 pm #203857
Bet they still had Dodos!
Bet Mrs Buck’s still has one, oh sorry you meant Dodos.March 24, 2021 at 6:33 pm #203863
Good that you did that so we got to see the enlarged dodo IA! Reminds me, I must play some Steely Dan again soon…March 24, 2021 at 7:39 pm #203870
Nowt wrong in Reelin in them golden years every now and again DM.😎🎸👍
1 user thanked author for this post.March 26, 2021 at 5:34 pm #203921
“I wonder if ‘he’ used a computer model last year, when he got herd immunity so wrong.”
There’s no shame in getting something wrong, TW. It happens to everybody, including you. The shame is failing to accept you were wrong when the evidence is clear that you were. I was completely wrong about using herd immunity.
What people seem unable to grasp is that it has nothing to do with whether something is happening or not, which is a very straightforward binary choice, but whether the scale of what’s happening is sufficient for the end to justify the means. It became very obvious very quickly that waiting for herd immunity to address the pandemic wouldn’t prevent a lot of people dying.
However, other things happen over much longer periods of time in which case the only way to determine the scale of a problem is to gather as much data as possible and track it. Nobody denies that climate is changing — it’s what the climate always has done and always will do. It’s the scale of the change that matters and the time periods this is measured over.
My point has always been and remains that if you actually look at the hard data you will find that the changes taking place with climate are hardly different to what you would expect to happen with or without man-made emissions. It’s exactly the same as the number of blood clots you would expect to find in a sample of people who haven’t had the AZ jab versus the number of blood clots you do find in those who have.
The indisputable truth is that the ONLY evidence for the scale of man-made climate change becoming a problem comes from computer models; and the only way to assess whether or not this evidence is reliable comes down to the confidence intervals for the results they produce being presented.
I still look forward to someone — anyone — telling me what these confidence intervals are. Given all the apparent ‘evidence’ for climate change this should be a piece of cake. The truth is, of course, that I know this can’t be answered because these confidence intervals are NEVER revealed; and why might that be, does anyone think?
The truth is that climate change is no longer about science but politics. If you really do take a good look at the hard data you will find what I did when I first did so a number of years ago. The evidence simply does not support the claims — not in terms of whether it’s happening, which it is, but in terms of the scale.
What NI is seeing when he looks around is that things have changed. When you study the hard data, however, you’ll see that this has always been the case, to the extent that it would be more of a surprise if NI hadn’t seen things change at all.March 26, 2021 at 6:06 pm #203922
Everybody on here has admitted they’re wrong at some point or other Bucks, but that’s the first time I’ve seen you do it. Just happens to be about an issue that, had you had your way, would have cost many more thousands of lives on top of the all the other thousands your party is responsible for, due to dithering over 2 lockdown. You say all politicians are idiots. What does that make you?
1 user thanked author for this post.March 26, 2021 at 6:18 pm #203923
If you had your way over climate change, another thing you’re wrong about, it will be devastating, catastrophic. The Earth will become uninhabitable. It will be too late for you and your fellow sceptics to pull out your ‘everybody makes mistakes’ card then. Of course, we’ll be long gone by then, so who cares eh?March 26, 2021 at 7:38 pm #203924
I’ve admitted to being wrong on numerous occasions, Deerey, not least on this very subject many months ago to BRI over the comparison between flu and covid. I also apologised to BRI recently for failing to read one of his comments correctly. By contrast I don’t recall you ever admitting to being wrong, but given you’re perfect I must have missed all the times you’ve done so.
As for your comment about “me having my way and covid deaths”, just how pathetic can anyone be. Then we get the equally pathetic comment about the deaths “your party” is responsible for. I thought Gurnelista was the only one on here low enough to use people’s deaths for political gain, but clearly I was wrong.
What you very conveniently ignore, of course, is the impact that staying in the EU would have had to say nothing of criticism on this very board for the UK not joining the EU vaccine programme earlier in the year. I don’t recall you or anyone else admitting to have been wrong on these points, but given your self-righteous and bumptious attitude why should I be surprised.
As for climate change, all you have to do is answer my question. Given that I’m so wrong about this that should be a piece of cake, so get on with it; and while we’re at it, never mind the “uninhabitable earth” you absurdly claim, what about the millions of people dying because they’re denied access to cheap energy that we and other Western countries have used to increase our life expectancies.
The world isn’t facing catastrophe as you like to put it. But never mind the trillions wasted on reducing CO2, which could be used on healthcare and the poor. By the time the world wakes up to find it’s been hoodwinked by a bunch of gravy-train academics and politicians you’ll be long gone. So, indeed, who really does care, eh?March 26, 2021 at 7:42 pm #203925
Memo to self:
Leave the throwaway lines to others, that way you’ll avoid a sanctimonious lecture.March 26, 2021 at 10:16 pm #203926
Whatever Bucks. Surprised you didn’t wheel out the ‘Saint Deerey’ tag you were eager to pin on me at any given opportunity not so long back.March 26, 2021 at 10:21 pm #203927
‘Gravy train academics and politicians’. The usual unsubstantiated guff from the climate change deniers. Just like the petty union jack promotion you and your ilk are obsessed with at the moment, which is nothing more than hiding behind failings and lies. What an embarrassing pointless cabal.March 26, 2021 at 11:03 pm #203929GurnelistaParticipantOffline
Registered On: April 2, 2014
Bi’s just another member of the ten per cent club. No matter how wacky, unsubstantiated or plain wrong a viewpoint, you’ll get the likes of BI, BPG, Alcy and co. applauding it, with absolutely no sense of the ridiculous.
You can’t argue with a fool, and social media – like this board – only makes them worse.March 27, 2021 at 9:31 am #203933
I’ve not read any of the above since my last post, but I suspect it’s more stuff about modelling.
My final comment on this will be that anyone looking for a perfect fit between expected temperature rise from CO2 concentrations and actual temperature is going to be disappointed. There are feedback loops caused by a trigger for rising global temperatures which makes inference imperfect. Therefore, those who don’t want to acknowledge the evidence can point to it and say “see, CO2 isn’t the cause, the mismatch shows there are other variables.”
What is neglected is that these other variables will be feedback loops only possible because of a rise in temperature, initiated by something else. The release of methane hydrates and a loss of albedo will be two factors in play. These will also cause rising temperatures, so will distort the temperature graph from what we expect from CO2 alone. Climate is complex, no-one denies this, yet ‘sceptics’ seem to rely on an over-simplistic means to disprove it, which can never be achieved. The current rise in temperature is not just down to CO2, but the other factors which also affect it are often driven by positive feedback loops initiated by a rise in temperature from the greenhouse effect. Without the trigger there would be no feedback loop, so it cannot be said that these other factors are the key factor for climate change. Only CO2 can for the current trend. Hence the anthropogenic nature of it.
We have evidence for this. Climate models for the current trend don’t make sense, without having a greenhouse effect initiated by increased CO2 levels and the associated feedbacks. Climate models from the 80s have predicted temperature rises which have actually fallen within the specified upper and lower limits for predicted change. We have external evidence, based on things like observed reduction in infrared loss from the atmosphere and a warming troposphere and cooling mesosphere and thermosphere. The latter shows that it cannot be solar influence for warming, but does show the greenhouse effect.
The problem for ‘sceptics’ is that they need to produce a mechanism and evidence which can explain the current warming, if they accept it as Bucks claims, which isn’t anthropogenic in nature. I’ve explained previously why things like the Sun and Milankovich Cycles cannot be the cause of the current trend, as are no other known natural variables. Stating that there is a magical climate forcing variable which is causing current warming is akin to BPG’s answer of God did it to science. For people supposedly sceptical, they seem willing to accept an explanation which has far more holes in. If there is no evidence for it, it will not be accepted. We have a good idea of what can lead to a thermal imbalance from physics and understanding of how the Earth operates to the best of our knowledge. If there’s something we’ve missed it needs to be explained and evidence given. Relying on cherry picked data from papers and misunderstandings of science, with some statistical knowledge thrown in, to make doubt sound rational doesn’t change this. As anthropogenic climate change actually has such evidence for it and the natural explanations don’t, most will be swayed by the argument that it’s anthropogenic.
This is not because of bias or corruption, but because it’s the most convincing argument at present. Something which has zero evidence for it will not be accepted as a leading theory over something with much evidence for it. It’s the height of arrogance to declare it otherwise, because it disagrees with your worldview, and it has been quite clear that Bucks is not willing or able to answer any of the queries over the lack of natural explanation. This has been evident throughout these discussions in the past.
Quite frankly, it is far more believe able that Bucks has got it wrong than actually the entirety of chemistry, geology, climatology and physics related to this area is involved in a mass conspiracy.
And that is it. I will not be reading responses to this, as I consider debate to be futile on this after years of it coming up. There’s no point in me wasting effort and time on it, when I don’t see it as worthwhile to speak to brick walls.March 27, 2021 at 10:36 am #203935HeathParticipantOffline
Registered On: August 5, 2017
There is no point in continuing any debate with Bucks. It is futile. You do wonder why he keeps coming on here trying to persuade less than a dozen people (ignoring the thousands of “others” who all agree with him) why he is right about climate change.
Whatever opinion he has, the argument has been lost and he cannot change it!!March 27, 2021 at 2:35 pm #203939March 28, 2021 at 1:18 pm #203943
“My final comment on this will be that anyone looking for a perfect fit between expected temperature rise from CO2 concentrations and actual temperature is going to be disappointed.”
Well there’s a cop-out if ever there was one, BRI. Your comment is a complete admission that there is no hard evidence for the claims being made. At least you admit the truth. What’s so absurd about the comments above — from the usual suspects, of course — is that you’re all so keen to support a movement keeping millions in fuel poverty while governments spend trillions that could be used to provide healthcare and save lives.
Meanwhile Elon Musk becomes the world’s richest man while governments look to increase taxes on a gas without which there’d be no human life at all. It’s also nonsense to claim that everyone agrees with man-made global warming, including many scientists. Yet as I’ve said before this is no longer about science. BRI has admitted there’s no hard data to substantiate the claims being made. This turned into a political argument a long time ago.
But let’s put all of that to one side and ask another fundamental question, which is given “the Earth will become uninhabitable” — Deerey’s words, not mine — what exactly are you all doing about it? Let’s face it, we’re talking about the very end of humankind here. Given this is bad as it’s possible to get you must all be taking draconian action to prevent it.
So, none of you are using any form of petrol or diesel transport, private or public (even electric cars still use fossil fuels but we’ll let you off that one for now) and none of you are using gas to cook with or for heating your homes. You all have solar panels and only buy your electricity from a renewables supplier.
If any of you are doing anything other than the above, given the catastrophe facing the planet, there is only one question: why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.