[COP26] the very height of hypocrisy....

[Col]

You really are away with the fairies, aren't you?

[John Brown]

But not building out new nuclear.

Not building out new nuclear.

None of those are NEW nuclear.

But aren't actually doing that.

None of those are in what I listed.

Very few of those are actually BUILDING new nuclear currently.

[Cursitor Doom]

Spot on as ever, Newsy. You beat me to it, in fact. --

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[Cursitor Doom]

Spot on, Spike. That's exactly what the University of East Anglia did when they fabricated evidence to suggest discredited AGW still had some merit. Lying bastards! --

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

[RedAcer]

On 07/11/2021 09:54, Spike wrote: ....

No one is trying to prove that CO2 is warming the planet or getting a grant to do it. The basic mechanism has been known about for ~150 years!!!

Steve Oates.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And it predicts that global warming will be at best minimal, and at worst virtually nonexistent.

Depending on the negative feedback levels. Of course to fit the *natural* warming post 1970, they postulated positive feedback, to the extent that the earths climate would never have been stable enough for life to evolve. But that's what they now insist is the case. Wankers.

[Fredxx]

I'm not sure what literature you're reading but the majority of scientific opinion believe otherwise.

[Tim Streater]

That's certainly true for the majority of opinion that is allowed to express itself.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Look at exactly what Fredxx said:

"The majority of scientific *opinion*"? And what has an opinion, or a majority got to do with science?

At once we see that the theory is not *scientific*, but political and commercial *marketing*.

"believe otherwise".

And again, its not a matter of fact, or data, its a matter of religious

*faith*.

[Tim Streater]

Well quite. My comment was more making the point that there have been plenty of consensuses in the past, which have turned out to be wrong [1]. As Galileo could confirm.

Then it's not a theory; it is, at best, a hypothesis.

[1] My use of the word "wrong" here relates to whether a hypothesis does a better or worse job of making correct predictions about the future. A sun-centric Solar System works better than an Earth-centric one, and Newton does even better.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er, no, it just makes the maths easier...With modern computation we could transform the axes from heliocentric to Earth centric and get identical results.

Heliocentrism isn't a *fact*, it's a *point of view*. Relativity assures us that it's an arbitrary one, chosen for convenience.

That is what the metaphysics of science is all about, Choosing points of view that

- make the maths simpler

- give the 'right' answers.

Climate change does neither, really.

[John Brown]

Bullshit.

Bullshit, we can actually see it happening now.

Relativity

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yep. I see teh sun circle round the earth. What do YOU see?

Ah, a dyed in the wool Materialist.

Do you even know what metaphysics is?

What he see s from his POV is the one truth, and the only truth, and is the facts !

Bless.

[Spike]

Does this clarity mean that the amount of the feedback is now known accurately?

In any case, 3K is about how much lower temperatures currently are at this point in this interglacial than the three that preceded it, so there's nothing unusual in that figure.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah, but you are forgetting the 'unprecedented rate of rise' that wouldn't have shown up on any proxy in the last ten thousand years if it had happened then..

And the forests now being exposed by retreating glaciers showing the world was a lot warmer than now, a few hundred or thousand years ago...

It's odd to believe in a 'science' you don't understand, rather than understanding a 'science' that you then don't need to believe in.

[Richard]

<snip>

FFS, it's speed using his proper nym "bullshit"

[Tim Streater]

Yes, Woddle's nyms are all very spottable.

[John Brown]

That isn't what the interplanetary rovers see now.

Nope.

Yep.

Nothing to do with my POV.

and the only truth, and is

[newshound]

Not really. The value ascribed to it is based on assumptions about how long it will be useful. I doubt if Canary Wharfe etc. will be in trouble before the end of the century, by which time it will be obsolete and the money will relocate to higher ground.

Wikipedia's highest projection for 2100 is less than 2 metres. At one time Hansen was saying "several metres" which I assume to be less than

1. I imagine we'd simply build a sea defence around the Tower of London to protect it from a 10 metre rise, this would hardly be a challenging civil engineering project.

10 metres sea-level rise would only get half way to St Pauls Cathedral.

[charles]

but it might flood the London Underground tunnels