Guided Missile

Talking about Koonin cherry picking, the above is worth repeating.

Rather than watching the video, a while ago, I read his book cover to cover, pretty much as soon as it was published. It took around 7 hours, plus the time spent looking at the sources he referenced and where the data resides. As you say, the main sources are IPCC reports. My takeaway is that Koonin has written the most important and scientifically credible book ever, on the net zero cult, which debunks the whole zero carbon fallacy. I bet a pound to a pinch of shit that none of the usual trolls on this site have actually read his book, but just simply repeat their unsupported position, on what is an incredibly complicated subject. What gets me is that they are willing to spend all of our tax on the unproven net zero bollox, which has simply become a tool for the Marxist left to take down the highly successful Western capitalist democracies. You just have to watch the complete lack of support for net zero from China, Russia and the rest, with third world dictatorships looking for handouts and raw material (e.g. lithium) sales for the milk floats, being forced down our throats. A little takeaway on global CO2 levels. Below 150ppm and all life on Earth ends. Levels of around 500ppm, predicted in the next 50 years and MAYBE global temperatures increase by 3C (together with a corresponding increase in crop yields). Pretty much sums up why I'm very relaxed about current and future global CO2 levels. Finally, don't comment about Koonin's book if you haven't read it. It will just make you look like an uninformed chump.

I know climate is what you expect and weather is what you get, but, really. Only a week ago it was forecast that we were going to be basking in sun, hotter than LA. It has got to make you wonder why trillions will be thrown away, to prevent the predicted long term climate change and getting a five day forecast right is such a struggle.

Calm down dear, it's only the EU...

I'd keep quiet mate. You Private Fraser doom laden forecasts at the beginning of this thread are an embarrassment now.

Oh dear, the economic modellers are about as accurate as the climate bunch. Remainers, your guys have taken a hell of a beating.

You forgot the benefits of increased CO2 on plant life and the dangers of a reduction below 150ppm. As Patrick Moore, a former Director of Greenpeace wrote a while ago:

A degree, 40 years in research and over 40 patents may do it.

The United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization (UN WMO) is pretty clear about the science of hurricanes as well, — World Meteorological Organization (WMO) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 is slightly less clear but scientifically says the same thing, — IPCC, AR5

I can just see a climate scientist playing roulette in Vegas, making a note of the winning numbers to predict his next bet.

The advantage of the ignore function allows me to guess what my trolls will have posted. My guess is total bullshit and self-aggrandisement, as in "listen to me, I'm an expert." Still, in the hope that nottooclevertim is willing to engage in the scientific method of debate (not that I've read what the arsewhipe posted), here's an example of scientific lying to try and prove a point: The National Climate Assessment (NCA2014) stated this: The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. The following graph is included, with a sharp upward rising trend, to suggest the severity of the problem. This is cherry-picked information that is misinforming – it is completely factual but not factually complete. When you zoom out and reframe the same data into a longer climatically relevant time period, the result looks less compelling and certainly less alarming. I call the above data, an example of a scientist lying, deliberately.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports. “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

— Paul Watson, Cofounder of Greenpeace — Timothy Worth, President of The UN Foundation — Daniel Botkin, Former Chair of Environmental Studies at the University of Calfiornia at Santa Barbara

I would like to state, after many, many years of experience, that scientists lie. The ethics involved in the lies, we have all been told, by "scientists" and their gormless supporters, (usually self serving politicians or corporations), have been rapidly increasing. They have recently been related to: the origins of covid, the need and effectiveness of the lockdown, the efficacy and safety of quickly developed vaccines and the subject of this thread, human induced climate change. This particular ethical bind was described as early as 1989 by prominent Stanford climate researcher, Stephen Schneider, like this: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working, to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” My advice, for what it's worth, is read the data, don't rely on someone to interpret it for you. If you can't be bothered or feel unable to, your opinion is not worth much to the debate. Oh and for the scientists you do believe, follow the money, the root of all evil. At least the corporations involved are honest about their motives.

Meanwhile, back in the land of milk and honey:

On the other side of the coin:

Eurozone economy to 'contract' in second half, say economists Meanwhile, our Saints supporting PM is making the most of our hard won freedom, with a trade agreement with India up, next.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand:

A "Deliverance" reference.

I just love European politicians: I think Poland is watching the results of uncontrolled immigration in France and it's effects. Meanwhile, in Germany: All down to Brexit, obviously...

You're desperate, mate. Desperate for the UK to fail. Sad man.

Fish/Barrel:

Posting on this thread is now like shooting fish in a barrel...

Oops...

This week, Germany fell into a technical recession, with GDP contracting in the final quarter of 2022 and again in the first quarter of 2023. Around the same time, the IMF revised its forecasts, stating that Britain will not be facing a recession this year. It seems that Brexit is even affecting Germany...