Hydrogen power

[roubaixtuesday]

It's interesting how defensive people get, and demanding of proof, whilst offering none of their own and making claims that the actual scientific data doesn't always support.

It's also interesting how people assume a position for those of us that don't simply follow what is a media, rather than a scientific view.

It's tedious how you make entirely unsupported claims then refuse to back then up on specious grounds.

It's also tedious how you project your own behaviours onto others.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

It's tedious how you make entirely unsupported claims then refuse to back then up on specious grounds.

It's also tedious how you project your own behaviours onto others.

Hmm, given that rather than respond to the content of my post, you instead invented your own theory on why I would think as I do, and then went on to argue against that, it looks very much like the projection is all yours and you are arguing with yourself.

It's pointless and boring.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Also the IPCC reports are based on decades of scientific research.

Yebbut, Cliché truly understands the science whereas the IPPC reports "do not always represent the science that underpins them."

Naturally, exactly which parts of the science are misrepresented by the IPPC shall remain a secret, not because there's no source for this nonsense, oh no, but rather as we are not worthy to be given such insights.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Yebbut, Cliché truly understands the science whereas the IPPC reports "do not always represent the science that underpins them."

Naturally, exactly which parts of the science are misrepresented by the IPPC shall remain a secret, not because there's no source for this nonsense, oh no, but rather as we are not worthy to be given such insights.

You still haven't addressed the initial post I made, but seem to have got over invested in the emotion of your version of it.

Your comments show you don't actually understand the difference between the report and the science. That difference is a simple fact, but it seems to confuse a lot of people. You deny the fact that I pointed you at the science, and given that's where the reality is and you have also ignored my initial post on the whole, I see little point in this tedious exchange.

You seem happy in your ignorance, and upset by anything that you feel could challenge it, and that is evidenced by the personal rather than factual nature of your replies.

 

[FishFright]

It's interesting how defensive people get, and demanding of proof, whilst offering none of their own and making claims that the actual scientific data doesn't always support.

It's also interesting how people assume a position for those of us that don't simply follow what is a media, rather than a scientific view.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=1&q=tangible+proof+climate+change&qst=br

Thousands of peer reviewed papers.

You made an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. Your move.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=1&q=tangible+proof+climate+change&qst=br

Thousands of peer reviewed papers.

You made an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. Your move.

I made many claims in my initial post, all of which have been either ignored or misrepresented. I don't feel the need to get demanding over it though, as I'm comfortable with my position, and happy to hear and consider sensible alternative views.

The link you post has little to no relevance to anything I posted. It demonstrates your lack of understanding more than it says anything about any comment I've made.

Oh, and just to add, looking only at the papers you suggest is a a publication fallacy that results in an incomplete understanding. There are numerous reasons for that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pub...CDU0MTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[FishFright]

I made many claims in my initial post, all of which have been either ignored or misrepresented. I don't feel the need to get demanding over it though, as I'm comfortable with my position, and happy to hear and consider sensible alternative views.

The link you post has little to no relevance to anything I posted. It demonstrates your lack of understanding more than it says anything about any comment I've made.

You made claims in your post that people asked for your sources , so far its "trust me bro, I know better than science "

 

[roubaixtuesday]

You still haven't addressed the initial post I made, but seem to have got over invested in the emotion of your version of it.

Your comments show you don't actually understand the difference between the report and the science. That difference is a simple fact, but it seems to confuse a lot of people. You deny the fact that I pointed you at the science, and given that's where the reality is and you have also ignored my initial post on the whole, I see little point in this tedious exchange.

You seem happy in your ignorance, and upset by anything that you feel could challenge it, and that is evidenced by the personal rather than factual nature of your replies.

Yawn.

You claim the IPPC misrepresent the science, refuse to say where because you can't and instead obfuscate.

You've nothing but empty rhetoric.

Where is the misrepresentation and what is your evidence for it?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

You made claims in your post that people asked for your sources , so far its "trust me bro, I know better than science "

You reckon?

People asked for sources for claims that they had made and tried to ascribe to me.

 

[FishFright]

You reckon?

People asked for sources for claims that they had made and tried to ascribe to me.

You made the initial claims therefore its up to you to provide evidence to be proved or disproved , any will do.

 

[FishFright]

You reckon?

People asked for sources for claims that they had made and tried to ascribe to me.

You made the initial claims therefore its up to you to provide evidence to be proved or disproved , any will do.

Given time I could link you to the whole of climate science but you'd ignore that and say it was of no relevance.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

You reckon?

People asked for sources for claims that they had made and tried to ascribe to me.

You made claims, I've quoted them above.

You pretend you didn't because you can't back them up.

Obfuscation is all you have.

Where is the misrepresentation in the IPCC reports* and what is your evidence for it?

* your claim, repeated yet again so you can't pretend you didn't, make it, on the IPCC :The reports themselves do not always represent the science that underpins them.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Yawn.

You claim the IPPC misrepresent the science, refuse to say where because you can't and instead obfuscate.

You've nothing but empty rhetoric.

Where is the misrepresentation and what is your evidence for it?

Hmm, if your position is correct, it actually kills your own argument.

As you seem reluctant to shift from the policy document to the science and data, it would take far too long to go into specific detail, and my guess is that you will demand yet more links for any of the comments I could post, and my prediction is that you will scour the following link (plucked as just one example to save me typing) for one small bit to cling to, rather than having a grown up discussion with an aim of expanding understanding, but here it is anyway.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report

 

[ClichéGuevara]

You made the initial claims therefore its up to you to provide evidence to be proved or disproved , any will do.

Given time I could link you to the whole of climate science but you'd ignore that and say it was of no relevance.

The claims you've tried to ask me to justify, were not my claims. I suggest you aim your petulance at those that made them.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I think the talk of alternative fuels is several steps in to a discussion that should really start much earlier in the process, as there are serious questions to ask about the fundamental justifications for the removal of fossil fuels, and the cost benefit analysis so far are seriously skewed.

The Dutch resolved the problem of sea level rises long before industrialisation, which raises a couple of interesting and very pertinent questions in itself. There actions resulted in an increase in fertile agricultural land, which they have benefited from ever since.

What rarely gets included in the debates are the many benefits fossil fuels have brought us, including increased life expectancy, better health, both of which are liable to be far greater than the losses predicted by the doom sayers, which are themselves very debatable. There is also the massive decrease in the loss of life and property from natural disasters that have been possible largely due to the technology made possible by fossil fuels.

I don't see much discussion on how ancient monuments are going to be kept maintained when the funding from tourism is removed, or how countries like Italy, Spain, Greece etc will replace the 10% of GDP they currently gain from tourism, nor how Governments are going to replace the lost tax revenue gained from fossil fuels.

For clarity, and because there has been a fair amount of goal post shifting and obfuscation, here's the post that people are demanding evidence of, despite them not really relating to anything in it.