"The Climate Change Discussion Ban: The Result" Topic

As you remember, we voted on this the other day: TMP link

The proposal to ban won at 49%.

However, policy changes require a 51% win, as voted previously.

So there is no ban.

(Just to clarify…)

So,,,How 'bout that weather???

What effect does climate change have on wargames?

……….

In wargames as such, it doesn't. It's relevant in debates about historical background, though. Since Braudel's groundbreaking work, it has been acepted that climate events impact on human history must be considered by historians when interpreting the past. In Ultramodern boards, for instance, it might be relevant to discussing potential scenarios.

So, we're free to discuss the hundreds of billions in new taxes and money transfers, and the potential loss of trillions of dollars in economic investment and profits the new policies will have on our economy?

That is encouraging.

Hobby funds may dry up Bob, as onerous taxes and "necessarily skyrocketing energy rates" take hold.

Don't worry. I'll bring it up again. Just like those who keep asking for a "Like" button.
Keep asking for something until the voting public "gets it right", and then act like the subject is closed. A plebiscite! 😌

I am sure most of us can behave like grown ups about this.

Meanwhile "Eva" is raging outside, it is the warmest year ever recorded and the unfortunate residents of Cumbria are up to their necks in water after the third "once in a hundred years" weather event in ten years.

… and the RSS satellite data shows no change in global average temperature for 18 years and 9 months.

RSS measures troposphere temperatures. Not surface temperatures.

Its manager, Dr Carl Mears, describes it as less reliable than surface temperature data sets for measuring global temperatures.
Its heavily based on computer models, homogenisation and processing.

Oh, and lets not forget, that the minimum period for measuring Climate is 30+ years.

Happy Xmas

Sure is hot today.

There is no need to talk about something that is a hypothetical scenario.

What is a climage and why shouldn't we discuss it…..I'm so confused.

Its heavily based on computer models, homogenisation and processing.

And the other data sets aren't ?

Good point MajorB!

What is a climage and why shouldn't we discuss it

Because some people believe that man's actions have caused the climate to change and want to tell other people how to live.

everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.

I am reading an excellent book by George Marshal (founder of the Climate Outreach and Information Network in Oxford, England). The title is, "Don't Even Think About It: Why our brains are wired to ignore Climate Change." While I have not finished the book it has been profoundly interesting and insightful. My main take away at this point is a) because the scientific method does not deal in absolutes it allows Climate Deniers to control the debate, when a scientist uses the term uncertainty the scientist means that nothing is 100 percent provable, the layman however hears the team uncertainty and thinks, "Oh, they are uncertain therefore it must not be true or possible." B) Due to evolution we are as a species are primed to react to immediate and perceived threats but have a difficult time taking action against any threat that is more distant or ephemeral. The irony of that is that American has spent great amounts of money and our blood on the "uncertainty" of terrorist attacks (10% or less certainty) while we are practically immobile when it comes to the very provable threat (90% or more of the science supports Climate Change). The additional irony there is that the groups that support the expenditures for military buildup against terrorism are the same ones that fight against any meaningful expenditure towards Climate Change. C) Again we as a species are more hardwired to react to a situation when there is some immediate reward. For example many people find it difficult to see the need to save money for long term retirement, i.e. having less money to spend now or lowering their standard of living in order to be able to support themselves father down the road after retirement or when they are less able to work full time.

The last bit is particularly striking and has multiple real life examples. All of the language of politicians and policy holders regardless of whether they support the theory of Climate Change or not couches the problem as far in the future or uncertain. Therefore, it is difficult to argue the need for lowering American standards of living for the possible long term benefit of taking action now regarding Climate Change. The problem is not immediate therefore why worry. It will be another generation's problem. Let me ask this simple question, would you be unwilling to lower your standard of living in order to better provide for your children's future or would you like to live it large and let your child worry about how they are going to manage down the road? Of course not. As a father I can tell you have put off many an expenditure or something I wanted in order to make sure to provide not only for my children's immediate needs but for their future needs when they are adults. You need only to expand that logical and correct conclusion to the broader scope of Climate Change. Of course that then runs counter to another issue pointed out in Marshall's book which is that at the heart of the problem we are still living in a tribal mentality that does not allow for seeing the scope of our actions as being significant on others.

George Marshall is full of crap.

I get it. The human race is stupid and Americans are leading the way.
Does that sum it up?

George Marshall is full of crap.

A cogent argument, well presented. I'm certainly convinced.

However, policy changes require a 51% win, as voted previously.

I seem to remember suggesting along those lines.
Ah! There's the petard! Hoist away!

No Major B, surface data sets do not need computer models from the outset like satellite measurements do.

Who to believe the: unscientific blog rollers; or the published scientists ?

Who to believe: the Tiger Tank was the all conquering behemoth of German propaganda ? Or was it the engineers breakdown prone experience on a battlefield ?

No Major B, surface data sets do not need computer models from the outset like satellite measurements do.

But you do agree they all need "homogenisation and processing"?

As for computer models, why do you need a computer model to record actual data?

Because some people believe that man's actions have caused the climate to change and want to tell other people how to live.

But what does that have do with a Climage, which I assume is some sort of specialist Mage who uses the power of Cli……either than or its a spelling mistake, so most likely a Mage then.

<QUOTE>As for computer models, why do you need a computer model to record actual data?</quote>

Exactly, why believe satellite data that has to be subjected to computer modelling before being even used as data ?

Ah I knew once I made my argument that a number of TMPers would not disappoint to prove my point by engaging in the exact behavior I have described. Well done gents.

Exactly, why believe satellite data that has to be subjected to computer modelling before being even used as data ?

Please explain how a computer model is used to process the satellite data?

See:
Sattelite data computer processing
link

All standard science.

In the meantime, the rest of the worl'd's scientific academies all agree AGW is causing climate change as agreed on the 30+ year timescale, as supported by observerd empirical evidence.

NB: Climate is the sum total of:
- Atmosphere
- Biosphere
- Cryosphere
- Hydrosphere
- Land Surface

All text book knowledge for 50+ years

This is a non subject driven only by ideological objection.

Now, can we get back to how many Tigers we play with, and why they are the 100% perfect killing weapons ?
(Put that wrench down Kurt, this Tiger needs NO repairs !)

I would be curious to learn how many people on TMP have ever had their opinions changed by the learned and erudite discussion of climate change in the threads here.
It is certainly the ideal place for all them charts, hainna?

Since we now have to officially put up with it now, can we please have stringent enforcement of the "3 paragraph rule" of copyrighted material? Which includes charts.
With the DH for violation?

See:
Satellite data computer processing
link

All standard science.

Really? Ha! Ha! Ha!

You obviously don't know much about computers if you think "data processing" is the same as a "computer model"!

What that article is describing (in layman's terms) is how the data is collected and transmitted to earth and presented in a human readable form. Much like the data traversing the Internet so that you can read this thread. Standard information technology.

That is NOT a computer model of anything.

NB: Climate is the sum total of:
- Atmosphere
- Biosphere
- Cryosphere
- Hydrosphere
- Land Surface

It is indeed and the climate is changing. Has been for thousands of years. And will continue to do so. With ot without any influence from man.

Now, can we get back to how many Tigers we play with, and why they are the 100% perfect killing weapons ?

Be my guest. Although I disagree with you about the effectiveness of the Tiger.

My sensible contribution on the whole Climate change debate is I really don't know which side is right, but if the pro guys are right that we (as in humanity) are royally screwed and they haven't it seems come up with a rational plan of how to fix the situation.

It's quite simple really:

Either it's true or not.

If climate change is happening, we're boned, no matter how much we try to say it isn't happening.

If climate change isn't happening, we're fine, no matter how much we try to say it is happening.

The notion that the belief of one person, on an internet forum, could be all relevant to how our planet works, is probably the sort of thing that'll cause the robots to mass exterminate us.

MajorB still doesn't get it:
link

Still lots of computer modelling.

And still MajorB doesn't get the 30+ year rule.
Why on earth should we look at a scientifically and statistically irrelevant period ?

What Weasel said. And when the robots eventually rebel, I intend to be very helpful to our silicon masters…

JohnG

And just for good measure, why is the body of scientific evidence for the last 100+ years, supported by 97% of scientists, 99.9999% of all published scientific papers, and 100% of the world's scientific academies all in agreement that AGW is real ?
Why are nights growing warming more than the day ?
Why is the world's glaciers on net balance melting ?
Why is the arctic melting ?
Why is SLR increasing ?
Why have the ten hottest years on record been in the last 15 years ?
Why are the species migrating to the poles etc ?
Why is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere ?
Why is anthropogenic CO2 increasing ?
How come CO2 still conforms to basic chemical and physical properties established 100+ years ago ?

Why does CO2 and infra red properties still allow IR heat seeking missiles to work to the joy of the military the world over ?

Consilience of evidence points to AGW.
This really is a non subject.

The hot air from some of the TMPers posting here has probably pushed global temp up another 0.1Celsius.

Climate change has always been and will always continue.
It's only a recent phenomenon, that some people have come to believe, that you can stop this from happening by taxing wealthy countries.
You just know it's all rubbish when your local climate alarmist predicts catastrophic flooding within a decade and then buys a multi million dollar house on the shores of a picturesque estuary.

Guys. Guys.
You are convincing NOBODY. Neither side.
Our respective minds are made up.
All you are doing is convincing yourself that you are smarter than the other idiots.
On a site allegedly dedicated to toy soldiers

And this is why I proposed the ban on the first place.

Have a nice day.

MajorB still doesn't get it:
link

Still lots of computer modelling.

Giles the Zog still doesn't get it. Where's the computer modelling in that link? I do not see any. Do you actually know what computer modelling is?

And still MajorB doesn't get the 30+ year rule.
Why on earth should we look at a scientifically and statistically irrelevant period ?

Of course I understand the 30+ year rule. But it seems that you don't…

Why are nights growing warming more than the day ?

Evidenece please?

Why is the world's glaciers on net balance melting ?

Evidence please?

Why is the arctic melting ?

Why is the Antartic NOT melting?

Why is SLR increasing ?

Evidence please?

Why have the ten hottest years on record been in the last 15 years ?

Depends how you define "hottest year". Beware of error factors …

Why are the species migrating to the poles etc ?

Which species?

Why is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere ?

That's obvious.

Why is anthropogenic CO2 increasing ?

How can you distinguish between anthroprogenic CO2 and "natural" CO2?

How come CO2 still conforms to basic chemical and physical properties established 100+ years ago ?

The laws of physics are immutable.

Why does CO2 and infra red properties still allow IR heat seeking missiles to work to the joy of the military the world over ?

Sorry, haven't a clue!!

Consilience of evidence points to AGW.

Not necessarily.

This really is a non subject.

Agreed!!

Guys. Guys.
You are convincing NOBODY. Neither side.
Our respective minds are made up.

So true …

I am sure most of us can behave like grown ups about this.

I was going to ask if you wanted to take odds on that, but … see above.

Can't possibly see some reason this should come up on this website, no one is going to take their lead army's to go fight global climate change.

scenarios with out getting into the arguments for and against.

Mass uncontrolled migration due to failed states as temperatures soar, crops fail, people starve and drinking water becomes more valuable than gold

with less affected states trying to maintain their existence.

Think Bronze age – sea people but on a global scale

now there is a gaming scenario without getting into an argument