In todays news...

[Screwdriver]

Has the earth warmed as much as the models predicted? No
Were the models even close? No
Should we trust the models to predict the next 10/20/50 years?

Really? What makes you say that? Have you even looked at the data?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
https://www.science.org/content/article ... al-warming

...and a million more if you want to look. Chances are if you only want to find evidence of poor performance they are equally easy to find but are often from spurious sources (at best). Me? I trust the science.

If the models are so accurate why are the predictions so inaccurate?
We always seem to have about 10 years to save the planet. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

Well you are ignoring my response above so I'm not sure it's really worth my while answering your deflection.

Here we go again: what predictions are inaccurate?
Apart from you, who is saying we have 10 years to save the planet?

[Screwdriver]

Quality obfuscation.

obfuscation
/ɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun
noun: obfuscation; plural noun: obfuscations
the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

Sorry for being so precise in my response. Which part don't you understand?

Somewhat ironic example of where the term "obfuscation" can be used given your Python code waffle.

[irie]

Quality obfuscation.

obfuscation
/ɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun
noun: obfuscation; plural noun: obfuscations
the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

Sorry for being so precise in my response. Which part don't you understand?

Somewhat ironic example of where the term "obfuscation" can be used given your Python code waffle.

No, that is the Python code that you claimed as your own work!

[Screwdriver]

No, that is the Python code that you claimed as your own work!

I have a dim and distant memory of making that joke many years ago. You'll have to send me a link.

Quite how that is relevant here I am at a loss to understand. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is important to drag an ancient post of mine into this topic in response to your assertion that climate models are a failure.

[Saga Lout]

...

Apart from you, who is saying we have 10 years to save the planet?

have you been living under a rock for the last 30 years?

Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program is the first I know of. In 1989 he said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-198 ... authentic/

There have been many others since then. I could find them for you but life's too short and if I only have another 10 years...

[weeksy]

No, that is the Python code that you claimed as your own work!

I have a dim and distant memory of making that joke many years ago. You'll have to send me a link.

Quite how that is relevant here I am at a loss to understand. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is important to drag an ancient post of mine into this topic in response to your assertion that climate models are a failure.

Because he wants to score points and get a rise, the same as you do and the next person do and the one after that who posts in these threads.

It's very rarely about right and wrong and mostly about putting someone in their place.

If we were in a pub, it'd be empty because I'd have told you lot to piss off by now.

[Screwdriver]

...

Apart from you, who is saying we have 10 years to save the planet?

have you been living under a rock for the last 30 years?

Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program is the first I know of. In 1989 he said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-198 ... authentic/

There have been many others since then. I could find them for you but life's too short and if I only have another 10 years...

Wow. You found one. So that would be a consortium of climate scientists or perhaps the IPCC itself, maybe just one respected climatologist???

No. It is the anonymous "A senior U.N. official" which you appear to attribute to Noel Brown. How does that relate to your comment "We always seem to have about 10 years to save the planet"? Well I suppose "someone" did say "entire nations could be wiped off the planet" and they go on to suggest (in this "news" article) that if global warming is not reversed then we face disaster etc.

Do you believe everything that some random journalist says? If so then no doubt you can find countless examples where "everybody is saying <blah>". There is such a thing as sensationalism and more recently, "fake news" and "alt facts" have become so widespread, we all have to be very careful where we find information we can trust.

Or did you not get that memo?

[Saga Lout]

...

Wow. You found one. So that would be a consortium of climate scientists or perhaps the IPCC itself, maybe just one respected climatologist???

...

Are you really telling me you haven't heard the claims: 5/10/12/etc years to save the planet? Here. take a look at some of these, they're mostly quite recent but at least in 10 years time when you have this discussion again you won't be able to feign ignorance.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=years+to+save ... =h_&ia=web

[Screwdriver]

...

Wow. You found one. So that would be a consortium of climate scientists or perhaps the IPCC itself, maybe just one respected climatologist???

...

Are you really telling me you haven't heard the claims: 5/10/12/etc years to save the planet? Here. take a look at some of these, they're mostly quite recent but at least in 10 years time when you have this discussion again you won't be able to feign ignorance.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=years+to+save ... =h_&ia=web

No I hear it a LOT, typically from people like you who blindly regurgitate sensationalist headlines as if they are somehow "fact".

But let's take your response at face value. I have your top ten rebuttals here.

First one is an advert aimed at people searching for "years left to save the planet" ironic in light of the nature of fake news. A trap to attract weak minds and deliver targeted adverts.

1. Some financing spam

2. Amazon

3. BBC science-environment July 2019: Matt McGrath environment correspondent (not a scientist!) Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months the headline screams. Normally I ignore such twaddle but needs must. Oh right, a quote from no less respected a scientist than Prince Charles. Uh, mind if I just ignore the rest of it?

4. BBC (again) Matt McGrath (again) 2020 A Year to Save the Planet. Yeah, they made a fucking Discovery program. I'll make sure to avoid that. Seems like a well planned advertising/propagandist setup just in time for Glasgow which I note both China and Russia have no intention of attending.

5. The Independent: For the past two decades, a giant digital display in Manhattan’s Union Square has clocked up the accumulation of days, hours, minutes and seconds A clock? Counting down? Says who? "Click here to continue reading" Err. No thanks.

6. Some bloke from Unipart: In February 2011, while working for Unipart, I wrote a presentation entitled Electric 2020, in which I predicted that the car industry would be on the road to full electrification by 2020. It turns out I was right

This is all very entertaining but really, who would use some bloke from Unipart to suggest "everybody is saying such and such?

7. rebellion.global

Yeah, I'm out. One for saga_lout I think (it's an opinion piece)

8. Evening Standard: The seven-year-old Londoner trying to save the planet from his bedroom

Got to feel sorry for the kids but we are looking for solutions, not sob storys.

9. TheFace.com (I'm out)

10. The Guardian (2018): The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which <blah>

Actually looks like a sensible article but it's literally old news and no one is saying "ten years to save the planet" but that "We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN"

Interesting to note that the "line in the sand" 1.5ºC change is gradually shifting towards 2ºC as the deadlines come and are forgotten.

Climate change and global warming are such fearsome important subjects and an indisputable problem it's difficult to keep people motivated when changes are so gradual. I'm already sick and tired of it and I haven't even had my utilities bill yet. Apparently, doubling my energy bill is going to save the planet somehow.

That is why news stories have become so hyper-sensational. If they're not written in a specific manner, then they do not rise above the noise. Next time you're tempted by a sensationalist document which purports to be "the scientific consensus", best to dig down until you hit the source for any wild claims. Typically, the source will be a journalist/bloggers interpretation of some small part of a journal they don't understand or, as often as not, just plain lies.

[irie]

No, that is the Python code that you claimed as your own work!

I have a dim and distant memory of making that joke many years ago. You'll have to send me a link.

Quite how that is relevant here I am at a loss to understand. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is important to drag an ancient post of mine into this topic in response to your assertion that climate models are a failure.

Because he wants to score points and get a rise ...

Screwdriver asserts his beliefs as scientific facts but fails (oh dear, that word again ) to provide proof. As he has done before when challenged in the same way in the past, even to the extent of falsely presenting* a computer model written in Python as his own work (aka plagiarism). For some/many people such as him climate change is the new religion with beliefs no longer requiring proof.

* On TRC

[Count Steer]

In today's news:

The House of Lords debates assisted dying - again. They won't actually vote on it and the Commons will probably duck it again. Which lobby would you head for: Yeah or Nay?

I'm a Yeah (if the appropriate safeguards are in place to stop avaricious children wheeling Pops off to a Swiss clinic prematurely).

[Horse]

I'm a Yeah (if the appropriate safeguards are in place to stop avaricious children wheeling Pops off to a Swiss clinic prematurely).

From the little I've seen, that hasn't happened where it's been introduced.

[Count Steer]

I'm a Yeah (if the appropriate safeguards are in place to stop avaricious children wheeling Pops off to a Swiss clinic prematurely).

From the little I've seen, that hasn't happened where it's been introduced.

There'll probably need to be a doctors cert. to say 'expected to live no more than x' and insurance companies will have to accept that so they can't claim 'suicide, no payout'.

[Noggin]

In today's news:

The House of Lords debates assisted dying - again. They won't actually vote on it and the Commons will probably duck it again. Which lobby would you head for: Yeah or Nay?

I'm a Yeah (if the appropriate safeguards are in place to stop avaricious children wheeling Pops off to a Swiss clinic prematurely).

I'm in the yes camp. But then I've seen too many friends and family die after years of pain and decreasing quality of life.

We euthanise animals with low/little quality of life. But we force humans to live through agonising pain and to have zero quality of life.

Humans are weird in that the 'right' thing to do seems to be to preserve life, at the cost of quality of life/happiness.

If pain can't be managed; if quality of life is so low that if the human was a dog it would put down; if the mental deterioration means that quality of life is lost - why wouldn't you be kind and have the same respect for the human as you do for a dog? (I am aware that some dementia suffers are happy in their 'new' world, same with disabilities - as below, any ruling should prevent euthanising people that have a good quality of life but are inconvenient! In my head, this is about lack of quality of life, lack of pain management)


Ok, I do get that it is necessary to have things in place to prevent the bumping off of rich (or just inconvenient) relatives; but there should be a way and I really have never understood why the intelligent legal brains haven't managed to sort something that could be implemented!!

[Screwdriver]

Screwdriver asserts his beliefs as scientific facts but fails (oh dear, that word again ) to provide proof. As he has done before when challenged in the same way in the past, even to the extent of falsely presenting* a computer model written in Python as his own work (aka plagiarism). For some/many people such as him climate change is the new religion with beliefs no longer requiring proof.

* On TRC

Still stalking me then? I think it's hilarious you're dragging up ancient history out of context. I'm not even sure if I made that joke on this forum!

For the record, I would have posted "my" code in the same way I might point at a nuclear reactor if someone asked what I had made in my shed today. The joke is in the outrageous claim but what is funny is that this troll seems to have amassed a scrapbook of Screwdriver quotes so it can try to change the subject when it has no answer.

Also, as for the criticism that I am "failing to provide proof", I assume it is referring to this post:

Has the earth warmed as much as the models predicted? No
Were the models even close? No
Should we trust the models to predict the next 10/20/50 years?

Really? What makes you say that? Have you even looked at the data?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
https://www.science.org/content/article ... al-warming

...and a million more if you want to look. Chances are if you only want to find evidence of poor performance they are equally easy to find but are often from spurious sources (at best). Me? I trust the science.

Which Irie and saga lout are desperately tying to avoid answering. Truth is, the old "climate models are useless" and the "ten years until doom" anecdotes are fake news. They are not true.

All you have to do is extend a tiny amount of effort to discover the models turned out to be pretty good actually and ask who was saying "ten years". In this case all you have to do is click on a couple of links but I guess that's too much to ask if all you really want to do is troll.

[Screwdriver]

In today's news:

The House of Lords debates assisted dying - again. They won't actually vote on it and the Commons will probably duck it again. Which lobby would you head for: Yeah or Nay?

I'm a Yeah (if the appropriate safeguards are in place to stop avaricious children wheeling Pops off to a Swiss clinic prematurely).

Thumbup for me. In fact I'd go as far as to suggest we open up a suicide clinic where you can pop in to pop off so to speak. It would save a lot of agonising over how you're going to do it or the agony of failing to do it properly.

I remember some apocryphal tale of a chap who poisoned himself, tied a rope around his neck, jumped off a cliff and tried to shoot himself in the head. According to the story, he shot the rope, landed in the sea and threw up the poison etc. I hope that is true but even writing it now, I fear it's from a bygone age where you could get away with just making stuff up.

[Saga Lout]

...

Truth is, the old "climate models are useless" and the "ten years until doom" anecdotes are fake news. They are not true.

...

Yet the only people calling attention to them and pointing out that they're untrue are the "deniers". Why don't "real" climate scientists nail their colours to the mast and call out this fake news? Or are they happy to go along with the sensationalism as long as it helps their funding?

[Screwdriver]

...

Truth is, the old "climate models are useless" and the "ten years until doom" anecdotes are fake news. They are not true.

...

Yet the only people calling attention to them and pointing out that they're untrue are the "deniers". Why don't "real" climate scientists nail their colours to the mast and call out this fake news? Or are they happy to go along with the sensationalism as long as it helps their funding?

Have you established that scientists are not "calling out" these tired old wives tales? Did you read those links I posted? NASA.gov, science.org, they're not opinion pieces from journo's or bloggers. You will see that one chap won the Nobel prize for the accuracy of his climate models!

I mean come on, what more does it take!

[slowsider]

Humans are weird in that the 'right' thing to do seems to be to preserve life, at the cost of quality of life/happiness.

Iirc you were very miserable before your shoulder revision and physio. You've even remarked that the NHS patched you up but medical science elsewhere has got you back on your bike (and contemplating other ways to injure yourself). Can you see where I'm going with this?

[slowsider]

You need to do you sums a bit more carefully and frugally

I've done my sums.

If driving at 85 in a 70 allows for a 10% over-reading speedo, you might want to do them again.