On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?


"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating.

The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to
Spencer's page and said "There's always one".

However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to.

I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have
been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the
family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety
attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome,
high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective
mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside
her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't
already have a copy.

But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a
religion, it is a scientific subject.

To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before..

I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more
significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or
analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment
that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.

Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

--
Spike

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.