Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[LongQ]

durbster said:

Yes.

All news organisations (Breitbart excluded because it isn't one) are required to send their page view statistics to the UN. The UN then collude with NASA, the UEA, the Chinese Government and Prof. Brian Cox to decide how many extra views they'll add to a story if it contains information about climate science.

The UN then updates the original data and sends it back to the BBC/Washington Post/whoever, who have a dedicated team - led by David Attenborough - to update the top five stories accordingly. This process happens roughly every twenty minutes - although usually more often during an El Nino event.

That's why only gullible idiots believe the top five most read stories are based on simple page impressions. It's a good job I'm so super clever that I can see through their lies. I've sent my findings to WUWT, who will probably publish it.

7.5/10 durbs.

Quite funny but I'm impressed mainly that you covered all of the bases. That's one impressive blunderbuss you have - fully licenced I hope?

Page impressions measure by who or what?

How much does the place at which the link to the original piece is presented influence how many people click through?

Of those that "click through", how many are bots?

Of the not bots, how long do they spend on the page. Is time on page deemed to be important?

If the same "person" accesses the page multiple times is that taken into account in any way?

Do the numbers change as the day (and readership) changes?

There a big leap of interpretation of usefulness of the ranking for anything much at all when going from xx browsers have clicked on the link to that meaning xx people have specifically selected this story to read because they are interested in it (no matter what their level of interest might be or their opinion about the subject matter.)

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

And still we have no idea if a slightly warmer (whatever that actually is) planet is a bad thing ! Durbster don't know either, or he would tell us. And we don't need "I've said it before either" Durbster. If it's worth saying once, it's saying again.

As turbo bloke suggests slightly warmer probably does equal a good thing for us in the UK assuming we take some sensible precautions (which I think we are). And as other people point out CO2 and temperatures have been higher in the past. One thing to bear in mind though - so was sea level (up to 200m higher). But even the current levels of CO2 have some fairly major implications for London:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/paleo-sea-l...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 6th January 16:16

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

And still we have no idea if a slightly warmer (whatever that actually is) planet is a bad thing ! Durbster don't know either, or he would tell us. And we don't need "I've said it before either" Durbster. If it's worth saying once, it's saying again.

As turbo bloke suggests slightly warmer probably does equal a good thing for us in the UK assuming we take some sensible precautions (which I think we are). And as other people point out CO2 and temperatures have been higher in the past. One thing to bear in mind though - so was sea level (up to 200m higher). But even the current levels of CO2 have some fairly major implications for London:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/paleo-sea-l...

Thanks for the link. I haven't got time to read the full piece now but found a toe dip to be very interesting.

"researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels"

We need to know about lag.

Is there any? If so what?

If hitting 400 ppmv actually causes sea levels to rise (as opposed to mere correlation, totally different ballfish game) but over a period of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, there will be an unknown chaotic climate shift or two ahead inbetween times, and adaptation planning is pointless!

As mentioned above, I haven't read the lot as yet - flitting from spreadsheet to PH for the occasional mental palate cleanser, as you do.

[Lotus 50]

My understanding is that there is a lag, primarily because of the lag between increases in sea surface temperatures (and thus expansion) and increases in the temperature (and expansion) of sub-surface water... Interestingly, if I remember correctly there's also a lag between land based ice sheet loss (e.g. Greenland/Antarctic) and changes in sea level in the UK - basically the water takes time to re-distribute itself globally.

Here's the original paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.full.pdf?si...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 6th January 17:22

[turbobloke]

Thanks once again, will read later.

[wc98]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

If the public have no interest, why was it the third and fourth most read stories on the Washington Post yesterday:

Can you inform us about how the stories are selected and ranked?

i think the fact it is the washington post would determine the largely pseudo lib readership will mean these type of headlines will be self selecting.

[powerstroke]

Lotus 50 said:

As turbo bloke suggests slightly warmer probably does equal a good thing for us in the UK assuming we take some sensible precautions (which I think we are). And as other people point out CO2 and temperatures have been higher in the past. One thing to bear in mind though - so was sea level (up to 200m higher). But even the current levels of CO2 have some fairly major implications for London:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/paleo-sea-l...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 6th January 16:16

Yes more warmth would be welcome , I think despite the predictions we will for many more years
be wet and cold for about 9 monthes of the year and wet and warm the rest of the year ,
the only certainty is due to the climate act and that is we will be poorer and need candles and thermal under garments
unless wealthy ....

[LongQ]

wc98 said:

LongQ said:

durbster said:

If the public have no interest, why was it the third and fourth most read stories on the Washington Post yesterday:

Can you inform us about how the stories are selected and ranked?

i think the fact it is the washington post would determine the largely pseudo lib readership will mean these type of headlines will be self selecting.

That's true although at least they still seem to allow less supportive comments.

As for the selected "most read" articles ... some spiel I found suggested they were looking at the last 2 hours. No indoaction of whether sit traffic was taken into account.

I tried an experiment and clicked on articles on the list to see if it was possible to change their position in some consistent way.

At first it looked like it might be but then after a couple of reads the whole thing seemed to become very random indeed and just as I was getting into it I was advised that I had read all the "Free" articles allowed this month.

I am left unconvinced that any of these "most read" type site features offer much by way of guidance about reader interests in any way let alone a way that is representative of something important.

There's probably a Phd paper in doing such an analysis.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Warmest year evah, that's why half the world is frigid.


Had to laugh at the BBC re. Larsen ice shelf calving on the radio today - expert interviewee was entirely honest, explained snow, glacier, ice shelf, breaks off - all a natural cycle, nothing to do with warming, dumb BBC lady can't get it in her head, keeps saying yes but it's because of..... worse because of........ we can obviously expect more of this thing because of........

It's like stock propaganda phrase bingo.

[hidetheelephants]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Warmest year evah, that's why half the world is frigid.


Had to laugh at the BBC re. Larsen ice shelf calving on the radio today - expert interviewee was entirely honest, explained snow, glacier, ice shelf, breaks off - all a natural cycle, nothing to do with warming, dumb BBC lady can't get it in her head, keeps saying yes but it's because of..... worse because of........ we can obviously expect more of this thing because of........

It's like stock propaganda phrase bingo.

Even better, the Wail article covering the same issue managed to claim that the calving will cause sea levels to rise 4"?! It's worse than we thought!

[PRTVR]

This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,

[deeen]

PRTVR said:

This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,

Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!

In other news. according to BBC2 10 mins ago, the Orkneys was warmer 5,000 years ago than it is now. Oh well.

[wc98]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Warmest year evah, that's why half the world is frigid.


Had to laugh at the BBC re. Larsen ice shelf calving on the radio today - expert interviewee was entirely honest, explained snow, glacier, ice shelf, breaks off - all a natural cycle, nothing to do with warming, dumb BBC lady can't get it in her head, keeps saying yes but it's because of..... worse because of........ we can obviously expect more of this thing because of........

It's like stock propaganda phrase bingo.

it has got to the laughable stage now. the absolute bks regarding forest fires earlier today could be ripped apart by a 5 year old child in two minutes.
looks like the mild spell we have been enjoying is coming to an end next week with viner a possibility, just as i was basking in the global warming of recent weeks.

[durbster]

deeen said:

PRTVR said:

This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,

Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

[mybrainhurts]

deeen said:

In other news. according to BBC2 10 mins ago, the Orkneys was warmer 5,000 years ago than it is now. Oh well.

Ooops...somebody at the Beeb will be out of a job on Monday morning.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

deeen said:

PRTVR said:

This popped up on my wife's Facebook page from a friend in Canada,

Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

What comment are you referring to?

[Jasandjules]

durbster said:

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

Do you deny that each of those assertions was made?

[Einion Yrth]

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

Do you deny that each of those assertions was made?

I seem to recall he's denied 1970 and 1976, but I don't pay that much attention to him.

[mybrainhurts]

Einion Yrth said:

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

Do you deny that each of those assertions was made?

I seem to recall he's denied 1970 and 1976, but I don't pay that much attention to him.

Our durbs is getting all teary eyed over on the 50:50 thread. Is there anything we can do to cheer him up?

[durbster]

dickymint said:

durbster said:

deeen said:

Thanks for that, will be useful for people who have been brainwashed at school!

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

What comment are you referring to?

That a cartoon is more valid than education.

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

Do you deny that each of those assertions was made?

Yes. Do you have proof that any of those assertions were made by scientists?

Einion Yrth said:

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, sadly that comment sums up the mentality of today. A propaganda cartoon designed for social media is considered more valid than evidence-based education.

Do you deny that each of those assertions was made?

I seem to recall he's denied 1970 and 1976, but I don't pay that much attention to him.

Well, perhaps you should have paid more attention because your recollection is complete bks. I would appreciate it if you didn't invent things about my position.