Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
Who knew!
kerplunk said:
I'd drop the 16yr claim if I were you but suit yourself
Any claims needing to be dropped don't relate to my position.Data has its own position for those who prefer it to faith, while a stats analysis says all it can and no more.
Unlike the IPCC, other politicians, grant-sozzled vested interests, zealots, alarmists and various stonewalling activists.
Man-Made...(wait for it)...Energy Crisis as 800000 German Households Can No Longer Pay Their Energy Bills
Germans are facing the biggest electricity price increase in a decade. And that is just the beginning. By 2030, they will have spent more than 300 billion Euros on green electricity.
Welt am Sonntag, 14 October 2012
Germans are facing the biggest electricity price increase in a decade. And that is just the beginning. By 2030, they will have spent more than 300 billion Euros on green electricity.
Welt am Sonntag, 14 October 2012
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
Who knew!
Jasandjules said:
Blib said:
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.
Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
In the meantime let us pay out billions in tax "just in case"....Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
And if they are wrong?!? Can we shoot them?
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 16th October 21:18
kerplunk said:
The 95% level refers to 'zero' 15yr trends and that's not what you've got I'm afraid. Can you revise for a +0.05 trend?
What with questionable start points, positive trends being portrayed as zero, and other datasets showing greater warming, I'm sure you can see how someone might think the shout is lacking robustness and looks a bit 'eager'.
I'd drop the 16yr claim if I were you but suit yourself
Should you not be debating this in the science of climate change thread?What with questionable start points, positive trends being portrayed as zero, and other datasets showing greater warming, I'm sure you can see how someone might think the shout is lacking robustness and looks a bit 'eager'.
I'd drop the 16yr claim if I were you but suit yourself
Or is the fact you are posting here means you have finally realised there is no science behind it merely politics
Not least as the matter of error bars is better over there.
No different to zero is zero.
"Only under yearly replacement of the MMTS thermistor with the calibrated MMTS readout can errors be constrained within ±0.2°C under the temperature range from -40° to +40°C."
Mixing carp contaminated measures post-massage and expecting the accuracy to get better? Madness.
No different to zero is zero.
"Only under yearly replacement of the MMTS thermistor with the calibrated MMTS readout can errors be constrained within ±0.2°C under the temperature range from -40° to +40°C."
Mixing carp contaminated measures post-massage and expecting the accuracy to get better? Madness.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
No August 1997 to August 2012 really is a 15 year period, honestly - I've counted it on my fingers and toes.
The interval is fifteen years, but the period (as posted) includes the years at the start and end of the interval and so covers 16 years 
kerplunk said:
I don't think I've missed the point about trends at all. If I was a highly motivated pseudo-sceptic, with the 97/98 super el nino in mind I would have it down on my 'to do' list to start checking the 15yr trends towards the end of 2012 cos that represents good odds of an easy propoganda win against those cerazy scientists.
Clearly you have missed the point.The issue here is not in any way concerned with what surrounds the 15 year
interval - or 16 year period - and whether or how a selection of that period for closer inspection might influence any perspective on a wider trend.The mere existence of an interval or period of time of that length with no overall warming shows that climate models fail as specified.
Propaganda? See RC and SC.
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
If you were a statistician you would realise that use of a 95% confidence level told you what you needed to know in that regard. It is far from likely to be a 'fluke'.It's odd that, with no visible / measurable human signal in the data, you still manage to believe IPCC estimates of their belief in their own viewpoint, which use percentages and certainty / uncertainty. How can that be
In the case of IPCC it's pure garbage and therefore easy to spot.
What with questionable start points, positive trends being portrayed as zero, and other datasets showing greater warming, I'm sure you can see how someone might think the shout is lacking robustness and looks a bit 'eager'.
I'd drop the 16yr claim if I were you but suit yourself
Article - with poll - on fracking that can always benefit from more democracy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...
Diderot said:
Lest we forget that this is the same 'data' that has been systematically tortured to show warming.
...apart from the last 8/9 years. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.This argument has been going stale for a while now. The data is freely available and various people have produced their own independant analyses - no difference.
I'd say UHI is now the last stand and milli-Watts is Custer
powerstroke said:
Jasandjules said:
Blib said:
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.
Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
In the meantime let us pay out billions in tax "just in case"....Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
And if they are wrong?!? Can we shoot them?
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 16th October 21:18
kerplunk said:
...apart from the last 8/9 years. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
This argument has been going stale for a while now. The data is freely available and various people have produced their own independant analyses - no difference.
I'd say UHI is now the last stand and milli-Watts is Custer
Sorry kp this bit is demonstratably untrue. Step away from [un]real climate, [un]skeptical science and [no]wood for trees for a moment - hold your nose and look at the analysis on climate audit, jo-nova and watts. If you then go back to RC SkS and WfT you'll realise the "rebuttals" are nothing of the sort that don't address the underlying problems with the revisionism being done.This argument has been going stale for a while now. The data is freely available and various people have produced their own independant analyses - no difference.
I'd say UHI is now the last stand and milli-Watts is Custer
thinfourth2 said:
Should you not be debating this in the science of climate change thread?
Or is the fact you are posting here means you have finally realised there is no science behind it merely politics
I'm banished from the science thread I'm afraid, but you won't find a single instance of a science diversion instigated by me on this thread.Or is the fact you are posting here means you have finally realised there is no science behind it merely politics
kerplunk is innocent of science diversions in this thread - free the gamename one 
Quite a few supporting roles even so some worthy of an Oscar.
Meanwhile, models are still inadequate, still fail, are still being used to extract taxpayer money and waste it, and politicians are foolish enough to think they offer anything of use.
That's political enough for this thread.
Quite a few supporting roles even so
some worthy of an Oscar.Meanwhile, models are still inadequate, still fail, are still being used to extract taxpayer money and waste it, and politicians are foolish enough to think they offer anything of use.
That's political enough for this thread.
Jinx said:
Sorry kp this bit is demonstratably untrue. Step away from [un]real climate, [un]skeptical science and [no]wood for trees for a moment - hold your nose and look at the analysis on climate audit, jo-nova and watts. If you then go back to RC SkS and WfT you'll realise the "rebuttals" are nothing of the sort that don't address the underlying problems with the revisionism being done.
Your references are strange - I don't recognise any of them as places where serious surface temps data analyses are produced. Climate Audit - main focus paleo hockey sticks.
"As readers are probably aware, I haven’t taken much issue with temperature data other than pressing the field to be more transparent. The satellite data seems quite convincing to me over the past 30 years and bounds the potential impact of contamination of surface stations" - Steve McIntyre
Jo Nova - political/science writer. No data analysis chops that I'm aware of.
Watts - main focus is UHI/station siting issues. No stats chops. Maybe you mean something he's hosted on his website in which case you need to be more specific.
Independent/citizen-researcher types I take notice of what they say when discussing their results (as opposed to understand their technical methods!) in no particular order: Lucia's Blackboard, Jeff ID, Tamino, Steve Mosher, Zeke Hausfather at the Yale forum, Nick Stokes... These are folk who have got stuck in writing their own code etc to analyse the surface data, pulled it this way and that looking for better methods/flaws and basically their results don't differ from what nasa/ncdc/ukmo produce. I think if the data has been deliberately adjusted to produce an unreal warming it would have been found out by now.
People are fun but data matters more and in this politics thread the only thing to add is that it's as curious as ever that politicians will act while unafflicted by any credible supportive objective data of relevance.
There is no visible measurable warming signal in global climate (temperature) data causally linked to humans, even after the data has been tortured. Yet activists and politicians manage to get bogged down in who says what about this or that while ignoring this basic and unrelenting failure of their faith in junkscience and gigo from expensive inadequate failing climate models.
There is no visible measurable warming signal in global climate (temperature) data causally linked to humans, even after the data has been tortured. Yet activists and politicians manage to get bogged down in who says what about this or that while ignoring this basic and unrelenting failure of their faith in junkscience and gigo from expensive inadequate failing climate models.
kerplunk said:
Your references are strange - I don't recognise any of them as places where serious surface temps data analyses are produced.
Merely places where if you pay attention others post analysis. And where you can find links to such places as http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/...As to your list: Tamino, Mosher and Nick Stokes are all dyed in wool CO2 believers (as believe in it's magical powers) and aside from Mosher (who can at least remain civil on forums though frequently cryptic) I wouldn't trust to analyse the colour of grass (I have a lot more time for Moshers work) .
Oh you may want to pass this new paper cutting AGW in half to Tamino...... no reason.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff