Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

mybrainhurts said:

zygalski said:

I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads, same as I look to mumsnet for advice about men's rights.

Ho Ho Ho

You ought to do stand up. You're wasted here.

I'd say it's a fair point. This is a car enthusiasts website.

Presumably you hold the warped opinion that within several hundred thousand car enthusiasts there won't be any with post-graduate science qualifications, while everyone else on here lacks the basic ability to understand causality or judge political chicanery for what it is? School children can manage causality; it's believers who fail.

In any case the above post from z, supported by you, is nothing more than a collective version of 'shooting the messenger', an over-used aspect of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Did we miss your preferred explanation as to why NASA suddenly doubled the proportion of radiative energy lost from the planet's surface? Or for that matter how it makes sense to move SST measures from the more accurate and less heat-contaiminated buoy values to the less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship intake values? Or how it can be valid to substitute an urban temperature reading for the temperature at a distant inaccessible location?

If that sort of thing is anyone's idea of sound science it's not difficult to appreciate how easily they can be gulled and really ought to avoid the vacuous sarcy self-confessions.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

zygalski said:

I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads...

You'll get a more rounded view than from any believer blog.

I'm not convinced you believe some of the stuff you post here, but that's a classic.

turbobloke said:

zygalski said:

Oh.
You're with the 3%....

Surely you can't mean the rounded up 3% consensus for manmadeup warming? Or is it 0.3%?

Maybe he means one of the other studies. There have been several:


And there's the study that checked the studies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...

Once again, a flat-out rejection of evidence with little justification.

turbobloke said:

Did we miss your preferred explanation as to why NASA suddenly doubled the proportion of radiative energy lost from the planet's surface? Or for that matter how it makes sense to move SST measures from the more accurate and less heat-contaiminated buoy values to the less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship intake values? Or how it can be valid to substitute an urban temperature reading for the temperature at a distant inaccessible location?

LongQ said:

You choose to perpetuate the posting of topics that would fit into the "Science" thread in the "Politics" thread, leaving the "Science" thread inactive.

Why?

Is this a deliberately disruptive act on your part? Or is it something else more personal in nature?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

zygalski said:

I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads...

You'll get a more rounded view than from any believer blog.

I'm not convinced you believe some of the stuff you post here, but that's a classic.

IPCC select science to meet their advocacy role, that's how they were set up and how they work. With believer blogs operating the same way, with added bans and deletions, what I posted is clearly accurate.

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

zygalski said:

Oh.
You're with the 3%....

Surely you can't mean the rounded up 3% consensus for manmadeup warming? Or is it 0.3%?

Maybe he means one of the other studies. There have been several...

Are you now claiming that there's a consensus of consensuses?! Awesome!



Anyone would think it had any impact on reality, regardless of obvious sampling and sample size issues.

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Did we miss your preferred explanation as to why NASA suddenly doubled the proportion of radiative energy lost from the planet's surface? Or for that matter how it makes sense to move SST measures from the more accurate and less heat-contaiminated buoy values to the less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship intake values? Or how it can be valid to substitute an urban temperature reading for the temperature at a distant inaccessible location?

LongQ said:

You choose to perpetuate the posting of topics that would fit into the "Science" thread in the "Politics" thread, leaving the "Science" thread inactive.

Why?

Is this a deliberately disruptive act on your part? Or is it something else more personal in nature?

As explained, and now repeated for the typical selective reader believer, a decision by a public sector government funded IPCC-licking body to amend a basic result by 100% overnight is political, in any reasonable view, absent any other rational explanation.

Next

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

As explained, and now repeated for the typical selective reader believer, a decision by a public sector government funded IPCC-licking body to amend a basic result by 100% overnight is political, in any reasonable view, absent any other rational explanation.

But it's definitely not a conspiracy.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

As explained, and now repeated for the typical selective reader believer, a decision by a public sector government funded IPCC-licking body to amend a basic result by 100% overnight is political, in any reasonable view, absent any other rational explanation.

But it's definitely not a conspiracy.

But your post is a strawman.

[turbobloke]

Public service announcement: having ticked the strawman box, insults and rhetorical devices remain available.

[Terminator X]

robinessex said:

For what it’s worth.

What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.

Imho down is worse than up, imagine the howling when we start to enter the next ice age phase. Man made of course. Perhaps they'll suggest more CO2 is needed to avoid it?

TX.

[turbobloke]

Terminator X said:

robinessex said:

For what it’s worth.

What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.

Imho down is worse than up, imagine the howling when we start to enter the next ice age phase.

Exactly, natural warm periods - we are now at the tail end of one, according to solar and unmolested temperature data thus far - are known as climate optima and for good reason.

A snip from a relevant Abstract said:

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago.

Political angle for sticklers: natural abrupt climate change (in both directions) refute the false political claim that any natural, current modest and slow climate change is at an unprecedented rate, which it absolutely is not.

[robinessex]

robinessex said:

For what it’s worth.

What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.

I'm waiting Mr Durbster. Ignoring this just means you are digging your own grave. That's when you finish flogging your wares on the Scientific debate Forum of course.

Edited by robinessex on Monday 5th September 14:02

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

robinessex said:

For what it’s worth.

What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.

I'm waiting Mr Durbster.

Best of luck. I've had one swerve avoiding the NASA-IPCC politics question, not even a nibble on the thought experiment, and from way back nothing on several cited papers. As to that visible causal human signal, don't mention it (oops, I just mentioned it).

Still, we're fortunate to have been treated to the conspiracy strawman, shooting the messenger(s) fallacy and name-calling too from zygalski while we're waiting; the bar has never been higher and we are truly blessed by Gaia.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Best of luck. I've had one swerve avoiding the NASA-IPCC politics question, not even a nibble on the thought experiment, and from way back nothing on several cited papers. As to that visible causal human signal, don't mention it (oops, I just mentioned it).

It's very sweet how you give your followers these little motivating nuggets of encouragement. They really would be lost with you.

I expect another dance rather than answer but let's try anyway - do you think "should the Earth's temperature go up or down" is a good question?

The thought experiment: didn't know what you were on about.
Cited papers: as I (think I) said, I'm not in a position to argue the science (also, I'm not allowed). Instead, I just looked up whether the authors accept AGW or not. Couldn't find any evidence they didn't and plenty that said they did, which told me all I need to know.
Visible signal: Already responded several times. I don't consider it valid.
Conspiracy: More than happy for you to avoid that term for what you're accusing the world's scientist/politicians/whoever of. But it's still a conspiracy by any objective definition.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Best of luck. I've had one swerve avoiding the NASA-IPCC politics question, not even a nibble on the thought experiment, and from way back nothing on several cited papers. As to that visible causal human signal, don't mention it (oops, I just mentioned it).

It's very sweet how you give your followers these little motivating nuggets of encouragement.

Aw shucks, I didn't realise you cared.

Even so, another swerve.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Aw shucks, I didn't realise you cared.

Even so, another swerve.

So I see.

I did say I expected it, but I appreciate your honesty all the same

[turbobloke]

Yesterday morning somebody (no names, no pack drill, no swerve) posted about believing experts, despite ‘nullius in verba’ which was conveniently redefined - following the example of IPCC high priests suggesting redefinition of the scientific literature to keep 'damaging' papers out of pro-AGW reports - as well as the only apt belief statement there is: ‘science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’.

In the past 7 years more than 238 'expert' scientists including Nobel Prize winner Dr Ivar Giaever and professors from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UCLA and dozens of other top universities and research institutions have signed an open letter addressed to the Council of the American Physical Society saying the scientific data did not support the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming.

The APS coterie (sampling issues, sample size issue, yet again) reviews its statement on AGW every 5 years, the next is due in 2017, and for now holds to their unscientific statement that manmadeup warming is incontrovertible (false in any case) when in science nothing is incontrovertible. Superb stuff from a supposed scientific authority chokka with experts.

To help the APS with their next review, over 31,000 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,000+ PhD level / 7,000+ MSc level / 2,500+ MD and DVM level / 12,500+ BSc level, have signed the Global Warming Petition Project statement in support of this clear and apt message:

“the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity”

It has lots of valid political attributes however

For once, we have open not closed sampling and a decent sample size, providing a window on the actual (but still irrelevant) scientific consensus around an impure political phenomenon.

In passing, and with regard to climate suboptima and the possibility of a Dalton or Maunder event, let’s not forget that ex-NASA climate alarmist Hansen has already chipped in with a pointer for other disciples to follow (how dare he, Durbster will be on his case asap) claiming that after years of diddled temperatures being spun as a sign of thermageddon, planetary temperature is an unreliable metric during cooling periods.

Most excellent climahorlix in advance of potentially inconvenient falling temperatures.

Warming: global temperature matters.
Cooling: global temperature doesn’t matter.



At least there’s some sort of perverse consistency here within AGW junkscience...snow being a thing of the past / more snow; more hurricanes / fewer hurricanes; hot dry / cool wet summers; warm / freezing winters; jet stream jive; and the rest of the bunk.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Yesterday morning somebody (no names, no pack drill, no swerve) posted about believing experts, despite ‘nullius in verba’ which was conveniently redefined

Conveniently redefined? Where did you get your defition?

Because I got the definition from The Royal Society themselves:

Royal Society said:

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

Or have I misunderstood, and you meant the Royal Society redefined it so they could spread lies about global warming (but it's not a conspiracy).

turbobloke said:

In the past 7 years more than 238 'expert' scientists including Nobel Prize winner Dr Ivar Giaever and professors from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UCLA and dozens of other top universities and research institutions have signed an open letter addressed to the Council of the American Physical Society saying the scientific data did not support the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming.

And what of the tens of thousands of scientists who say the opposite? We just ignore them because they're definitely wrong?

Anyway, a Nobel prize winner, Harvard, Princeton? Isn't that a worthless appeal to authority?

turbobloke said:

To help the APS with their next review, over 31,000 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,000+ PhD level / 7,000+ MSc level / 2,500+ MD and DVM level / 12,500+ BSc level, have signed the Global Warming Petition Project statement in support of this clear and apt message:

“the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity”

What's the source of that quote?

That's not what the petition said. Are you just making stuff up as well now?

I'd like to say that I've already found that petition to have dubious methodology, that it contains misleading statements and is 20 years out-of-date but although you're allowed to repeat stuff, sadly I'm not.

[don4l]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Yesterday morning somebody (no names, no pack drill, no swerve) posted about believing experts, despite ‘nullius in verba’ which was conveniently redefined

Conveniently redefined? Where did you get your defition?

Because I got the definition from The Royal Society themselves:

Royal Society said:

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

You were using a different definition yesterday:-

Durbster said:

That quote basically means "don't believe anything from an authority unless they can prove it scientifically".

It doesn't mean "don't believe anything from an authority". That's just the distorted interpretation adopted by The PH climate-cult here.

So, which of these two opposing definitions are we supposed to go with?

[durbster]

don4l said:

So, which of these two opposing definitions are we supposed to go with?

Opposing?

[Phud]

don4l said:

So, which of these two opposing definitions are we supposed to go with?

The consensus I expect

[robinessex]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

robinessex said:

For what it’s worth.

What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.

I'm waiting Mr Durbster.

Best of luck. I've had one swerve avoiding the NASA-IPCC politics question, not even a nibble on the thought experiment, and from way back nothing on several cited papers. As to that visible causal human signal, don't mention it (oops, I just mentioned it).

Still, we're fortunate to have been treated to the conspiracy strawman, shooting the messenger(s) fallacy and name-calling too from zygalski while we're waiting; the bar has never been higher and we are truly blessed by Gaia.

And still Mr Durbster has evaded it. His hole is getting bigger.

[turbobloke]

don4l said:

So (Durbster) which of these two opposing definitions are we supposed to go with?

Good question.

More hurricanes redefined as fewer hurricanes. Snow as a thing of the past redefined as more snow. Warmer wetter winters redefined as freezing snow-packed winters. Scorchio summers redefined as washout summers. Weakening jet stream redefined as strengthening jet stream. Surface radiative losses redefined by doubling overnight. Warming redefined as cooling. Nullius in verba redefined as whatever is convenient at the time. It all fits! Consistent inconsistency - the hallmark of junkscience and politican chicanery.