Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
My view is that source requests from climate alarmists are used as keyword search cues for advocacy blog content that gets re-heated re-posted in attrition loops. I even predicted that, after raising statosphere cooling due to ozone depletion, you or somebody of your viewpoint would head off to an advocacy blog and present data inconsistent with the commentary attached to it and stopping at 1995, content which fails badly in its aim but is widely used on such blogs. Bingo, the next post there it was!
If you, or a moderator, wish to dismiss widely available stratospheric data on any basis whatsoever, feel free to do so. It's so widely available from well known sources, asking for it seems odd to me but then I'm already familiar with this arena and don't need to go to advocacy blog content. I'll use a convenient source of decenet data as readily as the next PHer or moderator
Hope your beer was beery.
If you, or a moderator, wish to dismiss widely available stratospheric data on any basis whatsoever, feel free to do so. It's so widely available from well known sources, asking for it seems odd to me but then I'm already familiar with this arena and don't need to go to advocacy blog content. I'll use a convenient source of decenet data as readily as the next PHer or moderator
Hope your beer was beery.
Here's a online search term for use by climate alarmists and moderators...and anybody else particularly those with strong alarmist views but no grip on or knowledge of the literature as that would be preferable.
'stratosphere temperature anomaly'
Try here as a vague idea as to where to go for this information:
www.google.co.uk
Or use academic type access to databases of published papers as above.
HTH.
particularly those with strong alarmist views but no grip on or knowledge of the literature as that would be preferable.'stratosphere temperature anomaly'
Try here as a vague idea as to where to go for this information:
www.google.co.uk
Or use academic type access to databases of published papers as above.
HTH.
turbobloke said:
My view is that source requests from climate alarmists are used as keyword search cues for advocacy blog content that gets re-heated re-posted in attrition loops. I even predicted that, after raising statosphere cooling due to ozone depletion, you or somebody of your viewpoint would head off to an advocacy blog and present data inconsistent with the commentary attached to it and stopping at 1995, content which fails badly in its aim but is widely used on such blogs. Bingo, the next post there it was!
I only posted the graph - I didn't reference the blog. The graph is from a paper and I did reference that.turbobloke said:
If you, or a moderator, wish to dismiss widely available stratospheric data on any basis whatsoever, feel free to do so. It's so widely available from well known sources, asking for it seems odd to me but then I'm already familiar with this arena and don't need to go to advocacy blog content. I'll use a convenient source of decenet data as readily as the next PHer or moderator
Hope your beer was beery.
Bit of a strawman there TB, no one is dismissing anything. I merely want to see where that graph is from so that I can see what data it is displaying.Hope your beer was beery.
In my view you're missing the point with regard to any moderator comment on sources.
The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
However with something as non-controversial as widely available data, what does a request for sources reveal? Apart from not having seen what is widely known, and apparently not being able to finf it, it reveals a desire to somehow smear the information via asking for the source (pointless when the data is widely available) and to me, based on experience, it's done to provide key words for searching advocacy blogs for ready-cooked responses.
After so many years participating in forums corresponding with scientists on the one hand, and with climate alarmists via PH on the other hand, I have sufficient evidence to form a valid opinion on what requests for sources actually mean in various different contexts.
Enough of this - do you have a source to access data that contradicts any data that I posted? Just asking
The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
However with something as non-controversial as widely available data, what does a request for sources reveal? Apart from not having seen what is widely known, and apparently not being able to finf it, it reveals a desire to somehow smear the information via asking for the source (pointless when the data is widely available) and to me, based on experience, it's done to provide key words for searching advocacy blogs for ready-cooked responses.
After so many years participating in forums corresponding with scientists on the one hand, and with climate alarmists via PH on the other hand, I have sufficient evidence to form a valid opinion on what requests for sources actually mean in various different contexts.
Enough of this - do you have a source to access data that contradicts any data that I posted? Just asking
turbobloke said:
In my view you're missing the point with regard to any moderator comment on sources.
The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
Your graphic didn't include a source this time, so I asked you for it.The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
turbobloke said:
However with something as non-controversial as widely available data, what does a request for sources reveal? Apart from not having seen what is widely known, and apparently not being able to finf it, it reveals a desire to somehow smear the information via asking for the source (pointless when the data is widely available) and to me, based on experience, it's done to provide key words for searching advocacy blogs for ready-cooked responses.
So rather than give me the source, you write an spew of insults? Diversion perhaps? 
turbobloke said:
After so many years participating in forums corresponding with scientists on the one hand, and with climate alarmists via PH on the other hand, I have sufficient evidence to form a valid opinion on what requests for sources actually mean in various different contexts.
Whatever you say Big Man.
turbobloke said:
Enough of this - do you have a source to access data that contradicts any data that I posted? Just asking
Nope, and how could I? I don't know what data you used so how could I contradict it?Facefirst said:
turbobloke said:
In my view you're missing the point with regard to any moderator comment on sources.
The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
Your graphic didn't include a source this time, so I asked you for it.The source matters if there is a controversial principle or statement offered as 'fact' and as such source and supporting data do matter. As such I do, as mentioned previously, aim to cite paper references and use graphics with the data source inside the graphic. Look on the threads and you will see this.
Facefirst said:
turbobloke said:
However with something as non-controversial as widely available data, what does a request for sources reveal? Apart from not having seen what is widely known, and apparently not being able to finf it, it reveals a desire to somehow smear the information via asking for the source (pointless when the data is widely available) and to me, based on experience, it's done to provide key words for searching advocacy blogs for ready-cooked responses.
So rather than give me the source, you write an spew of insults? Diversion perhaps? FAcefirst said:
turbobloke said:
After so many years participating in forums corresponding with scientists on the one hand, and with climate alarmists via PH on the other hand, I have sufficient evidence to form a valid opinion on what requests for sources actually mean in various different contexts.
Whatever you say Big Man.
Facefirst said:
turbobloke said:
Enough of this - do you have a source to access data that contradicts any data that I posted? Just asking
Nope, and how could I? I don't know what data you used so how could I contradict it?If you still haven't got it, use the search term I gave and the link to google I posted, the data and source are easy to find.
However you're clearly more interested in pursuing a personal agenda, claiming insults which don't exist while issuing your own version.
Pointless.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
My view is that source requests from climate alarmists are used as keyword search cues for advocacy blog content
Good point - can't have people reading stuff.You must have seen all the advocacy blogs inside out over the years of hunting down pre-cooked menus to offer, why then having seen it served up if only by others, do you think we haven't seen all the junkscience in all the warmist advocacy blogs already
Something new and unpredictable. Now that would be worth seeing.
Much better than the personal angle you and FF are taking (yet again).
kerplunk said:
Facefirst said:
kerplunk said:
Good point - can't have people reading stuff.
I'm just popping out to get some blood from this here stone... Or is that the problem?
I did offer Google first off after all.
So we had the coldest winter for 30 years and we are having (according to the weather forecasts I am seeing) below average temperatures this summer.
So, taking things to their most basic - how is this possible with more CO2 in the atmosphere, when CO2 is the driver of climate (for AGW to be an issue and all the carbon tax to be more than a sham to obtain money - we won't worry about what the money is being ringfenced to pay for, that would be political)?
So, taking things to their most basic - how is this possible with more CO2 in the atmosphere, when CO2 is the driver of climate (for AGW to be an issue and all the carbon tax to be more than a sham to obtain money - we won't worry about what the money is being ringfenced to pay for, that would be political)?
kerplunk said:
Facefirst said:
kerplunk said:
Good point - can't have people reading stuff.
I'm just popping out to get some blood from this here stone... "I sense much off-forum cliquery taking place here but I don't give a s
t. Irony smiley needed
(nb no extra pyramids of daft nesting, mods)
edit for geometry
Edited by perdu on Friday 22 July 22:24
Facefirst said:
So rather than give me the source, you write an spew of insults? Diversion perhaps?
Whatever you say Big Man.
REPORTEDWhatever you say Big Man.
Out of order...
Is this another thread where losing the argument will (deliberately?) lead to personalisation, ad homs and where it will end up being stopped? What bit of the mod's very clear requests that this one stays 'clean' wasn't noted, understood or remembered?
'Bad Science' is supposed to be the place where sceptics and Ph in general are slagged off, no?
Facefirst. You've mentioned a few times recently that the climate models are not 100% accurate.
What percentage of accuracy do you believe that they achieve?
What percentage of accuracy do you believe would be of use as a guide to what is actually happening?
What one improvement do you believe would help the overall accuracy of the climate models?
Thanks.
What percentage of accuracy do you believe that they achieve?
What percentage of accuracy do you believe would be of use as a guide to what is actually happening?
What one improvement do you believe would help the overall accuracy of the climate models?
Thanks.
Edited by Blib on Saturday 23 July 07:55
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff