Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
kingofdbrits said:
How, with all this going on, you can blame any change in sea levels to man emitting such a tiny fraction of tax gas when the other forces involved are so colossal as to be beyond our comprehension, and then to just ignore them....
Yes, it's the sort of armwaving junkscience that wouldn't be acceptable in a secondary school project yet 'scientists' in national and supranational organisations spout such carp on a daily basis - and the media, ignorant and supine in equal measure as always, lap it up.No resemblance to reality:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/...
Well my final attempt to shake some hornets out the nest has just been sent.
I'm not very hopeful of anything being addressed by them to be honest, mostly because I dont think they even HAVE the answers let alone be willing to expose their soft green underbellies.
Still, no answers wont be for lack of trying.
"Sir, I'm astonished but not really surprised that not a single question was answered.
Its become de rigeur nowadays to simply ignore any questions that challenge any aspect of the religious orthodoxy you people claim to be climate "science".
I believe thats exactly what you have done here, again.
You dont like the questions so you ignore them despite them being valid and also criticisms of the so called "science" ( its actually faith driven pseudoastrology rather than recognized science) simply to trot out a computer models garbage output.
Thats not science its claptrap!
When are you going to answer the questions I posed?
I feel your "current stand-point of our understanding on this topic " is based on shaky ground to say the least, especially as your chief "scientist" is in direct contradiction with the IPCC on many aspects, a point which you simply gloss over.
If you want people to have erm, "faith" in your predictions then you need to answer their questions, however uncomfortable they might be and however damaging to "the cause" they might be, you owe people the bare truth, whether it supports your stance or not, its not your remit to make dramatic statements, or have them blabbed out on your behalf without being able to answer questions which dont compliment your position.
One more time, heres your chance to set the record straight:
Where is the unambiguous, attributable, visible, human causal signal in the global climate data?
Not model outputs, DATA! for all to see.
Either show it or retract any statements you have made suggesting links to climate and humans, anything less is simply unscientific.
I will take a lack of attempt to answer just that one question above as a failure of your "science" and your integrity, and yes, I do want to find something wrong with it!
regards......."
I'm not very hopeful of anything being addressed by them to be honest, mostly because I dont think they even HAVE the answers let alone be willing to expose their soft green underbellies.
Still, no answers wont be for lack of trying.
"Sir, I'm astonished but not really surprised that not a single question was answered.
Its become de rigeur nowadays to simply ignore any questions that challenge any aspect of the religious orthodoxy you people claim to be climate "science".
I believe thats exactly what you have done here, again.
You dont like the questions so you ignore them despite them being valid and also criticisms of the so called "science" ( its actually faith driven pseudoastrology rather than recognized science) simply to trot out a computer models garbage output.
Thats not science its claptrap!
When are you going to answer the questions I posed?
I feel your "current stand-point of our understanding on this topic " is based on shaky ground to say the least, especially as your chief "scientist" is in direct contradiction with the IPCC on many aspects, a point which you simply gloss over.
If you want people to have erm, "faith" in your predictions then you need to answer their questions, however uncomfortable they might be and however damaging to "the cause" they might be, you owe people the bare truth, whether it supports your stance or not, its not your remit to make dramatic statements, or have them blabbed out on your behalf without being able to answer questions which dont compliment your position.
One more time, heres your chance to set the record straight:
Where is the unambiguous, attributable, visible, human causal signal in the global climate data?
Not model outputs, DATA! for all to see.
Either show it or retract any statements you have made suggesting links to climate and humans, anything less is simply unscientific.
I will take a lack of attempt to answer just that one question above as a failure of your "science" and your integrity, and yes, I do want to find something wrong with it!
regards......."
I'm looking for a humorous cartoon on climate change. One was posted here about the no rise in global temperature for 19 years or so? And how pointing that out makes a person a 'denier'? But anything funny that points out the basic lack of science would be good please. It's for a friends FB page. 
Dear H,
regards,
Jet
Halb said:
I'm looking for a humorous cartoon on climate change. One was posted here about the no rise in global temperature for 19 years or so? And how pointing that out makes a person a 'denier'? But anything funny that points out the basic lack of science would be good please. It's for a friends FB page.
Search for Josh climate. He is the daddy for such as you are seeking,regards,
Jet
turbobloke said:
No resemblance to reality:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/...
Wish I'd seen that before I spent hours looking up exactly the same stuff for my post earlier on the same glaring exaggeration!http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/...
Andy Zarse said:
Anyone seen this load of old toff purporting to be serious science?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/14041...
Having just read the paper in full it embodies so much of what we indicate on here regarding the annals of true belief that we could have written it ourselves given a sufficient motive to do so. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/14041...
It would be most interesting if, instead of taking only one pre-industrial period as 1500–1900 they also took both of the equally pre-industrial 400 year periods 4200BP to 3800BP and 11500BP to 11100BP for the purpose of comparison. Proxies are proxies.
At one point Tanth is stated as having a main contribution from CO2 and that Tanth is proportional to RF(CO2). Obviously any study into whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide has had any influence on global temperature in recent decades would naturally assume the core belief associated with this idea to begin with. Missing heat anyone?
Also where have we seen before a methodology that tags one approach for the post-industrial era on the end of a different approach for the pre-industrial era...we'd definitely use that if we were the authors.
Finally, the paper and therefore the link provided a few posts ago say "the statistical rejection of a hypothesis cannot be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative". Indeed.
Talking of alternatives, what if the dominant climate forcing mechanism(s) operating over several 400 year periods were different, so that the true extent of natural variability and its origins could not be represented adequately by a single 400 year interval used in a statistical study. That would be really Steve Davis interesting.
As would a situation where by chance (m)any or all of the dominant natural forcing(s) remained constant over one chosen period of 400 years but not another period of the same length.
There are a great many climate forcings together with couplings and feedbacks, and the IPCC SPM list has very few - of the few natural forcings listed there is a generally low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) and never mind those natural forcings that are omitted completely.
The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
turbobloke said:
Gosh! Truly sickening - so many people resigning. I think we are long overdue setting up a sticky wiki in the science forum. We should name and label the contributors mentioned in that article with links to a handful of their papers, and then go on to mention the bigger players and provide a few links to their work.
It would serve as a great resource for new comers to the subject. How many times have we seen a new brave troubled climate soul arrive here and they are told to go back and read through all the climate threads?
turbobloke said:
There are a great many climate forcings together with couplings and feedbacks, and the IPCC SPM list has very few - of the few natural forcings listed there is a generally low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) and never mind those natural forcings that are omitted completely.
The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Prophetic words - I'll say this though - you're bloody lucky that we've finally stopped burning heretics.The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Hasn't quite stopped the Police kicking your front door in and seizing all your computers though has it?
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
There are a great many climate forcings together with couplings and feedbacks, and the IPCC SPM list has very few - of the few natural forcings listed there is a generally low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) and never mind those natural forcings that are omitted completely.
The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Prophetic words - I'll say this though - you're bloody lucky that we've finally stopped burning heretics.The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Hasn't quite stopped the Police kicking your front door in and seizing all your computers though has it?
I don't think history is going to be too kind when trying to explain our era....
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
There are a great many climate forcings together with couplings and feedbacks, and the IPCC SPM list has very few - of the few natural forcings listed there is a generally low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) and never mind those natural forcings that are omitted completely.
The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Prophetic words - I'll say this though - you're bloody lucky that we've finally stopped burning heretics.The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Hasn't quite stopped the Police kicking your front door in and seizing all your computers though has it?
On the computer thing, according to tallbloke's experience you may be correct but I think they knocked on the door which makes all the difference
The key thing appears to be: don't set up a realist blog thus making sure you're NOT sent anything before it appears on a Russian server, or possibly afterwards, allegedly. I'm blogless.
mybrainhurts said:
Agreed. Found a link in the comments for another very good article. http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/why-is...Section i agree with strongly.
The first one has to be that the message, whatever its form, is nearly always tainted with a certain unmistakable whiff of arrogance which puts people off. There’s never an element of doubt about it, it’s simply do as I say or you’ll all die, and it comes with a none too subtle subtext of if you don’t do what I say, you’ll deserve to die. There’s simply no tolerance of dissent. They carry on like they’re our better informed superiors and that gets right up people’s noses.
Our self-appointed saviours are perceived by the ordinary person as having an authoritarian mind-set which they can’t shake and more tellingly, refuse to admit, never mind adapting the message in any more inclusive way in response to changing circumstances. They were for so long above criticism, they’re by now incapable of compromise or simply just listening. They’re very much in touch with each others bunker mindset but totally out of touch with the popular Zeitgeist.
Blib said:
None of it makes sense any longer. None of it needs to make sense any longer.
I have been thinking this for some time.So - is life serious or not?
I strongly suspect we should all think of it as NOT serious and accept that we just have to play along with the games from time to time while trying not to become too involved or engaged with those people who think of themselves as being 'important'. The UN for example. And all of our politicians.
I often think that 'important' people should be given plenty of rope to undertake their 'important' stuff - since most people know it is not important stuff at all thus allowing them to be tolerated until such time as they become intolerable. Then we should ditch them as their entertainment value wains.
That way, perhaps, it may all make some sort sort of sense, strangely, once again.
Or we could seal them in a mine...
Anyway...
This video debate is worth watching.
It's also worth emailing to your MP, school and any other gullible fool who's lapped up the tripe.
Did I mention YOUR MP?
Oh, yes, I believe I did...
Save this one.
http://iai.tv/video/what-we-dont-know-about-co2#
And send it to your MP...
It might also be handy if EVERYBODY sends it to Scatty Ed Davey.
Anyway...
This video debate is worth watching.
It's also worth emailing to your MP, school and any other gullible fool who's lapped up the tripe.
Did I mention YOUR MP?
Oh, yes, I believe I did...
Save this one.
http://iai.tv/video/what-we-dont-know-about-co2#
And send it to your MP...
It might also be handy if EVERYBODY sends it to Scatty Ed Davey.
mybrainhurts said:
That really was worth watching and indeed saving to show others.Thanks for the link.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff