Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Guam said:
Hang on guys we should all be Crushed and buried according to Paul Nurse.
Who the f
k does he think he is?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-274...
A walking talking arse by the looks of it.Who the f
k does he think he is?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-274...
The latest ENSO diagnostic, just received, offers little hope for the faithful in terms of a faked and fudged end to the 19 year pause.
"Most of the models continue to predict El Niño to develop during September-November and to continue into early 2015. A majority of models and the multi- model averages favour a weak El Niño. At this time, the consensus of forecasters expects El Niño to emerge during September-October and to peak at weak strength during the late fall and early winter."
There's the usual mention of models and consensus in there, so as always keep an eagle eye on the data.
"Most of the models continue to predict El Niño to develop during September-November and to continue into early 2015. A majority of models and the multi- model averages favour a weak El Niño. At this time, the consensus of forecasters expects El Niño to emerge during September-October and to peak at weak strength during the late fall and early winter."
There's the usual mention of models and consensus in there, so as always keep an eagle eye on the data.
You are all wrong
http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans...
http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans...
Edited by Pesty on Thursday 4th September 19:29
More already, as would be expected for junkscience of this majesty.
Laughable New Paper
It'll get headlines with the usual supine media suspects as was the intention.
Laughable New Paper
It'll get headlines with the usual supine media suspects as was the intention.
I thought this comment summed up the current dilemma;
Pachygrapsus September 3, 2014 at 9:35 pm
Actually they have explained the warming on the early to mid 20th century. It was “natural variability”. See, there was some natural stuff that varied and it caused temperatures to rise. During the latter part of that century all of the natural stuff stayed exactly the same but we did things to mess it up. It’s just a coincidence that the two warming periods look identical because they couldn’t possibly have the same cause. The temperature was perfect back then, correct to 3 parts in a thousand. It was too cold before and too hot now, so we need to undo the unnatural variability and keep the natural part.
Pachygrapsus September 3, 2014 at 9:35 pm
Actually they have explained the warming on the early to mid 20th century. It was “natural variability”. See, there was some natural stuff that varied and it caused temperatures to rise. During the latter part of that century all of the natural stuff stayed exactly the same but we did things to mess it up. It’s just a coincidence that the two warming periods look identical because they couldn’t possibly have the same cause. The temperature was perfect back then, correct to 3 parts in a thousand. It was too cold before and too hot now, so we need to undo the unnatural variability and keep the natural part.
Is it meant to be ironic? If so then fine, if not, serve the parrot cold.
Natural stuff staying exactly the same, how? Did Jones & Mann order it?
Couldn't possibly have the same cause...assumption leading to reasoning by assertion. There is natural variability, which varies.
The temperature was perfect to 3 parts in 000 - this is what gave the game away (hopefully!)
Undoing the unnatural variability could be possible in theory if there was any to start with...but as Warming High Priest Trenberth confirmed, all forms of geoengineering are hopeless.
Keep the natural part: well sure, it would be interesting to know how not to keep the natural part since a) it's natural and b) we're not doing anything visible globally.
Comment said:
Actually they have explained the warming on the early to mid 20th century. It was “natural variability”. See, there was some natural stuff that varied and it caused temperatures to rise. During the latter part of that century all of the natural stuff stayed exactly the same but we did things to mess it up. It’s just a coincidence that the two warming periods look identical because they couldn’t possibly have the same cause. The temperature was perfect back then, correct to 3 parts in a thousand. It was too cold before and too hot now, so we need to undo the unnatural variability and keep the natural part.
Modest natural warming started in the early 1700s after the LIA. Solar.Natural stuff staying exactly the same, how? Did Jones & Mann order it?
Couldn't possibly have the same cause...assumption leading to reasoning by assertion. There is natural variability, which varies.
The temperature was perfect to 3 parts in 000 - this is what gave the game away (hopefully!)
Undoing the unnatural variability could be possible in theory if there was any to start with...but as Warming High Priest Trenberth confirmed, all forms of geoengineering are hopeless.
Keep the natural part: well sure, it would be interesting to know how not to keep the natural part since a) it's natural and b) we're not doing anything visible globally.
Global Temperature Drops Below IPCC Projection Range
The pause in surface temperature warming has sparked a new phase of research in the climate sciences. Among other effects, it invalidated several high profile forecasts. The flattish trend of global surface temperatures during the pause has fallen below the lower bound of the projections used by the IPCC. Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong. Sometimes the right ones were in the minority.
Fabius Maximus, 04 September 2014
The pause in surface temperature warming has sparked a new phase of research in the climate sciences. Among other effects, it invalidated several high profile forecasts. The flattish trend of global surface temperatures during the pause has fallen below the lower bound of the projections used by the IPCC. Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong. Sometimes the right ones were in the minority.
Fabius Maximus, 04 September 2014
Apparently some old images of Arctic See Ice taken from a satellite back in the 60s have extended analysis of ice cover by about 15 years
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/04/ancient_fi...
I'm not sure whether this is politics or science. I would have thought that scientific endeavour, properly directed, would have 'rediscovered' these images somewhat earlier than now. Hence the suggestion that this might be a political release with a strategically structured 'message' deliverable from the analysis. Where such a message might take us is so far, based on what little I have seen, open to conjecture.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/04/ancient_fi...
I'm not sure whether this is politics or science. I would have thought that scientific endeavour, properly directed, would have 'rediscovered' these images somewhat earlier than now. Hence the suggestion that this might be a political release with a strategically structured 'message' deliverable from the analysis. Where such a message might take us is so far, based on what little I have seen, open to conjecture.
Pesty said:
You are all wrong
http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans...
Wondered if this would pop up here.http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans...
Edited by Pesty on Thursday 4th September 19:29
It was on IFLS as well.
http://www.iflscience.com/99999-certainty-humans-a...
Guam said:
Hang on guys we should all be Crushed and buried according to Paul Nurse.
Who the fk does he think he is?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-274...
Ah, see the new spin though (I added the missing words):Who the f
k does he think he is?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-274...
"Politicians who do not believe in [man made] climate change should be 'crushed and buried', according to the new president of the British Science Association."
Only a fool would disagree with climate change of course likewise only a fool would believe in man made climate change.
TX.
97% Consensus on Global Warming Depends on Research Described as Fraudulent and Biased
A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.
Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”
GWPF, London, 08 September 2014
Click for pdf File
A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.
Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”
GWPF, London, 08 September 2014
Click for pdf File
I've got an idea. Forget politics with it's potential effect on grant funding and lobbying from energy industry. Surely the only way to know the real risks of climate change is to look for evidence gathered by the insurance industry?
What do you reckon? Do they sponsor their own research? I'd have thought as they are the one's going to be picking up the bill for the effects of climate change, they'll be wanting to stick the costs into all sorts of policies all over the globe from shipping, crop futures, oil rigs and storm spillages, coastal industrial facilites, domestic storm damage etc etc.
Put it this way, I'd be more inclined to accept an insurance assesment than anyone else's. Say I was the bloke responsbile for setting long term reserves, I'd want to hear from the best of the climate change scientists - whatever their view, and fund someone else to review the published papers - and properly understand and quantify the risks for me. That's what insurances companies do.
What do you reckon? Do they sponsor their own research? I'd have thought as they are the one's going to be picking up the bill for the effects of climate change, they'll be wanting to stick the costs into all sorts of policies all over the globe from shipping, crop futures, oil rigs and storm spillages, coastal industrial facilites, domestic storm damage etc etc.
Put it this way, I'd be more inclined to accept an insurance assesment than anyone else's. Say I was the bloke responsbile for setting long term reserves, I'd want to hear from the best of the climate change scientists - whatever their view, and fund someone else to review the published papers - and properly understand and quantify the risks for me. That's what insurances companies do.
turbobloke said:
97% Consensus on Global Warming Depends on Research Described as Fraudulent and Biased
A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.
Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”
GWPF, London, 08 September 2014
Click for pdf File
I just read that PDF, sounds like a right old whinge. executive sumarry: scientists have proposed a hypothesis and collected some data in a not very vigourous approach, but maybe one capable of being understood by Daily Mail readers, er, well.... Ahem.A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.
Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”
GWPF, London, 08 September 2014
Click for pdf File
Have you ever noticed the GWPF have NEVER as far as I am aware commented on how good a piece of cliamte research is and how it is a good indicator of how the study has added to the number of credible papers on the subject. I can't claim I have read all their publications... only those that get posted as evidence on internet forums that claim climate change isn't happening or that such and such as report is dodgy or such and such an organisation isn't credible with some ad homs thrown in for good measure. Doesn't really sound like a Government policy formation group to me. More like a funded front for the fossil industry to mix it up a bit, create a source for quoations in the press. I have no issues with fossil companies wanting to put alternative viewpoints forward - but do it out in the open where the bias is more obvious.
Perosnally I'd like to see a law that states before a lobby company (charity my ass) can be quoted in the press they need to have a set of public accounts whoing the source of their funding. That applies to university professors and eco groups too.
TransverseTight said:
Surely the only way to know the real risks of climate change is to look for evidence gathered by the insurance industry?
Will insurers be interested in the cause of any change in the climate, or just any predicted damage? Adaptation to any climate variations is what we should be concentrating on, but so far it is hard to tell exactly what is actually going to happen, based on predictions issued in the last 20-30 years. See historical comments ranging from 'No More Snow' to 'Damart and Candles'
Have you got any examples of predictions from this period that allowed you (or your insurers- or anyone else) to make any useful advance preparations?
Silver Smudger said:
TransverseTight said:
Surely the only way to know the real risks of climate change is to look for evidence gathered by the insurance industry?
Will insurers be interested in the cause of any change in the climate, or just Adaptation to any climate variations is what we should be concentrating on, but so far it is hard to tell exactly what is actually going to happen, based on predictions issued in the last 20-30 years. See historical comments ranging from 'No More Snow' to 'Damart and Candles'
Have you got any examples of predictions from this period that allowed you (or your insurers- or anyone else) to make any useful advance preparations?
Of course those who tend towards a desire to promote the AGW meme would then self-referentially point to the Insurance Industry as a group "knowing what they are talking about" and claim that the apparent increase in perceived risk is indeed proof that AGW is "real" and "is happening". At which point both parties would have an obvious interest in making sure the analysis continued to point in the the direction of human culpability.
Now, what would make more sense in terms of "Adaptation" would be to assume, rightly or wrongly, that all those things that were risky before Climate Change was even thought of, should have mitigating policies adopted and enforced.
So, Hurricanes, volcanic Eruptions, Tsunamis and all that kind of stuff .... ban people from living withing 10 miles of a coast line anywhere in the world and 30 miles in high risk areas. The secondary benefit is that the once-in-a-lifetime coastal flooding events we see, er, once in a lifetime, would also be adapted for by the same policy. A bit of a BOGOF result. Of course it might mean that Japan is somewhat uninhabitable but some sacrifices would need to be made.
Likewise in the USA - Tornados. BIG problem but the likely locations are well known based on historic records. There is a very simple solution. Abandon the area and live somewhere else. The most basic adaptation and easily enforced. It's so logical I can't think why the US Government have not adopted it already.
Flooding? - don't build on flood plains and stop people living near rivers. It wouldn't solve the problems of all types of flooding but should make a big difference.
Forest Fires? They have been natural events for years and some plants and trees rely on them to survive as a species. So no big deal until people started living in areas with a high fire risk. So the answer is ... stop people living in the middle of areas of high fire risk.
A secondary benefit of such proposals is that there would be no need to insure the risk - there would be none - and so tracking the insurance industry analysis would clearly show that climate change did not have a risk representation and, therefore, could be assumed not to exist for all practical purposes.
What more could one ask for?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff