Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Diderot]

Ahimoth said:

Why have I got to be the one who brings something new? No-one else is.

Let's cut all this down to brass tacks - let's assume Arrhenius was wrong, and you guys are right. Why is the scientific, and political, paradigm so different?

So you're going to side step the most fundamental issue here? Give us the answer to those questions above because it might actually help you to answer the one you posed.

[Ahimoth]

Diderot said:

So you're going to side step the most fundamental issue here? Give us the answer to those questions above because it might actually help you to answer the one you posed.

My opinion, or anything I could possibly put forward on an internet forum is not even slightly fundamental. The debate is out there, in the literature, and in the political assemblies.

So why is it so different to here?

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

I would say that's astonishing, but as I say, I've seen it all before.

I'd suggest that there's a Nobel Prize awaiting you, but I suspect you have at least some self-awareness.

And yet you appear to ignore it - well there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. CAGW is nothing new - just another doomsday cult that demonifys mankind and belittles the achievements and nobility of the human spirit. We've seen it all before and will again.

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

And yet you appear to ignore it - well there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. CAGW is nothing new - just another doomsday cult that demonifys mankind and belittles the achievements and nobility of the human spirit. We've seen it all before and will again.

I like the nobility of the human spirit stuff, that's good.

So why, if this is so obvious to all but me cos I'm blind, is the literature just so far from your position?

[Andy Zarse]

Ahimoth said:

turbobloke said:

Swapping compliments with you will quickly become even more tedious than Godwinning/Godlosing. If you have something new (whether it's code, image of a vision from Gaia, or even plain Englsh) that demonstrates the unambiguous presence of a visible causal human signal in global climate data and that's data not in gigo then post it up either here or in the Science forum thread. As the IPCC have failed continuously (and they wouldn't hesitate to shout it from the rooftops) we both know you will fail just as dozens of empty vessels have done before and others will do in future. The manmadeup global warming position is baseless outside of faith/belief and politics not science, which is why this thread exists.

There are thousands of you out there.

Not contributing anything.

I could be on the wrong end of a Turing test here, it's simply programmed schtick that could be culled from millions of pointless posts on internet forums and bunged together in a chatbot.

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 08:36

Whilst I appreciate you appear to be suffering a heightened level of paranoia, that you are talking to unthinking cyberbots, the one thing I think it is worth pointing out is it's not us that needs to "contribute anything".

It's for the proponents of this wibbly-wobbly theory to convince us of the veracity of their science by contribution. So I can't help noticing it is in fact you who hasn't contributed anything. And that, ironically enough my old Black Sabbather, is what I call real paranoia, not the imagined kind!

[Ahimoth]

I may not have been entirely serious there old chap.

I might just have been pointing out via bold why discussion wasn't going to happen, because it is impossible when that's the brick wall you're talking to. You might not see it that way though.

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

I like the nobility of the human spirit stuff, that's good.

So why, if this is so obvious to all but me cos I'm blind, is the literature just so far from your position?

It's not - there is plenty of literature out there if you dare to read it. Try Landscapes and Cycles or read his blog available here http://landscapesandcycles.net/

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

It's not - there is plenty of literature out there if you dare to read it. Try Landscapes and Cycles or read his blog available here http://landscapesandcycles.net/

That's not the goalpost we're talking about though is it? Books (edit, it's self-published. Brilliant) and blogs are one thing. Papers in a journal, with data and reviewed by other experts are another.

So, what's up with that? edit - and why did he have to self-publish?

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 11:04

I do enjoy irony

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 11:06

[jshell]

turbobloke said:

jshell said:

Christ almighty! Let's not start the carousel once again! We know AGW is horse-st, they know AGW is horse-st, let's wait for more new info.

Meanwhile, greetings from Phil in Punxsutawney

Or Plunkers in Hootsville!

[robinessex]

I'm glad you brought up the need for experts. That's me out, I've only got commonsense.

[Andy Zarse]

Ahimoth said:

I may not have been entirely serious there old chap.

I might just have been pointing out via bold why discussion wasn't going to happen, because it is impossible when that's the brick wall you're talking to. You might not see it that way though.

I wasn't being entirely serious either, but the point is valid. Even you will appreciate a brick wall has two sides.

[Andy Zarse]

Ahimoth said:

I may not have been entirely serious there old chap.

I might just have been pointing out via bold why discussion wasn't going to happen, because it is impossible when that's the brick wall you're talking to. You might not see it that way though.

I wasn't being entirely serious either, but the point is valid. Even you will appreciate a brick wall has two sides.

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

and why did he have to self-publish?

So you are afraid to read it.

As to self publishing I will put forward the following for consideration:

UEA emails said:

can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

[Ahimoth]

Andy Zarse said:

Ahimoth said:

I may not have been entirely serious there old chap.

I might just have been pointing out via bold why discussion wasn't going to happen, because it is impossible when that's the brick wall you're talking to. You might not see it that way though.

I wasn't being entirely serious either, but the point is valid. Even you will appreciate a brick wall has two sides.

Ah, but I've been fairly clear I've had this conversation a lot before, and deliberately with people who don't agree with me. I'm not the one confidently stating that "you will fail" before we've even got started.

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

Ahimoth said:

and why did he have to self-publish?

So you are afraid to read it.

As to self publishing I will put forward the following for consideration:

UEA emails said:

can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

That's interesting. So that's how it works?

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

Ah, but I've been fairly clear I've had this conversation a lot before, and deliberately with people who don't agree with me. I'm not the one confidently stating that "you will fail" before we've even got started.

To be fair - if you could show anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing uncontrolled warming leading to a catastophy it would be your name on the noble prize for Physics (Peace prizes are a little too easy to win - heck you don't even need to have done anything to get one do you Obama? )

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

To be fair - if you could show anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing uncontrolled warming leading to a catastophy it would be your name on the noble prize for Physics (Peace prizes are a little too easy to win - heck you don't even need to have done anything to get one do you Obama? )

I could be wrong, but I think Nobel Prizes have been awarded in this area.

[rovermorris999]

St Obama got one for Peace so hardly a guarantee.

[Ahimoth]

I'd forgotten it was a Peace Prize.

Let's return to how all this works. So Jones' email - he managed to keep those papers out, with Kevin Trenberth's help, and they weren't assessed as part of the next IPCC process then? So we can assume that this happens fairly often and that's why the preponderance of published papers go one particular way then?

I'd assume Phil Jones was investigated after that came out?

[mybrainhurts]

Ahimoth said:

Jinx said:

To be fair - if you could show anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing uncontrolled warming leading to a catastophy it would be your name on the noble prize for Physics (Peace prizes are a little too easy to win - heck you don't even need to have done anything to get one do you Obama? )

I could be wrong, but I think Nobel Prizes have been awarded in this area.

Ah, yes, Al Gore. I remember him well....:splutter: