Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Diderot]

Ahimoth said:

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?

I'm not talking about you advancing your opinion, I'm talking about you working through the data - you know the very stuff of scientific enquiry. The data is out there, gather it, analyse it and come back and tell us what your conclusion is.

[Ahimoth]

mybrainhurts said:

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:

Well, it wasn't just him. But as has been pointed out, that was a peace prize.

It's still more interesting to discuss why the sceptic is generally publishing blogs, self-publishing books, and really on the fringes of this issue. Not in the centre, with the devastating arguments that can be found on the internet.

[Ahimoth]

Diderot said:

I'm not talking about you advancing your opinion, I'm talking about you working through the data - you know the very stuff of scientific enquiry. The data is out there, gather it, analyse it and come back and tell us what your conclusion is.

Yeah, I have a rough conclusion, but it's about as useful as my conclusions about the best way to perform brain surgery. And really, that's true of most of us, if we're honest.

I have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the public debate though, and how that relates to the scientific, and political, debate. I'm very interested in why they are so different, well in a few places anyway. As this is the political thread, it's probably reasonably pertinent.

[mybrainhurts]

Ahimoth said:

Not in the centre, with the devastating arguments that can be found on the internet.

Touch of ambiguity there. Sarcasm or a reference to true believers' work? If the latter, please point us to a few of these devastating arguments.

[Ahimoth]

mybrainhurts said:

Touch of ambiguity there. Sarcasm or a reference to true believers' work? If the latter, please point us to a few of these devastating arguments.

Nobody likes ambiguities, uncertainties. They want 'proof'. And they get to define what 'proof' is.

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

Well, it wasn't just him. But as has been pointed out, that was a peace prize.

It's still more interesting to discuss why the sceptic is generally publishing blogs, self-publishing books, and really on the fringes of this issue. Not in the centre, with the devastating arguments that can be found on the internet.

Simple answer

My poor latin said:

cui bono?

Money. So much money. If you read many of the papers referring to climate change how many start with the "in a warming world" assumption or end with a similar assumption? From my little research the number is close to the much vaunted 97%. If as has been posited that the Earth is heading (and as already started) into a cooling phase (one that has historic precedent - unlike the global warming position) all of these papers are rendered worthless. An entire branch of scientific literature will need to be purged. Of course none of the money will need to be paid back.
This is all irrelevent to the actual truth though. As Einstein once said of the Book "Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein"

Einstein said:

“Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”

You appear to have an over confidence in "peer" review - peer review does not show that an idea is correct or incorrect - merely that the reviewers have passed it so it may be published (highly dependent on the quality and judgement of anonymous "peers" ). It is at this point the idea/experiment/research under goes a real test. Unfortunately this is where the system is broken as legitimate concerns are not being taken onboard and editors of journals have been removed from employment for mere publishing of work that contradicts the AGW zeitgeist.

[mybrainhurts]

Ahimoth said:

I have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the public debate though, and how that relates to the scientific, and political, debate. I'm very interested in why they are so different,

I'm guessing you're in scientific research. You seem to be lumbered with the notion that no-one in research must be challenged because the system is self regulating. That's not how it was supposed to work, is it?

There was cause to respect scientific research before the fraudsters took over climate. They're done immense damage to its credibility. People like you should be giving them a kicking, they've done you no favours at all.

[mybrainhurts]

Ahimoth said:

mybrainhurts said:

Touch of ambiguity there. Sarcasm or a reference to true believers' work? If the latter, please point us to a few of these devastating arguments.

Nobody likes ambiguities, uncertainties. They want 'proof'. And they get to define what 'proof' is.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Keeping current with the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina - it was the beginning of doomsday according to the warmists, reaping what we sowed, the coast was set to be razed by angry hurricanes we were told - instead it was the beginning of a great calm.

One of a million irrefutable truths.

But then that makes sense because there is less energy in the system, a cooling trend in NA temperature data, that conveniently disappears after 'adjustment' and mass infilling of missing data.

The warmists have not approached any level of proof by even the lowest bar.

There is no devastating information that proves their point - there is a lot of devastating information that proves likely bias and fraud.

The whole of science and academia is held to ransom by funding to support the AGW camp - that's why it is left to blogs and amateurs and retired scientists with no career left to be trashed - to fight for the truth.

[wc98]

Ahimoth said:

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?

in the post modern era you gets what you pays for. if the government of your chosen country is dishing out grant funding to investigate man made climate change, then that is what your paper better confirm, or no more grants .

[Ahimoth]

mybrainhurts said:

I'm guessing you're in scientific research. You seem to be lumbered with the notion that no-one in research must be challenged because the system is self regulating. That's not how it was supposed to work, is it?

There was cause to respect scientific research before the fraudsters took over climate. They're done immense damage to its credibility. People like you should be giving them a kicking, they've done you no favours at all.

Nope, I'm not in research, not even close. I don't think it's flawless, and unironically we've been given the reason why. It does only take one valid criticism to shatter a paradigm, the catch there being it has to be valid. So, it can pass muster on basic stats and it's repeatable and all those other irritations of the scientific method.

So, this hasn't happened? Why?

And here we get to the crux of it.

"Money. So much money"
"Fraudsters took over climate"
"in the post modern era you gets what you pays for"
"The whole of science and academia is held to ransom by funding"

Those are interesting statements. Four separate posters. They are in fact extraordinary claims, that (and you can all finish this statement) require...

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

Nope, I'm not in research, not even close. I don't think it's flawless, and unironically we've been given the reason why. It does only take one valid criticism to shatter a paradigm, the catch there being it has to be valid. So, it can pass muster on basic stats and it's repeatable and all those other irritations of the scientific method.

So, this hasn't happened? Why?

And here we get to the crux of it.

"Money. So much money"
"Fraudsters took over climate"

Those are interesting statements. They are in fact extraordinary claims, that (and you can all finish this statement) require...

Care to estimate how much the Paris Climate-fest will cost? If you require additional information as to the amount of money in the climate change promotion system I'm happy to oblige but you really can find this information for yourself.

[Ahimoth]

Jinx said:

Care to estimate how much the Paris Climate-fest will cost? If you require additional information as to the amount of money in the climate change promotion system I'm happy to oblige but you really can find this information for yourself.

So there's lots of money swilling around. And the people that don't fall into the 'consensus' are excluded from this money.

That's still an extraordinary claim. There's a lot I have to accept before I can take that claim on. So I'm very interested in the 'proof' behind all this.

Climate research is corrupted. Let's start there. Perhaps by addressing the claims Jones made in his email, and what happened to "MM"s paper at the next IPCC review.

Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 12:04

[wc98]

Ahimoth said:

Are you out there engaging them? Generally I find that discussing things with people who agree with you is mostly useless. If you're convinced that all these "empty vessels" "will fail", are you out there on their forums?

yes, and not only that, putting my money where my mouth is. not many of the so called climate scientists have enough faith in their "projections" to bet any money on them,certainly not peter wadhams. however,there are some believers who do. i have a £1000 bet with one relating to arctic sea ice minimum extents by 2022 .

i find it telling that whenever anyone mentions the possibility of having a real stake in the game to the scientists or the ball bags that frequent skeptical science ,they go very quiet. if it was as sure a thing as they like to make out they would have no trouble at all in putting their house on the outcomes. whole different ball game when it comes to wasting ones own cash, as opposed to tax payers.

[Jinx]

Ahimoth said:

So there's lots of money swilling around. And the people that don't fall into the 'consensus' are excluded from this money.

That's still an extraordinary claim. There's a lot I have to accept before I can take that claim on. So I'm very interested in the 'proof' behind all this.

Climate research is corrupted. Let's start there. Perhaps by addressing the claims Jones made in his email, and what happened to "MM"s paper at the next IPCC review.

Are you suggesting because Trenberth and Jones failed to stop one paper he/they didn't try again? Seems unlikely. Also if the mindset exists to fix the game when the stakes are as low as they were then why would the temptation reduce as the rewards increase? Counterintuitive to say the least.
Pop over to JoNova and have a read through a few of the articles - even if it is only for entertainment value.
But do try to remove the "corruption" mindset - I offered that the majority of climate research was based on false assumptions (perhaps in good faith) - but given the amounts involved and the low bar to get published (have you read nature climate change ) it can be hard to believe in the general goodness of researchers.
The UEA emails though did reveal perhaps why there is such dogged determinism to suppress any other theories though:

researcher said:

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.

[hidetheelephants]

Ahimoth said:

stuff

OK, riddle me this; ignoring the science for the moment(we should, there's a thread just for that side of the subject), why is that given the apparent political concensus that CAGW is real there is no real effort being made to decarbonise? For example; Germany is burning as much coal as they did 25 years ago despite being even more zealously green than Tony Blair.

Meanwhile back in the UK, approximately £100bn of wind power has been installed since Blair kicked off the green thing at the beginning of the century; this has notionally displaced ~4GW of coal and gas power. Even at the bandit pricing of Hinkley C the same investment in nuclear power would have displaced ~12GW; the scaling effect and the learning curve would inevitably make each plant cheaper and the chinese are building plants for half what Hinkley will reputedly cost, so it might have been as much as ~24GW, or a bit less than one third of the UK's generating capacity. I have to conclude the whole thing is a boondoggle as there is no logical explanation.

[Otispunkmeyer]

this is pure comedy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/25/if-only-lewa...

A paper where they kick off with the "97% Consensus". Yeah that consensus that has been shown to be complete horse crap. The jist seems to be 97% are correct, 1% are neither here nor there and 2% seem to be wrong. Lets investigate these 2% and show their methodologies a flawed.... great. What about testing the 97% by the same metric?

Oh yeah, we already know they're right, above board and beyond question. How silly of me. Basically amounts to ridiculing work they don't like without actually doing the work to prove its wrong.

We're right you're wrong, learn from your mistakes. Seemingly said without a hint of irony.

EDIT: The paper in its various forms has reportedly been rejected by 5 journals until they found one who said yes. All climate changes journals as well so its not like it was given to a "skeptic" journal. One reviewers comments were that it seemed to not be a science piece and more a summary of purported errors in a series of papers picked arbitrarily.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 28th August 13:10

[Andy Zarse]

Ahimoth said:

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.

So have we, and you're just like the others; all piss and wind.

Why is it apparently so difficult for you to SHOW US YOUR fkING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Until then you will be treated as a failed troll.

[LongQ]

Ahimoth said:

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?

I'll leave the discussion of the literature to the Science thread (assuming that the comment refers to published science of some sort).

As for the political Assemblies .... well, what are political assemblies about?

Do we trust any of them to have the interests of the people at heart rather than the careers of the politicians and civil servants?

Surely they are mostly about Power and Control although often presented as "concern" for social welfare that leads the members to seek the Power and Control.

In simple terms the members of the assembly (and hangers on) need to show they have the Power and Control. At one time this might have been done through Invasions and War, both of which have been used as distractions by many powerful people throughout history.

More recently war has dropped out of fashion due, presumably, to the inherent risks to the health of the Leaders and their families form the fallout effects if things should go nuclear.

Localised skirmishes in distant places seem to have become more popular for sword waving but not so evidently useful for social control. Too much technology, too few soldiers required.

Seeking an alternative foe to focus upon, especially after the Soviet Union largely self destructed and the Cold War faded, the Global Common Enemy concept could be seen as a way of extending reach and developing a "safe" common foe that was not absolutely associated with a country or peoples or a political philosophy. Global Warming fitted the requirement just as Global Cooling had threatened to do back min the 70s. The same Scientists, just a different direction after a U-turn. I doubt they would feel comfortable turning again.

Looking for a humanity wide basis to promote a common cause the rapidly increasing consumption of fossil fuels was an obvious target that would appeal to the 1960s "back to nature" Hippies as they progressed into their middle aged careers, especially those in the Groves of Academe.

Getting the masses away from their recently obtained freedom of mobility (by motorised vehicle) and returned to central control must surely have had attractions for some.

On the other hand the potential tax take from the masses as they travelled would be a great temptation for the Administration's budget managers.


The Holy Grail of CO2 as the course was readily identified.

Firstly the literature had longstanding and largely uncontested papers that offered a basis for promoting CO2 as a problem.

Secondly it was somewhat possible to measure it both in the atmosphere and via the figures for consumption.

Thirdly because CO2/Carbon could be measured it was easy to tax in some way. Even better if it could be shown to be harmful, as with smoking tobacco for example, it would be easier to persuade people that high taxation was a positive way to help the population of the whole world to a better future.

Best of all was that almost everyone had become so reliant on fossil fuels in one way or another that there was no quick way out of the taxation snare and no obvious alternative on the horizon.

Achieving and maintaining Power and Influence requires a lot of money, preferably taken from those who might otherwise oppose the leaders. In a democracy that would be "the people". The all pervasive use of "Carbon" fuels is by far the easiest target for money raising taxation AND control. Nothing else comes close. And it's a global influence to all intents and purposes.

So as a leading politician you have a Theory that is easy to support since there is little funding for scientific projects that might suggest that "nothing is changing". Universities are not keen on papers that do not have punchy headlines about doom or gloom foreseen or conquered. Thus as a leading politician you can use the appeal to authority prop to avoid taking any personal responsibility if it all turns out to be rubbish by the time you write your memoirs.

They need the money as well - so they would be foolish to turn off such an easily operated tap.

It gives them control - so long as the tap is fully maintained.

And for those politicians who seek personal fame and historical recognition (are there many who do not?) the grandiose claim that they are "Saving the Planet" is just too powerful an attraction for them to ignore, Al Gore and his Norwegian "Nobel Prize" being one example. Even apparently independently powerful individuals are attracted to clubs of like minded souls with a common cause - in this case the cause being self justification.

Finally the major bonus is that, in the absence of a very sudden and rapid Ice Age, the construct can run for decades since there is no evident way to test the theory by practical experiment even if all of the acting components were known and fully understood. If one was trying to design a perfect scam modelling something on the basis and development history of Global Warming and its subsequent renamed incarnations would be a good starting point.

[Ahimoth]

Andy Zarse said:

So have we, and you're just like the others; all piss and wind.

Why is it apparently so difficult for you to SHOW US YOUR fkING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Until then you will be treated as a failed troll.

I find it interesting that there aren't 'others' really. I guess the Gish Gallop gets too much.

And with the lengthy diatribe above this last post of mine, I think I can leave having demonstrated all that there ever is to demonstrate with most internet 'sceptics'. They're really weird conspiratorial underneath it all, it is just a conspiracy theory.

I didn't even have to try to 'troll' the "follow the money" out of them. So I didn't fail.