Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
1 It looks very old (referring to Kyoto?), so is it still relevant?
2 Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
3 It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
4 "is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
5 "CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
1 there's no relevant sell-by date, much as you would wish there were2 Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
3 It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
4 "is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
5 "CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
2 you did read the qualification requirement...your assertion is simply wrong
3 is it a survey or an open invitation to sign a petition (and the answer is...)
4 if it's not then why are the (erroneous) statements of future doom so doomy and indeed this is part of the agw fail
5 agreed
also
6 your graphic refers to a survey of specific disciplines - they are by no merans alone in having a qualified view, and indeed one might say that it doesn't help to survey so many vested interests while excluding other neutral, informed, qualified opinion.
This is still all window dressing, though it's important to counter the lies about the false consensus.
What matters is the unmolested data and that goes against AGW.
'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
Le TVR said:
While we are looping I'll repeat myself too.
'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
Exactly.'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
In a previous loop I pointed out that several of the so-called climatologists in The Team are not qualified in climatology as it didn't exist when they were uni students / post-graduate researchers. They have qualifications in e.g. physics, maths, geography, astronomy, geology etc. I posted examples at the time.
turbobloke said:
Le TVR said:
While we are looping I'll repeat myself too.
'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
Exactly.'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
In a previous loop I pointed out that several of the so-called climatologists in The Team are not qualified in climatology as it didn't exist when they were uni students / post-graduate researchers. They have qualifications in e.g. physics, maths, geography, astronomy, geology etc. I posted examples at the time.
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
Le TVR said:
turbobloke said:
Le TVR said:
While we are looping I'll repeat myself too.
'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
Exactly.'Climatology' is a multi-disciplinary science and while 'climatologists' may have an understanding of each associated field they are likely to come up against those who are vastly more experienced in some particular domain. So far it has not been difficult to pick holes in many of these areas by those with the relevant expertise. However they are all too often dismissed because they aren't 'climatologists' and this is doing the overall science a major disservice. The sooner that people understand this, the sooner we can get rid of all this nonsense about who exactly is qualified in having a view.
In a previous loop I pointed out that several of the so-called climatologists in The Team are not qualified in climatology as it didn't exist when they were uni students / post-graduate researchers. They have qualifications in e.g. physics, maths, geography, astronomy, geology etc. I posted examples at the time.
It's the data rather than the source.
"There is a feeling of resentment building amongst those who can't be bothered yet and one day there will be a tipping point.
"That's very unscientific, if you can disprove it, disprove it, rather than, "cannot be bothered"...
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
It's not our place to prove it wrong, AGW is littered with possibly maybe and probably, nothing concrete, not an ideal scenario to base an energy policy on.This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with.
1. So does the IPCC (have inherent bias, their role is to support AGW to governments).2. The point about secondary and primary sources remains misunderstood, data and papers cited on (e.g.) WUWT and CA are the same data and papers found in the scientific literature.
WUWT is rarely about what Anthony thinks, it's about data or the latest research with reviews from e.g. Prof Pielke (ret'd) or Prof Lindzem or Prof Michaels, all eminently capable of such review, and then we can make our own minds up anyway based on the linked paper(s) - on which basis the above criticism fails.
Gandahar said:
Not exactly peer reviewed are they?
As above, a lot of the material they cover and report on IS the peer reviewed literature. Primary and secondary sources, it's not rocket science.Gandahar said:
Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
Because some people know the difference between primary and secondary sources, look at the papers and the science being covered, and make our own minds up. As the data doesn't generally agree with what the managers of the believer blogs write in op ed mode, who in their right scientific mind would agree with such?Gandahar said:
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias.
Speak for yourself. Perhaps you'd like to do what I did to papers like Sloan and Wolfendale or Karl et al to the ~35 papers I cited from previous attrition looping in a post earlier today and let us know the reasoned basis for disagreeing with them.Gandahar said:
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper.
You have no clue about what I've done and not done.Gandahar said:
Keep on.
With or without your approval or consent, no problem.Gandahar said:
All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
Yes we have, in reporting the data and science involving other scientists.The AGW hypothesis as presented in climate models fails to reproduce reality. That's a fail. See the modelling section of my attrition loop repost earlier today. You must have missed it.
There is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data. That's a fail. As durbster has a wobbly about this being mentioned, it's curious that you keep missing it.
You clearly don't have the grip on this that you think you do, yet you criticise others in a baseless manner. Nice work, and yet another fail.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 21:39
Gandahar said:
Actually he wouldn't know, he is the mechanic, it's the scientists who would put the information gathered and make sense of it.
It's the data rather than the source.
I'll pass the message that he's just a mechanic. It's the data rather than the source.
The system designer knows more about the metrology limitations of his system than any data gatherer. You do realise what that means surely??
Gandahar said:
AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
The null hypothesis is that nothing unusual is happening, it is in the purview of those who claim anything else to prove it; they have not, to my satisfaction, proven the AGW hypothesis. Your mileage may, of course, vary.turbobloke said:
BIG SNIP
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
All cherry picked I am sure. I could probably do 36 cited that show the opposite, none of which people on here would read. I'm not sure you have even read them, just got them as a "resource"We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26
This is the problem with a forum discussion like this. People take a viewpoint and then "bend" the science to fit.
It should be the other way around.
At the moment the science is not concluded, so I am surprised both sides can claim so fully they are right. It's political though as the thread title says.
Keep on enjoying it.
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
It's not our place to prove it wrong, AGW is littered with possibly maybe and probably, nothing concrete, not an ideal scenario to base an energy policy on.This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with.
1. So does the IPCC (have inherent bias, their role is to support AGW to governments).2. The point about secondary and primary sources remains misunderstood, data and papers cited on (e.g.) WUWT and CA are the same data and papers found in the scientific literature.
WUWT is rarely about what Anthony thinks, it's about data or the latest research with reviews from e.g. Prof Pielke (ret'd) or Prof Lindzem or Prof Michaels, all eminently capable of such review, and then we can make our own minds up anyway based on the linked paper(s) - on which basis the above criticism fails.
Gandahar said:
Not exactly peer reviewed are they?
As above, a lot of the material they cover and report on IS the peer reviewed literature. Primary and secondary sources, it's not rocket science.Gandahar said:
Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
Because some people know the difference between primary and secondary sources, look at the papers and the science being covered, and make our own minds up. As the data doesn't generally agree with what the managers of the believer blogs write in op ed mode, who in their right scientific mind would agree with such?Gandahar said:
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias.
Speak for yourself. Perhaps you'd like to do what I did to papers like Sloan and Wolfendale or Karl et al to the ~35 papers I cited from previous attrition looping in a post earlier today and let us know the reasoned basis for disagreeing with them.Gandahar said:
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper.
You have no clue about what I've done and not done.Gandahar said:
Keep on.
With or without your approval or consent, no problem.Gandahar said:
All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
Yes we have, in reporting the data and science involving other scientists.The AGW hypothesis as presented in climate models fails to reproduce reality. That's a fail. See the modelling section of my attrition loop repost earlier today. You must have missed it.
There is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data. That's a fail. As durbster has a wobbly about this being mentioned, it's curious that you keep missing it.
You clearly don't have the grip on this that you think you do, yet you criticise others in a baseless manner. Nice work, and yet another fail.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 21:39
Both for and against AGW. Surely we are agreed on this?
They should not be chosen for words of wisdom at the end of the day.
Le TVR said:
Gandahar said:
Actually he wouldn't know, he is the mechanic, it's the scientists who would put the information gathered and make sense of it.
It's the data rather than the source.
I'll pass the message that he's just a mechanic. It's the data rather than the source.
The system designer knows more about the metrology limitations of his system than any data gatherer. You do realise what that means surely??
Go tell him.
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
BIG SNIP
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
All cherry picked I am sure. I could probably do 36 cited that show the opposite, none of which people on here would read. I'm not sure you have even read them, just got them as a "resource"We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26
I also cited two papers which I disagree with and have posted reasoned explanations on PH these were Sloan and Wolfendale and Karl et al. There have been many more over time.
The cherry pick comment is hilarious. People like durbster drop in with soundbite one-liners to the effect that it's all blogs (you unwisely took that nonsense up in your earlier post) and where's the peer-reviewed science blah blah. So the point is precisely to supply this science in terms of relevant peer-reviewed papers, which I do. Go figure.
Also, typically I will have explained and shown my working as to exactly why I disagree with rentapapers that support AGW, and why (also with reasons) I agree with other papers I cite.
Your line on this shows a lack of any grip on what happens in the thread, what happens in the literature, and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW - which happens precisely because it fails the data test and because climate models built on AGW junkscience fail to reproduce multi-dimensional reality.
Einion Yrth said:
Gandahar said:
AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
The null hypothesis is that nothing unusual is happening, it is in the purview of those who claim anything else to prove it; they have not, to my satisfaction, proven the AGW hypothesis. Your mileage may, of course, vary.Gandahar said:
Einion Yrth said:
Gandahar said:
AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
The null hypothesis is that nothing unusual is happening, it is in the purview of those who claim anything else to prove it; they have not, to my satisfaction, proven the AGW hypothesis. Your mileage may, of course, vary.The over-egging as you put it involves predictins that fail. This is failure not just over-egging. Do you recall any science and engineering or did you not do much of either?
Given that models built on AGW fail, and there's no visible causal human signal (etc) the extent is zero.
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
BIG SNIP
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
All cherry picked I am sure. I could probably do 36 cited that show the opposite, none of which people on here would read. I'm not sure you have even read them, just got them as a "resource"We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26
I also cited two papers which I disagree with and have posted reasoned explanations on PH these were Sloan and Wolfendale and Karl et al. There have been many more over time.
The cherry pick comment is hilarious. People like durbster drop in with soundbite one-liners to the effect that it's all blogs (you unwisely took that nonsense up in your earlier post) and where's the peer-reviewed science blah blah. So the point is precisely to supply this science in terms of relevant peer-reviewed papers, which I do. Go figure.
Also, typically I will have explained and shown my working as to exactly why I disagree with rentapapers that support AGW, and why (also with reasons) I agree with other papers I cite.
Your line on this shows a lack of any grip on what happens in the thread, what happens in the literature, and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW - which happens precisely because it fails the data test and because climate models built on AGW junkscience fail to reproduce multi-dimensnional reality.
What's your background in all this and what science have you done in relation to it? That was my main question.
Gandahar said:
Le TVR said:
Gandahar said:
Actually he wouldn't know, he is the mechanic, it's the scientists who would put the information gathered and make sense of it.
It's the data rather than the source.
I'll pass the message that he's just a mechanic. It's the data rather than the source.
The system designer knows more about the metrology limitations of his system than any data gatherer. You do realise what that means surely??
Go tell him.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff