Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[LongQ]

CR6ZZ said:

Stuff

Never has there been a stronger case put for "taking nobody's word for it".

Of course - to the open minded that cuts both ways.

[grumbledoak]

CR6ZZ said:

If we are going to post lists as proof of argument, why not post the list of more than 2800 scientists who have lent their names to an open letter to the Australian Government castigating them for cuts to CSIRO funding for climate and other research? Or does it have less credence because it does not support your particular view.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2016/02/an-open-le...

My hypothesis is: Climate so-called scientists want to be paid.

The proof should be relatively simple: stop paying half of them and see if they complain more than a control group in, say, Norwich.

[DibblyDobbler]

This came up in my twitter feed today - might be of interest

No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming = a good thing. More in @Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-...

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

The manner in which some people believe officialdumb when the evidence is available for them to review - and obviously not as portrayed in whitewashes - is mind-boggling. Being told what to think and accepting it meekly ... that'll do nicely.

So clearly there are only two options available to me:
1. I'm naive.
2. I'm in on it.

Is it simply inconceivable that there is a third option:

3. I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

The problem with attempting to paint anyone with an opposing viewpoint as being gullible or naive is that it could equally be put back to you. With the exception of anybody here who may actually be actively working in climate science (hmm... anyone?), we are all trusting somebody else's information.

You might be convinced by the analysis of WUWT. I might be convinced by the analysis of New Scientist.

Whatever way you try and paint it, we're running through the same process but with a different source. I just happen to think my sources are more credible than yours.

TL;DR
Takes one to know one.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

The manner in which some people believe officialdumb when the evidence is available for them to review - and obviously not as portrayed in whitewashes - is mind-boggling. Being told what to think and accepting it meekly ... that'll do nicely.

So clearly there are only two options available to me:
1. I'm naive.
2. I'm in on it.

Is it simply inconceivable that there is a third option:

3. I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

The problem with attempting to paint anyone with an opposing viewpoint as being gullible or naive is that it could equally be put back to you. With the exception of anybody here who may actually be actively working in climate science (hmm... anyone?), we are all trusting somebody else's information.

You might be convinced by the analysis of WUWT. I might be convinced by the analysis of New Scientist.

Whatever way you try and paint it, we're running through the same process but with a different source. I just happen to think my sources are more credible than yours.

TL;DR
Takes one to know one.

You failed the AGW test by the simple application of logic and a little commonsense. And you've been given enough genuine info to make only a stubborn mule or an Ostrich with it's head in the sand believe. PS. Rumour has it the earth isn't flat after all!

[Jinx]

durbster said:

3. I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

So don't hold it to yourself show us the evidence......


You mention credible sources but do not mention any science.
The simple facts are that without the manipulation of the "global" temperature datasets there isn't even the slightest first order correlation of temperature and carbon dioxide (and not even just the anthropogenic bit - the entire lot) . Whilst correlation does not equal causation - lack of correlation does indicate a lack of first order causation.
If you look at the obvious El-Nino step ups in the data, with the obvious volcanic and El Nina step downs there isn't much space for anything else. With "global warming" confirmed on the other planets in our solar system you would have thought that maybe, just maybe the IPCC would have stretched their remit to include all climate change variables and not just the manmade ones. But no - in typical bureaucratic fashion they just doubled down on being 95% stupid (AR5) .

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

3. I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

So don't hold it to yourself show us the evidence......

You know we're talking about climategate here right? All the information is easily found, and I posted it the other day.

Jinx said:

You mention credible sources but do not mention any science.

Politics thread. But go for your life: https://scholar.google.co.uk

Jinx said:

The simple facts are that without the manipulation of the "global" temperature datasets...

What are you basing this "fact" on?

[turbobloke]

If somebody tells me they believe an invisible signal is visible or they believe somebody else who tells them it's there, based on documented conjecture by the third party, then I don't take their word for it. In fact I think they lack something by way of reasoning ability but make up for it in faith and/or political-ideological zeal.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

What are you basing this "fact" on?

Wood for trees

Go on have some fun.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Wood for trees

Go on have some fun.

Er... OK...

Adjusted vs. non-adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:5...

HADSST2 vs HADSST3 sea surface:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:50...

Crutem3 vs Crutem4 land temp:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:5...

Perhaps I'm using this wrong but I'm not seeing the problem.

Edited by durbster on Monday 9th May 13:59

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Er... OK...

Adjusted vs. non-adjusted:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:5...

HADSST2 vs HADSST3 sea surface:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:50...

Crutem3 vs Crutem4 land temp:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:5...

Perhaps I'm using this wrong but I'm not seeing the problem.

Edited by durbster on Monday 9th May 13:59

And correlation with CO2? Wow Durbs way to seriously miss the point.

[turbobloke]

'Study finds eco-friendly cars fill air with as many toxins as diesels.

The greener alternative produces more tiny toxic particles from tyre and brake wear because batteries and other parts make them heavier, according to University of Edinburgh scientists.'

[durbster]

Jinx said:

And correlation with CO2? Wow Durbs way to seriously miss the point.

One step at a time. We are constantly told in this thread that the data had been corrupted/tortured/manipulated to show increased warming. I was trying to find evidence of that.

OK, so on to your point - can you show a graph that shows how the adjustments in the data have been deliberately made to correlate with CO2?

[wc98]

durbster said:

One step at a time. We are constantly told in this thread that the data had been corrupted/tortured/manipulated to show increased warming. I was trying to find evidence of that.

OK, so on to your point - can you show a graph that shows how the adjustments in the data have been deliberately made to correlate with CO2?

i could, but you would just dismiss the source .

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

One step at a time. We are constantly told in this thread that the data had been corrupted/tortured/manipulated to show increased warming. I was trying to find evidence of that.

OK, so on to your point - can you show a graph that shows how the adjustments in the data have been deliberately made to correlate with CO2?

i could, but you would just dismiss the source .

And the simplistic way in which the adjustments mirror tax gas ppmv isn't in keeping with how the science works in any case.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

i could, but you would just dismiss the source .

Use the wood for trees source posted above, or the NOAA one. I know it has some connection with WUWT that but it seems to use genuine data.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

One step at a time. We are constantly told in this thread that the data had been corrupted/tortured/manipulated to show increased warming. I was trying to find evidence of that.

OK, so on to your point - can you show a graph that shows how the adjustments in the data have been deliberately made to correlate with CO2?

Karl et al. 2015 - before this paper the lack of correlation was obvious even to the press.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

One step at a time. We are constantly told in this thread that the data had been corrupted/tortured/manipulated to show increased warming. I was trying to find evidence of that.

OK, so on to your point - can you show a graph that shows how the adjustments in the data have been deliberately made to correlate with CO2?

Karl et al. 2015 - before this paper the lack of correlation was obvious even to the press.

Exactly. Adopting SST to favour ship intake temperatures over the less heat-contaminated and more accurate buoy temperatures was priceless; so unscientific, so unjustified, so desperate it may have averted world war (EU referendum desperation level reference).

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

'Study finds eco-friendly cars fill air with as many toxins as diesels.

The greener alternative produces more tiny toxic particles from tyre and brake wear because batteries and other parts make them heavier, according to University of Edinburgh scientists.'

Cue University of Edinburgh scientists hunted down and culled for their sporrans.

[wc98]

mybrainhurts said:

turbobloke said:

'Study finds eco-friendly cars fill air with as many toxins as diesels.

The greener alternative produces more tiny toxic particles from tyre and brake wear because batteries and other parts make them heavier, according to University of Edinburgh scientists.'

Cue University of Edinburgh scientists hunted down and culled for their sporrans.

i am surprised that was published, does that astrologist clown ken rice known as "and then there's physics" not lead the alarmist movement there ?