Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

You soooooo have an agenda

Well spotted, on this political thread (as you spotted earlier) this 'agenda' is to cite research evidence to counter political propaganda and general billhooks, from Gore or you or anyone who cares to drop in

[chris watton]

turbobloke said:

You were informed that they were sent to independent PHers, neither on the warm side nor the realist side. That was the whole point. PHers at the time, on both sides, would have immediately noted if this wasn't the case.

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Having answered your question, again, now you can have a go at answering mine for the first time - and the reasonable questions from Jasandjules whule you're at it.

Mine is: when you saw the invisible causal human signal in global climate data, where was it?

I do remember that time, and the posts. The believers were getting pretty nasty (as is always the case when they start to lose the debate), as I recall, so you sent your credentials. As you state, they were sent to neutral parties, which they then confirmed that what you stated was true. The believers then went into meltdown, asking why you were not toeing the party line, or something like that..

The posts should still be on PH if people wish to search, I would have thought.

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

I do remember that time, and the posts. The believers were getting pretty nasty (as is always the case when they start to lose the debate), as I recall, so you sent your credentials. As you state, they were sent to neutral parties, which they then confirmed that what you stated was true. The believers then went into meltdown, asking why you were not toeing the party line, or something like that..

The posts should still be on PH if people wish to search, I would have thought.

Indeed, but as an angle in later threads it merely helps the warm fraternity to continue with their diversionary tactic. As I mentioned recently, it's not about me and it's not about any one individual.

I suspect you (and me and others on the thread) would be more interested to know where it was that lionelf et al saw an invisible causal human signal in any global climate data...even better for this thread, where any politician saw it

[PRTVR]

turbobloke said:

chris watton said:

I do remember that time, and the posts. The believers were getting pretty nasty (as is always the case when they start to lose the debate), as I recall, so you sent your credentials. As you state, they were sent to neutral parties, which they then confirmed that what you stated was true. The believers then went into meltdown, asking why you were not toeing the party line, or something like that..

The posts should still be on PH if people wish to search, I would have thought.

Indeed, but as an angle in later threads it merely helps the warm fraternity to continue with their diversionary tactic. As I mentioned recently, it's not about me and it's not about any one individual.

I suspect you (and me and others on the thread) would be more interested to know where it was that lionelf et al saw an invisible causal human signal in any global climate data.

I think we will have a long wait as it doesn't exist and is the product like any religion of believing the teachings of the prophets dressed up as scientists.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

I think we will have a long wait as it doesn't exist and is the product like any religion of believing the teachings of the prophets dressed up as scientists.

On cue here's more such teachings or perhaps instructions:

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-...

NPR:
'Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?’ ‘Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them’

Then again if the faithful go with it, there could be collateral benefits

[jshell]

Y'know, to me there is an underlying issue that never gets discussed. When this whole faux-scare started off, there were fast, bold statements made to convince us that the world was going to come to an end with us cooked in our own juices. Now, normally when a theory such as this presented and there is contrary evidence presented then both sides debate the data. That did not happen here. There was NO debate.

It was like a machine that that quickly, and effectively closed ranks. They, with little evidence or data completely stifled debate, shut down expert commentators, refuse to consider opposing views, destroyed careers and livelihoods. It was like a repeat, political, 'Blitzkreig'.

Well, hopefully the resistance wins in the end.

As a side note, with TB's help, I once posted a mildly AGW contradictory view on on internal company web-feed - I work for a VERY large company. Well, fk me, I was likened to a Nazi in public with personal e-mails heading my way showing me the error of my ways. The funny thing was the people calling me a Nazi were using skepticalscience.com links to support their point, missing the whole 'John Cook photo as a Nazi' turbo-irony!

What the likes of lionelf ad Durbs don't realise, is: We just want open debate, as there is NONE!

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Nice obfuscation.

Carry on.

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Nice obfuscation.

Carry on.

Carried on already, without your permission which isn't needed

For obfuscation, see under 'repetitive unimportant irrelevant personal angles'.

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Nice obfuscation.

Carry on.

Carried on already, without your permission which isn't needed

That 'Last Word' syndrome might require a consultation

http://www.alteredfocus.net/having-the-last-word/

[turbobloke]

California’s globally irrelevant, costly, elitist-driven and purely political climate change campaign is in the news.

Pure politics. What a carry-on!

Click

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

That 'Last Word' syndrome might require a consultation

But not applicable: on PH as a public forum the only people capable of the last word are Mods, otherwise the rest is called 'posting in reply'.

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

That 'Last Word' syndrome might require a consultation

But not applicable: on PH as a public forum the only people capable of the last word are Mods, otherwise the rest is called 'posting in reply'.

Very good, you almost snuck it through

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

No, the Humlum paper doesn't rule out carbon dioxide in contemporary temperature change - that's just another claim they make along with the main claim that the CO2 isn't ours, and another logic fail.

The data demonstrates a lack of causality, your claim doesn't hold up, as already pointed out the acidification and other specious comments are irrelevant to causality.

What was found experimentally is summarised in the Humlum et al Abstract, as cited earier, the results showed "changes in carbon dioxide always lagging changes in temperature" and as you yourself pointed out earlier with no denial irony at all, the reference you gave doesn't "deny" the lag at all.

Regarding your 'short-term' remark, the reason I also cited Monnin et al, Caillon et al (etc etc) is that those papers cover the longer-term relationship and still find lag, all timescales are covered and the order of events remains the wrong way round for causality to be present. Temperature always changes first, then carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide cannot therefore be causing those temperature changes.

Still with the logic fails. It's like saying because the little ice age began in the 14th century, volcanic eruptions in the 15th century can't have caused cooling. In the case of Monnin you can say the CO2 doesn't initiate the temperature change and that's all and there's nothing in that which contradicts global warming theory like you're trying so very hard to assert. Keep rolling that pea up the hill!

[turbobloke]

It's not overtly political so OT, and for Durbster in particular ('TB sometimes cites references' etc) here are a few more, purely from the last 12 months approx, all indicating that total solar (irradiance and eruptivity) and ocean cycles are driving climate change, with solar driving oceans as it were (in the context of a rotating planet). I haven't had tme to tap every vein here but in any case happy hunting and reading to all who can see invisible signals.

Chen et al 2016
Faust et al 2016
Livsey et al 2016
Valdés-Manzanilla 2016
Yu et al 2016
Wang et al 2016
Krishnamurthy and Krishnamurthy 2016
Liu et al 2016
Diaz et al 2016
Qiaohong et al 2016
McCarthy et al 2015
Toonen et al 2016
Nagy et al 2016
Laken and Stordal 2016
Zanardo et al 2016
García-García and Ummenhofer 2015
Dieppois et al 2016
Penalba and Rivera 2016
Gastineau and Frankignoul 2015
Li et al 2016
Yamakawa et al 2016
Salau et al 2016
Liu et al 2015
Katsuki et al 2016
Czymzik et al 2016
Malik and Brönnimann 2016
Lakshmi and Tiwari 2015
Wang et al 2016
Tiwari et al 2015
Salas et al 2016
Hassan et al 2016
Wahab et al 2016
Bernal et al 2016
Malik et al 2016
Serykh and Sonechkin 2016

Gatekeeping by The Team clearly hasn't been doing too well of late and with a few more, who knows, there might be a tipping point ahead

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 19th August 11:15

[plunker]

LongQ said:

Have you been away at boot camp re-training as a climate expert and statistician plunker?

Any chance you have some new previously unidentified data to share with people?

It seems to me that most "new" papers, other than satellite inputs, are simply recycling old stuff without fixing any "issues" that may have been identified during earlier utilisation.

Churn to keep the cash machines vending.

You have got something new haven't you?

The ultimate proof of the Hypothesis?

You're not just playing "party" politics are you?

Actually, if you are you are in the right place I suppose. Just not really keen on seeing the politics presented as "science" when there is a perfectly good thread available for that.

No nothing new, in the real world science moves slowly I think. It's you so-called 'sceptics' that have a wide-eyed thirst for big 'game-changing' papers coming along and blowing AGW out of the water like Humlum et al claims to do. I'm sure there'll be another one along soon...

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

Still with the logic fails. It's like saying because the little ice age began in the 14th century, volcanic eruptions in the 15th century can't have caused cooling. In the case of Monnin you can say the CO2 doesn't initiate the temperature change and that's all and there's nothing in that which contradicts global warming theory like you're trying so very hard to assert. Keep rolling that pea up the hill!

No it's not exactly like that made-up gibberish at all, it's exactly like saying that volcanic eruptions in 15c cannot have caused cooling in the 14c because (duh) the order of events is wrong.

The order of events is not reversed by commentators to Humlum et al as words cannot alter data (actions can, as when less accurate and heat-contaminated SST temps replace more accurate buoy temps).

There's no evidence of tax gas enhancing changes either, no runaway, nothing, overall negative feedback pertains.

The literature has papers covering all timescales and the order is wrong for causality and manmadeup warming isn't visibly attributable in any form in any global data.

As previously stated n times, the data and sound science show that at this stage any carbon dioxide effect is invisibly small (Beer Law part of it, negative overall feedback likewise); earlier on and now there's an insignificant transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming.

[LongQ]

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Nice obfuscation.

Carry on.

Carried on already, without your permission which isn't needed

That 'Last Word' syndrome might require a consultation

http://www.alteredfocus.net/having-the-last-word/

Spurious.


But a very political grandstanding position.

What is your personal agenda lion elf? And why?

To keep pushing for further answers to questions that have already been answered sounds very much like needing the "Last Word" to me. But why? None of the information you have offered so far explains this terrier like grip you seem to have on the need win some battle of personal interaction that, apparently, concerns a subject that by your own admission you is not your area of specialist knowledge or even specialist interest.

But then it's difficult to tell since your are as anonymous as most of us - a situation that may be highly desirable in the internet age for many reasons entirely unrelated to any subjects on an internet forum.

Your motivation is a puzzle, at least to me.

The "Last Word" link you offer reminds me how once, when younger, certain source of relatively popular music (at the time) appeared to be incredibly significant and meaningful. Less so as time passes and observations of life are collected and considered.

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

Keep rolling that pea up the hill

Almost missed that.

Honestly, it's nothing, a stroll in the park. There's nothing being posted on here for the data to struggle against, which - gosh - is hardly surprising.

Still, we should really return to hammering the hapless politicos in thrall to any perceived reward from supporting manbearpig. Fools, all.

[LongQ]

plunker said:

..... and there's nothing in that which contradicts global warming theory like you're trying so very hard to assert.

Theory plunker? Science can be settled on just theories?

That has to be political - all handwaving and pie-crust promises later to be ignored. Playing to a gallery seeking any mix of money, power and personal recognition from whichever direction they may be found.

[turbobloke]

It has only made it from hypothesis to theory in the wishful thinking of advocates, and the hypothesis has been shown to fail. How many wrong statements and predictions from the junkscience hypothesis are required this time, it would however be better to resist another pointless attrition loop with nothing new on offer.