Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Halb said:
durbster said:
Halb said:
It's computer models that say MMGW exists isn't it?
I assume you know the answer, so are leading somewhere 
I used the '?' symbol, this means it's a question. I wish to chat to someone who believes in MMGW.
I don't hold strong views myself but over the years I've come more round to the, 'it isn't necessarily so' side, this thread (or others like it) have contributed to my thoughts, but nothing is set in stone. And I try and listen to what's going on as opposed to any pre-conceived bias (I try and do this in all).
I give balanced listening to anyone that'll talk as a normal human being.
So you'll have to excuse me if I have a somewhat defensive stance. Normally I'm very pleasant and reasonable
Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations. That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened, so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected.
I've been on the internet since before it entered the public consciousness so I've seen numerous conspiracy theories floating about. I don't profess to understand the science of climate change but I have got pretty good at picking out truth from bulls
t, and there is a lot of bullst posted in here.Of course, as with all natural sciences there are a load of variables and things we don't understand yet so lots of avenues of attack, but filling in those gaps is the work that's being done now. Nevertheless, after tens of thousands of papers and decades of research, the evidence for MMGW has grown, not diminished.
As Turbobloke has good knowledge of the science literature and a clever writing style, he has established himself as an authority. But I'm very conscious that he is the the one-eyed man in the land of the blind here, so I don't give this thread the credibility others seem to.
I flick through New Scientist or Scientific American sometimes and don't see any controversy about MMGW in there. I follow various sciencey things and people on Twitter and have never seen a hint of outrage about the apparent "greatest scientific fraud in history".
So I don't "believe" in MMGW, I just accept the most widely held scientific view. Same as I do for pretty much anything I haven't the time, skill or inclination to find out about myself. My position is as simple as that.
All in all, it's clear this conspiracy theory (like pretty much all of them) quickly collapses when it steps beyond the realm of blogs, internet forums and comments sections. I think that simple fact says more than I possibly can.
durbster said:
PH climate-cult
That must refer to posts from all viewpoints not being deleted simply due to which side they come from, 'contrarian' posts not being delayed, contributors only being banned if the posting rules are broken, unlike (for example) the more unpleasant cults over at RC and CIF.For example, I can post referenced science to refute political climate claptrap and it won't be deleted unless posting rules have been broken
Like this EU-sponsored gloopal wombling wibble which is in The Guardian and therefore doubly on-topic for a politics thread:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/1...
Model gigo guff politicised projection said:
...a conservative assumption of a 2C (3.6F) rise in temperatures this century...
UAH LTT satellite data projection said:
0.11 deg C / decade = 1.1 deg C this century
Unless and until a Dalton or Maunder event begins, but we will still need to refer to UAH LTT even so to see how cool it's getting down here.Durbster said:-
"Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete bks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times.
"That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened."
Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
"so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected."
Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
"Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete b
ks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times."That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened."
Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
"so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected."
Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
robinessex said:
Durbster said:-
"Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete bks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times.
"That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened."
Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
"so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected."
Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
Why not "Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete b
ks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times."That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened."
Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
"so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected."
Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
it might not be ignored in the (n+1)th attempt, then again 
As to the tax gas increasing temperatures claim, note that the word causing was omitted. Causality being absent, this is not surprising. There's no credible evidence for tax gas doing any increasing of temps. Spreadsheet number alteration does that, as per buoys to ship intakes for SST (nuts).
On the 'turned out as expected' attrition loop nonsense, reality dropped out of model projection envelopes some time ago. Repeatedly forgetting this is most odd.
Regarding the attrition loop above from durbster on models...Contary to claims by somebody at the Met Office who should know better, they are not filled with science. Modelling can't cope with enough science to allow this to happen. Instead, apart from a few basic processes (as outlined in previous loops) they use 'tuned paramaterisations'.
Who does the tuning and who tunes the tuners
The other attrition loop dreck is best left alone if it appears again.
grumbledoak said:
Yeah, because someone with such a relaxed attitude to the whole subject would come on these threads again and again and again and do all the accompanying research trying to argue their case.
What can I say, I enjoy research that calls out bullst on the internet. It's both fun and educational robinessex said:
Durbster said:-
"Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete bks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times.
There are plenty of graphs that say the opposite too. Aren't graphs great!"Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations."
And they turned out to be complete b
ks. Graphs illustrating such have been posted here numerous times.robinessex said:
"That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened."
Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
Every one of the multiple temperature dataset shows warming over the last century. What are you talking about?Not it hasn't, again, you've been challenged on this so many times it's getting monotonous. Where is proof you’ve been repeatedly asked to show?
robinessex said:
"so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected."
Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
Nah, that's not a very good list, more like a BuzzFeed article. It's just a bunch of very specific, cherry picked, out of context quotes that don't really reflect mainstream view. Quote mining is a pretty feeble form of attack, but it's hard to deny it's effective.Wrong. Shall I post the list of predictions (again) that have been shown to be pie in the sky.
Instead of focusing on single quotes by individuals, how about these more broad predictions: ice reduction, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and temperature rise. They have all happened.
durbster said:
Sorry if my tone is off but if you accept the mainstream scientific view rather than the PH climate-cult, it means you are regularly attacked, patronised and personally insulted. I've even had people Googling me to attempt to smear me. A common tactic for cults.
Indeed Durbster.Back about half a lifetime ago I looked at the reports of Peak Oil, and peak everything else and considered the used of "finite resources" and so on, population growth and all the other good stuff that was being presented and it was very easy to conclude that humanity was going to face some problems in the not too distant future. matter can neither be created nor destroyed of course, but the changes made to it in the process of human consumption would surely make re-use rather challenging.
However most of the general population that seemed to have the time and inclination to push the story also seemed to be attempting to remove themselves from mainstream life and yet breed like mad. That seemed an odd way to convince people that they were morally right and scientifically correct.
As time passed and the power and influence of the NGOs grew, seemingly without much significant support from the general population, I started to wonder what was really happening - and why additional restrictions and taxes were being discussed and imposed but not used for those matters that might have the most resonance amongst caring humans - droughts and starvation in East Africa - the whole Band Aid thing that saved the careers of so many pop stars and gave them near saintly status but actually achieved very little of lasting significance at the time.
No thoughts of conspiracy - just incompetence at a global level for those misguided enough to think a band aid would deliver major surgery.
And I distinctly recall all the press reports and scares about immediate new ice ages that were prevalent in the early 70s. I do not remember anything about galloping "global warming" in that period. You can tell me as often as you like that I have a poor memory or was not reading the right scientific papers but that does not matter at all to this point.
I then discovered that most of those from the old days who forecast, at some point, a new and very imminent Ice Age had converted to predicting a rapidly approach thermageddon of heat and desert. No apology made for the previous poor guidance.
Could these people really be trusted advisors to policymakers? If so, why?
In the US there is a business theory that if you have not failed at least once in your life you are unlikely to be a real success. That is rather akin to the biblical suggestion that the a sinner who has repented is worth more to God than others who have not sinned. Perhaps this people were now offering a better value of "guidance" having been wrong before? If so this time they must be right surely?
And so things started to ramp up at around the same time I began to review my opinion that the world was indeed going to be pillaged to extinction by humanity and nothing was likely to stop it.
The "evidence" being punted around looked like it was claiming far more than it should be able to support - especially recalling the Ice Age by 1980 prediction from earlier decades.
Somehow I stumbled across a web site that seemed to be full of very reasonable articles, written in a pretty accessible style that appeared to be quite balanced at first glance.
I wasn't quite sure why it would be called "The Stoat" but the author looked like quite an interesting character and amenable to answering questions.
Once or twice.
Pretty soon it became clearer that in fact it was really an echo chamber for a group of self referencing "smart" people with at least some inside knowledge of what was going on in the back room areas of AGW science.
Oddly the same people were generally the ones to be found at all the other "important" AGW promoting sites.
If one asked a simple question one got a sneering answer something like "if you have to ask that you should not be here at all disturbing us".
If one accidentally hit on the edge of a "touchy" subject the pack vitriol was instant and long lasting since everyone wanted to pile in.
Real Climate turned out to be the same.
Ostensibly it seemed to be promoting itself to the unsuspecting as a place to go to learn about the ins and outs of the "climate" debate. In reality it was just another echo chamber although in its case apparently funded either by US taxpayers through NASA or similar, or maybe some "charitable" NGO.
Clearly the people most often found posting on these sites were spending a lot of time there and at other places I saw referenced in the posts. It was probably good for them that the majority, at the time, seemed to be something to do with academia in one way or another.
Deltoid was another good read if you wanted a fix of "author's psychosis" in action.
There were others, all part of the self referential circle if they wrote the same things. Any sites suggesting something different were attacked at length and at scale by the same groups - who would then take the time to congratulate each other extensively.
Whilst this behaviour seemed to be typical of the AGW proponent's sites it was, in my experience, very untypical of anywhere else, no matter how robust a site's opinions might be.
Eventually one of the "hidden" names that appeared everywhere, one Ellie (Eli) Rabbit (Rabett) (who rarely seems to post anything except opinion pieces, supporting items of repetition and puff pieces about himself often written in the third party) decided to reply to one of my questioning posts by suggesting he knew a lot about me and generally being extremely and unnecessarily abusive. He was off target in everything but so off the target in some of the things he wrote that he clearly thought he had been very clever and had identified me, one anonymous name to another, as someone else whom he wanted to denigrate.
Vicious and unpleasant. A cat with it's claws out. Intentionally nasty in a way that I have only previously observed from afar in some very specific out-on-a-limb circumstances.
The rest of the posters metaphorically bayed with their approval.
Clearly there was nothing more to be learned (if ever there was anything) from these places even if one was still allowed to post anything. So I stopped wasting my time with them.
But you, durbster, are still here and still allowed to write what you like - even about science in a thread intended to focus on Political angles, though of course one might offer a defence that the two can no longer be separated in the context of "Climate Change".
You choose to keep visiting despite your suggestion that you are "regularly attacked, patronised and personally insulted.". Whatever your motivation might be it's difficult to fault your persistence (other than it can be a bit repetitious and frequently obtuse as if designed to prevent the very "debate" you claim to be setting out to "win".
Personally I would love to see you assess the political angle more in the context of your view point. Ideally the science point would migrate back the Science thread if they have no political comment angle. Unless, of course, you have come to the conclusion as have so many others on all side of the subject discussion, that everything to do with CC is now primarily politics and "the data don't matter".
The Climate Change Catwalk now seems to be the preserve of models and some impossible to truly verify anorexic proxy analyses to inform us about history.
Is that really good enough for the basis of forecasting for public policy decisions?
turbobloke said:
Talking of smears, why if smearing is so disliked (and rightly so) is it a mainstream tactic used by the faithful? Ask Bellamy and Ball. Their treatment has been and still is disgraceful. If it's not right, it's not right anywhere.
Oh jeez, Bellamy and Ball Haven't you got any more up to date examples. Maybe somebody who wasn't already at the end of their career? It might make this argument just a little more plausible.
LongQ said:
And I distinctly recall all the press reports and scares about immediate new ice ages that were prevalent in the early 70s.
...
Ice Age had converted to predicting a rapidly approach thermageddon of heat and desert. No apology made for the previous poor guidance.
So you think for no particular reason, scientists made up that the Earth will cool over the next few decades. But after a couple of months decided to change it to warming? For no reason. And this was done entirely without foundation, based purely on hoping that the Earth's temperature would rise and validate them!?...
Ice Age had converted to predicting a rapidly approach thermageddon of heat and desert. No apology made for the previous poor guidance.
And the motivation of these scientists was... err?
Here's a handy debunking of the global cooling thing:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4487
LongQ said:
If one accidentally hit on the edge of a "touchy" subject the pack vitriol was instant and long lasting since everyone wanted to pile in.
Imagine that. 
LongQ said:
Personally I would love to see you assess the political angle more in the context of your view point.
I would love to read that debate but as I've said before (and apologies for the repetition), sadly there are some who are determined to prevent this debate being had by ensuring it never escapes the quagmire that is denying the science.A discussion on future technology, or on how to maintain our position in the world, and about how to retain and progress global stability in a post-oil market. It's all fascinating stuff, sadly denied to us all by people who simply refuse to accept some basic ideas.
As long as these people control the thread, it'll never move on.
durbster said:
Oh jeez, Bellamy and Ball
Haven't you got any more up to date examples. Maybe somebody who wasn't already at the end of their career? It might make this argument just a little more plausible.
Why would that make any difference?Haven't you got any more up to date examples. Maybe somebody who wasn't already at the end of their career? It might make this argument just a little more plausible.
Are you being ageist durbs?
Is the concept a smear tactic acceptable in your philosophy?
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Talking of smears, why if smearing is so disliked (and rightly so) is it a mainstream tactic used by the faithful? Ask Bellamy and Ball. Their treatment has been and still is disgraceful. If it's not right, it's not right anywhere.
Oh jeez, Bellamy and Ball Haven't you got any more up to date examples. Maybe somebody who wasn't already at the end of their career? It might make this argument just a little more plausible.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
And I distinctly recall all the press reports and scares about immediate new ice ages that were prevalent in the early 70s.
...
Ice Age had converted to predicting a rapidly approach thermageddon of heat and desert. No apology made for the previous poor guidance.
So you think for no particular reason, scientists made up that the Earth will cool over the next few decades. But after a couple of months decided to change it to warming? For no reason. And this was done entirely without foundation, based purely on hoping that the Earth's temperature would rise and validate them!?...
Ice Age had converted to predicting a rapidly approach thermageddon of heat and desert. No apology made for the previous poor guidance.
And the motivation of these scientists was... err?
Here's a handy debunking of the global cooling thing:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4487
LongQ said:
If one accidentally hit on the edge of a "touchy" subject the pack vitriol was instant and long lasting since everyone wanted to pile in.
Imagine that. LongQ said:
Personally I would love to see you assess the political angle more in the context of your view point.
I would love to read that debate but as I've said before (and apologies for the repetition), sadly there are some who are determined to prevent this debate being had by ensuring it never escapes the quagmire that is denying the science.A discussion on future technology, or on how to maintain our position in the world, and about how to retain and progress global stability in a post-oil market. It's all fascinating stuff, sadly denied to us all by people who simply refuse to accept some basic ideas.
As long as these people control the thread, it'll never move on.
And I don't believe your last point at all. It lacks evidence to support it.
However you could prove your claimed desire by starting to discuss the things you listed - "A discussion on future technology, or on how to maintain our position in the world, and about how to retain and progress global stability in a post-oil market." - and I am sure you would see people join in without reference to unrelated science so long as you don't bring it up.
That said some of your proposed general subjects are wide enough to deserve a thread of their own and probably have only a fringe relationship to the Politics of Climate Change, no matter how interesting they may be.
By the way, what is this "retain .... global stability" you mention?
What global stability and when was it achieved?
Your starter for 10.
Your link to the Skeptoid site has some interesting names in the References section.
Forgive me for leaning towards my recollections of time and the strong message that was, presumably, allowed to fester erroneously by those authors who had fed the media with rubbish first time round.
Their second attempts have perhaps given them greater satisfaction, income and tenure but are, as yet, not proven. This by their own admission. Were it proven they would have stopped working on the identification and moved on to the "fix".
Still, they have nothing to lose.
Forgive me for leaning towards my recollections of time and the strong message that was, presumably, allowed to fester erroneously by those authors who had fed the media with rubbish first time round.
Their second attempts have perhaps given them greater satisfaction, income and tenure but are, as yet, not proven. This by their own admission. Were it proven they would have stopped working on the identification and moved on to the "fix".
Still, they have nothing to lose.
i think a lot of people are waiting for the "the ideal temperature of the planet is xx.xxC and it was at this level yyyyyy years ago, and at that time the CO2 level was xxxx ppm and the sea level was yyyy and the arctic had xx billion sq.km of ice on teh 10th September and there were yyy million polar bears and the troposphere temp was xx.xxC and there were yyy hurricanes a years and xxx tornadoes and the pH of the seas was z.z and THAT is the ideal state of the planet that we want to attain.
But I'm not holding my breath.
But I'm not holding my breath.
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
i think a lot of people are waiting for.
It's been answered loads of times. The answer is whatever allows humans to thrive and civilisation not to collapse.
We thrived in the medieval warm period and who's to say that we wont thrive in warmer climes?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff