Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

Good to see Steve McIntyre's website picking up published authors over causality.

Climate Audit Guest Post by Nic Lewis said:

A recent PAGES 2k Consortium paper in Nature, Abram et al, that claims human-induced, greenhouse gas driven warming commenced circa 180 years ago, has been attracting some attention.

The study arrives at its start dates by using a change-point analysis method, SiZer, to assess when the most recent significant and sustained warming trend commenced. Commendably, the lead author has provided the data and Matlab code used in the study, including the SiZer code.

Their post-1500 AD proxy-based regional reconstructions are the PAGES2K reconstructions, which have been discussed and criticized on many occasions at CA, with the Gergis et al 2016 Australian reconstruction substituted for the withdrawn version.

I won’t comment on the validity of the post-1500 AD proxy-based regional reconstructions on which the observational side of their study is based – Steve McIntyre is much better placed than me to do so.

However, analysis of those reconstructions can only provide evidence as to when sustained warming started, not as to whether the cause was natural or anthropogenic.

Quite so. The above error of omission on causality and other weak science in the paper are located over at CA which as always is well worth a read.

https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/31/was-early-onse...

Skip down to 'Conclusions' if time is pressing.

[LongQ]

"Nice quote editing to deliberately miss the point."

That is remarkably ironic even by your standards durbs, especially the "missing the point" part.

[LongQ]

Conspiracy theories in the Climate Change space.

Clearly they do exist.

To repeat;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...

[zygalski]

LongQ said:

Conspiracy theories in the Climate Change space.

Clearly they do exist.

To repeat;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...

Links to another conspiracy story...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/2...

[hidetheelephants]

Climate balls at the BBC continues; crowbarred into a feature on ticks and lyme disease, apparently the tick population is unprecedented due to CAGW, and nothing to do with the record deer population.

[don4l]

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

Conspiracy theories in the Climate Change space.

Clearly they do exist.

To repeat;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...

Links to another conspiracy story...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/2...

Do you feel that Exxon funding contaminates the results?

Should GlaxoSmithKline be banned from researching new drugs because they might make profit?

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

Conspiracy theories in the Climate Change space.

Clearly they do exist.

To repeat;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-climate-scientist-pete...

Links to another conspiracy story...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/2...

Firstly - very old and well covered ground oft repeated by an extremely partisan source.

Secondly - it's one bloke's funding. He has clearly been ostracised by the climate team (they admit as much as I recall) and it's not unreasonable that he should at least have the right to make his opinion heard in what is meant to be a free and open country leading the world in Science.

The only conspiracy I can see it the one that makes it difficult for him, as a reasonably notable scientist, present his opinions.

If they are so wrong why do his critics not simply prove that for any paper he publishes? Is that too hard for them?

Or is it simply easier to make him a Non-person?

Do you always support those who play the man and not the ball?

(Unless, of course, they disagree with your ingrained views.)


ETA: The Guardian obviously sees the author of that piece as one of its more important correspondents.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/suzannegoldenb...

I think the items presented show clearly what sort of post modern journalism is in play.

It seems not to be science ... but then it IS political to this is exactly the right thread to bring it up.

Thank you zygalski.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 2nd September 20:29

[Mr GrimNasty]

More money for Durbster to follow, as I pointed out before, George Soros has pumped a massive fortune into CAGW, Gore is happy to take the cash.

http://eaglerising.com/36047/bombshell-leaked-docs...

And here is an hilarious Rockefeller funded CAGW propaganda site, which Durbster should find particularly egregious as all it does is list WEATHER events and falsely attribute them to CAGW (either directly or with the 'science sources' innuendo). The big disappointment of a flaccid wannabe hurricane Hermine is already listed! Along with thoroughly discredited 'science sources' about more extreme rainfall events/precipitation changes etc. - even though real data shows nothing other than natural variation.

http://www.climatesignals.org/

[zygalski]

LongQ said:

It seems not to be science ... but then it IS political to this is exactly the right thread to bring it up.

Thank you zygalski.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 2nd September 20:29

My pleasure. A pleasant change from Turbospam posting graphs & data in this thread, which I know y'all call out every single time.

[zygalski]

Interesting drop down on this page:
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/clima...
It's a conspiracy I tell's ya!

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Interesting drop down on this page:
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/clima...

Greenpeace's "denial" definition is rooted in the false consensus, that's a fail in the first few lines. If only they could see the invisible causal human signal and point us to it

Kochs may be funding climate realism. There are several rich kochs funding global warming alarmism.

Steyer, Branson, Bezos, Ratan, Grantham, Tata & Co.

At least all those billionaires are buying influence and getting vfm from funding conversations with other believers.

In polls posted on PH over the years: 85% of 140,000 voters say AGW is fraudulent; a 2015 Gallup poll showed that Americans ranked global warming at the bottom of a list of environmental concerns; a 2016 European Science Foundation survey of scientists had global warming weather extrema (storms and floods) last - with precisely 0% - in response to the question ‘what will finish off mankind'; and despite all the tipping points and last chance saloon hype around the Paris COP-out, a UN global poll put 'action taken on climate change' at rock bottom of respondent priorities.



Back of net, own goal

[PRTVR]

zygalski said:

Interesting drop down on this page:
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/clima...
It's a conspiracy I tell's ya!

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

[dickymint]

hidetheelephants said:

Climate balls at the BBC continues; crowbarred into a feature on ticks and lyme disease, apparently the tick population is unprecedented due to CAGW, and nothing to do with the record deer population.

BBC also managed to attribute CAGW to the 5 drowning deaths earlier this week. From memory the quote was "due to CC rip tides are becoming more and more unpredictable" FFS

Maybe our Lifeguards should have a weekly raffle to pick which beaches they patrol!

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

[Hosenbugler]

dickymint said:

hidetheelephants said:

Climate balls at the BBC continues; crowbarred into a feature on ticks and lyme disease, apparently the tick population is unprecedented due to CAGW, and nothing to do with the record deer population.

BBC also managed to attribute CAGW to the 5 drowning deaths earlier this week. From memory the quote was "due to CC rip tides are becoming more and more unpredictable" FFS

Maybe our Lifeguards should have a weekly raffle to pick which beaches they patrol!

I actually laughed out loud at that , the rip tide nonsense , they had the cheek to broadcast that drivel on the radio and describe it as "news". What BBC output I've watched/listened to in the past seems to at some time or the other come up with CC drivel irrespective of the subject. Ridiculous really.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

The AGW/CC advocates are far out in front on the propaganda front. The Beeb has an almost regular daily posting, and the newspapers. Can you point us in the direction of any recent anti AGW/CC to back up your claim? Re the funds, please tell us how much governments around the world have supplied to CC/AGW advocates. I bet it swamps the so called anti’s

On second thoughts, I'll do it for you

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.

A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/t...

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 3rd September 10:17

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

No but what I see is a private company coming under attack from an organization that has given up on science, yet again a one sided view, is it no wonder companies do things secretly with the likes of Greenpeace around. open and honest debate about AGW with Greenpeace is just is not possible, just read the link and see how the science is irrelevant. but perhaps they have a point as there is no science in the AGW hypothesis, just models.

[With these feet]

Beeb news reporting China to be near to signing the climate agreement, stated only 1% have signed to it so far..

[grumbledoak]

Posturing, acting as if this puts pressure on Obama and China to sign it by pre-announcing it. It's all rather pathetic. Neither party will care at all what the BBC print, so it's only for the benefit of the Islingtonites.

[zygalski]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

Well there goes any credibility you may have had, quoting Greenpeace,
Go read what one of the founders has to say about his creation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Are you saying the Kochs aren't relentlessly pumping money into anti-AGW propaganda?

It's proven they are. Much of swallowed up by Turbs & his ilk with relish.