Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

Northbloke said:

Fresh from entertainingly calling the rise of Trump correctly, Dilbert is having a go at Climate Change:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

Best bit of warped logic I've read for a while

[turbobloke]

Talking of what the data shows (and did durbster just admit that the data does matter?!):





Back to the future pause.

Tax gas really ought to read the rules to avoid embarrassing denial denial...and naughty, naughty nino.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Here's another example of the shameless hypocrisy in this debate that I can't get my head around....

I'm amazed anyone can be bothered to debate you at all. You wander in, throw out some quote or attack a straw man of your choosing, then stop posting, drift off topic or hand-wave away when a direct, simple question is put to you personally.

Would you like an example of that?

[robinessex]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Here's another example of the shameless hypocrisy in this debate that I can't get my head around....

I'm amazed anyone can be bothered to debate you at all. You wander in, throw out some quote or attack a straw man of your choosing, then stop posting, drift off topic or hand-wave away when a direct, simple question is put to you personally.

Would you like an example of that?

Don't bother, he's a believer .....................!!

[Silver Smudger]

robinessex said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Here's another example of the shameless hypocrisy in this debate that I can't get my head around....

I'm amazed anyone can be bothered to debate you at all. You wander in, throw out some quote or attack a straw man of your choosing, then stop posting, drift off topic or hand-wave away when a direct, simple question is put to you personally.

Would you like an example of that?

Don't bother, he's a believer .....................!!

Well, just in case he's passing -

Durbster -

Have a read of my posts on 17th Nov (p475), 22nd Nov (p480), 26th Nov (p482) & 1st Dec (P487) for context, or skip straight to answering the question below:-

If the models make predictions, which are not found to be accurate compared with actual real measurements taken in the twenty years since the predictions were made - How do we know the models are any use at all?

[Kawasicki]

Northbloke said:

Fresh from entertainingly calling the rise of Trump correctly, Dilbert is having a go at Climate Change:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

"If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts. "

ahhhhh, but you neglected to mention that he agrees with the climate science experts....


...because he says it would be be financially stupid to do otherwise.

But the point still stands...he is Not A Sceptic!

[plunker]

Kawasicki said:

Northbloke said:

Fresh from entertainingly calling the rise of Trump correctly, Dilbert is having a go at Climate Change:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

"If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts. "

ahhhhh, but you neglected to mention that he agrees with the climate science experts....


...because he says it would be be financially stupid to do otherwise.

But the point still stands...he is Not A Sceptic!

On the contrary I give him high marks for his scepticism, he's shows proper balanced scepticism IMO in the true sense of the word where good scepticism is something both outwardly and inwardly applied.

I have to accept though that in the AGW debate the word sceptic has been hijacked and eroded somewhat (much in the same way as the 'truth' movement has hijacked another good word) so it depends somewhat on what your idea of A Sceptic is.

Edited by plunker on Tuesday 6th December 16:57

[alock]

Northbloke said:

Fresh from entertainingly calling the rise of Trump correctly, Dilbert is having a go at Climate Change:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-...

"If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts. "

It's a similar mindset to mine. A friend and I own and run a small software company which produces software for the manufacturing industry. We help make part of the manufacturing process as efficient as possible. Corporately/professionally we are behind the problems of Climate Change. Our software includes a feature to calculate the CO2 savings due to our software. Our website highlights this as a benefit to help our customers improve their eco credentials. We are very green and hippy friendly.

Privately, neither of us are believers.

[turbobloke]

"If science is right"

No, it's not a question of science being right, not at all.

That should be 'if a small number of so-so vested interests who prefer gigo models to unmolested data are right' and even they know they're wrong. Just read 'Climategate'.

They are nowhere near balancing the planet's energy budget, they have no idea where energy is going, all forms of geoengineering (i.e. everything including carbon capture and storage) are pointless, and it's all a travesty. In their own words.

[Jasandjules]

plunker said:

The RSS land data went up 0.23 in November. Seeing as the global av went up by 0.037 that means SST cooled by a few hundredths.

The raw data?

If so please provide all the raw data and the source for the last 20 years.

[XM5ER]

Whatever happened to Climategate release 3?

[mybrainhurts]

alock said:

It's a similar mindset to mine. A friend and I own and run a small software company which produces software for the manufacturing industry. We help make part of the manufacturing process as efficient as possible. Corporately/professionally we are behind the problems of Climate Change. Our software includes a feature to calculate the CO2 savings due to our software. Our website highlights this as a benefit to help our customers improve their eco credentials. We are very green and hippy friendly.

Privately, neither of us are believers.

You absolute boundah...

Make sure they don't rumble you. Nettle rash can get really, really itchy...

[plunker]

Jasandjules said:

plunker said:

The RSS land data went up 0.23 in November. Seeing as the global av went up by 0.037 that means SST cooled by a few hundredths.

The raw data?

If so please provide all the raw data and the source for the last 20 years.

I doubt the raw output from the IR (oops make that microwave) sensors on satellites is publically available.

What would you do with it if you had it?

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 7th December 14:18

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Here's another example of the shameless hypocrisy in this debate that I can't get my head around....

I'm amazed anyone can be bothered to debate you at all. You wander in, throw out some quote or attack a straw man of your choosing, then stop posting, drift off topic or hand-wave away when a direct, simple question is put to you personally.

Would you like an example of that?

For what it's worth, I've got a half written reply to your question but wanted to do some more research first as there were a few things you said that had got me thinking.

I'm really busy at the moment so haven't had any time but basically I wanted to find pre-computer model predictions to see how consistent the basic scientific theory has been over the last 50-60 years.

Then the usuals started their tedious personal attacks again so I lost interest while they got that out of their systems.

So believe it or not, it's actually out of respect for your question that I've taken ages to reply but I do intend to

[robinessex]

Worth a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Here's another example of the shameless hypocrisy in this debate that I can't get my head around....

I'm amazed anyone can be bothered to debate you at all. You wander in, throw out some quote or attack a straw man of your choosing, then stop posting, drift off topic or hand-wave away when a direct, simple question is put to you personally.

Would you like an example of that?

For what it's worth, I've got a half written reply to your question but wanted to do some more research first as there were a few things you said that had got me thinking.

I'm really busy at the moment so haven't had any time but basically I wanted to find pre-computer model predictions to see how consistent the basic scientific theory has been over the last 50-60 years.

Then the usuals started their tedious personal attacks again so I lost interest while they got that out of their systems.

So believe it or not, it's actually out of respect for your question that I've taken ages to reply but I do intend to

Thank you, I apologise for slipping into personal comments, too

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

Thank you, I apologise for slipping into personal comments, too

No worries, I know you've asked a few times so I understand the frustration. It's a good question that deserves a good answer, basically.

[mybrainhurts]

robinessex said:

Worth a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

Judith Curry

https://judithcurry.com/

[mybrainhurts]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/al-gore-tru...

Gore desperately wriggling to protect his empire.

[Jasandjules]

plunker said:

I doubt the raw output from the IR sensors on satellites is publically available.

What would you do with it if you had it?

I want all raw data which is alleged to support this scam.

I would use it to show that the data proves there is no AGW and this is a scam. The same as others who want the raw data, which is why those who have this data won't release it.