Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Jasandjules]

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?
Why not? Anybody would think they had an agenda, oh I forgot they do, a secret meeting proved that, that they spent a lot of licence payers money to hide the attendees,they appear happy to brainwash the uniformed.

Cui bono

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-ec...

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?

Probably not, but here's a story about unusual snowfall in Hawaii:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38199730

PRTVR said:

Why not? Anybody would think they had an agenda, oh I forgot they do, a secret meeting proved that, that they spent a lot of licence payers money to hide the attendees,they appear happy to brainwash the uniformed.

Or 'things are normal' simply isn't news maybe?

Or temperatures still a good 6C above the 1958-2002 average isn't a very good basis for a 'things are normal' story even perhaps?

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 7th December 18:41

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?

Probably not, but here's a story about unusual snowfall in Hawaii:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38199730

PRTVR said:

Why not? Anybody would think they had an agenda, oh I forgot they do, a secret meeting proved that, that they spent a lot of licence payers money to hide the attendees,they appear happy to brainwash the uniformed.

Or 'things are normal' simply isn't news maybe?

Or temperatures still a good 6C above the 1958-2002 average isn't a very good basis for a 'things are normal' story even perhaps?

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 7th December 18:41

The problem with what you are saying is that the Arctic is at the centre of climate change according to the theory, Hawaii is just weather, 6° is nether here nor there in the scheme of things, perhaps it is relevant if you are looking for a sign from above, but if you look at the UK temperatures over the last few days we have gone from -8 to a predicted +14 all due to wind direction, nothing to do with global warming, to attach any change in temperature to a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere is in my opinion fanciful, given the other drivers of temperature.

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

The problem with what you are saying is that the Arctic is at the centre of climate change according to the theory, Hawaii is just weather, 6° is nether here nor there in the scheme of things, perhaps it is relevant if you are looking for a sign from above, but if you look at the UK temperatures over the last few days we have gone from -8 to a predicted +14 all due to wind direction, nothing to do with global warming, to attach any change in temperature to a small change in a trace gas in the atmosphere is in my opinion fanciful, given the other drivers of temperature.

No, what I was saying was 'things are normal' isn't a very newsworthy story and isn't even the actual case, but I see you don't want to talk about the non-appearance of a follow up story anymore.

[Camoradi]

Trump makes an appointment to Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

[paulrockliffe]

Camoradi said:

Trump makes an appointment to Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

Good lad!

[don4l]

Camoradi said:

Trump makes an appointment to Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

Excellent news!

Common sense will prevail.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

False equivalency again durbs. The "take no ones word for it" is in scientific evidence arena not day to day activities.

Erm... are you sure about that?

Because I read it as a call to challenge any statement that is made without being proven through experiment. I'm not sure where you're getting that additional caveat from, as it would exclude them from challenging religion, superstition, mythology etc.

Jasandjules said:

Well, he has said he asked for this information and you appear to be suggesting he did not. That would mean you are calling a US Senator, a man with deep pockets, a liar. I just want to make sure that is what you are doing, that is all.

From your deflections and futile attempts to turn this on me, I guess you are unable to contest my point.

PRTVR said:

There is a third way, that the data is adjusted only by small amounts to keep the faithful happy, it's easy to do you just lower earlier temperatures, then add small amounts to the ongoing data

What purpose would adding a fraction of a degree more warming serve? That would be a criminal offence, to achieve what?

PRTVR said:

I do not think we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth to 1° such a figure is meaningless and is easily manipulated, but that should not stop people pointing out discrepancies in the published data.

I had a little look last night to find out how accurate our temperature measurements are, and you can buy off-the-shelf thermometers that are accurate to three decimal places (Celsius). Granted an individual measurement isn't worth a lot, but a collective of thousands is going to give you a pretty solid picture. What makes you think we can't measure accurately?

I agree that people should be free to point out issues with the data though.

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?

Returned to normal? What does that mean?

[Phud]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

False equivalency again durbs. The "take no ones word for it" is in scientific evidence arena not day to day activities.

Erm... are you sure about that?

Because I read it as a call to challenge any statement that is made without being proven through experiment. I'm not sure where you're getting that additional caveat from, as it would exclude them from challenging religion, superstition, mythology etc.

Jasandjules said:

Well, he has said he asked for this information and you appear to be suggesting he did not. That would mean you are calling a US Senator, a man with deep pockets, a liar. I just want to make sure that is what you are doing, that is all.

From your deflections and futile attempts to turn this on me, I guess you are unable to contest my point.

PRTVR said:

There is a third way, that the data is adjusted only by small amounts to keep the faithful happy, it's easy to do you just lower earlier temperatures, then add small amounts to the ongoing data

What purpose would adding a fraction of a degree more warming serve? That would be a criminal offence, to achieve what?

PRTVR said:

I do not think we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth to 1° such a figure is meaningless and is easily manipulated, but that should not stop people pointing out discrepancies in the published data.

I had a little look last night to find out how accurate our temperature measurements are, and you can buy off-the-shelf thermometers that are accurate to three decimal places (Celsius). Granted an individual measurement isn't worth a lot, but a collective of thousands is going to give you a pretty solid picture. What makes you think we can't measure accurately?

I agree that people should be free to point out issues with the data though.

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?

Returned to normal? What does that mean?

So again Durbster, please provide the experiment that proves man made CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming, climate change or whatever you wish to call it, also how plant food is a pollutant.

And if you cannot say what normal is how can you say the climate is changing? from what to what?

[durbster]

Phud said:

So again Durbster, please provide the experiment that proves man made CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming, climate change or whatever you wish to call it, also how plant food is a pollutant.

And if you cannot say what normal is how can you say the climate is changing? from what to what?

I don't think anybody has ever said "CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming", so let's put that in the strawman bin shall we.

Anyway, I'd be happy to find the experiments you're after but you won't tell us which experiment you disagree with (or think hasn't happened at all?).

Is it the greenhouse effect you believe hasn't been proved? Is it that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the amount of CO2 we're observing? What part of this process do you think hasn't been tested?

[Phud]

durbster said:

Phud said:

So again Durbster, please provide the experiment that proves man made CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming, climate change or whatever you wish to call it, also how plant food is a pollutant.

And if you cannot say what normal is how can you say the climate is changing? from what to what?

I don't think anybody has ever said "CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming", so let's put that in the strawman bin shall we.

Anyway, I'd be happy to find the experiments you're after but you won't tell us which experiment you disagree with (or think hasn't happened at all?).

Is it the greenhouse effect you believe hasn't been proved? Is it that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the amount of CO2 we're observing? What part of this process do you think hasn't been tested?

Durbster, here might be a small education piece for you, you are proposing a new theory to dispel the current belief, you need to prove it. My experiment is the world, and history, many years of an unstable chaotic climate, not once has there been a perfect level of anything, and the world survived. Man is the threat not by warming but using too many resources.

It is not a strawman, the claim is that AMGW is caused by the CO2 released by man. Not all the CO2 just that released by man, so avoid that.

CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere, has been around in far great quantities than now and what happened? Nothing, the greatest aspect of heating is water vapour, you know the stuff thats not in the models as clouds, (care to explain why) and that has not increased.

CO2 is plant food, what is the requirement for photosynthesis?

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

What purpose would adding a fraction of a degree more warming serve? That would be a criminal offence, to achieve what?

It's not a criminal offence if you can give a semi-plausible reason why the adjustment is necessary.

And we all know that CO2 causes warming, so that alone is a plausible reason to adjust the data. It wasn't easy to read a thermometer in the past you know. Consistent mistakes were common. We are much better know.

And to achieve what? To support "the cause", and, by the way, why shouldn't a top tier scientist get paid a good wage to protect Gaia?

AGW is the greatest challenge of our time.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

There is a third way, that the data is adjusted only by small amounts to keep the faithful happy, it's easy to do you just lower earlier temperatures, then add small amounts to the ongoing data

What purpose would adding a fraction of a degree more warming serve? That would be a criminal offence, to achieve what?

PRTVR said:

I do not think we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth to 1° such a figure is meaningless and is easily manipulated, but that should not stop people pointing out discrepancies in the published data.

I had a little look last night to find out how accurate our temperature measurements are, and you can buy off-the-shelf thermometers that are accurate to three decimal places (Celsius). Granted an individual measurement isn't worth a lot, but a collective of thousands is going to give you a pretty solid picture. What makes you think we can't measure accurately?

I agree that people should be free to point out issues with the data though.

PRTVR said:

As for the BBC did they report when the Arctic temperature returned to normal?

Returned to normal? What does that mean?

Point 1 : As has been explained the point is that its the whole theory of GW, that the planet gets warmer, yes it would be a criminal offence but the great thing about it is the data is not released, so that only a few can check it, no worries about getting caught.

point 2 : Yes you can measure temperature to 3 decimal places but unless you run calibration checks at a regular interval how do you know they are correct?
then there is a location issue, there was a gif showing the location of meteorological stations in north America, over a period of time they moved south the numbers reduced in Canada, how do you think that would affect the numbers?
then we come to what we are actually measuring, a temperature at a given point, take the UK's temperature over the last week, -10 to +18 all due to wind direction from the south and clear sky's and no wind, this scenario is taking place all over the planet at all the temperature stations, do you honestly believe that we can give an accurate temperature for the planet that has any meaning ? and then do you think that in that data you can see a change brought about by a small change in a trace gas, with all the variables that influence each temperature probe, I do not. we do not have enough data points, calculating averages between points is not good enough, especially when we are using the results to formulate future energy strategies.

[robinessex]

And still Durbster hasn't told us if the planets temperature (whatever that is) rising is good or bad. Until we know, we're all arguing about wether a solution is required at all.

[robinessex]

Camoradi said:

Trump makes an appointment to Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

Best not mention the Trillions of $'s the governmentsof the world have been thowing at the CC and AGW advocates for at least the last 15 yrs

[chris watton]

Loved reading this from WUWT, and fits perfectly into this thread:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-...

"The DOE vs. Ugly Reality"

"Over at the Washington Post, Chris Mooney and the usual suspects are seriously alarmed by a memo sent out by the Transition Team at the Department of Energy. They describe it in breathless terms in an article entitled “Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings“

Reading the questions Trump's people want answers to from the 'Green departments' is delicious.

This one is a particular gem:

"13 - Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?"

Edited by chris watton on Saturday 10th December 11:07

[Northbloke]

Thanks for that list Chris. Also warmed my cockles reading it.

Just what these unaccountable clowns needed, the sort of questions any competent business manager would normally ask within their organisations. Some really probing questions in there which it will be very difficult to wriggle out of answering. I like Willis's take on them too.

I have to say they are very quick off the mark with this too. Draining the swamp indeed.

Now can we do the same over here. Stick Owen Patterson back in charge!

[hidetheelephants]

chris watton said:

Loved reading this from WUWT, and fits perfectly into this thread:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-...

"The DOE vs. Ugly Reality"

"Over at the Washington Post, Chris Mooney and the usual suspects are seriously alarmed by a memo sent out by the Transition Team at the Department of Energy. They describe it in breathless terms in an article entitled “Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings“

Reading the questions Trump's people want answers to from the 'Green departments' is delicious.

This one is a particular gem:

"13 - Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?"

Edited by chris watton on Saturday 10th December 11:07

Not sure what his point is about the National Labs; largely the individual labs specialise in different areas of research, which may be related but are aimed in different directions. They have always worked at the behest of DOE and ultimately the behest of the government, if they've been pursuing 'green' chimera it is because government/DOE has given them a budget to do so, altering it just means giving them budget and instruction to develop gen4 nuclear technology, or whatever. The lab system is apolitical, cannot set its own agenda and is expressly prohibited from lobbying in Washington. Closing labs would face a lot of opposition as they have significant porkbarrel value and reps and senators will go to bat for their states.

[Jasandjules]

What is hilarious is the "alarming" word used. It is not a waste of time, not unreasonable, not invalid. No. Alarming. Well it is only alarming if there is info. you want to hide.

I just hope that this leads to prosecutions for fraud etc and this whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

[wc98]

hidetheelephants said:

Not sure what his point is about the National Labs; largely the individual labs specialise in different areas of research, which may be related but are aimed in different directions. They have always worked at the behest of DOE and ultimately the behest of the government, if they've been pursuing 'green' chimera it is because government/DOE has given them a budget to do so, altering it just means giving them budget and instruction to develop gen4 nuclear technology, or whatever. The lab system is apolitical, cannot set its own agenda and is expressly prohibited from lobbying in Washington. Closing labs would face a lot of opposition as they have significant porkbarrel value and reps and senators will go to bat for their states.

i think the point is that although those running them are supposed to be apolitical there may well be some involved in agw advocacy . do not ask me for names but i seem to remember being surprised by an article somewhere a while back just how many of the senior people were involved with orgs like the sierra club.

even the basic issue of turkeys not voting for christmas needs to be looked at , a bit like the met increasing its funding massively since the agw scare really took off. hard to criticise people taking an opportunity when it presents itself ,but when it is public money involved and there is no way to measure success or failure , scrutiuny has to be of the highest order.