Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
kelvink said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, do you realise you've completely missed the plot? I do believe your view point is completely beyond what any 'reasonable, and sensible' person would advocate.
Er, I do believe, last time I looked, that his position is that of 9/10ths of the planet.....I'm a skeptic myself but he's taken the very reasonable position of listening to what the vast majority of scientists are saying as his guide.kelvink said:
I'm encouraged by the 2012 letter to NASA turbobloke posted earlier and hopefully this kind of 'push' will gather pace but that is not where we are at the moment.
Yet you condone durbster's absolute trust in the motives and competence of NASA?Wow, things are worse than we thought.
http://gizmodo.com/the-oceans-are-getting-warmer-f...
Is it not a little bit suspicious that we only ever see reports that things are getting hotter than we thought. HAVE WE UNDERESTIMATED EVERYTHING? Ahh!
http://gizmodo.com/the-oceans-are-getting-warmer-f...
Is it not a little bit suspicious that we only ever see reports that things are getting hotter than we thought. HAVE WE UNDERESTIMATED EVERYTHING? Ahh!
durbster said:
LongQ said:
I think what durbster might be suggestion when he writes
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
is that the various and varied results of the models are all (or nearly all?) correct and represent scientific truth whilst the human recorded direct observations are often, perhaps mostly, wrong and need correction. Sometimes. Usually.
I couldn't work this out at first, but then I realised that you probably believe observations haven't matched predictions. "We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
is that the various and varied results of the models are all (or nearly all?) correct and represent scientific truth whilst the human recorded direct observations are often, perhaps mostly, wrong and need correction. Sometimes. Usually.
Arguing against statements you've made up and attributed to me is weird, and that's twice in one page.
Is it the Trump effect? When reality doesn't back up your argument, don't consider you might be wrong, just make s
t up!How can varied (in scientific terms related to proof of a theory one would have to say "widely varied" given the level of precision claimed for temperature estimates a century from now) set of results all claim to have matched predictions? I suppose if you one makes enough predictions and runs enough models it is always likely to be possible to find a match.
Indeed it is a theory of statistics often mentioned in this context that if one runs enough simulations and apply the correct statistical analysis it doesn't matter about outlying values or even how many data points are likely to be accurate the results will eventually give "robust" numbers.
In that context I seem to recall that the good old hockey stick graph could be derived from "data noise" based on an adequate supply of randomly generated numbers constrained on by some parameters for minimum and maximum numbers generated.
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Why would the same observation not apply to your perceived knowledge? It's general enough to be applicable.
Surely your statement is as "made up" as they come being based, presumably, on some models that by the creators own observations do not include several - perhaps many - important factors that are acknowledged to be very significant for understanding "climate" as a whole?
On a positive note - good to see you engaging in some political angles her rather than polluting the debate with comments best delivered on the Science thread.
An example;
"Is it the Trump effect? When reality doesn't back up your argument, don't consider you might be wrong, just make s
t up!"No. That's the Mann effect. He claimed it first.
Kawasicki said:
Wow, things are worse than we thought.
http://gizmodo.com/the-oceans-are-getting-warmer-f...
Is it not a little bit suspicious that we only ever see reports that things are getting hotter than we thought. HAVE WE UNDERESTIMATED EVERYTHING? Ahh!
Link full of adjustments and fiddle factor(s). As for 3,500 sensors, 2,000,000 is more like the number needed to give a half chance of gtting useable data.http://gizmodo.com/the-oceans-are-getting-warmer-f...
Is it not a little bit suspicious that we only ever see reports that things are getting hotter than we thought. HAVE WE UNDERESTIMATED EVERYTHING? Ahh!
robinessex said:
Link full of adjustments and fiddle factor(s). As for 3,500 sensors, 2,000,000 is more like the number needed to give a half chance of gtting useable data.
The adjustments show that the past was cooler than we thought...I think there were no sensors available for much of the data...proxy data are used by the team to support the cause. What could possibly go wrong?LongQ said:
Then you need to make your own statements clearer and specific.
...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
LongQ said:
On a positive note - good to see you engaging in some political angles her rather than polluting the debate with comments best delivered on the Science thread.
As I've said before, as long as your policing of this thread's content continues to be exclusively aimed at people you disagree with, I'll continue to consider it censorship and will ignore accordingly.durbster said:
LongQ said:
Then you need to make your own statements clearer and specific.
...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Then you need to make your own statements clearer and specific.
...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
durbster said:
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer
Observation: World getting warmer
More like - Observation: World getting warmer
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
Observation: World getting very slightly warmer, more or less, within margin for error, just about. Not noticeable to uneducated deniers, not party to Climatologists closed shop ?
mybrainhurts said:
kelvink said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, do you realise you've completely missed the plot? I do believe your view point is completely beyond what any 'reasonable, and sensible' person would advocate.
Er, I do believe, last time I looked, that his position is that of 9/10ths of the planet.....I'm a skeptic myself but he's taken the very reasonable position of listening to what the vast majority of scientists are saying as his guide.kelvink said:
I'm encouraged by the 2012 letter to NASA turbobloke posted earlier and hopefully this kind of 'push' will gather pace but that is not where we are at the moment.
(b) Yet you condone durbster's absolute trust in the motives and competence of NASA?(b) Where did I say this?
You appear to have failed to grasp the gist of my post and then gone on to make entirely incorrect assumptions. I'm glad I'm not arguing from a "believers" point of view
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
More like -
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
Really? Which research paper made this prediction?Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
IPCC Lead Author Prof Christy said:
Let it be known that the storylines that produced the highest warming rates were added late in the IPCC review process at the request of a few governments. A1F1 was included late in the IPCC processes. This requires CO2 emissions to go from 7 Gtn per year in 1990 to 24 Gtn in 2050 and 29 by 2080. Also, the alleged cooling effect of SOx aerosols is to be reduced in the 21st century thus the simple model is given a lot of "warming" forcing and less "cooling" forcing and to no one's surprise, the temperature skyrockets.
The really hilarious bit is that even under the most conservative (small c) storyline, tax gas levels double by 2100 (in A1F1 they quadruple). It's funny because carbon coupled modelling has involved error bars at +/- 300ppmv. Armwaving scary guesswork at its finest.kelvink said:
mybrainhurts said:
kelvink said:
robinessex said:
Durbster, do you realise you've completely missed the plot? I do believe your view point is completely beyond what any 'reasonable, and sensible' person would advocate.
Er, I do believe, last time I looked, that his position is that of 9/10ths of the planet.....I'm a skeptic myself but he's taken the very reasonable position of listening to what the vast majority of scientists are saying as his guide.kelvink said:
I'm encouraged by the 2012 letter to NASA turbobloke posted earlier and hopefully this kind of 'push' will gather pace but that is not where we are at the moment.
(b) Yet you condone durbster's absolute trust in the motives and competence of NASA?kelvink said:
(b) Where did I say this?
You said:
durbster has taken the very reasonable position of listening to what the vast majority of scientists are saying as his guide. There is nothing wrong with that stance at all.....durbster's view is in the majority opinion in the real world and should not be dismissed so lightly as being 'unreasonable'
durbster has faith in the prowess of NASA.From 97% of a small group of vested interests to 97% of the planet, that's some leap of faith even for the uber-faithful. Particularly when the 97% was faked. Twice, if not more than that. It's almost surprising that people still believe it, truly even.
Several attrition loops have said:
Cook'a claim doesn't hold water, or tax gas. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. That's ~0.3% not 97%.
The Doran survey result came from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents and those responses were then whittled down to 75 out of 77 “experts” i.e. ’active climate researchers’ chosen by the survey people (!) to give another fake 97% consensus figure.
The planet (sic) puts climate change in rock solid last place in terms of political priorities, as per a UN poll which showed how beautiful irony can be at times. Still, it could be worse. Actually, in last place, it couldn't be worse.The Doran survey result came from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents and those responses were then whittled down to 75 out of 77 “experts” i.e. ’active climate researchers’ chosen by the survey people (!) to give another fake 97% consensus figure.
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
More like -
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
Really? Which research paper made this prediction?Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
That is the impression I am getting from these Climate Scientists - Am I mistaken? Are we actually fine?
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Then you need to make your own statements clearer and specific.
...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer...
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote?
"We don't "know" that. You've been told that, and you've believed it."
Observation: World getting warmer
Clear enough?
Firstly because it seems to be the opposite use here compared to your original use.
Secondly because the general time scale seems to have been more along the lines of Observation first, Prediction second.
In other words
"Where can we see a problem?"
"Found Something"
"What can we blame it on with the widest possible control impact related to the social conscience metaphor we want to build on?"
That is the political background for the time scale.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
On a positive note - good to see you engaging in some political angles her rather than polluting the debate with comments best delivered on the Science thread.
As I've said before, as long as your policing of this thread's content continues to be exclusively aimed at people you disagree with, I'll continue to consider it censorship and will ignore accordingly.Does that not make sense to you?
My comments about such things are not directed to one side or another - they are very much intended to be "roundtable" and merely act as reminders to all about the benefits of sticking to the subject. Many people recognise this and comment accordingly, as they see fit, about the suitability of a topic or comment for one thread or the other.
Some are less aligned with the concept. If I chide you about it from time to time by name it is simply because you often appear to be deliberately diverting content from political to potentially scientific points. Others may also from time to time introduce matters best pursued in the Science thread but none seem quite as persistent as you over such a long period.
"Policing". "Censorship".
Really?
How long have you been suffering from such paranoia?
Anyone would think that PH was turning into Wikipedia.
Are you perhaps working too hard?
Or is it just a particular perversity that leads you to metaphorically stamp your foot over a perceived focus of attention that does not exist other than by your own actions teasing out direct responses - like this one for example.
Actually durbster, so long as you avoid the pointlessness of going round and round in ever decreasing circles when a long way off topic, it's quite interesting and sometimes thought provoking to have you posting here regularly.
I hasten to add that that is my personal opinion and may not be shared by everyone.
However I'm at a loss to understand the basis of your crusade from your personal point if view. What does it do for you? (A rhetorical question - I really do not expect an answer even if you have one.)
I hope you are not taking any of this to heart. After all you are just, like most of us, an anonymous someone with identified by a pseudonym on in internet playground website forum and it's certainly not "Hotel California".
Edited by LongQ on Monday 13th March 19:38
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
More like -
Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
Really? Which research paper made this prediction?Prediction: Increased CO2 = world gets warmer by unprecedented amount leading to Total Climageddon Cataclysm
That is the impression I am getting from these Climate Scientists - Am I mistaken? Are we actually fine?
From the way that reply (the two questions above your post) was constructed, the answer appears to be that we're fine - so presumably we'll all get our past green taxes back in the next budget.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff