Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

"Trump meets with Princeton scientist who called ‘global warming’ fears ‘pure belief disguised as science’"

Dr Will Happer has good form.

Happer in 2015:
"UN climate policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"

Happer in 2016:
"If global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago"

Happer in 2017:
"outraged by distortions of CO2 & climate intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters"

Happer to U.S. Senate:
"The Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine’"

See political blog 'Climate Depot'
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/13/trump-meets...

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

It's been mentioned in this thread before, but then so has almost anything raised by anyone hopefully it will fit within the PH post character limit, the link wouldn't have the same impact and could easily be skipped over with some vacuous soundbite.

*massive list of papers snipped for brevity*

Considering No Tricks Zone has been shown to wilfully and grossly misrepresent the papers it lists...

Apart from shooting the messenger in another pointless act of diversion, and fulfilling my other prediction of a soundbite smear, the papers are listed - check them out and get back to us. The selection I gave gives meat, not just the citation. It's easy for others to make their own minds up.

The last time I suggested this 'get back to us' with a smaller set of papers, you forgot the 'get back to us' bit.

Same old. Next.

OK.

Excuse the thread rewind but I've been doing exactly as suggested in bold above.

I have checked out this list of papers from No Tricks Zone, that you claim is scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming. A list you claim contains evidence that all the things attributed to human-induced global warming have been explained by ocean cycles and solar activity.

But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.

It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already.

In summary:

It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.
(Edit: this isn't quite right. As wc98 pointed out, registration isn't actually necessary but the ability to comment on particular articles seems to be at the discretion of the site owner).

But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion from NTZ and yourself, that their work constituted evidence against AGW. Some said the AGW signal had been identified in their data, others said they incorporated it into their research because it was such an important factor in ocean cycles.

And every single one said AGW was real, and was happening.

Mr GrimNasty said:

...it's laughable that you say Notrickszone has been discredited - yes only by the very corrupt climate establishment that sets up a 'debunk site' for every purveyor of alternative or less extreme opinions - you really think they are objective?

So yes, discredited.

Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.

Still laughing?

Edited by durbster on Monday 16th January 14:26

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

So yes, discredited.

Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.

Still laughing?

Risible, it's exactly the same as the 97% consensus that doesn't exist - just because you are blinded by prejudice doesn't alter what the rest of the world knows.

You are blinded by prejudice and bigotry. You have not ever refuted one substantial point about anything, or ever converted one person to your point of view.

Keep wasting you effort bro, you are a laughable sad person. And the times they are a changing

[powerstroke]

plunker said:

powerstroke said:

plunker said:

Bravo, I bet you write on toilet walls good too.

Na leave that to people like you ...Trump made you angry has he ??
I predict more foot stamping and toy throwing from the climate riders !!!

Nah I've read Trump's insightful twitterings on climate and I think he's a good laugh.

I predict 4 years (or less) of lol moments.

He's your hero then is he?

He will be if he can disembowel some of these climate cretins like Al Gore and that Mann pillock and knock the wheels of the man made up climate
change Con ... and fk up the cosy subsidy and reasearch gravy train ....

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

mybrainhurts said:

Radio 4 Any Questions today...

Owen Paterson not concerned about minuscule temp increase in 50 years and happy to see greening of the planet underway...

Enraged woman scientist "will have to take you to task over that..rising sea levels...extreme weather....doom, doom, doom...I know nothing about it but overwhelming consensus"

Loud whoops from wannabee durbster selected audience. ...

Margaret Beckett..."just to remind everybody that 0.5deg is significant because there is only a 2deg difference since the last ice age when we were under miles of ice..."

FFS...giveth me an concrete wall upon which I might bangeth mine head until it doth really, really hurt...

The biased BBC, a brainwashed numpty politician and a climate model on legs could only be the recipe for a headache.

Why did you partake of the information pollution for more than about 2 seconds you glutton you?!

I'm something of a masochist. And it's Saturday...

[cymtriks]

johnfm said:

"adjustment of data until it fits the modelled trend that we want"

It's alarmingly common in science and engineering. I'm not surprised at all.

[mybrainhurts]

cymtriks said:

johnfm said:

"adjustment of data until it fits the modelled trend that we want"

It's alarmingly common in science and engineering. I'm not surprised at all.

Saw Sir Paul Nurse looking all gooey-eyed at a big screen with clouds flashing by.

I think he thought it was an accurate simulation of the climate.

Always makes me chuckle when I think of it.

[Northbloke]

mybrainhurts said:

Saw Sir Paul Nurse looking all gooey-eyed at a big screen with clouds flashing by.

I think he thought it was an accurate simulation of the climate.

Always makes me chuckle when I think of it.

Haha, I remember that, utterly risible. Socialist Worker selling Boss of the Royal Society impressed by "computers". These eminent "scientists" have such a passing acquaintance with the scientific method it's embarrassing.

Wasn't it the same programme he hijacked Delingpole with his also risible "if you asked a doctor" analogy.

As highlighted in the Climategate emails, all this awarding each other undeserved gongs and positions of authority really doesn't fool anybody.

[mybrainhurts]

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.

It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already...

...But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion

Sorry, slightly distracted by the odd wording here - How many replies have you actually had?

[LongQ]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.

It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already...

...But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion

Sorry, slightly distracted by the odd wording here - How many replies have you actually had?

I think we may need to wait for his paper to go through peer review.

Hopefully when published it will by public and not behind a pay wall.

But will it be announced here, on the Political thread, or over on the Science Thread where, of course, all good research about Science really belongs?

[LongQ]

durbster said:

It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.

Interesting durbster.

Possibly politically interesting too.

I trust you will be presenting your questions and the answers.

Given that a quick Google search makes it quite clear that many Warmist web sites, even obscure ones, have long been aware of No Tricks Zone and posting negative comments that are widely shared - even reaching as far as Amazon's Photography Review web site dpreview for heaven's sake - I find it interesting that your correspondents have, apparently, latched onto recent memes such as "source of fake news" - as you report.

Did they also provide links to rebuttals in defence of their work they may well have posted somewhere at the time the apparently offending post was made?

If so please send us the links so we can compare and decide.

Given the breadth of coverage and the extent of the net work of organisations and individuals who seek to promote and defend the warmist view I assume that anyone whose paper is mentioned on a non-aligned site will hear about it almost immediately. So I doubt that anyone you may have contacted would be unaware of the references - they would surely have been made aware at the time.

As for registering to comment on the site. Makes sense to me. So much easier to manage for a small operation than it would be to allow open registration ans be inundated with the warmist army of armchair posters attempting to overrun the site.

As I recall many of the warmist leaning sites did the same when I first became interested enough to ask questions of them. They seem to have enough people around with available time to manage such things. And dish out abuse. And then ban people anyway for asking a few questions. It would have saved a lot of time if one had not been allowed to register in the first place. The end message was much the same.

It seems like that principle is now being applied.

Do you have a political angle for this analysis activity?

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th January 10:57

[turbobloke]

Papers mentioned on any website are available for inspection via the scientific literature.

Broad-brush smears shooting the messenger don't cut it but as with many fails, there are few options open to the faith community these days, so needs must.

If carp political websites are the new subtopic then fakeclimate, skepticalwarmist and muchosmog are in the frame.

[LongQ]

Germany seems to be very actively pursuing and "electric vehicles only" plan by 2030 (13 years away so it would need to be an active plan well in advance of that target date) whilst at the same time suggesting that they can kill off nuclear, reverse and remove most of their recent swap to brown coal to replace nuclear and move to an inherently "renewable" energy basis.

Good for them, we might say, but it seems that we in the UK are being pushed along a similar path by out wondrous "government" and more widely our "law makers".

Here is an economists take on the German situation given some interesting weather conditions in recent times - notably considerable chunks of last December.

http://www.thegwpf.com/the-end-of-germanys-energie...

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

It's been mentioned in this thread before, but then so has almost anything raised by anyone hopefully it will fit within the PH post character limit, the link wouldn't have the same impact and could easily be skipped over with some vacuous soundbite.

*massive list of papers snipped for brevity*

Considering No Tricks Zone has been shown to wilfully and grossly misrepresent the papers it lists...

Apart from shooting the messenger in another pointless act of diversion, and fulfilling my other prediction of a soundbite smear, the papers are listed - check them out and get back to us. The selection I gave gives meat, not just the citation. It's easy for others to make their own minds up.

The last time I suggested this 'get back to us' with a smaller set of papers, you forgot the 'get back to us' bit.

Same old. Next.

OK.

Excuse the thread rewind but I've been doing exactly as suggested in bold above.

I have checked out this list of papers from No Tricks Zone, that you claim is scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming. A list you claim contains evidence that all the things attributed to human-induced global warming have been explained by ocean cycles and solar activity.

But I didn't analyse them myself. What I actually did was contact the authors of every single paper in your list that I could find contact details for, and simply asked them.

It's been an enlightening week, with a great response from around half the scientists I've contacted already.

In summary:

It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.

But more importantly, every single scientist rejected the assertion from NTZ and yourself, that their work constituted evidence against AGW. Some said the AGW signal had been identified in their data, others said they incorporated it into their research because it was such an important factor in ocean cycles.

And every single one said AGW was real, and was happening.

Mr GrimNasty said:

...it's laughable that you say Notrickszone has been discredited - yes only by the very corrupt climate establishment that sets up a 'debunk site' for every purveyor of alternative or less extreme opinions - you really think they are objective?

So yes, discredited.

Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.

Still laughing?

Custard test - screen shot of emails please, showing questions and responses from validated email addresses.

[wc98]

durbster said:

So yes, discredited.

Not by your imaginary "establishment", but by the actual people who wrote the papers listed on a website both you and turbobloke have cited in efforts to provide a scientific basis for your argument.

Still laughing?

which member of the skeptical science team are you ?

[wc98]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.

Interesting durbster.

Possibly politically interesting too.

I trust you will be presenting your questions and the answers.

Given that a quick Google search makes it quite clear that many Warmist web sites, even obscure ones, have long been aware of No Tricks Zone and posting negative comments that are widely shared - even reaching as far as Amazon's Photography Review web site dpreview for heaven's sake - I find it interesting that your correspondents have, apparently, latched onto recent memes such as "source of fake news" - as you report.

Did they also provide links to rebuttals in defence of their work they may well have posted somewhere at the time the apparently offending post was made?

If so please send us the links so we can compare and decide.

Given the breadth of coverage and the extent of the net work of organisations and individuals who seek to promote and defend the warmist view I assume that anyone whose paper is mentioned on a non-aligned site will hear about it almost immediately. So I doubt that anyone you may have contacted would be unaware of the references - they would surely have been made aware at the time.

As for registering to comment on the site. Makes sense to me. So much easier to manage for a small operation than it would be to allow open registration ans be inundated with the warmist army of armchair posters attempting to overrun the site.

As I recall many of the warmist leaning sites did the same when I first became interested enough to ask questions of them. They seem to have enough people around with available time to manage such things. And dish out abuse. And then ban people anyway for asking a few questions. It would have saved a lot of time if one had not been allowed to register in the first place. The end message was much the same.

It seems like that principle is now being applied.

Do you have a political angle for this analysis activity?

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th January 10:57

the last time i commented at no tricks zone there was no requirement for registration at all. just name and email at the time of comment. something be amiss here.

[LongQ]

wc98 said:

LongQ said:

durbster said:

It seems few/if any were aware of their work being listed on No Tricks Zone. I asked them what they thought about the site and descriptions ranged from, "a source of fake news", "totally misleading," through to "absolute and utter rubbish". A couple of us tried to find a way to register to protest but it seems it's invite only. I wonder why.

Interesting durbster.

Possibly politically interesting too.

I trust you will be presenting your questions and the answers.

Given that a quick Google search makes it quite clear that many Warmist web sites, even obscure ones, have long been aware of No Tricks Zone and posting negative comments that are widely shared - even reaching as far as Amazon's Photography Review web site dpreview for heaven's sake - I find it interesting that your correspondents have, apparently, latched onto recent memes such as "source of fake news" - as you report.

Did they also provide links to rebuttals in defence of their work they may well have posted somewhere at the time the apparently offending post was made?

If so please send us the links so we can compare and decide.

Given the breadth of coverage and the extent of the net work of organisations and individuals who seek to promote and defend the warmist view I assume that anyone whose paper is mentioned on a non-aligned site will hear about it almost immediately. So I doubt that anyone you may have contacted would be unaware of the references - they would surely have been made aware at the time.

As for registering to comment on the site. Makes sense to me. So much easier to manage for a small operation than it would be to allow open registration ans be inundated with the warmist army of armchair posters attempting to overrun the site.

As I recall many of the warmist leaning sites did the same when I first became interested enough to ask questions of them. They seem to have enough people around with available time to manage such things. And dish out abuse. And then ban people anyway for asking a few questions. It would have saved a lot of time if one had not been allowed to register in the first place. The end message was much the same.

It seems like that principle is now being applied.

Do you have a political angle for this analysis activity?

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th January 10:57

the last time i commented at no tricks zone there was no requirement for registration at all. just name and email at the time of comment. something be amiss here.

Good point.

Not somewhere I have ever posted nor regularly visit. So after your post I decided to take a closer look.

It does indeed seem to be quite an open posting process and I note that the author seems to make light of criticisms in his masthead statement.

My comments about the warmist sites, based on my experiences at the time, still stand.

However I am disappointed that our correspondent from the dark side seems to be making fake observations. Though I consider that he is somewhat misguided and over trusting in his viewpoint I had considered him to be at least basically honest about "facts" of little scientific consequence - like web site restrictions.

Oh well, trust no one as the motto goes ...

[mybrainhurts]

I just got an email back from Al Gore and he's going to invite durby over to explain how to make millions out of his faith.

He came over all excited...

[robinessex]

Prince Charles co-authors Ladybird climate change book

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38627650

Prince Charles has co-authored a Ladybird book on the challenges and possible solutions to climate change.
It is part of a series for adults written in the style of the well-known children's books that aims to clearly explain complicated subjects.
The 52-page guide has been co-authored by former Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper and climate scientist Emily Shuckburgh.
Mr Juniper said he hoped the book would "stand the test of time".

The picture illustrating the book is priceless!!!



It looks as if Brian has finally lost his marbles. Maybe we should send him the link to this Topic ?

Edited by robinessex on Monday 16th January 09:13