Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

To help recover from EPA miasmal, visit Warwick Hughes' website where a more comprehensive archive of correspondence with Jones is available.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4203

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

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

Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?

Whatever side of this argument you are on, how can anyone think that censoring Government departments is a welcome step?

When this agency has been dancing to Obama's climate fantasy political tune,

It's not "Obama's climate fantasy" and your persistent attempts to label climate change (and pretty much everything you disagree with) as a left-wing conspiracy are blatant.

It's science that's supported by every major scientific institute in the world. It's based on established basic science, and widely accepted complex science.

And it long predates Obama.

We're a successful society because we built it on science and education over superstition, so no, I will not just "get used" to seeing those things undermined. I'll resist it as much as I'm able.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

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

Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?

Whatever side of this argument you are on, how can anyone think that censoring Government departments is a welcome step?

When this agency has been dancing to Obama's climate fantasy political tune,

It's not "Obama's climate fantasy"

[panto]oh yes it is/was [/panto] though it's shared by a few others - know anyone? - and fortunately the related White House climate fantasy webpages are now down, down, deeper down.

durbster said:

and your persistent attempts to label climate change (and pretty much everything you disagree with) as a left-wing conspiracy are blatant.

No conspiracy - that's your strawman. In claiming that I present climate change and any other fairytales or junkscience as a left-wing conspiracy is a misrepresentation, a falsehood, and your very own strawman as indicated.

Left-wingism is certainly relevant, as Ottmar Edenhofer (UN IPCC) confirmed that redistribution of wealth on a global scale is what climate policy is all about, and that it has virtually nothing to do with the environment any more. Lord Donoughue also explained why lefies cling to climate change like a drowning man to a liferaft; search PH for the name and re-read his account.

durbster said:

It's science that's supported by every major scientific institute in the world.

No it isn't, as I provided circa half a dozen counter-examples the last time you posted that fiction, which is also a logical fallacy as you're appealing to authority again which is pointless.

A few political activists wheedling their way onto committees and issuing faith statements doesn't mean that an entire organisation is a collectivist believer.

durbster said:

It's based on established basic science...

Not in climate models it isn't as they can only cope with a very limited menu of 'basic science' and use tuned paramaterisations for the rest. Who does the tuning, and what tunes the tuners - these are good questions

durbster said:

... and widely accepted complex science.

Accepted by whom? Not forgetting that even the basic science is too much for inadequate climate models.

durbster said:

We're a successful society because we built it on science and education over superstition, so no, I will not just "get used" to seeing those things undermined. I'll resist it as much as I'm able.

That's not what you're doing, one of the things you're apparently doing is kidding yourself (or worse) which I will acknowledge you're capable of achieving.

There's no point in anyone resisting the data, though I also acknowledge that the data adjusters are making a very determined attempt. Unfortunately for the purveyors of junkscience, there's still no visible causal human signal in molested climate data so at this time of President Trump it's all been rather pointless, though it's kept a few activist journalists at the BBC in beer money.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 25th January 11:17

[LongQ]

durbster said:

We're a successful society because we built it on science and education over superstition, ....

Are you sure?

I think that is less than certain for the Global population.

If we are talking about the "educated Elite" then perhaps, although the veneer of rationality that constraints natural human superstition in all its aspects seems to be rather thin.

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

If we are talking about the "educated Elite" then perhaps, although the veneer of rationality that constraints natural human superstition in all its aspects seems to be rather thin.

Quite right. Touch wood, we'll get by.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It's not "Obama's climate fantasy"

[panto]oh yes it is/was [/panto] though it's shared by a few others - know anyone? - and fortunately the related White House climate fantasy webpages are now down, down, deeper down.

Ah, I see what you're doing - this is like saying Obama founded ISIS and was responsible for 9/11, and, oh I dunno, how about the Korean war.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

and your persistent attempts to label climate change (and pretty much everything you disagree with) as a left-wing conspiracy are blatant.

No conspiracy - that's your strawman.

You might not like your version of events being called a conspiracy theory, but it's still the exact definition of a conspiracy theory.

turbobloke said:

Left-wingism is certainly relevant, as Ottmar Edenhofer (UN IPCC) confirmed that redistribution of wealth on a global scale is what climate policy is all about, and that it has virtually nothing to do with the environment any more.

But sshh... don't call it a conspiracy. Do you have any evidence those words were ever said? I know there's, "text on a picture" floating round, but what were his actual words and context?

turbobloke said:

Lord Donoughue also explained why lefies cling to climate change like a drowning man to a liferaft; search PH for the name and re-read his account.

You managed to find some people that have said what you want to hear. Which means what? There are also a great deal more people who say you are wrong. Including a good many of the scientists you cite, as it turns out.

Unfortunately your left-wing conspiracy claims fail by the simple fact that not everyone who accepts AGW is left wing. Unless you think the US and Chinese Governments are left wing. Come to think of it, maybe you do

Chemistry and physics don't really succumb to political campaigning. Trump removing the climate change page from the White House website doesn't mean warming will stop. It just means we're less likely to be told about it.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It's science that's supported by every major scientific institute in the world.

No it isn't, as I provided circa half a dozen counter-examples the last time you posted that fiction, which is also a logical fallacy as you're appealing to authority again which is pointless.

No you've never listed any major scientific institutes. What you have done is list a bunch of small groups that were largely the same people operating under different banners, and most were linked to anti-AGW campaigners or fossil fuel companies. I even considered drawing a family tree at one point to show how they were all connected. Maybe I should have carried on to finally put this one to bed.

And some of the groups in your list didn't appear to oppose AGW at all.

You just seem to post this stuff hoping I won't check these things, but I do.

turbobloke said:

A few political activists wheedling their way onto committees and issuing faith statements doesn't mean that an entire organisation is a collectivist believer.

But sshhh... it's not a conspiracy!

I've requested numerous times but as you're making the claim again, I'll ask again; where is the evidence for this huge opposition to AGW within any scientific organisation?

Please let it be the Oregon petition from the 1990s, or that letter from some old men who once worked at NASA, because they are a great way to prove you have nothing.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It's based on established basic science...

Not in climate models it isn't as they can only cope with a very limited menu of 'basic science' and use tuned paramaterisations for the rest.

In your opinion.

turbobloke said:

Who does the tuning, and what tunes the tuners - these are good questions

Deliberate science fraud operating above the law, but definitely don't call it a conspiracy.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

... and widely accepted complex science.

Accepted by whom? Not forgetting that even the basic science is too much for inadequate climate models.

Accepted by every major scientific institute in the world as far as I know. As I said earlier.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

We're a successful society because we built it on science and education over superstition, so no, I will not just "get used" to seeing those things undermined. I'll resist it as much as I'm able.

That's not what you're doing, one of the things you're apparently doing is kidding yourself (or worse) which I will acknowledge you're capable of achieving.

No, I'm simply accepting a scientific explanation for something.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It's not "Obama's climate fantasy"

[panto]oh yes it is/was [/panto] though it's shared by a few others - know anyone? - and fortunately the related White House climate fantasy webpages are now down, down, deeper down.

Ah, I see what you're doing - this is like saying Obama founded ISIS and was responsible for 9/11, and, oh I dunno, how about the Korean war.
...etc...

No, it's not. It was a Status Quo tribute post. HTH

[robinessex]

Defining a true ‘pre-industrial’ climate period

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3874...

Scientists are seeking to define a new baseline from which to measure global temperatures - a time when fossil-fuel burning had yet to change the climate.
At the moment, researchers tend to use the period 1850-1900, and this will often be described as "pre-industrial".
But the reality is that this date range came after industry really got going.
And the influence of humans on the climate was already in play, judging from the ice cores that retain a record of carbon dioxide emissions.
These show a perceptible uptick by 1850-1900; likewise for other greenhouse gases such as methane.
It is these inconsistencies that prompted Ed Hawkins from Reading University and colleagues to look for a more appropriate historical reference period.
Continues......................

Ok guys lets find a date that makes CC very bad. Don't pick one where a natural event might not be to our benefit

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It's not "Obama's climate fantasy"

[panto]oh yes it is/was [/panto] though it's shared by a few others - know anyone? - and fortunately the related White House climate fantasy webpages are now down, down, deeper down.

Ah, I see what you're doing - this is like saying Obama founded ISIS and was responsible for 9/11, and, oh I dunno, how about the Korean war.
...etc...

No, it's not. It was a Status Quo tribute post. HTH

Fine, it can be whatever you want it to be.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3874...

Scientists are seeking to define a new baseline from which to measure global temperatures - a time when fossil-fuel burning had yet to change the climate.

No assumption there then! Yet these are supposed to be 'scientists'.

However the solution is magic - pick a card time, any time.

There's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, so any time will do including 25 January 2017.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3874...

Scientists are seeking to define a new baseline from which to measure global temperatures - a time when fossil-fuel burning had yet to change the climate.

No assumption there then! Yet these are supposed to be 'scientists'.

However the solution is magic - pick a card time, any time.

There's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, so any time will do including 25 January 2017.

You beat me to the "pick a card any card" gag

Edit to add: But as they are "real scientists" Durbs base faith line will be automatically re-calibrated

Edited by dickymint on Wednesday 25th January 15:56

[dub16v]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Appeal to authority? how original

Prof Cox knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy. That's his wheel house. He's about as qualified to discuss CG as anyone here. The others on the panel? two comedians and 2 scientists involved with evolution. Essentially then, no one on the panel carries more weight than the others or anyone here. I have a PhD myself, in a scientific discipline, I have access to journals, I can read papers and I have produced many theories and tested them with experiments. I am at the same level as any of those on the panel. I am free to come to my own conclusions based on what I read, which is exactly what they were championing on the show; that people who disagree shouldn't be shouted down.

Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.

For reasons of balance:
- Prof. Brian Cox is a physicist by training (you can read his PhD thesis here: http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-679.pdf ). He knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy too. Given his training, he's pretty well placed to comment on the climate system and his understanding of it (perhaps slightly more so than the odd poster here).

[dickymint]

dub16v said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Appeal to authority? how original

Prof Cox knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy. That's his wheel house. He's about as qualified to discuss CG as anyone here. The others on the panel? two comedians and 2 scientists involved with evolution. Essentially then, no one on the panel carries more weight than the others or anyone here. I have a PhD myself, in a scientific discipline, I have access to journals, I can read papers and I have produced many theories and tested them with experiments. I am at the same level as any of those on the panel. I am free to come to my own conclusions based on what I read, which is exactly what they were championing on the show; that people who disagree shouldn't be shouted down.

Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.

For reasons of balance:
- Prof. Brian Cox is a physicist by training (you can read his PhD thesis here: http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-679.pdf ). He knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy too. Given his training, he's pretty well placed to comment on the climate system and his understanding of it (perhaps slightly more so than the odd poster here).

He's "pretty well placed" to hold up an out of date (knowingly) NASA graph to mislead a live TV audience and get outed by an Australian Senator

Nice guy but like all good salesmen - a cheat and a liar!

[Jinx]

dub16v said:

For reasons of balance:
- Prof. Brian Cox is a physicist by training (you can read his PhD thesis here: http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-679.pdf ). He knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy too. Given his training, he's pretty well placed to comment on the climate system and his understanding of it (perhaps slightly more so than the odd poster here).

I don't agree with his taste in music either but, I assume, as he had a 9 hits in the charts his taste in music must be better than mine.......

[turbobloke]

dub16v said:

For reasons of balance:
- Prof. Brian Cox is a physicist by training (you can read his PhD thesis here: http://www-h1.desy.de/psfiles/theses/h1th-679.pdf ). He knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy too. Given his training, he's pretty well placed to comment on the climate system and his understanding of it (perhaps slightly more so than the odd poster here).

There's no need to be so hurtful to durbster.

As to Cox the guy has done well with a pop music career and now he's a celeb TV persona but he only got a grade D in A-level maths, so...

Actually taking all that into account you're right he's well qualified to comment on climate. A veritable authority that somebody is bound to appeal to.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

No you've never listed any major scientific institutes. What you have done is list a bunch of small groups that were largely the same people operating under different banners, and most were linked to anti-AGW campaigners or fossil fuel companies. I even considered drawing a family tree at one point to show how they were all connected. Maybe I should have carried on to finally put this one to bed.

Please do. You could sell it to any number of campaigners who would love that kind of data.

BTW will you be posting up those email replies you were talking about last week? Feel free to redact the names and addresses.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

He's "pretty well placed" to hold up an out of date (knowingly) NASA graph to mislead a live TV audience and get outed by an Australian Senator

Nice guy but like all good salesmen - a cheat and a liar!

Out of date? What does that mean?

What was misleading about it?

There's no need to lie about anything. Temperature data is all in the public domain for anyone to view and play with. Go and have a look:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

[dub16v]

turbobloke said:

There's no need to be so hurtful to durbster.

As to Cox the guy has done well with a pop music career and now he's a celeb TV persona but he only got a grade D in A-level maths, so...

Actually taking all that into account you're right he's well qualified to comment on climate. A veritable authority that somebody is bound to appeal to.

Ironic. It seems that you deem yourself better "qualified to comment on climate" than most.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

He's "pretty well placed" to hold up an out of date (knowingly) NASA graph to mislead a live TV audience and get outed by an Australian Senator

Nice guy but like all good salesmen - a cheat and a liar!

Out of date? What does that mean?

What was misleading about it?

There's no need to lie about anything. Temperature data is all in the public domain for anyone to view and play with. Go and have a look:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Always ensure the data has been quality controlled before analysis begins. It's accepted science that people couldn't use/read thermometers correctly in the past.

[LongQ]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

dickymint said:

He's "pretty well placed" to hold up an out of date (knowingly) NASA graph to mislead a live TV audience and get outed by an Australian Senator

Nice guy but like all good salesmen - a cheat and a liar!

Out of date? What does that mean?

What was misleading about it?

There's no need to lie about anything. Temperature data is all in the public domain for anyone to view and play with. Go and have a look:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Always ensure the data has been quality controlled before analysis begins. It's accepted science that people couldn't use/read thermometers correctly in the past.

Is it?

Where did you come across that?

Did they over read or underread?

Have then numbers been adjusted?

How did they know how to adjust each number?