Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
kerplunk said:
How could anyone represent what you say correctly - you jump around like a mad frog. Not even sure what your argument/claim is now tbh, you lost me in the midst of all that lofty hand-waving. .
Mate I don't wish to be rude, I don't want to see you banned and I'd happily have you able to post in the science thread as well. But just hurling insults around is hardly helping you is it?!? Come on, a rational adult debate is what we want here.Guam said:
You clearly cannot understand what a !qualifier" is in terms of a discussion on the statistics, you will see only what is consistent with your belief structure <I will stick with the data thanks>.
The data is so statistically insignificant as to render talk of a warming trend improbable to any sensible analysis.
If one disregards the data corruption amd biases that COULD produce a cooling trend if adjusted for and disregard things like autocorrelation <highlighted by posters on watts> "Flat line" is all that remains from a rational viewpoint.
Now go play in Traffic KP as this nonsense is boring me now!
As far i can tell none of this pertains specifically to the Clive Best analysis while everything I've said refers to that. I take one thing at a time while you bounce around all over the shop, moving goal-posts and throwing in vague references from here there and everywhere. The data is so statistically insignificant as to render talk of a warming trend improbable to any sensible analysis.
If one disregards the data corruption amd biases that COULD produce a cooling trend if adjusted for and disregard things like autocorrelation <highlighted by posters on watts> "Flat line" is all that remains from a rational viewpoint.
Now go play in Traffic KP as this nonsense is boring me now!
I repeat - the Clive Best analysis that YOU posted does not support YOUR claim of a flatline. That's it. That is all!
perdu said:
I suppose in real terms whether the banhammer is shown around here IS climate politics.
I vote NO hammer.
A view to allow us balance should be available, I do wonder if we'll ever get a credible one…
"Jesus what a screed. You think knowing that error bars run both ways shows great statistical understanding and from that you deduce I'm in cahoots with someone??"I vote NO hammer.
A view to allow us balance should be available, I do wonder if we'll ever get a credible one…
"That's a more sensible post - glad you've got your paranoid impulses under control today."
"I think that's a bit simplistic but I'm not going to broaden the discussion."
"Haven't you got another conspiracy blog to write?"
".. when you venture into psychology and what motivates people you're blind as a bat."
"You're hand-waving. I have shown the Clive Best analysis you recommended does not support your claims and your fierce reactions to my comments have been wide of the mark. One day, maybe, you'll live up to the promise of tearing someone a new one with your 'expertise'."
"How could anyone represent what you say correctly - you jump around like a mad frog"
That's not someone in a debate representing an opposing viewpoint, it's someone hijacking a debate and turning it into a screaming match. Look over his interactions with Guam; he never actually addresses any point because he's quite simply ignorant of statistics.
Troll cage material if there ever was one.
Pointman
Jasandjules said:
Mate I don't wish to be rude, I don't want to see you banned and I'd happily have you able to post in the science thread as well. But just hurling insults around is hardly helping you is it?!? Come on, a rational adult debate is what we want here.
Fair enough but I'm not 'just' hurling insults around - I'm being concise and honest about what I think and yes occasionally I'm meeting fire with fire (a weakness of mine) but overall I think I soak up more brickbats thrown my way than I put out. I endorse the sentiment though and thanks.
f
k me, just like Westminster.
Bubbles to the fore, egos set to stun.
Without wishing to diminish this exchange would you all mind taking it elsewhere? Preferably some sort of cage fight for which the mods can accept that there are few, maybe very few, rules?
Maybe I can set up something to welcome you?
I don't mind a few "noise" posts at a personal level and I certainly don't seek to speak for the massive but stuff today has overwhelmed the boundaries of usefulness. IMO.
Alternatively ....
It's no business of mine so carry on. Maybe the politics is not so important for what it will end up costing us and our near and distant offspring.
So be it. Pissing contests trump the potential future development of our society.
Play on if you must but there are few here employed to clean out the sandpits. You will live with with what you deposit.
And breathe ...
k me, just like Westminster.Bubbles to the fore, egos set to stun.
Without wishing to diminish this exchange would you all mind taking it elsewhere? Preferably some sort of cage fight for which the mods can accept that there are few, maybe very few, rules?
Maybe I can set up something to welcome you?
I don't mind a few "noise" posts at a personal level and I certainly don't seek to speak for the massive but stuff today has overwhelmed the boundaries of usefulness. IMO.
Alternatively ....
It's no business of mine so carry on. Maybe the politics is not so important for what it will end up costing us and our near and distant offspring.
So be it. Pissing contests trump the potential future development of our society.
Play on if you must but there are few here employed to clean out the sandpits. You will live with with what you deposit.
And breathe ...
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 27th October 20:28
perdu said:
I suppose in real terms whether the banhammer is shown around here IS climate politics.
I vote NO hammer.
A view to allow us balance should be available, I do wonder if we'll ever get a credible one…
I agree no hammer!I vote NO hammer.
A view to allow us balance should be available, I do wonder if we'll ever get a credible one…
KP adds so much more to the Political Debate that he will ever know!
Pointman said:
"Wibble from the dissenter"
That's not someone in a debate representing an opposing viewpoint, it's someone hijacking a debate and turning it into a screaming match. Look over his interactions with Guam; he never actually addresses any point because he's quite simply ignorant of statistics.
Troll cage material if there ever was one.
Pointman
Whilst I agree with you in essence I feel that a debate with no dissenters isn't a debate and I am waiting, as I have for quite a while, to see if his prompters can muster an honest debate.†That's not someone in a debate representing an opposing viewpoint, it's someone hijacking a debate and turning it into a screaming match. Look over his interactions with Guam; he never actually addresses any point because he's quite simply ignorant of statistics.
Troll cage material if there ever was one.
Pointman
If a dissenter isn't here the thread loses some of its raison d'ètre.
I, like you, just wish that sometimes...
† still waiting - time will tell.
Guam said:
This is interesting not sure how we never picked up on this occurrence before?
Weather satellites in danger of going out of service?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/27/are-we-losin...
Who needs satellites when we have "the models" Weather satellites in danger of going out of service?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/27/are-we-losin...
I vote for KP not to be banned, he keeps it mostly civil, and banning is a bit close to the Guardian's CIF censorship - that hallmark of the desperate socialist. Actually I got banned from Mann's facebook page after I commented/asked if he could explain why despite his hockey stick graph the earth was getting colder. He deleted it and banned me - I consider it a sign of weakness that we do not need here with KP.
While that is said I can see KP is trolling Guam, so maybe the only way to resolve the conflict of KP's belief system and mathematics, here's a couple of questions for you KP, appropriate after I spent a good while this morning scraping quite a bit of very hard global warming off my windscreen.:
1. Do you really think the official figures show any warming over the last 15 years?
2. Is there as much warming as you expected?
3. If there does seem to be a fall or slow-down in the rate of warming, don't you think that's good news?
and
4. Have you been outside today, and if so - what was your view on the temperature, and how do you feel about the weather generally this year?
While that is said I can see KP is trolling Guam, so maybe the only way to resolve the conflict of KP's belief system and mathematics, here's a couple of questions for you KP, appropriate after I spent a good while this morning scraping quite a bit of very hard global warming off my windscreen.:
1. Do you really think the official figures show any warming over the last 15 years?
2. Is there as much warming as you expected?
3. If there does seem to be a fall or slow-down in the rate of warming, don't you think that's good news?
and
4. Have you been outside today, and if so - what was your view on the temperature, and how do you feel about the weather generally this year?
Globs said:
I vote for KP not to be banned, he keeps it mostly civil, and banning is a bit close to the Guardian's CIF censorship - that hallmark of the desperate socialist. Actually I got banned from Mann's facebook page after I commented/asked if he could explain why despite his hockey stick graph the earth was getting colder. He deleted it and banned me - I consider it a sign of weakness that we do not need here with KP.
I rather agree with that. It's similar in a way to Brake, Transport2000, and scamera partnership sites: they spout vitriol yet disallow alternative viewpoints. No discourse is allowed.For example, this is from Mann's FB page:
Mann said:
Think of my facebook page as a dinner party where I am the host. If you barge through the door uninvited, unkempt, and in tattered clothes, insult the host and the guests w/ obscene epithets, toss the food on the floor and spill red wine on the carpeting then, no you aren't welcome here. And no, your comments won't appear. I'm sorry that there are some to whom this was still somehow unclear.
Dreary, isn't it? It's thinly veiled as being welcome only to hockey stick sycophants. Alternative views are not welcome.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9637929/Street-lig...
Interesting to see the big scam is being used as an excuse to switch off public infrastructure.
Interesting to see the big scam is being used as an excuse to switch off public infrastructure.
Guam said:
The longer the effective flatline continues the weaker the case becomes and if those who claim cooling can substantiate it mathematically then the debate is over.
But I think it's safe to say there is no limit to just how preposterous the true believers in this rubbish will go, even when thousands of people are freezing to death this winter they will be making up some s**e or other.
In fact, didn't I hear that they are now saying it might get really, really cold (i.e. as we expect with the solar activity) for the next 10-20 years but after that, well, Global Warming will accelerate and be unstoppable i.e. worse than previously thought but please keep paying your taxes for the next few years until we can come up with some other s***e to hit you with.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff