Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

I'm not doing anything for anybody, posting on a public forum is open to any non-banned person at any time, and as I can't post against articles in The Guardian or on RC or (etc) I was on PH for a while before making a cup of tea - and it's not a bad brew.

oh you appear to have missed the main point and not answered the question - how surprising.

You know I've discussed recent trends plenty so why are you deflecting for Diderot?

[Globs]

turbobloke said:

This is an awesome graph!!
It goes well with this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:...

[odyssey2200]

If PH had the same warmest policy as the Gruniad, KP would never be allowed on here.

The difference being that on PH we will discuss and post evidence whereas the Gruniad only allows faith and religion and despises the inconvenient truth.


any update on that link between MMC02 & Climate change?

[Globs]

odyssey2200 said:

If PH had the same warmest policy as the Gruniad, KP would never be allowed on here.

The difference being that on PH we will discuss and post evidence whereas the Gruniad only allows faith and religion and despises the inconvenient truth.

any update on that link between MMC02 & Climate change?

I used to be able to comment on the Guardian CIF but I was censored.
I'd committed the sin of mentioning the name "Henrick Svensmark";- immediately after my posts were deleted and I was banned from posting anywhere on CIF, a ban that continues even today, years later.

More recently I posted on Michael Mann's FB page asking why the world was getting cooler, and my question was deleted and I was banned from that page too.

There is no science to AGW, it's all politics, spin and censorship.

[kerplunk]

odyssey2200 said:

If PH had the same warmest policy as the Gruniad, KP would never be allowed on here.

The difference being that on PH we will discuss and post evidence whereas the Gruniad only allows faith and religion and despises the inconvenient truth.


any update on that link between MMC02 & Climate change?

That sense of AGW-denialist ownership of PH is showing again.

The very notion that I'm a 'dissenter' on pistonheads is erroneous - you don't own the place.

If I slagged off car-ownership you would have a point.

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

Fair point, in all my years on PH no one has been banned for their view on an issue, only for their behaviour, speaks volumes for our backwater

I'm sincerely glad you aren't a mod anymore Guam - you never really got it. That's not meant to offend. It's difficult to be impartial when you have a bias (Mr E did alright though I thought).

[loafer123]

turbobloke said:

If time alone is the view required for hurricane frequency and intensity stateside, see below.



This is 1851 to 2005 so doesn't include Sandy - but as per links to other sources including Pielke, the hurricane 'drought' has continued.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 2nd November 10:48

A belated thanks from me too. The first graph needed this context in order to show how interesting the stats are, and how ridiculous the hype that says increased CO2=hurricanes is.

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

odyssey2200 said:

any update on that link between MMC02 & Climate change?

That sense of AGW-denialist ownership of PH is showing again.

The very notion that I'm a 'dissenter' on pistonheads is erroneous - you don't own the place.

If I slagged off car-ownership you would have a point.

But what about the question KP?
Do you really think the earth's global mean temperature is rising? CO2 certainly is!

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

I'm sincerely glad you aren't a mod anymore Guam - you never really got it. That's not meant to offend. It's difficult to be impartial when you have a bias (Mr E did alright though I thought).

There is no bias detectable in Guam's posts. His modding was tolerant and fair.

When any person's position is based on a rational assessment of objective evidence there's no bias involved and no need to invoke any.

The only bias in such situations arises when others claim there is bias, in failed attempts to discredit the rational position.

Why certain people deflect for warmistry has plenty to do with personal bias.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

I'm sincerely glad you aren't a mod anymore Guam - you never really got it. That's not meant to offend. It's difficult to be impartial when you have a bias (Mr E did alright though I thought).

turbobloke said:

There is no bias detectable in Guam's posts. His modding was tolerant and fair.

'fraid not but I'm not getting any further into that - I don't hold it against him and understand it's a difficult job.

turbobloke said:

When any person's position is based on a rational assessment of objective evidence there's no bias involved and no need to invoke any.

The only bias in such situations arises when others claim there is bias, in failed attempts to discredit the rational position.

Why certain people deflect for warmistry has plenty to do with personal bias.

I have bias and don't mind admitting it. It's not an insult.

[turbobloke]

Return to the Dark Ages Even Before the Power Cuts Start

What we have in this mad eco-dash to depict storms as monsters is a secular version of the age-old backward practice of treating natural disasters as judgments upon mankind.

Brendan O’Neil, The Daily Telegraph, 30 October 2012

[turbobloke]

No bias here just an appropriate understanding of what the the data and sound science have to say.

As Maynard Keynes once said: When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?

Now in once case at least we know the answer.

kerplunk said:

I have bias and don't mind admitting it.

You didn't need to.

[odyssey2200]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

odyssey2200 said:

any update on that link between MMC02 & Climate change?

That sense of AGW-denialist ownership of PH is showing again.

The very notion that I'm a 'dissenter' on pistonheads is erroneous - you don't own the place.

If I slagged off car-ownership you would have a point.

But what about the question KP?
Do you really think the earth's global mean temperature is rising? CO2 certainly is!

KP avoids answering question shocker!

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

But what about the question KP?
Do you really think the earth's global mean temperature is rising? CO2 certainly is!

Yes

confidence level: more likely than not.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

But what about the question KP?
Do you really think the earth's global mean temperature is rising? CO2 certainly is!

Yes

confidence level: more likely than not.

Where is your evidence - cos it certainly isn't represented by data. Unless of course you take the Met Orifice's line of 0.05 degrees per decade ...

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Where is your evidence - cos it certainly isn't represented by data. Unless of course you take the Met Orifice's line of 0.05 degrees per decade ...

I think you mean 0.03?

It comes from taking a broad overview of the data, the physical factors that lie behind the data and analyses like this 'un:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf...

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Where is your evidence - cos it certainly isn't represented by data. Unless of course you take the Met Orifice's line of 0.05 degrees per decade ...

I think you mean 0.03?

It comes from taking a broad overview of the data, the physical factors that lie behind the data and analyses like this 'un:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf...

Your logic fails me, you think we can measure temperature for the world to 0.03 degree ? and then attribute that small amount to a single factor, really there is no hope for you.

[turbobloke]

Damart to come in handy next week?

"Monday will be the coldest November 5 since daily temperature records began in 1999, Met Office data passed to Reading University meteorology expert Dr Roger Brugge showed."

However, as Mystic Met gets a mention, a note of caution is advisable.

[_Batty_]

Is it me, or have the met been more useless than normal this year?

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

Your logic fails me, you think we can measure temperature for the world to 0.03 degree ? and then attribute that small amount to a single factor, really there is no hope for you.

...aaand we're back to the linear trend since August 1997 again

In case you don't know I was merely correcting Diderot's mis-reporting (I think) of a much discussed take on a single slice of data from a single dataset stemming from a daily mail article that I don't regard as very meaningful.

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012...