Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

All you're asking, ho ho ho. You're not a mod, so go ask Gaia, as is your wont, but as ever Gaia won't provide.

There is no such PH rule. In the PH rules, the word 'link' appears 9 times and on no occasion does it make an appearance to say what you claim.

https://www.pistonheads.com/rules-of-posting
Check it out. You're misrepresenting PH rules.

I understand the rules.

I am asking if links to the full articles can be provided. I don't think I said it was against the PH rules. No misrepresentation other than someone stating I said it was against the rules

Simple comprehension.

Don't you think it would be easier to provide links to the full article for people to read and make up their own minds??

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 18th March 17:25

I linked to them above.

They contain confirmation of what we already knew: the models run too hot, alarmingly hot. Boiling. In fact, it reminds me of the opening scene of Sexy Beast. Maybe this is where the UN idiot in chief is getting his inspiration?

Lack of comprehension.

For accuracy, they state that other researchers should use the IPCC model for projections, rather than an average of all models for projecting the impacts of the warming climate.

Still that is based on papers five years ago, when the great cooling was predicted.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

All you're asking, ho ho ho. You're not a mod, so go ask Gaia, as is your wont, but as ever Gaia won't provide.

There is no such PH rule. In the PH rules, the word 'link' appears 9 times and on no occasion does it make an appearance to say what you claim.

https://www.pistonheads.com/rules-of-posting
Check it out. You're misrepresenting PH rules.

I understand the rules.

I am asking if links to the full articles can be provided. I don't think I said it was against the PH rules. No misrepresentation other than someone stating I said it was against the rules

Simple comprehension.

Don't you think it would be easier to provide links to the full article for people to read and make up their own minds??

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 18th March 17:25

I linked to them above.

They contain confirmation of what we already knew: the models run too hot, alarmingly hot. Boiling. In fact, it reminds me of the opening scene of Sexy Beast. Maybe this is where the UN idiot in chief is getting his inspiration?

No he was responding to large margin record-breaking global temps.

As a memory jog - it was around the same time you and turbobloke were furiously denying and denoucing the data.

Hope that helps

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 21:46

What data? Which 'records' would they be? As you have had pointed out to you numerous times now, most of the global land mass had no station coverage when putative 'records' began. Do not kid yourself once again. As a memory jog KP the models still run hot. What has changed in the few years since those articles? Do they not still run far too hot (Rhetorical question)?

[CoolHands]

Langweilig said:

Climate change protesters discover that it ISN'T their legal right to cause damage.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/clim...

Edited by Langweilig on Monday 18th March 21:17

I look forward to seeing the jpmorgan lots sentencing on 7th June

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13158987/...

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

All you're asking, ho ho ho. You're not a mod, so go ask Gaia, as is your wont, but as ever Gaia won't provide.

There is no such PH rule. In the PH rules, the word 'link' appears 9 times and on no occasion does it make an appearance to say what you claim.

https://www.pistonheads.com/rules-of-posting
Check it out. You're misrepresenting PH rules.

I understand the rules.

I am asking if links to the full articles can be provided. I don't think I said it was against the PH rules. No misrepresentation other than someone stating I said it was against the rules

Simple comprehension.

Don't you think it would be easier to provide links to the full article for people to read and make up their own minds??

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 18th March 17:25

I linked to them above.

They contain confirmation of what we already knew: the models run too hot, alarmingly hot. Boiling. In fact, it reminds me of the opening scene of Sexy Beast. Maybe this is where the UN idiot in chief is getting his inspiration?

No he was responding to large margin record-breaking global temps.

As a memory jog - it was around the same time you and turbobloke were furiously denying and denoucing the data.

Hope that helps

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 21:46

What data? Which 'records' would they be? As you have had pointed out to you numerous times now, most of the global land mass had no station coverage when putative 'records' began. Do not kid yourself once again. As a memory jog KP the models still run hot. What has changed in the few years since those articles? Do they not still run far too hot (Rhetorical question)?

For someone who mentions "global boiling" in nearly every post you're surprisingly unaware of why Gueteres said it, ie large margin record breaking global temps

Some kind of mental block going on about them there bonkers large margin record breaking global temps I reckon

hey maybe it was that subset of too hot CMIP6 models??

All mystified like

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Now you're forgetting what you posted:

mike9009 said:

All I am asking for is links to the article as per PH rules.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 18th March 18:16

Classy. I would love to know when I said that.

Incidentally if you are inferring I am reporting your posts, you are completely wrong.

Your posts are great fun and actually add to a body of evidence supporting climate change and undermining your own position.

Happy cooling.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Now you're forgetting what you posted:

mike9009 said:

All I am asking for is links to the article as per PH rules.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 18th March 18:16

Classy. I would love to know when I said that.

Incidentally if you are inferring I am reporting your posts, you are completely wrong.

Your posts are great fun and actually add to a body of evidence supporting climate change and undermining your own position.

Happy cooling.

Yesterday 16:19

[mike9009]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Now you're forgetting what you posted:

mike9009 said:

All I am asking for is links to the article as per PH rules.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 18th March 18:16

Classy. I would love to know when I said that.

Incidentally if you are inferring I am reporting your posts, you are completely wrong.

Your posts are great fun and actually add to a body of evidence supporting climate change and undermining your own position.

Happy cooling.

Yesterday 16:19

Ah thanks marbles lost.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

All you're asking, ho ho ho. You're not a mod, so go ask Gaia, as is your wont, but as ever Gaia won't provide.

There is no such PH rule. In the PH rules, the word 'link' appears 9 times and on no occasion does it make an appearance to say what you claim.

https://www.pistonheads.com/rules-of-posting
Check it out. You're misrepresenting PH rules.

I understand the rules.

I am asking if links to the full articles can be provided. I don't think I said it was against the PH rules. No misrepresentation other than someone stating I said it was against the rules

Simple comprehension.

Don't you think it would be easier to provide links to the full article for people to read and make up their own minds??

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 18th March 17:25

I linked to them above.

They contain confirmation of what we already knew: the models run too hot, alarmingly hot. Boiling. In fact, it reminds me of the opening scene of Sexy Beast. Maybe this is where the UN idiot in chief is getting his inspiration?

No he was responding to large margin record-breaking global temps.

As a memory jog - it was around the same time you and turbobloke were furiously denying and denoucing the data.

Hope that helps

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 21:46

What data? Which 'records' would they be? As you have had pointed out to you numerous times now, most of the global land mass had no station coverage when putative 'records' began. Do not kid yourself once again. As a memory jog KP the models still run hot. What has changed in the few years since those articles? Do they not still run far too hot (Rhetorical question)?

For someone who mentions "global boiling" in nearly every post you're surprisingly unaware of why Gueteres said it, ie large margin record breaking global temps

Some kind of mental block going on about them there bonkers large margin record breaking global temps I reckon

hey maybe it was that subset of too hot CMIP6 models??

All mystified like

I’ve seen it all now. KP is trying to justify the UN idiot-in-chief’s global boiling claptrap. Maybe he’ll be suggesting next that Gore was also right to claim that the ‘oceans are boiling’.

[robinessex]

Langweilig said:

Climate change protesters discover that it ISN'T their legal right to cause damage.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/clim...

Edited by Langweilig on Monday 18th March 21:17

Amazingly, the Beeb has failed to put that on their News website. No surprise there then.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Langweilig said:

Climate change protesters discover that it ISN'T their legal right to cause damage.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/clim...

Edited by Langweilig on Monday 18th March 21:17

Amazingly, the Beeb has failed to put that on their News website. No surprise there then.

They also fail to feature tens of research findings 2018-2024 supporting the views of numerous climatologists that there's no climate emergency. Policy, is it not?

People sjould be able to make up their own minds...was that not mentioned somewhere?

[turbobloke]

Steyn is appealing the Michael Mann case.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/m...

ABC website informs children when to die (when avoiding exceeding a carbon limit).
https://www.news.com.au/technology/abc-website-tel...

Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).

Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking

[mike9009]

Here is the link to the Antarctic sea ice extent..,

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

Edited by mike9009 on Wednesday 20th March 19:08

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

Here is the link...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Here is the link...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

Couldn't agree more. That's not the link.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).

Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking

https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/

I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.

Here is what NSIDC state

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).

Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking

https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/

I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.

Here is what NSIDC state

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....

You need to post a link to NSIDC data for 10 or 09 March as - by your own post - your earlier link is out of date. My post wasn't referring to Feb data. NSIDC is the primary source, you'll be aware of the difference between primary and secondaey sources? Possibly not.

You chose Feb to align with your preferred information. Since then significant changes have occurred in temperature and ice extent.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).

Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking

https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/

I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.

Here is what NSIDC state

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....

You need to post a link to NSIDC data for 10 or 09 March as - by your own post - your earlier link is out of date. My post wasn't referring to Feb data. NSIDC is the primary source, you'll be aware of the difference between primary and secondaey sources? Possibly not.

You chose Feb to align with your preferred information. Since then significant changes have occurred in temperature and ice extent.

Càre to post a link to NSIDC which is the claimed source of your statement.

I think the source of your statement is from the other link I posted above, but very happy to be proven wrong.

I have aligned with the links I have found. I have made no other comment about the extent of Antarctic sea ice extent.

Please do not belittle my knowledge about primary and secondary sources. I perfectly understand it but you don't need to know my educational background. (Even though I am a little dippy sometimes)

Finally, can you post the link to your statements?

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).

Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking

https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/

I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.

Here is what NSIDC state

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/

I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....

You need to post a link to NSIDC data for 10 or 09 March as - by your own post - your earlier link is out of date. My post wasn't referring to Feb data. NSIDC is the primary source, you'll be aware of the difference between primary and secondaey sources? Possibly not.

You chose Feb to align with your preferred information. Since then significant changes have occurred in temperature and ice extent.

Càre to post a link to NSIDC which is the claimed source of your statement.

NSIDC is the primary source of data and as you're keen to link to their site, over to you. Demonstrate that the current position is <not> as per my post.

Your wish to shoot the messenger(s) as unreliable in yet another ad hom fallacy isn't getting any help from me. Try learning the difference between primary and seondary sources, and the current status of copyright law, and you might be more reliable yourself.

Show that the data for March contradict what was posted if you think it's wrong. Otherwise you're adding nothing but yada which is just another nothingburger.

[turbobloke]

Primary source for data
NSIDC

Secondary source
https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2024/03/17/kaelterep...

Suggestion: choose English not Feverish for the translation.

[hairykrishna]

Did they just hold out for a day that looked a bit less bad to publish that article? Better than last year but not exactly a rosy picture is it?