Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Randy Winkman]

JustALooseScrew said:

Randy Winkman said:

JustALooseScrew said:

Jinx said:

May be you should take some time and read up on the supposed knowledge we have - something easy like spotting the holes in TAR-06

I'm correct in assuming Greta has read and understood all that... yes?

Why would she need to do that?

Err perhaps to know a little about what she actually doesn't know - and then trying to preach her ignorance as fact.

I made the mistake of listening and learning when I was at school, it took me a while to figure out when I was being sold a lie.

I get the impression she knows enough about the mainstream scientific view to feel confident enough to raise awareness of it. Why would she need to know all the detail? I think that knowing all of the detail is more what's needed by those arguing against it.

[Mrr T]

Wayoftheflower said:

So Mann isn't appealing and the ruling stands.

But it's curious that if Ball's entire legal costs are to be covered by Mann that neither WUWT or Ball himself aren't trying to hound him or publicity humiliate him about whatever enormous sum is owed after eight years of contention. Surely step one of a PR campaign to silence Mann would be to tell the world how much he owes?

You've said Mann failed "because after 8 years the plaintiff had not made any attempt to proceed with the case." That's not really accurate, the judge ruled that the combined delays of 35 months over the 8 years were "inordinate" and a basis for approving the application for dismissal considering the defendants health. The case was due to go trial in February 2017 but was postponed, no idea why.

Read the ruling you linked to it was postponed became Mann did not file any case.

[Bacardi]

Esceptico said:

I do know a lot. I’m just not claiming To be a climatologist. Are you a climatologist?

I don’t have a qualification in that, nor do many as it’s only become a qualification in it’s own right recently. But as I get older, I become less impressed with ‘qualifications' and taking 'someone else's word for it’. History is full of qualified Scientists, experts, doctors etc who have got it completely wrong. I have spent the last 22 years studying the subject though and really the argument has been exactly the same from 22 years ago. The only thing that has changed is the hundreds of failed predictions. So roll on, all will be revealed in 12 years time… except it will be exactly the same and they will kick the doom down the road another 12 years…. Ad infinitum… still, it’s a good racket to be in if your’e paid by the tax payer and never have to be accountable...

Esceptico said:

I’m not sure what the relevance is of what I drive or ride is to whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I’m on PH because I like cars and bikes (last cars before I left the UK were a 997.2 C2 and a M135i and currently I have a Golf and a GSXR-750.) But I also ride horses too (although not for climate change reasons).

No relevance at all, but this is a car forum and it’s amazing the amount of trolls we have had on these threads, these 6 volumes and about another 10 before that over the years/decades, where people obviously have no interest in cars. So glad to hear you are Petrol head. I also rides horses, but not in a while.

Mrr T said:

"[9] Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff's counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay."

" [11] Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish.

[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable."

He was puffing his feathers up at the start, you’d think it would be a great coup for him to teach Ball a lesson about right he is. Or could be he hasn’t proceeded because he knew he would loose? Which is highly improbably being the upright open honest scientist he is, always ready to share data and show his workings and debate politely with anyone…

[Wayoftheflower]

Bacardi said:

He was puffing his feathers up at the start, you’d think it would be a great coup for him to teach Ball a lesson about right he is. Or could be he hasn’t proceeded because he knew he would loose? Which is highly improbably being the upright open honest scientist he is, always ready to share data and show his workings and debate politely with anyone…

Obvious troll is obvious.

You better get in touch with FCPP let them know they can retract their apology to Mann. National Review would appreciate your help too.

As for his data, the link was posted here just yesterday.

Finally calling anyone a fraud is likely to get you blocked, or sued. Luckily your incompetence defence is surely even stronger than Tim Ball's.

[PRTVR]

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

[stew-STR160]

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

[Wayoftheflower]

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

[stew-STR160]

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

Video linked is about 3 hours old.
Article links are a few months...

[MikeyC]

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

Watched it last night

Astronauts being called 'Flat Earthers'

[Wayoftheflower]

stew-STR160 said:

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

Video linked is about 3 hours old.
Article links are a few months...

Steve/Tony/Goddard/Heller has been spinning the NASA conspiracies since 2010, I'll assume one good rebuttal is sufficient to cover all of them.

[MikeyC]

Wayoftheflower said:

Raw data Here

0
Q: What temperature is this ?

Hardly 'Raw data' is it !

[Gadgetmac]

Wayoftheflower said:

Bacardi said:

He was puffing his feathers up at the start, you’d think it would be a great coup for him to teach Ball a lesson about right he is. Or could be he hasn’t proceeded because he knew he would loose? Which is highly improbably being the upright open honest scientist he is, always ready to share data and show his workings and debate politely with anyone…

Obvious troll is obvious.

You better get in touch with FCPP let them know they can retract their apology to Mann. National Review would appreciate your help too.

As for his data, the link was posted here just yesterday.

Finally calling anyone a fraud is likely to get you blocked, or sued. Luckily your incompetence defence is surely even stronger than Tim Ball's.

This.

[Gadgetmac]

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

Video linked is about 3 hours old.
Article links are a few months...

Steve/Tony/Goddard/Heller has been spinning the NASA conspiracies since 2010, I'll assume one good rebuttal is sufficient to cover all of them.

He's never fully explained why he has this alter ego has he?

Bit odd.

[Mrr T]

Wayoftheflower said:

Finally calling anyone a fraud is likely to get you blocked, or sued. Luckily your incompetence defence is surely even stronger than Tim Ball's.

Tim Bell did not file an incompetence defence. He did not file any defence in the Mann case because after 8 years Mann never filed a case.

[Mrr T]

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

I will make no comment about the adjustments made to the raw data but in any statistical study amending data without being confident that there was a measuring error is very questionable.

What I always find funny about the NASA temperature graph is the title. If I had given that to my statistics lecturer it would have been marked 0/10.

[Gadgetmac]

Mrr T said:

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

I will make no comment about the adjustments made to the raw data but in any statistical study amending data without being confident that there was a measuring error is very questionable.

Even if those adjustments has had the overall effect of reducing the apparent global warming trend since the late 1800's?

I'd call that a win for the denier side.

[LongQ]

Wayoftheflower said:

But it's curious that if Ball's entire legal costs are to be covered by Mann that neither WUWT or Ball himself aren't trying to hound him or publicity humiliate him about whatever enormous sum is owed after eight years of contention. Surely step one of a PR campaign to silence Mann would be to tell the world how much he owes?

I expect that's what Mann's side would do if given the chance.

It seems to be the way they choose to do things.

There's a football saying about that but, given the names of the people involved here, if quoted it may not be possible to avoid a degree of tackiness.

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

Mrr T said:

Wayoftheflower said:

stew-STR160 said:

PRTVR said:

NASA predictions on climate change wrong, sad to see a globally respected institution become a propaganda outlet.

https://youtu.be/4ELGhUPC2tA

That must be a mistake by Tony, because NASA are NEVERRRRRRRRRRRR wrong about anything.

Rebuttal Here

Raw data Here

Next!

I will make no comment about the adjustments made to the raw data but in any statistical study amending data without being confident that there was a measuring error is very questionable.

Even if those adjustments has had the overall effect of reducing the apparent global warming trend since the late 1800's?

I'd call that a win for the denier side.

You really do not understand science or statistics? There are not 2 sides there are many sides in a discussion to evaluate the evidence. Pre satalite data there are many problems with temperature data. From HIE, equipment faults and human faults. None of which cannot be measured in a statistical sense. My comment about amending the data is that if you have a data set with know problems amending the data with no clear reference data is dangerous. Doing so increases the potential errors which cannot be calculated using standard statistical techniques. In my view it is quite possible the error bars, including a guess at the unknown, unknowns, would be larger than the trend line. Meaning any trend line is meaningless.

[turbobloke]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Talking of NETCW (natural early thirties climate warming) let's not forget 1930/31 in the Arctic when it was 4.6 °C warmer than the 1981–2010 average, with Calm Bay at 10.7 °C higher in February 1931 than in the modern period, skewering claptrap about unprecedented Arctic warming (data from Arazny et al).

At this point it's probably entirely superfluous to state that if turbobloke quotes a scientific paper but doesn't link it, any completely out of context quotes aside, It will say the opposite of what he thought it said and whatever the clickbait quote from WUWT said it said.

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

It says exactly what I said it says, and what are you doing over at WUWT when the paper is free online as per the above link? if you could find it, anyone could. The relevant extract is located by scrolling about three-quarters of the way through the paper.



Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Talking of NETCW (natural early thirties climate warming) let's not forget 1930/31 in the Arctic when it was 4.6 °C warmer than the 1981–2010 average, with Calm Bay at 10.7 °C higher in February 1931 than in the modern period, skewering claptrap about unprecedented Arctic warming (data from Arazny et al).

At this point it's probably entirely superfluous to state that if turbobloke quotes a scientific paper but doesn't link it, any completely out of context quotes aside, It will say the opposite of what he thought it said and whatever the clickbait quote from WUWT said it said.

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

It says exactly what I said it says, and what are you doing over at WUWT when the paper is free online as per the above link? if you could find it, anyone could. The relevant extract is located by scrolling about three-quarters of the way through the paper.



Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.

Unless I'm mistaken it's saying that over 15 years it was colder but for one year (not one of the 15) it was warmer?