Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
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
Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergan...
Explain that, given the supposed primacy of tax gas. Of course, it cannot be so explained.
One year, the early thirties - how do those periods compare to a few minutes' worth of decimal temperature spike in the tarmac, concrete and jetwash of London Heathrow?
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
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
Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergan...
Explain that, given the supposed primacy of tax gas. Of course, it cannot be so explained.
One year, the early thirties - how do those periods compare to a few minutes' worth of decimal temperature spike in the tarmac, concrete and jetwash of London Heathrow?
Wayoftheflower said:
Did you just quote Skeptical Science? The website run by the cartoonist who dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time? Scrape.https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/24...
Edited by jshell on Wednesday 27th November 13:45
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
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
Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergan...
Explain that, given the supposed primacy of tax gas. Of course, it cannot be so explained.
One year, the early thirties - how do those periods compare to a few minutes' worth of decimal temperature spike in the tarmac, concrete and jetwash of London Heathrow?
"Comparing 1940s Arctic to today"
https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-was-warmer-in-...
The above advocacy blog article discusses the 1940s not the 1930s.
Presumably you can count while pondering complex climate issues?
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Did you just quote Skeptical Science? The website run by the cartoonist who dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time? Scrape.https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/24...
Edited by jshell on Wednesday 27th November 13:45
turbobloke said:
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
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
Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergan...
Explain that, given the supposed primacy of tax gas. Of course, it cannot be so explained.
One year, the early thirties - how do those periods compare to a few minutes' worth of decimal temperature spike in the tarmac, concrete and jetwash of London Heathrow?
"Comparing 1940s Arctic to today"
https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-was-warmer-in-...
The above advocacy blog article discusses the 1940s not the 1930s.
Presumably you can count while pondering complex climate issues?
Wayoftheflower said:
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Did you just quote Skeptical Science? The website run by the cartoonist who dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time? Scrape.https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/24...
Edited by jshell on Wednesday 27th November 13:45
Have I missed your point?
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Did you just quote Skeptical Science? The website run by the cartoonist who dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time? Scrape.https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/24...
Edited by jshell on Wednesday 27th November 13:45
Have I missed your point?
Wayoftheflower said:
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.
Thanks for the insults.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.
If you care to look, it was the girl merely asking for the data from 1901-1960. One simple question that he didn't like = instant block. Mann is a disgrace to science... as well as a fraud.
It's amazing how fast you come back with a post and a link, with what you think debunks other posters. It's like a few pages ago when I asked you you, YOU, to comment on the points being made by William Happer. But no you didn't bother, and you just came back with some other Prof who had, supposedly, debunked him. Anybody would think you have crib sheet of answers, as you don't answer on behalf of yourself, just pre-made answers.
I did read his comments on Happer but most of them contained a lot ambiguity, with such scientifically accurate comments like 'the evidence suggests'. Harper has retired now so nothing to loose, but your Prof obviously wants to protect his pension and keep the gravy train on track.
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
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
Have another pop this time with more chutzpah, you'll look cool and that'll help the climate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergan...
Explain that, given the supposed primacy of tax gas. Of course, it cannot be so explained.
One year, the early thirties - how do those periods compare to a few minutes' worth of decimal temperature spike in the tarmac, concrete and jetwash of London Heathrow?
Nasa interpolate temperatures over large distances in the arctic, and some sceptics say that's very baad, but turbobloke has them beat here - he's not only extrapolating the whole arctic from a single location but to the 1930s from a single winter
Bacardi said:
Wayoftheflower said:
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.
Thanks for the insults.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.
If you care to look, it was the girl merely asking for the data from 1901-1960. One simple question that he didn't like = instant block. Mann is a disgrace to science... as well as a fraud.
It's amazing how fast you come back with a post and a link, with what you think debunks other posters. It's like a few pages ago when I asked you you, YOU, to comment on the points being made by William Happer. But no you didn't bother, and you just came back with some othen advocacy Prof who had, supposedly, debunked him. Anybody would think you have crib shhe 1930s.eet of answers, as you don't answer on behalf of yourself, just pre-made answers.
I did read his comments on Happer but most of them contained a lot ambiguity, with such scientifically accurate comments like 'the evidence suggests'. Harper has retired now so nothing to loose, but your Prof obviously wants to protect his pension and keep the gravy train on track.
In a recent post I was offered a link to an advocacy blog article about 1940 in response to actual evidence in a 2019 peer reviewed paper for the early 1930s. Hilarious!
Meanwhile...the ugly face of ecofascist climate politics stares out from Germany.
James Taylor said:
More than 200 people, including dozens of scientists, are in hiding right now in Germany. I am one of them. I can tell you that I am in Munich, but I can’t tell you my hotel. I can tell you that the scientists will meet on Friday and Saturday to share scientific knowledge, but I can’t tell you where. The meeting, in which scientists will present evidence contradicting an asserted climate crisis, was scheduled to be open to the public, but fascist climate thugs have forced us into hiding. The German government, rather than protecting scientists and free speech, has explicitly refused to protect scientists from the threat of violence.
https://townhall.com/columnists/jamestaylor/2019/11/22/climate-scientists-reduced-to-hiding-from-climate-thuggery-in-germany-n2556941turbobloke said:
Obviously these scientists need to be burned at the stake for their heresy. Or one of the faith members will be along to say they don't actually exist. Or they don't have the required credentials to comment.Wayoftheflower said:
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Did you just quote Skeptical Science? The website run by the cartoonist who dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time? Scrape.https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/24...
Edited by jshell on Wednesday 27th November 13:45
Have I missed your point?
That picture has been around for many, many years with anyone trying a 'Prince Andrew' on it...
turbobloke said:
Pro-agw people tend to hop over to RC, SkepSci et al and just throw a link when neither the advocacy blogs nor the link do what was claimed.
In a recent post I was offered a link to an advocacy blog article about 1940 in response to actual evidence in a 2019 peer reviewed paper for the early 1930s. Hilarious!
Await your reply to my post which doesn't do that.In a recent post I was offered a link to an advocacy blog article about 1940 in response to actual evidence in a 2019 peer reviewed paper for the early 1930s. Hilarious!
Not that there's anything wrong with posting the SS article - you tried to peddle a paper as saying the arctic was warmer than today in the early 30s (which it actually doesn't) and the SS article discusses similar claims about arctic temps in the early 20th century which covers that little pea that you're trying to roll.
Bacardi said:
Wayoftheflower said:
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.
Thanks for the insults.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.
If you care to look, it was the girl merely asking for the data from 1901-1960. One simple question that he didn't like = instant block. Mann is a disgrace to science... as well as a fraud.
It's amazing how fast you come back with a post and a link, with what you think debunks other posters. It's like a few pages ago when I asked you you, YOU, to comment on the points being made by William Happer. But no you didn't bother, and you just came back with some other Prof who had, supposedly, debunked him. Anybody would think you have crib sheet of answers, as you don't answer on behalf of yourself, just pre-made answers.
I did read his comments on Happer but most of them contained a lot ambiguity, with such scientifically accurate comments like 'the evidence suggests'. Harper has retired now so nothing to loose, but your Prof obviously wants to protect his pension and keep the gravy train on track.
Apologies for my swiftness of response, skeptical science has a very handy top ten denier myths and it's hardly my fault if you keep recycling them.
This William (carbon isn't a polutant) Happer? I didn't spot your question, maybe it is addressed here?
Although given you've dismissed a previous rebuttable with simple accusations of fraud then I doubt you'll be won over by any argument.
All this week Emily Maitlis on R4 has been reporting from the Antarctica, regaling us with evidence of the current climate crisis (but not severe enough to keep journalists away).
Today we learned of the impending penguin crisis, where a potential 30% decrease might occur if certain climatic conditions progress over the next 80 odd years, from the current estimate of 5 million birds. This would be a bad thing.
Except that (as the BBC helpfully told us) just 12 years ago David Attenborough broadcast that there were only 2 million penguins.
Numbers keep changing but the message is unapologetically apocalyptic.
Today we learned of the impending penguin crisis, where a potential 30% decrease might occur if certain climatic conditions progress over the next 80 odd years, from the current estimate of 5 million birds. This would be a bad thing.
Except that (as the BBC helpfully told us) just 12 years ago David Attenborough broadcast that there were only 2 million penguins.
Numbers keep changing but the message is unapologetically apocalyptic.
That's actually true. A senior UN official did say that back in 1989.
Of course you do realise that:
1. He isn't a climate scientist so has no gravitas in the field. He's just an environmental program director.
2. He's not saying in 1989 that entire nations could be wiped out by the year 2000 just that if it's not reversed by the year 2000 then that fate could follow in the next 100 years or so.
3. It's such old news that it's been used as click bait for deniers for years. Apparently it still works too
Of course you do realise that:
1. He isn't a climate scientist so has no gravitas in the field. He's just an environmental program director.
2. He's not saying in 1989 that entire nations could be wiped out by the year 2000 just that if it's not reversed by the year 2000 then that fate could follow in the next 100 years or so.
3. It's such old news that it's been used as click bait for deniers for years. Apparently it still works too
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff