The “anti-Greta”
Discussion
smn159 said:
turbobloke said:
Armchair climate expert, how do you escape that definition?
Maybe by not posting stuff you've apparently cut and pasted from climate denial websites and presenting it uncritically, while pretending that you're interested in getting to the best conclusion demonstrated by the scienceIt's a fundamentally dishonest approach designed to mislead and motivated by what you'd like to be true.
I don't post stuff 'apparently' cut and pasted from climate websites. I presume you lack access to the scientific literature and have become familiar with that process yourself.
Nor is there anything remotely related to "what I'd like to be true" as what I post involves and is based on data in published peer-reviewed science. In contrast even at this stage the approach agw supporters typically use includes appeals to logical fallacies and frequent personal attacks (see above) with no credible evidence on offer...there's plenty available, see below.
-Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
-Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
- Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
-The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system – Newberry et al
-The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
-Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented e.g. Alley et al, Fawcett et al
-So-called extreme high T events – nonlinear from mean T trend, see Mearns et al
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems - global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilisation effects i.e. increased CO2 levels, from Fernández-Martínez et al
-Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
-Arctic expedition data - 1930/31 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010, Feb ’31 had one average 10.7 deg C warmer, Arazny et al
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Weldeab et al, Bookhagen et al
-Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, bleaching events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Kamenos & Hennige, also Xu et al for bleaching events over recent thousands of years, and try Andersson et al
-Coral manages pH / temperature changes through biological control – Ross et al, McCulloch et al
-Ocean 'acidification' and (lack of) impacts on marine phytoplankton – “CO2-driven acidification had no significant impact on growth rate, chlorophyll-a, cellular abundance, gross photosynthesis, dark respiration, particulate organic carbon and particulate organic nitrogen between CO2-treatments” also no impact on nutritional quality as a primary producer in the marine food web, Jacob et al
-Sea level changes don’t show the expected anthropogenic acceleration – see Parker and Ollier, Douglas, Holgate and check out Gregory et al
-Sea level rise - AR5 model projections invalidated – Watson
-Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, and see Duvat (coral attol island stability)
- Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data: Landsea, Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
-Hurricane data: hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not possible- Trenary et al
-Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
-Wildfires -not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - CMIP5 models fail to simulate post?1950 trend, see Saha et al
-Severe cold weather mortality across the US - more than 16x higher than for heatwaves, Zhang et al
-Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha, Agee et al
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe – Hanna et al
-The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong) from Nguyen et al
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models – Roe
A selection of over 45 papers (more available as already posted in climate threads). As this is the anti-Greta thread and there's no reason to post more science which agw supporters have never read, feel free to have the last word even if it's yet another evidence-free ad hom.
turbobloke said:
Long list of sceptical papers
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
smn159 said:
turbobloke said:
Long list of sceptical papers
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
Again, it’s a list he’s pedalled around the climate threads more than once, likely lifted from WUWT or the GWPF.
Gadgetmac said:
smn159 said:
turbobloke said:
Long list of sceptical papers
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
Again, it’s a list he’s pedalled around the climate threads more than once, likely lifted from WUWT or the GWPF.
The papers are contemporary with the exception of one, Newberry et al (which is still valid having no sell-by date) and they weren't lifted from WUWT or GWPF, neither of you have a hope of finding them all there, though one or two may have been covered which is to be expected. To say they're lifted from those sites would mean locating them all, and there's zero chance of that, many are just not headline material. They're papers from academic journals, a sample, and not by any means the sum total but there are sensible limits on listing papers in an anti-Greta thread. Once the main agw claims have been negated using data; once the nonsensical 'unprecedented' claims have been refuted using data; once it's very clear the science isn't settled and is not as advertised, there's no need to list more - though in many cases the citations include more than one paper for each point to demonstrate replication.
It looks as though neither of you can routinely access the scientific literature, and the thought that others can is clearly awkward.
Enjoy these IPCC footnotes from AR4 and AR5 showing how the agw religion is, like other religions, a mix of mere opinion and fudge.
Conjecture and the unknown, a heady mix. Naturally, as with religions, heresy isn't easily tolerated (see posts ^^ above). In science, the data do matter and a plurality of views represents a normal situation; climate is no longer normal science and hasn't been normal for many years.
The position of Naomi Seibt on climate is reasonable, unlike her counterpart.
Anti Greta said:
I don't want you to panic. I want you to think.
That's the last thing that a rigid belief system wants, as we see on a daily basis. Some recent coverage:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/meet-19...
smn159 said:
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?
Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
Is the world on fire?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
turbobloke said:
a rigid belief system
Says the bloke who spends his time on climate denial forums choosing stuff to cut and paste into PH, then telling everyone that he's concerned with scientific truth.Out of interest, which other generally accepted scientific theories are you trying to disprove?
turbobloke said:
Gadgetmac said:
smn159 said:
turbobloke said:
Long list of sceptical papers
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
Again, it’s a list he’s pedalled around the climate threads more than once, likely lifted from WUWT or the GWPF.
The papers are contemporary with the exception of one, Newberry et al (which is still valid having no sell-by date) and they weren't lifted from WUWT or GWPF, neither of you have a hope of finding them all there, though one or two may have been covered which is to be expected. To say they're lifted from those sites would mean locating them all, and there's zero chance of that, many are just not headline material. They're papers from academic journals, a sample, and not by any means the sum total but there are sensible limits on listing papers in an anti-Greta thread. Once the main agw claims have been negated using data; once the nonsensical 'unprecedented' claims have been refuted using data; once it's very clear the science isn't settled and is not as advertised, there's no need to list more - though in many cases the citations include more than one paper for each point to demonstrate replication.
It looks as though neither of you can routinely access the scientific literature, and the thought that others can is clearly awkward.
Enjoy these IPCC footnotes from AR4 and AR5 showing how the agw religion is, like other religions, a mix of mere opinion and fudge.
Conjecture and the unknown, a heady mix. Naturally, as with religions, heresy isn't easily tolerated (see posts ^^ above). In science, the data do matter and a plurality of views represents a normal situation; climate is no longer normal science and hasn't been normal for many years.
The position of Naomi Seibt on climate is reasonable, unlike her counterpart.
Anti Greta said:
I don't want you to panic. I want you to think.
That's the last thing that a rigid belief system wants, as we see on a daily basis. Some recent coverage:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/meet-19...
I'm not the only one to point this out either.
But let's get back to anti Greta. Any thoughts on her love for Stefan Molyneux her "inspiration"...the white supremacist? Can't remember Thunberg claiming anything similar.
Dont Panic said:
smn159 said:
So what? All that proves is that you are pushing a position and cherry picking 'evidence' to support it. How about citing all of the (many more) papers that don't support your views?
Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
Is the world on fire?Pushing a minority view because it happens to coincide with your political ideology doesn't make good science
smn159 said:
Out of interest, which other generally accepted scientific theories are you trying to disprove?
A neat way of masking the usual appeal to (non-) consensus logical fallacy. Well done!The agw null hypothesis has already been rejected by comparing empirical data to agw model gigo.
See McKitrick & Christy 2018 as posted earlier. Here's a link to an online version of the full paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Paper said:
the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is incorrect
Your back-to-front question has already been answered.turbobloke said:
Your back-to-front question has already been answered.
Not to mention: " No funding was received for this research. All data and R code will be available upon publication ".Sounds far better than : "why should I make data available to you when you're trying to find something wrong with it?"
Dont Panic said:
smn159 said:
Floods mainly around here - why do you ask?
You mean The new Jesus of climate religion isnt actually correct then? 
Who is this 'new Jesus of climate religion'?
Are you suggesting that the climate isn't warming because everything that you can see around you isn't actually on fire?
turbobloke said:
smn159 said:
Out of interest, which other generally accepted scientific theories are you trying to disprove?
A neat way of masking the usual appeal to (non-) consensus logical fallacy. Well done!The agw null hypothesis has already been rejected by comparing empirical data to agw model gigo.
See McKitrick & Christy 2018 as posted earlier. Here's a link to an online version of the full paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Paper said:
the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is incorrect
Your back-to-front question has already been answered.https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You can post as many links, memes or whatever as you like - it appears clear to me anyway that you are motivated by ideology rather than the science, largely because you don't like the potential consequences of MMGW being true, and that your objective appears to be to misrepresent the current state of the science.
Disappointing that people feel the need to do this, but that's 'post truth' for you.
smn159 said:
You can post as many links, memes or whatever as you like - it appears clear to me anyway that you are motivated by ideology rather than the science, largely because you don't like the potential consequences of MMGW being true, and that your objective appears to be to misrepresent the current state of the science.
"How dare you" b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Gadgetmac said:
But let's get back to anti Greta. Any thoughts on her love for Stefan Molyneux her "inspiration"...the white supremacist? Can't remember Thunberg claiming anything similar.
"But she's antifa, her tee shirt" Anyone can buy one on-line. https://www.redbubble.com/people/abstractee/works/...
I'm anti-fascist, aren't you?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff