Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

If you were to ask a question that actually made any sense, maybe you would be given an answer Troll.

If you were a REAL Professor/Doctor you have the gumption to know what I'm talking about - Troll.

Frankly, you'd also be a bit above name calling on the Internet but your about as much a Professor as I'm a Brain Surgeon.

so what are you ?

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

If you were to ask a question that actually made any sense, maybe you would be given an answer Troll.

If you were a REAL Professor/Doctor you have the gumption to know what I'm talking about - Troll.

Frankly, you'd also be a bit above name calling on the Internet but your about as much a Professor as I'm a Brain Surgeon.

But that’s just it troll. Your question doesn’t make any sense on any level. People don’t posses scientific institutions. And scientific institutions don’t believe in anything. And moreover, science isn’t concerned with belief, only data. And since there isn’t any data that shows any human signal in climate data, your question fails in all respects.

But if making a pointless list a little longer every day amuses you, feel free to continue wasting your time.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

But if making a pointless list a little longer every day amuses you, feel free to continue wasting your time.

I will thanks, the list is full of REAL scientists and Intellectuals not Internet trolls claiming to be Academics whilst engaging in childish name-calling. I know having this pointed out gives you lot all sorts of anger issues but sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

[LoonyTunes]

Solar cycles? Now I know you chaps/chapettes don't actually like real Scientists but..

http://www.cost.eu/media/cost_stories/changing-sun...

"Over 100 specialists in solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling or atmospheric chemistry got together to explore this topic in a new way.

They found mechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally , but none that would trigger global warming. Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run".

So it's reports like this from a 100 specialists versus musings from Anthony 'no climate credentials' Watts.

Yet I'm the Troll...

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

But if making a pointless list a little longer every day amuses you, feel free to continue wasting your time.

I will thanks, the list is full of REAL scientists and Intellectuals not Internet trolls claiming to be Academics whilst engaging in childish name-calling. I know having this pointed out gives you lot all sorts of anger issues but sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

No, the list you keep spamming us with are political or scientific organisations. Not the scientists that are members of, paid for or otherwise.

Once again...

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Solar cycles? Now I know you chaps/chapettes don't actually like real Scientists but..

http://www.cost.eu/media/cost_stories/changing-sun...

"Over 100 specialists in solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling or atmospheric chemistry got together to explore this topic in a new way.

They found mechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally , but none that would trigger global warming. Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run".

So it's reports like this from a 100 specialists versus musings from Anthony 'no climate credentials' Watts.

Yet I'm the Troll...

From that link - "By comparing recent measurements with results from new models" - well that's all sorted then - a computer game said so......

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

Solar cycles? Now I know you chaps/chapettes don't actually like real Scientists but..

http://www.cost.eu/media/cost_stories/changing-sun...

"Over 100 specialists in solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling or atmospheric chemistry got together to explore this topic in a new way.

They found mechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally , but none that would trigger global warming. Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run".

So it's reports like this from a 100 specialists versus musings from Anthony 'no climate credentials' Watts.

Yet I'm the Troll...

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

I will thanks, the list is full of REAL scientists and Intellectuals not Internet trolls claiming to be Academics whilst engaging in childish name-calling. I know having this pointed out gives you lot all sorts of anger issues but sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

Why would I be angry troll? And as for childish name calling, there is only one person on this thread who engages in that, and that is you.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

Why would I be angry troll? And as for childish name calling, there is only one person on this thread who engages in that, and that is you.

Wrong again 'Professor' Diddybrain. I have only EVER reacted - you have been proactive. See your post quoted and now my reply - As an Academic you understand that right?

ETA: See your VERY FIRST post today for confirmation.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Thursday 18th October 10:31

[LoonyTunes]

I think we'll all have to sign off all of our posts with the word 'Troll'. It's clearly a cult thing and I don't want to be left out

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

I did Troll.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

Why would I be angry troll? And as for childish name calling, there is only one person on this thread who engages in that, and that is you.

Wrong again 'Professor' Diddybrain. I have only EVER reacted - you have been proactive. See your post quoted and now my reply - As an Academic you understand that right?

ETA: See your VERY FIRST post today for confirmation.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Thursday 18th October 10:31

You are clearly a troll and the label is a statement of fact. Whereas your naming calling is simply puerile and smacks of the primary school playground.

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

I did Troll.

So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

I did Troll.

So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?

Jeez, Black is White again

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

You are clearly a troll and the label is a statement of fact. Whereas your naming calling is simply puerile and smacks of the primary school playground.

And you are clearly a fake Academic and that too is a statement of fact.

Troll.

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

I did Troll.

So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?

Jeez, Black is White again

Once again, doesn't answer...
You highlighted bits in your previous post to make a point. That point turns out to not reflect what was actually said in the report.

So, you're into misrepresentation now?

[Atomic12C]

Having recently been watching a number of videos conducted by climatologists on the issue of MMGW, both scientific and political, my mind has been more solidified to the position that "the settled science" is very much alarmist. A simple political agenda.

Sea level rise = yes it is rising in a consistent manner since the previous cold period.
Atmospheric warming = no hot spot to suggest MMGW
CO2 driving global warming = no overwhelming evidence, CO2 observations rise after warming. Observations shown warming causes the CO2 increase. Majority of which is natural, the human influence is undetectable.

Political agenda means institutions, funding streams and individuals wanting to keep their positions in areas that involve grants, public money etc. have to toe the line.
To progress in to such positions of further study, research and vocations where public money is used to fund or support those vocations, individuals must toe the line.
Those that speak against, especially those of a high professional standing, or are considered 'expert', would usually face discreditation measures against them, conducted by those in political power.

I think as time goes on, the public will become more aware that the catastrophe that is being predicted by the politicians is not happening and science can then become the cornerstone of climatology again. How many years of model failures can they hope to try and push on to the public before the majority state enough is enough?

The problem though, is by then those politicians who should be brought before court by forcing people to waste their money on all these CO2 prevention measures will be unavailable for prosecution.

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Nice bit of cherry picking. Read the rest of it. Troll.

I did Troll.

So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?

Jeez, Black is White again

Once again, doesn't answer...
You highlighted bits in your previous post to make a point. That point turns out to not reflect what was actually said in the report.

So, you're into misrepresentation now?

Jesus H.

Those highlighted points were part of the conclusion.

They foundmechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally, but none that would trigger global warming.

Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run.

"They found" geddit???

I'm out of this particular discussion - it comes to something when I'm being trolled with black-is-white posts.

ETA Troll.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Thursday 18th October 10:59

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

Well is he? Because all of your other sources fit the bill

Not sure it's even worth checking any more

you dont need to check ,you already did (unless it wasn't you that posted the reply the last time ). you asked for an update when he started on the climate science, well the links in the previous post are your update
LoonyTunes said :

It's a fair article and the source, FOR ONCE, seems reasonable however...biggrin....

...nowhere does he talk about Climate Science in particular. Indeed he sees benefits for other areas and mentions them rather than mentioning Climate Science. Which would be strange if he were taking aim Climate Evidence as it's a far more pressing issue than those he does mention.

"Statisticians are pointing out biases inherent in “big data” and machine-learning approaches to social issues, such as predictive policing. They could also work with economists to monitor new forms of exploitation of intellectual labour now that new modes of working can be exploited in old ways.

We statisticians can support initiatives such as the Reproducibility Project, the Meta-research Innovation Center, the EQUATOR network, alltrials.net, retractionwatch.com, and others that aim to improve quality and ethics in science, and hold scientists accountable for sloppy, disingenuous, or fraudulent work."

When he starts in on the Climate Scientists please update me.

Lets also not forget he's a Statistician and not a Climate Scientist so I don't expect him to question Climate Change - and indeed he didn't.

Perhaps you could drop him an email asking for his position on Climate Science data? Might be worth reading as a side bar.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

Solar cycles? Now I know you chaps/chapettes don't actually like real Scientists but..

http://www.cost.eu/media/cost_stories/changing-sun...

"Over 100 specialists in solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling or atmospheric chemistry got together to explore this topic in a new way.

They found mechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally , but none that would trigger global warming. Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run".

So it's reports like this from a 100 specialists versus musings from Anthony 'no climate credentials' Watts.

Yet I'm the Troll...

not only a troll, but a moronic troll you didn't read the article did you ? Dr Leif Svalgaard and his team are the only people to make an accurate climate related prediction. that being the magnitude of solar cycle 24. They had skin in the game as nasa left a satellite in orbit on their say so.

in relation to solar output , here is a direct quote from Dr Svalgaard " As far as TSI is concerned, the variation is much too small to have any measurable effect on climate. The solar cycle variation of 1.5 W/m2 changes temperature by 0.07 degrees, and there has not been any long-term trend in TSI the last 400 years, so temperatures have not been affected more than at most 0.1 degree which is in the noise."

so why you are even highlighting this makes no sense. there are no claims in the wuwt article that solar variation is responsible for global warming. anthony watts is a meteorologist as far as i know, making him far more qualified than you to comment on climate related topics. i don't think your basket weaving degree and spammer of the month certificate jointly awarded by desmogblog and skeptical science count.