Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
Check absolutely everything turbobloke says for misrepresentation. You’ll likely find it.
Unlike yourself who says absolutely nothing. The floors yours, convince us we are wrong.
Even when given the floor, what do you actually believe in ? What makes you so sure you are right when repeatedly climate science has been proved to be lying ? Hockey stick climategate etc.
Climategate?
I’ll do Turbobloke and saturate you with text:
In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
Why do most people who read the released emails find the people who sent them acted in a way that was unscientific.
Then we have the infamous hockey stick and what about the IPCC report an glaciers that was compiled from a travel journal, all high end science you will agree, remember as you keep saying TB is just some bloke on the internet , these people are dictating or energy policies for years to come, possible making us all worse off for no actual gain, following a plan that falls flat if we have a few natural volcano eruptions releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-lev...
The problem with volcanic activity is sadly you can't tax it, which is the primary method of dealing with CO2 emissions, perhaps in the future we can make the west responsible for volcanoes, remember you heard it here first.
LongQ said:
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
As pointed out many times before, you never raise this with the one who posts acres of supposed science stuff, to which me and others are responding. Your bias is blatant.Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
PRTVR said:
If all the enquiries found nothing wrong, why did somebody think it was important enough to want it releasing to the public ?
Because fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in keeping their businesses profitable, just as tobacco companies did.PRTVR said:
Why do most people who read the released emails find the people who sent them acted in a way that was unscientific.
Most people? No, just those who are desperate to find something. The whole controversy was around a few cherry picked sentences and if there was fraud being committed, charges would have been brought.PRTVR said:
Then we have the infamous hockey stick and what about the IPCC report an glaciers that was compiled from a travel journal, all high end science you will agree, remember as you keep saying TB is just some bloke on the internet ,
...deliberately and relentlessly spreading propaganda.PRTVR said:
these people are dictating or energy policies for years to come, possible making us all worse off for no actual gain
If you ignore all the energy efficiency gains and diversification of energy generation. But anyway, if there's no gain what's the point of orchestrating this vast, global conspiracy? To be plausible, you need a motive and so far, it's just vague notions about increasing taxes which is obviously ridiculous.
PRTVR said:
, following a plan that falls flat if we have a few natural volcano eruptions releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-lev...
The key difference being: we can't stop volcanoes erupting.https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-lev...
LongQ said:
No censorship from me durbie. How could there be since the content was not visible.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Better get Turbospam to delete about half his posts in this thread then.However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Have you picked him up on it every time he posts a graph or data in here?
gadgetmac said:
Check absolutely everything turbobloke says for misrepresentation. You’ll likely find it.
Medieval warm period updated
https://youtu.be/AD16nCsvjqs
as has already been mentioned by someone on your side of the fence it is better to stay away from those involved with the advocacy blogs when it comes to the actual science. i wonder why comments are disabled on that video ? usual skeptical science tactic,the whingey little man child and friends don't like discussion or dissent on their propaganda.Medieval warm period updated
https://youtu.be/AD16nCsvjqs
PRTVR said:
If all the enquiries found nothing wrong, why did somebody think it was important enough to want it releasing to the public ?
Why do most people who read the released emails find the people who sent them acted in a way that was unscientific.
??? Who are "most people" - please list them.Why do most people who read the released emails find the people who sent them acted in a way that was unscientific.
And Yes, ALL the enquiries found nothing wrong - except for the PH Climate Change Deniers Enquiry which found them guilty of everything including stealing their grans piggy bank savings.
PRTVR said:
The problem with volcanic activity is sadly you can't tax it, which is the primary method of dealing with CO2 emissions, perhaps in the future we can make the west responsible for volcanoes, remember you heard it here first.
Ah the old "its all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute the wealth". Lets guess where you got that from I'll file this under "Flat Earth and Fake Moon Landings".
And still nothing from the deniers about turbo’s misrepresentations. Who can spot a global conspiracy but not an outright lie when it's thrust in front of their faces. Why am I not surprised
Edited by gadgetmac on Thursday 16th August 08:49
zygalski said:
LongQ said:
No censorship from me durbie. How could there be since the content was not visible.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Better get Turbospam to delete about half his posts in this thread then.However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Have you picked him up on it every time he posts a graph or data in here?
Recently - and as a glance at the thread will show - I posted about the folly of politicians following Hansen's testimony to congress over the years, how the international climate is turning heretical (Australia, Canada, Brazil), US Democrats lifting at the double their previously and supposedly climate-principled ban on taking donations from Big Oil (money talks, climate walks), UN climate funding in crisis, a failed activists' politicised campaign to misname a non-existent geological Epoch, ONS data giving lie to the false claims about UK heat-related deaths this summer and alleged agw, likewise data refuting the political claims (e.g. state governor) being made about wildfires adding an alleged arsonist's antics under arrest, satellite data showing China building or completing a significant number of new coal-fired power stations contrary to their words (do we as say not as we do), politically motivated censorious behavious and more besides.
Then there are your posts zygalski and those in this thread from other agw supporters.
In addition to the above posts from me I've replied to a failed trap that durbster tried to spring and more recently to a failed attempt launched by kerplunk claiming that temperature doesn't lead carbon dioxide. What both of these episodes reveal is that people without the capability or willingness to examine the data for themselves are vulnerable to believing what they want to hear when it's told to them for that purpose. It's reasonable to reply at such times.
The Parrenin et al paper was prime-time in this regard. I've had a copy of the paper on file and knew that the results within it are entirely consistent with carbon dioxide lagging temperature (I gave the results and left an error bar clue) but not vice versa for the same reason. My posts for many years point out two things with regard to this agw causality fail: one is that the result exemplified by Monnin's team is reproduced by results from other teams; the other is a lag direction that cannot be reversed through experimental error, though for chronology purposes Monnin et al wasn't the first such result. The reproducibility requirement within the scientific method is important, see 'Opera'. Monnin et al agrees with Pedro et al which merely 'tightened the constraints' i.e. reduced the lag to CO2, also with Indermuhle et al with a longer lag to CO2 and with others like the paper with lead authors Fischer, Caillon, Jouzel and Petit.
In keeping with the above efforts on my part to keep the thread on-topic, here we go again with political hot potato.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/politics/article/Befo...
Related, regarding the arrest mentioned above and another.
https://www.apnews.com/445fe14631214f42a2db4dfb583...
Innocent until found gulty in a court of law with appeals exhausted.
turbobloke said:
I respond to agw supporters' post content, and my own posts when not replying to agw activism are consistently political as you will have noted.
Extraordinary. There’s no way you can think that’s true.That’s the biggest load of old b
ks you’ve ever written, and you’ve certainly written a lot of old bks. LongQ said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Broken link.
Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
It was from Twitter so maybe you had to be logged in. I've updated the link anyway, ignoring your continued efforts to censor the views that bother you. Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
What rubbish and completely hypocrisy.
Your leader spams this thread constantly with his misinterpreted data and graphs and papers taken from blogs.
Please stop this nonsense.
You’re only complaining about data now because people have actually read TBs endless spam and found out it’s full of inaccuracies and misinterpretations and things which are wrong.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 16th August 09:32
gadgetmac said:
I'm working (novel idea on here I know) and it's difficult to concentrate on what i want to say so occasionally I have to retract a post that came out wrong when peer reviewed by me after posting.
lol,no worries,i thought i was imagining things for a moment when i was going to respond.
zygalski said:
LongQ said:
No censorship from me durbie. How could there be since the content was not visible.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Better get Turbospam to delete about half his posts in this thread then.However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Have you picked him up on it every time he posts a graph or data in here?
There are, however, some posters who are active on both threads and a few who seem only to want to play on this one and rarely or never attempt to make any comments related to purely political matters. Quite why they have such a problem separating their Science and their Politics is unclear. Unless, perhaps, they see the two subject areas as being extremely well mixed when concerned with what has come to be called Climate Change in preference to the original subject label - Global Warming.
However I note your deflective comment and evident self identification as a target.
My comments about political versus scientific content really don't apply in your case.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 16th August 11:06
El stovey said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Broken link.
Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
It was from Twitter so maybe you had to be logged in. I've updated the link anyway, ignoring your continued efforts to censor the views that bother you. Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
What rubbish and completely hypocrisy.
Your leader spams this thread constantly with his misinterpreted data and graphs and papers taken from blogs.
Please stop this nonsense.
You’re only complaining about data now because people have actually read TBs endless spam and found out it’s full of inaccuracies and misinterpretations and things which are wrong.
Edited by El stovey on Thursday 16th August 09:32
Are you sure you're an airline pilot as others claim?
LongQ said:
El stovey said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Broken link.
Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
It was from Twitter so maybe you had to be logged in. I've updated the link anyway, ignoring your continued efforts to censor the views that bother you. Is there a political angle to it?
If not it's not worth fixing.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
What rubbish and completely hypocrisy.
Your leader spams this thread constantly with his misinterpreted data and graphs and papers taken from blogs.
Please stop this nonsense.
You’re only complaining about data now because people have actually read TBs endless spam and found out it’s full of inaccuracies and misinterpretations and things which are wrong.
Are you sure you're an airline pilot as others claim?
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
Ali G said:
Have you studied Physics?
he certainly doesn't know what peer review actually entails and appears to be gullible in the extreme in thinking that the university of easy access investigating its own grant harvesting people was ever going to rock the boat.
With added maths and modeling (not on the catwalk luv experience)
This must be full-on greenspam!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff