Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[wc98]

chrispmartha said:

Why is his graph quite different from the IPCC graph that was posted, not had any answers as yet?

is that an ipcc graph for certain ? i remember a similar chart raising some controversy when it appeared,was either gavin schmidt or zeke hausfather that produced it and it contained the usual "adjustments". i might be wrong, will go have a look and see if i can find anything.

[chrispmartha]

wc98 said:

chrispmartha said:

Why is his graph quite different from the IPCC graph that was posted, not had any answers as yet?

is that an ipcc graph for certain ? i remember a similar chart raising some controversy when it appeared,was either gavin schmidt or zeke hausfather that produced it and it contained the usual "adjustments". i might be wrong, will go have a look and see if i can find anything.

Well I did post a link and a caption with it so you can have a look (see why it’s important to post links robinessex)

Did it raise more controversy than Dr Roy Spencers work?

[wc98]

one thing is guaranteed , it is an image that has been altered from the original. warmanians, can't help themselves. no wonder there are so many numpties like me that think cagw is a load of ste when those promoting it are constantly telling lies. do you know where that image came from as it is displayed ? it didn't come from the ipcc,well not all of it .

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

he is also a climate scientist and his views would make him part of the 97% if i understand the selection process correctly. i thought you would like that ?
what qualifies you to be able to take issue with his work given his credentials and being part of the consensus? am i still doing this right
i am sure at least one warmanian will be along to pull you up on challenging tenured people working in the field that know far better than some car forum numpty

I think his belief in supernatural deities and disbelief in Evolution are two of many points that set him apart from scientists who should be taken seriously.

Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Then there are his links to the Heartland Institute whose CEO Joe Bast included in his future plans the call for his comrades to find “independent” financing for Dr Roy Spencer.

In short he is a deeply flawed/controversial individual in the scientific sense.

Do you not have anyone you can quote who isn’t? Only it gets very repetetive.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

one thing is guaranteed , it is an image that has been altered from the original. warmanians, can't help themselves. no wonder there are so many numpties like me that think cagw is a load of ste when those promoting it are constantly telling lies. do you know where that image came from as it is displayed ? it didn't come from the ipcc,well not all of it .

We must be living in different universes because the only porky pies being peddled on AGW are all by the deniers, including on this thread.

[chrispmartha]

wc98 said:

one thing is guaranteed , it is an image that has been altered from the original. warmanians, can't help themselves. no wonder there are so many numpties like me that think cagw is a load of ste when those promoting it are constantly telling lies. do you know where that image came from as it is displayed ? it didn't come from the ipcc,well not all of it .

Has it been altered? Can you prove that? I posted links of where the graph came from so you can have a look.

Robinessex posted a non sourced graph with a quote written on it in microsoft paint whch turns out its from a creatinoist loon.

And just so i know, you’re happy to take robinessex’s microsoft paint graph as truth but not the graph that was posted with links to its source and captions provided? That kind of tells me all about need to know.

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Hmm now I do like a bit of Nutella on a warm Waitrose crumpet now and again. But I think you might find that Nutcasetela is er in the pay of big oil too even though he is an activist type. I guess that when it comes to questioning matters of faith and belief value judgements are the order of the day - judgements whether big oil or big green or big government are putatively better or worse.

Ultimately, however, what it comes down to is this: models are functionally illiterate, fatally flawed and ham-fisted with both fists tied behind their backs and both legs tied together and strapped down and always already kneecapped, ankles nailed together and as a final gesture of incapacity, the shoelaces are tied together too. So it is no surprise to any sentient, thinking and logical being that they simply cannot predict/project/forecast/hindcast anything of any import because any theoretical extrapolation from the output of models is pure, unadulterated fantasy (hence all the failed predictions of armageddon, no snow, no ice, no glaciers, billion climate refugees, islands underwater et hoc genus omne). And that so-called science elaborated and extrapolated upon the basis of these dried up turds of model outputs have no scientific value whatever, but everything to do with political activism, research funding, geo-political issues and that express, TGV style gravy train that keeps on delivering. All the while the data - even the data that have been smoothed, groomed, massaged, and indeed massaged with a happy ending for those on the hockey team, even though that represents an inconvenient truth, still doesn't validate ANY model. None of them predicted the pause and none of them could account for it. And yet we have jokers/trolls/ovines on here denying the models are wrong and denying the pause ever happened. What a curious state of affairs.

Edited by Diderot on Thursday 13th September 19:58

LT is right, you REALLY can’t read!

You also sound very much, in fact identical to, Turbobloke with your prose.

LT is intellectually lazy but is ultimately harmless and, on balance, vaguely amusing from time to time; I do like the fact that he is obsessed with lists, even though he sometimes forgets that he has already listed certain items before relisting them. You are of a similar ilk but clearly have nothing useful to contribute to any reasoned debate in this arena so you simply resort to vacuous and ineffectual ad homs rather than confront the real issues at the heart of this. The reality is, of course, that you, like Durbster, LT et al, are a denier: you deny the fact that the models are wrong and will always be wrong; you deny the fact that there was an 18 year pause that none of the models predicted; and you would no doubt deny that each and every one of the catastrophic predictions of climategeddon has never come to pass. You would standby and watch governments spend trillions of dollars 'fighting' something that they do not understand, cannot properly model, cannot predict but somehow convince the blinded herd that the sky will fall in at some constantly moving date at some time in the future.

[gadgetmac]

It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.

Go back and look for yourself.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

wc98 said:

he is also a climate scientist and his views would make him part of the 97% if i understand the selection process correctly. i thought you would like that ?
what qualifies you to be able to take issue with his work given his credentials and being part of the consensus? am i still doing this right
i am sure at least one warmanian will be along to pull you up on challenging tenured people working in the field that know far better than some car forum numpty

I think his belief in supernatural deities and disbelief in Evolution are two of many points that set him apart from scientists who should be taken seriously.

Haven't you listed the Vatican as an institution which supports the CAGW hypothesis? I say this because the Pope believes in supernatural deities and isn't a proponent of the Darwinian hypothesis, yet seemingly makes pronouncements about gloopal wombling. Incense must be fairly potent these days.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

wc98 said:

he is also a climate scientist and his views would make him part of the 97% if i understand the selection process correctly. i thought you would like that ?
what qualifies you to be able to take issue with his work given his credentials and being part of the consensus? am i still doing this right
i am sure at least one warmanian will be along to pull you up on challenging tenured people working in the field that know far better than some car forum numpty

I think his belief in supernatural deities and disbelief in Evolution are two of many points that set him apart from scientists who should be taken seriously.

Haven't you listed the Vatican as an institution which supports the CAGW hypothesis? I say this because the Pope believes in supernatural deities and isn't a proponent of the Darwinian hypothesis, yet seemingly makes pronouncements about gloopal wombling. Incense must be fairly potent these days.

In your house it is for sure.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.

Go back and look for yourself.

Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

wc98 said:

he is also a climate scientist and his views would make him part of the 97% if i understand the selection process correctly. i thought you would like that ?
what qualifies you to be able to take issue with his work given his credentials and being part of the consensus? am i still doing this right
i am sure at least one warmanian will be along to pull you up on challenging tenured people working in the field that know far better than some car forum numpty

I think his belief in supernatural deities and disbelief in Evolution are two of many points that set him apart from scientists who should be taken seriously.

Haven't you listed the Vatican as an institution which supports the CAGW hypothesis? I say this because the Pope believes in supernatural deities and isn't a proponent of the Darwinian hypothesis, yet seemingly makes pronouncements about gloopal wombling. Incense must be fairly potent these days.

In your house it is for sure.

Engage in debate and stop this bluster, the continual diversionary tactics and the vacuous ad homs. Show us the data.

[chrispmartha]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.

Go back and look for yourself.

Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists.

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.

Go back and look for yourself.

Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists.

Jesus you're an idiot who clearly doesn't keep up with the thread and what's been said by people.

We had this with Robin the other day after he kept going on about something similar. He doesn't ask anymore after it was spelled out to him.

I can't be arsed to go through it again go find it yourself.

[chrispmartha]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.

Go back and look for yourself.

Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists.

Jesus you're an idiot who clearly doesn't keep up with the thread and what's been said by people.

We had this with Robin the other day after he kept going on about something similar. He doesn't ask anymore after it was spelled out to him.

I can't be arsed to go through it again go find it yourself.

Come on LT, it’s Rob not Robin ;-) who I will add has never answered my questions put to him, when I was genuinely interested in his answer.

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:46

[LoonyTunes]

chrispmartha said:

Come on LT, it’s Rob not Robin ;-)

Yeah, forgot, my bad

[wc98]

chrispmartha said:

Has it been altered? Can you prove that?

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16

yes and yes.i will go back and take a look at your link. i agree on providing source for all charts, graphs,cut and pastes etc.

[chrispmartha]

wc98 said:

chrispmartha said:

Has it been altered? Can you prove that?

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15

Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16

yes and yes.i will go back and take a look at your link. i agree on providing source for all charts, graphs,cut and pastes etc.

Good, in Fairness to me I have never claimed anything about that graph other than it looks entirely different to the one Robinessex posted, in fact i have been asking repeatedly for someone to explain the difference, hope you can help.

[LoonyTunes]

chrispmartha said:

Come on LT, it’s Rob not Robin ;-) who I will add has never answered my questions put to him, when I was genuinely interested in his answer.

He never answers any questions...if you want a chuckle though go back to the first page of this thread and look at the 4th post. It's like robs a Russian heartland Institute bot or something.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

I think his belief in supernatural deities and disbelief in Evolution are two of many points that set him apart from scientists who should be taken seriously.

Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Then there are his links to the Heartland Institute whose CEO Joe Bast included in his future plans the call for his comrades to find “independent” financing for Dr Roy Spencer.

In short he is a deeply flawed/controversial individual in the scientific sense.

Do you not have anyone you can quote who isn’t? Only it gets very repetetive.

to be fair i agree on the points around religion. the links to the heartland institute i have no problem with. sceptics receive orders of magnitude less funding from all sources than mainstream science and media promoting the alarmism. would you rather no dissent at all ? if there was no one looking at other options for the cause of ulcers we would still be blaming stress as a primary cause. ask el stovey, he will tell you that is how science works

many scientists are deeply flawed in all sorts of ways,it doesn't matter when it comes to the scientific results they produce. they will stand or fall on their own merits. from my own perspective i am not a fan of the satellite temps series. they appear to be like many aspects of "data" collation in climate science.open to interpretation and afflicted by what amounts to ad hoc adjustment. whether the adjustment is warranted or not, it proves the equipment wasn't up to the task it is being used for, just like climate models.

as for the call to find independent financing. if only more in the climate science community would take that lead. we could have saved 93 million quid on the met super computer that is no better than a meteorologist interpreting charts 25 years ago.