Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

Oh sorry, I thought you said you came in here believing in mainstream science and turbobloke convinced you it was all a scam?

So where did you form your current views? Every science article I’ve ever read seems to contradict what you say.

Can I ask if there’s other aspects of science that you think are a scam or is it just climate science?

when having a look at oceanic cycles in relation to fish populations. the climate shift associated with the pdo cycle was what first peaked my interest.
scam ? again a reading comprehension problem. where have i ever said it was a scam perpetrated by all involved ? i already gave you an example of where scientific consensus was wrong on a modern day issue, stomach ulcers. i have yet to see a response from you to that.

ps i can also give some examples of individual climate scientists carrying out scams and other nefarious activities. i don't see what bearing that has on the facts surrounding the debate. talking of facts, did you ever look into the missing tropospheric hotspot ? any thoughts on the lack of the basic tenet of the hypothesis ?

I know you won't be holding your breath on that score, previous loops brought nothing but same-old sidestep twostep.

El s talks about every science article read but no mention of how many, where, authorship etc. In any case why would anyone put more faith in mere opinion from articles rather than empirical data as per the dozens of peer reviewed papers I've listed in the past two days. Anyone would think that this 'reading' is blinkered. Obviously if BBC webste articles and the Guardian articles in their mutual feed-off relationship are being read, these won't cover the data and science that flatly contradicts agw junkscience, it's their faith too and in the case of the BBC it's their pension fund.

You're clearly correct to indicate peptic ulcers, where they may have been a consensus, unlike agw where there is no consensus except when manufactured by cherry picking replies to surveys and other manmade tactical manipulations. There are also examples involving bat sonar - which turned out to be correct - and an invisible atmosphere on Mercury which not surprisingly turned out to be false. Consensus isn't part of hypothesis testing so isn't relevant.

There are now so many papers on this politics thread that anyone willing to take the time to read them would realise that agw is a crock of the proverbial. Assuming they have the cognitive horsepower to cope, and with the basic concept of causality proving to be too difficult, what hope. The emprical data in them is fatal to agw. By avoiding reality i.e. reading on-side pal provenanced lit., the faithful can carry on not seeing other evidence, all the while seeing invisible entities that ought to be visible which is a remarkable feat. In that context all that's available to agw disciples is to keep avoiding the data / pretending it doesn't exist, repeating the same old carp about institutions which is actually about activists, reheating carp about a false consensus...and when that gets tiresome even for those posting it endlessly, there's always personal angles and misrepresentation to fall back on. It's so original

Truly pathetic and not even close to convincing.

[jjlynn27]

This thread is so funny. Conspiracy nutjob flanked by groupies, who can't get enough of praising him.

Grown men.

[dickymint]

jjlynn27 said:

This thread is so funny. Conspiracy nutjob flanked by groupies, who can't get enough of praising him.

Grown men.

Says the ‘EU Promoter of green energy’

[zygalski]

At least 'spam's neurotic rambling posts & sprawling ctrl c & ctrl v's are confined to this backwater & not inflicted upon a wider audience.

[gadgetmac]

jjlynn27 said:

This thread is so funny. Conspiracy nutjob flanked by groupies, who can't get enough of praising him.

Grown men.

It does come across as a bit like that.

[ExVantagemech..]

So are all the scientists absolutely right and every fact they produce proven and backed 100% ? Surely if they were there would be no question, all scientists would agree - would they not? No falsely banded about consensus, no dodgy tree rings, a broken hockey stick, slight of hand glaciers and no hiding of declines.

I dont see many disputing say, gravity, but there are many that even without grants and backing do so - often being cast out for questioning the faith. Yet their points raised make very interesting reading - which never seems to be answered by those preaching the loudest.

Is there a computer model that can add in clouds, rain, fog? Hell, the Met office cant even get next weeks weather absolutely right, yet we are told scientists can work out how hot it will be in 50 years. How does that work?

I guess its similar to how the religious vs atheists see things, once your mind is made up, do you ignore the made up parts and carry on holding onto the remaining evidence or question the whole things validity? If indeed there were absolute unquestionable evidence from every corner of the world then sure, I'd change my view.

How many of the predictions that were given 10-15 years ago have been proven, not many I'd think. 1 I recall is the south coast will bask in the same weather as the south of France. Not happened yet... Another 10 years perhaps - or is it a rolling estimation - at some time it will be the same, just not sure when.

I will continue to question the likes of Gore and his sort, a failed politician turned global saviour.


I'm also yet to find someone in everyday life that believes in MMGW or whatever it is this season, there are far more questioning the doom and gloom mongers than accepting that in 10 years time my feet will be under water. After all. didnt Gore buy a sea front house after declaring we would be under water in no time?

This may well be a motoring forum, but like a pub, not everyone in there is talking about beer. Every now and again you might end up talking to a nuclear physicist....

[anonymous-user]

zygalski said:

At least 'spam's neurotic rambling posts & sprawling ctrl c & ctrl v's are confined to this backwater & not inflicted upon a wider audience.

He used to be everywhere but now just here. Has he retreated into the jungle?

Anyone seen apocalypse now? Or read heart of darkness by Conrad.

On PHs in 2018, some posters take a perilous and increasingly hallucinatory journey upriver to find Turbotbloke , a once-promising science teacher who has reportedly gone completely mad. As you travel deeper and deeper into the jungle and into the heart of darkness you eventually find Turbobloke in the Jungle he’s leading a strange AGW cult but it’s all gone a bit wrong.

The data. . . the data. .

Turbocalypse now.

[jjlynn27]

dickymint said:

Says the ‘EU Promoter of green energy’

I'd imagine that any answer people would want from you is 'Do these come as mosaic?' and 'Can you please not break them while you load them into my car. Thanks.'

[dickymint]

jjlynn27 said:

dickymint said:

Says the ‘EU Promoter of green energy’

I'd imagine that any answer people would want from you is 'Do these come as mosaic?' and 'Can you please not break them while you load them into my car. Thanks.'

Not a clue what you're talking about (even googled your quotes) but i'm, guessing it's funny? so have a

[LongQ]

El stovey said:

zygalski said:

At least 'spam's neurotic rambling posts & sprawling ctrl c & ctrl v's are confined to this backwater & not inflicted upon a wider audience.

He used to be everywhere but now just here. Has he retreated into the jungle?

Anyone seen apocalypse now? Or read heart of darkness by Conrad.

On PHs in 2018, some posters take a perilous and increasingly hallucinatory journey upriver to find Turbotbloke , a once-promising science teacher who has reportedly gone completely mad. As you travel deeper and deeper into the jungle and into the heart of darkness you eventually find Turbobloke in the Jungle he’s leading a strange AGW cult but it’s all gone a bit wrong.

The data. . . the data. .

Turbocalypse now.

Amusing, though, that the maddest character in the film is named KilGORE.

Still, it's only a film. Just a luvvies' version of alternative reality - one more example among many.

Interesting that it was set with the Vietnam war as a backdrop, given how that ended.

[Bacardi]

zygalski said:

to this backwater

Rather begs the question why the likes of you and Flossy the sheep would waste so much of your time posting here?

If it's to convince people to trust in gravy train academia with reputations and vested interests to protect, it's obviously a complete fail.

Surely there is some enormous green forum where you can jerk each other off about how right you are compared to a few blokes on a backwater car forum. By all means, don't let the door slap your arse on the way out...

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

...
Pielke, R. A.., (2008) “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55

Another from 'spam's list, picked purely on the basis of the intriguing title of the paper, the conclusion of which is:

'“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. Significant, societally important climate change on the regional and local scales, due to both natural and human climate forcings, can occur due to these diverse influences. The result of the more complex interference of humans in the climate system is that attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose. There is a need to minimize the human disturbance of the climate by limiting the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, but the diversity of human climate forcings should not be ignored.”

Well I'm not a scientist, but that's in support of AGW, ain't it?

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

Croke, M.S., Cess, R.D. and Hameed, S. 1999. Regional cloud cover change associated with global climate change: Case studies for three regions of the United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2128-2134

Another conclusion:

"This study suggests that secular changes in the strengths of three permanent high/low pressure systems, the North Pacific high, the Icelandic low, and the Azores high, are in part related to secular changes in global climate, that is, changes in global mean surface temperature. The strengths of all three systems diminish with increasing global temperature. Although these relations are purely statistical, they suggest the usefulness of pursuing physical cause and effect mechanisms. It is further suggested, but not conclusively proven, that the climate-induced change in cloud cover for certain regions is related to the climate-induced change in the strengths of adjacent high/low pressure systems, and plausible physical explanations for this relation exist for the three regions that have been studied. This does not, of course, provide a direct physical cause and effect explanation for the changes in regional cloud cover, because we do not understand the mechanisms that cause the changes of the strengths of the high/low pressure systems. But the suggestion of this study is that regional climate change, at least for certain locations, might be related to changes in the strengths of certain high/low pressure systems, and given the importance of understanding regional climate change, it would seem that this is an area of research that should be pursued."

So again, though not a scientist like 'spam, (though perhaps I check my sources better) I reckon what that means is that the study shows that links are almost certainly climate-change related, though more research is required.
Hardly a climate change skeptics wet dream, is it?

[ExVantagemech..]

zygalski said:

Another conclusion:

"This study suggests that secular changes in the strengths of three permanent high/low pressure systems, the North Pacific high, the Icelandic low, and the Azores high, are in part related to secular changes in global climate, that is, changes in global mean surface temperature. The strengths of all three systems diminish with increasing global temperature. Although these relations are purely statistical, they suggest the usefulness of pursuing physical cause and effect mechanisms. It is further suggested, but not conclusively proven, that the climate-induced change in cloud cover for certain regions is related to the climate-induced change in the strengths of adjacent high/low pressure systems, and plausible physical explanations for this relation exist for the three regions that have been studied. This does not, of course, provide a direct physical cause and effect explanation for the changes in regional cloud cover, because we do not understand the mechanisms that cause the changes of the strengths of the high/low pressure systems. But the suggestion of this study is that regional climate change, at least for certain locations, might be related to changes in the strengths of certain high/low pressure systems, and given the importance of understanding regional climate change, it would seem that this is an area of research that should be pursued."

So again, though not a scientist like 'spam, (though perhaps I check my sources better) I reckon what that means is that the study shows that links are almost certainly climate-change related, though more research is required.
Hardly a climate change skeptics wet dream, is it?

Surely as soon as the sentence " we do not understand the mechanisms" appears, the whole thing falls flat? Regardless of whether its in favour or against, if neither can understand what could be a major influence then the models cant be that accurate.

Its not like theres a thermostat somewhere that some chap keeps winding past its stop ...

[zygalski]

Not what you'd call a refutation though, eh?
Basically that article says there could well be a climate-change related issue, but it is not conclusively proven, in that author's view, and more research is required.

You should view such articles with less intrinsic bias, rather than defaulting to 'the whole thing falls flat' excuse for not thinking.

[turbobloke]

ExVantagemech.. said:

zygalski said:

Another conclusion:

"This study suggests that secular changes in the strengths of three permanent high/low pressure systems, the North Pacific high, the Icelandic low, and the Azores high, are in part related to secular changes in global climate, that is, changes in global mean surface temperature. The strengths of all three systems diminish with increasing global temperature. Although these relations are purely statistical, they suggest the usefulness of pursuing physical cause and effect mechanisms. It is further suggested, but not conclusively proven, that the climate-induced change in cloud cover for certain regions is related to the climate-induced change in the strengths of adjacent high/low pressure systems, and plausible physical explanations for this relation exist for the three regions that have been studied. This does not, of course, provide a direct physical cause and effect explanation for the changes in regional cloud cover, because we do not understand the mechanisms that cause the changes of the strengths of the high/low pressure systems. But the suggestion of this study is that regional climate change, at least for certain locations, might be related to changes in the strengths of certain high/low pressure systems, and given the importance of understanding regional climate change, it would seem that this is an area of research that should be pursued."

So again, though not a scientist like 'spam, (though perhaps I check my sources better) I reckon what that means is that the study shows that links are almost certainly climate-change related, though more research is required.
Hardly a climate change skeptics wet dream, is it?

Surely as soon as the sentence "we do not understand the mechanisms" appears, the whole thing falls flat? Regardless of whether its in favour or against, if neither can understand what could be a major influence then the models cant be that accurate.

Its not like theres a thermostat somewhere that some chap keeps winding past its stop ...

Politicians think their tax policies are a thermostat, which is risible.

What zygalski posted doesn't make sense, in terms of comments.

It shows very clearly that zygalski isn't a scientist with little awareness of the literature (a surefire recipe for little understanding of what's going on) and hasn't seen that research or related research before whereas contrary to zygalski's baseless assertion by way of the expected insult - checking sources ho ho ho - I have.

The conclusion quoted by zygalski demonstrates the gaps in our understanding of the role of clouds which models fail to cope with for equally obvious reasons, as well as demonstrating gaps in zygalski's understanding since use of secular with regard to change relates to long-term change, i.e. not the last few decades to which empirical evidence-free but gigo heavy agw has retreated in its death throes, and typically slow change over a long period of time.

This is from another of the papers I cited, Zhang et al, something which will be shocking news to believers: "The majority of models only simulated 30–40% of middle-top clouds in the ISCCP and CERES data sets. Half of the models underestimated low clouds"

Low level cloud (LLC) in particular is a key aspect of planetary albedo, itself a key element in framing the planet's energy budget.

As IPCC bigwig Trenberth has already confessed in pixels regarding IPCC agw junkscience:

"we are not close to balancing the energy budget"
"we can not account for what is happening in the climate system"

Politicians and believers think they can, but The Team itself knows they cannot. Believers have been tying themselves in rhetorical knots frantically struggling / failing to convince people who prefer data and objective evidence that these faith destroying words mean something else.

If you believe truly then such things don't matter and invisible things become visible - and therefore believable - it's a miracle no less and praise be to Gaia.








The Zhang et al

[zygalski]

You quoted the article above & it says that a climate-change related effect cannot be conclusively proven, but more research is required.
How exactly (to a mere mortal such as myself) is that a refutation of any climate change related impact?

Please explain...

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

turbobloke said:

Croke, M.S., Cess, R.D. and Hameed, S. 1999. Regional cloud cover change associated with global climate change: Case studies for three regions of the United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2128-2134

Another conclusion:

"This study suggests that secular changes in the strengths of three permanent high/low pressure systems, the North Pacific high, the Icelandic low, and the Azores high, are in part related to secular changes in global climate, that is, changes in global mean surface temperature. The strengths of all three systems diminish with increasing global temperature. Although these relations are purely statistical, they suggest the usefulness of pursuing physical cause and effect mechanisms. It is further suggested, but not conclusively proven, that the climate-induced change in cloud cover for certain regions is related to the climate-induced change in the strengths of adjacent high/low pressure systems, and plausible physical explanations for this relation exist for the three regions that have been studied. This does not, of course, provide a direct physical cause and effect explanation for the changes in regional cloud cover, because we do not understand the mechanisms that cause the changes of the strengths of the high/low pressure systems. But the suggestion of this study is that regional climate change, at least for certain locations, might be related to changes in the strengths of certain high/low pressure systems, and given the importance of understanding regional climate change, it would seem that this is an area of research that should be pursued."

So again, though not a scientist like 'spam, (though perhaps I check my sources better) I reckon what that means is that the study shows that links are almost certainly climate-change related, though more research is required.
Hardly a climate change skeptics wet dream, is it?

Summed up as 'we don't know', but what's wrong with a guess?

[wc98]

zygalski said:

Another conclusion:

"This study suggests that secular changes in the strengths of three permanent high/low pressure systems, the North Pacific high, the Icelandic low, and the Azores high, are in part related to secular changes in global climate, that is, changes in global mean surface temperature. The strengths of all three systems diminish with increasing global temperature. Although these relations are purely statistical, they suggest the usefulness of pursuing physical cause and effect mechanisms. It is further suggested, but not conclusively proven, that the climate-induced change in cloud cover for certain regions is related to the climate-induced change in the strengths of adjacent high/low pressure systems, and plausible physical explanations for this relation exist for the three regions that have been studied. This does not, of course, provide a direct physical cause and effect explanation for the changes in regional cloud cover, because we do not understand the mechanisms that cause the changes of the strengths of the high/low pressure systems. But the suggestion of this study is that regional climate change, at least for certain locations, might be related to changes in the strengths of certain high/low pressure systems, and given the importance of understanding regional climate change, it would seem that this is an area of research that should be pursued."

So again, though not a scientist like 'spam, (though perhaps I check my sources better) I reckon what that means is that the study shows that links are almost certainly climate-change related, though more research is required.
Hardly a climate change skeptics wet dream, is it?

it would appear you are confusing climate change with cagw.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

jjlynn27 said:

This thread is so funny. Conspiracy nutjob flanked by groupies, who can't get enough of praising him.

Grown men.

It does come across as a bit like that.

imagine a grown man questioning something uttered by an authority figure, oh my, what a bunch of children. or maybe the children are the unquestioning drones that accept appeals to authority unquestioningly.

i imagine it came as a shock to you both when the true origins of santa clause and the easter bunny became known .