Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Blimey why would you hope little old me is gonna 'come back with something' about such an arcane data bias issue in the land temperature record? Do you think PH is some kind of hotbed of scientific enquirey or something? Get a grip.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 23 July 23:57

from this i thought it had peaked your interest , obviously not .
kerplunk said:
I don't think I've heard that one before, is it a recognised thing or something he's come up with himself? Any work been done on it to quantify it or anything like that? I guess if there's an effect it would show up in Tmax not Tmin and mostly on sunny days.

if you are not interested in the very data set that the supposed warming is measured against , well it says a lot about belief vs reality on the warmist side. which part of your anatomy would you like me to take a grip of

There's just a gap between your expectations and reality though.

Let me put it another way; you've come across someone in the comments of a blog article with an hypothesis about a potential bias in the land data record, but apparently not much work has been done on it (and what has been done suggests the effect is small), and for some reason you're expecting something meaningful from me about it - but what should I do exactly? Conduct some 'field trials' (in my garden) perhaps/ quit my job and and enrol at university to become an expert on statistics?

I did have a quick look for the 'Doeskin' work referred to by ZH but couldn't find it - that's this casual observer done I think, sorry!

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 24th July 11:22

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

amusingduck said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

The truest of true believers have a tough time. Take Johnny Depp, shoulder to shoulder with Di Caprio fighting global warming for all he's worth - which happens to be 14 homes, a chain of islands in the Bahamas, a 156 foot yacht and regular use of a private jet. Tough times in the struggle.

Your post screams of the politics of envy - rather than anything remotely climate change.

Really, you can't see how it's remotely climate change related?

Having 14 homes, a chain of islands, a yacht, and regular use of a private jet doesn't increase your carbon footprint?

It is the way TB claims there is no such thing as AGW yet is so derisory to lambast in a Daily Mail type 'shocker' article.
Pithy.

Not quite right with the propaganda there.

The data shows there is no such thing as AGW; it's in the realms of inadequate computer model gigo that non-existent AGW comes alive at the hand of man.

Also it wasn't a Daily Mail issue in the slightest, you're protesting too much, It was a legal writ issue, as you should have noted. Nothing was exaggerated or made up, in stark contrast with AGW junk and bunk.

As pointed out by amusingduck, there's a tonne of relevance in stories about the hypocrisy of the likes of Depp and Di Caprio. Actually it's millions of tonnes, of carbon dioxide emissions supposedly killing the planet yet emitted at the whim of those most publicly trying to save it. Sure it's the same old crock from believers, but what a hoot.

[XM5ER]

So the answer to my challenge was, no we don't have the courage to challenge our convictions.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

So the answer to my challenge was, no we don't have the courage to challenge our convictions.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

I wasn't on your request list but I listened to it all anyway - some interesting stuff about the poltic-ing and rent-seeking etc which I expect is quite true. Nothing about the science which underpins it all, a dodgy claim about 'skyrocketing' winter deaths in the UK which aren't, nothing particularly challenging for me.

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

I wasn't on your request list but I listened to it all anyway - some interesting stuff about the poltic-ing and rent-seeking etc which I expect is quite true. Nothing about the science which underpins it all, a dodgy claim about 'skyrocketing' winter deaths in the UK which aren't, nothing particularly challenging for me.

I didn't include you on the list as you seem more interested in the science anyway and appear much more rational than the others. Given Paddy's response, I think my assumption was correct.

[turbobloke]

It's not as though Di Caprio and Depp are the only prominent climate hypocrites around, take a bow Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/21/campaign-never-bou...

"Campaign never bought promised ‘carbon offsets’ to atone for Clinton’s jets"

Carbon sins must be atoned for in the new religion. This additional sin of omission by Clinton et al is appalling, Gaia will be most displeased.

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

So the answer to my challenge was, no we don't have the courage to challenge our convictions.

You didn't answer my question:

durbster said:

According to Google, James Delingpole appears to be a Daily Mail outrage-for-hire writer. Who is Chris Horner, and why are the opinions of these two people on the subject worth listening to?

And it doesn't sound like there's anything in there we haven't all heard before.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

So the answer to my challenge was, no we don't have the courage to challenge our convictions.

You didn't answer my question:

durbster said:

According to Google, James Delingpole appears to be a Daily Mail outrage-for-hire writer. Who is Chris Horner, and why are the opinions of these two people on the subject worth listening to?

And it doesn't sound like there's anything in there we haven't all heard before.

Dellingpole is a journalist who doesn't go with the flow. This is Chris Horner https://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner

There, I'm your web-bh. Perhaps next time you could get off your lazy fat arse and look them up yourself.

Have you listened to it? No. Of course you haven't because you're a troll as I have pointed out previously.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

And it doesn't sound like there's anything in there we haven't all heard before.

Ummm there's nothing YOU say "in here" that we haven't all heard before ...... fact!

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

There's just a gap between your expectations and reality though.

Let me put it another way; you've come across someone in the comments of a blog article with an hypothesis about a potential bias in the land data record, but apparently not much work has been done on it (and what has been done suggests the effect is small), and for some reason you're expecting something meaningful from me about it - but what should I do exactly? Conduct some 'field trials' (in my garden) perhaps/ quit my job and and enrol at university to become an expert on statistics?

I did have a quick look for the 'Doeskin' work referred to by ZH but couldn't find it - that's this casual observer done I think, sorry!

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 24th July 11:22

i think the gap was between my perception of you and the reality. as mentioned by another poster you appeared to have a better handle on the actual science than some contributing to the thread ,i thought it might have been something you had come across elsewhere, apologies for the misperception .

funny how the effect is always labeled small when there is a potential serious error on the warmist side. my understanding is the size of the effect is completely unknown in relation to the data set in question.

i now know you don't have as much of an idea of the issues surrounding the actual science, if you did you would know mcintyres history in holding many of those practicing the "science" to account and in some cases having papers retracted or rewritten .

[johnfm]

This still going on?

It is really clear that the climate alarmist's claims are based on models that have continually failed to accurately predict future outcomes. The models don't work - because climate is a ridiculously complex system and we are nowhere near being able to model it accurately for the purposes of accurate forward looking projections.

There is evidence that data has been adjusted in order for the models to more closely agree with the data. This, to anyone remotely familiar with the scientific method, is arse about face.

There are many positive things coming out of the global pariahood of CO2 - more thoughtful use of resources and more investment in possible alternative energy sources - but pretending that we can limit global temperature rises (when they are rising) or drops in global temperatures (when that time comes in the cycle) is the height of human egotistical folly.

We can mitigate against the effects, no doubt. but we're not going to be controlling global climate any time soon.

[dickymint]

johnfm said:

This still going on?

It is really clear that the climate alarmist's claims are based on models that have continually failed to accurately predict future outcomes. The models don't work - because climate is a ridiculously complex system and we are nowhere near being able to model it accurately for the purposes of accurate forward looking projections.

There is evidence that data has been adjusted in order for the models to more closely agree with the data. This, to anyone remotely familiar with the scientific method, is arse about face.

There are many positive things coming out of the global pariahood of CO2 - more thoughtful use of resources and more investment in possible alternative energy sources - but pretending that we can limit global temperature rises (when they are rising) or drops in global temperatures (when that time comes in the cycle) is the height of human egotistical folly.

We can mitigate against the effects, no doubt. but we're not going to be controlling global climate any time soon.

On all counts

[turbobloke]

Seconded.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

There's just a gap between your expectations and reality though.

Let me put it another way; you've come across someone in the comments of a blog article with an hypothesis about a potential bias in the land data record, but apparently not much work has been done on it (and what has been done suggests the effect is small), and for some reason you're expecting something meaningful from me about it - but what should I do exactly? Conduct some 'field trials' (in my garden) perhaps/ quit my job and and enrol at university to become an expert on statistics?

I did have a quick look for the 'Doeskin' work referred to by ZH but couldn't find it - that's this casual observer done I think, sorry!

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 24th July 11:22

i think the gap was between my perception of you and the reality. as mentioned by another poster you appeared to have a better handle on the actual science than some contributing to the thread ,i thought it might have been something you had come across elsewhere, apologies for the misperception ..

I said it was a new one (to me) already.

wc98 said:

funny how the effect is always labeled small when there is a potential serious error on the warmist side. my understanding is the size of the effect is completely unknown in relation to the data set in question.

i now know you don't have as much of an idea of the issues surrounding the actual science, if you did you would know mcintyres history in holding many of those practicing the "science" to account and in some cases having papers retracted or rewritten .

Sorry where did McIntyre come into it? His focus is usually critiquing temperature proxies of course not the instrumental record, but if he's written about the issue I'd like to read it.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Seconded.

By my math that's a 100% consensus so far - I'd say 97% is highly likely

[turbobloke]

[turbobloke]

Something to put on the Christmas List in 5 months' time as a stocking filler.

https://payments.ipa.org.au/cctf/

Note: it's the facts, not the faith

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

Dellingpole is a journalist who doesn't go with the flow. This is Chris Horner https://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner

There, I'm your web-bh. Perhaps next time you could get off your lazy fat arse and look them up yourself.

Have you listened to it? No. Of course you haven't because you're a troll as I have pointed out previously.

Good grief. Is such a nasty attitude really necessary?

I searched for for Chris Horner. Top result was a cyclist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Horner

[Davidonly]

This looks like an interesting new development perhaps it can allow true debate to reach a more mainstream audience?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administra...

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

Dellingpole is a journalist who doesn't go with the flow. This is Chris Horner https://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner

There, I'm your web-bh. Perhaps next time you could get off your lazy fat arse and look them up yourself.

Have you listened to it? No. Of course you haven't because you're a troll as I have pointed out previously.

Good grief. Is such a nasty attitude really necessary?

I searched for for Chris Horner. Top result was a cyclist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Horner

If you had listened to a couple of minutes of the recording, you wouldn't have had to search for anything.

Hope that helps.