Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
I'm no great fan of Lawson but I don't think he was far off - lifting the upper air temperature data from RSS for 2007 to present you get the below (unless I have made an arse of it!). Although to be fair Jan 2007 was a peak so most other time periods around then would have shown a small rise...
As a matter of interest do both 'sides' believe the RSS data to be reliable?
I got the data from here: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
RSS Upper Air Temperature Series 200701 to 201706 by Mike Smith, on Flickr
As a matter of interest do both 'sides' believe the RSS data to be reliable?
I got the data from here: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
RSS Upper Air Temperature Series 200701 to 201706 by Mike Smith, on Flickr
durbster said:
Apparently every single one of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who reject AGW that you guys keep telling us about must not have been available for a BBC Radio 4 interview yesterday, so they had to dig up Lord Lawson again, presumably in an effort to balance out them publicising Al Gore's new film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
That's one way of looking at.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
I wonder if they even tried to find a scientist?
And why would they given, as has already been pointed out, that the subject matter for the interview was fundamentally political in nature.
I bet they had the followup story and the faux shock and distress all lined up well in advance - if not the BBC researchers must have had a very busy morning.
robinessex said:
Beeb CC story
Anger over 'untrue' climate change claims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4089...
Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview.
<snip>
To pick a couple of points ....Anger over 'untrue' climate change claims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4089...
Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview.
<snip>
"Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science"."
He's actually sort of right about that but not for the reasons he hopes people will think of.
"Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you." He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."
So another one who feels a need to shut down any and all discussion.
Perhaps he could inform those who pay some part of his income just what he has moved on to? Maybe out of science and physics and into broadcasting and politics?
"In a statement, the BBC said, "The BBC's role is to hear different views so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality.""
One might expect them to roll that one out when it suits them whilst in fact more than likely pulling all of the strings behind the scenes. They would not be able to help themselves.
LongQ said:
To pick a couple of points ....
"Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science"."
He's actually sort of right about that but not for the reasons he hopes people will think of.
"Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you." He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."
I read those quotes earlier - found it pretty depressing to be honest "Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science"."
He's actually sort of right about that but not for the reasons he hopes people will think of.
"Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you." He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."
It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?
But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...
DibblyDobbler said:
I read those quotes earlier - found it pretty depressing to be honest
It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?
But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...
Strictly Off Topic!It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?
But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...
The ability of the planets surface to generate radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 is constrained by surface temperature.
The ability of CO2 to raise the planets surface temperature is constrained by no of molecules and by the spectrum emitted by the surface.
Somewhere in there, there is an equilibrium which will ultimately be limited by the ability of the surface temperature to generate the appropriate power in the required spectrum, and not by the number of molecules of CO2.
Obviously no peer reviewed papers!
DibblyDobbler said:
I read those quotes earlier - found it pretty depressing to be honest
It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?
But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...
Have a read (or listen) of this:It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?
But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
turbobloke said:
Ryan's dad is bigger than Nigel's dad?
It's not about the people.
Lord Lawson's metaphorical dad has more data than that.
Is that the best argument you have?
No ability to determine radiative imbalance sufficiently accurately so no identification of tax gas forcing is possible with any tiddler signal lost in noise.
Consistent with no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.
Making reliance on fallacies, faith and size of dad necessary to stifle debate and shut down discussion.
That's how bad it is for your objectively unsupportable position.
Would you like to respond to what I actually posted?It's not about the people.
Lord Lawson's metaphorical dad has more data than that.
Is that the best argument you have?
No ability to determine radiative imbalance sufficiently accurately so no identification of tax gas forcing is possible with any tiddler signal lost in noise.
Consistent with no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.
Making reliance on fallacies, faith and size of dad necessary to stifle debate and shut down discussion.
That's how bad it is for your objectively unsupportable position.
That's a clear example of the GWPF - a source you refer to regularly - promoting information that is known to be wrong. Do you agree?
Ali G said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
When did you stop beating your wife durbs?
Go learn!
The question was simply to determine whether turbobloke is capable of objectivity in the face of evidence.
durbster said:
Why do you think the BBC keep having to dig up an ancient former politician who's daughter makes pies to represent your view
What does his age and his daughter’s ability to make nice pies have anything to do with a Gleissberg cycle?durbster said:
instead of somebody who is qualified...
There you go again, appeal to authority, a ‘qualified’ someone who wrote a thesis and passed a test… whoopee, like Prof Cox, ex D:Ream pop band boy with strange hair and big teeth who housewives of a certain age go weak at the knees for… if we are going for character assassinations like you seem to like to do…If Cox had any integrity he should be utterly ashamed by his totally un-scientific comments, but he’s on the gravy train and enjoying a nice little earner with the BBC so is happy to toe the line….
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
Why do you think the BBC keep having to dig up an ancient former politician who's daughter makes pies to represent your view
What does his age and his daughter’s ability to make nice pies have anything to do with a Gleissberg cycle?durbster said:
instead of somebody who is qualified...
There you go again, appeal to authority, a ‘qualified’ someone who wrote a thesis and passed a test… whoopee, like Prof Cox, ex D:Ream pop band boy with strange hair and big teeth who housewives of a certain age go weak at the knees for… if we are going for character assassinations like you seem to like to do…durbster said:
Apparently every single one of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who reject AGW that you guys keep telling us about must not have been available for a BBC Radio 4 interview yesterday, so they had to dig up Lord Lawson again, presumably in an effort to balance out them publicising Al Gore's new film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
I was watching Sky earlier and was surprised to see old frost-free Al Gore! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
I could only think one thing. One thing only. Is he cash-strapped?
What other reason could a total embarrassment and laughed-at idiot poke his head above the parapet again?
Surely, according to his 'gospel' of bear(sic) facts the ice caps would have disappeared 3 years ago and sea water would be up to our assholes or waists?
Wtf went wrong with that inconvenient truth?
These dicks have such gall. It's just like an old long forgotten pop star making a comeback - for one reason. The cash.
They also seem to re-emerge without the slightest hint of any embarrassment.
Is it because they just know there will always be enough suckers who will still lap up their offerings?
durbster said:
Ali G said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
When did you stop beating your wife durbs?
Go learn!
The question was simply to determine whether turbobloke is capable of objectivity in the face of evidence.
Which would be harsh.
DibblyDobbler said:
I'm no great fan of Lawson but I don't think he was far off - lifting the upper air temperature data from RSS for 2007 to present you get the below (unless I have made an arse of it!). Although to be fair Jan 2007 was a peak so most other time periods around then would have shown a small rise...
I didn't watch it, but as a politician Lawson is appropriate both as a counter to Gore and for this thread. One of the things he said early in his book was that the only reason he could tackle this subject was because his political career was largely behind him. No politician (or BBC presenter) who wants their career to continue dare do so.Bacardi said:
durbster said:
Do you consider Lord Lawson an authority on science topics?
A lot more than you, that's for sure...
That makes absolutely no sense. I've never asked you to trust me and I've never claimed to be an authority on the subject. All I do on here is challenge the misinformation, and try to point people towards credible sources. This seems to make people irrationally furious.
I note you didn't answer the question.
Ali G said:
durbster said:
Do you consider Lord Lawson an authority on science topics?
Would the BBC have permitted anyone with any scientific pedigree holding an opion contrary to that held by the BBC to be broadcast?I'll give you the answer...
No, they would not.
Ali G said:
I could say that my question was to determine whether you were capable of determining anything based upon your knowledge.
Which would be harsh.
Ah, in the absence of an argument, we're already back to the personal insults. Oh well.Which would be harsh.
New Orleans Official Blamed Flooding On 'Climate Change' But Broken Pumps Were To Blame
From The Daily Caller New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board director Cedric Grant blamed widespread flooding over the weekend on “climate change,” but it wasn’t long before news emerged that broken water pumps were actually to blame. Throughout the week, media reports have shown that New Orleans' antiquated water pumping system failed…
Climate change ate his credibility and his homework. Where's a dunce's cap and an empty corner when a warmist needs one. Yes I know they're already used up / full with so many needed.
From The Daily Caller New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board director Cedric Grant blamed widespread flooding over the weekend on “climate change,” but it wasn’t long before news emerged that broken water pumps were actually to blame. Throughout the week, media reports have shown that New Orleans' antiquated water pumping system failed…
Climate change ate his credibility and his homework. Where's a dunce's cap and an empty corner when a warmist needs one. Yes I know they're already used up / full with so many needed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff