Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
It’s been asked loads but never answered directly. Some kind of science teacher is as near to an answer as I saw last time it came up.
Asking questions about it seems to cause anger in the congregation though and then loads of comments about how we shouldn’t trust (actual) scientists and experts.
And as dickymint also pointed out, it's all been done before.
The first time was surely one of the weirdest moments in the back catalogue of PH climate threads. A particularly strange individual called me out publicly as a fantasist grocer or similar and wanted to meet me outside a police station with certificates and publications in-hand(s).
I had no intention of getting up close with such an individual and declined their odd custard test but agreed to send scans of my qualifications (four certificates, a degree certificate in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge) and three post-graduate qualifications also from Cambridge; a reference from my PhD supervisor; and publication references, to a sane and entirely neutral third party PHer who neither of us had met or knew outside PH threads.
The weird one claimed to have some academic credentials themselves and told mister neutral how to check it all out, and it all checked out. At this point the strange one apologised grudgingly and stuck around for a while, but not long after they left PH climate threads and later on they left PH as a whole iirc. Hopefully nobody will depart this time.
My background includes the chemistry and physics of planetary atmospheres. The most recent teaching I've done is teaching climate science to international post-graduate science students. I've read the climate science literature closely for well over 30 years, as will be obvious to any independent-minded observer on PH climate threads.
Nothing more detailed will be forthcoming, wholly in keeping with PH privacy and anti-sleuthing rules, also as a result of one hilarious episode that occurred shortly after the strange one went off on one. A green activist presumably on PH wrote to my boss, exposing my heretical tendencies, aiming to stir up trouble and get me sacked. I read the letter with interest but decided not to sack myself. I have no intention of adding more, so assisting any other strange individuals who may wish to disturb the retirement tranquillity of the eminent scientists who worked with not-eminent me.
Some semblance of balance came as a result of another PHer noting that episode and the later similar but less weird event. Their uni was looking for a p/t lecturer on one of their online master's programmes, and I received an invitation to apply. I applied, and got the job, yay! Shockingly I needed to confirm my credentials, again.
The beauty of episodes like this, when believers have a crisis of not coping on-topic and start a group attempt at shooting messengers, is that it represents confirmation of their impotence in arguing their non-case. The closer you are to the target the thicker the flak.
HTH.
Sore loser or what
turbobloke said:
Sore loser or what
I said I thought you were a science teacher, you then posted loads of info apparently confirming you’re a science teacher/lecturer or whatever.
Do you also argue about this subject on science forums with actual scientists? Seems an odd place to be posting so much about a subject you’re obviously passionate about.
turbobloke said:
Note to durbster, the scientific paper references are now at least 701 
you'll know as you counted them all, just like you counted the wuwt refs. Not.
Here you go: 694 results. you'll know as you counted them all, just like you counted the wuwt refs. Not.(they're not all you, but the vast majority are)
turbobloke said:
The thing is, this is PH not an academic journal,
You don't say. Actually, it seems some people do take this thread seriously so maybe this is worth clarifying.turbobloke said:
another thing is that I don't have to rely on advocacy blogs as believers frequently do, and the other thing is that wuwt often covers peer-reviewed scientific papers -
You have very occasionally cited some actual science, and they have invariably proved you wrong on investigation. But that's OK, we know you like to pretend that your advocacy blogs are the only place to get objective information about climate science. Because who needs the scientific method or peer-review when you have casual speculation from internet bloggers.
Hang on, is this a whole post without a string of vacuous soundbites, catchphrases and hypocrisy?
turbobloke said:
...so your latest shoot-the-messenger ad hominem logical fallacy fail is as bad as other recent fails. At least you're good at something 
Oh, phew!Edited by durbster on Sunday 5th November 20:19
Edited by durbster on Sunday 5th November 20:21
durbster said:
LongQ said:
I suspect that there are more people of voting age who have faith in their horoscopes on a daily basis than there are who have any confidence at all in our politicians.
Likewise, if put put into a challenging personal situation, for more people will express a believe in the God of their choice than in their political representatives.
These feelings of faith (in whatever) are often extremely strong or can be induced to be that way.
The strongest associations and the ones that are least likely to be abandoned by their believers are those with the least proof. Usually none at all despite being supported by a great body of "evidence".
That's humanity for you. We mostly love to live in some sort of unrealism based on fantasy if we possibly can - even if we don't like to admit that we think of it that way.
No doubt the stars will provide guidance if we start to flounder as a species.
Erm... as is often the case, I'm afraid I don't know what your point is. Likewise, if put put into a challenging personal situation, for more people will express a believe in the God of their choice than in their political representatives.
These feelings of faith (in whatever) are often extremely strong or can be induced to be that way.
The strongest associations and the ones that are least likely to be abandoned by their believers are those with the least proof. Usually none at all despite being supported by a great body of "evidence".
That's humanity for you. We mostly love to live in some sort of unrealism based on fantasy if we possibly can - even if we don't like to admit that we think of it that way.
No doubt the stars will provide guidance if we start to flounder as a species.
That humans are prone to fantasy and confirmation bias is well known. Thankfully, we invented science to address it.
Are you trying to equate atmospheric physics with astrology?
Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
LongQ said:
Durbster I'm not at all surprised you don't understand. It seems to be your normal response in the Politics thread.
Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
I just find your writing style very difficult to parse. Can you sum up what you were trying to say in a sentence?Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Durbster I'm not at all surprised you don't understand. It seems to be your normal response in the Politics thread.
Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
I just find your writing style very difficult to parse. Can you sum up what you were trying to say in a sentence?Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
Gandahar said:
robinessex said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
And yours? Your don't need a scientific background to see the the claimed AGW is bJust wondering......
ksYou don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just b
ks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo . One might therefore presume that they were the consensus of their day. The equivalent of the claimed 97%.
No dissent could be tolerated - especially if it involved upsetting the senior people in charge of looking after the souls of the masses.
So politically driven rather than Scientific. Thus appropriate for this thread.
Interesting too that it appears that Galileo was developing theories and improvements to understanding that broadly supported a heliocentric theory that had been around for many years before Galileo became involved without attracting any significant religious objections.
On the other hand it seems to be the case that he was a devout Catholic so one assumes that in the modern age he would be considered a flawed source based on recent comments here.
durbster said:
You have very occasionally cited some actual science, and they have invariably proved you wrong on investigation.
A total fabrication, over the years and the threads it's very frequently not occasionally.
Nothing has proved me wrong on any occasion - firstly because science cited isn't mine, and also because it's not 'wrong' which is a typically simplistic slur aimed at the sound science which contradicts agw junkscience and the gigo modelling predicated on it, to which you and other agw adherents have no credible response.
Ignoring data and causality appears to be the strategy of the moment.
Ali G said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
Durbster I'm not at all surprised you don't understand. It seems to be your normal response in the Politics thread.
Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
I just find your writing style very difficult to parse. Can you sum up what you were trying to say in a sentence?Best that you try to stick to the Science thread?
El stovey said:
Do you also argue about this subject on science forums with actual scientists?
Yes, that has also been pointed out several times in several threads, but 'discuss' is closer to it.Ali G said:
Yes - Google tracks Web presence and history in a 'we told you so but not obviously coz our business model is flogging adverts customised to search history and cookies'
Entertaining isn't it
That wuwt 'research' by durbster is a joke. Find a list of anonymous references then assign them to suit the cause.Entertaining isn't it
It's curiously like assigning natural climate change to a human cause 'because'.
Meanwhile there's still no measurable anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance satellite data. No visible causal human signal in any global climate data.
This is OK to believers because "the data don't matter".
durbster said:
(they're not all you, but the vast majority are)
Try something equally ineffective with me and 'et al', I got around 1,620 hits and they're not all me but most are. Obviously.It doesn't matter that some will involve non-research uses with phrases such as NASA et al, because most won't.
Single author omissions - no matter.
Nor does it matter that some papers have been cited by other PHers because most won't have been, just as wuwt isn't linked to by others.
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Ahem, yer a few formatting controls short of a constructive post there durbs.
Aye, posted in haste, pie was ready. Think it's sorted now. Jeez, I'm a web developer - you'd think I'd get the part I do know about right
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Ahem, yer a few formatting controls short of a constructive post there durbs.
Aye, posted in haste, pie was ready. Think it's sorted now. Jeez, I'm a web developer - you'd think I'd get the part I do know about right
Meanwhile back on topic (climate models, i.e. politics) while we're waiting for Google to drum up something on the 15 points I raised for model fans to address - would any educated person swallow gigo from any of the long list of climate models with dozens of major shortcomings - here's some food for thought that durbster can Google.
Abstract
We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.
Being kind, here's something on one of the 15 or so points I raised.
Climate Modelling, with words by IPCC
Even the most complex climate models used to project climate over the next century (AOGCMs) have a typical resolution of hundreds of kilometres in the horizontal. Many important elements of the climate system (e.g., clouds, land surface) have scales that are much smaller than this in reality. Detailed models at high resolution are available for such processes by themselves, but these are computationally too expensive to be included in a climate model.
Then there's this lot (watch out for references to peer-reviewed papers and no rare copy/paste wuwt). Being very kind, another of my 15 points on model failures gets addressed.
Climate Models: A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompani Being very kioed by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
Background: The authors note that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."
This so because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is "a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols."(IPCC 1996, 2001).
This predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.
What was done: Chase et al. assessed the likelihood "that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22-year temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations."
What was learned: In the words of the authors..."at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming accompanied with no significant troposphere warming"
Such observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).
Chase et al. conclude that these "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations," noting that "such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."
References IPCC. 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Houghton,J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callender, B.A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A. and Maskell, K. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
National Academy Report. 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Zwiers, F.W. and Zhang, X. 2003. Towards regional-scale climate change detection. Journal of Climate 16: 793-797.
These failures, which later on over time caused the real world to 'fall out' of the gigo climatemodel envelope, led to realisation of a clear imperative: reality had to change to make it conform to model predictions, even though (as posted n times in this and other threads) the IPCC acknowledges that future climate states are not predictable.
And so we got less accurate and more heat contaminated ship engine intake SST temperatures in place of more accurate and less heat contaminated buoy SST temperatures. That's not sound science, but with faith in The Cause threatened as never before, needs must.
Karl, T. R. et al., Science (2015).
COP23 starts in Bonn chaired by Fiji this time around.
Here's the BBC briefing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
So far no mention of how many people are attending.
Here's the BBC briefing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
So far no mention of how many people are attending.
Climate talks open amid anger over Trump's coal support
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The latest round of UN led climate talks have opened in Bonn with delegates from almost 200 countries in attendance.
Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.
It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.
Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a "solution" to climate change.
An adviser to the president is expected to take part in a pro-coal presentation in the second week of this conference, which is officially known as COP23.........................continues.
An extract
"The talks are being chaired by Fiji, which is the first time a small island developing state has taken this role. As such, questions of climate impacts are likely to be in the spotlight, including the tricky question of loss and damage.
This is a potential area of significant disagreement as the richer countries are strongly opposed to any implied legal liability for the damages caused by climate related extreme weather events."
It's not about the money, of course, is it ? It's saving the planet !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The latest round of UN led climate talks have opened in Bonn with delegates from almost 200 countries in attendance.
Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.
It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.
Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a "solution" to climate change.
An adviser to the president is expected to take part in a pro-coal presentation in the second week of this conference, which is officially known as COP23.........................continues.
An extract
"The talks are being chaired by Fiji, which is the first time a small island developing state has taken this role. As such, questions of climate impacts are likely to be in the spotlight, including the tricky question of loss and damage.
This is a potential area of significant disagreement as the richer countries are strongly opposed to any implied legal liability for the damages caused by climate related extreme weather events."
It's not about the money, of course, is it ? It's saving the planet !!
educator said:
Climate Models: A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompani Being very kioed by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...
robinessex said:
Wow, a web developer! Not exactly the credentials to put faith in that you know anything AGW, other than what you get by Googleing for stuff.
I've never claimed to be an expert. My position is simply that I think peer-reviewed science is better evidence than internet blogs.You regularly claim you know better than the experts, so you're the one who would need to prove your credentials. I don't make such claims, so I don't need to.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Wow, a web developer! Not exactly the credentials to put faith in that you know anything AGW, other than what you get by Googleing for stuff.
I've never claimed to be an expert. My position is simply that I think peer-reviewed science is better evidence than internet blogs.You regularly claim you know better than the experts, so you're the one who would need to prove your credentials. I don't make such claims, so I don't need to.
LongQ said:
COP23 starts in Bonn chaired by Fiji this time around.
Here's the BBC briefing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
So far no mention of how many people are attending.
Any mention of their total carbon footprint for prep, travel, attendance and clear-up? They really believe and really care so this must be available surely?Here's the BBC briefing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
So far no mention of how many people are attending.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff