Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
Here's a scientific link
IPCC's abuse of science 1
An open letter to Australia's Chief Scientist
http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipcc.htm
The Intro
Dr Happs is a former lecturer in the geosciences and author of numerous science texts and book chapters. This is his open letter of 20 December 2009 to Australia's then Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett. It surveys (with many quotes) the whistle blowing that uncovered abuse of science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an abuse that promises to be the worst scandal in science's history. The letter has also been circulated to Australian senators. This website version has been slightly abridged and updated. The headings and graphs have been added. An update was added as a postcript in December 2010. Professor Sackett never replied, so Dr Happs has sent a second open letter to the new Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb. This second letter has mostly new content, and is on this website in two parts. Don't miss it! Now back to Professor Sackett:
IPCC's abuse of science 1
An open letter to Australia's Chief Scientist
http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipcc.htm
The Intro
Dr Happs is a former lecturer in the geosciences and author of numerous science texts and book chapters. This is his open letter of 20 December 2009 to Australia's then Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett. It surveys (with many quotes) the whistle blowing that uncovered abuse of science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an abuse that promises to be the worst scandal in science's history. The letter has also been circulated to Australian senators. This website version has been slightly abridged and updated. The headings and graphs have been added. An update was added as a postcript in December 2010. Professor Sackett never replied, so Dr Happs has sent a second open letter to the new Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb. This second letter has mostly new content, and is on this website in two parts. Don't miss it! Now back to Professor Sackett:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
Ali G said:
Since we are appealing to authority and all that is climate science - you can remind us which field of climate science the eminent Sir Paul Nurse worked in?
Was it genetics?
Was it genetics?
turbobloke said:
Along with many other scientists who studied/researched in natural sciences there are many other areas of enquiry I understand and could work in, does it not occur to you that those who enter one particular field are not by any means alone in their grip of the subject? There's no basis to expect any limitation on where such people work. Certainly not subject to your bias and whim!
It doesn’t matter aparently . 
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
While El Stovey is blasting away, any chance he can answer, if the planet gets warmer (whatever that is) by a minute amount, whether it actually matters?
The Royal society produce a nice fact sheet for you.https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
But essentially yes is the answer.
The UKs most eminent scientific bodies said:
Risks. Climate change poses risks to people and ecosystems by exacerbating existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and societal threats, and generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the temperature increases. Many systems are already at risk from climate change. A rise of 2°C above pre-industrial levels would lead to further increased risk from extreme weather and would place more ecosystems and cultures in significant danger. At or above 4°C, the risks include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, and fundamental changes to human activities that today are taken for granted.
Fellows of the Royal Society don't approve of what activism has been doing in their name. See under 'NASA' it's not about organisations it's about activists.
Here's another authority for you (El s) to appeal to.
In 2015 Prof Michael Kelly as a Cambridge Uni prof said:
I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society – the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world – who wrote to our then-President about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.
We hoped we would persuade the Society to rethink this position.
We hoped we would persuade the Society to rethink this position.
Prof Kelly said:
Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
Prof Kelly is clearly aware of the damage that activism can do when allowed to become entrenched in an institutional bolt hole.[President of the Royal Society]Science is organised scepticism
Pop goes another of El s's pointless and impotent appeals to authority.
O/T
150 Cambridge-based Royal Society Fellows said:
Leaving the EU would be a 'disaster' for UK
BTW have you posted any data sources to oppose the data and conclusions from Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Fischer et al, Humlum et al and Stephens et al? If so it's all gone missing for some inexplicable reason.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
Its just a website for motor nerds.
turbobloke said:
BTW have you posted any data sources to oppose the data and conclusions from Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Fischer et al, Humlum et al and Stephens et al? If so it's all gone missing for some inexplicable reason.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
You are, of course, making the presumption that all who post here post exclusively here and nowhere else (e.g. CERN)
Are you guys posting on a CERN climate change forum? It would be nice to read your discussions with CERN scientists, if so. Have you got any links to your CERN posts?
Published research by Svensmark and the CERN CLOUD experiment have shown that cosmic ray flux is liinked to low level cloud formation and thence to albedo. This is the CRF-LLC-Albedo solar eruptivity forcing mechanism ignored by IPCC et al to leave room for the non-effects of tax gas to be given free admission. Galactic cosmic rays hitting oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, cause changes in cloudiness by providing nucleation sites for cloud formation to start. This impacts on albedo and hence energy balance and temperature.
The irony is that when the CERN CLOUD results emerged, in support of Svensmark's CRF-LLC-albedo (solar eruptivity) climate forcing mechanism, the chief 'scientist' told other scientists they were not allowed to examine the implications of the results in public. CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment (CERN CLOUD).
What precise flavour of non-open discussion at CERN were you referring to El s
Calder said:
CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis.
Yet another institution fails the El s appeal to authority test, due to political activism not institutionalism.El stovey said:
Why are you wasting your time arguing against scientific consensus with non scientists in a car forum? Have you visited any of these scientific bodies with your facts? This isn’t where scientific discovery is made.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade non-scientists on a backwater motor oriented site who clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about (since we are all scientifically illiterate). Is this a perversion that you enjoy?You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Nurse!
turbobloke said:
Yet another institution fails the El s appeal to authority test, due to political activism not institutionalism.
ANOTHER scientific institution taken over by nefarious agents!There’s still loads more you could present your science changing facts to though? Or have you managed to discredit of them? All of these scientific institutions that disagree with you, are in fact infiltrated with political activism?
I suppose that’s the only way you can explain how they all disagree with you.
Are there any institutions of note that actually agree with you? How did they avoid this insidious political infiltration?
Is in not far more likely that you’re the one that has been infiltrated by politics?
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Why are you wasting your time arguing against scientific consensus with non scientists in a car forum? Have you visited any of these scientific bodies with your facts? This isn’t where scientific discovery is made.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade non-scientists on a backwater motor oriented site who clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about (since we are all scientifically illiterate). Is this a perversion that you enjoy?You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Nurse!
Did you mean Nurse ex-President of the Royal Sorcery?! Despite another PRS correctly ascribing the characteristic of skepticism to the practice of science, Nurse actually called for climate realists aka climate skeptics to be "crushed and buried" the voice of reason from the Royal Society / PRS!
Nurse the Screens said:
Politicians live in a world where the strength of their rhetoric means much more than scientific content
IIRC the RS and Nurse had been rattled by evidence from malaria researcher Dr Paul Reiter which ran contrary to their doctrine and the gospel according to IPCC.
Dr Reiter discussing misleading statements about climate and malaria from various sources said:
How have these myths arisen?
In large part they stem from an escalating trend for political activists to use the 'big talk' of science to manipulate public opinion with emotive and fiercely judgmental 'scientific' pronouncements.
These activists legitimise their cause by publishing opinion articles in professional journals and quoting each other liberally, while essentially ignoring the mainstream of science.
For those interested, here are the climate myths exploding.In large part they stem from an escalating trend for political activists to use the 'big talk' of science to manipulate public opinion with emotive and fiercely judgmental 'scientific' pronouncements.
These activists legitimise their cause by publishing opinion articles in professional journals and quoting each other liberally, while essentially ignoring the mainstream of science.
Malaria researcher said:
Alarmists have nurtured three common 'myths' that have no grounding in historical or scientific evidence.
The first, which began circulating in the early 1990s, is that 'tropical' infections, particularly malaria, are moving to higher latitudes as global temperatures rise.
Not so: historical records show that malaria has previously been widespread in temperate regions — as far north as Scandinavia — and survived even during the coldest years of the Little Ice Age.
Moreover, in much of Europe and North America the disease began a rapid decline in the mid-nineteenth century, just as global temperatures started to rise.
This decline was due to complex changes in rural ecology and living conditions linked to industrialisation, including depopulation of the countryside, new cropping and rearing practices, drainage, improved building structure, better health care and a substantial drop in the price of quinine.
Another myth is that the disease is moving to higher altitudes. Al Gore, former US vice president and a ruthless campaigner on climate change, has repeatedly stated that "because of global warming, [mosquitoes] are now travelling to places where they've never been before. For instance, in Africa, the city of Nairobi…used to be above the mosquito line (the highest point at which mosquitoes can live)…".
Not so: Nairobi is at 1680m above sea level, yet until the mid-1950s, epidemic malaria was a serious problem at altitudes up to 2450m. Indeed, in 1927 the colonial government assigned £40,000, equivalent to about US$1.2 million today, for malaria control in Nairobi and the surrounding highlands.
Highland malaria was conquered in the 1950s by the effective application of the insecticide DDT. Control campaigns have all but ceased and there is widespread resistance to anti-malarial drugs. For these and other reasons, the disease is returning, but this return has nothing to do with climate.
The third myth is that climate change is already causing an increase of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa, and there are wild predictions that millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions more people will contract the disease as temperatures rise.
This is naïve. Across much of the region, the climate is already more than adequate for transmission, the disease is endemic and ubiquitous, and in most cases people are already exposed to numerous infective mosquito bites every year. You can't add water to a glass that is already full.
The first, which began circulating in the early 1990s, is that 'tropical' infections, particularly malaria, are moving to higher latitudes as global temperatures rise.
Not so: historical records show that malaria has previously been widespread in temperate regions — as far north as Scandinavia — and survived even during the coldest years of the Little Ice Age.
Moreover, in much of Europe and North America the disease began a rapid decline in the mid-nineteenth century, just as global temperatures started to rise.
This decline was due to complex changes in rural ecology and living conditions linked to industrialisation, including depopulation of the countryside, new cropping and rearing practices, drainage, improved building structure, better health care and a substantial drop in the price of quinine.
Another myth is that the disease is moving to higher altitudes. Al Gore, former US vice president and a ruthless campaigner on climate change, has repeatedly stated that "because of global warming, [mosquitoes] are now travelling to places where they've never been before. For instance, in Africa, the city of Nairobi…used to be above the mosquito line (the highest point at which mosquitoes can live)…".
Not so: Nairobi is at 1680m above sea level, yet until the mid-1950s, epidemic malaria was a serious problem at altitudes up to 2450m. Indeed, in 1927 the colonial government assigned £40,000, equivalent to about US$1.2 million today, for malaria control in Nairobi and the surrounding highlands.
Highland malaria was conquered in the 1950s by the effective application of the insecticide DDT. Control campaigns have all but ceased and there is widespread resistance to anti-malarial drugs. For these and other reasons, the disease is returning, but this return has nothing to do with climate.
The third myth is that climate change is already causing an increase of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa, and there are wild predictions that millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions more people will contract the disease as temperatures rise.
This is naïve. Across much of the region, the climate is already more than adequate for transmission, the disease is endemic and ubiquitous, and in most cases people are already exposed to numerous infective mosquito bites every year. You can't add water to a glass that is already full.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Why are you wasting your time arguing against scientific consensus with non scientists in a car forum? Have you visited any of these scientific bodies with your facts? This isn’t where scientific discovery is made.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade non-scientists on a backwater motor oriented site who clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about (since we are all scientifically illiterate). Is this a perversion that you enjoy?You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Nurse!
I’m trying to understand that if you’ve uncovered evidence of the greatest scam in the history of science you’re not doing something to prove it outside a car forum.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Yet another institution fails the El s appeal to authority test, due to political activism not institutionalism.
ANOTHER scientific institution taken over by nefarious agents!I said that a small number of activists cause problems for institutions as a result of their politicisation and big mouths, and problems for you in basic comprehension of post content! Not surprising perhaps given your persistent failure to grasp causality, a basic concept.
Do you have anything, anything at all, beyond failed appeals to authority and personal attacks? Please feel free to post up if so.
El stovey said:
ANOTHER scientific institution taken over by nefarious agents!
There’s still loads more you could present your science changing facts to though? Or have you managed to discredit of them? All of these scientific institutions that disagree with you, are in fact infiltrated with political activism?
I suppose that’s the only way you can explain how they all disagree with you.
Are there any institutions of note that actually agree with you? How did they avoid this insidious political infiltration?
Is in not far more likely that you’re the one that has been infiltrated by politics?
El Stovey, the new theory must be proven in experiments and please can you show me where the climate change experiment has been proven?There’s still loads more you could present your science changing facts to though? Or have you managed to discredit of them? All of these scientific institutions that disagree with you, are in fact infiltrated with political activism?
I suppose that’s the only way you can explain how they all disagree with you.
Are there any institutions of note that actually agree with you? How did they avoid this insidious political infiltration?
Is in not far more likely that you’re the one that has been infiltrated by politics?
Also where have we as the world ever had a stable climate, please provide the detail so such and the perfect make up of that climate.
Please provide the 5 of CO2 which is best for photosynthesis?
Finally can you explain to me, how if the rich countries reduce CO2 but the developing counties so not, that is fine since the total CO2 pumped out increases?
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Why are you wasting your time arguing against scientific consensus with non scientists in a car forum? Have you visited any of these scientific bodies with your facts? This isn’t where scientific discovery is made.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade non-scientists on a backwater motor oriented site who clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about (since we are all scientifically illiterate). Is this a perversion that you enjoy?You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Nurse!
I’m trying to understand that if you’ve uncovered evidence of the greatest scam in the history of science you’re not doing something to prove it outside a car forum.
(1) No it is not
(2) That's what science is
(3) Feel free to try
(4) That's politics that is.
(5) That's for me to know - not you.
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Why are you wasting your time arguing against scientific consensus with non scientists in a car forum? Have you visited any of these scientific bodies with your facts? This isn’t where scientific discovery is made.
You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Why are you wasting your time trying to persuade non-scientists on a backwater motor oriented site who clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're banging on about (since we are all scientifically illiterate). Is this a perversion that you enjoy?You’ve got evidence that proves all these scientific bodies wrong and can change the scientific consensus.
Or are they ALL infiltrated by these agents?
The answer is of course is that here you can promote yourself as an expert going against the consensus without having to actually debate with the people you’re trying to disprove.
Nurse!
The so-called 97% consensus results from Cook and Doran turned out to be around 0.3% to 3%. Not even into double figures. More like a 97% consensus against your unsupported position. See PH threads for details
Still. If appeals to authority land face-down in the mud there's always appeal to consensus (which does the same, if you did but read and comprehend).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff