Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
zygalski said:
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...
climate change can be conclusively proven. there are various natural cycles operating on different timescales along with naturally occurring phenomena like volcanic eruptions that can all alter the climate of the time. in that respect you won't find any climate change deniers on this thread.How exactly (to a mere mortal such as myself) is that a refutation of any climate change related impact?
Please explain...
there are also many examples of environmental change caused by humans on a local or regional scale,including atmospheric. i don't know anyone that has taken more than a cursory glance at the debate that would disagree. as an example london is one great big urban heat island,which is why when the bbc stick a 28c over london on the weather and say 28 c in the south east today,those living on or near the coast in the south east my be a tad disappointed when there is a light onshore breeze blowing at this time of year and the temp they get is sub 20 c.
neither you, gadget mac or jj has bothered to address several points made that would raise an eyebrow in anyone interested in genuine debate. do any of you know what the basic hypothesis is in relation to agw in terms of how the planet is supposed to warm as a result of an increase in the level of co2 in the atmosphere ?
i suspect you don't as the lack of the tropospheric hotspot is an issue that should raise an eyebrow in anyone that has done any reading on the subject.
there are a few that say there are problems with instruments and adjustments made to the measured records can show it, but that argument is getting a bit old for me now, particularly after the hockey stick and karl debacles.
this leads to the measurements. the only data sets that support agw in every single measured metric have been altered, every single one of them. the argo bouy data that some like to think tells us the temperature of the worlds oceans to a thousandth of a degree (i s
t you not), the radiosonde data that give us the temp at various heights in the atmosphere , the satellite data, the argo bouy data for ocean temps in certain areas and every single surface temperature data set. now i don't know about you, but when all those data sets have to be heavily manipulated to get a final result that is a long way from that actually measured , and they are all adjusted the same way, it also raises suspicion that all may not be as presented.the basic premise of that is the very instruments designed to measure the effects of the increase in co2 in the atmosphere are not up to the job, yet we are spending billions mitigating the effects of something we cannot measure effectively. don't take my word for it, go take a look.
in fact the only measured result of any accuracy as result of the increase in co2 is an increased greening of the planet. i don't think that is a bad thing.
zygalski said:
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...
Although wc98 got there first, your odd question is worth another word or two.How exactly (to a mere mortal such as myself) is that a refutation of any climate change related impact?
Please explain...
The papers listed yesterday were placed underneath a number of statements to which they collectively related. Each made a contribution to supporting the veracity of one or more of the statements. Where in those statements was 'refutation of any climate change related impact' mentioned? Nowhere.
Climate change has been happening for billions of years and has had/will have impacts. There was nothing in any of the papers I listed that establishes causality to human emissions of carbon dioxide so by all means keep googling but you'll get nowhere. The paper you quoted from, even though you didn't understand the content you quoted, shows one aspect of the failure of gigo climate models, an obvious reality which by no coincidence was mentioned in the list of agw failure statements that I provided above the references.
Many papers end with 'more research is required' as it suppors further grant-funding applications. If no more research was needed there would be no need for more grant funding largesse.
We could get back to climate politics as per my attempts yesterday including the Pruitt update but if you or El s or anyone else wants to maintain a focus on the failure of agw junkscience then by all means carry on, I'm well-placed to help you.
wc98 said:
in fact the only measured result of any accuracy as result of the increase in co2 is an increased greening of the planet. i don't think that is a bad thing.
Indeed, hence the long-standing use of the term 'climate optimum' to describe naturally warmer periods in the planet's history. That'll be the type of natural climate optimum that believers are wetting their collective panties over on the basis of no empirical data supporting agw climate fairytales, and no causality to humans in the empirical data they refuse to engage with on the false and unscientific basis that "the data don't matter".When empirical data doesn't support a junkscience hypothesis then the junky nature of the junk is made clear to everyone except those blinded by e.g. faith or politics or vested interest (grant funding included).
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: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
'“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.”
And your explanation of this?
Back on-topic with what passes as political debate from the true believer charm school side of climate fairytales:
Political Blog Climate Depot said:
‘People like you should just die, motherf*cker’ — ‘Go to Hell’ – skeptical climate book author Morano’s hate mail of the day
From email address fkyou@idiot.die and sent April 25, 2018 to Marc Morano of Climate Depot & Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change'.
As per the dreck in this thread of a somewhat less putrid nature, that's bound to make all the empirical data disappear so the faith can charge on with more vilification but no evidence and no clue either.From email address f
kyou@idiot.die and sent April 25, 2018 to Marc Morano of Climate Depot & Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change'.Pretty much all the charm that ignorance and faith can muster is reflected here:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/04/25/death-wish-...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/04/25/death-wish-...
turbobloke said:
As per the dreck in this thread of a somewhat less putrid nature, that's bound to make all the empirical data disappear so the faith can charge on with more vilification but no evidence and no clue either.
Yes time to move on from the fact that loads of your links and irrefutable evidence actually disproves your argument. 
Did you even read them?
C’mon that is funny. You’re always banging on about people ignoring your click and paste evidence and the time people actually read it, it’s actually going against your own point.
At least you found out before presenting any of it to the Royal society?
TB “I have here irrefutable evidence of blah blah blah”
Royal society “this actually agrees with us and proves you wrong”
TB “you’ve been infiltrated by political agents!”
El stovey said:
Yes time to move on from the fact that loads of your links and irrefutable evidence actually disproves your argument.
No they don't, assertion fails you again, you haven't read them all, seen most or all of them before, and don't understand what you're reading if you do take a look.The only difference between the vacuous drivel you spout and the material that Morano receives is that you like the rest of us remain within PH posting rules, but your aim is the same - fire off with baiting, mild-enough abuse and personal angles in the hope of discouraging discussion and closing down debate, since where open debate and open access to empirical data exists, manmade warming fairytales can't survive and true belief can't cope.
El stovey said:
Did you even read them?
Unlike you, yes, I've been reading the climate science literature for over thirty years and have a collection that's gone form hard copies to PDFs over the years. I get pre-print copies while papers are in peer review and have read many hundreds of papers.El stovey said:
C’mon that is funny. You’re always banging on about people ignoring your click and paste evidence and the time people actually read it, it’s actually going against your own point.
More baiting, very good, that'll ensure that all the evidence piled up against climate fairytales will stop being effective - that's the joke and you're not a particularly good comic, though the junkscience your faith supports is hilariously junky as per the papers in my post yesterday. What I post shows that agw junkscience is junk and you have nothing available to you that says otherwise. Hence your personal angles ad nauseam.El stovey said:
At least you found out before presenting any of it to the Royal society?
More irony, fellows and officers of the RS didn't correspond with me when I first wrote to those I know, and the reason is obvious - there are, as in other organisations, a small number of activists that give the organisation a hard time and which others involved find embarrassing...but they still have an affiliation if not a salary in play.El stovey said:
TB “I have here irrefutable evidence of blah blah blah”
Royal society “this actually agrees with us and proves you wrong”
TB “you’ve been infiltrated by political agents!”
Strawman gibberish with irony to go, and those aren't actually quotes as you know - pathetic stuff! Only agw claims to be / acts as if it is irrefutable, as opposed to junkscience actual science involves hypothesis testing with the possibility of refutation.Royal society “this actually agrees with us and proves you wrong”
TB “you’ve been infiltrated by political agents!”
RS material isn't empirical data with established causality to humans, so you have no point to make, it's just more activist opinion like yours and it's no more successful. RS fellows have pointed it out to the RS already, but you're too blinkered in the defence of your baseless position to notice.
Stephens et al shows there is no visible anthropogenic signal in top of atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data, political statements from the RS haven't managed to make the invisible become visible nor have your increasingly absurd ramblings.
Monnin et al and Humlum et al show that carbon dioxide changes occur after temperature changes., so are not a cause of the temperature changes on timescales from interglacial to decadal. This is clear from the lack of any permanent dangerous warming as advertised and is also not amenable to disproof via bullshine as you and any activist in any organisation know only too well. Not that this lack of getting anywhere will stop your empty vessel contributions, but where would the thread be without you and other agw disciples if all we had was grown-up debate?!
Crack on, anything you post will be transparent for what it is and just as easily demolished as everything else has been to date.
Nullius in verba El S, and that RS motto includes your verba but not by definition the empirical data I adduce, which isn't verba. You have nothing to offer.
As someone with an education and qualification in science as well as my medical qualifications, a rather obvious question which springs to mind when following this argument is "why should I give credence to the predictions of disaster churned out by the climate models when they cannot even hindcast accurately?".
DocJock said:
As someone with an education and qualification in science as well as my medical qualifications, a rather obvious question which springs to mind when following this argument is "why should I give credence to the predictions of disaster churned out by the climate models when they cannot even hindcast accurately?".
that's another question you are not supposed to ask.wc98 said:
DocJock said:
As someone with an education and qualification in science as well as my medical qualifications, a rather obvious question which springs to mind when following this argument is "why should I give credence to the predictions of disaster churned out by the climate models when they cannot even hindcast accurately?".
that's another question you are not supposed to ask.That question was one of several I put to two individuals with RS email addresses, one a former uni colleague and the other a co-author whose name is next to mine on eight publications. The embarrassed silence that followed speaks volumes.
It's a great shame when organisations have their reputations traduced, and whether it's inadvertently or culpably doesn't make any difference. Activists in NASA (e.g. Jim) and the RS (e.g. Bob) make a lot of noise, and to make matters worse there are unthinking folk who listen and then willingly associate the noise with the organisation. Weak thinking in thrall to the faith is rife.
turbobloke said:
That question was one of several I put to two individuals with RS email addresses, one a former uni colleague and the other a co-author whose name is next to mine on eight publications. The embarrassed silence that followed speaks volumes.
Yes it does.It clearly indicates you’re
Is it possible your constant spamming has actually driven them to ignore you?
I’m not sure many people would think being blanked by ex colleagues was a positive result.
Nullius In Verba includes you El s. My position isn't based on 'verba' as you know by now.
This means your words or the RS words are worth squat. The RS says so, and you like to appeal to the RS including its activist element.
I can (and do
) indicate data in Stephens et al which shows no visible anthropogenic signal in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance, your 'verba' like all activist believer rhetoric has no effect whatsoever on empirical data.I can also (and do) point to data in Monnin et al and Humlum et al which show the lack of causality from carbon dioxide to temperature and once again rhetoric is impotent.
All that belief can do in response to the empirical data is spout cobblers, which believers do very well.
turbobloke said:
Nullius In Verba includes you El s. My position isn't based on 'verba' as you know by now.
This means your words or the RS words are worth squat. The RS says so, and you like to appeal to the RS including its activist element.
I can (and do
) indicate data in Stephens et al which shows no visible anthropogenic signal in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance, your 'verba' like all activist believer rhetoric has no effect whatsoever on empirical data.I can also (and do) point to data in Monnin et al and Humlum et al which show the lack of causality from carbon dioxide to temperature and once again rhetoric is impotent.
All that belief can do in response to the empirical data is spout cobblers, which believers do very well.
It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
Ali G said:
lol, there a few on form in npe today .El stovey said:
OMG
It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
anyway,i am sure you were just about to comment on the consensus on the cause of stomach ulcer problem in modern day science ?It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
El stovey said:
OMG
It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
You do a great line in irony, given you support the global warming religion, putting faith above evidence, and the nature of what's written on here is very simple compared to the brief yet more detailed information exchange that normally takes place between scientists, so your latest personal angle is further demonstration of how ignorant you are of both the scientific process and scientific dialogue. Understandably you don't cope well with science on PH climate threads. It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
What the former colleagues appreciated and still appreciate, is that nobody can overturn empirical data no matter what their position may be, given that the data and subsequent analysis has been subject to independent review including experimental error - which is the case with the key peer-reviewed papers I refer to. Given their implications for agw junkscience they are dissected and have stood up to that level of scrutiny.
There is no room for the experimental error to turn the conclusion (e.g. regarding causality) on its head. It doesn't matter if critics/believers have an impressive sounding title, or a job with an organisation you believe to be an authority and like to appeal to, and they can have all manner of awards from a DSc right down to cycling proficiency. All it means, for those in supposedly lofty positions, is that they know better but are setting aside the scientific method for some unjustifiable reason known to them but irrelevant beyond that point.
Royal Society said:
Nullius in verba
Prof Richard Feynmann said:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment (data) it's wrong.
You won't understand the above and will probably keep on digging your personal thread hole but there are plenty of people whether scientists or not who understand perfectly well what the implications are. What would you like to get wrong next?
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
OMG
It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
anyway,i am sure you were just about to comment on the consensus on the cause of stomach ulcer problem in modern day science ?It’s like reading some odd religious doctrine pamphlet handed out by door to door zealots. You must have a turbowaffle generator to automatically create this gibberish.
No wonder your ex colleagues don’t reply.
Also the lack of any visible anthropogenic signal in the TOA radiative imbalance (i.e. no human global warming).
And the lack of any causality in climate data from energy and temperature to humans (i.e. more carbon dioxide but no causal link to any warming trend there may or may not be depending on the cherry being picked).
Likewise the absence of the agw smoking gun - the missing tropical troposphere hotspot.
Not forgetting the too-many-to-count failures of gigo climate models based on agw junkscience.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff