Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
Sorry guv - we ain't got a clueIt's warming
Its a thermoge....
It's God...
where woz I?
Here is a link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
A true believer.
ANY scientist giving equal weight to Religious doctrine as they would Scientific teaching is, as far as I am concerned, to be considered lacking in judgement. No exceptions.
However, the issue was around Dr Tim Ball as he was offered up as evidence and was who's credentials I looked at. John Houghton was not. I couldn't care less about John Houghton and certainly won't be quoting him or his blog-site.
LoonyTunes said:
Perhaps you fail to understand my stance.
ANY scientist giving equal weight to Religious doctrine as they would Scientific teaching is, as far as I am concerned, to be considered lacking in judgement. No exceptions.
However, the issue was around Dr Tim Ball as he was offered up as evidence and was who's credentials I looked at. John Houghton was not. I couldn't care less about John Houghton and certainly won't be quoting him or his blog-site.
But John Houghton is at the heart of MMCC, he set up the Hadley Center, a world leader in the study of climate change, using your logic, his views can be discounted.ANY scientist giving equal weight to Religious doctrine as they would Scientific teaching is, as far as I am concerned, to be considered lacking in judgement. No exceptions.
However, the issue was around Dr Tim Ball as he was offered up as evidence and was who's credentials I looked at. John Houghton was not. I couldn't care less about John Houghton and certainly won't be quoting him or his blog-site.
El stovey said:
Barry published his in The lancet, I expect there is an equivalent suitable place for climate papers. I’m pretty sure it’s not the NPandE though.
You really need to see how difficult it was to get the "consensus" to look at the evidence and that was only of interest to a relatively small subsection of the medical industry. Now think about how big the global warming industry is (makes big oil look like baby oil). It took a life risking method to get the stomach ulcer consensus to finally look at the evidence (and it still hasn't completely - doctors are still advising that stress causes ulcers) . So is there anything short of an Ice age that will get the consensus to look at the evidence?The evidence is there - the models have failed, the projections are wrong, CO2 sensitivity is well below expected values, El Nino is responsible for the step changes in global average temperatures, storms are associated with global cooling, CO2 has more benefits than expected, fuel is plentiful and sea levels are only rising after adjustments to the data.
PRTVR said:
But John Houghton is at the heart of MMCC, he set up the Hadley Center, a world leader in the study of climate change, using your logic, his views can be discounted.
Yep using my logic...and wc98's it would appear. But I say again, I haven't quoted him or anything he's done or said. Dr Tim Ball is the person of interest.Why are you continuing with this line of deflection?
I'm sure David Icke has some reasonable and grounded views on many issues - but would you want him teaching your kids Science? Just swap Lizards in human form for omnipotent Gods watching over/guiding us. Ali G will explain.
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Barry published his in The lancet, I expect there is an equivalent suitable place for climate papers. I’m pretty sure it’s not the NPandE though.
You really need to see how difficult it was to get the "consensus" to look at the evidence and that was only of interest to a relatively small subsection of the medical industry. Now think about how big the global warming industry is (makes big oil look like baby oil). It took a life risking method to get the stomach ulcer consensus to finally look at the evidence (and it still hasn't completely - doctors are still advising that stress causes ulcers) . So is there anything short of an Ice age that will get the consensus to look at the evidence?The evidence is there - the models have failed, the projections are wrong, CO2 sensitivity is well below expected values, El Nino is responsible for the step changes in global average temperatures, storms are associated with global cooling, CO2 has more benefits than expected, fuel is plentiful and sea levels are only rising after adjustments to the data.
And it's not just the non-consensus about failed agw.
There was a physical scuffle at a seminar when bat sonar was put forward against the so-called prevailing view of so-called experts of the day. Since then the study of bats has moved forward in a far more scientific manner, with scientists on each side of the bat question (which came first, flight or echolocation) behaving scientifically right up to the relatively recent discovery of a bat fossil dating from ~50 million years ago which has helped to settle the question.
Then there was the 'invisible atmosphere' (seriously) on the planet Mercury, put forward vigorously by the prevailing 'expert scientists' so they could 'explain' discrepancies between new data and old theories of the rotation/orbit relationship and maintain the non-consensus of the day.
In the case of failed agw hypothesis the political patronage is too great to allow a more rapid equilibration and nonscience is set to continue for a while yet and is destined to die visibly on a slower timescale. It's a dead duck already but with major cross-party international political support and zilions of dollars providing a hand up its ass to make it move and look alive, the corpse has remained animated.
The pace of change has increased since The Team lost their grip on peer review gatekeeping and hundreds of papers are now published each year which do not support agw.
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
But John Houghton is at the heart of MMCC, he set up the Hadley Center, a world leader in the study of climate change, using your logic, his views can be discounted.
Yep using my logic...and wc98's it would appear. But I say again, I haven't quoted him or anything he's done or said. Dr Tim Ball is the person of interest.Why are you continuing with this line of deflection?
I'm sure David Icke has some reasonable and grounded views on many issues - but would you want him teaching your kids Science? Just swap Lizards in human form for omnipotent Gods watching over/guiding us. Ali G will explain.
LoonyTunes said:
I'm sure David Icke has some reasonable and grounded views on many issues - but would you want him teaching your kids Science? Just swap Lizards in human form for omnipotent Gods watching over/guiding us. Ali G will explain.
Nope - god botherers, green peas and gloopal wombling are all treated with equal disdain chez moi.Vivariums - thats another story!
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
p.s. Since we are doing science by consensus these days - there must be some god or other - consensus sez so.
There’s no scientific consensus that there’s a god. Quite the opposite. The concept is outside of the ability of science to determine - hence 'belief' is required.
Much like CAGW.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
p.s. Since we are doing science by consensus these days - there must be some god or other - consensus sez so.
There’s no scientific consensus that there’s a god. Quite the opposite. The concept is outside of the ability of science to determine - hence 'belief' is required.
Much like CAGW.
A new version of the British Social Attitudes Survey is out. Here's the first bullet point:
• The British public are not as worried about major global challenges as the experts who work on them. Public concern about the threat of climate change... is relatively low
More than half (53%) believe that it is caused equally by human activity and natural processes.
Climate alarmists must be alarmed at that news. Ye heretics repent and belieeeeeve!
Naturally the belief word is in there (nothing else but belief is available) and what a peachy result.
Meanwhile there's still no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance satellite data, and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data.
Anything else isn't evidence. Without nasty humans causing an 'energy imbalance' and the planet warming as a result, agw junkscience disappears up its own gigo.
• The British public are not as worried about major global challenges as the experts who work on them. Public concern about the threat of climate change... is relatively low
More than half (53%) believe that it is caused equally by human activity and natural processes.
Climate alarmists must be alarmed at that news. Ye heretics repent and belieeeeeve!
Naturally the belief word is in there (nothing else but belief is available) and what a peachy result.
Meanwhile there's still no anthropogenic forcing visible in TOA radiative imbalance satellite data, and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data.
Anything else isn't evidence. Without nasty humans causing an 'energy imbalance' and the planet warming as a result, agw junkscience disappears up its own gigo.
A brief lesson in the modern history of climate politics from nearly ten years ago: none dare call it fraud.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/10/19/none-dare-...
Snips from the link said:
Michael Mann’s hockey-stick-shaped historical temperature chart supposedly proved that twentieth century warming was “unprecedented” in the last 2000 years. After it became the centerpiece of the UN climate group’s 2001 Third Assessment Report, Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre asked Mann to divulge his data and statistical algorithms. Mann refused. Ultimately, Mc-Mc, the National Science Foundation and investigators led by renowned statistician Edward Wegman found that the hockey stick was based on cherry-picked tree-ring data and a computer program that generated temperature spikes even when random numbers were fed into it.
(In 2009) another “unprecedented” warming study went down in flames. Lead scientist Keith Briffa managed to keep his tree-ring data secret for a decade, during which the study became a poster child for climate alarmism. Finally, McKitrick and McIntyre gained access to the data. Amazingly, there were 252 cores in the Yamal group, plus cores from other Siberian locations. Together, they showed no anomalous warming trend due to rising carbon dioxide levels. But Briffa selected just twelve cores, to “prove” a dramatic recent temperature spike, and chose three cores that “demonstrated” there had never been a Medieval Warm Period. It was a case study in how to lie with statistics.
Meanwhile, scientists associated with Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) also withheld temperature data and methods, while publishing papers that lent support to climate chaos claims, hydrocarbon taxes and restrictions, and renewable energy mandates. In response to one request, lead scientist Phil Jones replied testily: “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Of course, that’s what the scientific method is all about – subjecting data, methods and analyses to rigorous testing, to confirm or refute theories and conclusions. When pressure to release the original data became too intense to ignore, the CRU finally claimed it had “lost” (destroyed?) all the original data.
The supposedly “final” text of the IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes. However, without the authors’ and reviewers’ knowledge or approval, lead author Dr. Ben Santer (and alarmist colleagues) revised the text and inserted the infamous assertion that there is “a discernable human influence” on Earth’s climate.
So that's the cheeky chappy who made up manmadeup warming (In 2009) another “unprecedented” warming study went down in flames. Lead scientist Keith Briffa managed to keep his tree-ring data secret for a decade, during which the study became a poster child for climate alarmism. Finally, McKitrick and McIntyre gained access to the data. Amazingly, there were 252 cores in the Yamal group, plus cores from other Siberian locations. Together, they showed no anomalous warming trend due to rising carbon dioxide levels. But Briffa selected just twelve cores, to “prove” a dramatic recent temperature spike, and chose three cores that “demonstrated” there had never been a Medieval Warm Period. It was a case study in how to lie with statistics.
Meanwhile, scientists associated with Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) also withheld temperature data and methods, while publishing papers that lent support to climate chaos claims, hydrocarbon taxes and restrictions, and renewable energy mandates. In response to one request, lead scientist Phil Jones replied testily: “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Of course, that’s what the scientific method is all about – subjecting data, methods and analyses to rigorous testing, to confirm or refute theories and conclusions. When pressure to release the original data became too intense to ignore, the CRU finally claimed it had “lost” (destroyed?) all the original data.
The supposedly “final” text of the IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes. However, without the authors’ and reviewers’ knowledge or approval, lead author Dr. Ben Santer (and alarmist colleagues) revised the text and inserted the infamous assertion that there is “a discernable human influence” on Earth’s climate.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/10/19/none-dare-...
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
A simple question Do you or do you not discount the work that comes out of the Hadley Center ? As you appear to have a problem mixing religion and science.
Does Dr Tim Ball work there? What's the link from the Hadley Center to him?PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
A simple question Do you or do you not discount the work that comes out of the Hadley Center ? As you appear to have a problem mixing religion and science.
Does Dr Tim Ball work there? What's the link from the Hadley Center to him?LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
A simple question Do you or do you not discount the work that comes out of the Hadley Center ? As you appear to have a problem mixing religion and science.
Does Dr Tim Ball work there? What's the link from the Hadley Center to him?As apposed to a discussion on religion and science.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff