Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8

I know, I know 'appeal to authority!'.

I know you watched the vid at your own link so you might have stopped laughing by now at the captions, starting with the confession that he's "not a primate scientist" then no credible empirical data just an opinion piece blah blah - so please, no more monkeying around.

Empirical data overtrumps any opinion from anyone anywhere anytime.

jjlynn27 said:

This thread reminds me of...

It's a thread where from time to time you (and others) are free to pop in with no adequate response to the peer reviewed research based on empirical data showing a lack of any visible anthropogenic forcing in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data, and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data.

As you'll be keen to rush off to your nearest uni library to re-read this research evidence, your non-points (authority fallacy, consensus fallacy, opinion hot air etc) are obliterated by Stephens et al, Monnin et al, and Humlum et al.

LOL. Nothing if not predictable. Just like the anti-vaxxers.

Btw, you shouldn't be careful with that El-Stowey bloke. This is the picture taken from his office earlier;



You've been warned.

[Kawasicki]

jjlynn27 said:

LOL. Nothing if not predictable. Just like the anti-vaxxers.

Is he wrong then?

[turbobloke]

Whatever, non-primate scientists aren't my cup of tea. It's not about anybody it's about credible empirical data.

All the guy had done was swallow the 97% consensus myth, just another true believer.

Shows for sure there's been no in-depth research, as per PH faithful.

That, or deliberate misdirection, as per PH faithful.

Meanwhile there's still no visible anthropogenic forcing in satellite TOA radiative imbalance (energy) data and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data, these are the only means of establishing agw and at present agw is invisible, only those with faith / political motives / vested interests / trolls can see it.

Happy for you that you can see invisible things and/or believe others who tell you they've seen them be happy like Lewis

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

Whatever, non-primate scientists aren't my cup of tea. It's not about anybody it's about credible empirical data.

All the guy had done was swallow the 97% consensus myth, just another true believer.

Shows for sure there's been no in-depth research, as per PH faithful.

That, or deliberate misdirection, as per PH faithful.

Meanwhile there's still no visible anthropogenic forcing in satellite TOA radiative imbalance (energy) data and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data, these are the only means of establishing agw and at present agw is invisible, only those with faith / political motives / vested interests / trolls can see it.

Happy for you that you can see invisible things and/or believe others who tell you they've seen them be happy like Lewis

The science is very much settled. What you are doing is a variation on 'oh look a real doctor found a link between mmr vaccines and autism! the consensus is wrong, it's a conspiracy'. As predictable as entertaining. On the other hand, you could be right, when following luminaries are agreeing with you;

https://www.infowars.com/the-real-cause-behind-hur...

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/05/my-a...

The real authorities on the matter.




tldr; 'everyone else is sheeple, but we understand the TRUTH!'.

[Jinx]

jjlynn27 said:

The science is very much settled.

If it is settled it ain't science.

[jjlynn27]

Jinx said:

If it is settled it ain't science.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you came up with that all on your own.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

jjlynn27 said:

LOL. Nothing if not predictable. Just like the anti-vaxxers.

Is he wrong then?

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

In order to settle this matter what measurement could be taken, by whom and how would they go about taking it?

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

In order to settle this matter what measurement could be taken, by whom and how would they go about taking it?

Can't and won't speak for wc98 but that's a rhetorical question presumably.

Otherwise, given the position you <appear to> display on this thread, you support a hypothesis, agw, for which you have no idea where the evidence will be / should be found. Are you on the fence by any chance?

You also appear to have no idea of the significance of basic information presented to you, in this thread, today.

Faith in all its 'glory'.

[LongQ]

Was the YouTube video offered above intended to be a Scientific discussion?

Perhaps not, there seemed to be a lot of political inference in the content of the script. At least so far as I watched it.

Happy with that of course, since this is the Political thread. It's always useful to be able to see a political angle presented by a Populist scientist.

[jjlynn27]

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

You are wasting your time. You can't explain to conspiracy nutjobs that they are conspiracy nutjobs. But you can enjoy the show.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

You are wasting your time. You can't explain to conspiracy nutjobs that they are conspiracy nutjobs. But you can enjoy the show.

No need for lies / strawmen.

The reason kerplunk dismisses peer-reviewed empirical evidence, and presumably the reason you eagerly support it with verbiage, is that you have no material response to offer. As usual!

The TOA radiative imbalance data is where an anthropogenic (emissions) global warming signal should be seen, but it's invisible. Rather, it can be seen to exist with the requisite faith.

The lack of a visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data is in keeping with the above - no energy imbalance visible due to humans, no causal temperature shift attributable to humans.

The only reply from believers trying and failing to to circumvent this inconvenient situation involves summarily dismissing it with verbiage including fallacies, ad homs and white noise, but it can only be dismissed scientifically with counter-evidence in the form of credible data with causality attached, and not one of the pro-agw sarc responses has anything to offer because nothing of the sort exists.

As mentioned previously, if believers are content with their faith / irony / bluster then fine, chances are they'll stay content as faith (& trolling) are impervious to evidence. The notion of believing in invisible things that should be visible remains extremely silly, and believing in them because somebody else claims to have seen them and/or tells you to - politicians in particular - is even sillier.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

No need for lies / strawmen.

How would you get to 80k+ thousand posts otherwise? This thread is the same as above mentioned anti-vaxxers thread. Few nutjobs stroking each other and tell themselves how everyone else is wrong. They also used 'believers' to describe people who were not anti-vaxxers.

Few names and few articles would change, but basic mo of conspiracy theorists always stays the same. 'Where is the proof?!?!' 'Oh, that, that doesn't count they are paid to say that', 'No, that data is doctored!'.

Typical Infowars and Rush Limbaugh audience.

[turbobloke]

LongQ mentioned climate politics, this will be of interet to politiians on both sides of the pond.

New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but nothing important about climate



So much spin, no new dicernible impact these days. Just like rotating carbon dioxide molecules.

[robinessex]

I've just read that the British Standards Institution Cesium Atomic clock NPL-CsF2 time signal of 1 second can be measured to a known degree of precision of 2.3x10-16. This means it would not gain or lose a second in 138 million years. Clocks accurate to 10-18 are on the horizon, accurate for a billion years.

Makes AGW science look a bit rough !!!

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

jjlynn27 said:

LOL. Nothing if not predictable. Just like the anti-vaxxers.

Is he wrong then?

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

TB is requesting the absolute basic physical evidence of agw, not some obscure data. It’s odd that the basics are so difficult to measure because I read/hear regularly that AGW is here and the negative effects are significant.

The Warmists behaviour reminds me of those who were critical of Copernicus, they had lots of groupthink data on their side and were happy that they were supported by the consensus. Very unscientific.

[robinessex]

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

jjlynn27 said:

LOL. Nothing if not predictable. Just like the anti-vaxxers.

Is he wrong then?

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

TB is requesting the absolute basic physical evidence of agw, not some obscure data. It’s odd that the basics are so difficult to measure because I read/hear regularly that AGW is here and the negative effects are significant.

The Warmists behaviour reminds me of those who were critical of Copernicus, they had lots of groupthink data on their side and were happy that they were supported by the consensus. Very unscientific.

Reminds me of the saying; people may have laughed at Copernicus (or Gallileo, whoever), but they also laughed at Bozo The Clown.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

I've just read that the British Standards Institution Cesium Atomic clock NPL-CsF2 time signal of 1 second can be measured to a known degree of precision of 2.3x10-16. This means it would not gain or lose a second in 138 million years. Clocks accurate to 10-18 are on the horizon, accurate for a billion years.

Makes AGW science look a bit rough !!!

A pendulum would be sufficient for that.

Accompanied by a cup of tea leaves emptied onto a saucer.

This article followed one of the several warm wet winters we've been experiencing recently as predicted by agw junkscience.

A few years back Sean Thomas writing in the DT said:

First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,

“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.

When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.

Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”

It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.

So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event".

However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.

Tax gas needs putting out to pasture. Back in 1976 with atmospheric levels around 325 ppmv the UK had 15 consecutive summer days where the temperature exceeded 30 deg C at one or ore locations. Now with tax gas at over 400 ppmv we're nowhere near those lazy hazy continuous days of natural variation summer.