Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Ah, I see the repeatotron has reached the made-up-text-on-a-picture phase again. That one's on a bi-monthly cycle I think.

wc98 said:

durbster said:

Oh no, that sounds like an appeal to authority which, according to your teachings, means I have to automatically reject everything you say. Sorry.

it might do to someone reading your snipped quote,for others reading the entire post it indicates you like avoiding the point being made.

There was a point in there was there? Oh well.

I'm afraid I don't read the turbowaffles - it's just an auto-generated stream of gibberish and it's not written to engage with. It's written to maintain the illusion of being right to people who are desperate for him to be right. It's the Trump strategy of rhetoric: never mind reality, just keep feeding the base.

Amazing how you repeatedly comment on posts you claim you don’t read.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Ah, I see the repeatotron has reached the made-up-text-on-a-picture phase again. That one's on a bi-monthly cycle I think.

wc98 said:

durbster said:

Oh no, that sounds like an appeal to authority which, according to your teachings, means I have to automatically reject everything you say. Sorry.

it might do to someone reading your snipped quote,for others reading the entire post it indicates you like avoiding the point being made.

There was a point in there was there? Oh well.

I'm afraid I don't read the turbowaffles - it's just an auto-generated stream of gibberish and it's not written to engage with. It's written to maintain the illusion of being right to people who are desperate for him to be right. It's the Trump strategy of rhetoric: never mind reality, just keep feeding the base.

Amazing how you repeatedly comment on posts you claim you don’t read.

Does durbster read posts - before posting them? Or maybe they're forgotten too quickly?

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

And yet Curry still ended up being classified as a 'denier' by the more extreme activists!

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

And yet Curry still ended up being classified as a 'denier' by the more extreme activists!

deflect, distract, divert... yes she's been called a denier by some. I wouldn't call her that.

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

deflect, distract, divert... yes she's been called a denier by some. I wouldn't call her that.

Whats that about (highlighted) - and you may not and neither would I.

Mann has.

All in all, the fact that what should still be a rational discussion about the matters that are still uncertain in order to provide greater certainty has become so polarised and the 'playground' of sundry activists - political or otherwise- is pitiful.

The fact that this forced Curry from her tenure is shameful.

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

Around the same time as JC was dealing with the 'dragonslayers' banging on about the 2nd Law, Roy Spencer was also having to deal with them as well and wrote many articles trying to explain well established physics to them (mostly falling on deaf ears).

Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...

another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...

[hairykrishna]

durbster said:

I didn't seek anyone out (how exactly would I do that?). I just got a PM from a climate scientist who basically wanted to say that it's not worth dismantling the points raised here because the only people who need to hear it are the ones who simply aren't interested and will only respond with abuse.

And that is quite obvious. It's the same points raised by the cult today that were raised on page 1 and have been taken apart countless times since. The only difference is we now have several years worth of additional data and evidence that proves them wrong, so they look even more ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist but I am a professional physicist. These days I'm the technical manager of a research cyclotron. I've more or less given up on PH climate threads after countless hours of participating. They are a waste of time. I decided that a large problem is that many of the participants don't know enough to realise how 'out there' their views are. Most of the things they disagree with are not controversial.

I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

Around the same time as JC was dealing with the 'dragonslayers' banging on about the 2nd Law, Roy Spencer was also having to deal with them as well and wrote many articles trying to explain well established physics to them (mostly falling on deaf ears).

Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...

another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...

Can you two get a room?

Or glove-up in a ring?

[Ali G]

hairykrishna said:

I'm not a climate scientist but I am a professional physicist. These days I'm the technical manager of a research cyclotron. I've more or less given up on PH climate threads after countless hours of participating. They are a waste of time. I decided that a large problem is that many of the participants don't know enough to realise how 'out there' their views are. Most of the things they disagree with are not controversial.

I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.

If I remember correctly, we may have had greater agreement on the 'politics'.

The science went thataway - and nothing changes - since all it all still comes back here with everyone's pet theories!

No offence intended to anyone.

[robinessex]

LoonyTunes said:

robinessex said:

While we’re at it, can you tell me/us why the present planet temperature and CO2 is the ‘correct’ level. Both have been all over the place for the last 4.5 billion years.

Surely it's the 'correct' level because it allows us to comfortably exist. We don't want a deviation from that do we?

The dinosaurs existed for about 50,000,00 years. With CO2 five times the level now. Must have been an agreeable climate I suspect.

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

Can you two get a room?

Or glove-up in a ring?

I offered a room (on the science thread) but...

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We may not be able to do anything when the climate window we arrived in closes, but by giving ourselves more time, we may be able to achieve access to other planets, that will allow the continuation of the human race, All we are doing now is bringing forward in time, the point at which the earth will no longer be able to sustain our numbers, bringing forward the Soylent Green time.

Ah, but what our robin of Essex demands (again) are facts about what the earth will be like (in the future) if the temperature keeps rising.

He stated ‘no conjecture’. He wants people to state what will happen in the future. Obviously this creates difficulty as we cannot travel forward in time and observe the results but he’s only going to believe any of it when someone from the future can tell him what will definitely happen.

Multiple scientific organisations have produced many predictions based on past data and their scientific knowledge but that’s not enough obviously.

What’s required are facts from the future.

So we can either have unique climate scientists predict/guess the future, or pluck ideas out of a hat. Meanwhile, lets fk up the entire planet on the say-so of a few ( apparently) clever CC scientists. Guess it would be a good idea not to include all those who in the past have predicted complete climate/weather bks

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

So we can either have unique climate scientists predict/guess the future, or pluck ideas out of a hat. Meanwhile, lets fk up the entire planet on the say-so of a few ( apparently) clever CC scientists. Guess it would be a good idea not to include all those who in the past have predicted complete climate/weather bks

I appreciate you're being ironic and use 'apparently' (clever CC scientists) but we're not talking about the shiniest thermometers in the box as you will know. Climate was a backwater for ages and as funding became and remains very generous, that's what it attracts these days. Funding.

Meanwhile this is a lesson from the recent past (last year) on what happens when the diddling is noted, reported and sorted.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/...

Temperatures Plunge After BoM Orders Fix

Noting Reporting and Sorting the Diddling said:

The BoM said it had taken immed­iate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official ­record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.

Later independent monitoring of the Thredbo Top station by scientist Jennifer Marohasy showed a recording of -10.6C ­vanish from the record.

Article revelations said:

BoM initially claimed the adjustments were part of its quality control procedures. But bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.

"A number" ho ho ho it's like climatewang.

Got there eventually. Diddly dum diddly dee.

[turbobloke]

USA is different to AUS in that when faulty temperature sensor readings are noted, the kit is fixed but fake news records are allowed to stand. That's even more climatewang.

NOAA: FUBAR high temp/climate records from faulty sensor to remain in place at Honolulu

From the faithful's fave blog.

Article said:

Even though NOAA admits the sensor is in error by as much as 2 degrees, they are going to keep the data and the string of new high temperature records. “BUT” they fixed the recent record rainfall data from the same station.

Ho hum diddly diddly dumb.

[Kawasicki]

hairykrishna said:

durbster said:

I didn't seek anyone out (how exactly would I do that?). I just got a PM from a climate scientist who basically wanted to say that it's not worth dismantling the points raised here because the only people who need to hear it are the ones who simply aren't interested and will only respond with abuse.

And that is quite obvious. It's the same points raised by the cult today that were raised on page 1 and have been taken apart countless times since. The only difference is we now have several years worth of additional data and evidence that proves them wrong, so they look even more ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist but I am a professional physicist. These days I'm the technical manager of a research cyclotron. I've more or less given up on PH climate threads after countless hours of participating. They are a waste of time. I decided that a large problem is that many of the participants don't know enough to realise how 'out there' their views are. Most of the things they disagree with are not controversial.

I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.

Do you agree that the current inter-glacial period is and remains a relatively cool one?

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

Around the same time as JC was dealing with the 'dragonslayers' banging on about the 2nd Law, Roy Spencer was also having to deal with them as well and wrote many articles trying to explain well established physics to them (mostly falling on deaf ears).

Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...

another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...

And then there was the grandad of sceptics Fred Singer who felt the need to publicly distance himself from the 2nd Law cranks as well:

Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

Fred S said:

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 3rd August 17:49

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

Around the same time as JC was dealing with the 'dragonslayers' banging on about the 2nd Law, Roy Spencer was also having to deal with them as well and wrote many articles trying to explain well established physics to them (mostly falling on deaf ears).

Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...

another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...

And then there was the grandad of sceptics Fred Singer who felt the need to publicly distance himself from the 2nd Law cranks as well:

Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

Fred S said:

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 3rd August 17:50

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events.

There can't be many on the whole internet.

You wouldn't know and that biased reasoning by assertion with yet another fallacious appeal to consensus is par for the course.

Marvellous!

Here's Judith Curry on the dragonslayers:

The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-d...

Around the same time as JC was dealing with the 'dragonslayers' banging on about the 2nd Law, Roy Spencer was also having to deal with them as well and wrote many articles trying to explain well established physics to them (mostly falling on deaf ears).

Here's one addressing the 2nd Law stuff:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-c...

another of their nutty claims (that turbobloke appears to share) was that there's no such thing as 'backradiation' from the atmosphere. RS felt obliged to put them right about this too over many articles (measuring atmospheric radiation is his job after all!) eg:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radi...

And then there was the grandad of sceptics Fred Singer who felt the need to publicly distance himself from the 2nd Law cranks as well:

Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

Fred S said:

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Aye - but you cannot walk away from Arrhenius unscathed in any discussion based upon science concerning the effects that CO2 may or may not have.

[turbobloke]

hairykrishna said:

I imagine that for someone who actually works with climate stuff all day long there's very little motivation to debate on PH. It's not like new and interesting points about the science are being raised here.

Weryabin hairy!

It's really rather tut tut of you to say that interesting points about the science aren't discussed on PH when I've been in the business of explaining things to you for years. Even when it takes two attempts. Memory going a bit awol? Hope not.



There's more from that discussion if you'd like to go over it again, after a couple of attrition loops with false claims similar to the one above it became a time-saver to take note of what was being said.