Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

conspiracy

You raised the idea of a conspiracy so presumably you have evidence for it - or was it made up?

[turbobloke]

I can't see any sign of this chap being invited over for any of the enquiries but if somebody else has spotted his input please post up (was the email print-out submitted to the UK inquiries?).

"He said 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'." See Climategate emails for more details.

The main part in red is of primary interest, though the yellow highlight is also interesting.

[LoonyTunes]

Kawasicki said:

LoonyTunes said:

Kawasicki said:

LoonyTunes said:

telecat said:

It's pretty much the case that Politicans and the scientists they fund like to limit the data set as it makes their case look better. Widen the Data set and statements like "Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record" do not stand up so well.

Is that the Tory politicians? Fiddling the data? Part of the conspiracy? JRM and other darlings of the right saying nothing about this? Actually complicit in it?

The cognitive dissonance going on for you lot must be mind-melting

Do you agree we are living in a relatively cool interglacial period?

Er, I asked first

It doesn’t even require fiddling of data. Just show temp data over a short enough timeframe to make it look like we are living in remarkable times.

And have you an answer to my question?

Er, no you haven't answered my question - is there a political conspiracy involving the Tory Govt or not?

On your question - We may well be but temperatures are rising (and relatively 'fast' apparently) so I'm not sure if that it's relevant.

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

conspiracy

You raised the idea of a conspiracy so presumably you have evidence for it - or was it made up?

Did I or have you mentioned it many-many times, especially in relation to a global Socialist plot of some description like in your IPCC meme, ......a plot successive Tory Govts must be involved in now...

Telecats highlighted post above also infers subterfuge...just raise you eyes a little further up the screen

And you still haven't answered the question Although I know it's feckin' awkward for you.

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

It's a article from 2015 but hey ho.............

Have you seen the dates on most of the links posted by the deniers on here? You'll be lucky to find anything younger than 10 years old.

The very first thing I look for when opening any link is the date! The rest of your post is ridiculous!!

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

It's a article from 2015 but hey ho.............

Have you seen the dates on most of the links posted by the deniers on here? You'll be lucky to find anything younger than 10 years old.

The very first thing I look for when opening any link is the date! The rest of your post is ridiculous!!

The rest of my post is actually just the link...but that you criticised Turboblokes thousands of links dated around the early noughties

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

It's a article from 2015 but hey ho.............

Have you seen the dates on most of the links posted by the deniers on here? You'll be lucky to find anything younger than 10 years old.

The very first thing I look for when opening any link is the date! The rest of your post is ridiculous!!

The rest of my post is actually just the link...but that you criticised Turboblokes thousands of links dated around the early noughties

“The rest of your post” referred to the ridiculous statement after what I put in bold

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

temperatures are rising (and relatively 'fast' apparently)

Apparently not. Not 'fast' by any means, particularly relative means.

The current UAH LTT v6 trend is +0.1 deg C per decade to 1dp, 0.11 deg C to 2dp, which is slow.

Rates in the past have been significantly faster than this e.g. the data I posted in this thread several days ago including the abrupt Younger Dryas Termination at +2.4 deg C per decade from Fawcett et al (I previously cited Alley et al with a larger rate from their study) which has been associated with ocean circulation changes. That's 24x as fast as recent modest natural warming. Then there's the IPCC version (TAR WG1 +2 deg C per decade) which is rounded down to 1sf or intentionally slightly slower compared to Fawcett et al. That is still 20x faster than now.

Other recent posts have shown that coral changes and arctic ice mass changes offer nothing at all that's unprecedented but as per the temperature trend these are inconvenient points and are soon forgotten.

In passing: Obamaclime is unwound another turn.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/donald-trump-cle...

[NWTony]

hairykrishna said:

Brilliant. On the same page you've got one person complaining that the entirety of the instrumental record isn't long enough, and that the start of it is arbitrarily chosen to produce records, and another person going on about a flat spot that appears if you start your trendline in 1996.

Me again, can't keep away


As a point of fact the trend doesn't start in 1996, it ends in 1996, its counting back, not forward.

[turbobloke]

AGW activists work with periods of 1 day or even less when it suits ('record' jetwash temperature).

Or decadally e.g. three of the hottest apple pies have been sold in the past ten years.

Make the rules, play the game.

[durbster]

wc98 said:

... none of the data sets are fit for purpose, that includes the satellites. they may well be useful for many things,attributing warming to the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2 is not one of them.

The logic here is baffling.

How can you claim there's no data available to decide, while being absolutely convinced science has got it wrong?

If there's no data, you have nothing to base your opinion on.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

AGW activists work with periods of 1 day or even less when it suits ('record' jetwash temperature).

Or decadally e.g. three of the hottest apple pies have been sold in the past ten years.

Make the rules, play the game.

Remember when you used to claim at least once a fortnight there was no warming in x years, by starting the record at the peak of El Nino 1998?

Or your newspaper articles from single days in the arctic or elsewhere?

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 21st August 19:44

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

AGW activists work with periods of 1 day or even less when it suits ('record' jetwash temperature).

Or decadally e.g. three of the hottest apple pies have been sold in the past ten years.

Make the rules, play the game.

Remember when you used to claim at least once a fortnight there was no warming in x years, by starting the record at the peak of El Nino 1998?

Or your newspaper articles from single days in the arctic or elsewhere?

Nothing immediately comes to mind - but I remember El Nino warming being passed off as agw.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Apparently not. Not 'fast' by any means, particularly relative means.

The current UAH LTT v6 trend is +0.1 deg C per decade to 1dp, 0.11 deg C to 2dp, which is slow.

Rates in the past have been significantly faster than this e.g. the data I posted in this thread several days ago including the abrupt Younger Dryas Termination at +2.4 deg C per decade from Fawcett et al (I previously cited Alley et al with a larger rate from their study) which has been associated with ocean circulation changes. That's 24x as fast as recent modest natural warming. Then there's the IPCC version (TAR WG1 +2 deg C per decade) which is rounded down to 1sf or intentionally slightly slower compared to Fawcett et al. That is still 20x faster than now.

Other recent posts have shown that coral changes and arctic ice mass changes offer nothing at all that's unprecedented but as per the temperature trend these are inconvenient points and are soon forgotten.

In passing: Obamaclime is unwound another turn.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/donald-trump-cle...

This would beg to differ.

“Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say”

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate...

This says much the same thing.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...

And there are lots more but I won’t saturate the thread.

Yes, LT’s use of the word ‘fast’ is a relatve term but I think it might be appropriate if those reports are true.

[robinessex]

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate...

A summary of predictions, but using CC models, it's bks

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...

Not much more than a summary of fairly stories.

We are of course at virtually the lowest ever CO2 level since earth began.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 21st August 20:42

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate...

A summary of predictions, but using CC models, it's bks

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...

Not much more than a summary of fairly stories.

We are of course at virtually the lowest ever CO2 level since earth began.

Really?



“CO2 levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 800,000 years (400,000 years shown).”

Data back to 800,000 years: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/ab...

[durbster]

I just clicked on My Topics:



I think I just need to find a moon landing hoax thread to get the full set!

[Kawasicki]

LoonyTunes said:

Kawasicki said:

LoonyTunes said:

Kawasicki said:

LoonyTunes said:

telecat said:

It's pretty much the case that Politicans and the scientists they fund like to limit the data set as it makes their case look better. Widen the Data set and statements like "Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record" do not stand up so well.

Is that the Tory politicians? Fiddling the data? Part of the conspiracy? JRM and other darlings of the right saying nothing about this? Actually complicit in it?

The cognitive dissonance going on for you lot must be mind-melting

Do you agree we are living in a relatively cool interglacial period?

Er, I asked first

It doesn’t even require fiddling of data. Just show temp data over a short enough timeframe to make it look like we are living in remarkable times.

And have you an answer to my question?

Er, no you haven't answered my question - is there a political conspiracy involving the Tory Govt or not?

On your question - We may well be but temperatures are rising (and relatively 'fast' apparently) so I'm not sure if that it's relevant.

I spoke to a politician last week, climate change came up, I asked him if he thought we were living in a particularly warm climate, he said “yes, of course..common knowledge!“
I mentioned that we are living in a relatively cool period, he didn’t believe me, until he looked it up. Is he part of the CAGW conspiracy?

I imagine most politicians are unintentionally part of the conspiracy through ignorance, laziness and finally group think.

So, yes, is my answer to your question.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

I mentioned that we are living in a relatively cool period,

Relative to what?

[Kawasicki]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate...

A summary of predictions, but using CC models, it's bks

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...

Not much more than a summary of fairly stories.

We are of course at virtually the lowest ever CO2 level since earth began.

Really?



“CO2 levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 800,000 years (400,000 years shown).”

Data back to 800,000 years: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/ab...

Your graph states that 300ppm is the highest historical co2 concentration. A perfect example of modern climate science communication/propaganda.