Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

i doubt in reality that es holds a strong position either way on mmgw, i suspect that in the past tb posted something or replied to a post of his that was taken as a slight and now takes every opportunity to have a go at tb. it certainly looks like that to me. of course i may be wrong and it may just be his pilot training that prevents holding an opinion that deviates from that of experts. understandable as that would be dangerous when flying aircraft,right up to the point computer says no,pilot has to think,then flys aircraft into the atlantic when the only problem was a frozen pitot head ala air france 447.

I find it really creepy how you keep going on about my job and what you think about me and TB.

I’m very good at my job and am quite comfortable flying with unreliable instruments or conflicting information and having “to think”. That’s why I’ve been in command of large aircraft carrying hundreds of people, for many years and have had to prove my competency and ability “to think” many times and am required to do so on a regular basis.

What’s your job btw? You seem very interested and keep mentioning mine. Perhaps you can tell us what you do so we can analyse your ability to think and speculate on why it might lead you to adopt the position that you have?

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

It is true, you just choose not to believe it, over many years I have read many papers to do climate change, I can find nothing to support the hypothesis, I have found things that should not be happening in an branch of science (starting with climategate)
The BBC are supporters of MMCC, and push it at ever opportunity,even if what they say is incorrect, global warming leads to more storms, the data said no,
Have a read of who attended a meeting to decide on future climate change policy at the BBC, the BBC stated before that they meeting was attended by leading scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BB...
The BBC spent a awful lot of money to keep the attendees secret, why do you think that was?

All part of the ‘secret’ agenda that we the licence payer know nothing about then? So it another conspiracy

Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 1st September 14:33

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

I find it really creepy how you keep going on about my job and what you think about me and TB.

I’m very good at my job and am quite comfortable flying with unreliable instruments or conflicting information and having “to think”. That’s why I’ve been in command of large aircraft carrying hundreds of people, for many years and have had to prove my competency and ability “to think” many times and am required to do so on a regular basis.

What’s your job btw? You seem very interested and keep mentioning mine. Perhaps you can tell us what you do so we can analyse your ability to think and speculate on why it might lead you to adopt the position that you have?

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

[turbobloke]

There's barely 4 weeks left, book now to avoid disappointment!

No drinking water for the last 26 years!!

What's a mere decade or two to alarmists waving arms around as vaguely as ever and generally flapping about for The Cause!!!

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

How reliable are Satellite temperature readings?

More reliable than botch after botch after botch inflicted on data from sensors near aircon outlets, chimneys, car parks, aircraft, airport tarmac, trash burners and rooftops.

Who do we think understands the satellite data better? Is it:
a) turbobloke and his propaganda blogs,
b) RSS - who provide the satellite data:

Carl Mears of RSS said:

Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/

A few years back I posted this as yet another example of turbobloke misleading people, proven by the source itself. It's a common theme.

Btw robinessex, this also addresses that misleading graph you've copied from turbobloke, who repeatedly posted it off his propaganda blogs four years ago when it had the illusion of validity.

[With This Staff]

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

I see chimp-omatic flinging feces again.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

A few years back I posted this as yet another example of turbobloke misleading people, proven by the source itself. It's a common theme.

The common theme is you making unsubstantiated claims. Once again this time: no quote no link just verbiage.

It's not about me, or you, it's about the lack of any credible emprirical data in support of manbearpig as pointed out once again, recently, by the NZCSC.

The supposed 'scoop' information around satellite data from you, LT (and me in the past) isn't news. It's been known for some time and discussed on PH climate threads several times previously.

Thanks for the continuing attention though, it's always flattering and amusing.

Has anyone seen entire nations looking soggy bobbing about among the icebergs over the past 19 years? That 10 year window ended 19 years ago.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 1st September 15:03

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

A few years back I posted this as yet another example of turbobloke misleading people, proven by the source itself. It's a common theme.
.

The common theme is you making unsubstantiated claims. Once again this time: no quote no link just verbiage.

Yeah, sorry. Because I'm not paid to post propaganda here, I don't bother keeping detailed records and screenshots of all the things said and who said them.

Besides, you made the same misleading claim again and have been shown to be wrong again, so there's no reason to bring up the time it happened before.

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

Dickymint was rofling away at me saying I was “arguing with a scientist” (about scientific consensus) So I assumed it was him or Johnfm but I knew john’s a lawyer, turns out dickymint was a boiler engineer.

Then when an actual scientist turned up and said I was right and they were wrong, they were quite happy to argue with him.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

It is true, you just choose not to believe it, over many years I have read many papers to do climate change, I can find nothing to support the hypothesis, I have found things that should not be happening in an branch of science (starting with climategate)
The BBC are supporters of MMCC, and push it at ever opportunity,even if what they say is incorrect, global warming leads to more storms, the data said no,
Have a read of who attended a meeting to decide on future climate change policy at the BBC, the BBC stated before that they meeting was attended by leading scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BB...
The BBC spent a awful lot of money to keep the attendees secret, why do you think that was?

All part of the ‘secret’ agenda that we the licence payer know nothing about then? So it another conspiracy

Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 1st September 14:33

And still unable to answer questions , did you read the link ? They only knew about it after going to court and trying to suppress the details, a lot of money was spent on barristers to prevent the information being released to the license paying public, that's the wonderful open and honest impartial BBC for you.

[With This Staff]

Harry Readme - that did it for me.

3rd rate management of a 3rd rate academic institution paid to research a backwater subject - performed in a 3rd rate fashion

There is not much 'coming back' for me.

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.:

That's very generous of you (!) but it's not quite like that. When a long-gone agw supporter became even more tetchy and trolly (adjective not noun) than usual, creds claimed were verified by a neutral third party and they went way beyond anything posted more recently. Therefore the doubt you've tried to cast via testicles is unwarranted.

There's a wider point, at this point. It matters very little what anyone's creds are. Are any of the agw supporters active in the wider media also active in climate science research? Have they ever taught the actual science at postgraduate level for example? I'm genuinely not interested in knowing any PHer's creds. For one thing it's pushing against PH posting rule #2 (sleuthing) and for another thing I can tell more than enough by what's posted and how it's posted.

Examining data and how it's used is something that numerate grads (and non-grads) from various disciplines can do quite straightforwardly. School students understand and can apply causality better than agw supporters.

So-called climate scientists at the root of agw climate fairytales aren't 'climate scientists' by qualification but hold quals in e.g. geography, geology, astronomy and mathematics.

Then we mustn't forget those involved in national level policymaking on the one hand and in actively pushing alarmism on the other. These people include an English Lit grad (fine of itself, but for the CCA ffs) and all manner of unqualified opinion (alarmists).

Check it out.

As per anything and everything posted, anyone can check it out and make their own mind up - which according to various posts happens for so-called sceptics but it's either avoided or mysteriously fails for agw supporters around the lack of credible empirical data (agw itself) and in terms of creds for the high priests ramping this politicoreligion...if this is supposed to be important. These nouveaux politicians are truly believed, just because.

Meanwhile back on topic: Lomborg and how agw politics slams the world's poorest people as ‘solutions’ cause more damage than ‘the problem’.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/26/how-the-war-on-clima...

[turbobloke]

This may well be good news for politicians amd good news for scientists but it's not really any news in a part of the planet where significant short-term climate variation is the norm.

Arctic Sea Ice Back To 2007 Levels (and at the SII 11-year average),
Date: 01/09/18

https://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-200...

[durbster]

With This Staff said:

Harry Readme - that did it for me.

3rd rate management of a 3rd rate academic institution paid to research a backwater subject - performed in a 3rd rate fashion

There is not much 'coming back' for me.

What about all the other scientific research done all over the world that concurred with the UEA findings? You just ignoring that?

[With This Staff]

durbster said:

With This Staff said:

Harry Readme - that did it for me.

3rd rate management of a 3rd rate academic institution paid to research a backwater subject - performed in a 3rd rate fashion

There is not much 'coming back' for me.

What about all the other scientific research done all over the world that concurred with the UEA findings? You just ignoring that?

Yup

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

This may well be good news for politicians amd good news for scientists but it's not really any news in a part of the planet where significant short-term climate variation is the norm.

Arctic Sea Ice Back To 2007 Levels (and at the SII 11-year average),
Date: 01/09/18

https://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-200...

Context:



From the source of the data:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Also, regarding the inclusion of MASIE data on that graph - their FAQ clearly says to not use that data to identify trends:

National Snow and Ice Data Center said:

When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important...

https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_faq

But oh yes, it's the AGW activists who cherry pick data:

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.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 1st September 16:38

[gadgetmac]

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

I see chimp-omatic flinging feces again.

As opposed to spouting it - no matter which log-in you use.

[With This Staff]

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

I see chimp-omatic flinging feces again.

As opposed to spouting it - no matter which log-in you use.

So I am spouting st and I have more than one log-in.

This was the point you were making?

[gadgetmac]

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

I see chimp-omatic flinging feces again.

As opposed to spouting it - no matter which log-in you use.

So I am spouting st and I have more than one log-in.

This was the point you were making?

Yeah, it’s up there with your chimp-omatic observation.

As for log-ins, are you saying you’ve only ever posted 14 times on PH?

[With This Staff]

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

You’ll rarely get an answer to that. To his credit TB has told us what he has done although like everything on the interweb it may part bks but he at least stated his credentials.

The others who question the scientists, renewables agents, pilots etc could be student canvassers or the like for all anyone knows.

I see chimp-omatic flinging feces again.

As opposed to spouting it - no matter which log-in you use.

So I am spouting st and I have more than one log-in.

This was the point you were making?

Yeah, it’s up there with your chimp-omatic observation.

As for log-ins, are you saying you’ve only ever posted 14 times on PH?

I would not say that.

Glitch is the answer