Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[gadgetmac]

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

[jet_noise]

Models will do exactly what they have been programmed to do. No more, no less.

Here's a simple one

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

No conspiracy as the facts show they are wrong.

[gadgetmac]

jet_noise said:

Models will do exactly what they have been programmed to do. No more, no less.

Exactly, you feed in what data you do have, run the program and see what pops out. Only it never seems to pop out the result the deniers would like it too which is either a ‘positive influence’ or maybe just a ‘neutral influence’.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

No conspiracy as the facts show they are wrong.

Sorry, I thought the facts showed Climate Change was happening and so do the Models.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

No conspiracy as the facts show they are wrong.

1. A statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact. Please provide some.
2. What do you mean by "wrong".

Did all the models predict a warming trend, and has there been a warming trend? Yes, so not wrong.
Did the models predict every ebb and flow of temperature in between? No, so you can say they are wrong.

Is this the quality of debate we're at now. Jeez

Edited by durbster on Sunday 2nd September 18:13

[Jasandjules]

gadgetmac said:

So in the debate between Scientists and Bus Drivers over a matter of Science my preferring to go with the Scientists is “disgusting”?



The moral ground you’re attempting to claim...it’s gonna swallow you up.

You appear to lack the intellectual ability to understand what was a simple point, I regret I am unable to state it more clearly than I already have. I can see why you consider AGW to be factual.

[gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

So in the debate between Scientists and Bus Drivers over a matter of Science my preferring to go with the Scientists is “disgusting”?



The moral ground you’re attempting to claim...it’s gonna swallow you up.

You appear to lack the intellectual ability to understand what was a simple point, I regret I am unable to state it more clearly than I already have. I can see why you consider AGW to be factual.

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

[Diderot]

DocJock said:

Just popped back in to say, Diderot, Durbster posted data in good faith and you claim there is a problem with it.

The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate the problem. Scientific method and all that...unless you're just trolling of course.

(Back off into my box.)

I’m not talking about the data Doc Jock. Data are data. I specifically questioned the significance of the baseline in my original comment. Durbster et al seem unable to respond to that, instead deploying the usual diversionary tactics.

What is mildly fascinating and quite amusing is their continued denial of the fact that the models are wrong. Every single one of them is wrong. Look at the graph of model projections vs the actual data posted a few pages back. But apparently it’s ok to gloss over that observable fact because their wrongness appears to show something or other about something if you’re hard of thinking. What they really show is the inadequacy of the models, the inadequacy of the so-called science and the spurious nature of much of the thinking behind them.

[V8 Fettler]

chrispmartha said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'd listen to both and implicitly trust neither. It's apparent that many are prepared to implicitly trust the word of an individual purely on the basis of that individual's stated profession, similar in many ways to religion. I prefer "On the word of no one."

There's enough information and data posted on this thread alone to undermine the statement that mankind is primarily responsible for climate change.

Is rigorous debate and dissent OK with you then?

So you don’t trust the opinion of someone purely on the basis of their profession? What, never?

Do you go to several GPs? How many Dentists do you go to before deciding on treatment? And if you did vist a few would you go with the consensus among the professionals?

I don't implicitly trust the opinion of any professional. Climategate indicates the measure of the trust that should be afforded to "climate scientists".

What's your view on rigorous debate and dissent? Should it be permitted on this thread?

[V8 Fettler]

El stovey said:

chrispmartha said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'd listen to both and implicitly trust neither. It's apparent that many are prepared to implicitly trust the word of an individual purely on the basis of that individual's stated profession, similar in many ways to religion. I prefer "On the word of no one."

There's enough information and data posted on this thread alone to undermine the statement that mankind is primarily responsible for climate change.

Is rigorous debate and dissent OK with you then?

So you don’t trust the opinion of someone purely on the basis of their profession? What, never?

Do you go to several GPs? How many Dentists do you go to before deciding on treatment? And if you did vist a few would you go with the consensus among the professionals?

Distrust of professionals and experts and institutions and the media and the state. It’s all part of their political identity. It would all be great if it was based on a position of knowledge but as usual it’s based on political blogs and misinterpreted data and of course their ideological leader.

What "political identity" is this then? Is it not permitted to distrust people and organisations? Or are we all supposed to be "on message", blindly trusting the meedja and those with vested interests in promoting the concept of AGW?

What's your view on allowing rigorous debate and dissent on this thread?

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

What is mildly fascinating and quite amusing is their continued denial of the fact that the models are wrong.

Do you have trouble reading, no really, do you?

It’s just typical of the denialist mentality.

gadgetmac said:

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

No models are 100% correct thats why they are called ‘models’. But when 99% of them are all telling you the same thing you’d be an idiot to start gambling with our future by ignoring them.

Do you have (m)any models showing the opposite? Why do you think they are almost all showing Climate Change is related to Mans intervention? With incomplete data to input the odds are still 50/50 that any model would show no human influence so thousands of models would be backing your faith based opinion.

Unless of course it’s all a conspiracy.

No conspiracy as the facts show they are wrong.

1. A statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact. Please provide some.
2. What do you mean by "wrong".

Did all the models predict a warming trend, and has there been a warming trend? Yes, so not wrong.
Did the models predict every ebb and flow of temperature in between? No, so you can say they are wrong.

Is this the quality of debate we're at now. Jeez

Edited by durbster on Sunday 2nd September 18:13

1. You've already had had it. Read the thread!
2. Consult a dictionary!

As for the rest.......you've answered your own questions and only got one correct answer tut tut back to Google Scholar School for you.

[Jasandjules]

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

[Diderot]

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Another useful (but perhaps) honest idiot.

[gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Whats more interesting is that you don’t know the difference between a scientist and a bus driver. Google is your friend.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Whats more interesting is that you don’t know the difference between a scientist and a bus driver. Google is your friend.

You do know that one of your Demi Gods was not a scientist but a railway engineer? Well at least you know the difference eh.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Whats more interesting is that you don’t know the difference between a scientist and a bus driver. Google is your friend.

You do know that one of your Demi Gods was not a scientist but a railway engineer? Well at least you know the difference eh.

Who’s “my” demi god then oh all knowing oracle?

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Whats more interesting is that you don’t know the difference between a scientist and a bus driver. Google is your friend.

You do know that one of your Demi Gods was not a scientist but a railway engineer? Well at least you know the difference eh.

Who’s “my” demi god then oh all knowing oracle?

Clue - Casey Jones was just as qualified

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

gadgetmac said:

It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.

Fascinating that you don't even bother to deny that you lack the intelligence to research and understand. At least you are honest on that front then.

Whats more interesting is that you don’t know the difference between a scientist and a bus driver. Google is your friend.

You do know that one of your Demi Gods was not a scientist but a railway engineer? Well at least you know the difference eh.

Who’s “my” demi god then oh all knowing oracle?

Clue - Casey Jones was just as qualified

Don’t tell the other deniers about Engineers, they are already quoting “Power Engineers” blogs on this thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...