Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
stew-STR160 said:
Genuinely, thank you for your response.
Regarding the 'toe the line'. This is based on stories I have read on the web, reports I've read here, and other places. I don't remember the details of who the persons involved are I'm afraid. I'm sure some others on here have that information perhaps bookmarked somewhere.
Regarding the part about individuals free to express themselves, great, super, that's how it should be, even if some of the theories are complelely bananas! That's science, I'm sure you'll agree?
The issue though is the attempt by many (Climategate scandel, media, political organisations etc) to stifle any debate about AGW. "The science is settled" they said...
Thanks again for the reply.
professor peter ridd would be a good example of a scientist being censored by his university due to publishing facts that didn't toe the line regarding coral bleaching on the great barrier reef. there are others.anyone claiming academic freedom exists when it comes to climate science is either not well read on the topic or being wilfully obtuse.Regarding the 'toe the line'. This is based on stories I have read on the web, reports I've read here, and other places. I don't remember the details of who the persons involved are I'm afraid. I'm sure some others on here have that information perhaps bookmarked somewhere.
Regarding the part about individuals free to express themselves, great, super, that's how it should be, even if some of the theories are complelely bananas! That's science, I'm sure you'll agree?
The issue though is the attempt by many (Climategate scandel, media, political organisations etc) to stifle any debate about AGW. "The science is settled" they said...
Thanks again for the reply.
So far this year, the mountain bike hasn't been retired, still cross country rides in summer clothing. I’ve been having lunch on the Patio, the central heating is having a holiday, and I’ve just fitted to air struts to the beast outside, in literally summer weather. If this is global warming, keep it coming!
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
durbster said:
Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.
I have to say that I thought that, the peaks and troughs appear to be roughly in alignment.That people are making such a fuss to challenge such clear and obvious objective facts just shows how desperate the position is.
Edited by durbster on Saturday 13th October 13:50
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
The key part there is 'for you'.
As long as one is on the side of science and truth - who cares what you think?
that is the first thing you have posted on the thread that i agree with. i have an opinion, it differs from some others on this topic. in the grand scheme of things it counts for nada,same goes for your opinion.As long as one is on the side of science and truth - who cares what you think?
See your posts just above this on the graphs.
Some people will claim black is actually white. I think they mainly gather here.
I don't know what you did for a living but I do hope nobody's life was ever in your hands.
With This Staff said:
Looks like the models are running 'too hot'.
As confirmned by statistical tests (McKitrick & Christy 2018) as opposed to opinion.Paper by McK and C said:
hether we test the tropospheric trend magnitudes, or the ratio of tropospheric to surface trends, across all kinds of data sets, and across all major trend intervals, models have been shown to exaggerate the amplification rate and the warming rate, globally and in the tropics.
Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.
Remainder = chance not skill as evidenced (they have the same failed hypothesis therefore right-ish for wrong reasons).Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 13th October 16:13
Anyone with the time and the beer can track down the origin of these comments about the IPCCs latest fantasy. They derive from a mix of scientific and political sources and while none are offered as authorities 
their views have a certain appeal 
An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization....Given the democratic necessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global warming offers numerous examples of all of this.
There is absolutely no science in IPCC reports these days … just political positionings.
The IPCC is in the red rev range of ideology and reality loss...To date, there is no stringent proof that the anthropogenic CO2 has exerted any influence on the climate which is clearly traceable to this source...(talking of this source, this ^ source then adds that the claimed temperature increase by the end of the 20th century is well within the range of natural variability and is not unusual and that CO2 is good for the planet)
But the new 2018 UN IPCC not only relied on the discredited 2013 Marcott study to gin up climate alarm, but the UN also misused the Marcott study in a way that the authors of that study explicitly warned should not be done.
What the media is not telling the public is these climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The U.N. hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense.
I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There's absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times. Self-described "climate scientists" and their public faces such as Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for 2000, 2009, 2010, 2015, and every other year. Jehovah's Witnesses can no longer compete in the number of these failed predictions of the end of the world. Nothing that would even remotely resemble their doomsday predictions has ever materialized. These days, similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement. Who was interested in such things has probably undergone the procedure, whatever it is. Others just treat it as the pollution in their mailboxes, newspapers, and on TV screens.
The delicious irony in a not-reading-IPCC-garbage consensus will be lost on theclimate scientists politicians at the tasteless BBC.
their views have a certain appeal An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization....Given the democratic necessity for non-scientists to take positions on scientific problems, belief and faith inevitably replace understanding, though trivially oversimplified false narratives serve to reassure the non-scientists that they are not totally without scientific ‘understanding.’ The issue of global warming offers numerous examples of all of this.
There is absolutely no science in IPCC reports these days … just political positionings.
The IPCC is in the red rev range of ideology and reality loss...To date, there is no stringent proof that the anthropogenic CO2 has exerted any influence on the climate which is clearly traceable to this source...(talking of this source, this ^ source then adds that the claimed temperature increase by the end of the 20th century is well within the range of natural variability and is not unusual and that CO2 is good for the planet)
But the new 2018 UN IPCC not only relied on the discredited 2013 Marcott study to gin up climate alarm, but the UN also misused the Marcott study in a way that the authors of that study explicitly warned should not be done.
What the media is not telling the public is these climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The U.N. hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense.
I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There's absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times. Self-described "climate scientists" and their public faces such as Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for 2000, 2009, 2010, 2015, and every other year. Jehovah's Witnesses can no longer compete in the number of these failed predictions of the end of the world. Nothing that would even remotely resemble their doomsday predictions has ever materialized. These days, similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement. Who was interested in such things has probably undergone the procedure, whatever it is. Others just treat it as the pollution in their mailboxes, newspapers, and on TV screens.
The delicious irony in a not-reading-IPCC-garbage consensus will be lost on the
First quote: Lindzen
Loony needs to add him to the list of planks quoted every couple of days by you.
Reality check:
Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."
After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.
"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.
Loony needs to add him to the list of planks quoted every couple of days by you.
Reality check:
Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."
After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.
"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.
wc98 said:
stew-STR160 said:
Genuinely, thank you for your response.
Regarding the 'toe the line'. This is based on stories I have read on the web, reports I've read here, and other places. I don't remember the details of who the persons involved are I'm afraid. I'm sure some others on here have that information perhaps bookmarked somewhere.
Regarding the part about individuals free to express themselves, great, super, that's how it should be, even if some of the theories are complelely bananas! That's science, I'm sure you'll agree?
The issue though is the attempt by many (Climategate scandel, media, political organisations etc) to stifle any debate about AGW. "The science is settled" they said...
Thanks again for the reply.
professor peter ridd would be a good example of a scientist being censored by his university due to publishing facts that didn't toe the line regarding coral bleaching on the great barrier reef. there are others.anyone claiming academic freedom exists when it comes to climate science is either not well read on the topic or being wilfully obtuse.Regarding the 'toe the line'. This is based on stories I have read on the web, reports I've read here, and other places. I don't remember the details of who the persons involved are I'm afraid. I'm sure some others on here have that information perhaps bookmarked somewhere.
Regarding the part about individuals free to express themselves, great, super, that's how it should be, even if some of the theories are complelely bananas! That's science, I'm sure you'll agree?
The issue though is the attempt by many (Climategate scandel, media, political organisations etc) to stifle any debate about AGW. "The science is settled" they said...
Thanks again for the reply.
“It about how he has continually broken a code of conduct that the University expect all their staff to stick to, to create a safe, respectful and professional workplace.”
He took the Uni to court.
He also made an unsuccessful attempt to get an injunction to force JCU to reinstate him pending the decision of the final court case.
He’s now spending his days crying on the wattsupwiththat blog.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd
To me, this appears to be suppression of an opinion which should be debated in academic circles (and in the broader community).
As such, this appears to be anti-science.
Just imho.
https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd
To me, this appears to be suppression of an opinion which should be debated in academic circles (and in the broader community).
As such, this appears to be anti-science.
Just imho.
gadgetmac said:
Untrue.
“It about how he has continually broken a code of conduct that the University expect all their staff to stick to, to create a safe, respectful and professional workplace.”
He took the Uni to court.
He also made an unsuccessful attempt to get an injunction to force JCU to reinstate him pending the decision of the final court case.
He’s now spending his days crying on the wattsupwiththat blog.
Did his insistence that climate scientists might have got it wrong while on university grounds violate their 'safe space' “It about how he has continually broken a code of conduct that the University expect all their staff to stick to, to create a safe, respectful and professional workplace.”
He took the Uni to court.
He also made an unsuccessful attempt to get an injunction to force JCU to reinstate him pending the decision of the final court case.
He’s now spending his days crying on the wattsupwiththat blog.
Vanden Saab said:
Did his insistence that climate scientists might have got it wrong while on university grounds violate their 'safe space'
He says himself he’s not a climate denier. He’s an outlier though who’s views on the coral reef being damaged by climate change are the opposite to what his colleagues believe. He publicly denigrated his colleagues in the media and by doing so broke the Uni’s code of conduct repeatedly.
After all, his colleagues weren’t saying he wasn’t to be trusted to the media as he was doing to them repeatedly.
Lets see how it pans out. I believe the case is still live.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff