Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[The Don of Croy]

Just logging in..Vol 5 already?

I can see this volume being just as insightful. Still, gotta do something all day! These threads won't populate themselves...(wouldn't it be dispiriting to learn AI had been filling in the last few volumes and that's the level of discourse it achieves).

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?

AGW/CC a problem? Or planet warming? That's the question I've been asking here for ages, and no one’s answered, except Durbster, with his usual reply but swerve answers. It is just almost beyond belief that this fundamental question has not been resolved, before we spend trillions of pedalling the supposed culprit, CO2. Probably because no one can possibly answer the question.

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?

AGW/CC a problem? Or planet warming? That's the question I've been asking here for ages, and no one’s answered, except Durbster, with his usual reply but swerve answers. It is just almost beyond belief that this fundamental question has not been resolved, before we spend trillions of pedalling the supposed culprit, CO2. Probably because no one can possibly answer the question.

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

[gadgetmac]

chrispmartha said:

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

robinessex is at the other end of the denial scale from wc98 if I recall correctly. Robinessex doens’t believe there’s been any global warming at all and AGW is hogwash.

It’s an issue on here because when you’re replying you’re supposed to know every deniers individual position on AGW. Some of them are moving targets too. Turbobloke thinks there is some warming but its naff all to do with us so is mid-spectrum On the denial scale.

So, in order of denial/believer it’s:

Believer (AGW is happening and dangerous)


wc98 (AGW is happening but is not dangerous)


Turbobloke (Warming is happening but its not anthropomorphic)


robbinessex (No warming at all is happening its a chaotic system with ups and downs)


Others can be inserted in there somewhere but you’d have to pin them down and they like to be vague for maximum manoeuvrability.

[chrispmartha]

gadgetmac said:

chrispmartha said:

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

robinessexis at the other end of the denial scale from wc98 if I recall correctly. Robinessex doens’t believe there’s been any global warming at all and AGW is hogwash.

It’s an issue on here because when you’re replying you’re supposed to know every deniers individual position on AGW. Some of them are moving targets too. Turbobloke thinks there is some warming but its naff all to do with us so is mid-spectrum On the denial scale.

So, in order of denial/believer it’s:

Believer (AGW is MM and dangerous)


wc98 (AGW is happening but is not dangerous)


Turbobloke (Warming is happening but its not anthropomorphic)


robbinessex (No warming at all is happening its a chaotic system with ups and downs)


Others can be inserted in there somewhere but you’d have to pin them down and they like to be vague for maximum manoeuvrability.

Oh Im confused I thought Rob was asking why climate change was an issue.

It would be interesting for the deniers to state their positions so we can actually see what the belive/dont believe.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?

do i thinjk human activity on the planet contributes to some warming ? yes ? i also think atmospheric processes will deal with the small human contribution in a blink as the orders of magnitude greater naturally occurring contribution doesn't seem to be a problem.
there are several more pressing environmental issues i would like to see addressed, mainly around pollution and the reduction in natural rain forest.

[wc98]

chrispmartha said:

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

did you get a chance to look at my last response on the previous volume ? dug out what i was looking for.

[wc98]

some proper climate politics to balance out the stuff that should be on the science forum the name of the website suggests it might be slightly on the mentalist side. i have no idea, it was contained in another link i was reading and found it interesting.the first line in bold is not surprising.

Though the strategy in the Steyer-Lehane memo aimed to win policy victories, it was also deeply political and sought to use "wedge" issues to force Republicans into politically difficult positions on climate and energy policy.

The memo stressed the importance of "demonstrating the efficacy of climate as a winning political issue (i.e., during competitive elections, climate can be deployed both to support Democratic voter performance, as well as to raise basic trust issues with individual candidates that further degrade the Republican brand)."

It recommended that Obama pursue policies that "can be accomplished through regulation or executive powers by the end of 2014" in order to either enact left-wing climate goals or implicate Republicans in attempting to block them.

The memo recommended enlisting every federal agency in the effort, appointing a climate policy lead in each agency, and regularly coordinating messaging and policy efforts with a point person at the White House.

It also proposed the creation of an "extreme weather SWAT team" that would immediately seize on natural disasters and other extreme weather events to advance a political and communications agenda.

The team would "work together and engage when extreme weather happens — including response; local outreach; media; science information about historic nature of the event; and coordinating possible principal travel (POTUS, FLOTUS, VPOTUS, Cabinet)," the memo explained.

All of those efforts would reinforce a central component in what the memo dubbed the "Big Idea": that the administration and its allies on climate policy are the "good guys," while those who oppose its agenda are morally compromised.

"The energy for any campaign involving social change is to define what is at stake in very simple terms of who is right and who is wrong," the memo explained. "To succeed, the issue must always be framed as taking action for the right reason while being opposed for the wrong reason."

As a corollary to that strategy, the memo cautioned against getting bogged down in facts. "One cannot be handcuffed by data on a fundamental moral issue of this kind," it explained.

Steyer and Lehane did not respond to questions about the memo and subsequent White House climate policy.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/hacked-memo-reveal...

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

gadgetmac said:

chrispmartha said:

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

robinessexis at the other end of the denial scale from wc98 if I recall correctly. Robinessex doens’t believe there’s been any global warming at all and AGW is hogwash.

It’s an issue on here because when you’re replying you’re supposed to know every deniers individual position on AGW. Some of them are moving targets too. Turbobloke thinks there is some warming but its naff all to do with us so is mid-spectrum On the denial scale.

So, in order of denial/believer it’s:

Believer (AGW is MM and dangerous)


wc98 (AGW is happening but is not dangerous)


Turbobloke (Warming is happening but its not anthropomorphic)


robbinessex (No warming at all is happening its a chaotic system with ups and downs)


Others can be inserted in there somewhere but you’d have to pin them down and they like to be vague for maximum manoeuvrability.

Oh Im confused I thought Rob was asking why climate change was an issue.

It would be interesting for the deniers to state their positions so we can actually see what the belive/dont believe.

Robinessex is saying above that it’s happening but it isn’t a problem. He keeps asking what the issue with a temperature rise is. Everyone answers him but he keeps saying “nobody can answer me!” It’s his silver bullet like dinoits pause.

You can see their positions actually all conflict but they never call each other out as they’re bonded politicaly by being anti lefty and organisations and experts and young people.

[wc98]

El stovey said:

You can see their positions actually all conflict but they never call each other out as they’re bonded politicaly by being anti lefty and organisations and experts and young people.

nope, have no political affiliation whatsoever. voted both tory (once) and labour in the past. i think the only thing we all agree on is cagw is a load of bks. give it ten years and you will too

[chrispmartha]

wc98 said:

chrispmartha said:

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

did you get a chance to look at my last response on the previous volume ? dug out what i was looking for.

I did yes so Thank you for thecresponse, not had chance of a thorough read through but I’ll be honest a lot of it does go above my head as Ive said Im not a scientist but will try have a proper look tomorrow

[wc98]

chrispmartha said:

I did yes so Thank you for thecresponse, not had chance of a thorough read through but I’ll be honest a lot of it does go above my head as Ive said Im not a scientist but will try have a proper look tomorrow

no probs,neither am i ,so my interpretations may well be wrong but i don't mind that being pointed out.

[wc98]

some more politics . recently someone said there was no money in climate science.there is certainly plenty hypocrisy ,no surprise where moonbeam is concerned. the man should be in jail.
Airport sources told us that the carbon-spewing corporate jets nearly filled the landing area’s parking slots and that many had flown in for the conference.

The three-day climate confab drew more than 4,000 elected officials, business executives and environmentalists from around the globe and was aimed at addressing how to lower the carbon emissions responsible for global warming.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/ar...

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

Robinessex is saying above that it’s happening but it isn’t a problem. He keeps asking what the issue with a temperature rise is. Everyone answers him but he keeps saying “nobody can answer me!” It’s his silver bullet like dinoits pause.

Some of the tactics employed in the arguments are indeed...rum

[wc98]

another paper showing models not fit for purpose. lots worthy of discussion though for the politics the opening paragraph is interesting. i may have to review my position on troughing vs conspiracy theory in certain areas lots of words so again some may not have time to read.understandable as worrying about various potential catastrophe facing our children's,children's, children must take up an incredible amount of time and be very stressful also note my bold in last paragraph, climate "science" 101. when the facts point to the opposite of your desired conclusion, ignore the facts.

I sat down to write a description of my new paper with John Christy, but when I looked up a reference via Google Scholar something odd cropped up that requires a brief digression.


Google Scholar insists on providing a list of “recommended” articles whenever I sign on to it. Most turn out to be unpublished or non-peer reviewed discussion papers. But at least they are typically current, so I was surprised to see the top rank given to “Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere,” a decade-old paper by Santer et al. Google was, however, referring to its reappearance as a chapter in a 2018 book called Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issues edited by Elizabeth Lloyd and Eric Winsberg, two US-based philosophers. Lloyd specifically describes herself as “a philosopher of climate science and evolutionary biology, as well as a scientist studying women’s sexuality” so readers should not expect specialized expertise in climate model evaluation, nor does the book’s editors exhibit any. Yet Google’s algorithm flagged it for me as the best thing out there and positioned two of its chapters as top leads in its “recommended” list.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-t...

[wc98]

splitting the post as the prehistoric formatting on this forum seems to be climatescienced

Much of the first part of the book is an extended attack on a 2007 paper by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and Fred Singer on the model/observational mismatch in the tropical troposphere. The editors add a diatribe against John Christy in particular for supposedly being impervious to empirical evidence, using flawed statistical methods and refusing to accept the validity of climate model representations of the warming of the tropical troposphere.

By way of contrast, and as an exemplar of research probity, they reproduce the decade-old Santer et al. paper and rely entirely on it for their case. If they are aware of any subsequent literature (which I doubt) they don’t mention it. They fail to mention:

Santer bitterly fought releasing his data
Despite having data up to 2007 he truncated his sample at 1999
If he had used the same methodology on the full data set he’d have reached the opposite conclusion, supporting Douglass et al. rather than supposedly refuting them
Steve McIntyre and I submitted a comment to the journal showing this. It was rejected, in part because the referee considered Santer’s statistical method invalid and didn’t want it perpetuated through further discussion
We re-cast the article as a more detailed discussion of trend comparison methodology and published it in 2010 in Atmospheric Science Letters. We confirmed, among other things, that based on modern econometric testing methods the gap between models and observations in the tropical troposphere is statistically significant.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-t...

[robinessex]

chrispmartha said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?

AGW/CC a problem? Or planet warming? That's the question I've been asking here for ages, and no one’s answered, except Durbster, with his usual reply but swerve answers. It is just almost beyond belief that this fundamental question has not been resolved, before we spend trillions of pedalling the supposed culprit, CO2. Probably because no one can possibly answer the question.

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

Nice fairy story. No concrete evidence at all, just supposition, guessing, and looking in the crystal ball.

PS. Re my AGW opinion

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 09:14

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

chrispmartha said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?

AGW/CC a problem? Or planet warming? That's the question I've been asking here for ages, and no one’s answered, except Durbster, with his usual reply but swerve answers. It is just almost beyond belief that this fundamental question has not been resolved, before we spend trillions of pedalling the supposed culprit, CO2. Probably because no one can possibly answer the question.

Will Nasa take on it do for you?, probably a silly question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...

Nice fairy story. No concrete evidence at all, just supposition, guessing, and looking in the crystal ball.

Basically you are not going to take any answer unless it confirms your bias are you, well that's you prerogative but don't keep posting that no one has answered you.

Google it theres thousands of other answers for you.

[LoonyTunes]

wc98: That's Judith Curry, almost considered to be on the lunatic fringe of climate science if I recall correctly.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

I quote and I can't be arsed to reformat it perfectly.

Some stuff she's been wrong about

The article The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates was widely panned by other climatologists. Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all!

The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.) "We should use the satellite data. It's the best we have!" (Who else loves saying that? Oh yeah. Count Chocula.)

(From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from." Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.

Etc

Edited by LoonyTunes on Tuesday 18th September 09:23

[chrispmartha]

robinessex said:

PS. Re my AGW opinion

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 09:14

So you get your opinion from a blog right?

Why not just state in layman's terms what your opinion is?