Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
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 Earth's climate is constantly changing through entirely natural mechanisms and has previously changed naturally to greater extents and at faster rates than now. I've referenced this with a couple of peer-reviewed papers out of many e.g. Alley et el.
Even warmer periods in the past, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period for example, are known as climate optima for good reason. The overall benefit of warmer climes is well-documented.
Currently there are alarmist predictions, with no basis, from inadeqate modelling set around recent modest and slow natural warming. These are baseless and rather than having any support in the data they are simply designed to cause alarm and pressurise politicians and the public into making societal changesm for political purposes, hence this thread. The political nature of the pressure is clear from the recent 'science' report from UN appointed scientists telling UN and other politicians that to fix the non-problem we didn't cause, there needs to be a shift to a global economy based on greenism; pdf file follows.
https://bios.fi/bios-governance_of_economic_transi...
The alarm is shown by data to be baseless as the claims associated with alarmism don't hold up. What follows is illustrative not exhaustive, and it's not appealing to anyone's opinion but referencing the data.
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al, Dansgaard et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers have increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
And more besides as cited in PH thread attrition loops. Looking forward to the pro-agw cherry picking and opinionfest loops ahead
The above summary is consistent with the lack of established causality to humans, all the IPCC and politicians have to offer is opinion as per the IPCC's own published acknowledgement.
chrispmartha said:
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 ?
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..?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...
Google it theres thousands of other answers for you.
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
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 ?
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..?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...
Google it theres thousands of other answers for you.
All I ask is that you stop saying no one has answered you, what you mean is no one has given you answer that confirms your bias. As I say can you just assert your position on the matter in layman's terms?
Given up on Chaotic models? No, WC and I had a civilised conversation about it (which you seem uncapable of) and I am reading up more on it.
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. Re my AGW opinion
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...
So you get your opinion from a blog right? http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 09:14
Why not just state in layman's terms what your opinion is?
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. Re my AGW opinion
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...
So you get your opinion from a blog right? http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change...
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 09:14
Why not just state in layman's terms what your opinion is?
The Climate is changing and I believe we as humans are contributing to that in a way that could be a threat to the planet, so, I think we should be taking steps to mitigate that. I do not think that there is some kind of armageddon coming in the very near future but I think we should be taking every step we can to lessen our influence.
The floors yours Rob...
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
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 ?
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..?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degr...
Google it theres thousands of other answers for you.
All I ask is that you stop saying no one has answered you, what you mean is no one has given you answer that confirms your bias. As I say can you just assert your position on the matter in layman's terms?
Given up on Chaotic models? No, WC and I had a civilised conversation about it (which you seem uncapable of) and I am reading up more on it.
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
LoonyTunes said:
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
you really aren't doing yourself any favours. again you didn't read the link,as a result you will be happy to know i won't be responding to your posts from now on.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
i don't care, and neither should you, how many times judith curry has been wrong (i take it you have never been wrong about anything in your life ?) it has the grand sum of jack st to do with what i posted.
here is the paper in question, note open access, something government sponsored(ie tax payer owned) climate science should note. in a fancy science journal and everything. note also the use of "argue" in the abstract. no declaration of certain certainty here, just as science should be.
Abstract
Overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in a general circulation model results from a complex system of parameterizations in combination with the underlying model structure. We refer to this as the model's “major hypothesis” and we assume it to be testable. We explain four criteria a valid test should meet: measurability, specificity, independence and uniqueness. We argue that temperature change in the tropical 200‐300 hPa layer meets these criteria. Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years using a persistence‐robust variance estimator 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.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10...
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
1. No one knows if a minute rise in the planets temperature will be a problem.
2. Planet temperature. What exactly is this?
3. Planet temperature has never been constant in 4,5 Billion years. Do you really believe humans can now control it for ever?
4. Why is todays planet temperature and CO2 level correct?
5. The CO2 level is the lowest it’s ever been in planets 4.5 Billion years life.
6. We're supposedly going to fix the planets 'temp problem' by a minute drop in the CO2 level ?
7. CO2 had been much higher in the past. No Armageddon
8. Climate models are useless. You can’t model a chaotic system, therefore all models are simplistic models, a mathematical guess/fudge.
9. We’re wasting money on a crystal ball gazing, when much more important problems are affecting the planet. Plastic dumping for example.
10. CC doctrine is screwing up the planets energy requirements prediction.
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
1. No one knows if a minute rise in the planets temperature will be a problem.
2. Planet temperature. What exactly is this?
3. Planet temperature has never been constant in 4,5 Billion years. Do you really believe humans can now control it for ever?
4. Why is todays planet temperature and CO2 level correct?
5. The CO2 level is the lowest it’s ever been in planets 4.5 Billion years life.
6. We're supposedly going to fix the planets 'temp problem' by a minute drop in the CO2 level ?
7. CO2 had been much higher in the past. No Armageddon
8. Climate models are useless. You can’t model a chaotic system, therefore all models are simplistic models, a mathematical guess/fudge.
9. We’re wasting money on a crystal ball gazing, when much more important problems are affecting the planet. Plastic dumping for example.
10. CC doctrine is screwing up the planets energy requirements prediction.
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
Good news. McKitrick and Christy have published a major peer-reviewed paper which is not long out in the journal Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. This is the latest nail in the nail-filled coffin of agw and nonsensical demands for decarbonisation plus other political action arising from it. In USA parlance models amount to nothing but a hill of beans and those beans came from taxpayers darnit.
‘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.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
‘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.’ (McKitrick & Christy 2018).
No guesses needed at the hypothesis that’s still failing within inadequate climate models nor whether gulled politicians and The Team's faithful will keep a hand in (up the corpse's 'arris) to give the appearance of life.
More good news. The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Tax gas still on holiday and not the controlling factor for climate (as seen by the planet entering an ice age with levels at 4000ppmv and rising i,e, ~10x today’s near-starvation value) and by the noise of natural variation drowning out any minuscule effects from the holidaymaker.
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
1. No one knows if a minute rise in the planets temperature will be a problem.
2. Planet temperature. What exactly is this?
3. Planet temperature has never been constant in 4,5 Billion years. Do you really believe humans can now control it for ever?
4. Why is todays planet temperature and CO2 level correct?
5. The CO2 level is the lowest it’s ever been in planets 4.5 Billion years life.
6. We're supposedly going to fix the planets 'temp problem' by a minute drop in the CO2 level ?
7. CO2 had been much higher in the past. No Armageddon
8. Climate models are useless. You can’t model a chaotic system, therefore all models are simplistic models, a mathematical guess/fudge.
9. We’re wasting money on a crystal ball gazing, when much more important problems are affecting the planet. Plastic dumping for example.
10. CC doctrine is screwing up the planets energy requirements prediction.
Also so taking your points above why in your opinion do the majority of scientists and institutions and governments disagree with you, why are they lying, in your opinion?
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..?
wc98: I’ve asked the same question before? Any chance of a reply?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..?
PS
Statistically significant discrepancies between model gigo and reality in the majority of cases, hmmm..
With dirt dire stats like that we're reminded that chance agreement is not skill.
Models can hardly fail to get something rignt by chance when their creators use a pre-/post tunable 70+ sided coin in the tossing stakes.
Then add a meaningless grey envelope around the model envelope (reality outwith) to help people mislead themselves about the abject failure involved. Some people fall for it!
Peak pro-agw desperation imminent.
Statistically significant discrepancies between model gigo and reality in the majority of cases, hmmm..
With dirt dire stats like that we're reminded that chance agreement is not skill.
Models can hardly fail to get something rignt by chance when their creators use a pre-/post tunable 70+ sided coin in the tossing stakes.
Then add a meaningless grey envelope around the model envelope (reality outwith) to help people mislead themselves about the abject failure involved. Some people fall for it!
Peak pro-agw desperation imminent.
Another one added to the list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution arguing against AGW.
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
chrispmartha said:
robinessex said:
PS. As for my opinion, or belief, go read TB's post a few before this, Sums it up pretty well. I note you haven't repudiated it.
I'm not asking for TB's opinion, I'm asking for you to lay out your opinion, in Layman's terms on here for everyone to see. I'm at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do this to be honest.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 18th September 10:48
This cult is amazing. I’m perplexed as to what the members are getting out of it. They all sound so utterly miserable. Why would anyone join a cult like that? It definitely looks like Stockholm syndrome.
chrispmartha said:
gadgetmac said:
You wont get answers to questions like that from any deniers.
If that is the case I'm out of this thread as its pointless debating if you don’t know where the other side is actually coming fromAs soon as anyone checks out the endless links they post as evidence, we see misrepresentations and dodgy sources of information.
Hardly surprising they haven’t changed the scientific consensus yet with this constant politicised spamming.
It is interesting to see how they constantly try to rationalise the fact that they’re on the opposite side of science though. Scientists are wrong/on the take etc scientific institutions are infiltrated by agents, there is no consensus, consensus doesn’t matter etc.
Sitting back and thinking rationally for a minute would show all this nonsense to be unlikely at best.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff