Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Vanden Saab]

gadgetmac said:

Vanden Saab said:

Interesting paper here... http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50582/2/A%20Reply%... concerning consensus.....

Another one here

https://cliscep.com/2017/11/19/cook-and-oreskes-ar...

So consensus on consensus but not on whether to use consensus then...

[With This Staff]

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

Let me help you with the 'newbie'

Not a 'newbie'

So who are were you not-newbie?

None of your business.

Edited by With This Staff on Tuesday 16th October 21:12

[gadgetmac]

With This Staff said:

gadgetmac said:

With This Staff said:

Let me help you with the 'newbie'

Not a 'newbie'

So who are were you not-newbie?

None of your business.

I vaguely remember now, you were asked which returning banned poster you were once before.

No problem. I wont ask again.

[anonymous-user]

Ali g

[gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

Ali g

I thought I’d seen the posting style before.

[mondeoman]

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

But you keep coming back.....

[Terminator X]

Kawasicki said:

I will jump momentarily to the believer side...

We know the world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The ice is melting, sea level is climbing ever faster. Why, oh why, are politicians allowing the worlds population to move/migrate ever closer to coastal areas? Surely the migrants must know they are putting themselves in harms way. Surely the politicians should start to call a halt to this ever increasing phenomenon! Why are people not moving away from coastal areas? Why hasn’t coastal property value tanked! The data is clear.


Why, oh why, won’t somebody listen, think of the children!

Perhaps because the increase (if any) is in very low mm per year eg the square root of fk all. To note that sea levels "bounce" up and down every year as natural variance ... no facts needed here though of course.

Oh and re the IPCC 1990 sea level section for all those that are dead set on the science:

"Also, it is not 'one man's word against hundreds'. He tells us that he was shocked, as an IPCC reviewer in 1999, to see the chapter on sea level in a forth-coming report. The chapter was written by 33 authors, and not a single one was a sea level specialist! He brought the report up in subsequent meetings in INQUA, where 300-400 experts on sea levels talked it over, and agreed that it was faulty. So it is more like hundreds of experts against 33 amateurs..."

TX.

[Terminator X]

fakenews said:

LoonyTunes said:

Wow, you need inducting immediately fakenews, congratulations!

Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy

1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69

That's a real cop out.

Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?

I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?

Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?

Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?

And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?

Can you see the CO2 part eg natural and "man made"?



TX.

[Terminator X]

jet_noise said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

I do occasionally, it's fun with my Greenpeace card carrying friends, what's surprising is how little they actually understand about it and quickly default to an appeal to authority.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/...
We are not alone.. one in 5 Australians believe climate change is a hoax.

Of course. The propaganda engine has been running for some time and many have fallen for it.

agreed, the worlds going to end in 5,10,15 or even 50 years if we do not do something about CO2, just had a look outside and thankfully it hasn't happened yet even with all the terrible predictions.

And there we go.

One of many strawman arguments you've got from the aforementioned propaganda.

That's a particularly flammable strawperson, already burnt to a crisp by ice age/global warming/climate change/climate/chaos/hothouse earth*.

<Host in eye catching sparkly jacket and microskirt>
Welcome to Climatewang!
How long till the earth burns in a fiery ball?
Fingers on buzzards, lets PLAY!

10 years (March 2017)
100 months (Aug 2008)
5 years (May 2007)
7 years (July 2008)

*Select current meme. Select all that apply.

And in the 70's an Ice Age was coming. It's almost as if they haven't got a clue ... no no of course scientists always correct. As you were.

TX.

[Terminator X]

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."

"Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Wednesday 17th October 00:28

[Terminator X]

From science thread:

stew-STR160 said:

Climate models found to be wrong, don't match up with actual observations-

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-climate-simulate-air...

TX.

[zygalski]

Terminator X said:

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."

"Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Wednesday 17th October 00:28

Ok fair enough.
Name a single scientific institution that does not accept the IPCC's stance on AGW.
It should be fairly easy, since there's no consensus....

[V8 Fettler]

zygalski said:

Terminator X said:

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."

"Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

TX.

Edited by Terminator X on Wednesday 17th October 00:28

Ok fair enough.
Name a single scientific institution that does not accept the IPCC's stance on AGW.
It should be fairly easy, since there's no consensus....

Has any scientific institution produced the scientific theory of AGW yet? Or is it all just a hypothesis?

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

fakenews said:

That's a real cop out.

Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?

I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?

Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?

Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?

And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?

And here's where you're lack of understanding REALLY shows.

This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->

If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.

Still swerving troll? I think it’s clear for all to see that you have no idea about any of the issues (hence your consistent inability and unwillingness to answer any questions about theml). So you mindlessly troll instead. I hope it amuses you (simple minds et hoc genus omne)

With each new institution you add to your pointless list, it serves to confirm that you fail to understand even the most elementary aspects of science. Get back under your bridge.

[Murph7355]

zygalski said:

....
Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

This is an interesting statement to make from someone seemingly keen to advance the scientific argument/method...shutting voices down/out seems a little.... counter. No?

Is TX's statement on the "97%" the same "97%" you're referring to?

And is the debate around whether the climate is changing, or whether mankind - or the "developed" part of it - is the root cause of any change? I don't read these pages every day so forgive the question.

I thought the "man made" part of the topic had gone quiet over the last few years (forecasts and reality being all over the place), but as we're being told to eat less meat to ease climate change it seems to be back in force now...? Am wondering if the models are working better now but from a few posts above, maybe not?

[LoonyTunes]

Terminator X said:

“Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

YAWN

More misrepresentation.

What did it say immediately after that?

[LoonyTunes]

Todays new entry in at number 42 are Geologists who don't agree with the cult


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
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
41. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
42. European Federation of Geologists


Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

With each new institution you add to your pointless list, it serves to confirm that you fail to understand even the most elementary aspects of science. Get back under your bridge.

You always cheer me up Didibrain.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Todays new entry in at number 42 are Geologists who don't agree with the cult


42. European Federation of Geologists


Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

"EFG is a professional organisation whose main aims are to contribute to a safer and more sustainable use of the natural environment, to protect and inform the public and to promote a more responsible exploitation of natural resources."

FFS it was set up to milk the teat of CAGW

[Diderot]

Vanden Saab said:

gadgetmac said:

Vanden Saab said:

Interesting paper here... http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50582/2/A%20Reply%... concerning consensus.....

Another one here

https://cliscep.com/2017/11/19/cook-and-oreskes-ar...

So consensus on consensus but not on whether to use consensus then...

Indeed:


"Despite this evidence, Cook (2017) and Oreskes (2017) appear convinced that public understand-ing of scientific consensus is essential for developing effective climate polices. Even if this “gateway belief model” could be proved in laboratory studies,1 it holds questionable significance in the real world where sources of competing information always exist (Kahan & Carpenter, 2017). Science itself provides fertile ground for such discrepancies, as two current examples demonstrate. First, the debate over the hiatus/pause in global temperature increase was not invented by fossil fuel interests, but is a subject of genuine scientific disagreement (Medhaug, Stolpe, Fischer, & Knutti, 2017). Second, there is increasing expert debate regarding how much carbon dioxide can be emitted while keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C (Millar et al., 2017a, 2017b; Peters, 2017; Rathi, 2017). For climate scientists, there is no obvious consensus about questions such as these. On the other hand, Cook, Oreskes and others persist in messaging the minimalist fact that human influence on a changing climate is uncontroversial amongst scientists.

[....]

Publics around the world possess a rich understanding of the climates they live with, the risks they face, and the potential changes they would like to see. Mobilizing and engaging these views are the proper building blocks for public debate, not an insistence that knowledge of a single number is a pre-condition for political progress."

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50582/2/A%20Reply%...