Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Any politics yet ........ nope just the usual slagging off Troll comments.
Agreed. You should have a word with your brotherhood. "reach arounds" indeed.I expect that’s what happens when their world view starts to fall apart and they start to realise they’ve been brainwashed into arguing against scientific consensus and every scientific institution for yonks.
I think they’re trolling. No way some (unemployed) car enthusiasts could honestly believe they know more than the scientific community about climate change.
Why on Earth haven’t they published this evidence and changed the scientific consensus yet?
Seems odd really.
gadgetmac said:
Is that Carl Wunsch?
He who was misrepresented on the The Great Global Warming Swindle by the anti-AGW mob?
Here’s something that else Carl says:
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
Doesn’t matter what his prediction of the future may or may not be (its pure speculation of course anyway). If his research indicates what is claimed by TB (I’ve not looked at the paper so I cannot confirm either way), and the data support the author’s conclusions, then that’s science and that’s research. He who was misrepresented on the The Great Global Warming Swindle by the anti-AGW mob?
Here’s something that else Carl says:
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 15th September 12:33
Diderot said:
If his research indicates what is claimed by TB (I’ve not looked at the paper so I cannot confirm either way), and the data support the author’s conclusions, then that’s science and that’s research.
And thats the rub isn’t, if his research indicates what is claimed by TB.With the wealth of experience I’ve gleaned on here over the last few years it’s clear to me and others that TB is not to be trusted at face value.
We’ll, see on this one when we get a look at the 2018 paper and what the author himself has to say about his findings.
You know with him being some kind of planetary scientist and us not being scientists at all (hairyben excepted) he should be handing us our arses on all of this...the fact that he’s not should be an eye opener for everyone.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not interested in ‘your position’ I’m interested in the position of the scientists doing the research. 
As for the rest of your b
ks about “reach arounds” and other things then yes, I agree, please be more selective in your responses if thats the best you can come up with.
laughable, you respond to very little then jump on the post that calls you out for exactly what you contribute to the thread. your post above relating to wunsch is a classic example. highlight a part of a quote that you thinks supports your narrative but utterly fail to comprehend what he says in the entire quote.here's a clue, the physical evidence he found doesn't match his beliefs.As for the rest of your b
ks about “reach arounds” and other things then yes, I agree, please be more selective in your responses if thats the best you can come up with.i tend to agree (whether you are interested or not) that human beings are doing lots of bad things to the planet. punting co2 into the atmosphere doesn't even make it onto my list of bad things humans are doing to the planet.
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 15th September 17:59
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 15th September 17:59
something up with the forum. the "here's a clue" part appears fine when typing post. misses a and c when posted .
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 15th September 18:01
El stovey said:
The cult are all getting a bit sweary and angry.
I expect that’s what happens when their world view starts to fall apart and they start to realise they’ve been brainwashed into arguing against scientific consensus and every scientific institution for yonks.
I think they’re trolling. No way some (unemployed) car enthusiasts could honestly believe they know more than the scientific community about climate change.
Why on Earth haven’t they published this evidence and changed the scientific consensus yet?
Seems odd really.
only one group of trolls on the thread, glorified bus driver included I expect that’s what happens when their world view starts to fall apart and they start to realise they’ve been brainwashed into arguing against scientific consensus and every scientific institution for yonks.
I think they’re trolling. No way some (unemployed) car enthusiasts could honestly believe they know more than the scientific community about climate change.
Why on Earth haven’t they published this evidence and changed the scientific consensus yet?
Seems odd really.
where has anyone claimed they know more about earth sciences than the experts in the field ? don't see it anywhere on any of the volumes ? what some people take issue with is claims around certainty when the physical evidence isn't fit for purpose to support those claims.arctic sea ice still here, summer extent higher than record low point in 2012 (satellite era)
no increasing trend in extreme weather
no tropospheric hot spot
some glaciers melting ,some growing
ocean heat content, impossible to measure so any claims around that point are bulls
tsea level rise , near impossible to detect rises in mm. some places have seen small rises, some decreases
snow , my children know what it is.i reckon this winter will be a good reminder what it looks like.
i am sure the promised catastrophe will be here any day soon. until it arrives i will maintain my scepticism. the amo is going cold. there is going to be some serious head scratching if the cool phase drops temps significantly.
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 15th September 18:02
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
I’m not interested in ‘your position’ I’m interested in the position of the scientists doing the research.
As for the rest of your bks about “reach arounds” and other things then yes, I agree, please be more selective in your responses if thats the best you can come up with.
laughable, you respond to very little then jump on the post that calls you out for exactly what you contribute to the thread. your post above relating to wunsch is a classic example. highlight a part of a quote that you thinks supports your narrative but utterly fail to comprehend what he says in the entire quote.here's a clue, the physical evidence he found doesn't match his beliefs.As for the rest of your b
ks about “reach arounds” and other things then yes, I agree, please be more selective in your responses if thats the best you can come up with.i tend to agree (whether you are interested or not) that human beings are doing lots of bad things to the planet. punting co2 into the atmosphere doesn't even make it onto my list of bad things humans are doing to the planet.
LoonyTunes said:
Well I'm convinced.
That you're a complete buffoon.
Yet these 4 retired and unemployed blokes with no scientific qualifications (except their leader) have managed to make the incredible scientific discovery that NASA and all the scientific institutions and most governments are deliberately misleading the public over AGW. That you're a complete buffoon.
It’s certainly the biggest scientific upset in human history.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
Read,read then read again his post - pure Trolling - you answered it with aplomb but Trolls still thrive on it.
Amusing to see you of all people calling people trolls. Have you ever added any new information to these threads?El stovey said:
Yet these 4 retired and unemployed blokes with no scientific qualifications (except their leader) have managed to make the incredible scientific discovery that NASA and all the scientific institutions and most governments are deliberately misleading the public over AGW.
It’s certainly the biggest scientific upset in human history.
I believe a list of contact email addresses and the like were supplied for them to send their discovery of the century to. I wonder if they’ve had a reply yet It’s certainly the biggest scientific upset in human history.
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Read,read then read again his post - pure Trolling - you answered it with aplomb but Trolls still thrive on it.
What was that about reach arounds?psychologists said:
: And it’s when a personal identity and the group identity becomes so heavily invested in each other that they’re fused. They completely merge. And so any attack on yourself feels like an attack on your group and likewise any attack on your group feels like an attack on yourself. So you go to these extreme lengths to defend and honor your group. So that’s the kind of psychology we’re looking at. In military insurgent groups, religious groups, nationalists and also in football fans.
This is what fascinates me in this thread, the cult members link their climate conspiracy to their world view on politics and distrust of experts and the media and governments and organisations. Because they’ve found a handful of others who are also overly invested in this conspiracy and have the same world view, they’re fiercely loyal to each other and their leader.
Imagine how a group of blokes on a car forum could seriously think that governments and scientific institutions and the scientific consensus are wrong and worse knowingly wrong and they’ve uncovered this from blogs and their own online research and anyone who thinks this is unlikely “is trolling”.
It’s extraordinary really.
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Yet these 4 retired and unemployed blokes with no scientific qualifications (except their leader) have managed to make the incredible scientific discovery that NASA and all the scientific institutions and most governments are deliberately misleading the public over AGW.
It’s certainly the biggest scientific upset in human history.
I believe a list of contact email addresses and the like were supplied for them to send their discovery of the century to. I wonder if they’ve had a reply yet It’s certainly the biggest scientific upset in human history.
If I thought I’d uncovered evidence of this mass deception. I’d at least contact someone.
They must know that four blokes
Seems an odd approach to take.
El stovey said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Read,read then read again his post - pure Trolling - you answered it with aplomb but Trolls still thrive on it.
What was that about reach arounds?psychologists said:
: And it’s when a personal identity and the group identity becomes so heavily invested in each other that they’re fused. They completely merge. And so any attack on yourself feels like an attack on your group and likewise any attack on your group feels like an attack on yourself. So you go to these extreme lengths to defend and honor your group. So that’s the kind of psychology we’re looking at. In military insurgent groups, religious groups, nationalists and also in football fans.
This is what fascinates me in this thread, the cult members link their climate conspiracy to their world view on politics and distrust of experts and the media and governments and organisations. Because they’ve found a handful of others who are also overly invested in this conspiracy and have the same world view, they’re fiercely loyal to each other and their leader.
Imagine how a group of blokes on a car forum could seriously think that governments and scientific institutions and the scientific consensus are wrong and worse knowingly wrong and they’ve uncovered this from blogs and their own online research and anyone who thinks this is unlikely “is trolling”.
It’s extraordinary really.
Laughable.
some more wunsch seeing as both sides referenced him recently.
Part of the problem is that anyone can take a few measurements, average them, and declare it to be the global or regional value. It’s completely legitimate, but only if you calculate the expected uncertainty and do it in a sensible manner.
The system is noisy. Even if there were no anthropogenic forcing, one expects to see fluctuations including upward and downward trends, plateaus, spikes, etc. It’s the nature of turbulent, nonlinear systems. I’m attaching a record of the height of the Nile — 700-1300 CE. Visually it’s just what one expects. But imagine some priest in the interval from 900-1000, telling the king that the the Nile was obviously going to vanish…
Or pick your own interval. Or look at the central England temperature record or any other long geophysical one. If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.
A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
i am sure gadget,loony and el stovey will be right on the blower telling him to tell climate scientists about the shady practices he has discovered,oh wait, he is a climate scientist.straight from the horses mouth,and alarmists wonder why some people are sceptical.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-cl...
Part of the problem is that anyone can take a few measurements, average them, and declare it to be the global or regional value. It’s completely legitimate, but only if you calculate the expected uncertainty and do it in a sensible manner.
The system is noisy. Even if there were no anthropogenic forcing, one expects to see fluctuations including upward and downward trends, plateaus, spikes, etc. It’s the nature of turbulent, nonlinear systems. I’m attaching a record of the height of the Nile — 700-1300 CE. Visually it’s just what one expects. But imagine some priest in the interval from 900-1000, telling the king that the the Nile was obviously going to vanish…
Or pick your own interval. Or look at the central England temperature record or any other long geophysical one. If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.
A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
i am sure gadget,loony and el stovey will be right on the blower telling him to tell climate scientists about the shady practices he has discovered,oh wait, he is a climate scientist.straight from the horses mouth,and alarmists wonder why some people are sceptical.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-cl...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff