Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
Isn’t Ross McKitrick an Econimics professor with zero expertise in Climate Science?
Per Sourcewatch:
His background is as an economist shows no apparent expertise in climate science that would equip him to hold an informed view on global warming.
So no comment on the paper, no firm rebuttal of the figures or reasons why it is wrong. Just that he is not a climate scientist. As far as I can see the paper seems to point out that none of the climate models correspond with real world temperatures taken over the last 60 years and that if they are adjusted to follow the actual temperatures the future predictions become very different. I am sure though that you can explain why I am wrong and look forward to you putting me right... Per Sourcewatch:
His background is as an economist shows no apparent expertise in climate science that would equip him to hold an informed view on global warming.
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
This is the politics thread not the science thread which is over there ——->
Ah yes is "all climate scientists agree" followed by a long list of scientific institutions political then... Interesting.... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
This is the politics thread not the science thread which is over there ——->
Ah yes is "all climate scientists agree" followed by a long list of scientific institutions political then... Interesting.... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
This is the politics thread not the science thread which is over there ——->
Ah yes is "all climate scientists agree" followed by a long list of scientific institutions political then... Interesting.... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.gadgetmac said:
I don’t know, he wasn’t talking to me, you were.
Although, yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.
Bearing in mind the rigorous peer review system why didn't any scientific body or individual climate scientist notice the discrepancy between the models and reality then. It seems unbelievable that it was left to an economist to notice. It does seem that all parties both scientific and political have got to the too big to fail point... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
I don’t know, he wasn’t talking to me, you were.
Although, yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.
Bearing in mind the rigorous peer review system why didn't any scientific body or individual climate scientist notice the discrepancy between the models and reality then. It seems unbelievable that it was left to an economist to notice. It does seem that all parties both scientific and political have got to the too big to fail point... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
gadgetmac said:
So, with that but in bold above in mind, we come to the nub of the matter.
What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
I really don't know maybe the peer review system is not as good as it should be or maybe there is so much information that they don't have time to review it all properly. I just find it strange that out of all those people not one said "hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality" What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
That is my answer so your turn now why do you think nobody noticed it?
robinessex said:
Keeping their careers/jobs and the money rolling in. Roll on the next grant.
The tens of thousands of them, all over the world? Covering up for the models inadequacies and continuing on regardless? And not pointing out this glaring inconsistency that blows there consensus apart to each other at the thousands of conferences, meetings, forums, seminars etc
Isn't that a conspiracy?
And the hundreds of Scientific bodies? What's in it for them? Is it the same? Are they in on out too?
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
So, with that but in bold above in mind, we come to the nub of the matter.
What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
I really don't know maybe the peer review system is not as good as it should be or maybe there is so much information that they don't have time to review it all properly. I just find it strange that out of all those people not one said "hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality" What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
That is my answer so your turn now why do you think nobody noticed it?
Instead of your “I don’t really know”, “should be”, “maybe”, “don’t have time to” I’d suggest that they ARE aware of the discrepencies (they are Scientists after all) and are working to find out why there are discrepencies and what data is missing or needed to tweak them into line with reality.
Currently the models are obviously useful or the scientists and institutions wouldn’t use them at all as they have so many other lines of evidence that modelling is not crucial to their overall view of the big picture. Modelling is only a strand - It’s merely a guide to possible future scenarios. No believer has ever said modelling is a perfect science.
robinessex said:
I can only assume it was for his provocative “troll baiting” posts.I certainly didn’t hit the report button over it despite it being childish.
Maybe they have applied rule 4?
Although I see his ‘troll farm’ post still stands so maybe I’m wrong.
Completely unrelated to AGW/Climate/etc, but a point and proof of scientists covering up/lying/manipulating...which apparently they don't do unless in the pay of big oil and regarding climate change...
This is the IARC, who are a brand of the WHO.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...
This is the IARC, who are a brand of the WHO.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
So, with that but in bold above in mind, we come to the nub of the matter.
What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
I really don't know maybe the peer review system is not as good as it should be or maybe there is so much information that they don't have time to review it all properly. I just find it strange that out of all those people not one said "hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality" What’s your explanation for the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific bodies around the globe ignoring the ‘wildly imperfect fit of the models with reality’ and yet still not backing the denial argument even with this glaring inconsistency being right up in their faces???
I’d love to hear your answer. Thanks.
That is my answer so your turn now why do you think nobody noticed it?
Instead of your “I don’t really know”, “should be”, “maybe”, “don’t have time to” I’d suggest that they ARE aware of the discrepencies (they are Scientists after all) and are working to find out why there are discrepencies and what data is missing or needed to tweak them into line with reality.
Currently the models are obviously useful or the scientists and institutions wouldn’t use them at all as they have so many other lines of evidence that modelling is not crucial to their overall view of the big picture. Modelling is only a strand - It’s merely a guide to possible future scenarios. No believer has ever said modelling is a perfect science.
They were then attacked and/or ostracised. Some of these professional attacks were carried out in an organised fashion (as seen in Climategate).
Some were dismissed for voicing a contrary opinion.
This has all been covered on this forum years ago.
As for the models, their only use is to provide propaganda. When they are shown to be not 'imperfect 'but plain wrong, what do these 'scientists' you are so in thrall of do? Admit the models don't work? Don't be silly, they tell us the problem is solved because they hadn't 'corrected' the observational data sufficiently so they have 'corrected' it some more and all is now well. Can you not see anything wrong with this?
It is not being used merely as 'a guide'. International policy is being based on this garbage.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
This is the politics thread not the science thread which is over there ——->
Ah yes is "all climate scientists agree" followed by a long list of scientific institutions political then... Interesting.... Although,
yes the list is political actually. It’s showing who would have to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be true whilst also asking why all of those scientific bodies don’t agree with the denial perspective.The reality is that if you are employed in an academic role (e.g senior lecturer) at a University, part of your contractual role is to undertake research and attract research income. If your role is more senior and more research-oriented (Reader or Professor) then your entire raison d'être is as a research machine pumping out papers/books and grabbing research grants, with only very minimal teaching obligations. As you might be aware, every 7 years or so in the UK there is an audit of research undertaken - it's now called the Research Excellence Framework (it was previously the RAE). The REF appoints panels of specialist academics (organised by subject areas) to assess research undertaken in a variety of ways: impact (outside academia), quality of research and quality of publication that the research is published in etc.
It is the University itself that decides which academic's work is entered and which isn't. If your work is rejected, it is a pretty serious state of affairs because 1. it means that your research isn't deemed worthy enough for entry. 2 it puts your role in jeopardy and 3. it can seriously damage your prospects of getting another academic job as Universities like to 'buy in' safe bet academics to boost their chances in the REF. The outcome of the REF is money - substantial amounts to the most highly rated institutions and departments.
So funding, research grants and Government money are always at the forefront of academic's minds and are in many cases the primary focus of the academic department or research centre in which that academic works. In the States, things are slightly tougher because of the tenure system. The adage turkeys don't vote for Christmas applies on both sides of the Atlantic.
gadgetmac said:
Exactly, not one said ”hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality". So as they are scientists, why didn’t they spot this?
Instead of your “I don’t really know”, “should be”, “maybe”, “don’t have time to” I’d suggest that they ARE aware of the discrepencies (they are Scientists after all) and are working to find out why there are discrepencies and what data is missing or needed to tweak them into line with reality.
Currently the models are obviously useful or the scientists and institutions wouldn’t use them at all as they have so many other lines of evidence that modelling is not crucial to their overall view of the big picture. Modelling is only a strand - It’s merely a guide to possible future scenarios. No believer has ever said modelling is a perfect science.
So when these models are sent for peer review their peers know they are deeply flawed but say nothing and their models are then used as proof that mmgw is actually happening ... Seems legit... Instead of your “I don’t really know”, “should be”, “maybe”, “don’t have time to” I’d suggest that they ARE aware of the discrepencies (they are Scientists after all) and are working to find out why there are discrepencies and what data is missing or needed to tweak them into line with reality.
Currently the models are obviously useful or the scientists and institutions wouldn’t use them at all as they have so many other lines of evidence that modelling is not crucial to their overall view of the big picture. Modelling is only a strand - It’s merely a guide to possible future scenarios. No believer has ever said modelling is a perfect science.
Oh wait that's not right... now the models are just a bit of a guess and we all know that they are wrong but there is other irrefutable evidence which all climate scientists agree with that mmgw is a serious problem for the future because of the proof of the last few hundred years which doesn't include our models but is really serious and will lead to armaggedon... . got it...
gadgetmac said:
Exactly, not one said ”hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality". So as they are scientists, why didn’t they spot this?
How do you know that, have you contacted each and every one to ask or is that durbster's role?If you did, what do you think they would say? Would you take their word for it as if it represented some sort of gospel truth? Royal Society: nullius in verba. The data are out there.
At the end of the day we're back to this oddity from Folland of IPCC: "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations (to politicians) on the data, we're basing them on the climate models".
Apart from the obvious point that the data matter most, here's a comprehension question / starter for ten: if Folland and the rest of the IPCC saw that the models and the data said the same thing, why would the above ever need to be uttered?
Rather than treat emissions from one source as gospel truths and other viewpoints as heresy, look at the outputs of the models (published) and the data (published) both on PH side by side not long ago in this thread, and make your own mind up.
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
Exactly, not one said ”hang on a minute that doesn't match with reality". So as they are scientists, why didn’t they spot this?
How do you know that, have you contacted each and every one to ask or is that durbster's role?If you did, what do you think they would say? Would you take their word for it as if it represented some sort of gospel truth? Royal Society: nullius in verba. The data are out there.
At the end of the day we're back to this oddity from Folland of IPCC: "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations (to politicians) on the data, we're basing them on the climate models".
Apart from the obvious point that the data matter most, here's a comprehension question / starter for ten: if Folland and the rest of the IPCC saw that the models and the data said the same thing, why would the above ever need to be uttered?
Rather than treat emissions from one source as gospel truths and other viewpoints as heresy, look at the outputs of the models (published) and the data (published) both on PH side by side not long ago in this thread, and make your own mind up.
https://climateis.com/2014/08/07/prof-chris-follan...
And the email
https://climateis.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/chri...
A couple of quotes from that email
“What you quote a very abbreviated report of a much longer discussion at least 22 years ago!”
“You might notice that some sceptics have a bad habit of quoting, or going after, very out of date stuff”
“So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!”
You wouldn’t be misrepresenting people again now would you TB?
Edited by chrispmartha on Wednesday 19th September 17:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff