Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Ordinarily I’d post..
Busted!
But it’s Turbobloke, so I didn’t expect anything else than out-dated quotes taked completely out-of-context.
See Edenhoffer for a previous example.
And it’s now 26 years since he made that misrepresented statement.
26 years!
1992.
Which is about the year they are living in on this thread.
Busted!
But it’s Turbobloke, so I didn’t expect anything else than out-dated quotes taked completely out-of-context.
See Edenhoffer for a previous example.
And it’s now 26 years since he made that misrepresented statement.
26 years!
1992.
Which is about the year they are living in on this thread.
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Diderot said:
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Where does he say they are ‘wrong’, anyway will you accept that one of TBs favourite go to quotes is vastly out of date and highly misleading? "Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Where does he say they are ‘wrong’, anyway will you accept that one of TBs favourite go to quotes is vastly out of date and highly misleading? "Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Where does he say they are ‘wrong’, anyway will you accept that one of TBs favourite go to quotes is vastly out of date and highly misleading? "Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
remember all the statements around scientists being "exonerated" after various "investigations" into the climategate emails ? well we might be about to find out how rigorous those "investigations" were,or not.
enjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
enjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Where does he say they are ‘wrong’, anyway will you accept that one of TBs favourite go to quotes is vastly out of date and highly misleading? "Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
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!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
wc98 said:
remember all the statements around scientists being "exonerated" after various "investigations" into the climategate emails ? well we might be about to find out how rigorous those "investigations" were,or not.
enjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
I posted some stuff in the last volume about this. Mann was cleared of all wrong doing by his own institution. Nothing to do with the fact he heads a department that is a resposnsible for a significant part of the university's near $800million annual funds.enjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
Can you imagine the reactions had they found or admitted any wrong doing on his part? Oh boy...
Oh wait, are we claiming conspiracy again? Ah damn, I forgot that everyone involved in AGW is beyond reproach...
wc98 said:
remember all the statements around scientists being "exonerated" after various "investigations" into the climategate emails ? well we might be about to find out how rigorous those "investigations" were,or not.
enjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
Try this as wellenjoy the link to the worlds most popular website on climate science and the politics surrounding it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/climategate...
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-s...
robinessex said:
thanks for the link. a nice concise summation. worthy of a few posts on here as it is an absolute certainty given some of the comments from the peanut gallery on this topic that many haven't read them. only thing i can take issue with so far is the claim no one has the entire file of all emails to check. apparently steve mosher does,i don't know this for a fact though. given who wrote the email below it should put to bed the consensus nonsense, even though it is 20 years old.November 25, 1997: email 0880476729
Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their
Statement.
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others
to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I
also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you
say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for
immediate control of emissions.” …
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that
you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific
assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the
vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists
have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from
the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the
objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think
you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist
who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse
any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You
are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that
some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a
balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you
are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with
the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
…
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements,
they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You
have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of
dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by
the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing
What are these unsubtle and dishonest egregious (shocking) greenhouse skeptics statements you speak of? Moon landings were faked
Vaccines cause bad things to happen
Another nail in the coffin of deniers faith. 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
19. Australian Academy of Science
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
El stovey said:
What are these unsubtle and dishonest egregious (shocking) greenhouse skeptics statements you speak of?
i don't know. you will have to ask the person that made the statement,climate scientist tom wigley, one time head of the uk climate research unit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley
now why would climate scientists be open to a mouth piece from green piss suggesting what they write in their research papers ?
July 29, 1999: email 0933255789
Adam Markham from the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) writes to
University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a
paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists.
In particular,they would like to see the section on variability and extreme
events beefed up if possible. …
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash
on this they need something that will get good support from Australian
scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from
an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite
sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists
have already presented for public consumption!
July 29, 1999: email 0933255789
Adam Markham from the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) writes to
University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a
paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists.
In particular,they would like to see the section on variability and extreme
events beefed up if possible. …
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash
on this they need something that will get good support from Australian
scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from
an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite
sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists
have already presented for public consumption!
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
What are these unsubtle and dishonest egregious (shocking) greenhouse skeptics statements you speak of?
i don't know. you will have to ask the person that made the statement,climate scientist tom wigley, one time head of the uk climate research unit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley
So are the sceptics the accepted standard in dishonesty that the AGW scientists have to avoid stooping to then?
Seems an odd passage for you to quote as evidence of AGW dishonesty, when it clearly states your side are dishonest?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff