Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
“In this case I am right.”
You know what that implies right?
Anyway, why don’t you take all of your research data from all of your own investigations on this matter and present them to ‘Zeke’ here:
https://erg.berkeley.edu/contact/
Please copy your e-mail to them into this thread. A simple cut ‘n paste of your 2 posts to date should suffice to make him see the basic errors he’s made and send his head into a tail spin.
i have had a conversation with zeke elsewhere(not on this particular topic), so better still why don't you send an email to zeke and let him know someone on here is calling him a liar. he is known for being happy to post on blogs not exactly favourable to his point of view and be happy to answer questions. i am very comfortable with my statement and i am sure he is with his.You know what that implies right?
Anyway, why don’t you take all of your research data from all of your own investigations on this matter and present them to ‘Zeke’ here:
https://erg.berkeley.edu/contact/
Please copy your e-mail to them into this thread. A simple cut ‘n paste of your 2 posts to date should suffice to make him see the basic errors he’s made and send his head into a tail spin.
ask him to pop in here and there is a fair chance he will. i am sure it would be an informative discussion for both sides of the debate.
Well, as you’ve got a pre-existing relationship with him why are you asking me to contact him?
You’re the one calling him a liar. Drop him a line and include us all in on it.
I call bulls
t in extremis. Lets see your proof.zygalski said:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/th...
This is what he actually says:
"...My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them."
I have a feeling that this is not quite the AGW skeptic you were hoping for.
it looks like a reasoned opinion to me. it certainly doesn't support the narrative that man is responsible for all or most of recent warming and we need to de industrialise to save the planet and the human race. This is what he actually says:
"...My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them."
I have a feeling that this is not quite the AGW skeptic you were hoping for.
I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
zygalski said:
I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
that's quite a conclusion to come to regarding my post you quote. his quote is acknowledging uncertainty. something that is standard in moist branches of science when there are so many known unknowns. i doubt there are many on the sceptic side of the debate that would argue man has not contributed in any way toward various changes on the planet , weather/climate being one area.Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
wc98 said:
that's quite a conclusion to come to regarding my post you quote. his quote is acknowledging uncertainty. something that is standard in moist branches of science when there are so many known unknowns. i doubt there are many on the sceptic side of the debate that would argue man has not contributed in any way toward various changes on the planet , weather/climate being one area.
Ok so you agree with Prof. Tsonis, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?zygalski said:
Ok so you agree with him, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?
yes. a city like london sees temperatures several degrees higher than rural areas due to the large numbers of humans living there and the infrastructure they have created. given the global temperature measuring network is largely sited nearby areas populated by humans it comes as no surprise to me it is measuring a small temperature rise. coupled with warming post little ice age i would expect nothing less. the global atmospheric temp anomaly is running at around 0.25c above the baseline at the moment . the global surface temperature anomaly ( 2m above ground level i believe) is sitting around 0.7c above the baseline.does this worry you ?
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Ok so you agree with him, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?
yes. a city like london sees temperatures several degrees higher than rural areas due to the large numbers of humans living there and the infrastructure they have created. given the global temperature measuring network is largely sited nearby areas populated by humans it comes as no surprise to me it is measuring a small temperature rise. coupled with warming post little ice age i would expect nothing less. the global atmospheric temp anomaly is running at around 0.25c above the baseline at the moment . the global surface temperature anomaly ( 2m above ground level i believe) is sitting around 0.7c above the baseline.does this worry you ?
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
PRTVR said:
In part I feel sorry for some of the scientists, if you have a wife and kids, working in an environment where if you don't tow the line you will be out of a job, it must be hard not to do what is necessary to keep your job, the crime is with the institution's that allow the situation to exist.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."zygalski said:
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Ok so you agree with him, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?
yes. a city like london sees temperatures several degrees higher than rural areas due to the large numbers of humans living there and the infrastructure they have created. given the global temperature measuring network is largely sited nearby areas populated by humans it comes as no surprise to me it is measuring a small temperature rise. coupled with warming post little ice age i would expect nothing less. the global atmospheric temp anomaly is running at around 0.25c above the baseline at the moment . the global surface temperature anomaly ( 2m above ground level i believe) is sitting around 0.7c above the baseline.does this worry you ?
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
robinessex said:
zygalski said:
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Ok so you agree with him, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?
yes. a city like london sees temperatures several degrees higher than rural areas due to the large numbers of humans living there and the infrastructure they have created. given the global temperature measuring network is largely sited nearby areas populated by humans it comes as no surprise to me it is measuring a small temperature rise. coupled with warming post little ice age i would expect nothing less. the global atmospheric temp anomaly is running at around 0.25c above the baseline at the moment . the global surface temperature anomaly ( 2m above ground level i believe) is sitting around 0.7c above the baseline.does this worry you ?
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
Blimey.
At this rate 'Spam will be on his tod.
zygalski said:
Welcome to the consensus.
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
Of course global warming and global cooling are facts, as is a changing climate, as is localisedGlobal warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
urban heat island effect.
Anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming is not a fact.
deeps said:
zygalski said:
Welcome to the consensus.
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
Of course global warming and global cooling are facts, as is a changing climate, as is localisedGlobal warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
urban heat island effect.
Anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming is not a fact.
A dissenter.
At least Turb's has company.
zygalski said:
Anyway, about that 'AGW skeptic' Prof who actually believes AGW is a fact and humans contribute to it at least 33%, but could well be the primary factor...
0.23 c over 50 to 60 years ? meh. and that is before taking into consideration natural processes ability to mitigate it . colour me unconcerned ,unlike the union of concerned scientists turbobloke said:
More good news, carbon dioxide is still on holiday.
AGW faithful / politicians / Union of Concerned Scientists: 'there will likely be more intense hurricanes'
Data: 'think again'
AGW faithful / politicians / Union of Concerned Scientists: 'there will likely be more intense hurricanes'
Data: 'think again'
Professor Michelle Womann said:
That graph needs some adjustments for dramatic hockey stick appeal, a little splicing of hurricane stunned tree ring data to lower the historic numbers should do it.
The 5 types of Climate Change Denial...and they are all amply demonstrated on here.
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4...
Conspiracy Theories
Fake Experts
Impossible Expectations
Misrepresentations and Logical Fallacies
Cherry Picking
Deniers still living in cloud cuckoo land.
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4...
Conspiracy Theories
Fake Experts
Impossible Expectations
Misrepresentations and Logical Fallacies
Cherry Picking
Deniers still living in cloud cuckoo land.
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
zygalski said:
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Ok so you agree with him, that AGW is real and that humans contribute to global warming?
yes. a city like london sees temperatures several degrees higher than rural areas due to the large numbers of humans living there and the infrastructure they have created. given the global temperature measuring network is largely sited nearby areas populated by humans it comes as no surprise to me it is measuring a small temperature rise. coupled with warming post little ice age i would expect nothing less. the global atmospheric temp anomaly is running at around 0.25c above the baseline at the moment . the global surface temperature anomaly ( 2m above ground level i believe) is sitting around 0.7c above the baseline.does this worry you ?
Global warming is a fact, and human activity is a contributing factor.
Blimey.
At this rate 'Spam will be on his tod.
zygalski said:
I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
It's being trumpeted in some quarters as a 'retired scientist changes his tune' story and naturally the so-called sceptics here have latched onto that theme unquestioningly, but a bit of checking soon reveals he's been saying the same things for years.Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
Perhaps the only notable 'change' about his Washington Post article is that he no longer mentions the 30-year natural cycle hypothesis that he published a paper about in 2009, which made him popular with sceptics back then too, because he concluded there'd been a natural variation regime shift around the turn of the century and we were in for 30 years of flat-lining (or even cooling) temperatures - which has subsequently proved contrary to the obs of course.
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 13th January 19:37
kerplunk said:
zygalski said:
I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
It's being trumpeted in some quarters as a 'retired scientist changes his tune' story and naturally the so-called sceptics here have latched onto that theme unquestioningly, but a bit of checking soon reveals he's been saying the same things for years.Maybe it's just me, but how is a retired Professor who acknowledges AGW and then goes on to state that human activity 'may well be' the primary factor but ascribes at least 33% of the causation for climate change to human activity the poster boy for deniers?
If your case rests on this guy, then you simply have no case.
Perhaps the only notable 'change' about his Washington Post article is that he no longer mentions the 30-year natural cycle hypothesis that he published a paper about in 2009, which made him popular with sceptics back then too, because he concluded there'd been a natural variation regime shift around the turn of the century and we were in for 30 years of flat-lining (or even cooling) temperatures - which has subsequently proved contrary to the obs of course.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff