Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
robinessex said:
Diderot said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is it now 90+ inaccurate models to date? There's a message there somewhere.
And 60+ explanations for all that missing heat. Maybe Durbster could email Viner and ask him whether we're misrepresenting his almost limitless f
kwittery? 
As was noted on the previous page, they only have 5 modus operandi...
gadgetmac said:
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.
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
gadgetmac said:
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.
Laughable.
Isn’t it defamation to say x is a liar especially if it’s about some research or whatever he’s doing, on a public forum? Seems very unwise to then be telling posters to email him and tell him. Each to their own though. Laughable.
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
Viner isn’t a liar just an utter eejit who believed his own hyperbole. Still, I’m sure his consultancy contract more than compensates him for the egg on his face every single time a snowflake lands on the ground.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
Viner isn’t a liar just an utter eejit who believed his own hyperbole. Still, I’m sure his consultancy contract more than compensates him for the egg on his face every single time a snowflake lands on the ground.
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
Viner isn’t a liar just an utter eejit who believed his own hyperbole. Still, I’m sure his consultancy contract more than compensates him for the egg on his face every single time a snowflake lands on the ground.
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
"The comparisons were made with a variety of statistical techniques to correct for problems in previous work. The group’s companion study looks at the alleged mismatch between the rate of global warming in observations and climate models. The team carried out a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections, using historical GMST products and historical versions of model projections from the times when claims of a divergence between observations and modelling were made."
CLIMATE MODELS!! The whole conclusion is based on useless climate models that are trying to predict/mimic a chaotic system. b
ks. You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system. Talk about head in the sand! And the inevitable projections of course! Surprised they never tossed a coin as well. The wheels have just fell off your bandwagon.Edited by robinessex on Monday 14th January 13:35
gadgetmac said:
Yep fine that one under Fake News.
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
So the observations were wrong Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
And you think this is science - how precious.
gadgetmac said:
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
A few scientists are coming to that conclusion by e.g. swapping more accurate and less heat conatimated scientific buoy SST data with less accurate and more heat conatiminated unscientific ship engine intake temperatures (or similar devices of one sort or another).If there was no pause w(hy)tf did The Team waste so much time and energy thinking up 52 excuses for it which might - with sufficient faith - keep the corpse of agw animated?
Such pointless attempts at rewriting history are not new, as per LIA (was global) and MWP (was global).
gadgetmac said:
the one who thinks he's a professor.
There are two, possibly three, professors who have been posting in PH climate threads. None of them claim to be able to see invisible things, the last time I looked, though naturally they are free to contradict that statement at any time. Which one of those professors isn't a professor, and how did you arrive at that erroneous conclusion? Did you use the same technique that allows you to believe in agw by any chance?robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
Viner isn’t a liar just an utter eejit who believed his own hyperbole. Still, I’m sure his consultancy contract more than compensates him for the egg on his face every single time a snowflake lands on the ground.
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
"The comparisons were made with a variety of statistical techniques to correct for problems in previous work. The group’s companion study looks at the alleged mismatch between the rate of global warming in observations and climate models. The team carried out a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections, using historical GMST products and historical versions of model projections from the times when claims of a divergence between observations and modelling were made."
CLIMATE MODELS!! The whole conclusion is based on useless climate models that are trying to predict/mimic a chaotic system. b
ks. You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system. Talk about head in the sand! And the inevitable projections of course! Surprised they never tossed a coin as well. The wheels have just fell off your bandwagon.Edited by robinessex on Monday 14th January 13:35
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
kerplunk said:
"that paper"
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Or because satellite data does not average two totally different substances (air above ground and water below surface) and has better global coverage?The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Whilst there are issues with the satellite data at least it isn't conceptually flawed.
turbobloke said:
There are two, possibly three, professors who have been posting in PH climate threads. None of them claim to be able to see invisible things, the last time I looked, though naturally they are free to contradict that statement at any time. Which one of those professors isn't a professor, and how did you arrive at that erroneous conclusion? Did you use the same technique that allows you to believe in agw by any chance?
Who are they, what are their qualifications (climate and other) and what proof is there of this."Invisible things" indeed.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
"that paper"
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Or because satellite data does not average two totally different substances (air above ground and water below surface) and has better global coverage?The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Whilst there are issues with the satellite data at least it isn't conceptually flawed.
I bet you've got a handy justification for preferring UAH over other satellite products too.
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
There are two, possibly three, professors who have been posting in PH climate threads. None of them claim to be able to see invisible things, the last time I looked, though naturally they are free to contradict that statement at any time. Which one of those professors isn't a professor, and how did you arrive at that erroneous conclusion? Did you use the same technique that allows you to believe in agw by any chance?
Who are they, what are their qualifications (climate and other) and what proof is there of this."Invisible things" indeed.
It was merely a request to see if you knew who wasn't a prof, who in fact is a prof, which would make at least two things where you've got the wrong idea.
From the land of long, long ago it has been known to some
Also these days, in order to know that X is not a prof, you would have to have broken new-ish PH anti-sleuthing regs; so it's clear you either don't know or should be banned - which is it
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
"that paper"
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Or because satellite data does not average two totally different substances (air above ground and water below surface) and has better global coverage?The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Whilst there are issues with the satellite data at least it isn't conceptually flawed.
I bet you've got a handy justification for preferring UAH over other satellite products too.
isn't quite as long as carbon dioxide's holiday 
Where is it writ/etched that climate realists prefer UAH LTT for pausiness?
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
There are two, possibly three, professors who have been posting in PH climate threads. None of them claim to be able to see invisible things, the last time I looked, though naturally they are free to contradict that statement at any time. Which one of those professors isn't a professor, and how did you arrive at that erroneous conclusion? Did you use the same technique that allows you to believe in agw by any chance?
Who are they, what are their qualifications (climate and other) and what proof is there of this."Invisible things" indeed.
It was merely a request to see if you knew who wasn't a prof, who in fact is a prof, which would make at least two things where you've got the wrong idea.
From the land of long, long ago it has been known to some
Also these days, in order to know that X is not a prof, you would have to have broken new-ish PH anti-sleuthing regs; so it's clear you either don't know or should be banned - which is it
Fake news, as always.
zygalski said:
I don't believe a word Turbospam posts.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
I’m an astronaut with many hours served aboard the ISS...but don’t ask me to substantiate that or you go against PH anti stalking rules.
Pathetic excuse.
I wonder if, between the continued personal attacks, I can pop this in...
Article said:
But those “proofs” aren’t science either. Looking backward, climate change the phenomenon has been a constant feature of our planet. Real climate science tells us that temperatures have been much colder and much hotter in the past. (Canada once had a tropical climate.). For the past ten thousand years, we’ve been living in an interglacial period. These pleasant periods have tended to last for ten to fifteen thousand years, so real climate science predicts that we can enjoy about five thousand more years of temperate weather until the next ice age hits.
The theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works — like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity — are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.
Snip.
To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realises he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/why-climate-change-isnt-science/?fbclid=IwAR2p309LN0Ac4bDcItSu9rhIyTUXWAKMb6VmWQY5_K7KbzFq5a7h3316pWMThe theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works — like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity — are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.
Snip.
To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realises he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff