Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Kawasicki]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?

In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation. No correlation = no first order causation. The temperature data shows the El Nino step changes and without a causative link to El Nino's (sunlight hours/lack of clouds yes - CO2 no) then there is no AGW finger print in the data.

Now look at it again and imagine that your salary depends on the existence of CAGW.

Can you see it now?

[dickymint]

Kawasicki said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?

In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation. No correlation = no first order causation. The temperature data shows the El Nino step changes and without a causative link to El Nino's (sunlight hours/lack of clouds yes - CO2 no) then there is no AGW finger print in the data.

Now look at it again and imagine that your salary depends on the existence of CAGW.

Can you see it now?

Nope ... unless you're a fly boy and allowed to be exempt from being a bad boy

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...

So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.

CO2 is back with a bang.

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25

Do you try to make a subsistence living from comedy? Is that your mysterious day job you won’t elaborate on?

Pretty much height of summer in Southern Hemisphere and look up the current temps from Antarctica. Does it even remotely look like it’s melting?

[Diderot]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...

So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.

CO2 is back with a bang.

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25

Do you try to make a subsistence living from comedy? Is that your mysterious day job you won’t elaborate on? If it is, no doubt you’d want to keep that failure hidden.

Pretty much height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere and look up the current temps from Antarctica. Does it even remotely look like it’s melting? Or is abnormal science now coalescing around a different temperature for freezing?

And indeed we have a vaguely useful idiot who was questioning apocalyptic proclamations from scientists about climaggedon. And this other (there are many) useful idiot suggests that Penguinland is melting in a terrifying manner.

So are we all gonna die from floods? Or is da rampant heat gonna get us first? Or is it all BS. BTW can someone tell me what the winning Lotto numbers are?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?

In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation.

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?

In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation. No correlation = no first order causation. The temperature data shows the El Nino step changes and without a causative link to El Nino's (sunlight hours/lack of clouds yes - CO2 no) then there is no AGW finger print in the data.

Now look at it again and imagine that your salary depends on the existence of CAGW.

Can you see it now?

Yes! I see it! An absurdly implausible conspiracy theory!

[dickymint]

durbster said:

freecar said:

I did it because he was a (I hope the swear filter worked there!) he added nothing to the debate and was content with just repeating the same diatribe over and over and it was pointless. Clearly an attempt at killing the thread with noise.

Eek, then nobody is safe.

Did I miss something? Can’t find freecars post! Was it deleted? Who/what was it about?

[deeps]

dickymint said:

Did I miss something? Can’t find freecars post! Was it deleted? Who/what was it about?

Yes it's been deleted. It was in response to gadget stating...

"Still trying to get posters banned eh dicky?

You know where the report button is, you use it enough, fill your boots."

... to which freecar basically said he was fed up of seeing gadgets continued daily false accusations, and it was actually he who reported, because he was fed up with Loony's daily repetition and diversion tactics, to which I assume the Mods agreed.

Who needs Eastenders

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?

In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation.

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

Yes. Proove it

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...

So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.

CO2 is back with a bang.

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25

Do you try to make a subsistence living from comedy? Is that your mysterious day job you won’t elaborate on?

Pretty much height of summer in Southern Hemisphere and look up the current temps from Antarctica. Does it even remotely look like it’s melting?

So it's a study by scientists published in the National Academy of Sciences proceedings vs your own summary of "Look up the temperatures does it even remotely look like it's melting?"

The penultimate sentence of my post proven true.

A scientist, you? A Phd?

Righto.

[Diderot]

Are you really that hard of thinking Gadgetmac? Even Stovey remarked in the fact that I never claimed to be a scientist. And yet you persist.

Yes I have a PhD, an MA and a BA (NOT SCIENCE). I have a chair (NOT SCIENCE). What is your job? And, not that it matters particularly but you do seem obsessed by qualifications, so what are yours?

[gadgetmac]

Well if you do have a PhD they must be giving them away in corn flake packets nowadays.

And I don't believe you anyway.

As you deniers are keen to say every 5 minutes "Nullius in verba".

My qualifications? That's irrelevant, I'm not the one questioning the climate scientists studies.

And I'm certainly not the one questioning scientists studies with the argument that they should have simply "looked up the current temperatures in the southern hemisphere" and they would realise that all of their work and conclusions couldn't possibly be right.

Please stop now, you're making my sides hurt.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

In all data sets? There is no correlation in the ice core data temperature reconstructions (CO2/temperature has a significant lag). I am not denying I am affirming that all data sets do not have a CO2/Temperature correlation.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

In all data sets? There is no correlation in the ice core data temperature reconstructions (CO2/temperature has a significant lag). I am not denying I am affirming that all data sets do not have a CO2/Temperature correlation.

I'm referring to the post industrial timeline, obviously. I'm not that bothered how much CO2 a Stegosaurus was enjoying.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

In all data sets? There is no correlation in the ice core data temperature reconstructions (CO2/temperature has a significant lag). I am not denying I am affirming that all data sets do not have a CO2/Temperature correlation.

I'm referring to the post industrial timeline, obviously. I'm not that bothered how much CO2 a Stegosaurus was enjoying.

Looking at a short timeline, and ignoring a much longer timeline is unscientific. I suggest thank you try being more objective/sceptical.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

In all data sets? There is no correlation in the ice core data temperature reconstructions (CO2/temperature has a significant lag). I am not denying I am affirming that all data sets do not have a CO2/Temperature correlation.

I'm referring to the post industrial timeline, obviously. I'm not that bothered how much CO2 a Stegosaurus was enjoying.

Right. So you're ignoring CC caused by natural processes over 4.5million years because it ruins your belief in it? Brilliantly objective and blinkered. Talk about loading the dice in you favour.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Nobody has ever said there would be because everyone knows there are other factors involved. Nobody has ever said CO2 is the only thing that affects the planet's temperature. As I'm sure you know.

But back to the point, do you deny there is a correlation in the long term trend of CO2 and temperature, in all data sets?

In all data sets? There is no correlation in the ice core data temperature reconstructions (CO2/temperature has a significant lag). I am not denying I am affirming that all data sets do not have a CO2/Temperature correlation.

I'm referring to the post industrial timeline, obviously. I'm not that bothered how much CO2 a Stegosaurus was enjoying.

Looking at a short timeline, and ignoring a much longer timeline is unscientific.

If you're going to compare pre-human times you need to consider the different concentrations of all the elements in the atmosphere, rather than implying CO2 levels were the only thing that was different. As I recall, the author of the paper you're referring to specifically makes it clear the conditions are not very relevant to today.

I remember this because when it was mentioned here I went and read the paper myself and posted that statement in one of these threads. Which was dismissed as being put in disingenuously for funding purposes, naturally.

Kawasicki said:

I suggest thank you try being more objective/sceptical.

Err yeah, see above.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

Well if you do have a PhD they must be giving them away in corn flake packets nowadays.

And I don't believe you anyway.

As you deniers are keen to say every 5 minutes "Nullius in verba".

My qualifications? That's irrelevant, I'm not the one questioning the climate scientists studies.

And I'm certainly not the one questioning scientists studies with the argument that they should have simply "looked up the current temperatures in the southern hemisphere" and they would realise that all of their work and conclusions couldn't possibly be right.

Please stop now, you're making my sides hurt.

Were you going ‘na na naa na naa’ and pulling this sort of face when you typed that?

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

Well if you (Diderot) do have a PhD...

....I don't believe you anyway.

gadgetmac said:

As you deniers are keen to say every 5 minutes "Nullius in verba".

Really?

Why do you then decide not to apply that principle to what you think climate scientists say, and look at the data and methodology in a paper rather than focus on opinions? It applies to everyone and cannot be avoided just because you want to agree with your fave climagurus. Which you clearly do, see your admission below.

gadgetmac said:

I'm not the one questioning the climate scientists studies.

With regard to opinions as opposed to data, what happened to nullius in verba?

[turbobloke]

Lord Lawson has stepped down as the GWPF Chair and becomes Hon President. Replacing him as Chairman is Lord Donoughue, who served as a minister under Tony Blair’s government and as a senior adviser to Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan.

Excellent choice!

In other news, greenblob fears grow that the new World Bank head honcho will be Trumpistic and 'Reverse World Bank’s Climate Change Focus'.

Last but not least is a scientific comment from a scientist on the latest "Oceans ate Trenberth's missing warming' paper and false political certainty. Politicians should take note.

Dr David Whitehouse said:

Measuring ocean heat content is a subject struggling with inadequate data. It involves measuring the temperature of vast oceans (indeed reducing them to one temperature) to an accuracy at the limits of our ability to detect, in some cases a thousandth of a degree. Measurements that are made with no real understanding of the errors be they random or systematic.