Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[gadgetmac]

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

[gadgetmac]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

CMIP5 models fell out of the reality envelope around the turn of the century against both balloon and satellite measures. That's it, bye bye and heat contaminated ship engine intakes don't alter reality. One toss of the 73-sided coin then falling the right way after natural El Nino warming wouldn't represent skill just chance.

Blimey, still flogging this one eh. Surely you can find some more recent data to misrepresent?

I now run everything that’s stated by their glorious leader through the following sieve:

1. Conspiracy Theories
2. Fake Experts
3. Impossible Expectations
4. Misrepresentations and Logical Fallacies
5. Cherry Picking

It always falls foul of one of them.

[turbobloke]

Happy Anniversary Albert!

In December 2008 Gore stated that within 5-7 years the arctic ice cap would totally disappear at times over the summer season, The tenth anniversary of that momentous gaffe passed recently, one among many gaffes but a special one worthy of mention.

Same old agw hyperdrivel.

[gadgetmac]

Yep, in time that one is going to be up their with your ‘The coming Solar Minimum will make the AGW believers look like fools when the temperatures start to fall’ prophecy.

Mind you it is a bit parky out there at the moment. You might be on to something.

[gadgetmac]

gadgetmac said:

Can we have a link to the ‘not in our name’ letter to the RS so that we can check out the sources/signatories. I have a funny feeling there is some misrepresentation going on (for the gazillionth time) but will retract if thats not true and its entirely as you portray it.

Second, please let us have your list of scientific institutions that don’t agree with MMGW. Again, just to check that we aren’t talking about the GWPF or The Heartland Institute or Breitbart etc

Nor do I mean some Libertarian think tank like the Fraser Institute.

Thanks.

Not sure I got an answer to this?

[hairykrishna]

turbobloke said:

As mentioned several times including recently but ignored (again). Your repetition of errors - not sure whether systematic - won't change things.

I pretty much ignore all of your posts these days. It became apparent a long time ago that, in your mind, you're fighting some kind of propaganda war. Hence your willingness to post over and over again the same stuff even when it's been thoroughly discredited. An ideal example being the CMIP-5 comparison graphic that has just appeared again. What's the point of engaging with it?

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

I’m glad you’ve finally self-described as at once a fool and a denier. Models are all you have and have all you’ve ever had; without models you only have observational data and as is abundantly clear to any thinking and sentient being who isn’t blinded by faith, or cannot read, they don’t match the models, and indeed never will. Like I said, epistemology 101. Or basic common sense.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

I’m glad you’ve finally self-described as at once a fool and a denier. Models are all you have and have all you’ve ever had; without models you only have observational data and as is abundantly clear to any thinking and sentient being who isn’t blinded by faith, or cannot read, they don’t match the models, and indeed never will. Like I said, epistemology 101. Or basic common sense.

Yes we only have models and absolutely nothing else.

Quick, recall all of the scientists in the field from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Mothball all of the instruments on land, sea and in space and close all of the Scientific Institutes and lay off their scientists...Didirot the professor has worked it all out and you ONLY have models and they don’t agree with reality.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

I’m glad you’ve finally self-described as at once a fool and a denier. Models are all you have and have all you’ve ever had; without models you only have observational data and as is abundantly clear to any thinking and sentient being who isn’t blinded by faith, or cannot read, they don’t match the models, and indeed never will. Like I said, epistemology 101. Or basic common sense.

Yes we only have models and absolutely nothing else.

Quick, recall all of the scientists in the field from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Mothball all of the instruments on land, sea and in space and close all of the Scientific Institutes and lay off their scientists...Didirot the professor has worked it all out and you ONLY have models and they don’t agree with reality.

As you quoted,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08240-4
Proper science... Oh more models
As the climate scientists say you need models to get taken seriously.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Go on then - do the maths

It's already been done including at the link I gave to McK's uni webpage. Pencils down.

No all McItrick did was produce the graph that you posted already, which tells you nothing about the effect on the surface temperature indices (hint - they use temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures).

Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...

[Diderot]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

I’m glad you’ve finally self-described as at once a fool and a denier. Models are all you have and have all you’ve ever had; without models you only have observational data and as is abundantly clear to any thinking and sentient being who isn’t blinded by faith, or cannot read, they don’t match the models, and indeed never will. Like I said, epistemology 101. Or basic common sense.

Yes we only have models and absolutely nothing else.

Quick, recall all of the scientists in the field from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Mothball all of the instruments on land, sea and in space and close all of the Scientific Institutes and lay off their scientists...Didirot the professor has worked it all out and you ONLY have models and they don’t agree with reality.

As you quoted,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08240-4
Proper science... Oh more models
As the climate scientists say you need models to get taken seriously.

The error margins are almost as terrifying as the fractional temperature increases. Climaggedon looms large, sound the alarum. Evacuate planet earth cos she is in crisis innit, according to the models which are obviously always already replete/stuffed to the gunwales with wrongness.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

Durbster it's basic epistemology: GCMs are always already wrong; their wrongness is both innate and intrinsic,

How many times have you made this meaningless argument now? It's been addressed by me and others many times now, and I've no interest in discussing it over and over.

At least when turbobloke recycles his discredited material, he has some variation and sometimes you actually have to do some research to debunk it. The only argument you seem to have is dead on arrival I'm afraid.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

No all McItrick did was produce the graph that you posted already, which tells you nothing about the effect on the surface temperature indices (hint - they use temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures).

Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...

SKS KP? And you criticize WUWT? At least Antony Watts is not just an unfunny cartoonist. Why do you trust such an obviously biased source (that bans anyone who disagrees with them)? Anomalies are easily manipulated by the base period picked - and absolutes are supposedly the effect that we are watching for so why use anomalies?

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Durbster it's basic epistemology: GCMs are always already wrong; their wrongness is both innate and intrinsic,

How many times have you made this meaningless argument now? It's been addressed by me and others many times now, and I've no interest in discussing it over and over.

At least when turbobloke recycles his discredited material, he has some variation and sometimes you actually have to do some research to debunk it. The only argument you seem to have is dead on arrival I'm afraid.

So are you saying the models are correct?

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

No all McItrick did was produce the graph that you posted already, which tells you nothing about the effect on the surface temperature indices (hint - they use temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures).

Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...

It's a yes, as McKitrick explained at the UoGuelph webpage. Clearly this revelation of loss of many high altitude / cold stations has touched a nerve as the warm bias introduced offers a missing link (adjustments to the data 'only' account for 0.6 of the 0.8 deg C claimed warming that some erroneously assume to be entirely manmadeup).

As indicated several times previously, anomaly is used and focused on by The Team as it's derived and manipulable. You must be aware of this by now.

Nothing you have claimed or linked to does anything to address the impact from loss of cold stations - 'nothing to see here' is just more misdirection from The Team's supporters who claim not to see it yet can see invisible things that ought to be visible to everyone.

Jinx said:

SKS KP? And you criticize WUWT? At least Antony Watts is not just an unfunny cartoonist. Why do you trust such an obviously biased source (that bans anyone who disagrees with them)? Anomalies are easily manipulated by the base period picked - and absolutes are supposedly the effect that we are watching for so why use anomalies?

Hypocrisy is par for the course with agw supporters in situations like this where SkSc Grist Smog and RC are offered as 'sources' while peer reviewed science (rejecting the agw hypothesis and demonstrating the hilarity of agw comedy predictions) is wilfully misdescribed. Not as much irony as usual though, more is expected

[V8 Fettler]

gadgetmac said:

durbster said:

I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.

As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.

Only fools and deniers think that the models are the only things that matter. They never have been and they never will be.

In science, there's always the option of repeatable experiments to support a Theory.

In science, other than accurate models and repeatable experiments, what else is there to support a Theory? Guesses perhaps?

[gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

No all McItrick did was produce the graph that you posted already, which tells you nothing about the effect on the surface temperature indices (hint - they use temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures).

Others have done the maths though and found little effect and even a reduction in the trend.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-les...

SKS KP? And you criticize WUWT? At least Antony Watts is not just an unfunny cartoonist. Why do you trust such an obviously biased source (that bans anyone who disagrees with them)? Anomalies are easily manipulated by the base period picked - and absolutes are supposedly the effect that we are watching for so why use anomalies?

Is Skeptical Science funded by anyone other than individual donations? Does it have the backing of Big Oil and other self interested millionaires? As John Cook says, it's a labour of love, not a hostage to Petro dollars.

To compare the 2 is again misrepresentation but then you deniers are good at that.

[Jinx]

gadgetmac said:

Is Skeptical Science funded by anyone other than individual donations? Does it have the backing of Big Oil and other self interested millionaires? As John Cook says, it's a labour of love, not a hostage to Petro dollars.

To compare the 2 is again misrepresentation but then you deniers are good at that.

Any evidence for your "big oil" claim ggm or are you just using tried and tested methods of propaganda?

[gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

gadgetmac said:

Is Skeptical Science funded by anyone other than individual donations? Does it have the backing of Big Oil and other self interested millionaires? As John Cook says, it's a labour of love, not a hostage to Petro dollars.

To compare the 2 is again misrepresentation but then you deniers are good at that.

Any evidence for your "big oil" claim ggm or are you just using tried and tested methods of propaganda?

Are you as ignorant of events as you appear to be.

The leaked Heartland Institute documents show funding for WUWT. A simple wikki will throw that up. The leaked documents are also available online. Heartland itself is funded by Exxon mobile and and Koch industries hence "Petro dollars".

Since the leak of course Heartland no longer reveal who any of their sponsors are. Now that's a surprise eh?

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Jinx said:

gadgetmac said:

Is Skeptical Science funded by anyone other than individual donations? Does it have the backing of Big Oil and other self interested millionaires? As John Cook says, it's a labour of love, not a hostage to Petro dollars.

To compare the 2 is again misrepresentation but then you deniers are good at that.

Any evidence for your "big oil" claim ggm or are you just using tried and tested methods of propaganda?

Are you as ignorant of events as you appear to be.

The leaked Heartland Institute documents show funding for WUWT. A simple wikki will throw that up. The leaked documents are also available online. Heartland itself is funded by Exxon mobile and and Koch industries hence "Petro dollars".

Since the leak of course Heartland no longer reveal who any of their sponsors are. Now that's a surprise eh?

Doesn't Dana Nuccitelli work for Tetra Tech?