Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[zygalski]

It's pointless arguing with PH NasaBusters.

[gadgetmac]

zygalski said:

It's pointless arguing with PH NasaBusters.

But you are, of course, absolutely right.

So I'm out for a while. I'll leave the playground to the flat earthers.

Don't worry about replying Rob, it'll only be another "swerve" anyway.

[deeps]

Quote of the week from the BBC News channel :

BBC News said:

The Drax power station in North Yorkshire has become the first in the world to reverse climate change on a tiny scale in a process known as carbon negative...

How are they allowed to state such lies and nonsense and even worse present it as news?

Lost for words...

[anonymous-user]

Most of the cult have actually admitted they think AGW is real, they’re just arguing about the amounts or whether it’s exaggerated or obviously with Gadgetmac and whatever he says.

[anonymous-user]

deeps said:

?

Lost for words...

Fingers crossed.

[kerplunk]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!

With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.

Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.

Rob has made his position quite clear - nothing less than '100% incontrovertible proof,' which makes him quite invincible, but it also makes him a scientifically incurious dullard and not worth anyone's time debating with (unless banging your head against a brick wall is your thing).

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 8th February 13:27

[JustALooseScrew]

robinessex said:

Just catalogue the number of guessing words in that one page !! As for Michael Mann :-

Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?

https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-ho...

A lovely quote by Dr Tim Ball is buried deep with in the links from that article.

Dr Tim Ball said:

Of course, Voltaire understood the station because he also said what I discovered “It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”

When you read in to [Dr Tim Ball vs Michael Mann] the case, the lack of scientific altruism is out standing.

Anyone remember 'Publish and be damned'?

It's about time that Dr. Mann opened up his workings for public examination, but he never will as he knows it will be ripped to shreds by the scientific community. (GIGO - Nah, it's worse than that Garbage In -> Hockey Stick Out)

Can we lay claim to the phrase GIHSO?



(Off topic; I also have exposure in to another area of research that was 'closed down due to consensus' back in the early 70's - i.e. Couldn't get published or funding. This was recently rediscovered due to research in to the digestive tract of bed bugs, and might prove as important as the discovery of Insulin.

The Prof I'm talking with is trying his hardest to get all his experimental data published, looked at and examined and reviewed. Anyone interested is welcome to email me for further details.)

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

How many time do I have to say it. I'm not disputing their mathematical skills. I'm just stating that statistics is, and always will be, mathmatical guessing. You can't get an EXACT answer from statistics, can't you understand that?

Nobody said you can get an exact, but you can get a probability.

Do you dispute their findings that the probability is high? It's a simple question.

If you do dispute it please explain where there equations are wrong or admit that the probability that humans are the cause of global warming is high.

I give up. I've a brick wall here I can use if I want a headache.

[gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!

With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.

Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.

Rob has made his position quite clear - nothing less than '100% incontrovertible proof,' which makes him quite invincible, but it also makes him a scientifically incurious dullard and not worth anyone's time debating with (unless banging your head against a brick wall is your thing).

Agreed. He can’t seem to fathom that if you say you disagree somebodys study and findings and that it’s “rubbish” you have to both understand the study and be able to demonstrate where its wrong. He won’t do that because he doesn’t and can’t.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!

With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.

Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.

Rob has made his position quite clear - nothing less than '100% incontrovertible proof,' which makes him quite invincible, but it also makes him a scientifically incurious dullard and not worth anyone's time debating with (unless banging your head against a brick wall is your thing).

Agreed. He can’t seem to fathom that if you say you disagree somebodys study and findings and that it’s “rubbish” you have to both understand the study and be able to demonstrate where its wrong. He won’t do that because he doesn’t and can’t.

I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess

That saves me endless re-post to your cantankerous replies

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Jordan Peterson’s take on this farce...

https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

Of course he's going to latch on to this. He knows his audience.

I'm not familiar with JP, I think he makes some good points and some bad ones. What's noticeable though is he doesn't deny that AGW is happening and is a problem, but he gets the thumbs up from the so-called sceptics here because they like what he has to say about policy and that's very typical and shows where their real priorities lie. Indeed many of the people who the sceptics regularly cite are in disagreement with them on the science and are part of the '97% consensus' that they're so adamant is wrong/doesn't exist.


"I now would probably say my “best guess” is that more than half of warming since the 1950s was human-caused (consistent with the IPCC AR5)." - Roy Spencer, 02/01/19

I don’t know, or care, what his thoughts on AGW are. He is discussing the point “even if AGW is significant and dangerous, we still won’t do anything about it”.

Just to clarify...I’m a sceptic who doesn’t deny that AGW might be happening...If I think that humans have contributed 0.01% to global warming in the past 500 years does that make me a believer, or am I still a sceptic?

As yet I see no catastrophic consequences...I think the warming rate is greatly exaggerated by either dishonesty or confirmation bias. I see science being steered by politics. It’s pathetic.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Jordan Peterson’s take on this farce...

https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

Of course he's going to latch on to this. He knows his audience.

I'm not familiar with JP, I think he makes some good points and some bad ones. What's noticeable though is he doesn't deny that AGW is happening and is a problem, but he gets the thumbs up from the so-called sceptics here because they like what he has to say about policy and that's very typical and shows where their real priorities lie. Indeed many of the people who the sceptics regularly cite are in disagreement with them on the science and are part of the '97% consensus' that they're so adamant is wrong/doesn't exist.


"I now would probably say my “best guess” is that more than half of warming since the 1950s was human-caused (consistent with the IPCC AR5)." - Roy Spencer, 02/01/19

I don’t know, or care, what his thoughts on AGW are. He is discussing the point “even if AGW is significant and dangerous, we still won’t do anything about it”.

Just to clarify...I’m a sceptic who doesn’t deny that AGW might be happening...If I think that humans have contributed 0.01% to global warming in the past 500 years does that make me a believer, or am I still a sceptic?

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

It’s regularly mentioned on this thread that “some of the sceptics actually believe in AGW”...as if that somehow makes us not really sceptics at all. It’s not a black or white issue. I don’t mind being insulted by strangers, so don’t let that stop you answering my question.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!

With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.

Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.

Rob has made his position quite clear - nothing less than '100% incontrovertible proof,' which makes him quite invincible, but it also makes him a scientifically incurious dullard and not worth anyone's time debating with (unless banging your head against a brick wall is your thing).

Agreed. He can’t seem to fathom that if you say you disagree somebodys study and findings and that it’s “rubbish” you have to both understand the study and be able to demonstrate where its wrong. He won’t do that because he doesn’t and can’t.

I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess
I never said the maths was WRONG
I said statistics is probability. A mathematical guess

That saves me endless re-post to your cantankerous replies

You’re cracking up fella.

Probability is NOT a guess.

“Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with probability. Although there are several different probability interpretations, probability theory treats the concept in a rigorous mathematical manner by expressing it through a set of axioms.”

“Statistical analysis often uses probability distributions, and the two topics are often studied together. However, probability theory contains much that is mostly of mathematical interest and not directly relevant to statistics.”

You don’t know anything about this otherwise you’d supply a mathematical answer that demonstrates that the Causality paper is in error.

Jjust admit that the paper is not rubbish and that you’re description of it as such was in error and that you are not qualified to pass judgement on it.

I don’t know why the fk you think you are anyway.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

It’s regularly mentioned on this thread that “some of the sceptics actually believe in AGW”...as if that somehow makes us not really sceptics at all. It’s not a black or white issue. I don’t mind being insulted by strangers, so don’t let that stop you answering my question.

I have answered it, I think you're a believer ie someone who believes something without much evidence to support that view, and in the face of lots of evidence that contradicts it. Definitely NOT what in my view constitutes scientific scepticism and thus you ain't no sceptic bruv

Hope that's clear.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I'd say it makes you a 'believer' but probably not in the way you intended.

I have a firm idea what consitutes proper rational scientific scepticism so you shouldn't ask me questions like that if you don't want to be insulted

It’s regularly mentioned on this thread that “some of the sceptics actually believe in AGW”...as if that somehow makes us not really sceptics at all. It’s not a black or white issue. I don’t mind being insulted by strangers, so don’t let that stop you answering my question.

I have answered it, I think you're a believer ie someone who believes something without much evidence to support that view, and in the face of lots of evidence that contradicts it. Definitely NOT what in my view constitutes scientific scepticism and thus you ain't no sceptic bruv

Hope that's clear.

So, if I am the believer that makes you the sceptic. Have I at least got that right?

[deeps]

El stovey said:

deeps said:

?

Lost for words...

Fingers crossed.

I'll just correct that for you...

deeps said:

Quote of the week from the BBC News channel :

BBC News said:

The Drax power station in North Yorkshire has become the first in the world to reverse climate change on a tiny scale in a process known as carbon negative...

How are they allowed to state such lies and nonsense and even worse present it as news?

Lost for words...

To me this is very important and goes right to the heart of the entire AGW issue. The BBC has just broadcast this into millions of living rooms prime time, and it's nonsense presented as fact. Look at it again, I invite anyone to attempt to justify it...

BBC News channel prime time said:

The Drax power station in North Yorkshire has become the first in the world to reverse climate change...

...to me this sums up the farce and bias of the entire AGW debate, but El stovey dismisses it with a question mark and an ad hom, which speaks for itself too.

[deeps]

Ocasio-Cortez unveils new details about her proposed Green New Deal, which has been labled in the real world as "A big bowl of crazy."



https://video.foxnews.com/v/5999961462001/?fbclid=...

[Kawasicki]

deeps said:

Ocasio-Cortez unveils new details about her proposed Green New Deal, which has been labled in the real world as "A big bowl of crazy."



https://video.foxnews.com/v/5999961462001/?fbclid=...

Interesting. Makes an interesting counterpoint to JP video from earlier.

To be fair what she is suggesting is completely logical, once you accept climate science predictions as fact. Ouch.

I actually like her, and choice is good.

Edited by Kawasicki on Saturday 9th February 06:37

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

Ocasio-Cortez unveils new details about her proposed Green New Deal, which has been labled in the real world as "A big bowl of crazy."

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5999961462001/?fbclid=...

Marc Morano is the "real world".