Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
You have the well-established theory of the greenhouse effect it's the enhanced greenhouse effect that's relevant
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere heat is not trapped
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere Essenhigh and others do
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century with no causality to human emissions alongside backcasting failures
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections models do not match reality see McKitrick & Christy
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes with temp leadintg CO2
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements satellite data does not match near-isurface as it should
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt not linked to CO2
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming says nothing of the cause of warming
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of itself this is composition change no more
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world no you don't extreme weather is not increasing
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world activists on committees and not all organisations
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields IPCC scientists disagree, others more so
You have acceptance from every source of all related data not even close, empirical data does not support agw
What else can you possibly need? apart from the above errors needing correcting, we need supporting empirical data with unambiguously established causality to human emissions (does not exist)
You have a good understanding of the heat-trapping effects of the various elements of the atmosphere heat is not trapped
You have a good understanding of how long those elements remain in the atmosphere Essenhigh and others do
You have models projecting a warming trend going back half a century with no causality to human emissions alongside backcasting failures
You have a consistent warming trend closely matching those projections models do not match reality see McKitrick & Christy
You have historic temperature records backed up by numerous sources ice cores and bore holes with temp leadintg CO2
You have modern temperature records from thermometer records to satellite measurements satellite data does not match near-isurface as it should
You have all the physical evidence of warming; glaciers, ice loss, permafrost melt not linked to CO2
You have animal migration patterns adapting to the warming says nothing of the cause of warming
You have accurate measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of itself this is composition change no more
You have an indisputable record of the source of the additional CO2 due to its carbon signature.
You have regular, record-breaking extreme weather events across the world no you don't extreme weather is not increasing
You have acceptance from all major scientific organisations around the world activists on committees and not all organisations
You have acceptance from the leading scientists from all related fields IPCC scientists disagree, others more so
You have acceptance from every source of all related data not even close, empirical data does not support agw
What else can you possibly need? apart from the above errors needing correcting, we need supporting empirical data with unambiguously established causality to human emissions (does not exist)
This is what the peer-reviewed literature has to say, as opposed to faith statement advocacy.
Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms - but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
Sea level changes – see Douglas, Gregory et al
Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, Duvat
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha
The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models – Roe
Climate models get the degree and rate of troposphere warming wrong, the extent (not mere existence) of stratosphere cooling wrong, vertical distribution wrong, sea level acceleration wrong, ocean warming wrong, TCR wrong, ECS wrong, hydrology wrong, feedbacks wrong, impacts including ice mass change wrong. See peer-reviewed publications relating to the above model failures from: Lewis & Curry, McKitrick & Christy, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Holgate, Woodworth et al, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Lindzen & Choi, Mao et al.
Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms - but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
Sea level changes – see Douglas, Gregory et al
Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, Duvat
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha
The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models – Roe
Climate models get the degree and rate of troposphere warming wrong, the extent (not mere existence) of stratosphere cooling wrong, vertical distribution wrong, sea level acceleration wrong, ocean warming wrong, TCR wrong, ECS wrong, hydrology wrong, feedbacks wrong, impacts including ice mass change wrong. See peer-reviewed publications relating to the above model failures from: Lewis & Curry, McKitrick & Christy, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Holgate, Woodworth et al, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Lindzen & Choi, Mao et al.
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. 
turbobloke said:
This is what the peer-reviewed literature has to say, as opposed to faith statement advocacy.
And you're definitely not misrepresenting any of this work in any way whatsoever, and the authors of all these papers would be completely behind you. We all know we can be absolutely sure of that. 
turbobloke said:
This is what the peer-reviewed literature has to say, as opposed to faith statement advocacy.
Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms - but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
Sea level changes – see Douglas, Gregory et al
Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, Duvat
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha
The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models – Roe
Climate models get the degree and rate of troposphere warming wrong, the extent (not mere existence) of stratosphere cooling wrong, vertical distribution wrong, sea level acceleration wrong, ocean warming wrong, TCR wrong, ECS wrong, hydrology wrong, feedbacks wrong, impacts including ice mass change wrong. See peer-reviewed publications relating to the above model failures from: Lewis & Curry, McKitrick & Christy, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Holgate, Woodworth et al, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Lindzen & Choi, Mao et al.
Another list Recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes - Mao et al
Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate – also Mao et al
Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms - but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate – Fleming
The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere - not as predicted by agw theory, Varotsos and Efstathiou
Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al
Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al
Ice shelves not collapsing – Ollier and Pain
Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and try Andersson et al
Sea level changes – see Douglas, Gregory et al
Global coasts growing not shrinking – Donchyts et al, Duvat
Hurricanes - no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Floods and Droughts - not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
Wildfires - not increasing or intensifying see Doerr and Santin
Polar bear numbers - increased not decreased, surveys post-2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide - Pitt
Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling – Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha
The agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data and the agw null hypothesis must be rejected – McKitrick and Christy
Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models – Roe
Climate models get the degree and rate of troposphere warming wrong, the extent (not mere existence) of stratosphere cooling wrong, vertical distribution wrong, sea level acceleration wrong, ocean warming wrong, TCR wrong, ECS wrong, hydrology wrong, feedbacks wrong, impacts including ice mass change wrong. See peer-reviewed publications relating to the above model failures from: Lewis & Curry, McKitrick & Christy, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Holgate, Woodworth et al, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Lindzen & Choi, Mao et al.
Nobody believes them as your track record is appallingI could post a list that x300 the size of that list.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. turbobloke said:
This is what the peer-reviewed literature has to say, as opposed to faith statement advocacy.
And you're definitely not misrepresenting any of this work in any way whatsoever, and the authors of all these papers would be completely behind you. We all know we can be absolutely sure of that. durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. No one actually believes them anymore. Believers might say they believe them, but when they produce exactly as much co2 as the skeptics it doesn’t really ring true, does it?
Build nuclear?..no can’t do that... because CO2 based environmentalism isn’t about logic, is it? It is a political movement, or a religion and Gaia doesn’t approve of nuclear waste.
We‘ve been promised a cgi blockbuster, where is it then?
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. Kawasicki said:
We‘ve been promised a cgi blockbuster, where is it then?
Come on, we debunked the apocalypse prediction myth on this thread not long ago. Nobody could produce a single paper that predicted anything even remotely resembling an apocalypse to have happened by now. All we got was one paper that was presenting a scenario long into the future.fakenews said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687889/F...
More stupidity. Meanwhile real environmental/economic problems become ever harder to reverse - and these will impact this generation more than any other before.
no mention of the extinction rebellion clowns that are behind/involved with this in the article. i suppose they might not portray the right image for the "cause". glad to see no schools in my area involved,thankfully my kids have left school now and are making decent plant food contributions of their own .More stupidity. Meanwhile real environmental/economic problems become ever harder to reverse - and these will impact this generation more than any other before.
robinessex said:
Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.
my youngest sister is also a teacher ,not far from completing her masters in education. i will ask her how it works up here in scotland. i strongly suspect it will be the same.wc98 said:
robinessex said:
Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.
my youngest sister is also a teacher ,not far from completing her masters in education. i will ask her how it works up here in scotland. i strongly suspect it will be the same.durbster said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Weirdly I’ll ask REAL scientists questions and post up their answers whilst you won’t because you “don’t have social media”.
Go figure.
And how do you know what some scientists write in x article in x journal is ‘true’? Go figure.
1. What a trend is.
2. The scientific method.
And I assume your reference to the scientific method was a joke?
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
robinessex said:
Perfect example of your consistent deliberate misinterpreting of posts. I didn't say "my niece supposedly said so". I said my niece a QUALIFIED TEACHER, told me how the subject is delivered to pupils. FACT. Which I guess you don’t like to hear.
my youngest sister is also a teacher ,not far from completing her masters in education. i will ask her how it works up here in scotland. i strongly suspect it will be the same.Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Weirdly I’ll ask REAL scientists questions and post up their answers whilst you won’t because you “don’t have social media”.
Go figure.
And how do you know what some scientists write in x article in x journal is ‘true’? Go figure.
1. What a trend is.
2. The scientific method.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I would need to see remarkable changes to our climate, the apocalyptic predictions need to materialise. So far not much has happened.
Right, I get it. You're basically rejecting a scientific explanation until the world turns into a Roland Emmerich film. I suppose setting an absurd fictional acceptance criteria makes it much easier for you to move the goalposts in your mind rather than just accept a simple yet uncomfortable reality. durbster said:
It seems you're mistaking scientists with politicians and journalists here.
How naive you are Durbster (note I didn't construct that as a question). Kawasicki said:
We‘ve been promised a cgi blockbuster, where is it then?
Come on, we debunked the apocalypse prediction myth on this thread not long ago. Nobody could produce a single paper that predicted anything even remotely resembling an apocalypse to have happened by now. All we got was one paper that was presenting a scenario long into the future.You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
Diderot said:
You have debunked absolutely nothing of the sort. Did you sleep through the latest round of fantastical apoplectic and apocalyptic climaggedon spew from Davos? And didn't you receive the latest memo about the 1.5 degrees tipping point boolax? Did you really believe Winky when he said we had 50 odd days to save the planet? Did you worship and genuflect at the altar of Dumbo the Homeopath when he claimed we had 6 or 7 years or so to save the planet from something bad or other 12 years or more ago?
You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
It's understandable that young people are easily influenced, especially if they are being taught AGW theory as a fact in schools, and then they're probably catching snippets of AGW whenever they accidentally hear any MSM news. You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
Thinking about it, the social media revolution is in it's prime right now, most young people will have Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and who knows what else, and I would guess presumably spamming them with 'climate change' sound bites 24/7?
What is fascinating to me though, is that some older people have been taken in by AGW propaganda. It is heavily pushed by the BBC, and obviously that is awesomely powerful, but I'm still surprised by the few older people that say "did you see we only have 12 years to save the planet on the news last night", and they actually take it seriously. It may be a case that they have always been of a gullible nature, would be my best guess.
Diderot said:
You people are seemingly infinitely and insatiably gullible. How does it feel to be so easily led and manipulated by second rate politicians and associated advocacy groups?
- and scientists, science, evidence and data
How does it feel to be easily led and manipulated by internet blogs written by people who don't publish work on the subject? That must be embarrassing for you.
robinessex said:
Mr G is the epitome of a politician. They NEVER answer the question you ask. They either rephrase it, or it’s completely ignored.
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
LittleBigPlanet said:
robinessex said:
Mr G is the epitome of a politician. They NEVER answer the question you ask. They either rephrase it, or it’s completely ignored.
Robinessex, with respect, you constantly:- Spam this thread with postings about the BBC, offering very little by way of analysis or opinion (simply copy/pasting a BBC news article with a comment to say "it's all rubbish" adds very little)
- Spam this thread with (your) questions that have been answered countless times before (yet you claim have not been answered), including those relating to changes in global average temperature, the usefulness of statistics and importance of chaos theory/chaotic systems
- Ignore, or either choose to not read, information when it is shown to disagree with your theories/opinion
- Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen (or all three)
In your defence, there are others in this thread from both 'sides' who also make little or no meaningful contribution. However, this thread would be infinitely more useful if it were to have some/more meaningful discussion without the mudslinging, name calling and/or spam. Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time.
I am of course not the thread police so continue to carry on as you (and others) are. However, one of the reasons why posters (who work in this field) continue to check it is because, remarkably, this thread (and its previous volumes) do sometimes contain some interesting discussion but it's vastly outweighed by the above and posters, like you, contributing to its waning utility.
Average temperature. A meaningless entity
Chaotic systems. Can’t be modelled or predicted
Statistics. Just a possibility.
It’s blatantly obvious to anyone who’s not got their AGW blinkers on that the BBC is nothing more than a propaganda/political machine re AGW. See :-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BB...
Mudslinging. Never done that. Here’s a reply to me from a AGW believer
“And my auntie’s friends third cousin says your niece is full of s
tt, and her dog agrees.”“Choose to ignore challenge to your opinion that other posters have taken the time to write
- Demonstrate either complete disingenuity or intellectual capacity or willingness not to listen”
That applies far more to the AGW believers than me. Post anything that contradicts their view, and they mostly throw their toys out of the pram in response. All they can offer is ‘we believe’, and point to the science.
“Indeed, part of the reason why those of us on this forum who actually work in this field choose not to contribute to this thread is because it is quite simply a complete waste of time. “
If there are such here, then surely the overwhelming evidence they have re AGW would defeat up ‘deniers’. Wouldn’t it ?
Finally, where are your contribution(s) to the topic then?
robinessex said:
If there are such here, then surely the overwhelming evidence they have re AGW would defeat up ‘deniers’. Wouldn’t it ?
Finally, where are your contribution(s) to the topic then?
There’s no evidence that would convince you. Finally, where are your contribution(s) to the topic then?
Anyone who posts any evidence has it rejected by a load of blaggers.
It happens all the time on this and the renewables thread. Someone who knows what they’re talking about kindly shares their expertise and time and you lot just say it’s all b
ks.I’ve had loads of emails over the years from people who are very knowledgeable with real expertise in these subjects and they mirror littlebigplanets view.
I.E. they don’t post because they’re fed up of people spamming and dismissing anything they say and so it’s utterly pointless for them to continue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff