Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[hairykrishna]

Doesn't really matter if it's exactly 97%. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and scientists in general, find the evidence compelling.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...

The data is also against your position.

I don't think John Snow was an engineer.

[turbobloke]

Just checked hospital Iletters from two sports injuries from a while ago and a skin lesion removal more recently . None of the specialists used gigo computer models to diagnose these situations, they studied data from X-rays a scan and in one case bloods to check for adverse impact from meds The data do matter. If I was told by a GP or surgeon that "the data don't matter" and found they were relying on a model or models due to some faith issue then that would end my/their involvement The biomedical modelling I've read about has involved subsequent experimentation (based on preselection) to obtain data, that's not relying on models and if adopted in climate voodoo seances would exorcise a lot of the agw ghosts.

Meanwhile this is good news and highly entertaining. Surprise surprise! Observational data trumps models and shakes faith.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Whilst once again the faux pro attacks the expert on Polar Bears whilst defending the layman/laywoman's opinion.

Quelle surprise.

Er, no. Again. I looked at the WWF link. Like I said data matter, and there’s a fundamental dearth of it in this area as evidenced by the WWF link.

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

Doesn't really matter if it's exactly 97%. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and scientists in general, find the evidence compelling.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...

The data is also against your position.

I don't think John Snow was an engineer.

An overwhelming number of scientists whose income and existence depend on riding the CC bandwagon, agree they're all correct with their predictions. What a surprise!

[deeps]

This is a beautiful piece...

"AOC’s Green New Deal goes down in flames, taunted with cartoons on Senate floor".

57-0 unanimous rejection!

Article said:

Unlike others, I’m not immediately afraid of what the Green New Deal would do to the economy and our government. After all, this isn’t going to pass — not today, not any time soon certainly,” Lee said on the Senate floor. “After reading the Green New Deal, I’m mostly afraid of not being able to get through this speech with a straight face — I rise today to consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves.

[url]

|https://thumbsnap.com/V73ccuJg[/url]

More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-...

(1 minute read time + an optional 7 minute video of senator Mike Lee's presentation - highly recommended viewing (but maybe not for the Alarmists among us)).

[durbster]

deeps, do you have some kind of incentive to drive traffic to that website?

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Do you mean the man with 150 peer reviewed papers and 5 published books on the subject together with four decades of actually studying them vs the woman with zero peer reviewed papers who does it for a hobby? A woman who also receives funding from the GWPF?

Righto.

who mentioned a woman ? the clue was in the words "highest time in the field researcher" . another clue, it's not stirling , righto

[wc98]

jet_noise said:

Models predict decline.
Data disagrees.
Needs an outsider to highlight.
Establishment attacks the outsider rather than the data.

It's deja vu all over again

that's exactly what happened when the bloke that has spent more time in the field researching them than anyone else raised concerns about what was being stated in attempts to get them on the iucn red list.

[Jinx]

gadgetmac said:

It's the other way around. It's the 97 who are there examining the cancer versus the 3 who are pontificating from behind their cosy (Heartland) desk and have no credibility with their peers.

Lack of data?? Ring a bell ggm? So back to the original problem - you see without the data you don't even know the optimum climate and environment for polar bears. It could well be (and there is evidence for this) that thick ice is detrimental to polar bear numbers and during the 60s and 70s when ice got thicker the numbers of polar bears dropped dramatically. The current estimated increase in numbers could be a bounce back from this brink as the ice thins. Given polar bears have existed and survived millenniums the actual climate change risk is from a plague of polar bears as their numbers multiply. You see without data both explanations are valid.

That is why you need good data first. Unfortunately though fiscal considerations mean the message comes first and the data will never be good as it will be biased to support the message.
Post scientific grant farming - may be for "good" causes but it isn't science.

[robinessex]

The Beebs CC story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-477...

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the physical and financial impacts of global warming are accelerating.
Record greenhouse gas levels are driving temperatures to "increasingly dangerous levels", it says.
Their report comes in the same week as the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported a surge in CO2 in 2018..................continues

More Armageddon fantasising. Lots of stories re what might happen, but no proof whatsoever.

[Jinx]

robinessex said:

The Beebs CC story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-477...

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the physical and financial impacts of global warming are accelerating.
Record greenhouse gas levels are driving temperatures to "increasingly dangerous levels", it says.
Their report comes in the same week as the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported a surge in CO2 in 2018..................continues

More Armageddon fantasising. Lots of stories re what might happen, but no proof whatsoever.

[DibblyDobbler]

What's the source of the underlying data behind that second graph Jinx? Satellite?

[wc98]

DibblyDobbler said:

What's the source of the underlying data behind that second graph Jinx? Satellite?

uah v6.0 http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-tem...

[durbster]

Yep, UAH6 is the satellite data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temper...

You see this data cherry-pick all the time because out of all the temperature records, this is the bit that shows the slowest rate of warming.

They don't show the whole dataset of course; they start it in 1998 because that was the peak of an El Nino spike.

It's from page one of the propaganda manual, basically.

[DibblyDobbler]

Thanks Gents - I see from the Wiki link (as below in case of any interest to anybody else) the trends are upward, but one of the things I find difficult is to get my head around that the rises seem so small! Appreciate this is primarily a lack of understanding of my behalf of course

The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar.

[durbster]

If you're interested, Remote Sensing Systems have an article considering the discrepancies between the satellite and land temperature records:
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

I found it useful to give their data some context.

[DibblyDobbler]

Cheers - will take a look

[Kawasicki]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Gents - I see from the Wiki link (as below in case of any interest to anybody else) the trends are upward, but one of the things I find difficult is to get my head around that the rises seem so small! Appreciate this is primarily a lack of understanding of my behalf of course

The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar.

0.161°C/decade
0.160°C/decade
0.158°C/decade

Wow. Three different datasets constructed using different methods from fairly shonky data and they all agree within 0.003°C/decade. Colour me impressed.

Edited by Kawasicki on Friday 29th March 21:28

[Evanivitch]

Not followed thread but happy to be signposted...

To those that disagree with the scientific claims of manmade climate change influence, what's your position on Ozone layer depletion? Are we equally insignificant?

[robinessex]

Evanivitch said:

Not followed thread but happy to be signposted...

To those that disagree with the scientific claims of manmade climate change influence, what's your position on Ozone layer depletion? Are we equally insignificant?

Climate science forum for this