Climate protesters block roads

[turbobloke]

How did you get on checking that comprehensive but non-exhaustive list of 70 cooling papers from the 70s which I posted in response to your inaccurate claim of 7 papers? I remember you were so desperate that you also claimed the list was fake. So, how many fakes did you find? Do tell.

Not this one, selected at random from the list of 70 papers. "The data suggest rapid growth of continental (ice) sheets".

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

How did you get on checking that comprehensive but non-exhaustive list of 70 cooling papers from the 70s which I posted in response to your inaccurate claim of 7 papers? I remember you were so desperate that you also claimed the list was fake. So, how many fakes did you find? Do tell.

Not this one, selected at random from the list of 70 papers. "The data suggest rapid growth of continental (ice) sheets".

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...

Like I said, your lists have been proven time and again to not be what you claim them to be that I wouldn’t waste my time. I’ll go with the widely reported 7 papers as your latest list is no doubt not as advertised.

In other news bound to cheer you up many millions (maybe even billions) of our taxes are going towards a network of satellites to track/map CO2.

Great news eh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-505...

Another nail in the....oh no...wait a minute...

[A500leroy]

So are xr going to sit on London bridge now???

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

How did you get on checking that comprehensive but non-exhaustive list of 70 cooling papers from the 70s which I posted in response to your inaccurate claim of 7 papers? I remember you were so desperate that you also claimed the list was fake. So, how many fakes did you find? Do tell.

Not this one, selected at random from the list of 70 papers. "The data suggest rapid growth of continental (ice) sheets".

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...

Like I said, your lists have been proven time and again to not be what you claim them to be...

You also said that the list of 70 papers was fake. How are you getting on?

The wider failed smear was part of your earlier desperate act of capitulation. Post a link, give a quote, repeat a list. How easy can that be?

Gadgetmac said:

I’ll go with the widely reported 7 papers as your latest list is no doubt not as advertised.

As you'll have access to the scientific literature and can use it, rather than rely on grey lit or political advocacy blogs pushing agw just like you, find an example of a fake in the actual list of 70 posted recently.

I've already posted the abstract from Rasool and Schneider (1971) and here's another random sample from the 70 list to make the hat-trick. Over to you, unless you can't back up your warm smeary rhetoric. Tick tock.

Barry et al (1977) pdf which discusses a pattern suggestive of a prolonged phase of arctic climatic deterioration (cooling) with more extensive snowbanks (Cumberland penisnsula) and a significant increase in the severity of [sea] ice conditions through the early 70s.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/barry1977...

[turbobloke]

On topic, the highway (and car park) constipation continues in both hemispheres, Police application of an enema is needed.

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/australia-k...

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-ne...

[garagewidow]

Gadgetmac said:

It's because they don't want to be tied in with deniers who they think are cuckoo.

Both of you disbelieve NASA and think they are deliberately lying and part of a conspiracy.

I don't deny CC happens.

[turbobloke]

garagewidow said:

Gadgetmac said:

It's because they don't want to be tied in with deniers who they think are cuckoo.

Both of you disbelieve NASA and think they are deliberately lying and part of a conspiracy.

I don't deny CC happens.

For billions of years no less!

As ever it's not 'NASA' but a small number of activists making a lot of noise and webpages. Try an online search for 'Hansen's boss Theon'.

A long list (like the others, not fake ) of NASA staffers wrote two open letters to the NASA head honcho suggesting that their space agency gets back to the knitting (space) and desists from unscientific behaviour related to global warming.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

garagewidow said:

Gadgetmac said:

It's because they don't want to be tied in with deniers who they think are cuckoo.

Both of you disbelieve NASA and think they are deliberately lying and part of a conspiracy.

I don't deny CC happens.

For billions of years no less!

As ever it's not 'NASA' but a small number of activists making a lot of noise and webpages.

A long list (like the others, not fake ) of NASA staffers wrote two open letters to the NASA head honcho suggesting that their space agency gets back to the knitting (space) and desists from unscientific behaviour related to global warming.

Publish that list again..go on..the one with their job descriptions...

I'll wait.

[Gadgetmac]

Actually, don't bother.

You prove my point by bringing up this list of NASA employees as if it's a serious list of climate experts at NASA.

AND THIS IS WHY NOBODY TAKES ANY NOTICE OF YOUR BOGUS LISTS, THEY ARE NEVER WHAT YOU SAY THEY ARE.

Here's a C&P as I can't be arsed to type it all out again.

The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include

23 administrators
8 astronauts
7 engineers
5 technicians
and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). 

amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself.

Thanks for completely vindicating my earlier comments

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 30th November 16:17

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

Publish that list again..go on..the one with their job descriptions...

I'll wait.

That list, or both lists? Don't say you're going to go down the dead-end of jobs and degrees when NASA's James Hansen is/was degree qualified in physics not climate change and Schmidt is/was degree qualified in maths? Epic fail if so. Astronauts can have science qualifications too y'know.

First letter with my emphasis added x2 (bold) at locations indicating as per my earlier post.

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

(Signatories)

Here's a link to the second letter with all bar one of the contactable initial signatories to letter #1 so a tad fewer.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2887116/...

Anyone try the Hansen Theon search?

James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Sceptic...
https://wattsupwiththat.com › 2009/01/27 › james-hansens-former-nasa-su...
27 Jan 2009 - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global ...

James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Sceptic ...
https://www.epw.senate.gov › public › index.cfm › press-releases-all
27 Jan 2009 - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global ...

[turbobloke]

The letter is better and the second letter is even better.

Not 'NASA' just a small number of unrepresentative activists.

[Gadgetmac]

Here, re-read this.

amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

Here, re-read this.

amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself.

Scientific expertise is needed to interpret climate science.

Otherwise what was Hansen doing all those years, a physicist (/ astronomer iirc)?

As previously indicated, an epic fail.

[turbobloke]

Croatia, why not.

https://www.total-croatia-news.com/lifestyle/39938...

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

Here, re-read this.

amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself.

Scientific expertise is needed to interpret climate science.

Otherwise what was Hansen doing all those years, a physicist astronomer?

As previously indicated, an epic fail.

An epic fail on your part as the letters have been widely disregarded as not worth the paper they are written on due to the lack of any climate research experience.

49 people out of tens of thousands of former and current NASA employees is just a tiny fraction, and that “NASA’s official stance, which represents the full current 16,000 NASA employees. And NONE are climate scientists.

"As several different people have noted — including former astronaut Rusty Schweickart who was quoted in the New York Times — most of those who signed the letter are not active research scientists and do not hold degrees in atmospheric sciences or fields related to climate change."

As I said, this is EXACTLY why nobody is interested in your lists, they fall apart at the merest of investigations.

Do you know what percentage of current and former NASA employees 49 non climate scientists is?

If you take the total of current and former employees of NASA as a very conservative 100,000 then it's 0.049%

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 30th November 17:11

[turbobloke]

Having nailed the degree subject myth, the 'doing climate research' infallibility myth has to be next.

This is what happens when one independent scientist takes the time to check through a paper co-authored by ten climate scientists. This is a paper which made alarmist headlines with the uncritical BBC and Guardian. The independent scientist (Nic Lewis) found a major mistake, a schoolboy error, in the paper and as a result the prestigious journal 'Nature' had no alternative but to issue a retraction notice and withdraw the paper. You have to wonder how not one of the ten practising climate scientists managed to spot the fundamental flaw, not one peer reviewer spotted it either. Did somebody say pal review? When this fiasco was covered in the climate thread I posted a link to a UK A-level science syllabus which covers the issue in question.

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/general-climate-scie...



https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/336048381_Retr...

Being a climate researcher wasn't the criterion that mattered, being a scientist with a sound grip on science methodologies was critical, and there's another alarmist headline grabbing paper on hurricanes currently going down a similar route. More of the same is a matter of time.

For a historical echo try online searching for 'McIntyre upside down Mann'.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

As I said, this is EXACTLY why nobody is interested in your lists, they fall apart at the merest of investigations.

Nobody?! You don't know everybody, so your latest ad hom fallacy can join the rest in the crock of bullshine.

Earlier you mentioned wanting to stick to your 7 papers in the face of a list of 70 (from well over 100), this was wonderful. Thanks to you for demonstrating how faith is impervious to evidence. This has relevance of course to a proportion of the useful bipeds blocking streets.

Do you have faith that blocking streets under a marxist gov't with widespread veganism will cure the so-called problem?

[Down and out]

You two still going? Glad I'm in my position on it all.

[turbobloke]

The current protest climate in circular causality loop.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

As I said, this is EXACTLY why nobody is interested in your lists, they fall apart at the merest of investigations.

Nobody?! You don't know everybody, so your latest ad hom fallacy can join the rest in the crock of bullshine.

Earlier you mentioned wanting to stick to your 7 papers in the face of a list of 70 (from well over 100), this was wonderful. Thanks to you for demonstrating how faith is impervious to evidence. This has relevance of course to a proportion of the useful bipeds blocking streets.

Do you have faith that blocking streets under a marxist gov't with widespread veganism will cure the so-called problem?

Just like your like bullst list of 49 assorted admin clerks and others who once worked for Nasa turned out to be garbage if you think I'm going to trawl through your latest list you must think I'm as wacky as you are. I've zero doubt that again you're presenting it something it clearly isn't.

0.049% of non-climate scientists who once worked for NASA.

What's even more pathetic is that you've brought this list up before and been shot down in flames and you'll bring it up again in a years time when you think everyone has forgotten about it. Rinse and repeat.