Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc)

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...

So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.

If a historian and an economist are now getting the highest ratings as climate experts, fill those boots.

It's a case of begging climate modellers to veer further away from the data to match the bullshine from teenage activist expertise. We'll have to wait and see if they bite.

Desperation is increasing, anything can happen in the next half hour (except a repeat of Stingray episodes).

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc)

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...

So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.

If a historian and an economist are now getting the highest ratings as climate experts, fill those boots.

It's a case of begging climate modellers to veer further away from the data to match the bullshine from teenage activist expertise. We'll have to wait and see if they bite.

Desperation is increasing, anything can happen in the next half hour (except a repeat of Stingray episodes).

Apologies - your post above is one I don't understand. My problem perhaps. Either way, I was simply wondering why you posted that link which seems to me to be very favourable of the work the IPCC has done and is still doing and simply warns against those that over-exaggerate. I concern I share.

[Wayoftheflower]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc)

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...

So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.

If a historian and an economist are now getting the highest ratings as climate experts, fill those boots.

It's a case of begging climate modellers to veer further away from the data to match the bullshine from teenage activist expertise. We'll have to wait and see if they bite.

Desperation is increasing, anything can happen in the next half hour (except a repeat of Stingray episodes).

Apologies - your post above is one I don't understand. My problem perhaps. Either way, I was simply wondering why you posted that link which seems to me to be very favourable of the work the IPCC has done and is still doing and simply warns against those that over-exaggerate. I concern I share.

I'm guessing he didn't read it, a not uncommon occurnace. Roger Pielke's contention of decoupling extreme weather events from climate change seems to sometimes lead deniers to grasp his work as a general rebuttal to climate science and IPCC. Which it isn't, as per the linked article "Defending the importance of the IPCC and the never-ending task of improving its work is crucially important, no matter what no matter what direction delegitimization comes from. "

[Randy Winkman]

Wayoftheflower said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc)

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...

So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.

If a historian and an economist are now getting the highest ratings as climate experts, fill those boots.

It's a case of begging climate modellers to veer further away from the data to match the bullshine from teenage activist expertise. We'll have to wait and see if they bite.

Desperation is increasing, anything can happen in the next half hour (except a repeat of Stingray episodes).

Apologies - your post above is one I don't understand. My problem perhaps. Either way, I was simply wondering why you posted that link which seems to me to be very favourable of the work the IPCC has done and is still doing and simply warns against those that over-exaggerate. I concern I share.

I'm guessing he didn't read it, a not uncommon occurnace. Roger Pielke's contention of decoupling extreme weather events from climate change seems to sometimes lead deniers to grasp his work as a general rebuttal to climate science and IPCC. Which it isn't, as per the linked article "Defending the importance of the IPCC and the never-ending task of improving its work is crucially important, no matter what no matter what direction delegitimization comes from. "

Cheers. The article also says that the IPCC is a "legitimate scientific assessment body" and that drawing attention to some errors "helps to strengthen the work of the IPCC". It also includes the general point "Since most climate scientists support action on climate … etc"

[V10leptoquark]

Gadgetmac said:

Kelly is a controversial ultra-right political figure so it's no surprise you have his musings on tap.

"ultra-right" - an individual far beyond that of Hitler I suppose?

[turbobloke]

:Alarmist Politicians Including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Learn About The Realities Of Climate Science After Prior Attempts to Silence the CO2 Coalition

http://co2coalition.org/2019/10/25/aoc-gets-school...

Former EPA official Mandy Gunasekara said:

It’s important to understand that asking questions in the context of science is not denialism. The very essence of better scientific understanding is by asking tough questions and challenging the status quo. What’s different in the context of climate change science compared to different areas of science I’ve worked on is that anyone who speaks up and mentions some measure of uncertainty gets attacked and there’s a massive backlash for any scientist willing to ask tough questions and have some measure of reason and balance in assessing these sophisticated issues.

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it’s completely unrealistic. It would force an unnatural shift to renewable energy sources, would lead to an exponential increase of the price of electricity, and there’s significant economic consequences to that. The technology that would be required to maintain access to a reliable source of energy in a system that is overly reliant on wind and solar power simply doesn’t exist.

Link said:

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, clearly unable to address the concerns brought up by Ms Gunaskara, proceeded to use her time to attack the CO2 Coalition’s funding sources.

Another shoot the messenger fallacyfest - so often a stock response given the shelves are empty of anything substantive in the agw support store. AOC could always campaign for as much state funding to go to the CO2 Coalition as it does to state-funded gigo farmers and subsidy farmers.

Not that we'd get to see shooting of messengers on PH

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 28th October 10:14

[kerplunk]

You couldn't make it up.

First turbobloke posts an article defending the IPCC against challenges that it's being too conservative in it's 'cojnsensus-seeking' assessments and how that's baad and illegitimate.

Then he quotes someone saying that challenging the status quo is absolutley the right thing to do cos asking tough questions is how science is supposed to work.

As usual - it's all very confusing.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

:Alarmist Politicians Including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Learn About The Realities Of Climate Science After Prior Attempts to Silence the CO2 Coalition

http://co2coalition.org/2019/10/25/aoc-gets-school...

Former EPA official Mandy Gunasekara said:

It’s important to understand that asking questions in the context of science is not denialism. The very essence of better scientific understanding is by asking tough questions and challenging the status quo. What’s different in the context of climate change science compared to different areas of science I’ve worked on is that anyone who speaks up and mentions some measure of uncertainty gets attacked and there’s a massive backlash for any scientist willing to ask tough questions and have some measure of reason and balance in assessing these sophisticated issues.

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it’s completely unrealistic. It would force an unnatural shift to renewable energy sources, would lead to an exponential increase of the price of electricity, and there’s significant economic consequences to that. The technology that would be required to maintain access to a reliable source of energy in a system that is overly reliant on wind and solar power simply doesn’t exist.

Link said:

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, clearly unable to address the concerns brought up by Ms Gunaskara, proceeded to use her time to attack the CO2 Coalition’s funding sources.

Another shoot the messenger fallacyfest - so often a stock response given the shelves are empty of anything substantive in the agw support store. AOC could always campaign for as much state funding to go to the CO2 Coalition as it does to state-funded gigo farmers and subsidy farmers.

Not that we'd get to see shooting of messengers on PH

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 28th October 10:14

The whole hearing.
https://youtu.be/bfHt4U0r8Qw?t=1064

Damning testimony on Exxon's ongoing denialism campaign in contradiction of its own internal research.
https://youtu.be/bfHt4U0r8Qw?t=2461

Ms Gunaskara's statement as posted above.
https://youtu.be/bfHt4U0r8Qw?t=7970

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez getting "schooled" on climate science.
https://youtu.be/bfHt4U0r8Qw?t=8325

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

First turbobloke posts an article defending the IPCC against challenges that it's being too conservative in it's 'cojnsensus-seeking' assessments and how that's baad and illegitimate.

Not a problem, it had a historian who can't manage to describe their own litsearch accurately, together with an economist who thinks melting of ice is irreversible, telling the IPCC modellers to get jiggy. Happy to share

kerplunk said:

Then he quotes someone saying that challenging the status quo is absolutley the right thing to do cos asking tough questions is how science is supposed to work.

If you don't know the difference between a historian and an economist telling climate modellers how better to support ecohype from puppeteers behind teenage school skippers, and a former EPA person advising politicians that denial is a silly word and questions must be asked of agw junkscience including its false certainty, then you may wish to find a less challenging thread - misrepresentations such as your post above are too easily exposed to be worthwhile.

[turbobloke]

Prof Ray Bates exploded Hurricane Lorenzo myths from politicos and media hacks when he said:

The isolated warm pool in the Atlantic that fuelled Lorenzo up to hurricane force was an anomaly. It was surrounded by seas whose temperatures were normal or below normal. Also, the warm pool was temporary. Areas in the hurricane’s path that were up to 1.5°C warmer than normal at the time of its passage had been up to 1.5°C cooler than normal three months earlier.

The evidence clearly indicates that natural variability was the cause of Lorenzo

Yet another agw junkscience myth bites the dust, courtesy of the data not the opinion.

[turbobloke]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

First turbobloke posts an article defending the IPCC against challenges that it's being too conservative in it's 'cojnsensus-seeking' assessments and how that's baad and illegitimate.

Not a problem, it had a historian who can't manage to describe their own litsearch accurately, together with an economist who thinks melting of ice is irreversible, telling the IPCC modellers to get jiggy. Happy to share

kerplunk said:

Then he quotes someone saying that challenging the status quo is absolutley the right thing to do cos asking tough questions is how science is supposed to work.

If you don't know the difference between a historian and an economist telling climate modellers how better to support ecohype from puppeteers behind teenage school skippers, and a former EPA person advising politicians that denial is a silly word and questions must be asked of agw junkscience including its false certainty, then you may wish to find a less challenging thread - misrepresentations such as your post above are too easily exposed to be worthwhile.

Wayoftheflower said:

As above, turbobloke hasn't actually read the article he thinks he's referring to. It is amusing but ultimately the kind of nonsense that will drive this onto Volume 7.
If he were a shill he'd be exceptionally poor value for money.

Nonsense.

Thread post quoting lessons are over there ============================================================================================>

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

First turbobloke posts an article defending the IPCC against challenges that it's being too conservative in it's 'consensus-seeking' assessments and how that's baad and illegitimate.

Not a problem, it had a historian who can't manage to describe their own litsearch accurately, together with an economist who thinks melting of ice is irreversible, telling the IPCC modellers to get jiggy. Happy to share

kerplunk said:

Then he quotes someone saying that challenging the status quo is absolutely the right thing to do cos asking tough questions is how science is supposed to work.

If you don't know the difference between a historian and an economist telling climate modellers how better to support ecohype from puppeteers behind teenage school skippers, and a former EPA person advising politicians that denial is a silly word and questions must be asked of agw junkscience including its false certainty, then you may wish to find a less challenging thread - misrepresentations such as your post above are too easily exposed to be worthwhile.

A fine piece of 'special pleading' - whether it's an historian, an economist, a political scientist or a 'former EPA official' (what was that about shooting the messenger?) - asking tough questions of the status quo is clearly only the right thing to do when it's in a direction that suits you.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th October 13:29

[turbobloke]

It's a busy time for climate-minded politicians but they'll strive to keep up at the back as usual to help them pick cherry picks apart.

There's a recent paper not in their in-tray, examining eight hundred years of western Arctic ocean sea ice extent (Porter et al, 2019) showing that recent centuries - including the last one - of sea ice coverage are the most extensive of the period, with no significant net change in the last 200 years. Garbage-In-Gospel-Out climate modelling got this right, right? After all, 'ice free' covers all regions,

A BBC report in 2007 quoted Professor Wieslaw Maslowski predicting that the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013. The prof based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.

In 2016 The Guardian quoted Prof Peter Wadhams: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’. Wadhams believed that summer ice cover at the north pole was about to disappear, triggering even more rapid global warming than the earlier global warming that was awol thus triggering a new label, climate change. At the time he had a book out a few days after the article appeared, titled A Farewell To Ice. Come 2019, oops, say Hello To Ice.

The Guardian might have learned a lesson from their 2013 coverage but what can they do when the can kicking continues. There's no alternative at this point. More distant timescales with added vagueness are used these days so the wibble has a longer shelf-life and a built-in excuse (see "about").

In 2018 Prof Ding said:

Right now, the prediction is that in about 20 years, we will see an ice-free summer.

Of course we will.

Refs
BBC, Wed 12 Dec 2007
The Guardian, Fri 20 Sep 2013
The Guardian, Sun 21 Aug 2016
ScienceDaily, Tues 13 Nov 2018
Porter et al JGRA 2019

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

It's a busy time for climate-minded politicians but they'll strive to keep up at the back as usual to help them pick cherry picks apart.

There's a recent paper not in their in-tray, examining eight hundred years of western Arctic ocean sea ice extent (Porter et al, 2019) showing that recent centuries - including the last one - of sea ice coverage are the most extensive of the period, with no significant net change in the last 200 years. Garbage-In-Gospel-Out climate modelling got this right, right? After all, 'ice free' covers all regions,

A BBC report in 2007 quoted Professor Wieslaw Maslowski predicting that the Arctic would be summer ice-free by 2013. The prof based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.

In 2016 The Guardian quoted Prof Peter Wadhams: ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’. Wadhams believed that summer ice cover at the north pole was about to disappear, triggering even more rapid global warming than the earlier global warming that was awol thus triggering a new label, climate change. At the time he had a book out a few days after the article appeared, titled A Farewell To Ice. Come 2019, oops, say Hello To Ice.

The Guardian might have learned a lesson from their 2013 coverage but what can they do when the can kicking continues. There's no alternative at this point. More distant timescales with added vagueness are used these days so the wibble has a longer shelf-life and a built-in excuse (see "about").

In 2018 Prof Ding said:

Right now, the prediction is that in about 20 years, we will see an ice-free summer.

Of course we will.

Refs
BBC, Wed 12 Dec 2007
The Guardian, Fri 20 Sep 2013
The Guardian, Sun 21 Aug 2016
ScienceDaily, Tues 13 Nov 2018
Porter et al JGRA 2019

Once again turbobloke tells it how it isn't.

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

Once again turbobloke tells it how it isn't.

Are you living in a parallel universe where the predictions referenced have been satisfied?
(unless I'm due a whoosh parrot, won't be the first time )

[jet_noise]

And on predictions in general of end-of-days (or even mildly warmer ones ) Clive James identifies the unit of time as the "Hermie" on how far into the future such predictions will come to pass

From 2009 and still as relevant ten years on. As are the comments! Plus ca change...

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

First turbobloke posts an article defending the IPCC against challenges that it's being too conservative in it's 'cojnsensus-seeking' assessments and how that's baad and illegitimate.

Not a problem, it had a historian who can't manage to describe their own litsearch accurately, together with an economist who thinks melting of ice is irreversible, telling the IPCC modellers to get jiggy. Happy to share

kerplunk said:

Then he quotes someone saying that challenging the status quo is absolutley the right thing to do cos asking tough questions is how science is supposed to work.

If you don't know the difference between a historian and an economist telling climate modellers how better to support ecohype from puppeteers behind teenage school skippers, and a former EPA person advising politicians that denial is a silly word and questions must be asked of agw junkscience including its false certainty, then you may wish to find a less challenging thread - misrepresentations such as your post above are too easily exposed to be worthwhile.

But you didn't mind that the article you linked to was pro-IPCC?

Edited to say that my quoting went wrong. The question at the end remains though.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Monday 28th October 15:41

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Yet another agw junkscience myth bites the dust, courtesy of the data not the opinion.

He's not really a climate scientist is he

Yet another meteorologist quoted by deniers when they can't get a real scientist in the field to back them up. And with links to the GWPF

A take down of poor old retired Mr Bates here

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com/2018/12/addres...

Final para says it all...


To conclude

Ray has had a long and distinguished career. But that career has been in atmospheric dynamics and not climate. Yes, both are to do with the atmosphere, but when your toilet is backing up you call the plumber and not the electrician. In the same way when looking for guidance on climate change it is advisable to listen to the climate scientists of which there are many thousands the vast majority of whom (and I mean vast) concur with the broad findings of the IPCC and various national assessments and national academies that climate change is real, its due to us, and that our choices now are of critical import. Equally, if you want to discuss the intricacies of atmospheric dynamics please don’t come knocking at my door!

[zygalski]

Another volume and Turbospam continues to tread a fine line between outright lies and incompetence.

[turbobloke]

How long before the thread is summer and winter and spring and autumn free of pro-agw trolling, fallacies and personal attacks, absent anything more relevant to offer - no computer model needed

It demonstrates on a regular basis the partial vacuum (there isn't a perfect one) over on the agw side where nothing is Left to offer, so not all bad.

The Guardian is adding a footer to articles - based on recent experience - saying they won't stand idly by with the climate crisis, climate emergency, blah, and it looked a bit like part of the standard begging letter just hotted up more than any global warming to-date using climate wibble. Maybe it'll keep the print version going, given such a small number of buyers.

In other climate politics news, immediate - 17 new ones on the way in China.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/china-coal-boom-...