Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[turbobloke]

TTmonkey said:

What if........ climate scientists are right, and PH experts are wrong....?

Climate scientists don't all agree. PH experts is another misdirection - with regard to science as opposed to gigo models, PH posts often contain peer-reviewed paper citations and links where possible to published papers from climate scientists that show agw is junkscience.

The essence of the matter is that climate models are inadequate but are used to set political policy. Actual science based on empirical data, rather than assumptions fed into a computer, is a different matter.

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, this link is to a pdf version of the paper which relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.

Links to these and several other papers were provided earlier in the thread.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

TTmonkey said:

What if........ climate scientists are right, and PH experts are wrong....?

Climate scientists don't all agree. PH experts is another misdirection - with regard to science as opposed to gigo models, PH posts often contain peer-reviewed paper citations and links where possible to published papers from climate scientists that show agw is junkscience.

The essence of the matter is that climate models are inadequate but are used to set political policy. Actual science based on empirical data, rather than assumptions fed into a computer, is a different matter.

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, this link is to a pdf version of the paper which relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.

Links to these and several other papers were provided earlier in the thread.

McKitrick is a typical Heartland stooge but Varotsos is more interesting as he appears at first glance to have some credibility. His Paper does state

"Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory." So he appears to be countering an expected part of the global warming model, fair enough if the data backs this up.

However from what I've read and can understand about a complicated atmospheric measurement and data analysis discussion is that Varotsos' interpretation of a specific set of Satellite data about tropopause temperature trend and his assumption as to its effect on tropopause height is invalid.

So to take this dataset and conclude climate change is not real as a bold statement.

[TTmonkey]

turbobloke said:

TTmonkey said:

What if........ climate scientists are right, and PH experts are wrong....?

Climate scientists don't all agree. PH experts is another misdirection - with regard to science as opposed to gigo models, PH posts often contain peer-reviewed paper citations and links where possible to published papers from climate scientists that show agw is junkscience.

The essence of the matter is that climate models are inadequate but are used to set political policy. Actual science based on empirical data, rather than assumptions fed into a computer, is a different matter.

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, this link is to a pdf version of the paper which relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.

Links to these and several other papers were provided earlier in the thread.

Yet you cant answer one question. You can only counter argue that not all scientists agree. But there is a large majority that state climate change is real and is something that is potentially very harmful to man kind.

Edited by TTmonkey on Friday 15th November 15:56

[Gadgetmac]

Did anybody watch the Climategate program last night?

I see there’s never been any mention on here of the Koch Brothers (Big Oil Billionaires) financing of sceptical Physicists at the University of California to disprove the hockey stick graph who, after all investigations of the data came up with their own graph...

...a copy of the hockey stick

Damn the BBC and their lies.

[Gadgetmac]

TTmonkey said:

turbobloke said:

TTmonkey said:

What if........ climate scientists are right, and PH experts are wrong....?

Climate scientists don't all agree. PH experts is another misdirection - with regard to science as opposed to gigo models, PH posts often contain peer-reviewed paper citations and links where possible to published papers from climate scientists that show agw is junkscience.

The essence of the matter is that climate models are inadequate but are used to set political policy. Actual science based on empirical data, rather than assumptions fed into a computer, is a different matter.

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, this link is to a pdf version of the paper which relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.

Links to these and several other papers were provided earlier in the thread.

Yet you cant answer one question. You can only counter argue that not all scientists agree. But there is a large majority that state climate change is real and is something that is potentially very harmful to man kind.

Mao et all using (the much hated by deniers) models also forecast an upcoming -1 Deg C decline in Global Land Surface Temperatures by the Early 2100s

Starting now apparently.

[turbobloke]

China has spoken.

Premier Li Keqiang chaired a meeting of the National Energy Commission in Beijing recently, the upshot of which is that China’s energy security comes first and with it comes and coal utilisation - the premier downplayed the importance of a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Somebody should compose a song 'we got the decarbonisation blues'.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/...

[turbobloke]

TTmonkey said:

Yet you cant answer one question. You can only counter argue that not all scientists agree. But there is a large majority that state climate change is real and is something that is potentially very harmful to man kind.

Mao et all using (the much hated by deniers) models also forecast an upcoming -1 Deg C decline in Global Land Surface Temperatures by the Early 2100s

Starting now apparently.

The question was baseless, predicated on the false consensus and a fictional comparison. It's not PH vs climate scientists it's climate scientists disagreeing and climate scientists vs inadequate models.

There is no scientific consensus but there is a political consensus in the west, which is why this thread remains pertinent.

Are we back to the fallacy that everything any source says has to be completely accurate or completely inaccurate, hopefully not. The litmus test is not who said it and what else they said, but whether what's said or written agrees with credible empirical data, and IPCC model outputs fail the test as per the peer reviewed paper references I gave. Re-read the authors' comments in quotes and apply basic comprehension skills.

Regarding global cooling, are you aware of the hockey schtick? Treemometer data showed an existing decline in temperature, so it was hidden. Try looking into 'hide the decline' and note the actual result (purple curve) in the graphic below. It's a simplified representation of obfuscational spaghetti with time L=>R and temperature on the vertical axis. Spot the decline. In Australia low temperatures detected by sensors were deleted by the met bureau. What effect will that have? From the USA to Germany readings from inappropriately sited sensors give false highs. What effects will that have? Remember substitution in both cases so there's nothing in isolation. As to the future, keeping an eye on the data is the only way to know what's happening.

[turbobloke]

From the link posted earlier ref China. "Premier Li Keqiang has re-emphasised coal as China’s primary source of energy security, and toned down the urgency of the low-carbon transition." That's Paris and decarbonisation both dead in the water while their policy lasts. What to do? Easy.

All it needs is a fast floater with a freebie from Spain to China, preferably not using diesel power. The Chinese will listen to another tantrum and cave in for sure. It's an emergency after all.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

TTmonkey said:

Yet you cant answer one question. You can only counter argue that not all scientists agree. But there is a large majority that state climate change is real and is something that is potentially very harmful to man kind.

Mao et all using (the much hated by deniers) models also forecast an upcoming -1 Deg C decline in Global Land Surface Temperatures by the Early 2100s

Starting now apparently.

The question was baseless, predicated on the false consensus and a fictional comparison. It's not PH vs climate scientists it's climate scientists disagreeing and climate scientists vs inadequate models.

There is no scientific consensus but there is a political consensus in the west, which is why this thread remains pertinent.

Are we back to the fallacy that everything any source says has to be completely accurate or completely inaccurate, hopefully not. The litmus test is not who said it and what else they said, but whether what's said or written agrees with credible empirical data, and IPCC model outputs fail the test as per the peer reviewed paper references I gave. Re-read the authors' comments in quotes and apply basic comprehension skills.

Regarding global cooling, are you aware of the hockey schtick? Treemometer data showed an existing decline in temperature, so it was hidden. Try looking into 'hide the decline' and note the actual result (purple curve) in the graphic below. It's a simplified representation of obfuscational spaghetti with time L=>R and temperature on the vertical axis. Spot the decline. In Australia low temperatures detected by sensors were deleted by the met bureau. What effect will that have? From the USA to Germany readings from inappropriately sited sensors give false highs. What effects will that have? Remember substitution in both cases so there's nothing in isolation. As to the future, keeping an eye on the data is the only way to know what's happening.

Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

[dickymint]

I love it when trolls get ignored

[Bacardi]

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

El stovey said:

Diderot said:

Stovey have you quit your job yet chap? Haven't you heard, it's a climate emergency. You must be feeling so guilty, how can you possibly live with yourself?

What difference would me giving up my job make?

We can all make a difference apparently. It's an emergency out there or haven't you heard?

I am making a difference as shown, exactly what difference would it make if I gave up my job?

If Greta and the green mafia get their way, the aviation industry, apart from emergency flights will be dead. You, apparently, believe in all this man made up global warming tripe so guess you support this to save the planet for your children and grandchildren.

I’m just curious as to what you see as your future career, to provide for your family? Hemp weaving, yogurt knitting? OK, I’m taking the piss a bit, but, seriously, if the ICE, aviation, central heating etc. has to be killed in order to save the planet, how do you see your future ‘job'?

[anonymous-user]

Bacardi said:

I’m just curious as to what you see as your future career, to provide for your family? Hemp weaving, yogurt knitting? OK, I’m taking the piss a bit, but, seriously, if the ICE, aviation, central heating etc. has to be killed in order to save the planet, how do you see your future ‘job'?

People will still need/want to travel and the fastest way will continue to be by air and it will continue to be done by using increasing efficient and environmentally friendly technologies. It will possibly become more expensive and thus less accessible due to increased taxation and environmental offsets though.

Why what do you think will happen?

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

I love turbobloke

More likely.

[Gadgetmac]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

I love turbobloke

More likely.

[Gadgetmac]

Really weird how nobody is discussing Climategate in the politics thread at the moment, what with it just having been on TV.

[turbobloke]

[Gadgetmac]

[turbobloke]

Yes, Climategate, happy anniversary! A tipping point for the visible failure of agw junkscience and lots of politics for this thread.

Talking of tipping points:

Climategate anniversary reprise said:

For example, today we’re told that warming of 2 deg C above pre-industrial level is some sort of a tipping point of doom. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, emailed on September 6, 2007, that the supposed 2-degree limit was “plucked out of thin air”, a throwaway line in an early 1990s paper from the catastrophists at the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute.

Then there's data integrity.

Climategate anniversary reprise from the Harry ReadMe file said:

What a bloody mess. Now looking at the dates… something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!

Also check out the audit of HADCRUT4

Climategate anniversary audit reprise said:

It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student … Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.

For two years the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were derived from just one site in Indonesia, and on two occasions the average December temperature at an airport on tropical St Kitts in the Caribbean was reported at zero degrees. The inaccuracies in the data record are so bad... it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen – probably about 0.4degC in 70 years, not the 0.6degC claimed.

On keeping science that could do damage out of IPCC reports:

Climategate anniversary reprise of a Phil Jones message on how inclusive IPCC reports are said:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Data do matter so adjust away!

Climategate anniversary reprise email said:

Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were.

This is interesting from Phil Jones:

Climategate anniversary reprise said:

I reckon only a few in the climate field know the full extent of what is going on behind the scenes in climate science.

A great prophetic summary from a Jones colleague:

Footitt of UEA said:

I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really makes us – UEA as a whole – look like a bunch of amateurs.

No extra help needed. And finally from a MysticMetter:

Climategate anniversary reprise said:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Idea - a climate politics thread!

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019...

[Gadgetmac]

All of it taken completely out of context just like the HIDE THE DATA comment you haven't reproduced this time.

3 independent enquiries all said this. Tens of thousands of emails scanned by deniers to pick out individual sentences that could be used against the scientists when taken out of context. Then when the actual data was rerun by Big Oil's scientists they came up with the same hockey stick. The Koch brothers must have been furious as they financed it.

Every single email extract used against Phil Jones and others has been looked at in context and then dismissed.

Carry on though, nobody of any consequence believes this cherry picking exercise any more.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

All of it taken completely out of context just like the HIDE THE DATA comment you haven't reproduced this time.

3 independent enquiries all said this.

The emails are available via links at the URL I gave, so anyone on the thread can see the emails in context and nothing changes. That's a better way than taking your word for it.

The Anniversary Reprise also reminds us of the enquiries.

Link given earlier said:

The mainstream media strove to ignore and bury the Climategate revelations. The climate establishment ran half a dozen inquiries with limited briefs and ludicrous lack of rigour, all of which purported to clear the climate scientists of wrong-doing. But even today, ten years after, scientists faithful to their calling and disciplines can only shudder at what Climategate revealed.

Also there will be a lot of shuddering due to the global warming cold weather in various n hemisphere locations.