Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Randy Winkman]

"A fluke of the internet"? Have a break from all this and enjoy Easter.

[turbobloke]

As an example of the NOAA 'Fleming Effect' at NASA, the first link goes to a Senate Committee web resource (followed by a video as the second link with retired Senator Inhofe). The first discusses how Hansen's boss at NASA, Dr John Theon, didn't believe in the dangerous agw faith and on retirement made public how he saw Hansen as an embarrassment. Theon speaks plainly and in keeping with the data e.g. "climate models are useless.” We have the 'benefit' of having our political policy based on something useless, and unsurprisingly it's useless, as well as astronomically expensive.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgN3jYgX4w

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

By a fluke of the internet I discovered an interview with Dr Rex Fleming, former NOAA climatologist, and more recently the author of a book titled:
The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change

It was one hurdle short of a PH climate thread hat-trick. Ex-NOAA 'denier', interviewed in the era of a previous POTUS by James Delingpole, but apparently not in a GB News studio, which could have launched an unprecedented fallacyfest of messenger shooting. Even so, the Delingpod is likely to get bubbly gill ad hom fallacies from some quarters, we'll see.

With potential grief over Rule 16 and any hint of a transcript, this is a summary in my own words, with a link to Delingpod to check it out. These are in thematic order more than timing in the interview, with one or two comments from me in brackets.

-Dr Fleming is a former managing climatologist at NOAA who managed agw researchers and sought / disbursed funds
-knows individuals who adjusted i.e. fiddled with oceanic and atmospheric data for political reasons, Obama is mentioned
-anyone at NOAA who spoke out against agw / allied alarmism in the Obama era would be sacked
-others still at NOAA are aware that the CO2 idea has failed but keep quiet
-people needing/wanting to keep their jobs tend to speak out after retirement
-there are links to pushing socialist ideas using a manufactured climate calamity for attention and influence
-major US scientific bodies hold no truck with non-alarmist views which go against tax gas ideas, making publication in USA in the past very difficult
-hundreds of papers 2018/afterwards are looking at solar forcing and other non-CO2 aspects more openly
-temperature sensors have been positioned too close to cities
-some of the remaining NOAA scientists don't want to change this situation for reasons given earlier
-people carry on with toes on the line as they find it pragmatically difficult to fight (could be said, to fight 'The Cause')
-salaries and supercomputer cash are and have been a marvellous boondoggle / gravy train for atmospheric scientists
-yet models produce outputs which are way too warm
-the agw in models involves a false 'trapping' of energy, heat is not trapped it gets radiated to space
-paper from Fleming confirms CO2 ideas as a busted flush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz9v2vKSyN8

For another take on this type of situation, look online for comments on what agw thinker Dr James Hansen did at NASA in the words of his former boss, now retired, Dr John Theon - as well as views put in writing to NASA bigwigs by many tens of retired NASA scientists/astronauts/managers who tell in their own words how deeply unimpressed they are by what Hansen's NASA was doing and still is.

Despite reposting the same stuff daily for 15 years, it does not add to the validity. I will tear it apart again, if I can be bothered.

You realise climate never changes.

[julian987R]

This is magnificent to watch. The President of Guyana truly put the BBC in its place. When sanctimony and pomposity meets sense and modesty.

https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/177379813839595959...

[Diderot]

Randy Winkman said:

"A fluke of the internet"? Have a break from all this and enjoy Easter.

I enjoyed your detailed rebuttal of Rex Fleming’s research very much. Your critique, such as it isn’t, is of course lacking in substantive detail on all counts, but I’m assuming you’re unduly distracted by incoming Smarties Easter Eggs on Sunday. Because ‘Only Smarties have the Answer.’

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

By a fluke of the internet I discovered an interview with Dr Rex Fleming, former NOAA climatologist, and more recently the author of a book titled:
The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change

It was one hurdle short of a PH climate thread hat-trick. Ex-NOAA 'denier', interviewed in the era of a previous POTUS by James Delingpole, but apparently not in a GB News studio, which could have launched an unprecedented fallacyfest of messenger shooting. Even so, the Delingpod is likely to get bubbly gill ad hom fallacies from some quarters, we'll see.

With potential grief over Rule 16 and any hint of a transcript, this is a summary in my own words, with a link to Delingpod to check it out. These are in thematic order more than timing in the interview, with one or two comments from me in brackets.

-Dr Fleming is a former managing climatologist at NOAA who managed agw researchers and sought / disbursed funds
-knows individuals who adjusted i.e. fiddled with oceanic and atmospheric data for political reasons, Obama is mentioned
-anyone at NOAA who spoke out against agw / allied alarmism in the Obama era would be sacked
-others still at NOAA are aware that the CO2 idea has failed but keep quiet
-people needing/wanting to keep their jobs tend to speak out after retirement
-there are links to pushing socialist ideas using a manufactured climate calamity for attention and influence
-major US scientific bodies hold no truck with non-alarmist views which go against tax gas ideas, making publication in USA in the past very difficult
-hundreds of papers 2018/afterwards are looking at solar forcing and other non-CO2 aspects more openly
-temperature sensors have been positioned too close to cities
-some of the remaining NOAA scientists don't want to change this situation for reasons given earlier
-people carry on with toes on the line as they find it pragmatically difficult to fight (could be said, to fight 'The Cause')
-salaries and supercomputer cash are and have been a marvellous boondoggle / gravy train for atmospheric scientists
-yet models produce outputs which are way too warm
-the agw in models involves a false 'trapping' of energy, heat is not trapped it gets radiated to space
-paper from Fleming confirms CO2 ideas as a busted flush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz9v2vKSyN8

For another take on this type of situation, look online for comments on what agw thinker Dr James Hansen did at NASA in the words of his former boss, now retired, Dr John Theon - as well as views put in writing to NASA bigwigs by many tens of retired NASA scientists/astronauts/managers who tell in their own words how deeply unimpressed they are by what Hansen's NASA was doing and still is.

Despite reposting the same stuff daily for 15 years, it does not add to the validity. I will tear it apart again, if I can be bothered.

You realise climate never changes.

Mike, how could someone ‘repost ‘ the same thing daily for 15 years when the interview referenced was from 2018? I’m assuming by ‘tearing it part again if I can be bovvered’,you’re talking about ‘love’ and you are a fan of Joy Division.

Or do you feel empowered? Emboldened?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

As an example of the NOAA 'Fleming Effect' at NASA, the first link goes to a Senate Committee web resource (followed by a video as the second link with retired Senator Inhofe). The first discusses how Hansen's boss at NASA, Dr John Theon, didn't believe in the dangerous agw faith and on retirement made public how he saw Hansen as an embarrassment. Theon speaks plainly and in keeping with the data e.g. "climate models are useless.” We have the 'benefit' of having our political policy based on something useless, and unsurprisingly it's useless, as well as astronomically expensive.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgN3jYgX4w

Ahh bless it's 2009 again

"Dr John Theon, didn't believe in the dangerous agw faith and on retirement made public how he saw Hansen as an embarrassment."

Given Theon retired from Nasa in 1994 he took his sweet time about it.

"In keeping with the data" you say. Well yes in 2009 you could get a cooling trend from the 1998 super El Nino to the 2007/2008 La Nina and lots of people mugged themselves doing that at the time. Glory days eh tb

Here's what happened next though

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Mike, how could someone ‘repost ‘ the same thing daily for 15 years when the interview referenced was from 2018? I’m assuming by ‘tearing it part again if I can be bovvered’,you’re talking about ‘love’ and you are a fan of Joy Division.

Or do you feel empowered? Emboldened?

Thanks

[mike9009]

Climate change impacting time.....

https://globalnews.ca/news/10387252/melting-ice-sl...

I would like to read the paper though.....

[AW111]

Randy Winkman said:

"A fluke of the internet"? Have a break from all this and enjoy Easter.

Yep, turbo was just clicking web links at random, and amazingly found one that agreed with him.
It's a staggering coincidence, since about 99.99% of papers on GW disagree with him.

Some people are just lucky.

[turbobloke]

Apparently climate change must be factored into rebuilding Key Bridge: how does this bridge withstand climate change? See 'The Baltimore Sun', then hope they see the light and recognise climate politics as relating to a busted flush not a busted bridge.

What's needed in bridge (re)building and elsewhere is credibility not hilarity, rational discourse not emotional incontinence. Figuratively speaking...

not

Tee Hee Hee

[AW111]

Yaeh, why should people building a bridge consider possible sea level rises? What does the sea level have to do with bridges over the sea anyway.

More baffling wibble from the master flanneler.

[turbobloke]

Post second attempt...

AW111 said:

Randy Winkman said:

"A fluke of the internet"? Have a break from all this and enjoy Easter.

Yep, turbo was just clicking web links at random, and amazingly found one that agreed with him.
It's a staggering coincidence, since about 99.99% of papers on GW disagree with him.

Some people are just lucky.

In my case the good fortune is due to a lack of any significant manmade global warming.

In RW's case, yours too (?) the inability to avoid personal angles is due to having nothing to offer which relates in a rational way to the post content.

The claimed 99.99% of papers punt is white noise...firstly it's made up...then, it's an example of yet another logical fallacy i.e. argumentum ad populum...also, papers published before the suspected gatekeeping and pal review breakdown are fundmentally suspect...and finally it's totally irrelevant as any papers supporting dangerous manmade climate change are not supported by empirical evidence/data with established causality...they either assume it and assert established causality to humans by way of opinion, or ignore it in favour of a focus on the output of inadequate climate models which assume it and are still running far too hot to be credible.

There are many papers since 2018 alone agreeing with there being no climate crisis. However what matters is not the number but the point that they use data not gigo and the data agrees with what these papers conclude.

Sloganeering for The Cause strikes again. Desperation is morphing into panic, but not the type Greta wants to see.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 30th March 13:19

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

Climate change impacting time.....

https://globalnews.ca/news/10387252/melting-ice-sl...

I would like to read the paper though.....

After reading it could you try to at least put a political spin on it?

[turbobloke]

The giveway - that my subscribing recently to (another) news/update service which by chance featured the 'old' delingpod interview is the most important takeaway even when compared to the points that a number of climatology people associated with NOAA and NASA have known for some time that the so-called manmade climate crisis is politicised junkybunk hype, but keep quiet to save their jobs and livelihoods, that ocean and atmosphere data has been fiddled with for political reasons, that heat can't be 'trappped' and CO2 has no significant role in climate. It's soooo important to contrive a personal angle aimed at somebody who got an update featuring Fleming around the time of their discussing Fleming's work and findings on a PH thread. As a diversion it was never likely to work, it harms rather than furthers The Cause, as happens a lot these days. The more of this the better.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Apparently climate change must be factored into rebuilding Key Bridge: how does this bridge withstand climate change? See 'The Baltimore Sun', then hope they see the light and recognise climate politics as relating to a busted flush not a busted bridge.

What's needed in bridge (re)building and elsewhere is credibility not hilarity, rational discourse not emotional incontinence. Figuratively speaking...

not

Tee Hee Hee

So from your considered position it is not even worth considering the climate when constructing a bridge?

Modelling the different extremes in temperature, sea levels, wind speeds is completely irrelevant in constructing a bridge?

If the climate is likely to continue it's upward trajectory (or maybe another mini ice age by 2030??) then is 8t not worth considering?

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

The giveway - that my subscribing recently to (another) news/update service which by chance featured the 'old' delingpod interview is the most important takeaway even when compared to the points that a number of climatology people associated with NOAA and NASA have known for some time that the so-called manmade climate crisis is politicised junkybunk hype, but keep quiet to save their jobs and livelihoods, that ocean and atmosphere data has been fiddled with for political reasons, that heat can't be 'trappped' and CO2 has no significant role in climate. It's soooo important to contrive a personal angle aimed at somebody who got an update featuring Fleming around the time of their discussing Fleming's work and findings on a PH thread. As a diversion it was never likely to work, it harms rather than furthers The Cause, as happens a lot these days. The more of this the better.

If the converse research papers had any credibility then maybe they might be employed? (See 2018 Mctricky et al) trying to claim climate models do not predict...... Yada yada

So does CO2 have no impact on the climate or no 'significant' effect? The messaging is unclear.

Have you not personally felt the increase in temps, reduction of significant snowfall, less times scraping the ice from your windscreen? This denialist attitude is really quite odd when the main thrust seems to be an objection to a tax. Are you still enraged by council tax??

[mko9]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Apparently climate change must be factored into rebuilding Key Bridge: how does this bridge withstand climate change? See 'The Baltimore Sun', then hope they see the light and recognise climate politics as relating to a busted flush not a busted bridge.

What's needed in bridge (re)building and elsewhere is credibility not hilarity, rational discourse not emotional incontinence. Figuratively speaking...

not

Tee Hee Hee

So from your considered position it is not even worth considering the climate when constructing a bridge?

Modelling the different extremes in temperature, sea levels, wind speeds is completely irrelevant in constructing a bridge?

If the climate is likely to continue it's upward trajectory (or maybe another mini ice age by 2030??) then is 8t not worth considering?

The previous bridge was 56m above MSL in the channel, average sea level rise is 3.4mm/yr. I think that is a pretty comfortable margin. Honestly, sea level rise can only help, as the largest ships apparently only have 12-18" between the keel and the bottom of the channel.

[Randy Winkman]

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

"A fluke of the internet"? Have a break from all this and enjoy Easter.

I enjoyed your detailed rebuttal of Rex Fleming’s research very much. Your critique, such as it isn’t, is of course lacking in substantive detail on all counts, but I’m assuming you’re unduly distracted by incoming Smarties Easter Eggs on Sunday. Because ‘Only Smarties have the Answer.’

Sorry - I have no idea what your post is saying.

[mike9009]

mko9 said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Apparently climate change must be factored into rebuilding Key Bridge: how does this bridge withstand climate change? See 'The Baltimore Sun', then hope they see the light and recognise climate politics as relating to a busted flush not a busted bridge.

What's needed in bridge (re)building and elsewhere is credibility not hilarity, rational discourse not emotional incontinence. Figuratively speaking...

not

Tee Hee Hee

So from your considered position it is not even worth considering the climate when constructing a bridge?

Modelling the different extremes in temperature, sea levels, wind speeds is completely irrelevant in constructing a bridge?

If the climate is likely to continue it's upward trajectory (or maybe another mini ice age by 2030??) then is 8t not worth considering?

The previous bridge was 56m above MSL in the channel, average sea level rise is 3.4mm/yr. I think that is a pretty comfortable margin. Honestly, sea level rise can only help, as the largest ships apparently only have 12-18" between the keel and the bottom of the channel.

Really?? Your only concern when designing a bridge is whether the carriageway would be above the level of the water???

Am I due a parrot???

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 30th March 21:21