Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[AW111]

I'm still waiting for the high priest of wibble or one of his acolytes to explain how they got it so wrong in their confident predictions of global cooling.

Well actually not waiting, because all we'll get the usual avalanche of word salad and no acknowledgement of their dismally wrong predictions.

[mike9009]

PRTVR said:

But the point being was that both sides considered cooling as a possibility.

If this is about sides, the IPCC have not predicted a Mini Ice Age. Happy to be proven wrong though......

[mike9009]

kerplunk said:

I like "Astronomic Harmonic Resonances" - from Ollila

Yep, they predicted everything up until the paper was written, but they did not have the foresight to predict even one month beyond. I wonder why??

[turbobloke]

This is typical and appalling and yet hilarious, from Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/04/02/un-climate...

UN Climate Advisor & Time Mag’s ‘Woman Of The Year’ declares ‘the climate crisis’ is ‘not just manmade, it’s white manmade’ ‘A result of capitalism, years of colonialism, years of racial oppression’.

Prof Mike Hulme got there first with "climate change isn't everything" but as ever the UN via an apparatchik are off on one, wibble factor off the scale.

Thank goodness there was no mention of one thing that has no capacity to cause significant climate change - carbon dioxide. Also typical is no mention, in what is actually a cost benefit issue, of the enormous benefits arising, only imaginary costs with no causality in sight.

[turbobloke]

To clarify, the cost-benefit issue is there within the false narrative of CO2 causing significant warming. It shows that even within the IPCC alarmist agw view of a (faux) crisis, the position is far from as described, with immense benefits from burning fossil fuels that, at least, should be taken into account alongside claimed costs.

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses as humans of any colour and gender are not responsible. Various social justice punts piggybacking on agw as per the UN advocate have no basis.

[kerplunk]

mike9009 said:

kerplunk said:

I like "Astronomic Harmonic Resonances" - from Ollila

Yep, they predicted everything up until the paper was written, but they did not have the foresight to predict even one month beyond. I wonder why??

It seems to be a common feature of data mining for patterns based stuff. Another common feature - they're all fiercely anti GHG forcing as a factor (maybe that's why keep pancaking - just a guess). One might call it a 'pattern'

It's giving sceptics a bad name so time to throw it under the bus using contra patterns based stuff:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/18/it-is-time-...

I'm off to check my horoscope for harmonic resonances...

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

This is typical and appalling and yet hilarious, from Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/04/02/un-climate...

UN Climate Advisor & Time Mag’s ‘Woman Of The Year’ declares ‘the climate crisis’ is ‘not just manmade, it’s white manmade’ ‘A result of capitalism, years of colonialism, years of racial oppression’.

Prof Mike Hulme got there first with "climate change isn't everything" but as ever the UN via an apparatchik are off on one, wibble factor off the scale.

Thank goodness there was no mention of one thing that has no capacity to cause significant climate change - carbon dioxide. Also typical is no mention, in what is actually a cost benefit issue, of the enormous benefits arising, only imaginary costs with no causality in sight.

CAGW = Caucasian Anthropogenic Global Warming?

[The Don of Croy]

turbobloke said:

This is typical and appalling and yet hilarious, from Climate Depot.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/04/02/un-climate...

UN Climate Advisor & Time Mag’s ‘Woman Of The Year’ declares ‘the climate crisis’ is ‘not just manmade, it’s white manmade’ ‘A result of capitalism, years of colonialism, years of racial oppression’.

Prof Mike Hulme got there first with "climate change isn't everything" but as ever the UN via an apparatchik are off on one, wibble factor off the scale.

Thank goodness there was no mention of one thing that has no capacity to cause significant climate change - carbon dioxide. Also typical is no mention, in what is actually a cost benefit issue, of the enormous benefits arising, only imaginary costs with no causality in sight.

Quote; Throughout her activism Ayisha has described herself as a socialist with Marxist leanings. She has also denounced capitalism as a purveyor of the world’s problems

- colour me surprised.

However, as a zeitgeist thing she's absolutely on the money. Should go far.

[mike9009]

Can capitalism still exist once we have achieved net zero, or are the two systems mutually exclusive?

[swisstoni]

mike9009 said:

Can capitalism still exist once we have achieved net zero, or are the two systems mutually exclusive?

Does capitalism depend entirely on burning stuff?

[hairykrishna]

mike9009 said:

Can capitalism still exist once we have achieved net zero, or are the two systems mutually exclusive?

We already don't have a pure capitalism system - for good reason. I'm not sure how net zero changes much.

[Diderot]

hairykrishna said:

mike9009 said:

Can capitalism still exist once we have achieved net zero, or are the two systems mutually exclusive?

We already don't have a pure capitalism system - for good reason. I'm not sure how net zero changes much.

Exactly Hairy.

Apart from the cost of such unilateral idiocy.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses..........

To keep quoting papers from these authors must get embarrassing? Each paper has fundamental flaws, which fall at the first hurdle.

I notice there is no defence of the critique, but the authors names just keep getting repeated ad infinitum.

Please defend the critique rather than blindly quoting and misquoting stuff.

[turbobloke]

That's as seen in PH climate threads for at least 20 years, aka nothing new. Meanwhile...

This is new from Japan, where for the last 40 years there's been an overall trend of winter cooling. Source is JMA. What happened to the global warming...the Pacific island Hachij?-jima has seen no warming in 75 years, well back beyond the red line. They need an airport / building programme and massive decarbonisation, fast. Where's the urban heat island effect when needed (rhetorical question), otherwise this could Do Damage to The Cause.

Primary Source:
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/mon...
Secondary source for the graphic is cited in the image:
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/7VjLfPfT.png

Something for the weekend. Were you unaware that extreme weather linked to climate change is affecting transgender prostitutes‘ income in Indonesia?

The Independent wants to bring you up to date, and wants you to believe truly that extreme weather is increasing and it's due to us. The data don't matter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather and it still needs a pinch of the proverbial given that carbon dioxide has no capacity to trap heat and cause significant climate change see several papers cited very recently which keep getting missed or quickly forgotten

Our daft climate politics policy based on inadequate models won't be forgotten for some time, sadly.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses..........

To keep quoting papers from these authors must get embarrassing? Each paper has fundamental flaws, which fall at the first hurdle.

I notice there is no defence of the critique, but the authors names just keep getting repeated ad infinitum.

Please defend the critique rather than blindly quoting and misquoting stuff.

Point out the fundamental flaws that the peer review process missed then. I’m sure the journal editors would welcome your insight.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses..........

To keep quoting papers from these authors must get embarrassing? Each paper has fundamental flaws, which fall at the first hurdle.

I notice there is no defence of the critique, but the authors names just keep getting repeated ad infinitum.

Please defend the critique rather than blindly quoting and misquoting stuff.

Point out the fundamental flaws that the peer review process missed then. I’m sure the journal editors would welcome your insight.

They can be pointed out on PH first, naturally. There's been quite a time interval between first sighting / citing on PH, what could cause the delay?

However it looks as though the agw advocacy blogs can't keep up with the number of 'climate crisis lie' papers being pubished, so there's nothing by way of a quick "your mum" response from a member of The Team ramping The Cause, and therefore nothing as yet for the dataphobics to copy and paste.

[AW111]

Funnily, I would have applied the term "dataphobic" to those who spend all their time trying to obfuscate the data and downplay any measurements that couter their worldview.

When's that global cooling coming turbo? We should have plenty of evidence by now, according to your predictions from a decade ago.

[turbobloke]

There are precedents for pointing out flaws, however, from the stats dog's breakfast in a 1999 paper through to a memory lapse on how to treat random and systematic errors (A-level science) in 2019, the papers involved are pushing The Cause (downhill).

This first one, slated by McKitrick who sent his slating to the original authors for review, claimed to be able to attribute climate change impacts to humans, and the IPCC dined out on it for 20 years. It's classy, an attempt to use a theorem to make the case, then manage not to state it correctly, from which point it gets worse.

McKitrick said:

(The authors) stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05913-7

McKitrick gives an outline of his demolition job here (pdf): https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808...

The journal Nature Retraction Note Resplandy et al said:

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

They should have sent that last one for review to the nearest secondary school with an A-level physics set. Natrually there was nothing to see here, as per comments allowed in the retraction note 'our method remains valid' (even if systematic errors are treated as random within it?) then you recall the comments are in a highly embarrassing retraction note.

I can recall one paper on the climate-crisis-lie side which wasn't so much withdrawn as not accepted due to concerted pressure from activist journalists and what climatologist Dr Judith Curry calls 'federal scientists' possibly with an interesting Venn Diagram relating to Prof Mike Hulme's exaggerationists.

Our political policy is based on inadequate modelling, which such classy material supports. Wonderful!

[turbobloke]

There's a deadly deep freeze in mongolia being blamed on warming, the material is as embarrassing as the retracted / demolished papers and easily found.

Back to the shiny material behind our (and others') daft climate policymaking:

Climate Alarmists’ Bad Science
Advocates conduct shoddy research in an effort to show that warming will reduce economic growth
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-bad...

Extremist activists have been trying to cancel 'climate optimum' (naturally warm periods which benefited civilisations) for years, another fail.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses..........

To keep quoting papers from these authors must get embarrassing? Each paper has fundamental flaws, which fall at the first hurdle.

I notice there is no defence of the critique, but the authors names just keep getting repeated ad infinitum.

Please defend the critique rather than blindly quoting and misquoting stuff.

Point out the fundamental flaws that the peer review process missed then. I’m sure the journal editors would welcome your insight.

I have already..... and have written to one of the authors about their understanding of statistics (still not heard back from them.....)

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th April 11:26