Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

Climate Politics at the hapless BBC, recently chastised over erroneous climate reporting..

BBC Climate Editor labelled a “Campaigner” by BBC colleagues
The Times, 12 May 2022

BBC climate coverage slammed as 'activism' not journalism
Daily Express, 12 May 2022

The BBC’s Climate Fake News
Spiked, 11 May 2022


An activist campaigning Climate Editor, at the supposedly impartial BBC national broadcaster? How shocking it isn't.

Headline not seen for the ice paper: Tax Gas Still On Extended Holiday.

[hairykrishna]

El stovey said:

Remember when TB was quoting that (genuine) scientist and somebody contacted him asking about TBs comments and the scientist replied showing how TB was misrepresenting his paper.

This has happened at least twice.

[turbobloke]

Zero new and objective empirical evidence, yet again? Thanks for the repeated demonstrations of nothingness, the same zero informing our daft political policies. Even more would be even better.

More climate politics:

China to inject $1.5 billion to help state coal-fired power firms
Reuters, 12 May Update

Banks bet big on coal in Indonesia
abay, 12 May 2022

Paris, climate politically, is nowhere.

[Randy Winkman]

Ivan stewart said:

El stovey said:

If you have access to primary sources that actually prove you to be correct why are you constantly posting spam and misinformation from the GWPF and similar blogs.

Total BS as usual.

If ever there was anything closer to the emperor’s new clothes it’s climate change , mind I'm old enough to remember we had to build nuclear bunkers to save our species , now it’s windmills and solar farms !!
Follow the politics and the money !!

Follow the money? Surely the greatest amount of money would come from unlimited consumption of oil and other resources? Now that's easy money. And as for politics? Let the public do what they want so that they continue to vote for you. That's my idea of politics.

[Bathroom_Security]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp...

Had to laugh at that

Just like Hamilton isn't he

[turbobloke]

Bathroom_Security said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp...

Had to laugh at that

Just like Hamilton isn't he

Superb.

[dickymint]

Bathroom_Security said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp...

Had to laugh at that

Just like Hamilton isn't he

Me too but at least he admits his hypocrisy unlike a few 'zealots' in here.

[Kawasicki]

dickymint said:

Bathroom_Security said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp...

Had to laugh at that

Just like Hamilton isn't he

Me too but at least he admits his hypocrisy unlike a few 'zealots' in here.

“At least we are entertaining people“

Hmm. On a scale of entertainment per ton of emitted CO2, I‘m not sure F1 is at the top of the list.

Bears and gladiators. We need to get back to bears and gladiators.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented

Implies what we're seeing now isn't unusual so we can ignore it. So when was the last time this rate of change happened?

turbobloke said:

-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer

Implies the arctic is not warming. Is the arctic warming turbobloke?

Faster than anywhere else on earth perhaps?

turbobloke said:

-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming

Implies glaciers are stable. Are they not melting then turbobloke?

The data:

turbobloke said:

-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated

-Global coasts growing not shrinking

Implies sea levels are not rising. Are sea levels rising, turbobloke?

The data:


and so on...

Blatant, shameless misrepresentation.

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

El stovey said:

Remember when TB was quoting that (genuine) scientist and somebody contacted him asking about TBs comments and the scientist replied showing how TB was misrepresenting his paper.

This has happened at least twice.

Turbobloke's claim is the quote at the bottom, citing Dr Stephen's work.

turbobloke said:

Complete hogwash, inverting reality, as usual.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

El stovey said:

Remember when TB was quoting that (genuine) scientist and somebody contacted him asking about TBs comments and the scientist replied showing how TB was misrepresenting his paper.

This has happened at least twice.

Turbobloke's claim is the quote at the bottom, citing Dr Stephen's work.

turbobloke said:

Complete hogwash, inverting reality, as usual.

It's happened only once, not at least twice. Where are the others? In your imagination. It didn't work as claimed on the one occasion either.

What I said was that there's no visible human signal in TOA radiative imbalance data. That is, no visible signal from forcing due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.This is what the 2012 paper I was referring to says i.e. the same thing, in the final sentence.



A later update (2015) talks about fluxes being adjusted with an assessment of the different assumptions on the impact of adjustment on the fluxes. The adjustments 'reveal' a small + value from adjustments and it's not permanent.

News item covering 2018 research from NASA post dating both papers said:

New data from NASA’s SABER instrument on board NASA’s TIMED satellite confirms that our atmosphere is losing heat energy near the edge of space as we approach solar minimum.

That'll be cooling i.e. a negative TOA radiative imbalance.

Try harder next time with the personal attacks / pestering people, without inverting reality in future.

[anonymous-user]

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

No on-topic response as expected, just the usual nothingness.

Read what the paper said and what I said, it's the same. Obviously you can't cope with reality and continue to invert it.

Note also that the overall TOA can't be assumed to be due only anthropogenic forcing, that's just one 'small' (to quote the paper) contribution. Not least as it'll be tricky to explain cooling, negative TOA radiative imbalance, as due only to human warming, though with inverted reality anything is possible.

Tax gas on extended holiday, not dominating.

[durbster]

Hmm, who do we trust here. The bloke who:

• constantly misrepresents climate science
• modifies news article headlines to make them suit his agenda
• constantly posts misleading quotes
• has a demonstrable record of being wrong, and then lies about what he said
• shares information while deliberately omitting crucial context and sources

Or the director for climate sciences at NASA.

Tough one.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

El stovey said:

No on-topic response as expected, just the usual nothingness.

Read what the paper said and what I said, it's the same. Obviously you can't cope with reality and continue to invert it.

Note also that the overall TOA can't be assumed to be due only anthropogenic forcing, that's just one 'small' (to quote the paper) contribution. Not least as it'll be tricky to explain cooling, negative TOA radiative imbalance, as due only to human warming, though with inverted reality anything is possible.

Tax gas on extended holiday, not dominating.

The actual scientist who wrote the paper said you were misrepresenting him.

What you’re saying is again a complete misrepresentation of what happened.

It’s just dishonest.

[turbobloke]

UK climate politics is based on models.

Independent Review by mathematician and scientist Dr Doug Hoffman of the Paper I cited and its implications said:

The effect of CO2 forcing is lost in the noise of uncertainty. What this means is that all current climate models are based on bad assumptions. And because the raw output of those models do not reproduce the actual state of the environment, climate modelers have applied “adjustments” to get the numbers to work out. The result is that climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted.

That's what our politicians are basing their effective climate / energy policymaking on, to get the amazing results we can see just by looking around.

Dream on and don't forget to panic.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

UK climate politics is based on models.

Independent Review by mathematician and scientist Dr Doug Hoffman of the Paper I cited and its implications said:

The effect of CO2 forcing is lost in the noise of uncertainty. What this means is that all current climate models are based on bad assumptions. And because the raw output of those models do not reproduce the actual state of the environment, climate modelers have applied “adjustments” to get the numbers to work out. The result is that climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted.

That's what our politicians are basing their effective climate / energy policymaking on, to get the amazing results we can see just by looking around.

Dream on and don't forget to panic.

And in the ten years since that was written, the models have continued to be proved right.

turbobloke said:

But don't follow the faith! Follow the data.

Edited by durbster on Monday 16th May 09:37

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

UK climate politics is based on models.

Independent Review by mathematician and scientist Dr Doug Hoffman of the Paper I cited and its implications said:

The effect of CO2 forcing is lost in the noise of uncertainty. What this means is that all current climate models are based on bad assumptions. And because the raw output of those models do not reproduce the actual state of the environment, climate modelers have applied “adjustments” to get the numbers to work out. The result is that climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted.

That's what our politicians are basing their effective climate / energy policymaking on, to get the amazing results we can see just by looking around.

Dream on and don't forget to panic.

And in the ten years since that was written, the models have been right and you have been wrong.

turbobloke said:

But don't follow the faith! Follow the data.

The review comment is all about what the data says, do you understand anything or is your desire to push The Cause for The Team so overweening that reality is lost, inverted even.

You've come a long way.





Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

[turbobloke]

PS
The explanation for natural genuinely rapid climate change as mentioned involves ocean circulation / salinity;. the methane ghg changes sometimes claimed to be responsible lag temperature by 75 years.

[durbster]

Haha, turbobloke digging through the archive to get revenge for me showing him his own words is pure gold. Go for you life dude. I've been honest throughout and have nothing to hide.

Frankly I'm a bit disappointed that the best you could come up with is two unrelated statements that don't really say anything