Politics And AGW/GW

[Thundery wintry showers]

I will, however, be very interested to see if anything useful comes out of this "Leaky Integrator" thing.

As in, I would be interested to see what comes of the "Leaky Integrator" to see if it can provide any compelling evidence against the mainstream consensus- which it might do. And I've actually contributed a few times in the Leaky Integrator thread and actually defended it when Devonian criticised it. But discussion of the LI is better reserved for the LI thread which is why I haven't commented on it much here.

How exactly does that match with VillagePlank's accusations at me above, or is it levelled at other contributors? As I say, it seems that because I don't subscribe to the "AGW is a myth" standpoint, it means I automatically get lumped together with the worst of the pro-AGW extremists.

[VillagePlank]

As in, I would be interested to see what comes of the "Leaky Integrator" to see if it can provide any compelling evidence against the mainstream consensus- which it might do. And I've actually contributed a few times in the Leaky Integrator thread and actually defended it when Devonian criticised it. But discussion of the LI is better reserved for the LI thread which is why I haven't commented on it much here.

How exactly does that match with VillagePlank's accusations at me above, or is it levelled at other contributors? As I say, it seems that because I don't subscribe to the "AGW is a myth" standpoint, it means I automatically get lumped together with the worst of the pro-AGW extremists.

I wasn't talking about you.

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's fine then. I think it's because it appeared the post below mine that I thought it was aimed at me!

[VillagePlank]

That's fine then. I think it's because it appeared the post below mine that I thought it was aimed at me!

Sorry TWS

It's just so difficult to get good criticisms. I know you know what I mean; I expected a deluge of complaints about methods, procedures, datasets, the whole caboodle.

After all, the LI, does dismiss, by default, but not by intention, the CO2 hypothesis - indeed if you read the early pages I had a little go at Captain Bobski for not seeing the CO2 signature. Seems a long time ago, now.

I just expected, in such a hot-headed subject, a little engagement.

Perhaps, I am onto something, here?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have to admit that it's hard to get my head around some of the methodologies- particularly as some of the maths etc. is being withheld for various reasons (and many good reasons, I hasten to add). I haven't really had much to say other than what I've contributed (e.g. I pointed out the discontinuity in global temps around 1945).

For the most part I'm just interested to see where the thread goes.

[Devonian]

The problem is, that there is no engagement.

I have provided a method, that I have clearly made available to any one who is interested, of integrating, in a simple manner, four natural indexes - all of which have been published and peer reviewed. I have shown a different method of showing the modern warming, I have shown historical trends, and it even predicts precisely what the MetO are predicting for the next decade.

And what's it for. You don't care, nor does anyone else who has bought into the AGW dogma. It's difficult to break a line you've held for years without question - especially when it's based on deference to authority (a logical faux paus), even more difficult when the science that supports such dogma is actually true and it's only the conclusions that are at fault.

The AGW camp has asked for an alternate hypothesis, the leaky integrator is the best I can give. What do you have to say about it?

Happy days.

VP, In my last comment to your thread I asked some questions and made a comment. I stand by that post. I received a strong reply from PP and it was quite clear where he stood - my view and questions were not welcome in the thread. I understood that message. As a consequences I said I would not post to the thread again, I am a man of my word, I haven't and I wont post to it again.

Now, despite you being allowed, by me at least, to expand on your idea without criticism, you post the above. It's clearly aimed to provoke. So, let me say again, I will not be replying to your thread. I've tied my own hands for the reasons outlined, but I am not closed mind, deferential, dogmatic, or well known for not having anything to say about alternative ideas to AGW

Edited April 27, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry TWS :wub:

It's just so difficult to get good criticisms. I know you know what I mean; I expected a deluge of complaints about methods, procedures, datasets, the whole caboodle.

After all, the LI, does dismiss, by default, but not by intention, the CO2 hypothesis - indeed if you read the early pages I had a little go at Captain Bobski for not seeing the CO2 signature. Seems a long time ago, now.

I just expected, in such a hot-headed subject, a little engagement.

Perhaps, I am onto something, here?

I know this isn't really the place for LI-related stuff, but I just thought I'd follow this post up a little bit (it may be that hardly anyone is reading the LI thread! )

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed by the (lack of) reaction to the LI thread - with very few exceptions (most notably TWS and Chris Knight) it's been little more than a private area for me and VP!

I would really like to see some group spirit and some real discussion in there - what's wrong with the model, what's good about it and so on - and maybe we could make some real progress.

As has been said a number of times, the LI is unlikely to prove anything (certainly not conclusively, at any rate), but it could end up lending solid support to either the Pros or the Skeptics (or any of the myriad people in between!).

I confess I approached the LI from a real CO2-atheist angle - trying to show that temperatures can be explained without invoking CO2 at all - whereas VP approached from the far more scientific "agnostic" standpoint. Regardless of the entry point, though, the aim is to filter in one forcing at a time and see what happens.

I would appreciate people's input, as, I am sure, would VP.

Right...

I'll shut up now...

:lol:

CB

VP, In my last comment to your thread I asked some questions and made a comment. I stand by that post. I received a strong reply from PP and it was quite clear where he stood - my view and questions were not welcome in the thread. I understood that message. As a consequences I said I would not post to the thread again, I am a man of my word, I haven't and I wont post to it again.

Now, despite you being allowed, by me at least, to expand on your idea without criticism, you post the above. It's clearly aimed to provoke. So, let me say again, I will not be replying to your thread. I've tied my own hands for the reasons outlined, but I am not closed mind, deferential, dogmatic, or well known for not having anything to say about alternative ideas to AGW

Perhaps if you jumped back in with some more relevant questions?

CB

[PersianPaladin]

So much for the olive branch I sent you ( e-mail ), now I can live with the arrogant comment, but take exception to narrow minded. That my friend is a typical response from a warmist, I didn't just stumble into what I believe in, I spent hours looking at both sides of the argument, and have found nothing which say's to me that excess CO2, is the main cause of past warming. I don't believe in the opinion, that a scientist say's so, so it must be true! I trust only my own eyes and instinct, which seems to be lacking in the world of AGW drones! Not one warmist can show me any proof, that we have warmed through excess CO2 alone. Pretty little graphs, nice one liners, and a condescending attitude won't change my mind. RANT OVER!!

Why must you compartmentalize him like that?

Seriously. Its as bad as people who attack scientists who put forward forensic evidence contradicting the official 9/11 theory as "truthers". They are not such; they are simply people who are presenting evidence to support a hypothesis. The strongest evidence is, at present, that mankind has had an impact on the climate which has contributed to the warming in the past few decades. The extent that this will have on the future is debatable, as well as the extent of contribution is not fully agreed upon. But the fact that it has been correllated with disturbed weather patterns and warmer temperatures puts a worrying case forward that mother nature is reacting to the increased heat retention outside the causal explanation of natural forcing. The sun has a constant effect on the heat on this planet, and I am yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary (barring the earth's orbit and milankovitch cycles which affect UVA distribution).

What I am concerned about however, are that AGW is being ramped-up by politicians who want to use it to their advantage. This article elaborates on my view about the issue: -

(NaturalNews) Is global warming a hoax? We've received a huge number of reader questions (and even complaints) about this issue. Many are convinced that global warming is just a hoax contrived by the government to grab power and destroy the economy. In my view, that explanation is half right.

Yes, in my opinion global warming and climate change is absolutely being used by Big Government to grab more power, restrict more freedoms and in many ways consolidate power at both the national and global levels. That much is clearly true. At the same time, however, climate change is really happening.

Continued here: -

http://www.naturalnews.com/025895.html

Edited April 27, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Devonian]

Perhaps if you jumped back in with some more relevant questions?

CB

CB, I explained my position, I said why wont be posting there, and I wont break my word. So whether you think I can't ask good questions or not is, well, not relevant.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, I explained my position, I said why wont be posting there, and I wont break my word. So whether you think I can't ask good questions or not is, well, not relevant.

I'll PM you.

[VillagePlank]

CB, I explained my position, I said why wont be posting there, and I wont break my word. So whether you think I can't ask good questions or not is, well, not relevant.

Not by me, my boy. You are welcome to post in my thread. Knock yourself out.

[Solar Cycles]

Why must you compartmentalize him like that?

Seriously. Its as bad as people who attack scientists who put forward forensic evidence contradicting the official 9/11 theory as "truthers". They are not such; they are simply people who are presenting evidence to support a hypothesis. The strongest evidence is, at present, that mankind has had an impact on the climate which has contributed to the warming in the past few decades. The extent that this will have on the future is debatable, as well as the extent of contribution is not fully agreed upon. But the fact that it has been correllated with disturbed weather patterns and warmer temperatures puts a worrying case forward that mother nature is reacting to the increased heat retention outside the causal explanation of natural forcing. The sun has a constant effect on the heat on this planet, and I am yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary (barring the earth's orbit and milankovitch cycles which affect UVA distribution).

What I am concerned about however, are that AGW is being ramped-up by politicians who want to use it to their advantage. This article elaborates on my view about the issue: -

Continued here: -

http://www.naturalnews.com/025895.html

Compartmentalize, now that's a word I haven't heard for a long time. AGW is, as, and continues to be ramped-up not just by politicians, but also the scientific community, who for some obscure reason, feel the need to fudge data for maxinum effect. The time for polite reasoning has come and gone, I object to be taken for a ride, with flawed data and half truths. It's time to put a stop to the gravy train, that climate scientist have been feasting on!

[weather eater]

It's time to put a stop to the gravy train, that climate scientist have been feasting on!

Which one was it who scoffed all the pies. is there just the one.

[Solar Cycles]

Which one was it who scoffed all the pies. is there just the one.

All off them, they all have their snouts in the trough!!

[Devonian]

Not by me, my boy. You are welcome to post in my thread. Knock yourself out.

I'm not a boy, neither are you.

I fail to see the problem you have with me sticking to my word, or if you like, my decision?

[weather eater]

All off them, they all have their snouts in the trough!!

Does that include the ones who advocate natural cycles.

[osmposm]

All off them, they all have their snouts in the trough!!

All climate scientists are lying and corrupt, all politicians are self-serving megalomaniacs....all business men, presumably, are rapacious and immoral, all civil servants narrow-minded and bureaucratic.....all artists, perhaps, amoral and undisciplined? All trades unionists pig-headed and greedy?? All teenagers irresponsible and lazy??? Oh, Solar, it must be so nice to live in a world where you can lump together thousands of diverse, thoughtful and complex human beings, and dismiss all of them and their opinions at a stroke.

And what of we internet forum posters, I wonder? All sad, lonely individuals in need of a life (or at least of a place where someone will listen to us)? :winky:

Edited April 28, 2009 by osmposm

[VillagePlank]

I'm not a boy, neither are you.

I fail to see the problem you have with me sticking to my word, or if you like, my decision?

Sorry, Dev, poor choice of phrase by me. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to post on a thread that might be onto an alternate hypothesis to CO2. If there's a blunder - and let's be honest it will be the pro-AGW who is much more likely to find it - then all need to know it, don't we?

That makes you, more than welcome.

[noggin]

As I say, it seems that because I don't subscribe to the "AGW is a myth" standpoint, it means I automatically get lumped together with the worst of the pro-AGW extremists.

I can hardly believe my eyes. Are you serious? You have recently lumped me in with the worst of the anti-AGWers and whilst I am anti, I at least try to link to original stuff, rather than just blogs. Also, I always try to remain courteous and pleasant.

For you to whinge about being lumped in with extremists is, quite frankly, breathtaking, in it's "pot/kettle/black-ish-ness". :winky:

[Solar Cycles]

All climate scientists are lying and corrupt, all politicians are self-serving megalomaniacs....all business men, presumably, are rapacious and immoral, all civil servants narrow-minded and bureaucratic.....all artists, perhaps, amoral and undisciplined? All trades unionists pig-headed and greedy?? All teenagers irresponsible and lazy??? Oh, Solar, it must be so nice to live in a world where you can lump together thousands of diverse, thoughtful and complex human beings, and dismiss all of them and their opinions at a stroke.

And what of we internet forum posters, I wonder? All sad, lonely individuals in need of a life (or at least of a place where someone will listen to us)?

Os, I respect everyone's opinion, after all if we all agreed, the world would be a boring place. For me climate science is out of touch, with events taking place in the real world

. All the past previous predictions have all been way off the mark, due to the flawed data that is put into them to start with. The IPCC predictions abouth rising temperatures are way off, and the reason they are way off, is the fact that they insist on CO2 being the main player. They need to accept they have over estimated CO2, as the cause of past warming. Until then we will continue to see flawed data, projecting rising temperatures, which will continue to fall way off the mark. Will the IPCC accept that the science is flawed! No chance to many snouts in the trough now. So until the day that common sense finally prevails I hold Climate science in contempt!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I can hardly believe my eyes. Are you serious? You have recently lumped me in with the worst of the anti-AGWers and whilst I am anti, I at least try to link to original stuff, rather than just blogs. Also, I always try to remain courteous and pleasant.

For you to whinge about being lumped in with extremists is, quite frankly, breathtaking, in it's "pot/kettle/black-ish-ness". :winky:

I'm afraid I have to defend myself here, because at least 90% of the articles you've linked to have not only taken a strongly anti-AGW stance, but have contained numerous straw man attacks, circular arguments, and often a lot of political spin (e.g. the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything" stance), plus contained numerous swipes at the AGW "bandwagon" and the like. I have yet to see you post an article that argues against AGW from a vaguely unbiased position.

Where I will agree is that you've always tried to remain courteous and pleasant, unlike certain others- but you do seem to latch onto anything that supports your view, state everything that fits it as fact ("it's the sun, I tell you") and dismiss anything that doesn't, and then if your view is challenged, use the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause. All of this is symptomatic of taking one side of the issue and working backwards from that premise, rather than looking at it objectively.

I can't see, I'm afraid, how someone who repeatedly questions the notion that "the science is settled", acknowledges that some climate modelling may be guilty of circularity (assuming that AGW is serious, building that assumption into models, and concluding from them that AGW is serious), and takes a large interest in the Leaky Integrator thread, in the hope that something convincing can be found that might question the importance of AGW, should be attacked for complaining about being lumped together with extremists.

The IPCC predictions abouth rising temperatures are way off, and the reason they are way off, is the fact that they insist on CO2 being the main player. They need to accept they have over estimated CO2, as the cause of past warming. Until then we will continue to see flawed data, projecting rising temperatures, which will continue to fall way off the mark. Will the IPCC accept that the science is flawed! No chance to many snouts in the trough now. So until the day that common sense finally prevails I hold Climate science in contempt!

Since it is, as yet, unclear as to whether they have over-estimated CO2, I see no reason for them to accept that they've overestimated it. Perhaps a bit more admission to wider uncertainty ranges would be in order, but that's about it.

[weather eater]

I'm afraid I have to defend myself here, because at least 90% of the articles you've linked to have not only taken a strongly anti-AGW stance, but have contained numerous straw man attacks, circular arguments, and often a lot of political spin (e.g. the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything" stance), plus contained numerous swipes at the AGW "bandwagon" and the like. I have yet to see you post an article that argues against AGW from a vaguely unbiased position.

Where I will agree is that you've always tried to remain courteous and pleasant, unlike certain others- but you do seem to latch onto anything that supports your view, state everything that fits it as fact ("it's the sun, I tell you") and dismiss anything that doesn't, and then if your view is challenged, use the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause. All of this is symptomatic of taking one side of the issue and working backwards from that premise, rather than looking at it objectively.

I can't see, I'm afraid, how someone who repeatedly questions the notion that "the science is settled", acknowledges that some climate modelling may be guilty of circularity (assuming that AGW is serious, building that assumption into models, and concluding from them that AGW is serious), and takes a large interest in the Leaky Integrator thread, in the hope that something convincing can be found that might question the importance of AGW, should be attacked for complaining about being lumped together with extremists.

Since it is, as yet, unclear as to whether they have over-estimated CO2, I see no reason for them to accept that they've overestimated it. Perhaps a bit more admission to wider uncertainty ranges would be in order, but that's about it.

Yep it would be nice if we could move on from the premise that the science is settled in support of one theory or the other, the truth is there is much that we don’t know about the influence on our climate of the sun, CO2, and any number of other factors. The Leaky Integrator thread is very interesting and better reading than the constant black and white discussions that go on in the other two threads, general and politics and while I have yet to make a comment on the leaky thread its only because I don’t feel that I have any thing useful to add at the moment.

[noggin]

I'm afraid I have to defend myself here, because at least 90% of the articles you've linked to have not only taken a strongly anti-AGW stance, but have contained numerous straw man attacks, circular arguments, and often a lot of political spin (e.g. the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything" stance), plus contained numerous swipes at the AGW "bandwagon" and the like. I have yet to see you post an article that argues against AGW from a vaguely unbiased position.

Where I will agree is that you've always tried to remain courteous and pleasant, unlike certain others- but you do seem to latch onto anything that supports your view, state everything that fits it as fact ("it's the sun, I tell you") and dismiss anything that doesn't, and then if your view is challenged, use the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause. All of this is symptomatic of taking one side of the issue and working backwards from that premise, rather than looking at it objectively.

I can't see, I'm afraid, how someone who repeatedly questions the notion that "the science is settled", acknowledges that some climate modelling may be guilty of circularity (assuming that AGW is serious, building that assumption into models, and concluding from them that AGW is serious), and takes a large interest in the Leaky Integrator thread, in the hope that something convincing can be found that might question the importance of AGW, should be attacked for complaining about being lumped together with extremists.

Since it is, as yet, unclear as to whether they have over-estimated CO2, I see no reason for them to accept that they've overestimated it. Perhaps a bit more admission to wider uncertainty ranges would be in order, but that's about it.

Well, well, well. You certainly have an extremely high opinion of yourself, TWS. I will charitably put it down to the arrogance of youth.......time will probably knock it out of you.

Yes, there is a lot of political stuff in what I post.....that is why I started the "Politics and AGW/GW .....so it doesn't get mixed up with the scientific stuff" thread.

You have yet to see me post an article that argues against AGW from a vaguely unbiased position? Hardly surprising when I am not on the fence about the matter. Which is not to say that I cannot move atop said fence, or even come down on the other side if there is evidence to convince me.

Thank you for acknowledging my politeness and courtesy, which is in increasingly short supply these days (mine, that is).

[Thundery wintry showers]

No, I don't have a particularly high opinion of myself as it happens. What I do have a high opinion of is the ability to look at a subject with an open mind and from an objective standpoint, and if someone points out a potential flaw or weakness in one's position, be prepared to acknowledge it. And there is plenty of scope to argue both for and against AGW from an objective standpoint. I praise Captain Bobksi and VillagePlank for their recent contributions for example, and they are clearly sceptical about AGW, but they try to go about it in an objective manner, taking the evidence first and then deriving conclusions from it.

Your second to last paragraph illustrates the problem. You work from an anti-AGW standpoint, and that in turn biases your perception of the evidence- you will latch onto anything that condemns AGW because it fits your standpoint, while dismissing anything that supports AGW because it challenges your standpoint. This sort of confirmation bias is a common trait on both sides of this, and many other debates- but because many people do it, it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it unacceptable for me to point it out. It makes it difficult to have a reasonable debate because what it produces is circular reasoning of the form "A is true, X supports A so X must be right, and since X is right, A is true".

[laserguy]

Your second to last paragraph illustrates the problem. You work from an anti-AGW standpoint, and that in turn biases your perception of the evidence- you will latch onto anything that condemns AGW because it fits your standpoint, while dismissing anything that supports AGW because it challenges your standpoint.

But TWS, there are many rampant AGWists on here who froth at the mouth when it is 'attacked' - by any means. You know who they are! Similarly,Ossie is very quick to point out the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors of the deniers,presumably to demonstrate that their mental faculties are lacking and have no right or ability to form any conclusions about anything,let alone the snake pit of climate change. I've yet to hear him expose/highlight the shortcomings of anyone from the warmer's side of the fence - and I can think of many off the top of my head! Now,why would that be? Oh,going to get messy again I fear... I'm off! PS...can you point to something/anything that supports AGW regardless of my,or anyone else's 'standpoint'?