Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pottyprof

Antarctic Ice Discussion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

Clearly you do not understand what my references to WUWT, and Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes are, since  they  were the 2 people who thought up and implemented and still run with the data in this format?  You clearly have not read any background information at all? THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CODE, and implemented it in the BEST project.  Does that not classify as an authority? They enjoy and encourage debate. They do not have the closed minds of many. Apparently that makes them nondescript and to be ignored in your eyes. Simply because they appear on WUWT!!

Ed, you really should do more background reading if you want to enter into meaningful debate.

Unlike some  forums, WUWT has welcomed them (although they take an opposing view to many on there) and they are also open to cross question .    All people's views  are accepted and discussed, irrespective of position and without any personal bias.

It is the major reason that it has been voted the number one forum for the nth year in succession.

As for Climategate, I thought that the University of East Anglia wrote the Email malarky, no one knows who extracted them, but they ended up on Watts desk. He is probably the only person in the world that could have ensured that the information was distributed worldwide. 

The details  have never been denied. They are factual and as such is it a 'sin' to publish facts?

MIA

 

As I said!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/06/2018 at 23:28, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed...

Clearly you do not understand what my references to WUWT, and Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes are, since  they  were the 2 people who thought up and implemented and still run with the data in this format?  You clearly have not read any background information at all? THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CODE, and implemented it in the BEST project.  Does that not classify as an authority? They enjoy and encourage debate. They do not have the closed minds of many. Apparently that makes them nondescript and to be ignored in your eyes. Simply because they appear on WUWT!!

Ed, you really should do more background reading if you want to enter into meaningful debate.

Unlike some  forums, WUWT has welcomed them (although they take an opposing view to many on there) and they are also open to cross question .    All people's views  are accepted and discussed, irrespective of position and without any personal bias.

It is the major reason that it has been voted the number one forum for the nth year in succession.

As for Climategate, I thought that the University of East Anglia wrote the Email malarky, no one knows who extracted them, but they ended up on Watts desk. He is probably the only person in the world that could have ensured that the information was distributed worldwide. 

The details  have never been denied. They are factual and as such is it a 'sin' to publish facts?

MIA

 

ROFL, you're having a laugh. Listen, I spent many years over on WUWT cross questioning people and all I got for my trouble was (at best) insults. Don't come here (or to another place we frequent...) and pretend otherwise - you'll be found out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devonian said:

ROFL, you're having a laugh. Listen, I spent many years over on WUWT cross questioning people and all I got for my trouble was (at best) insults. Don't come here (or to another place we frequent...) and pretend otherwise - you'll be found out.

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

Therein lies the biggest problem with the likes of WUWT, MIA: the 'balance' they like to claim exists in the climatic sciences really doesn't exit at all. Reality would be better represented were there 98 serious scientists for every 2 CCDs?

Even the BBC got some stick for treating the idiot Nigel Lawson as if he were some kind of scientific 'authority' (as they're wont to do with such self-styled luminaries as Monckton and Corbyn). Why must we endure the spectacle of each and every well-reasoned scientific argument being countered by the obligatory nutter?

I would like to see a really representative TV debate: 97 well-respected actual scientists on one side and the ilk of a Monckton, a Lawson and a Dellingpole on the other...

Then again, evolution by natural selection is more likely to make pigs grow wings before that happens! :D

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

 Just like on most forums there can be a lot of gfuqhgfpjhiness. It is not unique to the US forums. However people are never banned  and most take  it all in good part. Oh yes they do not like Greenpeace much over there, come to think of it they do not  like conservatives much either!

I have never posted in there, and I have no intentions either, but there is a roughly an equal balance of contributors and one gets a very good perspective of both sides in the debate.

 As I say, I found useful figures issued by Nick Stokes concerning the number of sites that have homogenisation.

MIA

MIA I don't think you understand that there is no argument or debate to be had. Climate change has been proven unequivocally and people who still disagree are frankly living in massive denial of just trolling. It's like saying there is no such thing as a moon I'll argue there's no moon because i want to even though we all know there is one!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, inghams85 said:

MIA I don't think you understand that there is no argument or debate to be had. Climate change has been proven unequivocally and people who still disagree are frankly living in massive denial of just trolling. It's like saying there is no such thing as a moon I'll argue there's no moon because i want to even though we all know there is one!

 

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Therein lies the biggest problem with the likes of WUWT, MIA: the 'balance' they like to claim exists in the climatic sciences really doesn't exit at all. Reality would be better represented were there 98 serious scientists for every 2 CCDs?

Even the BBC got some stick for treating the idiot Nigel Lawson as if he were some kind of scientific 'authority' (as they're wont to do with such self-styled luminaries as Monckton and Corbyn). Why must we endure the spectacle of each and every well-reasoned scientific argument being countered by the obligatory nutter?

I would like to see a really representative TV debate: 97 well-respected actual scientists on one side and the ilk of a Monckton, a Lawson and a Dellingpole on the other...

Then again, evolution by natural selection is more likely to make pigs grow wings before that happens! :D

His guys 

Thanks for the responses.

I think that AGW is now accepted world wide (even by 97% of WUWT users)!.

I think that what  that means in terms of its affects are still up for debate.

I think that to stop debate/research at this stage is  the real problem of what is happening today..

For info, 33 Geologists who are fellows of the Geoligical Society of London plus about 40 other people (professors, etc) have just written to the London Society making it clear that they question standard climate AGW science, based upon their knowledge and data.

(see SS's post in the 'Links to Reports and papers thread').

A further paper has just been published in a science advancement paper publisher  by a team of researchers based in the University of East Anglia, that has analysed (in great detail) the actual recorded temperatures over the last 100+ years of recorded history.

Read it and see what you make of it..

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaao5297.full

It is very technical and it may well be difficult to appreciate what it is saying. I will be interested in your reactions.

It is probably better if I transfer this to paper to another thread.

MIA 

It explains why my position is that only about 30-50% of 'climate change'  is properly researched and understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×