Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

GW. Your use of the word misleaders is highly inflammatory as I've pointed out several times, now I know Foster likes to use this terminology also and much of your posting style and indeed many on the Manmade thread reflect his viewpoint on all things climate. Did you get your daughter to reflect the sceptic views of climate scientist such as Judith Curry I wonder.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why misleaders is offensive but deniers not. Perhaps SI can explain? Oh, and fwiw, I use neither...

Simple if you are denying the pause Dev, but I wouldn't approve of it as a general terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely by that yardstick SI folk purposefully misleading the public over the matter of current climate changes ( and impacts) are "Climate Misleaders"? This is why I found it a perfect descriptor of the very people that most inflame me when Prof Francis coined it over a year ago. Are there any other common nouns that you take issue with?   EDIT: For instance folk trained and employed by the Church to minister to the faithful are known as 'Vicars' , that is the name for the folk trained and employed to do this job. The folk employed to 'mislead ' the public over the issue of climate change are now known by the group name "Climate Misleaders"....easy eh?

But who are these misleaders GW, I know of none who think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, nor do I know anyone who claims that CO2 hasn't had an effect on rising temp. So which people are we talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over on the other thread we now have knocker comparing me to Foster, hmmm now let me see do I have a misinforming blog of my own where I only allow one opinion. The laughable part of all this is how not one of the so called " only interested in the science types " has condemned blogger Foster for his attacks on a climate scientist. Oh the irony of it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this Obama to give speech on global Warming on Tuesday in Florida as heavy snow hits Florida(wonder if it will be cancelled )Posted Image

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Met-Office-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-years

 

More accurate predictions will make me less sceptical.  Within margin of error but nearly always too low?

Good find, I follow Paul on Twitter and usually he's not afraid to say what he thinks unlike a lot of them.It's about Met Office predictions for the last 14 years they have predicted too high on all but one occasion.This makes it abundantly clear that the modelling they use has been set up with warm bias, which is VERY significant.They are trying to explain it with the wonderfully hard to disprove idea that the missing heat must be hiding at the Poles, which are hard to monitor, or suddenly it decided to hide in the deep Ocean, which conveniently is impossible to monitor, especially since the amount of warming at depth only needs to be 0.003C - beyond any thermometers resolution.I wonder why warming is such a threat if it can all be gobbled up by ocean and never be seen again.I find it had to conceive of a mechanism where the 0.003C warmer water suddenly releases it's 0.003C in a devastating manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it appears the warming biases  is rife within all climate models hardly surprising really given the fact that if your given a shedload of money to show an increasing warming trend, then you better deliver  a manipulated response to your paymasters. One does wonder on the outcome if we end up nowhere near the IPCC's lower scale of warming trend, because I for one feel that this is looking far fetched at this moment in time. Time will tell of course but the odds look stacked against any significant increase anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the State of the Union Address yesterday by Obama which did not mention Climate Change in any way whatsoever are we about to see a change to a more sceptic stand point by one off the key supporters of AGW. Time as ever will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, the way climate models are made isn't "let's put the physics together in a model and see what comes out" - I realise that an awful lot people like to pretend that they are, but they simple aren't.

 

They have to be adjusted against empirical data. So, essentially, you create your model with as much known physics as you can get with a set of parameters that can be tweaked. You run the model against empirical data: perhaps you might use the first third, the middle third, or the last third, and you tweak your parameters until it fits that third - it gets validated. You then verify it against the other two thirds. A 'third' is what I would use, I do not know what the main climate models use for their validation criteria: I recall from the distant past that perhaps 25% is the validation, and 75% is the verification. I use the terms validation and verification in a software engineering sense, so it may well be different from the use of climatology.

 

This is an essential methodology since so much of the behaviour of climate is not understood; whatever anyone, any blog, or any scientist might tell you. Crucially, that is not to say the climate is essentially unpredictable - think of a golfer swinging down a 3-par: If he hits the ball exactly the same manner with the same force and the same direction will the ball be a hole in one everytime? Of course, not - but the average of the location of where the ball landed will be highly clustered. That's climate vs weather. That's the forecasting difference, and that's why climate, theoretically, is essentially predictable effectively within very tight bounds. However, current bounds are loose enough so that just about anyone can claim to be correct.

 

I believe we are nowhere near identifying the clustering of the individual variables, let alone pairs, triplets, or n-tuples of variables, and that whilst current consensus might indeed be correct there is insufficient information - that I have read - that rules out every other variable except CO2 - essentially, the attribution argument. Also the number of tweakable parameters is sufficiently large to introduce, in my view, a degree of freedom problem.

 

Incidentally, bias, in a strict technical sense, is the average of a forecast variable vs the average of the observations of that variable.

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the State of the Union Address yesterday by Obama which did not mention Climate Change in any way whatsoever are we about to see a change to a more sceptic stand point by one off the key supporters of AGW. Time as ever will tell.

Because he cannot add more green taxes and 72per cent in USA don"t believe in GW and AL Gore is one of his main supporters and he is nutty as a fruitcake basically he says 

Gore: ‘Fertility management’ is needed to reduce the number of Africans to help ‘control the proliferation of unusual weather’

http://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2014

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://order-order.com/2014/01/30/sketch-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/

 

 

The committee for Energy and Climate Change must be in line for an award. Its performance this week was exceptional.

The mental level of Yeo’s committee is – well, the climate debate is so rancorous let’s try for decorum.

Suffice it to say that John Robertson’s questioning would have been a credit to a clever dugong. Albert Owen nearly grasped the idea that that a Greenpeace activist in charge of an IPCC Chapter might lack objectivity. And Tim Yeo’s chairing was as good as a golf club captain in a Saturday night lock-in.

The committee had just received three mainstream climate workers and now, to say they had looked at all sides, they had three sceptics.

No doubt their sceptical remarks are contentious, their facts arguable and their conclusions unusual – but the three of them certainly gave the lie to the claim that “the science is settledâ€.

Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, in his low-key, diffident manner, looked placidly into the committee’s apocalyptic future. How that annoyed them.

 

 

 

Last word on settled science.

Tim Yeo: Are there any areas of climate science you would consider settled?

Lindzen: I think we agree that man should have some effect. And I think we agree that climate changes. And these are the areas that people point to when they say there is consensus. But none of this tells us there is a problem.

Yeo: Do you go further and say we shouldn’t do anything about it?

Lindzen: I’m saying that not only we don’t know what to do about it but that almost everything proposed would have very certain consequences for people – and very uncertain consequences for the environment . . . It is clear that there is no policy that is better than doing nothing.â€

https://vimeo.com/85405777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2912844

 

Is this a case of playing the man and not the science, and besides what's a man's religious convictions have to do with how a good a scientists he his. And I find it  rich that many proponents of AGW use Roy Spencer's data as a source of evidence, irony at it's best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think climate scientists are always striving to improve our understanding of all things influencing the climate. New papers are released on an almost daily basis now.I think to disprove CO2 as a primary driver of recent temperatures, there are a lot of things that require brand new explanations. Such as the growing energy imbalance, the cooling of the lower stratosphere, nights warming faster than days, etc.The IPCC reports change as our understanding progresses and new evidence comes to light. The bible looks quite similar now as it did when I read it as a kid, and rarely changes.

But when you have the likes of Greenpeace and the WWF submitting reports that are included then we have a problem. Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But GW the words 'a changing climate' does not mean climate change. Climate has always changed and will always do so. The west coast communities suffering from drought at present are probably larger and more expectant on 'goverment' than the last time drought hit those regions. The same applies to coastal regions dealing with floods. again probably more populated etc etc.

No doubt at some stage Cameron will blame Climate Change on the floods in Somerset yet its a known flood plain and the communities are probably larger than the last time the flooding was so extensive.

This so called strong statement about moving subsidies from coal and oil to renewables is fine but I did read somewhere that energy companies are begining to charge householders who put up solar panels to connect to the grid making it virtually uneconomic to use solar.

Again we see 'the debate is settled' arguement being used If the debate was settled we would have predicted the slowdown pause etc but it was not and as an example the METO own predictions for the next 5 years so a significant rise again in global temps I wonder if we see a continuation of the present pause over this period what excuses will be used!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily the IPCC reports are based off scientific research, and not the strange beliefs that a couple of contributors may or may not have.

 

 

Regardless of whether or not they have contributed much to the IPCC, shouldn't the quality of the data, and not who produces it, be what matters?

Actually yes BFTV and more so if they have zero credentials in climate science. I'm surprised that you of all people would say that?

 

Leaving aside the usual sort of engagement around here, would you not agree that it's far better that all research is conducted by scientists at least?

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do indeed. What reports were they? And don't say Himalayan glaciers because that error was nowt to do with Greenpeace or WWF.

There are a number of Greenpeace activist who chair various groups  knocker, I posted the facts about these last year. This in itself represents a conflict of interest where no conflict should exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree with you. If the data is good and the research is sound, it shouldn't matter who produced it. Every single person in existence has their own biases. It's through utilising the scientific method that these can be largely overcome to help us understand the world

 

So we can make the scientist redundant then as there is clearly no need for them to be involved in the research, it's an odd thing to say BFTV and how do you define if the research is sound if you have a bias already. Maybe this explains so much why  the research is pretty poor then as it's clear any Tom, Dick and Harry can get by the so called "gold standard" peer review process.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying we should ignore anyone that doesn't have a PhD in a climate related discipline?

 

The qualified scientists have access to the best data, computing power, have been trained in the best methods and generally have the best resources available to them. They produce the vast majority of the peer reviewed research that we see, and the data that we use to produce analysis.

But anyone can perform their own analysis, use different methods and submit the research for peer review and whatnot. But the reviewers will be experts, and better able to determine the validity or soundness of the research. They can check the methods, ensure proper statistical techniques are used, check that claims are backed up by evidence, etc.

 

How have you come to the conclusion that so much research is poor, have you been cleverly concealing your credentials and expertise all this timePosted Image

Not at all, but we should ignore those compiling data who aren't scientist  for scientific purposes, i.e. IPCC reports and empirical evidence. Also by your own standards can we accept findings by scientist arguing against climate sensitivity and the impacts  of CO2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of Greenpeace activist who chair various groups  knocker, I posted the facts about these last year. This in itself represents a conflict of interest where no conflict should exists.

Excellent facts about BOM and Australia "s so  called record hot temperatures, ,BOM weather stations are all across Australia Wrong most stations are in  South Eastern Australia! Posted Image So more massaging of the facts.http://t.co/Tk8ATaiW1t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear the other thread will have to be renamed. Climate change sceptics are 'headless chickens', says Prince Charles Charles uses green awards speech at Buckingham Palace to renew attack on 'powerful groups of deniers' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/climate-change-sceptics-headless-chickens-prince-charles?CMP=twt_gu

Lol, now from anyone else I would sit up and take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent facts about BOM and Australia "s so  called record hot temperatures, ,BOM weather stations are all across Australia Wrong most stations are in  South Eastern Australia! Posted Image So more massaging of the facts.http://t.co/Tk8ATaiW1t

Keith, you should know now that facts are not what the manipulators deal in, remember the world sees a pause in rising temps but they see a continuing warming trend. This is why they despise Judith Curry so much , she deals in facts whilst they deal in deception.

Edited by Sceptical Inquirer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Hanson continues his critical work on the perils and dangers of GW Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...