Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

Not really relevant to this thread but as I nearly choked on a toasted muffin when I read it  I thought (with great generosity of spirit) that I would share. At least now it can be peer, and not pal, reviewed.

 

In an emotional (euphemism for off the wall) commentary written for WordNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the Pattern Recognition in Physics Journal and publish a first issue in March 2014.

 

The mock up cover is a work of art containing his coat of arms.

 

Posted Image

 

The Thermageddon Cult strikes again

 

Bowing to extreme pressure from a handful of mad scientists (mad, that is, at the loss of income and prestige that the inexorable collapse of the Great Lie entails), the managing director of Copernicus scientific publishers, a formless lump of lard by the name of Rasmussen, has killed a promising new journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics.

The appalling Rasmussen’s monstrous reason for this 21st-century equivalent of Nazi-era book-burning? In a single glancing reference, the 19 authors who had contributed to a gripping special issue about planetary tidal influences on solar activity, edited by professor Mörner, had dared to dance in church.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/the-thermageddon-cult-strikes-again/#rddFowrDKfyHMU2y.99

 

Even Simpson and Galton couldn't have written this.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well went off with her worksheet ready for her 'test'

 

I did find a couple of things surprising in what she said teach and classmates had said though. When she asked teach about positives she replied " have you thought about areas that would become suitable for agriculture" We'd already noted that this would occur in her planner but also that this would take a while to occur due to the effort of building infrastructure into such remote areas and clearing the land to a point that it was open to cultivation ( i.e. we will lose current agricultural lands far faster than we could make other lands available to replace those losses so would it prove a 'positive'?).

 

The other was her classmates deriding her for saying dead forests/permafrost produce methane/CO2 " plants feed on CO2" they said "they don't produce it!".......Four can rest safe in his bed knowing we're turning out this quality of environmentally aware students ( lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the piece linked in the article:

 

Alongside these reconstructions I also plotted Hansen et al. (1988) Scenarios A, B, and C.  As discussed by NASA GISS's Gavin Schmidt, Scenario B was the closest to the actual radiative forcing changes since 1998, but was approximately 10% too high in this regard.  Thus I also created an "adjusted" Scenario B to reflect what Hansen's data would have looked like had he correctly projected the greenhouse gas increase.

 

In fact, Hansens other scenario (where GhG had no effect) were much more accurate without "adjustments"

 

I trust that you bothered to check the references? No? Oh well .....

 

I'm fully aware of the references. Where's the shameful part though? Or were you just assuming it's shameful because you didn't bother to find out what adjustments they made until after your post?

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Even Simpson and Galton couldn't have written this.'

 

Homer perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Even Simpson and Galton couldn't have written this.'

 

Homer perhaps?

 

I think Aristophanes more likely. Oh, did you mean Simpson Pete?Posted Image

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to wonder about Judith considering the company she keeps. Has she gone rogue?

 

Tallbloke gives Judith Curry Climate Scientist Of The Year Award, And the video was uploaded by Steve Goddard. Dear me. And

Tallbloke!

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

 

The video is Dr. Curry receiving an award from a table full of the anti-science activists. A tea shirt depicting "Dumpster Diving". Well..........................

 

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2906198

 

Did it ever strike you before going into one of your usual ridiculous rants that I might find it genuinely odd that that she mixes with these, shall we say, not very savoury characters who on the whole are pretty anti science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2906267

 

 

Knocker, you find it odd at the company Judith Curry keeps, yet find nothing wrong with the comments mad by Foster or the company he keeps. He's a charlatan of the highest order and has to masquerade behind an alias so he can pump out his obvious political viewpoints in the good name of science.

Firstly I've no idea what company Tamino (Foster) keeps and any criticism of Judith Curry's Senate testimony he , and other respected scientists have made, is based essentially on that. That criticism is in its self is open to be criticised using the same criteria and indeed she did respond as I posted.

 

Regarding this.

 

 

He's a charlatan of the highest order and has to masquerade behind an alias so he can pump out his obvious political viewpoints in the good name of science.

I've asked you once already to supply some evidence to support your accusation that he's a charlatan and that he manipulates science to propound a particular political view, And does this apply to the other respected scientists such as Nielsen-Gammon who also dispute her logic on scientific grounds? 

As for masquerading  behind an alias, well that's too laughable to bother about.with Tallbloke and Steve Goddard bouncing around.

 

And Keith

 

 

Yes she is such a poor scientist they asked her to give evidence at the USA senate ,as was said earlier ,people start shouting when you are losing the argument .

 

As usual you pluck something out of the ether. Nobody is, or has, questioned her credentials as a scientist. That was my whole point in the first place which you have conveniently ignored.

 

Bulverism is alive and kicking.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Models

 

 

I came across this video (possibly from a tweet by Chris Colose) that describes climate models. I thought it was quite good, but I’m not a climate modeller so maybe others would disagree. The one thing I thought it did quite well was that it was careful to refer to what climate models do (wrt the future at least) as projections. You’ll often hear people claim that climate models have failed because observations have not matched model results over the last decade or so. Some immediate problems with this claim are that climate models are not actually optimised for decadal predictions/projections and what you’re often shown are ensemble averages, which tend to smooth out short-term variability.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/climate-models/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I find it very strange. A simple term such as 'Sceptical Enquirer' seems to have morphed into an oxymoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I find it very strange. A simple term such as 'Sceptical Enquirer' seems to have morphed into an oxymoron.

 

I think "climate sceptic" is an oxymoron. You're either sceptical, or your not. Someone cannot call themselves a sceptic of one aspect of a topic but demonstrate repeated, blind acceptance of anything that suits their view, that's a lot of things, but its quite distant from scepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2906263

 

 I like the way you accuse Tamino (who seems to be in the firing line atm) of hiding behind an alias when that is what you do.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2906424

 

Since I'm not a mind reader you'll have to spoon feed me some of the names of the 'plenty' of AGW scientists you respect.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-52#entry2906465

 

I'd be amazed if your post and it's quote full of offensive invective wont be followed by SI or Keith complaining about insults...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "climate sceptic" is an oxymoron. You're either sceptical, or your not. Someone cannot call themselves a sceptic of one aspect of a topic but demonstrate repeated, blind acceptance of anything that suits their view, that's a lot of things, but its quite distant from scepticism.

 

Yes, I think a better term would be climate change adversary. Tony Egglleton sums it up simply and succinctly.

 

Many of those who deny the science of climate change call themselves 'sceptics'. But all good scientists are sceptics. A scientist's first scepticism is usually aimed at his or her own evidence; unusual results and remarkable conclusions need to be challenged immediately, long before they are made public. Scepticism should involve argument - argument drawing on all the relevant evidence. When an argument uses only some parts of the evidence - parts that appear to support the case - the argument becomes adversarial, not scepticaL It is not a defence lawyer's job to present evidence that will convict the defendant. Rather, the defence selects only evidence that it hopes will deny the prosecution. True sceptics work differently; they query and challenge all the evidence.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to post a gentle 'heads up' for our posters. Paul has already popped down to tell us what type of post he expects from us all and so I would not be surprised to find the other place going spherical objects out to draw replies from us here ( that would look like a squabble to outsiders).

 

Whilst helping my eldest with her essay we explored the tactics used by the 'Climate Misleaders' ( in common with the tobacco industry before them) to 'muddy the public's perception' of the scientific findings of our changing planet. One of them is to reply to, and challenge,  every post that appears to support the science. This gives the impression of 'debate' to the casual observer. Worse than that was the tactic , now being employed across the web, of targeting posters who appear to support the science with the intention of having them banned from posting on that site ( even if it costs them their ability to post there) and so silence their input/information. They use a two pronged attack with posters in the debate drawing comment and then apparently unrelated 'complainers' targeting the board management and forcing them to act on the matter.  

 

Watching the recent debate I can see that this may well be evolving here with posts set up to inflame and generate responses becoming ever more common. I would not be in the least surprised if , in tandem with this activity, we see an upswing in the number of 'complaints' management are receiving from 'members' who do not frequent the C&E thread. 

 

Let us not fall foul to this tactic here and keep any replies firmly based in the facts of the matter and not get drawn by any of the nastiness we know some posters engage in?

 

EDIT: And just so we have no misunderstandings from the lurkers " Climate Misleaders" is the common name of the folk who are paid by vested interest parties to mislead, lie and obfuscate all aspects of the climate debate so as to prolong global inaction toward climate change and so maintain Company profits of the organisation set to be impacted most by global mitigation of the impacts of climate change. Though this may reflect the allegiance of some posters it does not, in any way, refer to any posters directly.

Edited by Gray-Wolf

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...

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?

Edited by Gray-Wolf

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?

Exactly. I don't think there is anything I deny in his sense of the word. But, if its ok for him to lob the word about what is wrong with lobbing back misleaders? More specifically, I'm being directly threatened with being called a denier if I think the wrong way, while you have called no one here a misleader.Its bizarre. I think my solution of using neither word my best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fully aware of the references. Where's the shameful part though? Or were you just assuming it's shameful because you didn't bother to find out what adjustments they made until after your post?

 

You can't - well evidently you can - adjust one series because it didn't come true (down by 10%) and leave the other one unmodified and then compute the differences and call that a valid analysis. Well, when I was at school, I wasn't allowed to do that - perhaps things have changed these days; it was a long time ago, I guess. Perhaps if it's allowed now, it shouldn't be called shameful, I suppose.

 

Yes, I checked (and read) the references before I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit the double standards displayed by the person in the other thread who masquerades behind an alias surprises even me. He rattles on about Tamino saying," he is nothing but a political activist with an axe to grind against anyone who dares to question the consensus", and yet at the same time endorses an article in the Scotsman by Gerald Warner who is a political activist with an axe to grind under the guise of  social conservatism.

 

 

After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult – prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate – the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.

 

And this last comment isn't fantasy.

 

As a social conservative, Warner is a staunch opponent of David Cameron, current leader of the British Conservative Party and now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He argues that Cameron and other Tory "modernisers" have antagonised British social conservatives, especially through their pragmatic acceptance of LGBT rights as a fait accompli, given the reforms of the Brown and Blair administrations. He argued that social conservatives should abandon the Conservatives at the 2010 General Election.

 

Of course he has an Honours MA in Medieval and Modern History which probably explains the complete lack of science in the article and the concentration on the political.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Warner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

That's not how GW described misleaders.

 

 

You can't - well evidently you can - adjust one series because it didn't come true (down by 10%) and leave the other one unmodified and then compute the differences and call that a valid analysis. Well, when I was at school, I wasn't allowed to do that - perhaps things have changed these days; it was a long time ago, I guess. Perhaps if it's allowed now, it shouldn't be called shameful, I suppose.

 

Yes, I checked (and read) the references before I posted.

 

Perhaps a going through the adjustments and why you deem them shameful, might be more of an apt scientific discussion. One being a projection and the other a prediction might explain the differences between how the two were treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a going through the adjustments and why you deem them shameful, might be more of an apt scientific discussion. One being a projection and the other a prediction might explain the differences between how the two were treated.

 

I thought it was self-evident. Both are projections leading to predictions from models, albeit one is grossly simpler than the other - besides, let's not get into semantics.

Edited by Sparkicle

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...