Good sumarisation of all the points raised by sceptics about AGW
-
How come no posts on the unseasonably warm weather we've been having for the middle of winter in the UK?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Don't bother. The guy is cherry-picking[^] articles that supports his views since many years.
-
Because that wouldn't support his side of the issue. The logic goes something like this... Scientists: * Cold Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant. * Warm Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant. Al Gore and Friends * Cold Winter = Not worth mentioning. * Warm Winter = Ahh! Global Warming! We're all gonna die! Run for the hills! "Climategate" Crowd * Cold Winter = See!? Global Warming is a myth! Let's level more forests and build more coal plants! * Warm Winter = Not worth mentioning.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scientists: * Cold Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant. * Warm Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant.
I would have thought that scientists would say, "Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2." Or maybe they would say, ""The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2005b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006), indicates that the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change." or perhaps, "• All examined long records demonstrate large overyear variability (long-term fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates. • GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographicallocations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale. • However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30Ȭyear) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. • The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. • This makes future climate projections not credible." In point of fact, they already did. Freeman Dyson; NASA; D. Koutsoyiannis, N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, S.M. Papalexiou. Have a nice day.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless ser
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Scientists: * Cold Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant. * Warm Winter = Nothing to do with Global Warming. GW theory deals with a global average increase of only a few degrees, so local weather is irrelevant.
I would have thought that scientists would say, "Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2." Or maybe they would say, ""The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2005b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006), indicates that the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change." or perhaps, "• All examined long records demonstrate large overyear variability (long-term fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates. • GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographicallocations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale. • However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30Ȭyear) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. • The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. • This makes future climate projections not credible." In point of fact, they already did. Freeman Dyson; NASA; D. Koutsoyiannis, N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, S.M. Papalexiou. Have a nice day.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless ser
And exactly what does that have to do with the difference between weather and climate, which is the entire point of the semi-humorous post you're replying to?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And exactly what does that have to do with the difference between weather and climate, which is the entire point of the semi-humorous post you're replying to?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
And exactly what does that have to do with the difference between weather and climate
At least as much as your post had to do with the OP. :)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Don't bother. The guy is cherry-picking[^] articles that supports his views since many years.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
The guy is cherry-picking[^] articles that supports his views
He certainly makes no bones about his thoughts on the matter so it should not come as a surprise that the arguments he refutes, and the opinions he offers support his point of view. But if he cites factual evidence in support of what he says, and shows that arguments from those he disagrees with are not supported by the facts then why would you suggest we not pay attention to him?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
fat_boy wrote:
Of course I highlight the cold weather. Its a counter point to the endless bombardement of GW proganda shoveled down our necks by the media and it also points out the failure of the predictions and doom mongers.
So what you're saying, is that your endless, repetitive posts about which cities had cold weather *gasp* in winter *gasp!* are just to counter all of the posts about global warming? Maybe it's just me, but I can't recall a single "alarmist" post on the CP forums, except as joking responses to YOUR threads. So exactly what are you countering? And if I'm right and there's nothing to counter, why are you spamming us?
fat_boy wrote:
You also know precisely why I dont think the recent warming is CO2 caused, and its got nothing to do with weather.
No, I don't know "precisely why" you do anything, because you keep changing your story. One day you're trying to prove, by pointing out grammatical mistakes and typos, that the planet is cooling, not warming... Then you're speaking out against climate research in general... And now you're saying that warming is happening, but isn't related to CO2... Of course whenever anyone else mentions climate change, you immediately bring up CO2 to use that as proof that it isn't happening. Make up your mind already.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
why are you spamming us
Do you need a reason or an excuse to post stuff on CP? Does Quantas place adverts that warrant CGs continuous derision of their service? Does Microsoft place adverts for VS that give permission to the hundreds of anti VS posts in the Lounge? Do I need permission from any of you to post anti AGW stuff here? No, so fuck off! ;P :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And exactly what does that have to do with the difference between weather and climate
At least as much as your post had to do with the OP. :)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Yep, he has got you there Ian. Deffinitely got you! :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Don't bother. The guy is cherry-picking[^] articles that supports his views since many years.
So you say I cherry pick when I say the world is in a 10000 year cooling trend, and I say the warmists cherry pick when they say the world is in a 30 year warming trend. Of course we are both cherry picking, but my cherries are riper! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Ha ha ha, I so got you there! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
why are you spamming us
Do you need a reason or an excuse to post stuff on CP? Does Quantas place adverts that warrant CGs continuous derision of their service? Does Microsoft place adverts for VS that give permission to the hundreds of anti VS posts in the Lounge? Do I need permission from any of you to post anti AGW stuff here? No, so fuck off! ;P :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
As long as you realize that you're just spamming us, not standing up against some imaginary AGW fanatic.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
As long as you realize that you're just spamming us, not standing up against some imaginary AGW fanatic.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I am just voicing my opinion. Of course, if there are any here who want to assume the place of an AGW fanatic, then they are a liable target too! :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
How come no posts on the unseasonably warm weather we've been having for the middle of winter in the UK?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
The same reason they don't post about how this is the first day this month that's as cold as I was used to growing up in this area. It's been hovering between 25-40 during the day here lately, I remember very well sub-zero temperatures at this time of year without wind chill, with the norm being closer to 5-20 degrees. Today is the first day I've been hit with temperatures of less than 20 degrees when I got up. After having a day where we almost hit 50 last week. Snow around here meant it was kinda warm, or it was warm somewhere and that air hit us. Or at least it used to. This year it means we've finally dropped below freezing long enough to get some snow. This is the same place that had the first school day (in September) as a snow day a few years back. Obviously this means squat without corroborating data. But to some people it just means, LOL SNOW!
-
So you say I cherry pick when I say the world is in a 10000 year cooling trend, and I say the warmists cherry pick when they say the world is in a 30 year warming trend. Of course we are both cherry picking, but my cherries are riper! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Ha ha ha, I so got you there! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
I don't know how you got me, but if it makes you happy, be my guess. I totally agree with you when you say both sides are cherry picking. That is why no side is believable. They pick the data they want, manipulate it, and present it as a fact. One this is for sure: we are getting milder winters every year in Canada. Maybe it's normal, after all. We don't know.
-
I don't know how you got me, but if it makes you happy, be my guess. I totally agree with you when you say both sides are cherry picking. That is why no side is believable. They pick the data they want, manipulate it, and present it as a fact. One this is for sure: we are getting milder winters every year in Canada. Maybe it's normal, after all. We don't know.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
I don't know how you got me, but if it makes you happy, be my guess.
With the joke, aboiut ripe cherries, on 10000 year records! :) Yeah, it is getting warmer, slowly. Its 98% certain its normal though IMO.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
The guy is cherry-picking[^] articles that supports his views
He certainly makes no bones about his thoughts on the matter so it should not come as a surprise that the arguments he refutes, and the opinions he offers support his point of view. But if he cites factual evidence in support of what he says, and shows that arguments from those he disagrees with are not supported by the facts then why would you suggest we not pay attention to him?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
One thing that amazes me with this guy is why he is so into "proving" there is no GW (not that I say he is not right, he may be, after all). He would reject any evidence of GW if it bit him in the ass. He is like the birthers in the US. Would they be able to travel time and witness Obama's birth in Hawaii, they would still deny it.
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
I don't know how you got me, but if it makes you happy, be my guess.
With the joke, aboiut ripe cherries, on 10000 year records! :) Yeah, it is getting warmer, slowly. Its 98% certain its normal though IMO.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
What is normal? The earth used to be a flame ball.
-
What is normal? The earth used to be a flame ball.
Yes, relatively normal, for the last 10000 years normal.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
The same reason they don't post about how this is the first day this month that's as cold as I was used to growing up in this area. It's been hovering between 25-40 during the day here lately, I remember very well sub-zero temperatures at this time of year without wind chill, with the norm being closer to 5-20 degrees. Today is the first day I've been hit with temperatures of less than 20 degrees when I got up. After having a day where we almost hit 50 last week. Snow around here meant it was kinda warm, or it was warm somewhere and that air hit us. Or at least it used to. This year it means we've finally dropped below freezing long enough to get some snow. This is the same place that had the first school day (in September) as a snow day a few years back. Obviously this means squat without corroborating data. But to some people it just means, LOL SNOW!
-
One thing that amazes me with this guy is why he is so into "proving" there is no GW (not that I say he is not right, he may be, after all). He would reject any evidence of GW if it bit him in the ass. He is like the birthers in the US. Would they be able to travel time and witness Obama's birth in Hawaii, they would still deny it.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
He is like the birthers in the US. Would they be able to travel time and witness Obama's birth in Hawaii, they would still deny it.
I think that comparison is untrue and insulting. Why go out of your way to pick a fight with someone about whom you say,
Le Gauchiste wrote:
not that I say he is not right, he may be, after all)
Indeed, if I were to compare anyone to the type of people who fervently believe something is true (Obama not a citizen, Bush blew up the Twin Towers, etc) it would be those who cling desperately to their belief that man-made global warming is occurring in spite of the mounting evidence that it is not.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
He is like the birthers in the US. Would they be able to travel time and witness Obama's birth in Hawaii, they would still deny it.
I think that comparison is untrue and insulting. Why go out of your way to pick a fight with someone about whom you say,
Le Gauchiste wrote:
not that I say he is not right, he may be, after all)
Indeed, if I were to compare anyone to the type of people who fervently believe something is true (Obama not a citizen, Bush blew up the Twin Towers, etc) it would be those who cling desperately to their belief that man-made global warming is occurring in spite of the mounting evidence that it is not.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
I think that comparison is untrue and insulting.
If he feels insulted, he will tell me.
Oakman wrote:
it would be those who cling desperately to their belief that man-made global warming is occurring in spite of the mounting evidence that it is not.
There is evidence that it is occurring and evidence that it is not. Personally, I don't know if it is happening or not, but I am observing that the winters are getting milder where I live. This is not data, this is something I experience myself. Is this an evidence of GW? I don't know. You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
-
Oakman wrote:
I think that comparison is untrue and insulting.
If he feels insulted, he will tell me.
Oakman wrote:
it would be those who cling desperately to their belief that man-made global warming is occurring in spite of the mounting evidence that it is not.
There is evidence that it is occurring and evidence that it is not. Personally, I don't know if it is happening or not, but I am observing that the winters are getting milder where I live. This is not data, this is something I experience myself. Is this an evidence of GW? I don't know. You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
Le Gauchiste wrote:
You can see reports that the Antarctic is melting[^] and others that it is not[^]. Which one is true?
Doesn't matter. I said man-made global warming. Long after they have come up with a method to establish that the antarctic ice is getting smaller on a climactic scale (300 years is the number I read about, and I don't believe we have accurate measurements going back that far, do we?) and so far I haven't seen any proof of that, they will still have the burden of proof to establish that it has anything to do with the amount of fossil fuel we use. And then they will have to explain why their remedies will make a difference. Saying "Oooh, oooh! Coal and oil are dirty and only China and India should be allowed to use them," strikes me as an exercise in futility and yet all of the gas-guzzling global-warming summits seem to have come up with no other answer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken