Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
A discussion / demolition of the (causality-free) broken record storytelling of records being broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
turbobloke said:
A discussion / demolition of the (causality-free) broken record storytelling of records being broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
For info, it's another Tony Heller video so not worth clicking.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
turbobloke said:
Yes, and as for correctly, taking a view is possible without any need of a computer model. Some work by Scafetta has been posted earlier which leads to solar forcing of climate change being a significantly larger factor than represented in CMIP general circulation climate models. In particular, modellers tend to use an outlier database for TSI which lowballs variation to leave room for impotent tax gas imaginings. The ACRIM TSI composite implies a greater multidecadal TSI variability in contrast to the conveniently low, down-biased PMOD TSI composite. There are so many reasons why inadequate climate models are unfit for use in policymaking it would take too long for the purpose of a forum thread to collate and list - many have been covered over the years.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/1...
Hey turbobloke, I know you're focussed on election propaganda at the moment but how would you describe Scafetta's previous climate projections have fared so far, compared to the IPCC? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/1...
Like the paper from 2011 for example, where his model said we'd be in a cooling period right now:
Scafetta in 2011 said:
Moreover, because the 60-year natural cycle will be in its cooling phase for the next 20 years, global temperatures will probably not increase for the next few decades in spite of the important role of human emissions
See for yourself on advocacy blog WUWTConsidering we have seen how IPCC models have been accurate to single digit percentages for well over half a century and your solar models have failed totally and consistently over the same period, what's your justification for saying the IPCC models are "inadequate" and "unfit for use in policymaking"?
turbobloke said:
Yes, and as for correctly, taking a view is possible without any need of a computer model. Some work by Scafetta has been posted earlier which leads to solar forcing of climate change being a significantly larger factor than represented in CMIP general circulation climate models. In particular, modellers tend to use an outlier database for TSI which lowballs variation to leave room for impotent tax gas imaginings. The ACRIM TSI composite implies a greater multidecadal TSI variability in contrast to the conveniently low, down-biased PMOD TSI composite. There are so many reasons why inadequate climate models are unfit for use in policymaking it would take too long for the purpose of a forum thread to collate and list - many have been covered over the years.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/1...
Something something LOOK AT ALL THE ACRONYMS! Hand-wave hand-wave TOO COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN HERE hand wave hand wave HERE'S A PAPER I CLEARLY HAVEN'T DIGESTEDhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/1...
You realise this doesn't show that manmade climate change is a myth, it merely looks at downplaying the anthropic input. That's like saying "yes the victim has two black eyes, I know the evidence points to him being punched twice, but I think we could explain this as the attacker only punching him once, and then he punched himself at the same time."
Sheesh, you want to deny climate change, yet the best you can come up with is a scientist who says "well maybe man's input is a bit less than we thought".
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
A discussion / demolition of the (causality-free) broken record storytelling of records being broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
For info, it's another Tony Heller video so not worth clicking.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
Oh dear, leaked audio confirms true cost of Net Zero:
“Reaching Labour’s target for decarbonising the economy will cost “hundreds of billions” of pounds, a shadow minister has disclosed in a recording obtained by The Telegraph.
Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the £28 billion per year originally allocated to Labour’s green investment plan was a “tiny” amount.
He said the fact that Sir Keir Starmer had downgraded his investment plans from £28 billion to £4.7 billion “made it sound as if we basically junked the whole thing but we definitely haven’t”.
Mr Jones told a public meeting in Bristol that private capital would have to be used to upgrade infrastructure, but “public subsidy” would still be needed alongside that.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/la...
“Reaching Labour’s target for decarbonising the economy will cost “hundreds of billions” of pounds, a shadow minister has disclosed in a recording obtained by The Telegraph.
Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the £28 billion per year originally allocated to Labour’s green investment plan was a “tiny” amount.
He said the fact that Sir Keir Starmer had downgraded his investment plans from £28 billion to £4.7 billion “made it sound as if we basically junked the whole thing but we definitely haven’t”.
Mr Jones told a public meeting in Bristol that private capital would have to be used to upgrade infrastructure, but “public subsidy” would still be needed alongside that.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/la...
turbobloke said:
A discussion / demolition of the (causality-free) broken record storytelling of records being broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
Hilarious!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9r2KFjatY
So, he opens stating a headline about record breaking temps. He fails to mention that this headline represented global temps not US temp records. But maybe geography is not his strong point?
He then goes on to compare data from a single day of weather in the US over various years ..........I wonder why he cherry picked that single day? Maybe because it fits a narrative, but hardly representative of 'climate'. Reminds me of the 'science' video about Antarctic ice coverage which looked at a cherry picked single day, despite 2924 having the lowest I've coverage (on average) by some extent.
So, the first minute of the video is very misleading, but maybe factual. Beyond that initial b
ks, I could not be bothered to watch......Junk science indeed.
Do you ever question what you are posting, or does confirmation bias override the embarrassment?
Silence?
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Diderot said:
Straw man alert. What has Tony Heller’s You Tube proclamations got to do with consensus being a purely political term and phenomenon, and having no place in and nothing to with science?
Diversion?? Again? Care to answer my critique of Tony Hellers video?
Or
Answer about scientific consensus?
Or
Neither??
Really not bothered which you tackle first.....
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
donkmeister said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Peer review doesn’t have anything to do with consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. Beyond this reality, If you knew anything about research, and how it is funded and conducted, and indeed anything about the peer review process which can be brutally combative, you wouldn’t have to be told this. But alas it seems, like Mike, you do not.
The reality is, if I had been a different person and taken a dislike to someone and their research angle, it would have been so easy as an editor or especially as an editor-in-chief to reject their research out of hand; I know other editors in chief of other journals and it wouldn’t take much to blackball an academic. It does go on. It’s hateful, and it can destroy careers, but academia is a very competitive profession, especially in America with the tenure system. It might not seem it from the outside, but even in the UK, it is brutal. I have seen academics almost come to blows because their work wasn’t deemed worth of inclusion in the REF, when a colleagues was.
Diderot said:
donkmeister said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Peer review doesn’t have anything to do with consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. Beyond this reality, If you knew anything about research, and how it is funded and conducted, and indeed anything about the peer review process which can be brutally combative, you wouldn’t have to be told this. But alas it seems, like Mike, you do not.
The reality is, if I had been a different person and taken a dislike to someone and their research angle, it would have been so easy as an editor or especially as an editor-in-chief to reject their research out of hand; I know other editors in chief of other journals and it wouldn’t take much to blackball an academic. It does go on. It’s hateful, and it can destroy careers, but academia is a very competitive profession, especially in America with the tenure system. It might not seem it from the outside, but even in the UK, it is brutal. I have seen academics almost come to blows because their work wasn’t deemed worth of inclusion in the REF, when a colleagues was.
Now, with that wealth of knowledge, any opinion about the video? A fiercely brutal critique of the first minute would be good to start. Try dealing with the content of the video though, rather than me.
Mike (PhD Jesus College)
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
donkmeister said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Peer review doesn’t have anything to do with consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. Beyond this reality, If you knew anything about research, and how it is funded and conducted, and indeed anything about the peer review process which can be brutally combative, you wouldn’t have to be told this. But alas it seems, like Mike, you do not.
The reality is, if I had been a different person and taken a dislike to someone and their research angle, it would have been so easy as an editor or especially as an editor-in-chief to reject their research out of hand; I know other editors in chief of other journals and it wouldn’t take much to blackball an academic. It does go on. It’s hateful, and it can destroy careers, but academia is a very competitive profession, especially in America with the tenure system. It might not seem it from the outside, but even in the UK, it is brutal. I have seen academics almost come to blows because their work wasn’t deemed worth of inclusion in the REF, when a colleagues was.
Now, with that wealth of knowledge, any opinion about the video? A fiercely brutal critique of the first minute would be good to start. Try dealing with the content of the video though, rather than me.
Mike (PhD Jesus College)
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
donkmeister said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Peer review doesn’t have anything to do with consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. Beyond this reality, If you knew anything about research, and how it is funded and conducted, and indeed anything about the peer review process which can be brutally combative, you wouldn’t have to be told this. But alas it seems, like Mike, you do not.
The reality is, if I had been a different person and taken a dislike to someone and their research angle, it would have been so easy as an editor or especially as an editor-in-chief to reject their research out of hand; I know other editors in chief of other journals and it wouldn’t take much to blackball an academic. It does go on. It’s hateful, and it can destroy careers, but academia is a very competitive profession, especially in America with the tenure system. It might not seem it from the outside, but even in the UK, it is brutal. I have seen academics almost come to blows because their work wasn’t deemed worth of inclusion in the REF, when a colleagues was.
Now, with that wealth of knowledge, any opinion about the video? A fiercely brutal critique of the first minute would be good to start. Try dealing with the content of the video though, rather than me.
Mike (PhD Jesus College)
https://youtu.be/3XrrqHOVFY0?si=C-g7iboP8lQlofDb
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
donkmeister said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
Instead you’ve only seen papers hypothesising CO2 as the cause of the modest warming since the LIA.
We get a multitude of papers quoted in this thread stating it is not CO2 causing the warming yet not one paper gives an alternate hypothesis of what might be the cause. So, by consensus, there is no hypothesis given to the warming trend other than manmade CO2 emissions. It is a little odd, would you not think??
And now you are telling scientific consensus does not exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consens...The fact is a handful of scientists (and people) do not agree with the consensus but when videos are posted like that earlier by TB, the credibility of the consensus just gets stronger.
Please do not insult my intelligence by stating I don't understand what is going on.
Care to defend the video above??
Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.
Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44
Peer review doesn’t have anything to do with consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. Beyond this reality, If you knew anything about research, and how it is funded and conducted, and indeed anything about the peer review process which can be brutally combative, you wouldn’t have to be told this. But alas it seems, like Mike, you do not.
The reality is, if I had been a different person and taken a dislike to someone and their research angle, it would have been so easy as an editor or especially as an editor-in-chief to reject their research out of hand; I know other editors in chief of other journals and it wouldn’t take much to blackball an academic. It does go on. It’s hateful, and it can destroy careers, but academia is a very competitive profession, especially in America with the tenure system. It might not seem it from the outside, but even in the UK, it is brutal. I have seen academics almost come to blows because their work wasn’t deemed worth of inclusion in the REF, when a colleagues was.
Now, with that wealth of knowledge, any opinion about the video? A fiercely brutal critique of the first minute would be good to start. Try dealing with the content of the video though, rather than me.
Mike (PhD Jesus College)
I repeat for the benefit of your comprehension skillsNow, with that wealth of knowledge, any opinion about the video? A fiercely brutal critique of the first minute would be good to start. Try dealing with the content of the video though, rather than me.
PRTVR said:
Here is a scientist giving his opinion on peer review, sadly it's not all it's cracked up to be.
https://youtu.be/3XrrqHOVFY0?si=C-g7iboP8lQlofDb
Are you willing to critically review the video posted by TB?https://youtu.be/3XrrqHOVFY0?si=C-g7iboP8lQlofDb
You lot are really funny in your squirming. I wager that the next reply will be focussed on the last paragraph rather than the first.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff