Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

hairykrishna said:

Diderot said:

Marvellous, I’m assuming from your comments you went into industry and have never plied your trade as career academic. Am I wrong?

I'm currently working in Physics. What's your field?

I am in industry now, but doesn't diminish my lust for learning.

It is truly odd behaviour for someone in academia not to enjoy a little bit of sparring about the science, when, in my belief, the science posted in this thread is highly questionable or downright misleading.

But not a single response from certain posters about it. Odd?

[hairykrishna]

I'm actually being a little disingenuous because I'm pretty sure that Diderot works in the arts. I don't really recognise his description of peer review. Peer review can be harsh and somewhat unfair, but that tends to be when you get someone who has not quite grasped what your paper says rather than having some agenda. At least in my experience.

Edited by hairykrishna on Wednesday 26th June 23:16

[Diderot]

hairykrishna said:

I'm actually being a little disingenuous because I'm pretty sure that Diderot works in the arts. I don't really recognise his description of peer review. Peer review can be harsh and somewhat unfair, but that tends to be when you get someone who has not quite grasped what your paper says rather than having some agenda. At least in my experience.

Edited by hairykrishna on Wednesday 26th June 23:16

In your experience working in industry …

[hairykrishna]

No. I currently work in a university. I regularly publish and review papers.

[PRTVR]

mike9009 said:

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?

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.

You brought up peer review, my reply was to that part of your reply, I thought that was self evident, apparently not.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

hairykrishna said:

I'm actually being a little disingenuous because I'm pretty sure that Diderot works in the arts. I don't really recognise his description of peer review. Peer review can be harsh and somewhat unfair, but that tends to be when you get someone who has not quite grasped what your paper says rather than having some agenda. At least in my experience.

Edited by hairykrishna on Wednesday 26th June 23:16

In your experience working in industry …

That is my experience. You keep evading the actual question and focussing on the people contributing.

How about reviewing the video? Your experience(and balance) would be appreciated.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

I will repeat, in case you misread. There is no consensus of an alternate hypothesis. There is no alternate hypothesis.

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??

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?

Desperate man consults Wikipedia for the answer.

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 26th June 20:44

I suspect mike9009 shared the Wiki link in an effort to try and educate you since your understanding is clearly lacking.

I don't think he comes across as desperate. If he were desperate he'd probably do something like... oh I dunno, brag about unrelated academic credentials in an embarrassing attempt to claw back credibility after posting clueless arguments that got trounced.

[turbobloke]

AGW fails again so far with the 'summer of hell' in 2024 as predicted based on agw gospel doctrine by Marc Benecke "with almost complete certainty”. It's good when they say that.

It may be that this part of tractor territory is a very small microclimate with unique observations attached, but until yesterday there were several hairy legged spiders, one every couple of days, out looking for lurve thinking it's September due to November weather.

[donkmeister]

PRTVR said:

You brought up peer review, my reply was to that part of your reply, I thought that was self evident, apparently not.

Actually I brought up peer review.

Maybe we're getting into semantics about what consensus means, but the whole point of peer review is to scrutinise every aspect of The Science. Thus, reaching consensus that The Science has been done properly.

If I submit a paper for review where I've conducted an experiment, recorded data, but then done mental gymnastics to claim it proves some rubbish I wish were true, then a review of my peers will have them saying "No donk. Bad donk. No amount of wishing will make that true. Here's the bit where it all gets silly. Go away and have another go."

I've written some really boring papers, but every one of them has involved consensus.

Science is not a closed shop. Scientists love new ideas. Scientists especially love when a new idea better fits the universe around us than the old idea. The only barrier to entry is that you need to do the job properly. You can't show up at an institution and say "well I reckon the moon is made of cheese." and expect people to treat you as they would a geologist showing up with a thoroughly researched paper about the composition of the lunar regolith.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

AGW fails again so far with the 'summer of hell' in 2024 as predicted based on agw gospel doctrine by Marc Benecke "with almost complete certainty”. It's good when they say that.

It may be that this part of tractor territory is a very small microclimate with unique observations attached, but until yesterday there were several hairy legged spiders, one every couple of days, out looking for lurve thinking it's September due to November weather.

Since you want to talk about predictions, why you didn't answer this?

durbster said:

...how would you describe Scafetta's previous climate projections have fared so far, compared to the IPCC?

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

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

AGW fails again so far with the 'summer of hell' in 2024 as predicted based on agw gospel doctrine by Marc Benecke "with almost complete certainty”. It's good when they say that.

It may be that this part of tractor territory is a very small microclimate with unique observations attached, but until yesterday there were several hairy legged spiders, one every couple of days, out looking for lurve thinking it's September due to November weather.

Since you want to talk about predictions, why you didn't answer this?

durbster said:

...how would you describe Scafetta's previous climate projections have fared so far, compared to the IPCC?

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

Having not seen those silly questions until now, I can now answer.

The next few decades haven't elapsed yet. You've got premature adjudication again

IPCC forecasts are only ever correct by accident as CO2 plays no significant role in global temperature and there is no climate crisis,

See earlier posts with links to and content from Fleming 2018, McKitrick and Christy 2018, Mao et al 2019, Dagsvik and Moen 2023, Miscolczi 2023, Ollila 2023, Koutsoyianniss and Vournas 2023, Kato and Rose 2024, Cannell 2024 and Hulme (book) 2024.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

Since you want to talk about predictions, why you didn't answer this?

durbster said:

...how would you describe Scafetta's previous climate projections have fared so far, compared to the IPCC?

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

Having not seen those silly questions until now, I can now answer.

The next few decades haven't elapsed yet.

Why is it silly to ask how the model you're talking about has performed in comparison to the IPCC models you are deriding as "unfit"? It's a perfectly sensible thing to ask.

The question was how has the Scafetta model fared so far, 13 years into the 20 year period referred to. You still didn't answer but it's obvious why. The mechanism that should have led to the cooling phase did happen, but the temperatures did not respond as the model projected. The obvious conclusion to draw is the model was wrong.

For you to be correct, temperatures would have to drop spectacularly in the next 6-7 years (for absolutely no reason). Mind you, you said that's what would happen a decade ago and you got that wrong too.

turbobloke said:

You've got premature adjudication again

Nope, this is still nonsense. Of course it's not premature to judge these models on timescales that the model authors themselves decided. As was proven the last time you tried to gaslight with this line, every single author of your cooling models had said we would be well into the cooling phase by now. That's a verifiable fact, so why are you misleading people?

turbobloke said:

IPCC forecasts are only ever correct by accident as CO2 plays no significant role in global temperature and there is no climate crisis,

So you do accept that the IPCC forecasts have been correct.

But only "by accident". Of course

[turbobloke]

donkmeister said:

Also, just because something isn't reported doesn't mean a conspiracy to hide the news; the Morning Star didn't report on Thatcher's death on the day it happened, which I found very surprising. Turned out they were just crap, and the day after they'd done all their articles about how her pubes were made of barbed wire and she ate orphans or something.

We're dealing with the BBC here, not FlyingSaucersDotCom which would be more balanced.
Sins of omission are sins, just like commission.
Harrabin and Abbess conspired.

[mike9009]

durbster said:

So you do accept that the IPCC forecasts have been correct.

But only "by accident". Of course

Too many difficult questions to answer, sorry.

Perhaps TB can respond to my numerous posts about things that have been posted as fact.....but I suspect the embarrassment is too great and indefensible.

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

durbster said:

So you do accept that the IPCC forecasts have been correct.

But only "by accident". Of course

Too many difficult questions to answer, sorry.

Perhaps TB can respond to my numerous posts about things that have been posted as fact.....but I suspect the embarrassment is too great and indefensible.

Which posts? Usually if there's anything worth replying to then I'll reply. The same can apply to your response or lack of, with my posts,

Usually for my part it takes something that hasn't been done before, n times, in the last 20+ years. How long have you been around?

I haven't seen anything posted 'as fact' outside IPCC garbage and the blind faith in it. My approach to scientific research is from Karl Popper in terms of contingent truth, fact is something for politicians and simpletons (where the two don't overlap). No "pure facts" are available.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

durbster said:

So you do accept that the IPCC forecasts have been correct.

But only "by accident". Of course

Too many difficult questions to answer, sorry.

Perhaps TB can respond to my numerous posts about things that have been posted as fact.....but I suspect the embarrassment is too great and indefensible.

Which posts? Usually if there's anything worth replying to then I'll reply. The same can apply to your response or lack of, with my posts,

Usually for my part it takes something that hasn't been done before, n times, in the last 20+ years. How long have you been around?

I haven't seen anything posted 'as fact' outside IPCC garbage and the blind faith in it. My approach to scientific research is from Karl Popper in terms of contingent truth, fact is something for politicians and simpletons (where the two don't overlap). No "pure facts" are available.

Please reply to my post about the video you posted yesterday. Genuinely interested.

I believe you have posted the same material n+1 times (I have modelled this and predict the same papers will be cited with similar silence about their content when responded to).

Thanks for the undermining once again. But I understand the intelligence you have, hence I would welcome your feedback on my critique of the video. What is your opinion? You seemed to laude it virtues when posted......

I just hope your comprehension skills are honed to understand the thrust of my post.....

Edited by mike9009 on Thursday 27th June 18:14

[mike9009]

Also, the BBC were discussing about JSO and the sprayed planes at 1630 on R4.

So seems the story keeps rolling on the BBC.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

IPCC forecasts are only ever correct by accident as CO2 plays no significant role in global temperature and there is no climate crisis,

Please let us know what is having a significant role in global temperature if CO2 has now been discounted?

[J210]

So it appears the Tuvalu islands that the UN and others said was at an exponential threat of sinking due to climate change. Is actually growing….

Interesting thread on all the times the so called experts have been wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/180634171382637...

[Nomme de Plum]

J210 said:

So it appears the Tuvalu islands that the UN and others said was at an exponential threat of sinking due to climate change. Is actually growing….

Interesting thread on all the times the so called experts have been wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/180634171382637...

Did you ever ask yourself how this maybe?

For instance Holland has increased its land mass extensively >15% though construction of barriers to hold out the sea. It does not however prevent them from being exposed to the regained land being submerged should sea levels rise sufficiently.