Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Gator 16,907]

Another theory not manifesting itself (hotspot).

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

[Gator 16,907]

Climate models are not reliable and have been wrong in their predictions.  Alarmists and climateers conveniently ignore the facts.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

[Gator 16,907]

Illuminating

"For decades the world of conventional climate research has been stuck in a groundhog day with major research overturning older ideas, but somehow the upper and lower bounds of climate sensitivity stayed the same. It’s always 1.5 – 4.5 deg C (and their models never work). Their “best” estimates of climate sensitivity are relentlessly, slowly shrinking (they were around 3.5°, now around 2°C). The new alternative model doesn’t rely on the bizarre idea that all feedbacks can only operate off the surface. The alternative model (we are going to have to come up with a better name) allows feedbacks to act differently for different warming influences, and thus energy can reroute from one outgoing “pipe” to another." (not first para)

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/

Note the end conclusion:

There is no strong basis in the data for favoring any scenario in particular, but the A4, A5, A6, and B4 scenarios are the ones that best reflect the input data over longer periods. Hence we conclude that:

• The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
• The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ,is likely less than 20%.
• The CO2 sensitivity, λ_C, is likely less than 0.15 °C W⁻¹ m² (less than a third of the solar sensitivity).

Given a descending WVEL, it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this.

Edited December 11, 2015 by ProDee

[Gator 16,907]

Hypocrisy Over CO2 By Jo Nova

Climate change is The Greatest Threat on Earth but the Merchants of Panic don’t really care if we reduce CO2.  Follow what they do, not what they say. This is our last chance to save the planet, but they won’t consider nuclear energy — apparently the planet is just not that important. Nor will they consider Ultra Super Critical hot burning coal, which could reduce emissions by 15% at a stroke. Likewise fracking. Instead, the answer to everything is always inefficient, government-dependent industries and trading schemes. These schemes don’t reduce much CO2, but they reward the patrons of big-government and punish the opponents. They suck money from independent corporations, and churn that cash through the “renewables” cheer-squad, the financial houses, and the groups that profit from keeping the climate scare going. Ponder that the EU had a monster emissions trading scheme, but the USA cut far more emissions — thanks to fracking and no thanks to any fake “free market”. The bottom line is that we may face the Anthropocene Mass Extinction Event, but apparently things are not so bad that the Greens will consider fracking. The big EU market was riddled with corruption for years, which caused more CO2 to be released, but the Green Blob didn’t care enough to audit it, or to be outraged when it was failing.

Environmental success is measured in terms of money, not megatonnes. (How does “89 trillion” sound?).

And success was supposed to be measured in degrees C in any case, but the Greenblob doesn’t care whether the policies do that either. If heat is the problem, why is the amount of cooling irrelevant? And if wind farms are good for the environment, how come hardly anyone seems to care when it slaughters and roasts endangered birds?

[hardtack 10,127]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

You sound like an anti-capitalist Greens voter.

Some of us just don't like waste and recognise the folly of global warming policies.

Well, in your haste to neatly categorise people in order to gain some sort of misguided sense of superiority, you'd be very wrong. 

For someone who doesn't like waste, you seem to waste a lot of your time on this forum attempting to prove yourself right.

[Gator 16,907]

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Well, in your haste to neatly categorise people in order to gain some sort of misguided sense of superiority, you'd be very wrong. 

For someone who doesn't like waste, you seem to waste a lot of your time on this forum attempting to prove yourself right.

I love analysing the climate, as well as the political environment.  

Do yourself a favour, look at the last few posts and educate yourself. 

Btw, I love the irony of you saying I categorise people just after I've responded to a post of you categorising me.  

You and the good good Doctor, both rabid lefties, have much in common. 

Oops, there goes those categories.

[hardtack 10,127]

26 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I love analysing the climate, as well as the political environment.  

Do yourself a favour, look at the last few posts and educate yourself. 

Btw, I love the irony of you saying I categorise people just after I've responded to a post of you categorising me.  

You and the good good Doctor, both rabid lefties, have much in common. 

Oops, there goes those categories.

"Again with the minutee and never with the bigger picture.  You simply cannot see past your wallet." - not sure I see the irony or how that is categorising someone (as opposed to "anti-capitalist Greens voter").

I do however see the irony in your description of myself and the "good Doctor" as rabid... let's do a post count within this topic and see what lengths the various posters are going to in order to prove a point shall we? I hope you're wearing a muzzle.

[Gator 16,907]

5 hours ago, hardtack said:

"Again with the minutee and never with the bigger picture.  You simply cannot see past your wallet." - not sure I see the irony or how that is categorising someone (as opposed to "anti-capitalist Greens voter").

I do however see the irony in your description of myself and the "good Doctor" as rabid... let's do a post count within this topic and see what lengths the various posters are going to in order to prove a point shall we? I hope you're wearing a muzzle.

This ^^ is all great, but why don't you share your thoughts on the first 4 posts on this page ?

[Gator 16,907]

Admissions from Alarmists

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

– Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

 

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

 

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

15 hours ago, ProDee said:

I love analysing the climate, as well as the political environment.  

Do yourself a favour, look at the last few posts and educate yourself. 

Btw, I love the irony of you saying I categorise people just after I've responded to a post of you categorising me.  

You and the good good Doctor, both rabid lefties, have much in common. 

Oops, there goes those categories.

Thought it was me who was supposed to be doing the sniping on this thread.

Oh, and don't confuse what I know with what I think. I realise that might be difficult for you, given you've even attempted to turn a thread on changes at a radio station into an opportunity for ideological soapboxing, but the rest of us are actually able to hold more than one idea in mind at a time.

Here's a little something I do know how to find: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/almost-everything-we-know-about-fake.html

Enjoy your faith in the charlatans and half-truthers and tinfoil hat wearers on the web. It may give you plenty of opportunity for vacuuming up stuff and dumping it here unremittingly and without proper acknowledgement*; but the real debate, as I've already said, is elsewhere and it's not about what you think it's about.

 

* even someone like Steven Goddard is entitled to have his work, irrelevant as it may be, acknowledged and not have it passed off as your research, isn't he?

[Gator 16,907]

3 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

Thought it was me who was supposed to be doing the sniping on this thread.

Oh, and don't confuse what I know with what I think. I realise that might be difficult for you, given you've even attempted to turn a thread on changes at a radio station into an opportunity for ideological soapboxing, but the rest of us are actually able to hold more than one idea in mind at a time.

Here's a little something I do know how to find: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/almost-everything-we-know-about-fake.html

Enjoy your faith in the charlatans and half-truthers and tinfoil hat wearers on the web. It may give you plenty of opportunity for vacuuming up stuff and dumping it here unremittingly and without proper acknowledgement*; but the real debate, as I've already said, is elsewhere and it's not about what you think it's about.

 

* even someone like Steven Goddard is entitled to have his work, irrelevant as it may be, acknowledged and not have it passed off as your research, isn't he?

I don't pass anything off as mine,  Doc.

None of it is and no-one reading here thinks it is.  

And you're right, I have tonnes more good stuff from varying sources.   But you may have to wait until tomorrow.  Excited ?

I also look forward to you getting some "skin in the game",  but won't hold my breath. 

In the meantime, I encourage your sniping from afar.  It's lonely in here.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

I don't pass anything off as mine,  Doc.

post #344.

Source claimed as http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=%22climate%20change%22&searchLimits=

Actual source Steven Goddard.

There are plenty more.

Sorry, but claiming to have identified an original source for yourself when someone else has done the research is claiming that research as your own.

But so too is appropriating stuff from denialist sites (whether originating there or or on some other denialist site) without acknowledgement, no matter what people reading here think or don't think about what you're doing. If some climate scientist did it your lot would be jumping up and down about fraud.

 

[Gator 16,907]

1 hour ago, Dr John Dee said:

post #344.

Source claimed as http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=%22climate%20change%22&searchLimits=

Actual source Steven Goddard.

There are plenty more.

Sorry, but claiming to have identified an original source for yourself when someone else has done the research is claiming that research as your own.

But so too is appropriating stuff from denialist sites (whether originating there or or on some other denialist site) without acknowledgement, no matter what people reading here think or don't think about what you're doing. If some climate scientist did it your lot would be jumping up and down about fraud.

 

Is that all you've got ?

Just so we're clear in the future,  NONE of it is mine and I never expected anyone to think it was - you know, the other 2 people that have been reading this. It is all sourced by others.  I'm glad you're looking though, you might learn something. 

Now that is settled, feel free to debunk anything I post.or have posted (of others).

Naturally, you only want to argue about the source, because you don't appear to be able to argue propositions or claims.

Maybe you can outline your view of CO2 and why you believe it do be harmful.  That would be a start. 

Get some skin in the game.  But by the end of these debates, alarmists are going to appear extremely gullible.

Edited December 12, 2015 by ProDee

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

13 hours ago, ProDee said:

Is that all you've got ?

Just so we're clear in the future,  NONE of it is mine and I never expected anyone to think it was - you know, the other 2 people that have been reading this. It is all sourced by others.  I'm glad you're looking though, you might learn something. 

Now that is settled, feel free to debunk anything I post.or have posted (of others).

Naturally, you only want to argue about the source, because you don't appear to be able to argue propositions or claims.

Maybe you can outline your view of CO2 and why you believe it do be harmful.  That would be a start. 

Get some skin in the game.  But by the end of these debates, alarmists are going to appear extremely gullible.

I'm not sure what you think you're asking with that question, but no, it's not all I've got: (i) I said there were other instances but I'm not going to bother itemising them; and/or (ii) if you think misrepresenting your research is a trivial matter then you don't have a sufficient grasp of what's at stake in the basic questions of knowledge and interpretation involved in the climate 'debate' to be expecting anything you've got to say to be taken seriously. That's not my problem, it's yours.

Able? I've said it before but obviously I need to spell it out: I choose not to bother with the substance (such as it is) of what you hoover up and deposit here because it has inevitably been addressed/questioned/disproved elsewhere. For me, adding anything at that kind of level to this or any other thread about global warming is just an exercise in redundancy.

In any case, the distinction you want to draw between propositions and claims and the methods by which they're derived/stated isn't as neat as you might like it to be. I won't attempt to spell out what the questions and their implications are since presumably all I'll get is more sarcasm about longwindedness but there are a whole series of issues in this that inform how we understand both sides of the argument, but also undermine either when it's not framed with a recognition of the complexity of what's involved.

I don't know who's going to end up looking gullible, chaos will no doubt have a say in that. But I also don't think that bragging rights in 2059 or whenever matters all that much. The issues are elsewhere.

 

 

 

[bing181 8,188]

17 hours ago, ProDee said:

Get some skin in the game.  But by the end of these debates ...

The debates have ended.

You lost.

[Gator 16,907]

3 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

I'm not sure what you think you're asking with that question, but no, it's not all I've got: (i) I said there were other instances but I'm not going to bother itemising them; and/or (ii) if you think misrepresenting your research is a trivial matter then you don't have a sufficient grasp of what's at stake in the basic questions of knowledge and interpretation involved in the climate 'debate' to be expecting anything you've got to say to be taken seriously. That's not my problem, it's yours.

Able? I've said it before but obviously I need to spell it out: I choose not to bother with the substance (such as it is) of what you hoover up and deposit here because it has inevitably been addressed/questioned/disproved elsewhere. For me, adding anything at that kind of level to this or any other thread about global warming is just an exercise in redundancy.

In any case, the distinction you want to draw between propositions and claims and the methods by which they're derived/stated isn't as neat as you might like it to be. I won't attempt to spell out what the questions and their implications are since presumably all I'll get is more sarcasm about longwindedness but there are a whole series of issues in this that inform how we understand both sides of the argument, but also undermine either when it's not framed with a recognition of the complexity of what's involved.

I don't know who's going to end up looking gullible, chaos will no doubt have a say in that. But I also don't think that bragging rights in 2059 or whenever matters all that much. The issues are elsewhere.

 

 

 

There's really no need for you to post in the thread, but for some reason you feel compelled to do so.

You add nothing.

[Gator 16,907]

27 minutes ago, bing181 said:

The debates have ended.

You lost.

What a banal thing to say.

No, the science isn't "settled".

[Gator 16,907]

This is a very interesting article that the rabid left-wing Green voters that frequent this thread should consider.

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next thethermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

 

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[Axis of Bob 10,296]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

This is a very interesting article that the rabid left-wing Green voters that frequent this thread should consider.

..... etc .....

Why do you always make this issue about politics?

If you are trying to argue this issue scientifically, then political ideologies should not matter. 

Is it because this is the basis for your own belief that climate change is a hoax is simply an extension of your political allegiance? Or did you settle on the science first, and then just find it was a happy coincidence that it aligned perfectly with your political ideology?

[dee-luded 2,958]

A change is in the Winds !

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_story_loc/?bGLPMab&v=70760&cl=9155349852

Dear amazing Avaaz community,

World leaders at the UN climate talks have just set a landmark goal that can save everything we love!   This is what we marched for,  what we signed,  called,  donated,  messaged,  and hoped for:   a brilliant and massive turning point in human history.
 

It’s called net-zero human emissions  --  a balancing of what we release into the air and what is taken out -- and when the dust settles and the Paris Agreement is in the hands of lawmakers,  clean energy will be the best,  cheapest,  and most effective way to keep their promise.   This gives us the platform we need to realize the dream of a safe future for generations!

"When in 2014... hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets of New York, it was then that we knew that we had the power of the people on our side."   Christiana Figueres, Head of UN climate talks, speaks to the power of our marches in her closing speech to the summit today.

 

# From the starting gun to the finishing line of these talks, every time a government blocked progress,  we responded,  and when they led the way,  we heralded them.   Our community has called our leaders to go further in 45 different actions in just 14 days. And we had incredible impact:
 

After the Indian Finance Minister came out against 100% clean energy,  Avaazers filmed Chennai under water and it was projected with messages from across India on a screen inside the talks.   A day later the media announced Modi had changed course and said,  "So what has brought about this U-turn?...   A video with interviews of Chennai flood survivors was played out on giant projector screens inside the venue of climate change talks."

And that was just the beginning -- our marches, messages, and video appeals were played on loop outside of the main negotiation room. Heads of state, ministers, and all of their staff were reminded of us and our calls to action every day.

# Then, after we plastered Paris with posters of the faces of the worst fossil fuel lobbyists and climate deniers,  calling on ministers to ignore them,  the lobbyist for the world's largest mining company withdrew from the talks altogether!
 

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_story_loc/?bGLPMab&v=70760&cl=9155349852

 

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/an-ngo-just-put-out-the-name-of-7-climate-criminals-who-re-trying-to-kill-earth-248140.html

.....  well it seems India of all places has ended up being a helper,  to change some minds & balances,  in the equity of change.   & good old digital probes helped to  "stick it right up them",  so to speak... at least for the time being.  until the money grabbers find new ways;  like the japs, killing our Whales, born, bred, & fed in Australian waters.

 

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/an-ngo-just-put-out-the-name-of-7-climate-criminals-who-re-trying-to-kill-earth-248140.html

some of the climate change skeptics & lobbyists      >     http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by dee-luded

[Gator 16,907]

5 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Why do you always make this issue about politics?

If you are trying to argue this issue scientifically, then political ideologies should not matter. 

Is it because this is the basis for your own belief that climate change is a hoax is simply an extension of your political allegiance? Or did you settle on the science first, and then just find it was a happy coincidence that it aligned perfectly with your political ideology?

Just having fun,  Bob.

There are conservatives who believe that man is dangerously warning the world too.  Not as many obviously, but they exist. 

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't trying to get a rise. 

 

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

8 hours ago, ProDee said:

There's really no need for you to post in the thread, but for some reason you feel compelled to do so.

You add nothing.

That all you've got?

BTW, once you reach for the ad hominem you lose too.

[hardtack 10,127]

9 hours ago, ProDee said:

What a banal thing to say.

No, the science isn't "settled".

Well, it seems the science IS settled according to those who matter... I suppose that for you, the science would only be settled if the whole climate meeting in Paris had been abandoned.  But of course, you obviously are far more educated and better read in matters of climate change than those who advise world leaders.

[bing181 8,188]

12 hours ago, ProDee said:

No, the science isn't "settled".

The only places where the science is in question is in countries where the Murdoch press provides a forum to commentators who are to climate science what Stephen Dank is to sports science.

[bing181 8,188]

Nice article from that left-wing rag, Scientific American. Worth looking at if only for the cartoon.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/