2 hours ago, Jara said:

Hey Wrecker - welcome back - (except that you're a bit scary cos you're on the ball and usually find holes in my arguments)

But here, I don't see the problem. All sorts of organisations come up with policy positions on all sorts of things, usually based on some sort of consensus among the members of the organisation (e.g. . a political party, an employer group, your local cricket club)  In my experience, policy positions are usually developed and signed off by the board members, who are elected by the general membership of the profession. Candidates standing for election state their beliefs, and are voted for accordingly. I presume that happens with the scientific organisations I mentioned (e.g. the Chemical , Geological Associations or whatever they were).

 

This seems like a pretty sensible approach to me; it means that the scientific organisations tend to represent the general consensus of opinion among the professionals in that particular branch of science. As accepted theory evolves, policy platforms change.

 

That's why I'm a bit wary of people like this Wrightstone fellow. He may be right - he certainly knows enough to bamboozle an ignoramus like me - but he clearly doesn't know enough to bamboozle his fellow experts, who, as the quote I gave demonstrates, accept that climate change is anthropogenic and dangerous (I'm also a bit suspicious because he's working for the fossil fuel industry - I'd question his objectivity).

 

Re your last comment - pleeeze - you can do better than that. 

 

  

 Consensus is a vote and best for political matters.

Science is not about voting or majority opinions.

Organisational views are political and self serving not scientific. Except for the evil Murdoch empire who are out to kill science.

 

11 hours ago, Jara said:

 I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating.  While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary.  There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. 

Pro, If you find the insights from "BOTH" sides so incredible, how come you only ever cut and paste the stuff from one? 

Jara, I’m a sceptic because…

1. I’ve come to the view that we’re not warming the planet “dangerously”.  The planet hasn’t warmed since 1998.

2. The climate models have been wrong.  Climate scientists admit this.

3. Have you read the climategate emails ?  There's a lack of trust with government funded climate scientists.

4. Ridiculous scares that have been made since the 1980s never eventuated.

5. We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerably higher in the 1930s than in recent years.  This is when CO2 was at 280 ppmv and pre industrialisation.

6. Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm in the Middle Ages as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.  There is nothing unprecedented about current climate.

7. Ice cores show that the recent Little Ice Age (finished in the 19th century) was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since ?

8. Extreme weather, which is meant to be more frequent with more intensity is the opposite.  The USA haven’t had a land based hurricane in 11 years, which is the longest on record.

9. The United Nations Christiana Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.  Do I need to share her quotes again ?

10. The locations and professionalism of surface temperature weather stations are compromised, and I will shortly post a video that discusses this issue.

11. There's irrefutable proof that NASA and NOAA alter past data, because it doesn't their narrative and flawed models.

I'm glad you asked the question, jara, because you now have 11 points to refer to whenever you're wondering why I take the position I do.  Although, they're not new and I've mentioned them all in isolation throughout this thread.

 

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

 Consensus is a vote and best for political matters.

Science is not about voting or majority opinions.

Organisational views are political and self serving not scientific. Except for the evil Murdoch empire who are out to kill science.

 

Hi Wrecker - just heard an interesting talk on The Infinite Monkey Cage, if you know the program  - BBC science show, with Brian Cox - on scientific method. Answered your question, i thought,  quite directly.

Sorry, I'm in a rush, going out, no time for long answer, but we're both intelligent enough to know how scientific theory works, are we not? Theories are out there until they are proved wrong. Nobody's saying you have to accept a particular position, they're just saying, on the evidence we have so far, this is what we believe. I suppose you'd still find the odd renegade physicist who reckons Einstein got it wrong, but I doubt you'd find him or her on the board of whatever organisation represents physicists. Same with Darwin - I gather there have been numerous refinements of his theory, but the core ideas still hold firm.

That's why I put emphasis upon the views of the leading organisations of the different branches of science.   Despite Pro's very impressive list of concerns above, he can't come up with a single scientific organisation which supports his views, which makes me smell a rat. 

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Despite Pro's very impressive list of concerns above, he can't come up with a single scientific organisation which supports his views, which makes me smell a rat. 

This is probably the greatest straw man argument I've seen on here.

There are thousands of eminent scientists around the world that are sceptical on climate alarmism.  Scientists are attached to universities, environmental groups, research groups, or government funded organisations.  There's not going to be organisations that exist purely to refute climate alarmism.  To think there would be is puerile.

It's important to note that most scientists around the world (nearly all) don't think we're doomed.  Read the following re the 97% myth and respond when able.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/97-consensus-exposed-gregory-wrightstone/

 

There's also the University of Alabama in Huntsville.  The following is their most recent findings after a study was commissioned by the USA's Department of Energy. 

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

It's explained for the lay person here by Anthony Watts in his blog.  Watts has probably the most widely read climate blog in the world.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/study-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-too-high/

The UAH paper can be read here  https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

19 minutes ago, ProDee said:

There are thousands of eminent scientists around the world that are sceptical on climate alarmism. 

But not enough to influence the policy stance of a single professional scientific organisation?

 

2 minutes ago, Jara said:

But not enough to influence the policy stance of a single professional scientific organisation?

 

It's a stupid question.

Comment on the other content of my posts.  The ones that deal with science.

Particularly, Jara, I'd like you to watch the following.  It's an important video.  Respond to its content when you can.

 

6 minutes ago, ProDee said:

It's a stupid question.

Comment on the other content of my posts.  The ones that deal with science.

If it's such a stupid question, why don't you answer it?

I'm going out with kids, so don't have long, but I had a quick look at that Watts fellow - he's about as compelling as our own Watts fellow - he's an ex-tv weatherman with no climate qualifications whatsoever. Does Jane Bunn (or whatever her name is)  blog as well?

24 minutes ago, Jara said:

I'm going out with kids, so don't have long, but I had a quick look at that Watts fellow - he's about as compelling as our own Watts fellow - he's an ex-tv weatherman with no climate qualifications whatsoever. Does Jane Bunn (or whatever her name is)  blog as well?

This is one of the major issues with Leftists, they can't or won't debate the facts. 

He's shown you why surface temperature weather stations are flawed, but you're either to dumb or disingenuous to appreciate the facts.  Instead you try to smear a guy who has the most read climate blog on the planet.

Leftists immediately assume the worst in every person that doesn't readily support their usually insane agendas. 

1 hour ago, Jara said:

If it's such a stupid question, why don't you answer it?

Name some of these scientific organisations you speak of ?

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Leftists immediately assume the worst in every person that doesn't readily support their usually insane agendas.

Mr Pot, Kettle calling: every person who assumes that every person that doesn't readily support their usually insane agendas is a Leftist is, just what, Mr Pot???????

14 hours ago, ProDee said:

The gym is fine.  Name your destination.

I'm an osteo arthritic semi invalid and I would rather prove my mental fitness than an ability to do a thousand press-ups.

1 hour ago, dieter said:

I'm an osteo arthritic semi invalid and I would rather prove my mental fitness than an ability to do a thousand press-ups.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

You'd know all about that. I've heard  it's apparently where your top brain cells reside, Daisy!

11 hours ago, Jara said:

I'm going out with kids, so don't have long, but I had a quick look at that Watts fellow - he's about as compelling as our own Watts fellow - he's an ex-tv weatherman with no climate qualifications whatsoever. Does Jane Bunn (or whatever her name is)  blog as well?

Hey Pro - home now - just checked up on that Watts guy. He has no qualifications whatsoever - not even a basic degree (according to his Wikipedia entry) - even less than that Jack Steele school teacher and his polar bears.

Lots of people read his blog. So what? Lots of people watch The Block.

Why do you give more credit to what this whacko says than to - oh - say, what the American Meteorological Society, the foremost organisation in the field, state in their official policy publications? Here's one example:

(sorry whole page came through - meant to just put in link)

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, do you doubt all science the way you doubt climate science? Do you, for example, have doubts about the Theory of Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? 

Edited December 31, 20177 yr by Jara

9 hours ago, Jara said:

Hey Pro - home now - just checked up on that Watts guy. He has no qualifications whatsoever - not even a basic degree (according to his Wikipedia entry) - even less than that Jack Steele school teacher and his polar bears.

Lots of people read his blog. So what? Lots of people watch The Block.

Why do you give more credit to what this whacko says than to - oh - say, what the American Meteorological Society, the foremost organisation in the field, state in their official policy publications? Here's one example:

(sorry whole page came through - meant to just put in link)

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, do you doubt all science the way you doubt climate science? Do you, for example, have doubts about the Theory of Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? 

You're a fool.   It's the nicest thing I can say about you. 

One doesn't have the most widely read climate blog in the world if they're a nuffie like you.   It just doesn't happen.   You don't get asked to speak at climate conferences if you're a nuffie like you.  But you're from the Left, so you can't debate, only besmirch. 

What are your views re the accuracy of the surface weather stations in his speech ?  Were you concerned by how compromised many of them are ?

And answer my previous question, "name some of these scientific organisations you speak of" ?

 

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

You're a fool.   It's the nicest thing I can say about you. 

One doesn't have the most widely read climate blog in the world if they're a nuffie like you.   It just doesn't happen.   You don't get asked to speak at climate conferences if you're a nuffie like you.  But you're from the Left, so you can't debate, only besmirch. 

What are your views re the accuracy of the surface weather stations in his speech ?  Were you concerned by how compromised many of them are ?

And answer my previous question, "name some of these scientific organisations you speak of" ?

 

See, Jara, you're a fool, a nuffie and a leftie. How do I know? ProDeee says so and he knows just about everything and he's great in the gym as well. Nuff said.

1 hour ago, dieter said:

See, Jara, you're a fool, a nuffie and a leftie. How do I know? ProDeee says so and he knows just about everything and he's great in the gym as well. Nuff said.

Thanks Dieter. Yes, I always thought I was a fool - coming from a powerhouse intellect like Pro's, I suppose that confirms it. Dunno bout the leftie - judge things on their merits, these days. And, to be honest, I'm not sure what a nuffie is.

 

Anyway, happy new year to you.

22 hours ago, ProDee said:

Name some of these scientific organisations you speak of ?

Thought it was pretty clear. The thirty or whatever respected scientific organisations, peer bodies in their respective professions, including chemistry, geology etc., that I mentioned a few days ago. You know, the ones that say that global warming is anthropogenic. 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

You're a fool.   It's the nicest thing I can say about you. 

One doesn't have the most widely read climate blog in the world if they're a nuffie like you.   It just doesn't happen.   You don't get asked to speak at climate conferences if you're a nuffie like you.  But you're from the Left, so you can't debate, only besmirch. 

What are your views re the accuracy of the surface weather stations in his speech ?  Were you concerned by how compromised many of them are ?

And answer my previous question, "name some of these scientific organisations you speak of" ?

 

 

Thanks. Very kind of you. 

From what I can see, the guy is a moustachioed buffoon with no qualifications whatsoever - an ex-TV weatherman - who gets paid by your beloved Heartlands institute (i.e. the billionaires' front)  to tell them what they want to hear.

 

Since when does quantity equal quality? A lot of morons barrack for Collingwood as well.

 

You still haven't answered one question that interested me. Do you question other branches of science (et quantum mechanics) or do you focus your brilliant mind upon climate science alone? 

13 minutes ago, Jara said:

Thought it was pretty clear. The thirty or whatever respected scientific organisations, peer bodies in their respective professions, including chemistry, geology etc., that I mentioned a few days ago. You know, the ones that say that global warming is anthropogenic. 

Name them.

5 minutes ago, Jara said:

 

Thanks. Very kind of you. 

From what I can see, the guy is a moustachioed buffoon with no qualifications whatsoever - an ex-TV weatherman - who gets paid by your beloved Heartlands institute (i.e. the billionaires' front)  to tell them what they want to hear.

 

Since when does quantity equal quality? A lot of morons barrack for Collingwood as well.

 

You still haven't answered one question that interested me. Do you question other branches of science (et quantum mechanics) or do you focus your brilliant mind upon climate science alone? 

I don't question any other science.  Although, science is always questioning itself. 

Btw, it wouldn't matter if Watts was a milkman or plasterer, you just need to challenge his arguments.  Naturally, you can't.  The Left never can. 

Btw 2, comment on the University of Alabama in Huntsville's study that says there's been no warming for 23 years. 

 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Name them.

Huh? I already did. I gave you the link just before Christmas. It was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was signed by the leaders of major scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society, the Geological Soc of America. It stated, quite clearly, that they believe that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Go back and read it for yourself. 

 

And by the way, that article I listed earlier on, I got it from a publication of the American Meteorological Society. From my reading of it, it seems to state, quite clearly, that the record global temperatures of 2016 were anthropogenic. Here's the link:

 

www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf       (message me back if you can't find it)

 

Here's your mission, Pro, should you choose to accept it: Show me where that Met Soc article got it wrong. Prove to me the record global warming of 2016 was NOT anthropogenic.

 

As I've said, I've got no science qualifications, and can't respond to the hacks you drag out, but you, of course, with your legendary "predilection for climate" and your deep study of the topic, will have no problem (and by the way, please don't just quote another of your IPA stooges like Marohasy - be a clever boy and find the mistake yourself)