Page 210 of 212 FirstFirst ... 110 160 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 LastLast
Results 10,451 to 10,500 of 10565
  1. #10451
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so are you magically expecting the arctic ice to recover while being coated with soot pollution, which has the most destructive impact on any ice or snow.
    regards inter
    Is that natural soot or man-made soot?

  2. #10452
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    lol.
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter

  3. #10453
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Is that natural soot or man-made soot?
    Yes
    regards inter

  4. #10454
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    http://www.climateconversation.words...600m_years.gif

    Somebody & especially nobody would have to be blind & or daft not recognise that there is & has never been a relationship between historical temperatures & CO2. This data is the same as a copy from the IPCC's own report, no need for a time machine, just the need to be not as dim as the common garden variety propaganda believer that the sky is falling.
    regards inter
    Which is it: there is? or, there never has been? Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data? So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now?

  5. #10455
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Yes
    regards inter
    So would there have been more soot without the activity of mankind, or less soot?

  6. #10456
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter
    How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.

  7. #10457
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
    regards inter
    Keep misreading posts and anything is possible, even pigs flying over the Arctic.

    Hint: 'Arctic recovery' is an often used term by deniers. They use it the year after a massive loss (eg: 2008, 2013)

    I'm sure the soot is helping with the recovery.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  8. #10458
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope, that's based on reconstruction, it's not historical data.
    All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point
    its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
    regards inter

  9. #10459
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.
    Is that the proven physics that you haven't provided yet verses the effects any idiot can test for them selves on two ice cubes on a tray in the sun, one with soot sprinkled on it.
    regards inter

  10. #10460
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point
    its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
    regards inter
    Nope.

    Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity.

    Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded.

    We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  11. #10461
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Which is it: there is? or, there never has been?
    Both
    Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data?
    I believe the data to its range of accuracy & will do until it is proven otherwise.
    So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now?
    Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature
    Regards inter

  12. #10462
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope.

    Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity.

    Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded.

    We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.
    prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it
    regards inter

  13. #10463
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature
    Regards inter
    No problems.

    "Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%. This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens."

    The Sun's Evolution

  14. #10464
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No problems.

    "Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%. This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens."

    The Sun's Evolution
    Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
    regards inter

  15. #10465
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
    regards inter
    No problem.

    "In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors.

    "The further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).



    Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).

    "As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2. This understanding of the correlation between past levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is widely accepted: “over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect”.

    https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=179736

  16. #10466
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    There is a single climate scientist who said something like "if the warming keeps up like this, there will be no summer ice by 201X" or something like that. It wasn't a scientific prediction, it wasn't published in a peer review journal, it was a personal reaction to a very warm season. Perhaps 2007. Couldn't be bothered looking it up for our fake skeptics, and clearly they couldn't either. We've been there before. The actual language is far less inflammatory than the reporting of it.

    As expected, the climate denial sites parrot that statement as a prediction ad infinitum and ignore the detail and the actual predictions. That's how they work.
    Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you. LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world. Truly a good sign. There will be further temperance as time goes by. The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels. Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us. Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how.

    Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  17. #10467
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you. LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world. Truly a good sign. There will be further temperance as time goes by. The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels. Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us. Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how.

    Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.
    1. Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".

    2. The IPCC has not downgraded their certainty levels. That notion is another false construct of fake "skeptics". Here is the confidence statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007:

    "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Summary for Policymakers - IPCC

    And here is the confidence statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:

    "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. - See more at: Climate Change 2013.- IPCC. - IEEE

    What isn't obvious from these statements is that the second statement includes an assessment of the impacts of cooling from aerosols, hence the change of term from "anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" to "anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." This makes the later assessment much, much more certain.

    If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?

  18. #10468
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    1. Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".
    Correct. This 'no summer ice by 201X' is a statement by one scientist which has been paraded by the fake skeptics on this thread many times. It was never a prediction, and it was never published in peer review.

    Fake skeptics' stories are like zombies. Every time you knock them down by showing them facts, they come back again with the same fake story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson
    Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us.
    I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  19. #10469
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it
    What if I said that the reconstructed data was extrapolated and assembled from the fossil record by a computer model...would that help?

    But then if one accept the virtues of this modelled data then one giggles with inanity at the ongoing sociopathic struggle to not accept 'other' modelled data.
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  20. #10470
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels.
    Not exactly. They are still quite certain about it. However, they've finally accepted that we will rarely (if ever) have sufficient power and sensitivity in the models to determine significant details about the scope, scale and timing of climate changes at scales smaller than the regional (their word for continental) scale. Put simply we can only make sweeping statements rather than provide detailed predictions of what might happen within a continent and when. Planners, bureaucrats and politicians don't like that lack of detail but they'll just have to get used to it
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  21. #10471
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post


    I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.
    My opinions haven't changed.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  22. #10472
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    My opinions haven't changed.
    Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion.

    The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.

  23. #10473
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No problem.
    "In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors.
    "The further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).



    Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).
    "As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2. This understanding of the correlation between past levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is widely accepted: “over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect”.

    https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=179736
    that has nothing to do with proving CO2 causes warming, it is supposedly relevant to causing the onset of glacial periods ( which is clearly disproven by ice cores proving CO2 follows glacial period not precedes them )& as far as the suns increased output over the 150 m/y period to which I referred to, it's around 0.7% so as usual you have not addressed the question appropriately, as you can see for yourself there is no correlation to the period around 150 m/y , the increase in temperature, solar forcing & falling CO2 levels.
    regards inter

  24. #10474
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    What if I said that the reconstructed data was extrapolated and assembled from the fossil record by a computer model...would that help?

    But then if one accept the virtues of this modelled data then one giggles with inanity at the ongoing sociopathic struggle to not accept 'other' modelled data.
    What would you trust? Modelling based on data gathered from what has happened? or something modelled on a loosely based guess on what may happen where critical inputs are manipulated to produce the desired outcome to continue the grants flowing into the desired faculties? I know which one I would trust & it isn't the last one.

    regards inter

  25. #10475
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    1. Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".

    2. The IPCC has not downgraded their certainty levels. That notion is another false construct of fake "skeptics". Here is the confidence statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007:

    "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Summary for Policymakers - IPCC

    And here is the confidence statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:

    "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. - See more at: Climate Change 2013.- IPCC. - IEEE

    What isn't obvious from these statements is that the second statement includes an assessment of the impacts of cooling from aerosols, hence the change of term from "anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" to "anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." This makes the later assessment much, much more certain.

    Any dill knows this means more uncertainty by broadening the terms, somebody would have to very green or naive not to know this is tried & proven political doublespeak from the ipcc, how many times have they changed the name of the supposed problem, what did it start out as..... Global warming or climate change or something different to move the goalposts.

    If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?
    what I really don't understand is what a fake skeptic is ??? Somebody pretending to be a skeptic ?
    Regards inter

  26. #10476
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion.

    The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.
    My oh my you really believe that "unprecedented" bit don't you?

    Absolute hogwash.

    Unprecedented eh! Next you will be referring to Mann's hockey stick as evidence and saying the medieval warm period didn't exist.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  27. #10477
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what I really don't understand is what a fake skeptic is ??? Somebody pretending to be a skeptic ?
    Regards inter
    Yeah that one has me intrigued too. LOL

    If I was to hazard a guess its because they cant see how a skeptic can distinguish between scientific facts and hype.

    I have got to say it is a bit of fun, plays hell with the mind of those that cant tell the difference.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  28. #10478
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion.

    The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.
    Thank goodness there was no particular reference to CO2 in that post, as that is what this debate is really about. About time!
    regards inter

  29. #10479
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    I have noticed the opposing side must have dropped the soot rebuttal argument after doing the ice cube experiment!
    regards inter

  30. #10480
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    My oh my you really believe that "unprecedented" bit don't you?

    Absolute hogwash.

    Unprecedented eh! Next you will be referring to Mann's hockey stick as evidence and saying the medieval warm period didn't exist.
    "Absolute hogwash" is not an evidence based conclusion.

    How about you provide some evidence that the current rate of warming is not unprecedented?



    Global Warming : Feature Articles


    medieval warm period happened, but every science study into it shows it just wasn't global.




    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glob.../medieval.html

  31. #10481
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yeah that one has me intrigued too. LOL

    If I was to hazard a guess its because they cant see how a skeptic can distinguish between scientific facts and hype.

    I have got to say it is a bit of fun, plays hell with the mind of those that cant tell the difference.
    It's actually rather simple. A true skeptic tests every claim whether it agrees or disagrees with their present view. The true skeptic tests the claim by reviewing whether it is supported by the evidence, and whether the evidence as presented is likely to be valid and not mis-interpreted or unrepresentative of the whole picture.

    A fake "skeptic" is a contrarian who takes a position based on ideology and looks for evidence that supports that position and doesn't test the evidence rigorously lest it fail.

    As this thread shows with ample examples, fake "skeptics" rarely support their arguments with evidence, because it is easily debunked.

  32. #10482
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Thank goodness there was no particular reference to CO2 in that post, as that is what this debate is really about. About time!
    regards inter
    And what do you contend that happens when fossil fuel is burned? Hint: it has something to do with CO2 released into the atmosphere...

  33. #10483
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE TO ADVANCE THE GREEN AGENDA IS GOOD, SAYS PEER-REVIEWED PAPER


    by JAMES DELINGPOLE 4 Apr 2014 915POST A COMMENT

    Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

    The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe - who primly deny that any such problem exists - they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.
    The abstract of their paper reads:
    It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
    This paper will be excellent news for climate scientists working at institutions like NASA GISS, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Penn State University.
    For many years now, they have faced the huge challenge of trying to maintain their academic credibility and generous government grant funding despite increasing evidence that man-made global warming theory is a busted flush and that really it is about time they all found jobs more suited to their talents, such as enquiring whether sir would like a large fries and McFlurry with his Big Mac.
    Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind.
    This is not quite the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying in pursuit of the higher cause of greater global regulation, one world government, economic stagnation and higher energy prices.
    First to do so was the late Stephen Schneider who famously argued as early as 1989:
    "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
    James "Death Trains" Hansen - formerly Chief Alarmist at NASA GISS - too has made the case that "scary scenarios" can be a good way of concentrating the gullible public's mind in the absence of solid evidence.
    But no peer-reviewed scientific paper till now has articulated the case for lying quite so brazenly as this one by
    Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao. A Nobel Prize for their sterling service to the cause of Climate Alarmism is surely now a mere formality.
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  34. #10484
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE TO ADVANCE THE GREEN AGENDA IS GOOD, SAYS PEER-REVIEWED PAPER


    by JAMES DELINGPOLE 4 Apr 2014 915POST A COMMENT

    Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
    Delingbole hasn't read the paper, only mis-interpreted the abstract. Read the whole paper yourself if you are a true skeptic: Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

    "So what should you do when faced with kooks such as Mr Delingpole attempting to hijack the term “skeptic”? Easy, just be skeptical."

    Real Skeptics vs fake skeptics

    James 'I have NEVER read a science paper - I'm an English graduate and know NOTHING about science' Delingpole Global Warming Denier Gets Ass Booted Out Door

    Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com » Spectator Blogs

    So what did the authors of the paper say?

    Townhall magazine published an article entitled "Academics
    Prove It's Okay To Lie About Climate Change" right after our accepted
    paper was made available online. The phenomenon of publishing the article
    in Townhall exactly fits in the gap in our paper and showcases one other (op-
    posite) direction of media bias.

    Right after our paper was officially published,

    further more attacks from media that are skeptical of anthropogenic climate
    changes came in, but the main tones remained the same: They claimed that
    our paper advocated lying about climate change, and they used this claim
    to attack the low carbon movement.


    In order to prevent further mis-interpretation of the scientific result, we
    invite the media interested in research progresses to distinguish between pos-
    itive statement (what is) and normative statement (what ought to be).

    http://fhhong.weebly.com/uploads/9/1...s_20140408.pdf

    That's right - the Delingbole article and all the others were total fabrications!

    Another fake skeptic caught with his pants down...

  35. #10485
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Delingbole hasn't read the paper, only mis-interpreted the abstract. Read the whole paper yourself if you are a true skeptic: Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

    "So what should you do when faced with kooks such as Mr Delingpole attempting to hijack the term “skeptic”? Easy, just be skeptical."

    Real Skeptics vs fake skeptics

    James 'I have NEVER read a science paper - I'm an English graduate and know NOTHING about science' Delingpole Global Warming Denier Gets Ass Booted Out Door

    Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com » Spectator Blogs
    LOL. Maybe James will take time to actually read the journals in his new job. (I doubt it)

    Yes, he's a fake skeptic.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  36. #10486
    PhilT2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    376

    Default

    I think it's possible to distinguish between fake skeptics and deniers. There are a few right wing politicians who have stated that "only god can change the climate" so I doubt that any science will ever change their mind. This in my view makes them deniers. Fake skeptics on the other hand use bogus questions on the science to hide the fact that their views are decided more by their political ideology or religious beliefs than their understanding of science, which is generally poor.

    The line between the two becomes blurred when genuine deniers use fake skeptic strategies to push their agenda but the difference is clear when deniers expand on their beliefs. Climate change denial and a belief that the world is 6000 years old co-exist comfortably in the mind of true deniers.

  37. #10487
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic. Nice. But it still wont work.

    "Facts" can only bent into submission until reality straightens them back out over time.

    I can wait. Meanwhile warming continues to stagnate.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  38. #10488
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic.
    No Rod, it's not a 'tactic', it's not new, and has been mentioned in this very thread multiple times. A cursory search finds it in 2012, but there may be earlier examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    We frequently see comments from fake skeptics here that there has been no warming for 'X' years.
    Fake Skeptics are real, and have been active in this thread since the early days. Are you in denial of Fake Skeptics?

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  39. #10489
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic. Nice. But it still wont work.

    "Facts" can only bent into submission until reality straightens them back out over time.

    I can wait. Meanwhile warming continues to stagnate.
    The only thing stagnant is your argument. Warning continues to accelerate, even if the global surface air temperature is proceeding in stepwise fashion consistent with how it has for the past century.


  40. #10490
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    No Rod, it's not a 'tactic', it's not new, and has been mentioned in this very thread multiple times. A cursory search finds it in 2012, but there may be earlier examples.



    Fake Skeptics are real, and have been active in this thread since the early days. Are you in denial of Fake Skeptics?
    Hmm call us what you like I guess, it doesn't make any difference.

    Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.

    Population growth and developing countries will take care of the co2 emissions regardless of what developed nations do, so warmist had better hope they are wrong about escalation temperatures and boiling oceans and ending up like Venus!! Cause sounds like we are doomed, doomed I say.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  41. #10491
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hmm call us what you like I guess, it doesn't make any difference.

    Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.
    The next 10 to 15 years is a relatively short period of time. I don't think anyone with climate credentials would start publishing predictions for that sort of time period. Personally, I think it won't cool.

    Population growth and developing countries will take care of the co2 emissions regardless of what developed nations do, so warmist had better hope they are wrong about escalation temperatures and boiling oceans and ending up like Venus!! Cause sounds like we are doomed, doomed I say.
    I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.

    We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  42. #10492
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,859

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.
    They'll go up a little bit. But it's not the temperature I'd be concerned about. Because it's not that simple...

    Ask any dry land farmer...
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

  43. #10493
    PhilT2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Dry land farmers; well that will be most of eastern Aust if the prediction of a strong El Nino prove to be correct. El NIno is associated with a 70%chance of lower than average rainfall and a lot of Qld is already in drought conditions. Still it might stop the endless parroting of "there's been no warming since..." if the intensity of the ENSO approaches the levels of 1998.

  44. #10494
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I think it's possible to distinguish between fake skeptics and deniers. There are a few right wing politicians who have stated that "only god can change the climate" so I doubt that any science will ever change their mind. This in my view makes them deniers. Fake skeptics on the other hand use bogus questions on the science to hide the fact that their views are decided more by their political ideology or religious beliefs than their understanding of science, which is generally poor.

    The line between the two becomes blurred when genuine deniers use fake skeptic strategies to push their agenda but the difference is clear when deniers expand on their beliefs. Climate change denial and a belief that the world is 6000 years old co-exist comfortably in the mind of true deniers.
    This is really good! ... reminds me of a debate between a Jehova witness and a 7 Day Adventist about who is going to heaven. Phil, this post desearves a medal.

    wptv-lesus-vatican-medal-jesus-misspelled_20131012100507_640_480.jpg
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  45. #10495
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Dry land farmers; well that will be most of eastern Aust if the prediction of a strong El Nino prove to be correct. El NIno is associated with a 70%chance of lower than average rainfall and a lot of Qld is already in drought conditions. Still it might stop the endless parroting of "there's been no warming since..." if the intensity of the ENSO approaches the levels of 1998.
    I am shaking in my boots. The rain is going to be a thing of the past, 9m ocean rise, Fire and brimstone will fall on us, repent you deniers!!!!
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  46. #10496
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The next 10 to 15 years is a relatively short period of time. I don't think anyone with climate credentials would start publishing predictions for that sort of time period. Personally, I think it won't cool.

    You right about nobody game enough to do short term forecasts, they want to be well & truly dead or retired before they fall over & proven to be wrong.


    I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.

    We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.

    You must have a short memory! You agreed with it & gave it a time frame to happen! Your complicit by association with the rubbish.

    regards inter

  47. #10497
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    CAL THOMAS: Chicken Little science proponents cluck louder

    OPINION: Faced with indifference, global warming alarmist raise the decibel level



    By Cal Thomas

    The cult centered on “global warming” alarmism is getting hot under the collar. People seem to have stopped paying attention and polls show “climate change” barely registers on a list of voters’ concerns.

    This can only mean, as losing politicians like to say, that their message isn’t getting through. What to do? Why shout louder, of course.
    A recent story in The New York Times sought to help alarmists raise the decibel level: “The countries of the world have dragged their feet so long on global warming that the situation is now critical, experts appointed by the United Nations reported Sunday, and only an intensive worldwide push over the next 15 years can stave off potentially disastrous climatic changes later in the century.”

    I guess we had better get ready for climate Armageddon then because China, one of the world’s worst polluters, is not likely to comply.
    The Obama administration and liberal politicians in general seem to promote climate change fiction in order to gain even more dominance over our lives. Apparently controlling one-sixth of the economy through Obamacare isn’t enough for them.

    Most of the “reporting” on the subject is decidedly one-sided, including President Obama’s claim in his last State of the Union address that “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” Science is never settled, or it wouldn’t be science. It is constantly testing, probing and searching for new information. That’s why science textbooks are regularly revised as new discoveries are made.

    The Times story was about a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Berlin. To read it one might think there is unanimity of opinion on the subject by panel members. Maybe that’s true of current members of the panel, but it is instructive to read the comments by former IPCC member Richard Tol, who, among other things, is professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Professor Tol, writes Globalwarming.org, recently “accused the IPCC of being too alarmist about global warming and asked to have his name withdrawn from its recently released Working Group II report (WG2) on climate change impacts.” In a recent article for the Financial Times titled “Bogus prophecies of doom will not fix the climate,” Tol explains why, “Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived the ice ages with primitive technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.”

    German meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls goes further. He has written that contrary to the alarmists’ claims of melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels, the rise in sea levels has declined 34 percent over the last decade. His report, which analyzed satellite data from TOPEX and JASON-1 and JASON-2 missions studying global ocean topography, concluded that the sea level rise has “slowed down significantly,” and that “…it should not be speculated on whether the deceleration in the rise is a trend or if it is only noise. What is certain is that there is neither a ‘dramatic’ rise, nor an ‘acceleration’. Conclusion: Climate models that project an acceleration over the last 20 years are wrong.”

    There are plenty of ways to check Puls’ conclusions, including Climate Depot | A project of CFACT, which provides links to the papers and work of climatologists and other scientists who take a decidedly different position from that of the climate change crowd. Some note the pressure placed on them to conform to the “faith” in order to receive government subsidies and donations from foundations and wealthy individuals.
    Climate change is a fact? Don’t think so.

    The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, writes, “If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? … Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads.”

    Yet another reason not to trust climate change alarmists.





    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  48. #10498
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    CAL THOMAS: Chicken Little science proponents cluck louder

    OPINION: Faced with indifference, global warming alarmist raise the decibel level

    Marc, you are an Olympian Gold Medalist troll, quoting Cal Thomas the Christian "journalist" whilst decrying ideology in the climate debate! Where do you get this rubbish? So there are two scientists who think the IPCC summary is alarmist. Boo hoo. Almost every practising climate scientist thinks the IPCC summaries are conservative and many think the IPCC reports are conservative to the point of euphemism.

    "By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did."

    Conservative Climate - Scientific American

  49. #10499
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.

    We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You must have a short memory! You agreed with it & gave it a time frame to happen! Your complicit by association with the rubbish.
    Someone's memory is failing. I suggested it is considered an outside chance by a minority of scientists for a timeframe of millennia, and I did not agree with it. Happy for you to show me that I said otherwise, but perhaps you are too challenged supporting your own ideology to go look?

    put up.

    There is no Planet B

    (within a lifetime's travel at the speed of light)


  50. #10500
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Someone's memory is failing. I suggested it is considered an outside chance by a minority of scientists for a timeframe of millennia, and I did not agree with it. Happy for you to show me that I said otherwise, but perhaps you are too challenged supporting your own ideology to go look?

    put up.
    your arguments are thin like your excuses for dodging what you said.

    " that is a theory of one of the collateral effects AGW will have: Feedbacks. I think you'll find (and probably already know) that there are positive and negative feedbacks. Boiling the oceans away is a possible end game millennia from now. "

    No mention of " suggested " or " minority " or " outside chance " Im afraid I may be silly but not stupid enough to swallow another limp excuse for trying to dodge some more doublespeak ! And I wouldn't be the only one.
    regards inter

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 6th Mar 2014, 07:55 AM
  2. 12th Feb 2014, 04:04 AM
  3. 14th Jan 2014, 02:18 PM
  4. 4th Nov 2012, 01:41 AM
  5. 17th Jun 2012, 11:18 PM
  6. 12th Jun 2012, 03:48 AM
  7. 14th Dec 2011, 10:55 PM
  8. 30th Sep 2011, 01:14 PM
  9. 14th Aug 2011, 11:15 AM
  10. 26th Jun 2011, 11:36 PM
  11. 11th Jun 2011, 07:22 PM
  12. 30th May 2011, 10:46 PM
  13. 15th Mar 2011, 09:36 AM
  14. 5th Mar 2011, 08:18 AM
  15. 25th Dec 2010, 10:00 PM
  16. 1st Sep 2010, 06:53 PM
  17. 11th Jul 2010, 06:24 PM
  18. 20th May 2010, 04:49 AM
  19. 27th Feb 2010, 10:04 PM
  20. 20th Nov 2009, 04:32 AM
  21. 16th Nov 2009, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2