Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

Yes, a classic straw-man, libellous, and bigoted affair. This is what you need to do in simple steps:

 

(i) Categorise the person

(ii) Find the extremeties in that category

(iii) Attribute (ii) to the person.

 

See virtually all GW's posts for examples therein. It's easily demonstrated in that he continues to refuse to answer a simple question (according to him) about temperature series' and the heat being hidden in the arctic - and in case you are wondering this is called being *specific* a legitimate line of scientific enquiry.

 

I note that the moderate AGWs concur that this is valid line of questioning, and, alas, noone from 'the other side' have yet to comment.

 

Well, I'd come at this from a rather different angle.

 

All though the kind of stuff bandied about has reduced a bit, I well remember times when words like fraud, liars, crooks, commies, liberals, watermelons, enviromentalists, moron etc etc  where used of a generality of people I'm part of. I was told, when I asked (not necessarily here btw) that it's OK so long as it's not specific or about someone in the various 'here' of forums like this one. I've also lost count of the number of times Dr's like Mann, Hanson, or 'Gore' have been  insulted using the words I mention. So, there is plenty of mud, or was, going both ways...

 

I don't, fwiw, find GW to be as you say - but I do come, as I say, from a different angle on this. I'd say if he is doing what you say it's to generalise - just as I've been told it's OK to do. Nor, to be honest, do I find his language in any way as offensive as the stuff I mentioned above. I don't recall him ad homming someone named. Indeed (and I'm trying to be careful here) talking about the behaviour of a specific NWmember here risks (I'm not alleging anything OK?) the very same thing.

 

As far as I can see GW hasn't evaded questions. Again, only my opinion. Anyway, where is your question? I'd give my view if you like (though 'tis only that of a long time observer and amateur of all this).

[VillagePlank]

Well, at least, it used to be unreliable, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf (p.7 is what you're looking for) and also check out Kennedy et al. Besides, you seem to be the most excited by (supposed) problems with temperatures series showing a trend that isn't, ahem, up to expectations in recent years.

 

I am still waiting on an explanation of the correlation between temperature series and satellite records and how that can be the case in light of recent findings that all the warmth is hiding in the Arctic. Despite my rather good Googling skills, such an explanation seems ruefully absent.

 

This question, Dev.

Whole bunch of unanswered questions here: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2838018

 

(and if you must know, I am simply frustrated at the constant assertion of how hell is on the way, without any basis in science or anything else apart from simple assertion - from both sides!)

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843251

 

And again...

 

Nowhere in the linked article (or either of the links) does it say (or say anything like) "... scientists have advise Australian government that the recent  weather events have nothing to do with increasing CO2 .". So, where do they say that?

 

Apologies written in haste and now amended. Main driver for Australia is Economic which makes sense to me.

 

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1857/address-to-the-revolt-against-the-carbon-tax

[Devonian]

This question, Dev.

Whole bunch of answered questions here: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2838018

 

( and if you must know, I am simply frustrated at the constant assertion of how hell is on the way, without any basis in science or anything else apart from simple assertion - from both sides!)

 

I think, fwiw, I gave my answer here? I don't know how much energy an Arctic, say, 1C warmer represents but if that energy is missing from a temperature series, which sort of represents that energy, then that series is going to be in error. And while, as I said, the satellites don't do what a properly expose surface thermometer does they are both in the same kind if business and a 'blend' of the two might have merit. But, as I said, I've not read that paper (nor will I until I can get to the Met O library, and there is little chance I'll understand the maths...).

Edited November 22, 2013 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you should start considering that many 'misleaders' as you carry on charmingly calling them do support the cutting back of GHG forcings ..

 

The type of nutcases that you refer to are just extremist fringes which actually inhabit both sides of the spectrum...

 

As I repeatedly make clear the 'climate misleaders' I 'repeatedly' refer to are those folk in the employ of the Fossil fuel industry to employ a similar suite of tactics to those used by the folk employed by the tobacco industry a generation before to spin out the debate about the dangers of tobacco so the folk sueing that industry died before their action was heard in court.

 

To 'take offence' is a personal decision and if you so choose please make sure that it is what was intended lest you end up feeling silly?

 

EDIT: I think , if you trawl back sparks , you'll find I've answered all the requests for info that you've asked of me? The last one I found you asking regarded sat temp data and I answered you?

 

Thanks Dev, I do my best not to cause individual offense but if folk wish to take offense it is their prerogative? Enough folk have made enough noise about my 'style' of writing to have me in this 'depleted' posting mode with no apparent reprieve or remission for good behaviour. Eventually the folk will win out and my posting privileges will be revoked completely. Every encounter I have had with management has been questioned as I truly cannot see where the issues lie. I can honestly say that nothing more than vague references to my 'style' of posting are permanently given as the 'root' of the actions then taken. I can only post in this way? I have tried to 'address' the areas of my style as best I may but still end up with the type of post tam has just left??? How many times do I need refer folk back to where this 'name' originates and to whom it refers before they decide it is not a 'personal Jibe'? Some folk in this discussion appear hell bent on avoiding discussion about the issue in favour of muddying the threads with personal indignation at the individual nouns we employ to best describe things ( so as to avoid giving folk reason to become personally indignant at the topic in question????)

Edited November 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I think, fwiw, I gave my answer here? I don't know how much energy an Arctic, say, 1C warmer represents but if that energy is missing from a temperature series, which sort of represents that energy, then that series is going to be in error. And while, as I said, the satellites don't do what a properly expose surface thermometer does they are both in the same kind if business and a 'blend' of the two might have merit. But, as I said, I've not read that paper (nor will I until I can get to the Met O library, and there is little chance I'll understand the maths...).

 

No worries, Dev. As I said above simple frustration. Some of us 'deniers' 'misleaders' etc actually want to learn something ....

As I repeatedly make clear the 'climate misleaders' I 'repeatedly' refer to are those folk in the employ of the Fossil fuel industry to employ a similar suite of tactics to those used by the folk employed by the tobacco industry a generation before to spin out the debate about the dangers of tobacco so the folk sueing that industry died before their action was heard in court.

 

To 'take offence' is a personal decision and if you so choose please make sure that it is what was intended lest you end up feeling silly?

 

I do not work for the fossil fuel industry. I do not take my research from the fossil fuel industry (as far as I know) I do not employ tactics, nor any other strategy. You refer to those who post in the other thread consistenly in the same reference frame as those you abhor. These are serious libellous claims (yet again) I hope you can substantiate them, and I offer you the opportunity to do so. Remember, posting in a forum is tantamount to publishing with all the legal ramifications that entails.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

No worries, Dev. As I said above simple frustration. Some of us 'deniers' 'misleaders' etc actually want to learn something ....

But you are neither a 'denier' nor a 'misleader', Spark...You are a sceptic!

[VillagePlank]

But you are neither a 'denier' nor a 'misleader', Spark...You are a sceptic!

 

Well, in which case, there should be a climate science thread which is invitation only: where robust argument can go along quite nicely thank-you without the encumbent burn in hell in ten years, or next ice age next month brigade.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

Apologies written in haste and now amended. Main driver for Australia is Economic which makes sense to me.

 

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1857/address-to-the-revolt-against-the-carbon-tax

 

My driver is economic plus. I'm amazed we, as a species, need to dug huge holes, chop huge forests, de-life seas, fill the sky with smog, spend huge amounts of time in steel boxes with wheels, be hurtled about in aluminium tubes in the sky not just to be fed, be warm and be dry but we don't care what we do because we put ever more money first because we want computers (yes, yes, I know I'm using one) , to get second degree burns in sun to hot for us, buy pointless tat, eat to vast excess, drink poisons for fun to excess, be crowed in to places with millions of others. We're a bizarre species  (and NO! don't someone try the 'you hate humanity' line either - that is NOT what I'm saying).

As I repeatedly make clear the 'climate misleaders' I 'repeatedly' refer to are those folk in the employ of the Fossil fuel industry to employ a similar suite of tactics to those used by the folk employed by the tobacco industry a generation before to spin out the debate about the dangers of tobacco so the folk sueing that industry died before their action was heard in court.

 

To 'take offence' is a personal decision and if you so choose please make sure that it is what was intended lest you end up feeling silly?

 

Right, you're not attacking someone specific.

Well, in which case, there should be a climate science thread which is invitation only: where robust argument can go along quite nicely thank-you without the encumbent burn in hell in ten years, or next ice age next month brigade.

 

Can't plug another forum but the is another UK weather forum that has one...

[VillagePlank]

Right, you're not attacking someone specific.

 

It doesn't matter, at least not in the eyes of the law. If you make an attack against generic black people whilst someone black is in the room you are guilty of a serious offence. In the case of climate, the attack in those who do not agree that global warming is as down to man as some evidence suggests. See previous simple guide of how to do it, above.

 

Essentially, you (generic) attack the oil industry (generic) on the basis that they will not accept the IPCC conclusions (I have no idea if that's the case). What about me? I do not accept the IPCC conclusions in the magnitude of man's contribution: I have never done so, and, the evidence over the years supports my case: climate sensitivity is falling. The chances of catastrophic climate change is still there but it's now a way out case, that only fundamentalists subscribe too (could still happen though)

 

That doesn't matter to some. I haven't accepted the IPCC conclusions in full, and therefore, I am lumped in with the oil industry.

 

Nice.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

It doesn't matter, at least not in the eyes of the law. If you make an attack against generic black people whilst someone black is in the room you are guilty of a serious offence.

 

GW isn't breaking a law. But, I've no problem with rules that limit vitriol - but I, if such happened, I'd expect no more use across the net of the words I mentioned. Sadly there is ZERO chance of that happening 

[Devonian]

Stewfox http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843367

 

There's a huge difference between being part of and 'directly attributed to'. Surely?

[VillagePlank]

GW isn't breaking a law. But, I've no problem with rules that limit vitriol - but I, if such happened, I'd expect no more use across the net of the words I mentioned. Sadly there is ZERO chance of that happening 

 

I used it as an example - although I know of a few laws that GW *might* have broken .... you are quite correct, however, I am arguing my case in the wrong the place. Can't bear to start a blog, though ... I have tried a couple of times.

 

I will leave it there.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

Well, in which case, there should be a climate science thread which is invitation only: where robust argument can go along quite nicely thank-you without the encumbent burn in hell in ten years, or next ice age next month brigade.

Therein lies the problem, Spark: deniers want to call themselves 'sceptics', as do Armageddonists. Where do we draw the line? Surely, we must just accommodate one another's disagreements?

[VillagePlank]

Therein lies the problem, Spark: deniers want to call themselves 'sceptics', as do Armageddonists. Where do we draw the line? Surely, we must just accommodate one another's disagreements?

 

Yep - as I just said, I give up. I can't take anymore of the ice-age now brigade who seem to think that human beings cannot affect the climate yet argue that UHI should be removed from temperature series as I can stand those who peddle fear, destruction, and a return to hell from the garden of Eden.

 

I think I've made a case for moderate sceptics, but, really, I don't think there's any room for them, or I, here.

 

Some of us just want to ask robust questions of those who make robust claims. That's it. That's all.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

It doesn't matter, at least not in the eyes of the law. If you make an attack against generic black people whilst someone black is in the room you are guilty of a serious offence. In the case of climate, the attack in those who do not agree that global warming is as down to man as some evidence suggests. See previous simple guide of how to do it, above.

 

Essentially, you (generic) attack the oil industry (generic) on the basis that they will not accept the IPCC conclusions (I have no idea if that's the case). What about me? I do not accept the IPCC conclusions in the magnitude of man's contribution: I have never done so, and, the evidence over the years supports my case: climate sensitivity is falling. The chances of catastrophic climate change is still there but it's now a way out case, that only fundamentalists subscribe too (could still happen though)

 

That doesn't matter to some. I haven't accepted the IPCC conclusions in full, and therefore, I am lumped in with the oil industry.

 

Nice.

 

I've seen no evidence you're lumped in with the FF industry?

 

However we do disagree about global warming. I think climate sensitivity is still, essentially, thought to be the same - about 1C directly due to a doubled CO2 + 1-3C more feedback*. I think, hope, it's less that 2C. My guess would be 2-4C. But, what I do think with more certainty is that we're seeing (with the actions of Australia, Japan, Canada) what I've thought for some time (and a parallel with my 'road' post higher up), that when push comes to shove people resist doing anything about a problem be it a road or anthro ghgs if it cost 'em, and so we're probably going to burn every drop, block, breath of the stuff so AGW will be maxed out. I hope I'm wrong, indeed I hope you're right.

 

* I'm talking that warming not at double but as a consequence but after a busy week can't remember the name of which...

Edited November 22, 2013 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

And so here we are again. We all agree we are ALL sceptics who think on and question the science we come across. Should we be more accepting of the work to hand we may use it to support our stance but before we got to that point we read it and had a good think about it ( within our own intellectual capacities of course?).

 

Some folk are clearly sold on the non-sense that the 'Misleaders' put out and quite happily defend it ( as is their individual right?) but that does not mean I need accept their posts as anything other than an extension of that 'disinformation' ( as is my right) and to comment on it , in my own opinion, as being such?

 

Though I cannot put a timeline on it I am sure ( from what I understand and believe) that we will all see a time when the debate about the impacts of our polluting will end due to those impacts being present and so undeniable.

 

EDIT: And Sparks, sats, around post 957 I think? Due to posting restrictions I'm often forced to 'edit' to reply as I do not have any 'posts' ( in my 24hr 'quota' across the board) left to use...... so it is , so it must be I suppose?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I've seen no evidence you're lumped in with the FF industry?

 

However we do disagree about global warming. I think climate sensitivity is still, essentially, thought to be the same - about 1C directly due to a doubled CO2 + 1-3C more feedback*. I think, hope, it's less that 2C. My guess would be 2-4C. But, what I do think with more certainty is that we're seeing (with the actions of Australia, Japan, Canada) what I've thought for some time (and a parallel with my 'road' post higher up), that when push comes to shove people wont do anything about anthro ghgs if it cost 'em, and so we're probably going to burn every drop, block, breath of the stuff so AGW will be maxed out. I hope I'm wrong, indeed I hope you're right.

 

* I'm talking that warming not at double but as a consequence but after a busy week can't remember the name of which...

 

Essentially unchallenged posting refering by double deference to other posts - it's a curse being a computer programmer! - it's all there to see, unfortunately. I think you are wrong the lower end of climate sensitivity has dropped in the latest IPCC report AFAIK, and other authors concur. Almost certainly we will not hit 2C addition by 2100 on AGW evidence, I reckon. Emprical evidence supports the science, too. Catastrophic climate change simple isn't on the cards. Furthermore, any cursory analysis of economic shows that carbon emmissions drop as nations move to service based industries etc etc etc etc

 

Last post here: see GW diatribe - yet again. One wonders if he is paid big bucks by someone.

 

Have no doubts GW and his ilk have forced me out.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

Essentially unchallenged posting refering by double deference to other posts - it's a curse being a computer programmer! - it's all there to see, unfortunately. I think you are wrong the lower end of climate sensitivity has dropped in the latest IPCC report AFAIK, and other authors concur. Almost certainly we will not hit 2C addition by 2100 on AGW evidence, I reckon. Emprical evidence supports the science, too. Catastrophic climate change simple isn't on the cards. Furthermore, any cursory analysis of economic shows that carbon emmissions drop as nations move to service based industries etc etc etc etc

 

Last post here: see GW diatribe - yet again. One wonders if he is paid big bucks by someone.

 

Have no doubts GW and his ilk have forced me out.

Don't talk rubbish, Spark...No one has 'forced you out'...Just engage in sensible discussion...?

[Gray-Wolf]

I personally find it sad that another discussion has ended with a bout of unnecessaries . It obviously does not need to be this way each time someone seeks clarification over terms in common usage within the debate? maybe we could agree a glossary that lays out a universally agreed description of what each noun is commonly used for so that no individual need take umbrage when they see it used ( whether they wish to include it in their own 'word hoard' or not?).

 

We know that there exists as plethora of views ( and understandings?) around this subject and surely our sole aim is to enable everyone the constant opportunity to 'update' their own knowledge as world knowledge grows on the subject?

 

No one should feel excluded or 'unheard' but must expect that others may not 'embrace' their particular spectrum of understanding nor change their own 'world view' in the light of new evidence? This is our individual choice. 

 

To me the biggest reason to post is to allow the 'lurkers' opportunity to update their understanding ( no matter which 'thread' the feel suits them better?) and maybe feel better equipped to enter the debate in their own personal sphere?

 

I'm also glad that if this spat 'had' to happen it happened over here. I don't know about others but I do feel the 'atmosphere' in this thread far less 'combative' and generally more open to constructive discussions?

 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Something Is Rotten at the New York Times

 

When it comes to the matter of human-caused climate change, the Grey Lady's editorial page has skewed rather contrarian of late.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/michael-mann-richard-muller_b_4313508.html

 

Yet another topical combat-ready blog posting

 

 

Michael Mann has an article in the HuffPo, Something Is Rotten at the New York Times. He’s complaining about the ill-informed views of Koch Brothers-funded climate change contrarian Richard Muller which is language that would normally put me off. But in this case I looked, and Muller’s A Pause, Not an End, to Warming does seem rather objectionable.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/22/mann-vs-muller/

[knocker]

Can corals adapt to climate change?

 

The severe loss of coral reefs that is expected to occur over the 21st century may be offset somewhat if corals are able to adapt to the heat stress caused by climate change, a new study suggests. The study has uncovered evidence that corals may already be adapting to temperature changes in the ocean. However, reductions in coral bleaching are only expected to continue if greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced. The study was published on October 28, 2013 in Global Change Biology.

 

http://earthsky.org/earth/can-corals-adapt-to-climate-change#.Uo_TPr9IdX0.twitter

[stewfox]

Stewfox http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843367

 

There's a huge difference between being part of and 'directly attributed to'. Surely?

 

None at all.

 

Anyway everyone has come out and said it to score political points.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/un-head-ban-ki-moon-says-typhoon-haiyan-due-to-climate-change/story-fndir2ev-1226761840736

[Tamara]

As I repeatedly make clear the 'climate misleaders' I 'repeatedly' refer to are those folk in the employ of the Fossil fuel industry to employ a similar suite of tactics to those used by the folk employed by the tobacco industry a generation before to spin out the debate about the dangers of tobacco so the folk sueing that industry died before their action was heard in court.

 

To 'take offence' is a personal decision and if you so choose please make sure that it is what was intended lest you end up feeling silly?

 

EDIT: I think , if you trawl back sparks , you'll find I've answered all the requests for info that you've asked of me? The last one I found you asking regarded sat temp data and I answered you?

 

Thanks Dev, I do my best not to cause individual offense but if folk wish to take offense it is their prerogative? Enough folk have made enough noise about my 'style' of writing to have me in this 'depleted' posting mode with no apparent reprieve or remission for good behaviour. Eventually the folk will win out and my posting privileges will be revoked completely. Every encounter I have had with management has been questioned as I truly cannot see where the issues lie. I can honestly say that nothing more than vague references to my 'style' of posting are permanently given as the 'root' of the actions then taken. I can only post in this way? I have tried to 'address' the areas of my style as best I may but still end up with the type of post tam has just left??? How many times do I need refer folk back to where this 'name' originates and to whom it refers before they decide it is not a 'personal Jibe'? Some folk in this discussion appear hell bent on avoiding discussion about the issue in favour of muddying the threads with personal indignation at the individual nouns we employ to best describe things ( so as to avoid giving folk reason to become personally indignant at the topic in question????)

Hello Ian  I gave a clear representation of where many middle road members will stand who question AGW to whatever extent they do, but still support the environmental 'clean-up', protective and sustainable proposals that address a wide variety of globally pressing problems that would, should AGW induced climate change become a reality, also address that too. Irrespective of one's individual stand-point on AGW.

 

Its not so much a case of personal indignation at the term misleader. Its correct to say that these people belong to extremist and unhelpful fringes. Its simply one of these terms that further increases the impression that preachy, over fanatical and bizarrely irrational and obsessive zeal is at work, rather than rational and considered reasoning of the science to form balanced, moderate and considered opinions.

 

Often greater consensus is arrived at by letting people form their own opinions without prompting, rather than being told what to think and believe is right. The 'lurkers' as you call them, would be appreciative of this.

 

That is where any personal indignation may lie

Edited November 23, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[Gray-Wolf]

You see Stew what I saw in your linked article was;

 

"While experts are hesitant to link extreme weather phenomena to climate change, the UN has said rising sea levels make coastal populations more vulnerable to storm surges."

 

Which appears to confirm ( to me) what i posted above about science being very 'conservative' in it's proclamations on extreme weather events?

 

Maybe we, depending on our stance, instantly see what we 'expect' to see?

 

We have recently seen a number of linked articles which have infuriated some and left others confused as to 'where the link was'. We all read the same words but we also all saw something different?

 

EDIT: Hi Tamara!

 

Whilst so many here choose not to believe it I honestly do not set out to be 'preachy' or speak down to folk. Even when I read back through my postings ( that have received criticism) I honestly fail to see where I have erred. I end up thinking that it is the way the 'reader' reads the post ( the type of voice they give my words and the manner they then speak it?). I have played this game with my children ( who use social media so may also fall prey to folk misinterpreting their written word) so I know that any one statement can be 'read' many ways ( with often hilarious results).

 

I put it down to the 'picture' folk create of me from the limited information they have to 'define' me. Would folk 'take me' the same way if my Avatar was a kitten?

 

I would ask that you remember the year after year assurances I have been forced to give that I really do mean no harm to folk , I am not trying to 'forcibly convert' folk, I try and be understood as best I can (within my own capabilities) and I really do not preach ( but do have passionate feelings over the harm we have done/are doing to our world). 

 

Please try and loose the 'voice' you currently use to read me and give me one that is softer and more approachable. Remember I only ever offer a personal view based on a personal understanding which is far from 'complete' and infallible and I am only ever as good as my command of the language allows.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Gray-Wolf