Ot. Hallelujah and praise the lord

[millersnose]

US Climate science is completely politicized in US .Right wing left wing hugely influenced

Ill see Lindzen and raise you Sir Brian Hoskins ,Professor John Mitchell,Professor Keith Shine , Professor Tim Palmer Prof Eric Wolf. Funny that at a UK conference these climatoligists did agree on some points with Lindzen .. One notable one being Mans contribution to atmospheric Carbon levels .Lindzen had to apoligise when many of his assertions were shown to be untrue.

lol

i am not the one in denial that there are scientists who believe in global warming

i merely point out there are thousands who dont subscribe to the tabloid calamity theories you spout out here

and i note you character assainate scientists without a shred of evidence once again

at least you compatriot googled a couple of far left political blogs as..lol...'evidence'

 

[millersnose]

Good in depth response.

There have been many, many models, and the best summation is that they were about right. But there have certainly been ones that "ran hot" and others that underestimated warming.

Briefly, this article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) outlines some models and finds:
A 1975 model that overestimated warming compared to observations by about 30%
A 1981 model that underestimated by about 20%
A 1988 model that overestimated by about 30% (this is probably the one most talk about, as it was the famous 1988 "Hansen" model that was deceptively shown by famous deniers to be 300% wrong by using misleading data)- there are a number of caveats to the "overestimation" by 30%, but in general, it was pretty good for a model that tried to account for a broad range of human responses to global warming. Warming, and our actions, definitely fall between the minimum warming we do everything we can scenario, and the maximum warming we geometrically increase CO2 emissions, models.
A 1990 model that overestimates by 17%
A 1995 model that underestimates by 25%
A 2001 model that underestimates by 14%
A 2007 model that overestimates by 8%
and a 2013 model that overestimates by 16% or 9% depending on which factors you agree ameliorate the overestimating.

Of course long term models are not 100% accurate. Some confounding factors include solar output (which has reduced recently, but no one can predict that at present), volcanic activity (which is hard to predict), increase use or aerosols (which had not been predicted), and the precise levels of greenhouse gasses produced (even events like our last election, which was not well predicted the day it was run, can affect our greenhouse gasses).

But they are all pointing in the same direction. In 30 years, if you are lucky enough to be alive, and lucky enough to have grandchildren, you are going to be very embarrassed by your Ostrich behaviour when they ask you what our generation did about global warming.

And the s&*t won't really hit the fan for many more years after that, but in 30 years only anti vaxers and creationists will be the sorts of people dumb enough to deny climate change as the world average temperatures will be 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer if we don't do much/anything about greenhouse gasses (assuming we don't have a nuclear winter, massive volcanic disruption etc- the climate models can't predict those things).

of ffs
go and educate youself please

 

[millersnose]

That petition is on par with the scientists who believe in evolution petition, which has the very funny (and touching tribute to Stephen Jay Gould) Project Steve response.

It would be silly to say that absolutely every person who believes they are a scientist, or even who is generally recognised as one, believes in AGW. Just as it would be silly to say that every scientist believes in evolution.

Not that science is run by convention, but we do often give weight to complex issues when we are untrained ourselves, if many experts in the field seem to have a conclusion.

But that number of signatories would represent about 0.3% of science field graduates in the U.S.A., the methodology for obtaining the signatures is unknown and undefended and therefore dubious, and some of the (0.3% of science field graduates, not all of whom were in climate sciences) petitioners now say they don't recall signing it, or would not sign it now (it was signed by many in 1997 and 1998).

See https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...00-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

Though rather than worrying about a strange, small petition with dubious methodology, if we are concerned at what scientists think about AGW we can check to see what they have published.

This article https://www.beforetheflood.com/expl...ercent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ mentions some studies that have been done of scientific, peer reviewed journals, and some surveys of scientists. The article suggest 94% to 100% of scientists in the various studies it has summarised were believers in AGW (it should be noted the article is not itself a scientific paper, you should read the papers mentioned in it for actual scientific papers).

so i cite 9000 phd's and you cite a far left political blog

about sums it up

lol

 

[Quicksilver]

Hope the Earth burns tbh.

We deserve it.

 

[BatteredFlake]

lol

i am not the one in denial that there are scientists who believe in global warming.
i merely point out there are thousands who dont subscribe to the tabloid calamity theories you spout out here


and i note you character assainate scientists without a shred of evidence once again.

at least you compatriot googled a couple of far left political blogs as..lol...'evidence'

LOL Which tabloid Theories from what Tabloid have I spouted out ?

LOL You and your Conga line buddies are quite happy to throw a Blanket over the Majority of Climatologist and other scientists Who believe Global warming is effected by mankind( a few yrs back yous were all even denying there was any global warming), and say they are all followers of the trend and slaves to left wing and greeny ideology.and left wing Govt grants. Without a shred of evidence I might add. LOL!

I point out where the Scientists you site have also aligned themselves with political parties ,Fossil fuel companies etc and you start crying like a baby ! LOL! And theres plenty of evidence for it . I give you some incitefull reasons a top scientist Might try to make a name by opposing a popular consensus and once again you cry like a baby. I give you the names of some scientists who give good reason to question some of his work.... You cry like a baby ... Waaaaa... Not a shred of evidence! Waaaa Alan jones said nothing about it! Waaaaaa!!!



Plenty of shreds of evidence if you would care to check any of the papers in journals by any of the names I gave you . But I doubt you get your nose out of the right wing Reds under the bed blogs you get your "information" from. I dont know what you call "tabloids " Would that be Rupert murdochs papers ?

You cherry pick my argument , cant answer any of the question I ask. and you honestly expect to be taken seriously ? lol!

 

[BatteredFlake]

of ffs
go and educate youself please Getting a little rattled ? the Spelling mistakes are creeping in .Surely will not give you a like for this if you make dumb spelling errors .

Christy from University of Alabama ? LOL Well I haven't a shred vof evidence of his Biases So you might want to check out what American Meteorological Association (renowned left wing bloggers ,)say about his research and claims . Oh i still await your definition of Scientific method Its been many moments since "the Moment " . LOL. You know when you accuse your opponents of the things you yourself are guilty of ,when you deliberately misinterpret their replies, while it is a well known and much used tactic of ,Fanatics ,bigots, Paranoid conservatives ,etc anyone with half a brain can see what you do and realize it really means you have merely taken a stance and will defend it anyway you can ,Right or wrong . Isnt that right Millers ? Isn't that right DS? Another Question for the dummies .LOL.

 

[millersnose]

This is fun

Yes John Christy
According to wp
He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."[1]

I cited lindzen who has 19,436 citations and you raised me someone called Eric wolf
Who has...lol... 347 citations
Well done

However unlike you I won’t accuse these men of corruption with no evidence

Hahahhaha

 

[BatteredFlake]

This is fun

Yes John Christy
According to wp
He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."[1]

I cited lindzen who has 19,436 citations and you raised me someone called Eric wolf
Who has...lol... 347 citations
Well done

However unlike you I won’t accuse these men of corruption with no evidence

Hahahhaha

Citations Might Just mean he is in a field of study in a more financially rewarding area than the other guy,so others need to look at his work and before you go off on your WILD accusations thats not accuising anyone of corruption. Iive indicated they might have Bias and given evidence for it. You HAVE indicated that the ones Ive mentioned or ONE is inferior cause he is Cited less and beleives im mans effect on Climate and by your implied definition of corruptiopn ,Corrupt( Biased according to a left wing or right wing agenda )They all still probably beleive Strongly in their own take on Global Warming

Same thing as always . Accuse me of what you are doing. . Only fools the likes of DS, Surely and Reefer.swallow that shite.. Oh and all the signatures ? Its an American Petition . I love USA My Mother was American, I lived there for a while .However It saddens me greatly to see what happens there these days. A month ago had a visit from a lady and husband that I knew from school in California in 1968. Lives in Colorado now with retired husband a former Air traffic controller. She was very intelligent kid back then. now shes all fundamental Christian Global warming left wing conspiracy ,Home schooled her kids so they didnt get taught homosexuality was not a sin andEvolution was not a hoax. Not the Mad magazine reading Smothers Brother loving ,Girl that I remembered etc etc . Religeous Fundamentalism and Right wing Left wing Fear mongering politics is what its all about over there now..
No surprises theres that many signatures to that petition Theres many science graduates t working in companies or businesses that feel threatened by anything that threatens Fossil fuel industry or Economy in General Thing is its STILL ONLY about Three percent of the scientists concerned with the relevant fields . Not really that many is it ? Not the Majority DS needs to Prove it.

 

[BatteredFlake]

Oh and your little shots at a few Electric cars not doing anything to help slow climate .change? . I agree and as ussual you missed the point .If Australia doesnt get in the Race to convert to energy efficient ,sustainable economy we will be even less able to compete when the demand for coal stops We will be left in the dust at the mercy of the lefties and Greenies that you think yuor crap protects us from. Even USA is far ahead of us in the Clean energy stakes . We can no longer make a petrol cars here let alone Electric ones.When the Younger generations see what our Govts Labour and liberal do... They turn to loony left Organiations . They dont know that the shite they peddle about Utopia is same shite ultra right and Ultra left wing groups have always peddled and ends in death and destruction ..

 

[wibble]

so i cite 9000 phd's and you cite a far left political blog

about sums it up

lol

You missed the points entirely about the numbers and how small they were, and how poor a source a petition like this is as a sign of "scientific consensus". You prefer to attack me and the "source" I used as biased. Which also about sums it up.

But it would not matter the source, as you are already convinced and can always swear and insult me (which I don't mind at all, by the way, but is not a great substitute for argument) and find another link to another person who says that the link I provided is wrong (which is at least an attempt at better argument).

The source within the link from 2006 that was countering that petition was from the Scientific American journal.

Incidentally, the "left wing blog site" itself is a Pulitzer winning fact checking site that once awarded one of Obama's statements the biggest lie of the year.

It is routinely attacked by left and right in the united states, most particularly people it has rated as lying about something, and is rated by "Allsides.com" as neither left nor right wing.

But you wouldn't care about the sources anyway, and I'm sure you can find some right wing blogger who has complained about any online site anyone cares to mention if you want to, and therefore dismiss anything as biased.

The point remains that "9000 PHDs" from various fields including medicine and veterinary science, signing a petition from 20 years ago, in the face of 1000s of articles in scientific peer reviewed journals that do point to AGW, is not a convincing case that there is not a scientific consensus about AGW.

 

[wibble]

of ffs
go and educate youself please

I was answering a point about models from "30 years ago" and how they were pretty accurate.

Without any evidence, you said they were inflating warming, and indeed some are, as I pointed out in my next post (specifically you said that the models were "running hot", then you proceeded to accuse me of waffling on about science so badly I was embarrassing myself).

I showed one article (not from a scientific journal) that looked at a few models and showed how accurate or inaccurate they were (those models though can mostly be found in scientific journals, this article was a bit of an overview of them).

And this post is your reply to that.

And apparently I need to educate myself.

At least you have made some attempt at figures/science/graphs by showing Christy's (non peer reviewed) infamous graph that he took to congress. I do not think this means what you think it means, or if it does, your (emphatic and insulting, not that I was insulted) responses to my points are not related to the points I made.

Please, in an effort to show me how uneducated I am, explain to me how in any way, this graph at all counters what I was saying (as a hint, I could 100% agree with everything this graph says, which I don't for many good reasons, and it still does not remotely counter what I was saying).

 

[millersnose]

Citations Might Just mean he is in a field of study in a more financially rewarding area than the other guy,so others need to look at his work and before you go off on your WILD accusations thats not accuising anyone of corruption. Iive indicated they might have Bias and given evidence for it. You HAVE indicated that the ones Ive mentioned or ONE is inferior cause he is Cited less and beleives im mans effect on Climate and by your implied definition of corruptiopn ,Corrupt( Biased according to a left wing or right wing agenda )They all still probably beleive Strongly in their own take on Global Warming

Same thing as always . Accuse me of what you are doing. . Only fools the likes of DS, Surely and Reefer.swallow that shite.. Oh and all the signatures ? Its an American Petition . I love USA My Mother was American, I lived there for a while .However It saddens me greatly to see what happens there these days. A month ago had a visit from a lady and husband that I knew from school in California in 1968. Lives in Colorado now with retired husband a former Air traffic controller. She was very intelligent kid back then. now shes all fundamental Christian Global warming left wing conspiracy ,Home schooled her kids so they didnt get taught homosexuality was not a sin andEvolution was not a hoax. Not the Mad magazine reading Smothers Brother loving ,Girl that I remembered etc etc . Religeous Fundamentalism and Right wing Left wing Fear mongering politics is what its all about over there now..
No surprises theres that many signatures to that petition Theres many science graduates t working in companies or businesses that feel threatened by anything that threatens Fossil fuel industry or Economy in General Thing is its STILL ONLY about Three percent of the scientists concerned with the relevant fields . Not really that many is it ? Not the Majority DS needs to Prove it.

So US scientists are no good because you know someone who lives in Colorado

Lol

And your scientist you put forward has a only a fraction of citations as the one you sought to denigrate lindzen with

And saying curry is funded by fossil fuel companies and Landsea was once put on a government board so his views are political and not to be trusted is not accusing them of corruption

Lol

 

[millersnose]

You missed the points entirely about the numbers and how small they were, and how poor a source a petition like this is as a sign of "scientific consensus". You prefer to attack me and the "source" I used as biased. Which also about sums it up.

But it would not matter the source, as you are already convinced and can always swear and insult me (which I don't mind at all, by the way, but is not a great substitute for argument) and find another link to another person who says that the link I provided is wrong (which is at least an attempt at better argument).

The source within the link from 2006 that was countering that petition was from the Scientific American journal.

Incidentally, the "left wing blog site" itself is a Pulitzer winning fact checking site that once awarded one of Obama's statements the biggest lie of the year.

It is routinely attacked by left and right in the united states, most particularly people it has rated as lying about something, and is rated by "Allsides.com" as neither left nor right wing.

But you wouldn't care about the sources anyway, and I'm sure you can find some right wing blogger who has complained about any online site anyone cares to mention if you want to, and therefore dismiss anything as biased.

The point remains that "9000 PHDs" from various fields including medicine and veterinary science, signing a petition from 20 years ago, in the face of 1000s of articles in scientific peer reviewed journals that do point to AGW, is not a convincing case that there is not a scientific consensus about AGW.

I did not claim there was a consensus

That was you
I just proved you wrong

And there is a vast body of work in the journals that don’t subscribe to the calamitous version of global warming you guys have swallowed from scary newspaper headlines

And your claim was the models were “right”

I merely point out they ran hot

This is not controversial except amongst die hard greenies and far left political blogs

 

[Surely]

LOL Which tabloid Theories from what Tabloid have I spouted out ?

LOL You and your Conga line buddies are quite happy to throw a Blanket over the Majority of Climatologist and other scientists Who believe Global warming is effected by mankind( a few yrs back yous were all even denying there was any global warming), and say they are all followers of the trend and slaves to left wing and greeny ideology.and left wing Govt grants. Without a shred of evidence I might add. LOL!

I point out where the Scientists you site have also aligned themselves with political parties ,Fossil fuel companies etc and you start crying like a baby ! LOL! And theres plenty of evidence for it . I give you some incitefull reasons a top scientist Might try to make a name by opposing a popular consensus and once again you cry like a baby. I give you the names of some scientists who give good reason to question some of his work.... You cry like a baby ... Waaaaa... Not a shred of evidence! Waaaa Alan jones said nothing about it! Waaaaaa!!!



Plenty of shreds of evidence if you would care to check any of the papers in journals by any of the names I gave you . But I doubt you get your nose out of the right wing Reds under the bed blogs you get your "information" from. I dont know what you call "tabloids " Would that be Rupert murdochs papers ?

You cherry pick my argument , cant answer any of the question I ask. and you honestly expect to be taken seriously ? lol!

I still deny there is any co2 induced warming , but there is climate change.

 

[Surely]

Oh and your little shots at a few Electric cars not doing anything to help slow climate .change? . I agree and as ussual you missed the point .If Australia doesnt get in the Race to convert to energy efficient ,sustainable economy we will be even less able to compete when the demand for coal stops We will be left in the dust at the mercy of the lefties and Greenies that you think yuor crap protects us from. Even USA is far ahead of us in the Clean energy stakes . We can no longer make a petrol cars here let alone Electric ones.When the Younger generations see what our Govts Labour and liberal do... They turn to loony left Organiations . They dont know that the shite they peddle about Utopia is same shite ultra right and Ultra left wing groups have always peddled and ends in death and destruction ..

You guys should have just based your position on pollution is bad, not just picked out co2 and tried to assign Turn it into Satan.

Everyone knows pollution is bad, and we could have had nuclear power if not for the chicken littles of the world, problem solved.

But no, billions has to be invested into research on the role of co2 in the atmosphere ,billions on Chinese solar panels, land clearing for whacking big windmills, the materials to manufacture all produced courtesy of coal, I guess though there is no trading in energy certificates if co2 isn’t evil.

 

[millersnose]

I still deny there is any co2 induced warming , but there is climate change.

well that just cannot be

basic physics means that additional co2 will create some warming
the question is weather it will be calamitous, small or beneficial

for example lindzens iris theory in a nutshell suggests any warming created by co2 will be offset by the high atmosphere clouds, that warming created, reflecting sunlight away thus largely evening out

even curry, soon and ball etc concede co2 will have, and has had, a warming effect albeit quite small and probably beneficial

thats why, perversely, these guys are claimed as part of the 'consensus' the chicken little's like to pull out all the time



however anyone who declares they definitively know the answer to the values such a large chaotic complex little understood system such as climate is either deluded or lying

and as seen by the ipcc cimp models they were quite wrong in any case

 

[Surely]

If any effect is counter balanced then it hasn't warmed

 

[Feej]

Is this the new Qantas thread?

 

[bad boy bubby]

Is this the new Qantas thread?

Yep.
I want to congratulate the players for keeping it here too.

 

[millersnose]

If any effect is counter balanced then it hasn't warmed

Well it has warmed
You can quibble about how much or what caused it but it has warmed