Current Affairs Climate Change

[verreauxi]

Social media isn't the real world the actuality of real world thinking is despite decades of media propaganda endorsed by politicians people intuitively know that the climate always changes. Bastardising the term "climate change" to mean "man made climate change" just doesn't wash it looks suspiciously like covering all bases which of course it is hence the majority of people are not taken in.

The solution for climate doom fundamentalists is to demonstrate their case with robust observational data but as I have shown on this and countless other forums no such evidence exists. The entire belief system is built on foundations of sand, aka, climate models but no matter how many examples there are of failed models and their associated claims believers will believe. It is the very essence of faith .... along with their fury at being exposed of course, lol

Testing testing testing...has that coward Rathbone, who accused me of being "emotive" "frothing" and manifesting "incandescent anger" in my measured responses to his ignorant meanderings, put me on ignore? The irony here is that obviously he was triggered by something I wrote, so much so--dare I say emotionally so--that he put me on ignore.

Can someone respond to my post or cut-n-paste my response into their post (someone who he hasn't put on ignore) so that he can absorb the hypocrisy that he so laboriously manifests. Also, please ask about his quote-mining from a known anti-vax site.

 

[Ruairi77]

Well, we hit 74 degrees in Boston today (23c). It was weird, lovely, but weird. Usually I’m digging out from under a heap of snow.

 

[WA Toffee]

"
You do make me laugh with your frothing bluster about sources just because I exposed your inability to produce observational evidence for man made climate doom credo.

The ACTUAL source I used is below - it is the abstract of the Volodin and Gritsun paper.lol

To save you more embarrassment and reduce the risk of even more frothing I generously highlighted the words for you.

Your incandescent anger, lack of observational evidence and diversionary attack on sources tick every box of the climate fundamentalist handbook I bet you give teddy a darn good kicking every time I expose your nonsense.

Btw did I thank you for your last citation that excellently describes the issues with climate models? Don't think I did, nice one, champ.

"Abstract
Back to top

Climate changes observed in 1850–2014 are modeled and studied on the basis of seven historical runs with the climate model INM-CM5 under the scenario proposed for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In all runs global mean surface temperature rises by 0.8 K at the end of the experiment (2014) in agreement with the observations. Periods of fast warming in 1920–1940 and 1980–2000 as well as its slowdown in 1950–1975 and 2000–2014 are correctly reproduced by the ensemble mean."

lol

Barry, have you actually read the whole paper that you linked? I did, and read it again just to be sure it was saying what I thought it was.
If you haven't read the whole thing I suggest you do.
If you have read it all, can you see how it goes against everything you have been saying?

I must admit, I am surprised that you posted a peer reviewed article which actually proves you wrong.

 

[verreauxi]

Barry, have you actually read the whole paper that you linked? I did, and read it again just to be sure it was saying what I thought it was.
If you haven't read the whole thing I suggest you do.
If you have read it all, can you see how it goes against everything you have been saying?

I must admit, I am surprised that you posted a peer reviewed article which actually proves you wrong.

You are gonna get an "ignore" from him very soon. He doesn't like to be contradicted with measured responses.

 

[Hibbo]

The world will be around for at least another 1000 years. Having said that I believe it is important to take care of it now.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Thoughts on the Callendar effect, and the work of Guy Stewart Callendar?

His perspective seems entirely in line with a wonderful caveat of the skeptic argument ie if the notion has any substance then subsequent warming would be a doozie and not a doom laden spectre as prayed for by climate fundamentalists .

"Callendar thought this warming would be beneficial, delaying a "return of the deadly glaciers."

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Barry, have you actually read the whole paper that you linked? I did, and read it again just to be sure it was saying what I thought it was.
If you haven't read the whole thing I suggest you do.
If you have read it all, can you see how it goes against everything you have been saying?

I must admit, I am surprised that you posted a peer reviewed article which actually proves you wrong.

Oh that's interesting can you quote the part where it says "resultant of our observational data we can definitely say man made climate is *dangerous" I've looked and can't find it.

In the certain knowledge you won't be able to provide said conclusion can you furnish me with the dates they say apocalypse will arrive and how it will manifest itself according to their model (gotta have something to gauge against otherwise it's just whistling Dixie). Wonder if they're on board with the 12 yr meme

*dangerous - substitute catastrophic or similar if you feel so inclined

 

[Remember-the-name]

The world will be around for at least another 1000 years. Having said that I believe it is important to take care of it now.

Irreversible state.

 

[WA Toffee]

Oh that's interesting can you quote the part where it says "resultant of our observational data we can definitely say man made climate is *dangerous" I've looked and can't find it.

In the certain knowledge you won't be able to provide said conclusion can you furnish me with the dates they say apocalypse will arrive and how it will manifest itself according to their model (gotta have something to gauge against otherwise it's just whistling Dixie). Wonder if they're on board with the 12 yr meme

*dangerous - substitute catastrophic or similar if you feel so inclined

I can't quote that part because as you correctly pointed out it doesn't exist. But just to spell it out for you (because you presumably haven't read it), consider the below comments made by yourself in this thread, then have a read of the paper.

Imagine the sniggering when the words "computer models show ..." pop out. lol

"the long term prediction of long term climate states is not possible" dismantling the entire raison d'etre of climate models in a trice.

My fave perspective on climate models was given by Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

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

"Climate change forecasts are inherently problematic owing to the difficulty in modelling a complex, nonlinear, multiscale system, in which we do not understand how all the relevant interactions evolve over time."

we are once again furnished with more detail about the litany of issues surrounding climate models

Can you see the contradiction now?

 

[Barry Rathbone]

I can't quote that part because as you correctly pointed out it doesn't exist. But just to spell it out for you (because you presumably haven't read it), consider the below comments made by yourself in this thread, then have a read of the paper.





Can you see the contradiction now?

Your analysis is akin to dismissing the idea that money is of no importance in the Prem because a single club outside the monied elite, Leicester, won the title.

Quite clearly the overall picture of climate models being poo still stands your dalliance with flawed logic comes under the heading "the exception that proves the rule" which I am sure a man of such savoir faire as yourself can see.

Kudos for admitting the salient "dangerous" phrase doesn't exist btw, top man

 

[davek]

Extinction Rebellion = terrorist organisation.

FFS, only the fossil fuel doped up Tory scum would reach that conclusion

 

[verreauxi]

I know he can't see my posts, but you gotta love Rathbone's stunning inability to argue/debate in even a remote sense of the word.
His strategy is basically:
1) ignore substance of post, then repeat past ignorant claim, then claim other poster has somehow verified his own point.
2) if that doesn't work, accuse poster of being emotional, angry, or frothing and end each sentence with emoji and/or juvenile sarcasm.
3) if that doesn't work, put poster on ignore.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I know he can't see my posts, but you gotta love Rathbone's stunning inability to argue/debate in even a remote sense of the word.
His strategy is basically:
1) ignore substance of post, then repeat past ignorant claim, then claim other poster has somehow verified his own point.
2) if that doesn't work, accuse poster of being emotional, angry, or frothing and end each sentence with emoji and/or juvenile sarcasm.
3) if that doesn't work, put poster on ignore.

Can someone not ignored by @Barry Rathbone cut and paste this so he can see please.

 

[verreauxi]

Your analysis is akin to dismissing the idea that money is of no importance in the Prem because a single club outside the monied elite, Leicester, won the title.

Quite clearly the overall picture of climate models being poo still stands your dalliance with flawed logic comes under the heading "the exception that proves the rule" which I am sure a man of such savoir faire as yourself can see.

Kudos for admitting the salient "dangerous" phrase doesn't exist btw, top man

@WA Toffee I told you you were wasting your time Rathbone is a thin-skinned poster who can't argue a point in the remotest of engaging ways, he can only put people on ignore.

 

[WA Toffee]

Your analysis is akin to dismissing the idea that money is of no importance in the Prem because a single club outside the monied elite, Leicester, won the title.

Quite clearly the overall picture of climate models being poo still stands your dalliance with flawed logic comes under the heading "the exception that proves the rule" which I am sure a man of such savoir faire as yourself can see.

Kudos for admitting the salient "dangerous" phrase doesn't exist btw, top man

So if I understand this correctly, all the climate models are flawed in some way, apart from the 7 that you accidentally linked. Is that what you are trying to suggest? lol

Sorry Baz, I think we are done here