Current Affairs Climate Change

[verreauxi]

Similar to the young-earth creationists who quote-mine a published study to make it look damning when it isn't, we have the same thing going on here with climate-denial ignoramuses. The quote in question was actually, "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful." The original published paper is here, and deals with how to characterize uncertainty under different statistical and epistemological frameworks: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2007.2069#d3e1062

What's quite funny is that if you type in the misquote posted by Rathbone, you actually get a bunch of climate-denial websites. So what we have here is a re-posted, misquoted meme that is falsely perpetuated by climate change deniers--the very people who claim they are using logic and evidence and fact-checking to carefully construct their arguments. But they can't even be bothered to find the correct wording of a quote to fallaciously quote-mine in order to support their ignorant agenda. And they end up repeating a misquoted wrongly worded phrase that is taken out of context. This is not surprising in the least.

 

[the sniderman]

Similar to the young-earth creationists who quote-mine a published study to make it look damning when it isn't, we have the same thing going on here with climate-denial ignoramuses. The quote in question was actually, "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful." The original published paper is here, and deals with how to characterize uncertainty under different statistical and epistemological frameworks: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2007.2069#d3e1062

What's quite funny is that if you type in the misquote posted by Rathbone, you actually get a bunch of climate-denial websites. So what we have here is a re-posted, misquoted meme that is falsely perpetuated by climate change deniers--the very people who claim they are using logic and evidence and fact-checking to carefully construct their arguments. But they can't even be bothered to find the correct wording of a quote to fallaciously quote-mine in order to support their ignorant agenda. And they end up repeating a misquoted wrongly worded phrase that is taken out of context. This is not surprising in the least.

beautifully put. but truth compassion and the fate of our planet is less important to these people than “ winning “ which is a peculiar concept when they are selling out the future of generations to come. we are firmly into the age of post truth and anti intellectualism with these bad faith trogs.

 

[McBain]

Similar to the young-earth creationists who quote-mine a published study to make it look damning when it isn't, we have the same thing going on here with climate-denial ignoramuses. The quote in question was actually, "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful." The original published paper is here, and deals with how to characterize uncertainty under different statistical and epistemological frameworks: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2007.2069#d3e1062

What's quite funny is that if you type in the misquote posted by Rathbone, you actually get a bunch of climate-denial websites. So what we have here is a re-posted, misquoted meme that is falsely perpetuated by climate change deniers--the very people who claim they are using logic and evidence and fact-checking to carefully construct their arguments. But they can't even be bothered to find the correct wording of a quote to fallaciously quote-mine in order to support their ignorant agenda. And they end up repeating a misquoted wrongly worded phrase that is taken out of context. This is not surprising in the least.

 

[WA Toffee]

Similar to the young-earth creationists who quote-mine a published study to make it look damning when it isn't, we have the same thing going on here with climate-denial ignoramuses. The quote in question was actually, "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful." The original published paper is here, and deals with how to characterize uncertainty under different statistical and epistemological frameworks: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2007.2069#d3e1062

What's quite funny is that if you type in the misquote posted by Rathbone, you actually get a bunch of climate-denial websites. So what we have here is a re-posted, misquoted meme that is falsely perpetuated by climate change deniers--the very people who claim they are using logic and evidence and fact-checking to carefully construct their arguments. But they can't even be bothered to find the correct wording of a quote to fallaciously quote-mine in order to support their ignorant agenda. And they end up repeating a misquoted wrongly worded phrase that is taken out of context. This is not surprising in the least.

@Barry Rathbone Tell me this isn't true. I can't believe you would have posted part of a quote to make it seem like an esteemed scientist agrees with you, and passed it of as "proof" that climate change is not real?
I am sure Verreauxi must be wrong. Can you post the full quote and the context it was said in, just to put my mind at ease that you have a semblence of a clue what you are actually talking about?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

@Barry Rathbone Tell me this isn't true. I can't believe you would have posted part of a quote to make it seem like an esteemed scientist agrees with you, and passed it of as "proof" that climate change is not real?
I am sure Verreauxi must be wrong. Can you post the full quote and the context it was said in, just to put my mind at ease that you have a semblence of a clue what you are actually talking about?

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/australian-bush-fires.109162/

He has a history of doing this. He’s a cave dwelling oik.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Similar to the young-earth creationists who quote-mine a published study to make it look damning when it isn't, we have the same thing going on here with climate-denial ignoramuses. The quote in question was actually, "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful." The original published paper is here, and deals with how to characterize uncertainty under different statistical and epistemological frameworks: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2007.2069#d3e1062

What's quite funny is that if you type in the misquote posted by Rathbone, you actually get a bunch of climate-denial websites. So what we have here is a re-posted, misquoted meme that is falsely perpetuated by climate change deniers--the very people who claim they are using logic and evidence and fact-checking to carefully construct their arguments. But they can't even be bothered to find the correct wording of a quote to fallaciously quote-mine in order to support their ignorant agenda. And they end up repeating a misquoted wrongly worded phrase that is taken out of context. This is not surprising in the least.

Hello @Barry Rathbone. Can you apologise for this please

 

[Barry Rathbone]

I was starting to think you might actually be putting some proof together, but instead you chose to just say we have had bad weather before.

I must congratulate you though, it has taken me a while to realise you are actually just playing a parody of climate change deniers. You had me going for a while, but you took it a bit too far with that post and blew your cover

Hardly the fault of skeptics like myself that climate fundamentalists like you don't understand the significance of the null. Here's a little snippet from the god-father of man made co2 shooting himself in the foot by demonstrating how the null is proven by observations destroying his man made co2 fantasy. I really hope it helps you but for some reason I doubt it will

"Hansen confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. That ‘no CO2 impact’ scenario is precisely what recent temperatures show. As Dr Ball explains:

“It [Hansen’s graph – see below] produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years [the lowest plotted line]. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement.”

Of course, the actual outcome is not what Hansen had hoped would occur, because it proved “null” change (no impact) and kills his alarmist claim of CO2 being our climate’s control knob. One German government climatologist, of over 40 years, admits the whole enterprise isn’t science but “a marketing organization.”

 

[Barry Rathbone]

@Barry Rathbone Tell me this isn't true. I can't believe you would have posted part of a quote to make it seem like an esteemed scientist agrees with you, and passed it of as "proof" that climate change is not real?
I am sure Verreauxi must be wrong. Can you post the full quote and the context it was said in, just to put my mind at ease that you have a semblence of a clue what you are actually talking about?

The poor chap is consistently confused and intent on hanging himself by his own petard. I didn't find the quote he thinks resides within but presumably his overarching point is climate models are as good as, if not, actual facts. The first lines of the introduction absolutely demolishes his naivety:

"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."

Loads more similar comments in the paper in fact I've bookmarked the piece as further evidence of just how whacko climate models are. Here is a picture of something built on foundations of sand to remind you

Pass on my thanks

 

[WA Toffee]

The poor chap is consistently confused and intent on hanging himself by his own petard. I didn't find the quote he thinks resides within but presumably his overarching point is climate models are as good as, if not, actual facts. The first lines of the introduction absolutely demolishes his naivety:

"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."

Loads more similar comments in the paper in fact I've bookmarked the piece as further evidence of just how whacko climate models are. Here is a picture of something built on foundations of sand to remind you

Pass on my thanks View attachment 76358

So you are claiming that because climate science is not an exact science, it proves that climate believers are wrong, but you are using the same data to prove that climate deniers are right?

Surely you can see why that would be confusing?

 

[WA Toffee]

Hardly the fault of skeptics like myself that climate fundamentalists like you don't understand the significance of the null. Here's a little snippet from the god-father of man made co2 shooting himself in the foot by demonstrating how the null is proven by observations destroying his man made co2 fantasy. I really hope it helps you but for some reason I doubt it will

"Hansen confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. That ‘no CO2 impact’ scenario is precisely what recent temperatures show. As Dr Ball explains:

Of course, the actual outcome is not what Hansen had hoped would occur, because it proved “null” change (no impact) and kills his alarmist claim of CO2 being our climate’s control knob. One German government climatologist, of over 40 years, admits the whole enterprise isn’t science but “a marketing organization.”

Sorry buddy, but your entire premise is wrong. I am not a climate fundamentalist, I am a scientist. You evidently aren't so please don't try to patronise me with your pseudoscience. (Because I am an actual scientist, I am fully trained in how to tell the two apart).

What were your qualifications again?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Sorry buddy, but your entire premise is wrong. I am not a climate fundamentalist, I am a scientist. You evidently aren't so please don't try to patronise me with your pseudoscience. (Because I am an actual scientist, I am fully trained in how to tell the two apart).

What were your qualifications again?

He’s been honing his skills on the ‘Jeremy clarkson for PM’ Facebook group and a whatsapp group titled ‘The lads’ Telling everyone about computer models and sending Obama memes.
He found himself to have some success and even converted a couple of low IQ farmhands to his ways of thinking. He thought he’d surface now and go for glory. Unfortunately for him he’s accidentally stumbled into a world where people know what they’re talking about. Probs best he takes himself down a couple of ranks again.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

So you are claiming that because climate science is not an exact science, it proves that climate believers are wrong, but you are using the same data to prove that climate deniers are right?

Surely you can see why that would be confusing?

You seem to have confused yourself quite badly here.

The best way of confirming the robustness of any science (is it or is it not an exact science) is by examining the "same data". You claim to be a scientist in which case you must be aware the burden of proof lies with the proponent of the notion the evidence NEEDS to stand scrutiny. Thanks to the citation supplied by @verrauxi where he inadvertently hangs himself again we are once again furnished with more detail about the litany of issues surrounding climate models - in other words the "same data" used by proponents of climate doom gospel has been exposed as utter cack. Given no observational evidence exists for said gospel the conclusion is inescapable - "climate science is not an exact science"

In answer to your question I can see why you are confused but clear thinkers not so much.

You don't have to answer this but I'm interested as to what branch of science you are involved in because you seem totally ignorant of the rudimentary principles that apply to science.

 

[McBain]

Hardly the fault of skeptics like myself that climate fundamentalists like you don't understand the significance of the null. Here's a little snippet from the god-father of man made co2 shooting himself in the foot by demonstrating how the null is proven by observations destroying his man made co2 fantasy. I really hope it helps you but for some reason I doubt it will

"Hansen confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. That ‘no CO2 impact’ scenario is precisely what recent temperatures show. As Dr Ball explains:

Of course, the actual outcome is not what Hansen had hoped would occur, because it proved “null” change (no impact) and kills his alarmist claim of CO2 being our climate’s control knob. One German government climatologist, of over 40 years, admits the whole enterprise isn’t science but “a marketing organization.”

Barry, you have been destroyed multiple times over. That you won’t acknowledge actual evidence in the ice cores indicating warming is occurring 10 times faster in the industrial age than post ice age recovery warming, evidence in coral reefs, tree rings, ocean sediments, sedimentary rocks and whole range of studies. Cherry picking articles from Fossil fuel backed think tanks, your whole argument is about CO2 ‘projections’ being overstated and therefore it’s a huge tin foil hat conspiracy.

Hoist that up your Petard.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Hardly the fault of skeptics like myself that climate fundamentalists like you don't understand the significance of the null. Here's a little snippet from the god-father of man made co2 shooting himself in the foot by demonstrating how the null is proven by observations destroying his man made co2 fantasy. I really hope it helps you but for some reason I doubt it will

"Hansen confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. That ‘no CO2 impact’ scenario is precisely what recent temperatures show. As Dr Ball explains:

Of course, the actual outcome is not what Hansen had hoped would occur, because it proved “null” change (no impact) and kills his alarmist claim of CO2 being our climate’s control knob. One German government climatologist, of over 40 years, admits the whole enterprise isn’t science but “a marketing organization.”

So the link at the bottom there is from principa scientific lol

History

Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”
Principia Scientific covers many areas of science, however most stories center around climate change (global warming) and vaccinations. When it comes to climate change, PSI does not agree CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. PSI takes vaccinations to a whole other level with stories like this: Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Murdered!. This story is sourced to Neon Nettle, which we rate as a quackery level pseudoscience and tin foil hat conspiracy website. This story is listed as a Pants on Fire claim by Politifact.

In general, the information found on this website falls along the extreme right biased spectrum of science. This is an anti-scientific method website,
Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.
lol lol lol

 

[Tramps_mate]

Have we mentioned NASA's lies about climate change yet and how they are selecting data to fit the 'global warming' agenda...?

And how Greta Thunberg is funded by the ultra elite rich to help push the 'global warming' lies so that they can tax is more?

Have we mentioned those yet?