Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Haig, but when we want the viewpoint of Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers we'll just Google them up directly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haig, you are the perfect torch-bearer for the dying days of denial. An avatar of Monckton, the public face of the movement by the grace of providence. Who saw that coming twenty years ago? His annointment by Heatland at the Manhattan shindig, back in the golden days, must have seemed like a good idea at the time.

The general arc of the denial cult was easy to predict, the details not so much. By now it was destined to be the end-of-the-pier show of ageing sad-acts it is, gradually merging into the grey glob of global conspiracism that owes so much to McCarthy.

By my count we're on the fifth Monckton pause, four others having been abandoned. The current one is, of course, warmer than all the rest yet still you cling to it. He gets through them quicker than Trump gets through wives.

It's time to give up on this and stick to the earthquake thing. It's easy to spread oneself too thin, especially in your particular case. One can end up simply pointing at stuff rather than actually saying anything, which really loses an audience.


Thanks for your input guys but you don't seem to know when to give up ;)

Have you seen the pre-views on this Climate Hustle ? ;)

Watch Now: Hannity on Fox News features exclusive clips of ‘Climate Hustle': First Time Broadcast of Select Clips


This Pause still needs explained too :cool:
monckton1.png
 
Haig, there is no pause in warming, your graph is evidence of a warming, not a pause. (not great evidence, but it is evidence) It's the labeling of the graph that is misleading you to think there is a pause. The only pause is in your capability to listen and understand. That has paused for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
I see no compelling evidence of any pause, what are you speaking about?

Haig, there is no pause in warming, your graph is evidence of a warming, not a pause. (not great evidence, but it is evidence) It's the labeling of the graph that is misleading you to think there is a pause. The only pause is in your capability to listen and understand. That has paused for quite some time.


Well guys, the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago and last century the rate of warming INCREASED (due to a Grand Solar Maximum) that was claimed to be due to AGW by the alarmist warmist crowd.

That increased rate of warming has stopped and returned to the previous warming recovery reduced rate from the Little Ice Age (soon to head down into a Grand Solar Minimum) and it's that that is called The Pause, Hiatus or as I like to say the heat has been turned down to Simmer :D

You know this ... why are you acting as if you don't ? See here ...

The Official list of excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)


You need to focus more on what comes after The Pause ... :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool: ... The Cooling :eek:
 
Sure, but it does raise suspicions when they say it. If Hannity said that 2+2 equals 4, I'd check rather than take him at his word.


Yes, I agree with you :)

Don't take any statements at face value from ANY source - check the facts as much as you can and THEN make your own mind up is just basic, with something that is important to you.

If it's NOT important to you - just go with the flow ;)
 
Don't take any statements at face value from ANY source - check the facts as much as you can and THEN make your own mind up is just basic, with something that is important to you.

...keeping in mind the fact that if you're not an expert in the topic, you're going to have to trust _someone_ on the way.
 
Well guys, the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago and last century the rate of warming INCREASED (due to a Grand Solar Maximum) that was claimed to be due to AGW by the alarmist warmist crowd.

That increased rate of warming has stopped and returned to the previous warming recovery reduced rate from the Little Ice Age (soon to head down into a Grand Solar Minimum) and it's that that is called The Pause, Hiatus or as I like to say the heat has been turned down to Simmer :D

You know this ... why are you acting as if you don't ? See here ...

The Official list of excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)


You need to focus more on what comes after The Pause ... :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool: ... The Cooling :eek:

Again, please present the compelling evidence that exists in support of your assertion. What you present is neither scientifically compelling nor supportive evidence for what you assert.
 
...keeping in mind the fact that if you're not an expert in the topic, you're going to have to trust _someone_ on the way.


For me that comes down to comparing "experts" and what they say about the facts and most importantly how accurate they are with predictions.

It's a bit like voting for a politician. Few of us are experts in politics but we have to decide who to hand the power too! So one way to decide is to listen to what they say about the facts and most importantly how accurate they are with predictions. ;)
 
Again, please present the compelling evidence that exists in support of your assertion. What you present is neither scientifically compelling nor supportive evidence for what you assert.


Scroll back Trakar, I've posted lots that does that! :D
 
For me that comes down to comparing "experts" and what they say about the facts and most importantly how accurate they are with predictions.

Why do you have experts in scare quotes? Do you deny that some people are actual experts in climate?

And 2014 and 2015 have been pretty hot years. Along with the recent trends, I'd say the "alarmists" have been relatively accurate, while the deniers have not.

It's a bit like voting for a politician.

Not really. Politicians are all about rhetoric. We're talking about evidence, here.
 
...Not really. Politicians are all about rhetoric. We're talking about evidence, here.

Given that very few people actually employ scientific evidence and critical analysis in their political decision making, unfortunately. You both are probably correct from your individual perspectives. I have no doubt that Haig uses a very similar process of vetting both his political preferences and his opinion regarding climate science. Whereas a lot of people see science and politics as very disparate issues of consideration.
 
Scroll back Trakar, I've posted lots that does that! :D

Really?

I've read nearly every post you've added to this thread. and yet I don't recall you ever posting any compelling scientific evidence that supports any of your assertions.
 
Some of the action on the political side will arise from the grass roots and people's personal "embrace" by an event. Politics are driven by votes....there will be some policy arise from this

We're planning a a visit in the next couple of years along with Scotland.
I'd suggest part of the issue of it appearing is the close together rain events you've had in the past few weeks saturating the ground so no more capacity to absorb.

Good assessment

Is climate change behind the storm that flooded parts of the UK?

dn28630-1_800.jpg


The army has been deployed and tens of thousands of homes across Scotland and the north of England are without power after Storm Desmond dumped torrential rain across the area, causing major flooding.

Early figures suggest there was a record-breaking downpour of rain as 340 millimetres fell in 24 hours in the Lake District, breaking a record of 316.4mm set in 2009.

It’s too soon to know whether the storm can be attributed to climate change, but green groups point out it is just what the UK will expect to see more of as the planet warms.

Drawing a link with climate change is difficult, since the British climate has always been variable, says David Ramsbottom of HR Wallingford, a consultancy that advises the UK government on flood defences.

For example, the first half of the 20th century was much wetter than the second. “But the current wisdom is that storminess is increasing and therefore these types of events are likely to increase,” he says.

Part of the story
“It is impossible to say that a particular flood event is or isn’t caused by climate change,” says Seth Westra at the University of Adelaide in Australia. “But climate change does appear to be making the heavy rainfall events that cause floods more frequent and intense, and so should be considered to be part of the story.”

Ramsbottom says the UK needs to improve its warning systems and awareness, and make sure new developments are flood resistant.

But many people in flood-prone areas won’t be protected from extreme events, even with bolstered defences.

“I guess the point will come, if this trend continues, that some places will not be liveable in,” Ramsbottom says “We know already that quite a lot of people don’t have insurance because they’ve been flooded before, and therefore those people are facing a catastrophe.”

This echoes messages heard after the 2013-2014 floods that affected large parts of the UK , when hydrologists and engineers told New Scientist that the UK needed to consider the possibility of retreating to higher ground.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ehind-the-storm-that-flooded-parts-of-the-uk/

That's exactly what we are doing in Cairns even tho we are currently above the storm surge line it's on a couple of meters and we are going to move while we still can get insurance ( as can the buyer ).

600 meters up to the Tableland - a couple degrees cooler, a bit more cyclone protection and no storm surge risk.
Millions of people will be making these decisions in the next decade....if they can even find higher ground.

This waterfall has not run in some 200 years....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gdS-nc9lA

Malham Cove as never seen in living memory

as it hits home....policy shift comes....too slowly..:rolleyes:

3 x "100 year storms" since 2005.......:boggled:
 
Why do you have experts in scare quotes? Do you deny that some people are actual experts in climate?


What you and I regard as a climate expert will differ, I'm sure. The track record of some climate "experts" are dire such as Dr. James Hansen that turn out to be not only wrong but extreme and intended to provoke a reaction rather than be factual! This is what I had in mind with the quotes.

And 2014 and 2015 have been pretty hot years. Along with the recent trends, I'd say the "alarmists" have been relatively accurate, while the deniers have not.


Are the trends and the temperature differences between 2014 and 2015 statistically significant? Or just a convenience for COP21 in Paris ?

He who pays the "fiddlers" calls the tune, even your own notice it sometimes Here and Here

Where have the skeptics been wrong? They are saying the climate change of the last century and the Pause of this century are all within the natural variability of our climate.

Not really. Politicians are all about rhetoric. We're talking about evidence, here.


The IPCC is a political process and they manipulate the evidence to produce their reports such as the Summary for Policymakers AR5 and the process will be the same after COP21.

Politics is in charge of Climate Science! Do you doubt it?

Given that very few people actually employ scientific evidence and critical analysis in their political decision making, unfortunately. You both are probably correct from your individual perspectives. I have no doubt that Haig uses a very similar process of vetting both his political preferences and his opinion regarding climate science. Whereas a lot of people see science and politics as very disparate issues of consideration.


But unfortunately that separation is not the reality !

UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’ — ‘Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors’ — Climate Depot Round Up


A lie does not become fact even if fools say it.


Is that a fact or not ? ;)
 
Well guys, the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago and last century

The Little Ice Age consisted of ~0.5 deg cooling over 300 years. It’s warmed to 1 deg above pre LIA levels in the last 100 years when the earth should be in a long term cooling trend due to orbital cycles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom