Climate Change, real or codswallop?

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.

I posted plenty of evidence up on the previous thread but didn't get many responses from sceptics.

Second, if you don't like being stereotyped, too bad.

and if you want me to engage in a civil debate with someone who is actively insulting me then too bad!

your skin is too thin for this.

It certainly isn't - I can give as good as I get - but what would be the point of that?

Fourth, "phoney side arguments": is that how you characterise anything that isn't biddable submission to the cause?

No - just the peronalised bickering and insults not pertinent to the matter in hand - accusing me of censorship was a good example.

What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.

Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".

This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.

none of this is true but if you keep saying it often enough and loud enough then people will start believeing it. I personally don;t care what you think about climate change - as if what you think makes any difference.

Everyone's welcome to their opinion - I've always believed that - but to engage in debate you need more than just belief...you need to engage with the evidence.

It's quite insulting really - I've never done any of what you accuse me of there...although I have had terrible abuse over the years from self styled "sceptics" who have tried to silence me and fellow activists...you seem to be allying yourself with those reactionary forces although I'm sure you are not doing so intentionally.

As for being religious in nature - it's you who are so sceptical of science - the system that has brought us out fo the church dominated dark ages.

Can you not see how evangelistic and dogmaitc your own statements are?

supersonic

If we removed all the greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, the mean global temp would plummet by 33 degrees or so. This paper works effectively works backwards in places and achieves I think a very good prediction of what is happening:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It concludes an average contribution to mean global temps of 1.76±0.27 degrees.

I haven't read all this thread, but I agree with what someone said on the first page - it is not whether C02 can cause warming, it is how much (and how significant this is compared to the natural variations and cycles that we have a good understanding about).

amnezia

Porgy wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

There is a whole raft of incriminating evidence pointing directly at the CRU, NASA GISS and The Met Office showing how they distorted the whole process

I'd like to see it.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/ ... ies-4.html

Porgy

amnezia wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

There is a whole raft of incriminating evidence pointing directly at the CRU, NASA GISS and The Met Office showing how they distorted the whole process

I'd like to see it.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/ ... ies-4.html

OK - a little bit of an explanation might be useful if I am to understand what this evidence proves.

I'm not being contentious here either - just trying to understand.

A quick look at this and it seems to relate to the East Anglian emails, which while appalling does not prove much other than some scientists at the CRU have behaved less than professionally.

I intend to read through it properly if I get time - but there's a lot of info there so it would be useful if you could pull out the bits you think are particularly relevent and what the implicaitons are. Otherwise I'm doing all the work - and I really don;t have that much spare time, sorry.

jedster

cjw,

The climate system is far more complex than simply increase CO2 = increase temperature.

Absolutely correct, there are lots of moving parts but from what I've read of the evidence it seems quite clear that Co2 has been the principal driver of the rise over the last 150 years, and it has done so against a number of factors acting in the opposite direction.

BTW - on the graph you post. THere is a similar but more complex graph on the New Scientist site. It makes the point that estimating temperature levels a long way in the past is fraught with difficulties and different approaches deliver very different lines for global temperature. In short, hanging an argument for or against AGW on the basis of a distant historic relationship between Co2 and ESTIMATED temperature is perilous.

Christophe3967

Porgy wrote:

amnezia wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

There is a whole raft of incriminating evidence pointing directly at the CRU, NASA GISS and The Met Office showing how they distorted the whole process

I'd like to see it.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/ ... ies-4.html

OK - a little bit of an explanation might be useful if I am to understand what this evidence proves.

I'm not being contentious here either - just trying to understand.

A quick look at this and it seems to relate to the East Anglian emails, which while appalling does not prove much other than some scientists at the CRU have behaved less than professionally.

I intend to read through it properly if I get time - but there's a lot of info there so it would be useful if you could pull out the bits you think are particularly relevent and what the implicaitons are. Otherwise I'm doing all the work - and I really don;t have that much spare time, sorry.

I've already provided a summary on this thread showing how the peer review process has been hijacked and bought into disrepute by Jones, Mann, Wigley and Briffa. Its not just the CRU that these guys work at - NASA GISS is in the frame as well. You can put whatever gloss or spin on it you wish, and Real Climate will assist you, but the fact is that a conspiracy has been going on for years.

Porgy

Christophe3967 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

amnezia wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

There is a whole raft of incriminating evidence pointing directly at the CRU, NASA GISS and The Met Office showing how they distorted the whole process

I'd like to see it.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/ ... ies-4.html

OK - a little bit of an explanation might be useful if I am to understand what this evidence proves.

I'm not being contentious here either - just trying to understand.

A quick look at this and it seems to relate to the East Anglian emails, which while appalling does not prove much other than some scientists at the CRU have behaved less than professionally.

I intend to read through it properly if I get time - but there's a lot of info there so it would be useful if you could pull out the bits you think are particularly relevent and what the implicaitons are. Otherwise I'm doing all the work - and I really don;t have that much spare time, sorry.

I've already provided a summary on this thread showing how the peer review process has been hijacked and bought into disrepute by Jones, Mann, Wigley and Briffa. Its not just the CRU that these guys work at - NASA GISS is in the frame as well. You can put whatever gloss or spin on it you wish, and Real Climate will assist you, but the fact is that a conspiracy has been going on for years.

"the fact is" sounds a little dogmatic....but if I'm finished with having to defend myself against bogus charges (I refer to Greg66's posts) then I will ahve a read through the thread as I'm sure I've missed quite a bit of it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Goodness me. Go off the shops for the afternoon and return to find I've been adopted as the resident Emmanuel Goldstein for the local AGW/CC chapter. Oh well.

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.

Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".

This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.

none of this is true

None of it is true? Really? You don't have the burden of proof? You're not trying to change people's minds or the way they behave? You don't want to stop people spending money on carbon-wasteful resources? You should have said. Because then I wouldn't have been nearly so confused by this:

Porgy wrote:

Western over-consumption is the problem. If the west can consume less and more sustainably then the undeveloped world can be allowed to come up to wetsern standards without compromising the planet's survival...and the world population can be allowed to level off - or reduce as it is in Europe.

Now

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.

I posted plenty of evidence up on the previous thread but didn't get many responses from sceptics.

This thread? I found this, posted on 1 December:

Porgy wrote:

slightly ashamed to say that up to now I've been more or less ignoring the climate deniers and sceptics (and those in between). Probably quite arrogant of me. Still - I'm putting that right now I hope.

I also found a link to an IPCC report, which I confess to not having read in detail, because it appeared to me to be opinion more than fact, and a link to a NASA table which stated on its face that it was not to be taken too seriously. I didn't find much else in the way of evidence that you posted links to, but I have to admit, I skimmed the thread pretty superficially.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?


*Say Hi to Dave Angel for me!

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Goodness me. Go off the shops for the afternoon and return to find I've been adopted as the resident Emmanuel Goldstein for the local AGW/CC chapter. Oh well.

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.

Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".

This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.

none of this is true

None of it is true? Really? You don't have the burden of proof? You're not trying to change people's minds or the way they behave? You don't want to stop people spending money on carbon-wasteful resources? You should have said. Because then I wouldn't have been nearly so confused by this:

Porgy wrote:

Western over-consumption is the problem. If the west can consume less and more sustainably then the undeveloped world can be allowed to come up to wetsern standards without compromising the planet's survival...and the world population can be allowed to level off - or reduce as it is in Europe.

Now

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.

I posted plenty of evidence up on the previous thread but didn't get many responses from sceptics.

This thread? I found this, posted on 1 December:

Porgy wrote:

slightly ashamed to say that up to now I've been more or less ignoring the climate deniers and sceptics (and those in between). Probably quite arrogant of me. Still - I'm putting that right now I hope.

I also found a link to an IPCC report, which I confess to not having read in detail, because it appeared to me to be opinion more than fact, and a link to a NASA table which stated on its face that it was not to be taken too seriously. I didn't find much else in the way of evidence that you posted links to, but I have to admit, I skimmed the thread pretty superficially.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?


*Say Hi to Dave Angel for me!

as i said - the debate between you and me is over - you've got a real problem - i hope you're not as unpleasant in real life.

I shall stay on to discuss with others though.

and well done for digging the all the 'dirt' on me - all that stuff about me being an environemntal advisor and ex activist - which i have always freely admitted, posted about many many times, and i believe i said in a post at some point today anyway. but gosh - aren;t you a clever little detective with time on his hands. Hope mummy gives you a gold star for that.

cjw

jedster wrote:

It makes the point that estimating temperature levels a long way in the past is fraught with difficulties and different approaches deliver very different lines for global temperature. In short, hanging an argument for or against AGW on the basis of a distant historic relationship between Co2 and ESTIMATED temperature is perilous.

Very true.... and that is also the problem with the hockey stick graphs - they are also based around ESTIMATED temperatures based around proxies from tree rings. They are based around tree ring samples, and only one of around 20 graphs showed the infamous hockey stick. The rest showed nothing similar - pretty much flat lines. Strangely that is the one the evangelists went with

Also, did you know the problem over the last ten years is that the global temerature has decreased?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

and well done for digging the all the 'dirt' on me

It's hardly digging up the dirt. It's stuff you're advertising. It's nothing to be ashamed of (which , despite what you're no doubt thinking, is genuinely meant).

But are you going to answer the question?

DonDaddyD

Porgy wrote:

as i said - the debate between you and me is over - you've got a real problem - i hope you're not as unpleasant in real life.

I shall stay on to discuss with others though.

and well done for digging the all the 'dirt' on me - all that stuff about me being an environemntal advisor and ex activist - which i have always freely admitted, posted about many many times, and i believe i said in a post at some point today anyway. but gosh - aren;t you a clever little detective with time on his hands. Hope mummy gives you a gold star for that.

That's harsh.

Why is it when people are on the brink of defeat during an 'online debate' they feel the need to resort to personal insults. Not even masked within the irony of the point. (Something Greg, as a Lawyer, is good at).

Is it another way of waving the white flag? Or simply saying 'I've lost'?

I give Man points to the person brave enough to post "I take your point, I see where you are coming from. I don't entirely agree with it but its well constructed and not something I can fully dispute".

Porgy

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?

That's client - just the one.

at the moment anyway - and i do not advise on whether climate change is happening or not...this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climat change is occuring - and did so before i joined. I advice on how to achieve cuts in carbon emmissions.

Even if I didn;t accept that climate change is a problem (and i'm not nearly as dogmatic on this as you seem to think, but then you haven't bothered to try to find out what I actually think - probably far easier for you just to see this issue in black and white, wheras I see myself occupying a grey area in the middle called having a free mind and being sceptical) there are many many other issues surrounding use of fossil fuels - and it is only beneficial for companies to reduce their dependence on them - I don;t preach, I don't spout dogma, I quote figures - money - cash - it's the only language big companies understand - and on that basis - the basis of saving money - my company is reducing its dependence on fossil fuels.

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

Porgy wrote:

as i said - the debate between you and me is over - you've got a real problem - i hope you're not as unpleasant in real life.

I shall stay on to discuss with others though.

and well done for digging the all the 'dirt' on me - all that stuff about me being an environemntal advisor and ex activist - which i have always freely admitted, posted about many many times, and i believe i said in a post at some point today anyway. but gosh - aren;t you a clever little detective with time on his hands. Hope mummy gives you a gold star for that.

That's harsh.

Why is it when people are on the brink of defeat during an 'online debate' they feel the need to resort to personal insults. Not even masked within the irony of the point. (Something Greg, as a Lawyer, is good at).

Is it another way of waving the white flag? Or simply saying 'I've lost'?

I give Man points to the person brave enough to post "I take your point, I see where you are coming from. I don't entirely agree with it but its well constructed and not something I can fully dispute".

the vultures swoop - I notice you tend to come in about here in an argument to put the boot in.

Do you think Greg66 can't speak for himself? Why do you have to step in on his behalf Mr. Spotless.

and we can see that it's ok to make personal points to win an argument because this thread is not about climate change it's about who can shout the loudest.

I am not on the verge of losing an argument .

at least not the one that matters. I'm autistic - i have a number of personality flaws - and i'm probably thick as sh1t but these are not the issues that should be discussed here.

DonDaddyD

You call me a Vulture for pointing out that what you had to say was harsh?

In a previous post, you accuse Greg of not being being unpleasant and having a problem.

That's irony or hypocrisy or something surely...

---

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

[I give Man points to the person brave enough to post "I take your point, I see where you are coming from. I don't entirely agree with it but its well constructed and not something I can fully dispute".

go on then

Porgy

Happy Xmas all you deniers anyway - no hard feelings eh?

I'm having a few days off with some other members of my secretive cabal where we're going to plot the next step of our dastardly plans to take over the world.

oh- what a give away!!

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

You call me a Vulture for pointing out that what you had to say was harsh?

In a previous post, you accuse Greg of not being a nice person.

That's irony or hypocrisy or something surely...

go back and read the thread to see the history - instead of coming in after a punch up and gloating like you always do.

I tried hard to stay on subject - but its pointless with fools like Gregg66 obsessed with arguing for arguments sake and making offensive perosnal remarks. Why am I surprised that he's a lawyer? Can argue about anything. Knows fcuk all!! that's a lawyer.

anyway i'm finished. I don;t care. I'm raking it in as part of my secret cabal fiddling the evidence, and ripping off companies, forcing right minded people to cut the heads off their own babies or something evil like that.


Happy Xmas

DonDaddyD

Anyway.....:roll:

My problem with Global Warming and Climate change is this; while I don't deny the possibility it just isn't clear what is happening what is causing it and what realistically and in an affordable way can be done and should anything be done at all save the natural progression of time and development.

I get frustrated because (and this is a small example). A new car comes out, its the all singing all dancing save the bunny rabbits car. A few years later and I'm finding out that it has a larger carbon footprint than cars made several years ago.

For every step forward there seems to be an equally justified counteractive step with just as much beneficial step.

I could buy into the whole 'eco-warrior' thing and find out that I've been doing more harm than good in years to come. I.e. bio-fuel = shortage of actual food crops makes the price of rice increase food shortage and ultimately Jeremy Clarkson was right.

Porgy

normal service to be resumed

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

Anyway.....:roll: .

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Porgy

normal service to be resumed

DonDaddyD

Porgy wrote:

you wouldn't talk to me in person but happy to talk to me like this online - that makes you a coward.

You what? Who are you directing that at?

Dude, seriously, its Christmas! If you are at work, go home. If you are at home, go out. Call up some friends, go to the pub. If you have no friends go to the pub anyway, talk to the regulars that go there. Whatever you do, turn the PC off walk away from it. There is a whole World out there and not just the four walls your sitting in and the screen you're staring at.

Gain some perspective.

Sheesh.

:shock:

Porgy

normal service to be resumed

Porgy

normal service to be resumed

DonDaddyD

Porgy wrote:

will some fcuker fcuking ban me quickly

i want out

Dude, you can ban yourself. Just turn the PC off FFS. Are you addicted to us or something.

Seriously, if you're asking to be banned because you don't want to visit the website, over and above turning the PC off or just getting up and walking away from your PC/Laptop/MAC. Then you may have some issues that need to be addressed more privately.

Here is a graphical representation:

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

And to once again try and continue the discussion I shall repost:

you're wastimng your time - some fcuker will always call you a cnut for what you believe

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

[ If you have no friends

:shock:

see what i mean? what have I said to deserve this?

DonDaddyD

And to once again try and continue the discussion I shall repost:

My problem with Global Warming and Climate change is this; while I don't deny the possibility it just isn't clear what is happening what is causing it and what realistically and in an affordable way can be done and should anything be done at all save the natural progression of time and development.

I get frustrated because (and this is a small example). A new car comes out, its the all singing all dancing save the bunny rabbits car. A few years later and I'm finding out that it has a larger carbon footprint than cars made several years ago.

For every step forward there seems to be an equally justified counteractive step with just as much beneficial step.

I could buy into the whole 'eco-warrior' thing and find out that I've been doing more harm than good in years to come. I.e. bio-fuel = shortage of actual food crops makes the price of rice increase food shortage and ultimately Jeremy Clarkson was right.

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

[Seriously, if you're asking to be banned because you don't want to visit the website, over and above turning the PC off or just getting up from your PC/Laptop/MAC. Then you have serious issues.
]

what like being autistic? - fcking genius!!