COP26 progress or same old

[Jacob]

........

There is a whole industry built up around GW as it was first named. They don't want the data they use to be questioned or challenged and will deliberately leave out facts that would bring into question their hypothesis and modelling.
......

They are questioning and challenging the data at every stage. That is what science is about.
The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief if you could prove them wrong. There could be Nobel prizes in it! You should get together with Trainee neophyte and Lonsdale73?
Does make me laugh the way people keep popping up and accusing 99% of the world's expertise of lying, cheating and making money out of it, but can't provide an iota of evidence
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

[ey_tony]

They are questioning and challenging the data at every stage. That is what science is about.
The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief if you could prove them wrong. There could be Nobel prizes in it! You should get together with Trainee neophyte and Lonsdale73?
Does make me laugh the way people keep popping up and accusing 99% of the world's expertise of lying, cheating and making money out of it, but can't provide an iota of evidence
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge, you clearly have more information than I have.

 

[Jacob]

Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge!

Do you think the scientific world should bow to your superior knowledge?
It's the opinion of 99% of the scientists on the case. The crafty bas terds have tricked me into believing them and will be laughing all the way to the bank!
M Mann and the Hocky Stick here, hope that helps. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

 

[Chris152]

Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge, you clearly have more information than I have.

I think this is where these 'discussions' go wrong. Knowing a bit more about something than someone else on a woodworking forum means nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. The best bet of the deniers is to come up with a really good conspiracy theory - 'follow the money' etc doesn't cut it, you'll need to try harder. Meanwhile, the rest of us numpties will carrying on believing the overwhelming scientific consensus because, well, in the absence of significant evidence to call that into question, to do otherwise is just daft.

 

[ey_tony]

Do you think the scientific world should bow to your superior knowledge?
It's the opinion of 99% of the scientists on the case. The crafty bas terds have tricked me into believing them and will be laughing all the way to the bank!
M Mann and the Hocky Stick here, hope that helps. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

You might want to check out the University of East Anglia emails of Mann et al regarding about leaving out the Little Ice age etc as it wouldn't fit with their claims.

 

[ey_tony]

I think this is where these 'discussions' go wrong. Knowing a bit more about something than someone else on a woodworking forum means nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. The best bet of the deniers is to come up with a really good conspiracy theory - 'follow the money' etc doesn't cut it, you'll need to try harder. Meanwhile, the rest of us numpties will carrying on believing the overwhelming scientific consensus because, well, in the absence of significant evidence to call that into question, to do otherwise is just daft.

I'm not a denier. I studied Geology/Geophysics at university and have closely followed the debates and studied the available data over the past 32 years and I think that at least qualifies me to some extent to legitimately question many questionable claims which I believe are wrong or misleading.

That is entirely different to being a denier!

 

[Chris152]

Your argument seems to be that climate change is happening, but that it's natural and not man-made? In which case, you're a man-made climate change denier? Just looking at the tone of your dismissal of the scientists in question (those whose work is informing the ambitions of COP 26) and your attention to long-term natural shifts in climate in contrast to that. Very happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
My understanding of Mann et al is that his emails were hacked and deliberately edited to misrepresent what he was writing.

 

[D_W]

Which of you guys thinks you're going to get somewhere arguing about climate change? Are you gearing up to go to your wife tonight and tell her everything that she says to you that's unfair and you can prove it? Let me know how that turns out.

 

[Chris152]

Which of you guys thinks you're going to get somewhere arguing about climate change? Are you gearing up to go to your wife tonight and tell her everything that she says to you that's unfair and you can prove it? Let me know how that turns out.

No idea what you've written there DW, but my hope is that I'll understand things in the thread better by asking questions and occasionally writing what I think.

 

[D_W]

I'm just joshing (not sure if that's an american term). I've apparently become someone for jacob to persuade because I think the earth is warming and if I had to bet at lloyds, I'd have to say at least some significant part of it is caused by carbon (and possibly methane, or any number of other things).

But it's not something I worry about when I wake up or go to bed, and it's often used as a way to try to cast aside immediate issues (and then, as I mentioned with all of the plastics stuff, nobody seems to really want to solve it. If we get climate action that's like plastics recycling, we might as well just forget it - costly with no material benefit, but it is or at least was a big virtue signal....recycling itself got its push before every tom, dick and cora was on the internet (that's my way of saying even the old people are on now, and I'm getting into becoming one of them), so it escaped any reasonable review for a while.

But further on this, what I think doesn't really matter that much. I've not seen anyone change their mind about climate stuff, and I've learned the hard way that talking to the mrs. about mapping outcomes vs. criticism....well, you might as well fart in church and ask for praise for it, instead. The odds of the latter are more in favor.

 

[Spectric]

Heres a better suggestion, Copout26 is nearing it's end and despite all the huge fanfare during the leadup it has become a damp squid and no solid outcome apart from some draft proposal that provides plenty of get out clauses so can be ignored. We are little people that cannot make the changes needed and the people who can are of the older generation who don't want to rock the boat and make any impact on lifestyles so are just blagging there way forward. So at least we can just carry on and enjoy wood butchery until we either lapse or need to head to the high ground, but could also build an ark if requested.

 

[D_W]

These conventions don't involve problem solvers. They involve problem users - the kinds of people who overrule problem solvers and call them simpletons for "not understanding how nuanced politics are".

"you'd never get elected".

"well sir, you made an error thinking that it's something I'd attempt".

 

[ey_tony]

Your argument seems to be that climate change is happening, but that it's natural and not man-made? In which case, you're a man-made climate change denier? Just looking at the tone of your dismissal of the scientists in question (those whose work is informing the ambitions of COP 26) and your attention to long-term natural shifts in climate in contrast to that. Very happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
My understanding of Mann et al is that his emails were hacked and deliberately edited to misrepresent what he was writing.

Wrong!

 

[Jacob]

You might want to check out the University of East Anglia emails of Mann et al regarding about leaving out the Little Ice age etc as it wouldn't fit with their claims.

You are about 12 years behind.
You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversyIgnorance is no excuse!
Hope that helps.
PS are you also anti vaccination, covid sceptic and pro brexit? It's a syndrome. askin for a friend

 

[D_W]

You are about 12 years behind. You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org. Ignorance is no excuse!
Hope that helps.

Jacob, we still haven't heard about your personal commitment to limit carbon emissions. Recall my comments previously - I don't poll people I know on climate issues because it's not something on my radar, but would bet I could find a gaggle of folks who don't believe that it's even occurring yet still have a very low carbon footprint.

I see factcheck.org is now allowing journalists to conflict with John Campbell's discussion that the pfizer pill and ivermectin have some similarities (they are protease inhibitors). More or less in the situation now where "fact checking" is done by journalists trying to run around and collect opinions to see if they can overrule more qualified individuals.



Hilarious - scientific fact checks done by "journalists" including one with a BA in Journalism. And a communications professor.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, we still haven't heard about your personal commitment to limit carbon emissions. Recall my comments previously - I don't poll people I know on climate issues because it's not something on my radar, but would bet I could find a gaggle of folks who don't believe that it's even occurring yet still have a very low carbon footprint.

Er - so what?
It would make no difference to anything if I personally was driving around in a Humvee and taking trips to the moon, or living naked in a cave eating insects. My position is very much in between these. Hope that helps.
PS Dr John Campbell is a PHD not a medical doctor, if his bio is to be believed.
He may be a nutter - there are signs, most conspicuously calling himself "Doctor", which he is entitled to do but most PHDs would not, unless it was particularly relevant.
In heath care settings PhDs avoid using the term “doctor” so as not to confuse the issue.
But I have no opinion either way.

 

[ey_tony]

You are about 12 years behind.
You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversyIgnorance is no excuse!
Hope that helps.
PS are you also anti vaccination, covid sceptic and pro brexit? It's a syndrome. askin for a friend

LOL. Someone quoting wikipedia says it all.
It's the resource for the hard of thinking.

Anyway, I've given you my credentials and background history on the subject of GW, I'm just waiting for you to show us yours credentials.

 

[Jacob]

LOL. Someone quoting wikipedia says it all.
It's the resource for the hard of thinking.

Anyway, I've given you my credentials and background history on the subject of GW, I'm just waiting for you to show us yours credentials.

We are all waiting for you to show us the faults in the consensus CC argument, as you are obviously an expert. Where did they get it wrong and what really will happen, in fact, not opinion?

 

[ey_tony]

We are all waiting for you to show us the faults in the consensus CC argument, as you are obviously an expert. Where did they get it wrong and what really will happen, in fact, not opinion?

I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. You it seems are the real expert here so I'll bow to your expert knowledge which you obviously have.

 

[John Brown]

I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. You it seems are the real expert here so I'll bow to your expert knowledge which you obviously have.

That sounds like a roundabout way of conceding that you are unable to pinpoint the errors in the 99% concensus.