COP26 progress or same old

[D_W]

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.

sure, no opinion. You don't like that he exposed factcheck.org as unreliable by literally proving what they assert isn't factually true and then noting that they have journalists supposedly "fact checking" people with phDs who have literally worked in medicine.

Generally, anyone who is a doctor here will have MD. in healthcare, if someone else has a doctorate, they will not be called doctor in the clinic but will be referred to as a "doctor" or "with a doctorate" outside of a clinic. I've never seen him call himself a medical doctor.

The fact that you can't actually understand what he's saying and you think you just gave a response that has any legitimacy tells me that I need to recalibrate my expectations. Not only does he actually have qualifications, he went so far as to prove why in his prior video and then discuss it again.

If I were you, I would actually make an attempt to understand scientific literature rather than telling people "factcheck.org bro!"

It's farce. They are probably right more than they're wrong but the fact that they'd allow journalists to determine what's fact or not in anything other than journalism is something that wouldn't hold up anywhere. Especially when there is no explanation of "what's not true" and "what really is.".

 

[Jacob]

I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. ...

Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently )

 

[D_W]

Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently )

The temperatures will go up a fraction, the sea level will rise a fraction, you will post 9000 posts about it, and you will tell us that fact checkers for medical information don't need to be more than journalists and communications professors - as long as they agree with what you want to see.

I think that's pretty accurate. I'll ignore the rest of your posts as the response of "who cares" that journalists would literally mislead the public under a site called "factcheck" and you couldn't follow the substance is really ....i mean really bizarre.

I have a degree in mathematics and some profession exposure to creating and using models (though it's not my day to day work).

I just wonder why I ever wasted my time responding to any of your posts given that I thought you might have grasped some of what you constantly cut and paste (I never assumed that it would be with much certainty, but even people who sand windowframes can do things like write code in their spare time and get good at it vs. just being nutty and obsessed) but I'm not certain that you know it beyond cutting and pasting and the needle leans the other way. As much as you want everyone to think you're a credible voice, the only thing you can do is deflect.

 

[ey_tony]

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

It would do to someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about and accepts what they are told without question.

 

[ey_tony]

Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently )

Like I've said already, it's pointless debating with someone who throws facts from wikipedia as the answer. Anyone with half a brain would know that wikipedia is the last place to look for a factual and creditable answer where the subject is so emotive. The information contained in wiki can be edited by ANYONE and therefore is open to bias.
Heck even I could go onto Joe Biden's wikipedia page and say he's a really first rate president on top of his job. It wouldn't mean it was an accurate description.

 

[Jacob]

It would do to someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about and accepts what they are told without question.

We are questioning!
We want you, the highly qualified team of experts gathered here (and Trainee neophyte), to tell us why 99% of scientists are getting it all wrong!
There are Nobel prizes to be won - come on get your act together! Could be a joint Nobel prize under the aegis of UK workshop?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Could do with some help on this.
So far I've only managed to dig up Bellamy and P Corbyn. Not very convincing.
Other than that there seem to be just paid lobbyists and fruitcakes. Must be more to it than that?

Edited - got my Patrick Moores mixed up. The well known astronomer was innocent of climate change scepticism as far as I know.
The other one was head of Greenpeace and probably a paid lobbyist and dodgy dealer. Possibly the most influential sceptic in recent years Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Global_climate_change_denial

There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.

Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}

The worry is that, being a good lefty, you are possibly enthusiastic to kill large numbers of people in order to save them. Your Varoufakis article (I'm quite fond of Varoufakis, by the way) suggested that all coal plants be closed immediately, and all new oil and gas exploration stops immediately. I immediately thought of the holodomor, the great leap forward, and any number of other diverse programs of communist-inspired genocides - all of which were perpetrated in order to benefit the millions who died. Yannis is a good Marxist, so suitably extreme in his views. I do wonder how tolerant you are.

Your desperate attempt to have a fight is noted, and ignored.

 

[Jacob]

There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.

Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}

The worry is that, being a good lefty, you are possibly enthusiastic to kill large numbers of people in order to save them. Your Varoufakis article (I'm quite fond of Varoufakis, by the way) suggested that all coal plants be closed immediately, and all new oil and gas exploration stops immediately. I immediately thought of the holodomor, the great leap forward, and any number of other diverse programs of communist-inspired genocides - all of which were perpetrated in order to benefit the millions who died. Yannis is a good Marxist, so suitably extreme in his views. I do wonder how tolerant you are.

Your desperate attempt to have a fight is noted, and ignored.

Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?

 

[Chris152]

This is turning into another willy-waving contest. Pathetic. It's a serious issue and it's being reduced to 'I know better than you'.

 

[ey_tony]

We are questioning!
We want you, the highly qualified team of experts gathered here (and Trainee neophyte), to tell us why 99% of scientists are getting it all wrong!

Why? Such as you wouldn't understand it if I did!

 

[Jacob]

Why? Such as you wouldn't understand it if I did!

I wouldn't count on it. Tell us what it is you think you know.

 

[ey_tony]

This is turning into another willy-waving contest. Pathetic. It's a serious issue and it's being reduced to 'I know better than you'.

It is a serious issue. Politics are being driven by the information and misinformation they receive which affects everyone with the decisions they make. Very, very few politicians actually understand the meaning of the data behind the arguments and accept this this without question just as most other people do on forums like this.

The for or against man-made GW stance is out of balance as no one is able to add some balance to the debate as is obvious on forums like this.
Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so, mostly by those who from what I've seen do not understand what they are talking about

 

[ey_tony]

I wouldn't count on it. Tell us what it is you think you know.

I'll tell you what I think I know...you're full of patronising bull whotsit, in fact I don't just think it!

 

[Jacob]

....Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so,

We are asking you to open up - what is it that you think you know?

I'll tell you what I think I know...you're full of patronising bull whotsit, in fact I don't just think it!

Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?
Just one detail that they have demonstrably got wrong? Anything at all? Er - nothing?

 

[Chris152]

It is a serious issue. Politics are being driven by the information and misinformation they receive which affects everyone with the decisions they make. Very, very few politicians actually understand the meaning of the data behind the arguments and accept this this without question just as most other people do on forums like this.

The for or against man-made GW stance is out of balance as no one is able to add some balance to the debate as is obvious on forums like this.
Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so, mostly by those who from what I've seen do not understand what they are talking about

The thing is, nobody you're arguing with is trying to pretend to know better what they're talking about. We're looking for a reason not to believe the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that is describing climate change and its causes. It would be truly wonderful to see. It's great that you did a degree 35 years ago and have followed some of the issues, but why on earth would I take your opinion over that overwhelming consensus of expert opinion? You either see their research as flawed, in which case point to the specifics and earn yourself that Nobel prize, or you need to point to some other, non-scientific reason why their flawed science is respected and being promoted - this is where you need to construct your conspiracy theory to account for it.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?

Why don't you apply the scientific method and disprove the hypothesis yourself. It would be good for you. See if you can find any cogent arguments that don't support the nine out of ten cats who expressed a preference narrative. It may be that there aren't any, in which case your hypothesis stands.

But here's the thing: you have to really, really try to disprove it. Honestly.

A very good read: Richard Feynman: 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.' Cargo-Cult Science speech, Caltech - 1974 — Speakola

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

 

[Jacob]

Why don't you apply the scientific method and disprove the hypothesis yourself. I.......

I'm not qualified! I'm just going along with the majority scientific opinion. It seems to hang together pretty well.
It's you lot telling us it's flawed, confidence trick, money making scam, etc etc but you haven't put any bones on it and it's not obvious why you are banging on about it endlessly.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I'm not qualified! I'm just going along with the majority scientific opinion. It seems to hang together pretty well.
It's you lot telling us it's flawed, confidence trick, money making scam, etc etc but you haven't put any bones on it and it's not obvious why you are banging on about it endlessly.

I'm off to bed. Good night.

 

[John Brown]

There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.

Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}

The worry is that, being a good lefty, you are possibly enthusiastic to kill large numbers of people in order to save them. Your Varoufakis article (I'm quite fond of Varoufakis, by the way) suggested that all coal plants be closed immediately, and all new oil and gas exploration stops immediately. I immediately thought of the holodomor, the great leap forward, and any number of other diverse programs of communist-inspired genocides - all of which were perpetrated in order to benefit the millions who died. Yannis is a good Marxist, so suitably extreme in his views. I do wonder how tolerant you are.

Your desperate attempt to have a fight is noted, and ignored.

Come on! None of us do discussion.

 

[ey_tony]

The thing is, nobody you're arguing with is trying to pretend to know better what they're talking about. We're looking for a reason not to believe the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that is describing climate change and its causes. It would be truly wonderful to see. It's great that you did a degree 35 years ago and have followed some of the issues, but why on earth would I take your opinion over that overwhelming consensus of expert opinion? You either see their research as flawed, in which case point to the specifics and earn yourself that Nobel prize, or you need to point to some other, non-scientific reason why their flawed science is respected and being promoted - this is where you need to construct your conspiracy theory to account for it.

I don't see all research as flawed nor do I have a need to construct a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can explain why Mann et al conveniently left out the period of the Little Ice Age from their Hockey Stick data which they presented to the IPCC?

I'd be interested to read your take on it!