COP26 progress or same old

[Jacob]

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!

You can read Mann's own account here. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message
If you are interested in this sort of stuff you need to keep up.
I used to be an avid reader of Scientific American and New Scientist but have to admit that the day came when unopened copies were piling up around the flat and I had to cancel subs. Nice to be able to find it again on line.

 

[Jacob]

..

I just wonder why I ever wasted my time responding to any of your posts ...

I wondered too. Why do you bother even trying?

 

[Adam W.]

It's LOVE.

 

[Chris152]

Deleted - Just read Dr Bob's post and he's completely right. This has turned into childish nonsense.

 

[doctor Bob]

Could some of you have a look at what you have posted in the last few days and maybe realise that what you have created is not a discussion but pure bickering and one upmanship. This seems to be the main problem with debate these days, it just seems very shouty and non productive because neither side listens and belief seems so deep rooted that opinions will not alter one jot regardless of any evidence presented. This goes for both sides of the party. Very depressing.
No wonder most cannot be bothered to take part and every thread ends up in the hidden nutters forum.
I'd like to join in but know full well it would be pointless, a lot of the argument is personal and continues from previous threads.

 

[ey_tony]

You continue to misunderstand. I have no take on the Little Ice Age. I'm not pretending to know anything. Your post (no 99 in this thread) clearly attacks the science that informs COP 26 (the first part of your post), and you chose to focus positively on natural climate change (the second part of your post). You may not have intended that, but that's what it does. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason whatsoever not to believe scientific consunsus - you've certainly offered no such reason in your post. It must be tricky thinking down to my level from your lofty heights, but if you can offer such reason here (apart from vague suggestions of corruption, vanity etc), it'd be great.
Frankly, I'm far more interested in what COP 26 can or can't do to help resolve the crisis we're currently facing.

You admit to not knowing anything about a subject and yet you immediately seek to criticise others such as myself who dare to question the validity of the questionable manipulation of data such as in Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis.
Sorry but I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.

 

[Jameshow]

Could some of you have a look at what you have posted in the last few days and maybe realise that what you have created is not a discussion but pure bickering and one upmanship. This seems to be the main problem with debate these days, it just seems very shouty and non productive because neither side listens and belief seems so deep rooted that opinions will not alter one jot regardless of any evidence presented. This goes for both sides of the party. Very depressing.
No wonder most cannot be bothered to take part and every thread ends up in the hidden nutters forum.
I'd like to join in but know full well it would be pointless, a lot of the argument is personal and continues from previous threads.

As my mum would say now now children!!!

 

[woodieallen]

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.

Um, so you keep saying but we only have your word for it. Show us the proof please. Where are your peer-reviewed papers into "Why Climate Change is not Manmade ?"

 

[Chris152]

Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.

You clearly attack the motivations of the science in your opening paragraphs. But it's of no consequence, what you've written is familiar and adds nothing to the question of COP's success or otherwise.

 

[John Brown]

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.

Yet if you look at the Wikipedia page on the hockey stick graph, there are 147 citations.
Let's see yours.

 

[woodieallen]

Yet if you look at the Wikipedia page on the hockey stick graph, there are 147 citations.
Let's see yours.

I think you will be waiting a VERY long time. It's so easy on a forum to say that you are brighter than Einstein and yet provide zero proof to support that viewpoint. Just keep on saying it and hope that you convince people. Or simply delusional.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Many ridiculed Al Gores film "An Inconvenient Trust" ~20 years ago. The title was prophetic - it still is an inconvenient truth, and not one that seems likely to be resolved:

• politicians are elected for ~5 years (one party states excepted). Solving the climate challenge is multidecadal. Short term expediency trumps long term needs.
• rarely are politicians world class scientists. Alok Sharma running COP26 - physics degree, chartered accountancy followed by banking. He has to rely on scientists.
• better to "bet" on scientific consensus than an incoherent minority
• the political establishment - UK and overseas - are no better intellectually equipped
• individual nations protect their own interests - some may be corrupt, most have their national interest at heart.
• commercial motivation runs on even shorter timescales than the electoral

COP26 will not deliver agreed action plans and roadmap to salvation. Expect a compromised aspirational document touted as success (peace) in our times (Chamberlain following a meeting with Adolf comes to mind).

I generally accept the scientific consensus, but I question why the "truth" matters. This leaves two strategies for the UK, neither of which need to be underpinned by "truth":

• do that which is anyway sensible - legislate for green energy, recycling, less food miles, minimising global supply chains, limit fossil fuel use etc. Low risk if science is wrong, high benefit if science is right.
• accept that we can react only on political timescales - stop wasting time and effort on 100% consensus. Apply the brains and energy to the first bullet.

 

[Jacob]

4.30 am got woke up by the dog barking thought I'd pop down for a cup of tea.
Much warmer than last night I blame climate change!

You admit to not knowing anything about a subject and yet you immediately seek to criticise others such as myself who dare to question the validity of the questionable manipulation of data such as in Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis.

Not criticising you, just wondering why you can't/won't substantiate your claims.
What did you think of Mann's own account? Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

Sorry but I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.

OK, so what questions did you ask and what answers did you find?
Did you read the wikipedia article through? It's a long read and seems to cover the issue pretty well. Where do you think it misrepresents the data, over and above the very thorough discussion of the errors/corrections/controversy and on-going research?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

 

[TRITON]

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

I've read much of the thread and dont have a say in this, but the statement above Tony pretty much describes yourself.

 

[David p marsh]

It's the same old crap every time no body can see what's required to put things Wright before we distroy every living thing in the world on land, in the air, and sea's .So come on World Leader's let's get it to get her.

 

[John Brown]

It's the same old rubbish every time no body can see what's required to put things Wright before we distroy every living thing in the world on land, in the air, and sea's .So come on World Leader's let's get it to get her.

Ain't predictive text marmalade!

 

[Sandyn]

Hopefully getting back to the discussion. Some figures I find interesting and possibly quite worrying are that Global CO2 emissions were cut by about 6.4% in 2020 compared to 2019 as a result of the pandemic.

However if you look at the measured value of CO2 in the atmosphere the 6.4% cut in CO2 production seems to have had little effect on the measured levels

" The red lines and symbols represent the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black lines and symbols represent the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle."

I'm not trying to make any point here. I just expected to see some dip in the measured value of CO2 as a result of the 6.4% cut in production of CO2.

The 6.4% cut happened within an annual cycle of the CO2 level. I would have expected to see some change in the cycle for 2020?

Apparently, we need to reduce emissions by about 7.6% per year over the next ten years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, but a 6.4% one year reduction didn't seem to have reduced the measured CO2?

 

[DrPhill]

I generally accept the scientific consensus, but I question why the "truth" matters. This leaves two strategies for the UK, neither of which need to be underpinned by "truth":

• do that which is anyway sensible - legislate for green energy, recycling, less food miles, minimising global supply chains, limit fossil fuel use etc. Low risk if science is wrong, high benefit if science is right.
• accept that we can react only on political timescales - stop wasting time and effort on 100% consensus. Apply the brains and energy to the first bullet.

 

[ey_tony]

Um, so you keep saying but we only have your word for it. Show us the proof please. Where are your peer-reviewed papers into "Why Climate Change is not Manmade ?"

Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?

 

[Jacob]

Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?

Pages and pages out there. Get googling! The come back and tell us why everybody is wrong!

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humanshttps://theconversation.com/climate...change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/