COP26 progress or same old

[Chris152]

Perhaps this thread could be retitled 'Pointless bickering about whether or not man-made climate change is happening'?
Anyone got any thoughts about the impact of deck chair arrangement on the Titanic on the ship's eventual fate? Could be another fascinating thread.
eta - in fact, I'm having doubts the Titanic ever existed.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I am personally happy to accept conclusions reached by Scientic American and New Scientist - as it seems are most credible scientists.

As I undertand it the Mann hockeystick was the first (or early) temperature reconstruction. That subsequent analysis based on improved data changed the analysis is unsurprising. Mann may also have (deliberately or otherwise) skewed the statistical analysis for effect.

Neither matters - the general conclusions have not changed.

But an exchange of insults is clearly more fun than rational discussion and debate on subjects about which we may all benefit through being better informed.

 

[Jacob]

...
... many others don't agree.

David Bellamy and Piers Corbyn?

MWP - read all about it: 'Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says - Inside Climate News
More here: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
It seems to MWP and LIA were deduced from historical information but were local, not global -as subsequently verified by ice research etc. In any case they fitted in with the broad spread of the Hockey graph range and would not have altered the conclusion even if found to be global.

 

[ey_tony]

David Bellamy and Piers Corbyn?

MWP - read all about it: 'Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says - Inside Climate News
More here: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
It seems to MWP and LIA were deduced from historical information but were local, not global -as subsequently verified by ice research etc. In any case they fitted in with the broad spread of the Hockey graph range and would not have altered the conclusion even if found to be global.

Believe what you want, it really doesn't bother me.
As I've previously stated, your credibility is nil as far as I'm concerned. It says it all when anyone quotes Wikipedia as a reliable source of information!
It's open source information and there are people out there who can deliberately edit the content, depending upon their narrative to skew the facts so that people such as you believe it to be true.
It might be a useful resource for some subjects like history etc but where emotive subjects such as AGW and politics are concerned, it's dreadful and the content should never be trusted without first checking the facts.

Your assertions regarding the MWP and the LIA according to the papers I've read don't agree with your view, therefore I'd argue you are wrong on both counts but you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.

 

[John Brown]

I have no desire to hurl insults at anyone(except perhaps JRM), or indeed, to have them hurled at me. I just want to understand why some people think 97%(I know that's contested, but I think it's fair to say the vast majority) of climate scientists are either plain wrong, or just "following the money". I think there's a lot more money in dodgy PR dressed up as science and paid for by fossil fuel interests.
This is of no relevance to TN, if course, as he seems to believe that climate change would be a good thing. He may be right, for all I know, but that's a different argument.

 

[John Brown]

Wikipedia is not perfect, but it does often include citations, and folks in all sides of the debate have access for editing, as I understand things.
It is, however, in my opinion, a lot safer than getting your "facts" from Facebook.. or Twitter, or some bloke at the filling station whose friend once cleaned the windscreen of a scientist's car.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

. I think there's a lot more money in dodgy PR dressed up as science and paid for by fossil fuel interests.

Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "our" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "their" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.

 

[Jacob]

Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "our" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "their" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.

You really believe that 99% of world science is corrupt and dishonest and just a tiny 1% are straight?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966Very odd. Not much you can say really. It's a pity there's no evidence.

 

[Jacob]

.......

Your assertions regarding the MWP and the LIA according to the papers I've read don't agree with your view,

What papers are these? Can we have links?

therefore I'd argue you are wrong on both counts

I'd argue that these papers of yours don't exist and you are just making it up on the hoof

but you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.

That is clearly your position but personally I don't believe whatever I wish - I make some effort to find out facts. You should try it! You have nothing to lose!

 

[ey_tony]

You really believe that 99% of world science is corrupt and dishonest and just a tiny 1% are straight?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966Very odd. Not much you can say really. It's a pity there's no evidence.

AGW has been like manna from heaven for countless thousands of academics worldwide in the form of almost limitless research grants over the past two or more decades.

Why on earth would they want to change the current status quo by questioning the facts surrounding the GW god and its resultant religion?
If they did that then they would be effectively unemployed and to do so would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. They just aren't going to do it which is why they are locked into the current line of thinking.

I'll wager if there was no further grants available to prove that GW is anthropogenic in origin, we'd immediately see a huge drop in the consensus you keep repeatedly beating the drum about.

Too many of the so called scientists are bought and paid for. The GW lot are just the same as those who are bought and paid for by the oil and tobacco industries.

 

[John Brown]

Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "our" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "their" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.

Firstly, there are ninety nine people competing for the "concensus" money, as opposed to one for the fossil fuel money.
Secondly, I did say PR dressed up as science.

But I'm not arguing with you any more, TN. You think climate change is a good thing, so whether you think it's false, man-made or natural, is irrelevant.

 

[Jacob]

AGW has been like manna from heaven for countless thousands of academics worldwide in the form of almost limitless research grants over the past two or more decades.

Why on earth would they want to change the current status quo by questioning the facts surrounding the GW god and its resultant religion?
If they did that then they would be effectively unemployed and to do so would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. They just aren't going to do it which is why they are locked into the current line of thinking.

I'll wager if there was no further grants available to prove that GW is anthropogenic in origin, we'd immediately see a huge drop in the consensus you keep repeatedly beating the drum about.

Too many of the so called scientists are bought and paid for. The GW lot are just the same as those who are bought and paid for by the oil and tobacco industries.

What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!!
Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world! (and TN!).
I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself (or TN!) nor anything else thing interesting either.
Tata for now!

 

[ey_tony]

What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!!
Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world!
I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself, nor anything else thing interesting either.
Tata for now!

By all means press it. I have too much to do and too little time to waste it trying to debate with someone with entrenched views so you will be doing me a favour.

 

[Istrickl]

I am personally happy to accept conclusions reached by Scientic American and New Scientist - as it seems are most credible scientists.

As I undertand it the Mann hockeystick was the first (or early) temperature reconstruction. That subsequent analysis based on improved data changed the analysis is unsurprising. Mann may also have (deliberately or otherwise) skewed the statistical analysis for effect.

Neither matters - the general conclusions have not changed.

But an exchange of insults is clearly more fun than rational discussion and debate on subjects about which we may all benefit through being better informed.

Mm, so you're suggesting that pretty much the only data that the initial IPCC report was based on and that has subsequently been proven to be fraud, is not important because the conclusions, what, don't need the data anyway? I'm just getting in to this subject, and I'm not a 'denier' (why are we using this religious terminology - I think it has no place in science), but why does using fraudulent data not affect the conclusion?

 

[Istrickl]

What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!!
Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world! (and TN!).
I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself (or TN!) nor anything else thing interesting either.
Tata for now!

Actually, further investigation looks like there is considerable scepticism about 'the climate emergency ', but it doesn' t get much reported by MSM. It also seems that anyone opposing the mainstream message, which now seems to be bordering on religious hysteria, gets cancelled. This can't be right... Can it? It's obviously a subject where passions run high, just look at the personal attacks here, on a bloody woodworking forum for goodness sake. I tried to bring it up in the pub the other day, and just for doing so, there were particular types that leapt to conclusions and got quite angry. There appears to be a fair subset of our society that is losing its marbles over this...it's quite unpleasant and definitely unproductive

 

[Jacob]

Mm, so you're suggesting that pretty much the only data that the initial IPCC report was based on and that has subsequently been proven to be fraud, is not important because the conclusions, what, don't need the data anyway? I'm just getting in to this subject, and I'm not a 'denier' (why are we using this religious terminology - I think it has no place in science), but why does using fraudulent data not affect the conclusion?

It wasn't fraudulent. It was an estimate, improved upon in subsequent revisions.

 

[Jacob]

Actually, further investigation looks like there is considerable scepticism about 'the climate emergency ', but it doesn' t get much reported by MSM. It also seems that anyone opposing the mainstream message, which now seems to be bordering on religious hysteria, gets cancelled. This can't be right... Can it? It's obviously a subject where passions run high, just look at the personal attacks here, on a bloody woodworking forum for goodness sake. I tried to bring it up in the pub the other day, and just for doing so, there were particular types that leapt to conclusions and got quite angry. There appears to be a fair subset of our society that is losing its marbles over this...it's quite unpleasant and definitely unproductive

There is no 'considerable scepticism' amongst scientists. Nor is it likely that they are co-operating in a massive world wide fraud - perhaps the single most insane idea coming from the denial side.
Passions run high on the denial side. It's difficult to understand quite why they are so anxious to be proved right. They have been fighting the science from the start and effectively delayed action.
As the evidence gets reported one consistent theme is that things seem to be happening sooner than forecast. To that extent the science has been slow off the mark, too timid in raising the alarm, taken too much notice of the uninformed opposition.
If you are interested you could work your way through some of the links posted up in this thread - no point in going through it all again!.

 

[Istrickl]

It wasn't fraudulent. It was an estimate, improved upon in subsequent revisions.

I'm not sure that's right. Ball alleged, and looking at information on further contemporary data sources it would appear to be credible, that Mann had manipulated/ignored data in order to present his "hockey stick" in support of a desired narrative. This was brought to a head with the leaking of many emails from the UEA. Mann sued Ball for libel - Ball won and was awarded damages. Mann refuses to release information to this day on how he produced the now infamous hockey stick. I reckon there's at least something not quite right here. I think it's at the very least enough to discredit it as the mainstay of the IPCC report don't you?

 

[Jacob]

I'm not sure that's right. Ball alleged, and looking at information on further contemporary data sources it would appear to be credible, that Mann had manipulated/ignored data in order to present his "hockey stick" in support of a desired narrative. This was brought to a head with the leaking of many emails from the UEA. Mann sued Ball for libel - Ball won and was awarded damages. Mann refuses to release information to this day on how he produced the now infamous hockey stick. I reckon there's at least something not quite right here. I think it's at the very least enough to discredit it as the mainstay of the IPCC report don't you?

Already well covered - read some of the links already posted.
Ball did not win and was not awarded damages.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...elevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-VictoryIn the meantime climate is changing, much as forecast, but faster.

 

[Istrickl]

Passions run high on the denial side. It's difficult to understand quite why they are so anxious to be proved right. They have been fighting the science from the start and effectively delayed action
The whole issue is being taken over by the evidence unfortunately. We all wish it wasn't!
If you are interested you could work your way through some of the links posted up in this thread

I've read heaps and watched videos since coming across this thread. I'm convinced that there is some level of anthropogenic influence on the climate but to what degree is the obvious question. I'm not prepared, right now, to ascribe a level of threat to the planet from co2 that is generally the only narrative available to the general public. There is a shocking lack of available debate and the consequences for those that have attempted to do so have been severe - cancel culture at its worst! Surely, this matter is potentially so serious that we should promote, no, insist, that voices are heard. Well, the fact that Greta whatserface gets more press than a good body of scientists, seems indicative of the problem, not just of 'climate emergency' but also generally of our society as a whole. Phew, profound or what...
Am I now officially a denier...