Plot idea

121_zps6jyixbkp

Leave a comment

96 Comments

  1. This is another piece of illogical untruth perpetuated by those with another agenda. 97% of scientists agree? The noises off are the laughter of those who use common-sense rather than emotive speech. Do grow up children.

    Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  8th December 2015

      Surely “do grow up children” would also qualify as emotive speech?

      I see the 97% figure quoted widely, and it appears to have a trail which leads to several peer-reviewed publications. Do you have some evidence which proves it incorrect that you would like to furnish?

      Reply
      • Yes, Mefrostate. I do have the evidence. Try and Google “Scientific Evidence of Global Warming”, and you will see that the scientists of the branch of Science of weather prediction,are generally agreed on the heating of the planet. However there are significant numbers of the Scientific Community who are at odds with that supposed consensus. Walker, last century discovered the effect we now call the Southern Oscillation, El Nino to others. He established a pattern of climatic differences due to the difference in circulation of the globe close to the equator versus that of places south and north of the equator. Walker was a Mathematician whose expertise in Statistics was universally acknowledged. He went to India and studied the causes of the monsoon in India which was life–determining and found the cyclical relationship caused by the spin of the Earth. The pity of it all is that even today some of our weather forecasters still get it wrong. I have not yet established how many weather scientists there are in terms of the total numbers of other Scientists, but common -sense tell me to claim a 97% agreement amongst scientists has no substance.

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  8th December 2015

          To be specific, the claim is: “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

          Your comment does not provide any counter evidence to this claim, even if Gilbert Walker were a sceptic (he wasn’t), then that would constitute a grant total of one so far.

          I really think your claim that “This is another piece of illogical untruth perpetuated by those with another agenda” is far too aggressive without substantial supporting evidence.

          Reply
          • FarmerPete

             /  8th December 2015

            That spurious claim of 97% has been well and truly debunked years ago. Just make any google search on the subject and you will find quite compelling information. The 97% claim was a blunt weapon to silence other voices. Crude and ultimately ineffective.

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  8th December 2015

              On the contrary, the ‘debunking’ you refer to appears to be the “blunt weapon”.

              Absent any specific evidence provided by you, I have indeed conducted some searches and reviewed a few articles ‘debunking’ the 97%. Some were interesting, but none compelling. Indeed, arguments often appeared stronger in favour of the 97% figure than against it.

              Case and point, Cook was critiqued by Legates, but with a flawed interpretation of the original methodology. It also seems that Legates has ties to ExxonMobil.

              I’m happy to change my beliefs in the face of new evidence though. Are you?

          • Timoti

             /  8th December 2015

            Start with John Cook. Finish with John Cook

            Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th December 2015

        Do you believe that 97% nonsense? Have you ever looked at its derivation?

        Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  8th December 2015

    The oil companies sponsor the alarmists, not the sceptics. And harvest taxpayer and consumer subsidies for “green” technologies. There is no money in scepticism but there are billions adding to trillions for alarmism so they know which side to butter.

    Of course none of that stops the alarmists from lying and making personal attacks on scientists who do their job raising questions that need to be asked. As per the above.

    Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  8th December 2015

      It seems to me that scepticism helps to delay costs being imposed on greenhouse emitters, meaning there are indeed billions to be made by oil companies by sponsoring scepticism.

      “Of course none of that stops the alarmists from lying and making personal attacks on scientists who do their job raising questions that need to be asked.” This statement appears highly hypocritical in nature given that its main effect is to throw doubt on the character of ‘alarmists’, many of whom are also scientists doing their job.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th December 2015

        If anything throws that doubt it is the silly nonsense in the head post. And no, the world will depend on oil for many decades to come quite irrespective of scepticism.

        Hilarious of course that most of the hardline alarmists have been predicting peak oil in vain for decades. About as reliable as their global warming predictions.

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  8th December 2015

          Fair point, I don’t endorse the type of argument employed by the head post.

          However, I’m sure you are “capable of understanding” the point it is trying to raise, which is that oil producers have more to gain from promoting climate skepticism (and require less effort to do so) than have scientists from publishing their work in support of AGW.

          I do think that is a relevant point to consider when weighting the convoluted range of information available.

          Not sure that the accuracy of peak oil is particularly relevant here. And climate scientists are pretty transparent about what they do and don’t know (witness the recent conference on the topic of the global warming hiatus earlier this year).

          Do you agree or disagree with my premise that “It seems to me that scepticism helps to delay costs being imposed on greenhouse emitters, meaning there are indeed billions to be made by oil companies by sponsoring scepticism”?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  9th December 2015

            No I don’t agree for the reasons given. Neither do the oil companies as shown by their actions.

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  9th December 2015

              “No I don’t agree for the reasons given.”

              Your reasons being a) because oil companies can harvest subsidies for green technologies, and b) because the world will continue to depend on oil for decades to come.

              I fail to understand how a) can be true, given that ‘alarmists’ are working to increase the rate at which the planet moves away from fossil fuels. You’ve provided no further reasons why my argument is illogical. And b) seems irrelevant.

              “Neither do the oil companies as shown by their actions.”

              I’ve seen no evidence of oil companies sponsoring alarmists. Plenty of ties to the sceptics though.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              You should educate yourself then. BP was one of the world’s largest suppliers of solar panels until China flooded the market.

              You must walk around with your eyes closed:
              http://www.wired.com/2015/12/the-fossil-fuel-industry-is-helping-bankroll-the-paris-climate-talks/
              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/

            • Mefrostate

               /  9th December 2015

              Thanks for the links, it’s impossible to educate myself without them. Wired in particular was interesting. Most of the corporate sponsorship appears to be greenwashing rather than deliberate policy influence.

              However, the article raises a number of potential conflicts of interest associated with corporate sponsorship of COP21. These conflicts appear to work both ways, i.e. in favour of alarmism for companies with green energies, and against alarmism for those in the fossil fuel business.

              Given this mechanism, your initial statement that “There is no money in scepticism but there are billions adding to trillions for alarmism so they know which side to butter” is incorrect. There’s money in both, and corporates will try to lobby in the direction of whatever their interests are. It still seems logical that oil corporations have an overall greater incentive to delay action on climate change.

              As a side note, I’d ask you to avoid attacking my character or ignorance. I’m here for informed debate and am entirely willing to change my mind on any matter if sufficient evidence is presented to me. I ask that you do the same.

            • Ben Rachinger

               /  9th December 2015

              @mefrostate

              That last paragraph x9000

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              Ok, the deal is that you don’t attribute base motives to sceptics and I won’t accuse you of ignorance.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              @mefrostate, these are the kind of well-funded scumbags that sceptics have to deal with. Consequently patience is short: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

    • Thanks Farmer Pete, once again! Emotions are not usually a good basis for rational thought, and common-sense always wins in the long term. I understand where the sceptics are coming from, Alexander Pope had it sussed with his “On Mankind” comment – “Know then thyself, presume not God to span. The proper study of Mankind is Man” without any gender politics involved.

      Reply
  3. kittycatkin

     /  8th December 2015

    You found out !!! I hope that you have your safe place and new identity ready.

    Reply
  4. Mike C

     /  8th December 2015

    @George

    “Continue Reading” is right !!! LOL.

    I had to read your above quotation at least three times before I actually got what you meant 🙂

    Once I figured it out … the first word that sprang to mind was “dichotomy”.

    Reply
  5. Goldie

     /  8th December 2015

    I don’t know who to believe.
    NIWA, the chief science advisor, every university, the Royal Society, every government Ministry… in short, every reputable scientific institution in the country?
    Or various right-wing conspiracy theorists?
    mmmm

    Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  8th December 2015

      Well said Goldie, and sadly it is much easier to sow the seeds of doubt than it is to convey the complexities of science.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th December 2015

        In fact the complexities of this science create the doubt – for those who bother to look and are capable of understanding them.

        Reply
    • FarmerPete

       /  8th December 2015

      Well Goldie, argument from authority is a poor technique. No one disagrees about warming, it is just the degree and causes. Unfortunately on almost every claim the alarmists have over hyped and over catastrophised, and now it is more and more difficult for them to get traction.
      Don’t forget that the climate science ‘industry’ is a gigantic gravy train itself. It didn’t help that some scientist were down right shabby (eg Michael Mann etc).

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  8th December 2015

      Hint: Science is not about belief, it is about experiment. Few of those you mention have performed any that are relevant to their belief.

      Reply
  6. MaureenW

     /  8th December 2015

    OK, can someone tell me what the cause of previous major planet earth climate change was, given their were no man-made emissions connected to those times. Also, the changes of climates and conditions on other planets?
    http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html

    Reply
  7. MaureenW

     /  8th December 2015

    I have no doubt that climates can and do change, I just happen to struggle with the idea that new taxes, laws and regulations is the solution. In fact, if one looks at the extinction of various species of plants or animals, one could concur that this is also caused by climate / and condition change. Man didn’t cause the dinosaurs to disappear, this happened entirely without our help (maybe they didn’t pay their taxes).

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  8th December 2015

      Climate change and global warming began when the first cave-dwellers lit a fire.

      And as animals have been farting since animals were first created, I am unconvinced that this has any effect on the climate.

      Reply
  8. The Thot Plickens … Odd, it is evidently pointless quoting science … since scientists and their adherents have formed into camps or cults of ‘belief’ rather like religions …
    When we discuss religion, people generally give considerable respect to other religion’s beliefs … (notwithstanding the current Secular Western Christendom vs Islam thing perceived by some) … imagine you’re a Christian debating with a Mahayana Buddhist …?
    So, science is out! And belief is out! What else can we do?
    I know!!! Let’s do f*ck all of nothing!
    That way, as I see it, the status quo will continue much as it is. Man will keep drilling and fracking and cows will keep burping and farting. The economy, at least, will grow, and grow, and grow, which is the only thing an economy can possibly do, right?
    If there are man-made factors exacerbating climate change (and for other complex reasons), the crisis (including resource depletion and pollution) will simply arrive sooner. Crisis will probably be required to precipitate change anyhow.
    If man-made factors are doing nothing the other factors will bring about a change-inducing crisis sometime anyhow.
    It’s a kind of win/win-lose/lose situation.
    The best we can possibly achieve is to postpone the shit hitting the fan for either our children to deal with, or their children.
    And this will be our legacy …

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  8th December 2015

      Interesting post @ PartisanZ, but can you answer my question above? What caused previous climate changes/reversals when there were no man-made emissions?

      Reply
      • It’s a rhetorical question right? Designed to support your firmly closed mind? Designed so your ‘comeback’ looks super-intelligent and of unquestionable veracity?

        Well, okay, pride goeth before a fall … I’ll play your silly game ….

        http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

        “This record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. [2]

        Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming”.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  8th December 2015

          Really? There are volcanoes blowing off all the time – don’t you read the news?
          Interesting that you would align this discussion to religion and religious beliefs. I have none. I think religion is one of the biggest crocks of shit foisted on a gullible mankind, and that man-made climate change is a close second. Look at your comment below, you have introduced a bunch of words with no facts. Where are you facts, and why can’t you quantify them?
          When the mainstream start calling people who don’t happen to believe the climate-change “reasons” deniers, like the holocaust deniers, something is terribly wrong. Yes, God is a man in the sky, he watches what you do and judges whether you’re good or bad? Really??

          Reply
          • “It’s a rhetorical question right? Designed to support your firmly closed mind? Designed so your ‘comeback’ looks super-intelligent and of unquestionable veracity?”

            I rest my case.

            Anyone who wants to use the link I posted can find supposed facts.
            My point is, you’re not going to accept them as being facts anyway.

            THIS DISCUSSION has become your religion.

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  8th December 2015

              What a waste.

            • kittycatkin

               /  8th December 2015

              A friend believes that man-made things have contributed, but that the contribution isn’t as great as has been made out.

              I tire of people who expect governments to do something, but are not prepared to do anything themselves, like give up driving and stop buying and using new appliances whose creation involves the use of oil.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th December 2015

              Your friend is almost certainly correct.

            • MaureenW

               /  8th December 2015

              Yes, definitely global warming seems to be a thing for “other people”.

      • Surges in volcanic activity above the normal trends such as Basalt Flood events (there have been 11 of them linked to Extinction level events), Bolide impacts, specifically the Chicxulub impactor. These all trigger rapid climate change and Extinction level events, herp de derp, how is it so hard to stomach climate change and yet have faith in a levitating zombie (jesus)

        Reply
    • … “other factors” being those aside from climate change, resource depletion, pollution, over-population, conflict, species diversity loss, chemical poisoning, chemical-drug resistance … et al … They being, of course, entirely unrelated …

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  8th December 2015

        I don’t really see this as an answer to my question PartisanZ, rather bunch of bluster. What caused climates to change when man wasn’t responsible? i.e. Mars, Sahara Desert etc.

        Reply
        • Oh fuck … “causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations”. [2]

          Reply
          • Shifts in the earth’s axis are also cited in some search results. But hell, there’s no need to be an expert, is there. All the science is debunkable. We’re operating here on the same sort of level of beliefs as radical Islamists use.

            Hmmm, it’s not a bad analogy actually.
            Plum pud. Pick up ‘sides’
            The “suckers” (as rejected by Brown below) are ….?
            Those who want to carry on regardless (Brown) are ….?

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  8th December 2015

              You are devoid of any facts pal, just bluster and (your) belief. Get fucked, you are no better than a Catholic apologist. Bring some facts into the conversation – rather than “97% of scientists” (because 97% probably used to believe in Jesus) and now they don’t. They’ve grown up and understand our world better than in 1950.

            • I posted this link –
              http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

              Are you even addressing me? I never once mentioned 97% of scientists! Have a quick read back there. Not ONCE.

              Are you genuinely saying that you are NOT asserting your beliefs?

              This can’t be happening …

            • MaureenW

               /  8th December 2015

              I accept you didn’t say “97%” The article said that and because you support the premise, I assumed you also supported it. So, 1 to you.

    • Ben Rachinger

       /  8th December 2015

      Interesting.

      Reply
    • Quad Erat Demonstrandum. ie Unbelievable.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  8th December 2015

      No, there is simple basic science to guide us. Simply look at the data on climate change over the past century and extrapolate the trends into the future. That should be the starting point for setting expectations and any variations from it should require rigorous justification.

      The trends are not alarming.

      Reply
      • I tried to do that but was told because of the costs involved I could not have access to the data used by the IPCC to determine their conclusions. So, what am I to believe?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th December 2015

          There are plenty of data sources. woodfortrees.org has a lot and the resources pages on wattsupwiththat have many links to original sources. In addition many posts there cite their source data and calculations.

          But I don’t think you need to get complicated. Just look at the principle sources of temperature, sea level and ice extent for example, most of which are already charted for you.

          Reply
  9. Brown

     /  8th December 2015

    The easy answer is for all you suckers that believe in this man made warming crap is to sacrifice your lifestyles on the god of climate change while the rest of us just get on with living and enjoying the great advances in well being that sensible fossil fuel use has brought about.

    I bet you won’t though because you like the benefits of living in this age just as much as anyone else and there’s no fun in taking a moral stand unless you force everyone else to do it as well.

    A much warmer climate in Dunedin would make it a passable place to live for goodness sake.

    Reply
    • I suspect you probably already know that ‘climate change’ is not ‘global warming’ and might result in quite unexpected local outcomes. Dunedin might well become colder.
      Begs the question; why are you wielding the baseball bat here when a feather duster would do the job?
      Do you really think I want to relinquish all the benefits of modern advancement?
      Does questioning modern advancement really threaten you that much!?
      I believe, for what its worth, that one day “sensible fossil fuel use” will be a) using them for only least cost/most benefit activities – this might be plastic production, for instance? (I’m guessing, its a generic example: cost/price, you know, please don’t respond “plastics isn’t the least cost etc … that’s not what I’m saying) or b) leaving the fossil fuels in the ground and not using them.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  8th December 2015

        “I suspect you probably already know that ‘climate change’ is not ‘global warming’ and might result in quite unexpected local outcomes.”

        How on earth can anyone know that? Frankly, it is blithering nonsense.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  8th December 2015

          Yes, Alan, it’s blithering nonsense.

          Reply
          • A lesser human being would let you get away with this crap. Not me.
            1) See the word “might”.
            2) Posted in response to this from Brown, “A much warmer climate in Dunedin would make it a passable place to live for goodness sake”.
            Ohhhh, how on earth can anyone know that?
            I’m prepared to postulate a reason; when it comes to this stuff which is largely debateable, and therefore ‘belief based’, there’s one rule for the goose and one for the gander.
            3) Are you seriously contending that the scientific discipline known as ‘modelling’ and its predictive usefulness is of no value?
            4) Therefore, presumably, we should only look at historical ‘facts’?
            The graph on http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html – which I cited – claims to be historical data, identifying natural and human-and-natural elements. Yes, it’s a model.

            “Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account for the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are able to explain this warming.
            Source: U.S. National Climate Assessment (2014)”

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  8th December 2015

              Just curious PartisanZ, do you drive a car and what do you personally do to combat this man-made climate change that has you in its spell? Truly, do you recycle your rubbish, do you live in a shoe box, and do you pay climate-guilt borne taxes? Just asking..

            • @ Maureen W – First, Just going back a ways, “and because you support the premise, I assumed you also supported it. So, 1 to you”. For me it’s not like an old-fashioned debate. I’m arguing mostly against the obverse premise being propounded here, which, to exaggerate, sounds to me like, “Because you can’t prove beyond shadow of doubt that humans are contributing to climate change, we don’t need to do anything. It (climate change) being entirely separable from other issues like pollution, resource depletion, overpopulation etc etc”

              It really does sound TO ME – only to lil’ ole me – a bit like the religious argument, “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, therefore He does” Which, to my nonsensical mind, is a bit like saying, “I believe in God, therefore He exists”. (And there may even be some ‘truth’ in that!?)

              I perceive a considerable element of belief in these climate change positions, in the 97% position as well, although it was clarified somewhat as being 97% of published research …? So, if the science is debateable and therefore constitutes largely “positions of believe”, the dominant position of belief would appear to be on the side of human culpability and taking some action …?

              I come back to my question from days ago – “If we accept climate change as one aspect of a raft of issues resulting from industrialisation, and we know there are things we can do to ameliorate them which will DO NO HARM, why not just do them?”

              Second, your latest post is a resort to the tactic we discussed on here at some length the other day. I call it “You can talk!!!”
              I firmly believe with all my heart it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. We are all of us here living in the world of cars and rubbish and houses that are obscenely over-sized.
              If I felt you were really asking me questions I might consider answering them. But I actually perceive you are just snarling at me from behind your gate, which is a very different thing.

              I take it to be evidence that you feel climate change amelioration advocates are a direct threat to your lifestyle, no matter how reasonable they may be, and I know some who are emminently reasonable.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th December 2015

              Since you ask, modelling is of no value until it is verified by experiment.

              ““A much warmer climate in Dunedin would make it a passable place to live for goodness sake”. Ohhhh, how on earth can anyone know that?

              Why do you think Auckland has 1.4 million people growing fast and Dunedin has a tenth of that?

            • “Since you ask, modelling is of no value until it is verified by experiment”. We are in big trouble then, are we not Alan?
              How will we know the sea level is rising if we must wait until it has already risen to verify it?
              Is a trend toward extinction enough to warrant measures to prevent a species becoming extinct? Or must we wait until it is extinct?
              I do exaggerate and dramatise, my intent is to magnify my point, not only annoy you –
              “Noah, mate, there’s no evidence a big flood is coming. Hold off building your ark until there’s sufficient evidence. Maybe until it actually starts raining. Then we can get a rain gauge onto it and have some scientific measurements?”

              Your second two paragraphs – a) bear very little meaningful relation to each other, and b) bear even less relation to my original postulation, “that ‘climate change’ … might result in quite unexpected local outcomes. Dunedin might well become colder” or my counter-assertion that if Brown can assert Dunedin will be better warmed up, I can equally assert it might get colder.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              You can assert whatever comes into your head and obviously do. I merely take exception to your claim there is the slightest evidence for your nonsense let alone that someone else should believe it.

        • Timoti

           /  8th December 2015

          I know, lets produce a climate change model and see what we get. Oh,sorry I forgot, many climate change models have been debunked. Anyone see the recent bushfire in the USA? A grizzled, fireman, soot all over his face, and probably bullets close to exploding in his gun, told a reporter the fire service had taken all pertinent factors of the fire into account, and had told him he had a week before the fire arrived at a certain point. The fire arrived five hours later.

          Reply
          • Not contesting what you say at all Timoti.

            While I may appear to have fixed opinions on the side of the climate change lobby, I don’t, and forest fires are a subject which brings long-term, natural variation into better perspective.

            check it out – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires#North_America

            While there appears to be an increasing number as the 2000s progress, it is possible there were periods when there was just as many but some went unrecorded? How long a trend of increasing rate must run before we can deduce hypothesis from it I’m not sure?

            California is suffering now, whereas previously states much further east had extensive fires. 1,700 dead in one case. An indication, perhaps, of the extent of contemporary deforestation as much as climate?

            The North Island of NZ apparently suffered extensively from forest fires during the summer of 1885 – 86.

            Reply
  10. kittycatkin

     /  8th December 2015

    I think that the poster at the top is a joke.Look at the wording; Plot Idea….

    Reply
    • I think the poster at the top is a ‘provocation’ and, as such, has been very successful.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  9th December 2015

        Plot as in plot of a novel, no ? Let’s bail PG up and make him tell-er, I mean let’s ask PG if it is.

        Reply
  11. The whole thing does indeed sound like a work of great fiction.

    Reply
    • Wish I could understand what you mean? I like giving thumbs up or down feedback.
      “Whole thing” refers to … climate change itself? Climate change conspiracy theory? All of the arguments above? Some of them? If some, which ones?

      Reply
  12. Brown

     /  9th December 2015

    I note Pz hasn’t said what he actually does to reduce his carbon emissions and just trots out shit. Assuming he emits CO2 when he breaths out I suggest he stop breathing as his sacrifice on the altar of Marxist bollocks as produced by the UN.

    Reply
    • @ Brown – ‘Yellow Brown’ – I clearly stated the reason I was not prepared to answer the questions, that is, the tactic “You can talk!!!” and LO & BEHOLD, here’s you using “You can talk!!!” too! Only difference is you are honest enough not to pretend you are doing anything other than snarling at me from behind your gate.
      Don’t hold back on flinging the turd mate, it makes you look really good.
      I have not “just trotted out shit” – THIS IS A FACT – back there you’ll find links to scientific data from which I have formed opinions, presumably just like you form yours …?
      Spout insults all you like.
      And look, you don’t need to just demand I outline what I AM doing.
      Feel free to have a brag here about what you are NOT doing to reduce your carbon emissions.

      Reply
  13. @ Alan – no replies left back there – “Snarl!” – The graph on http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html – which I cited – claims to be historical data, identifying both natural and human-and-natural elements. (I guess you haven’t looked and are not going to?)

    What more can I do but offer evidence – to which you reply there isn’t the slightest evidence – and invite others to consider it – to which you reply I am claiming they should automatically believe it?

    Painted me into a corner haven’t you, eh? Well done!

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  9th December 2015

      I fail to see any source for your peculiar belief that as the world gets warmer Dunedin may get colder.

      Reply
      • http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

        In the lower emission pathway prediction – RCP2.6 – the maps show areas across the globe roughly equivalent to the “westerlies” which apparently feed the Trade Winds, where temperature either remains static or even reduces slightly.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds

        It was partly hearsay too. I recall hearing several times, and someone saying on here, that climate change might lead to a mini ice age.
        It was partly a representative argument, hence the word “might”.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  9th December 2015

          A model then, based on “a scenario” producing a “may be” which defies logic and the long established temperature trend of a slow rise.

          But you assert Brown should “already know” that this absurdity is true. Shakes head sadly. God help us that people like this get a vote.

          Reply
          • The graph on here does not indicate a slow rise trend.
            http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

            This is exactly what I said –
            “I suspect you probably already know that ‘climate change’ is not ‘global warming’ and might result in quite unexpected local outcomes. Dunedin might well become colder”

            Not “should” Alan. “Suspect”, “probably” and the word “might” twice!

            Scientific modelling does not defy logic at all. It is applied logic.
            If you maintain the efficacy of technological development and all forms of ‘growth’, you must needs maintain the veracity of modelling. The two are inextricably linked.

            I take my franchise very seriously Alan.
            So that childish insult really does sting. Good one mate!

            God help us indeed.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              Your chart shows arise of about 0.6 deg C over the past 100 years. As I said, a slow, non-alarming rise.

            • Well, it alarms me ‘somewhat’ and clearly alarms many other intelligent people. Two other graphs further down indicate rapid, measurable green-house gas increases recently and surface temperature rise independent of solar energy variations.
              But I concede I will never match your level of scientific expertise.
              I’ll have to trust my very limited knowledge and a self-acceptable level of gut feeling. I’m capable of assessing information, identifying and ‘owning’ my gut feelings.
              Time will tell, I guess. And I’m very pleased a mindset such as your own won’t be deciding things for me in this realm.

            • Yes, Alan. But ever since the discovery of the Southern Oscillation they Meteorologists have applied a “correction” to the statistical data to meet statistical mathematics theory as outlined here :
              “Sir Gilbert Walker and a Connection
              between El Niño and Statistics Richard W. Katz
              Abstract. The eponym “Walker Circulation” refers to a concept used by atmospheric scientists and oceanographers in providing a physical explanation for the El Niño–Southern Oscillation phenomenon, whereas the eponym “Yule–Walker equations” refers to properties satisfied by the autocorrelations of an autoregressive process. But how many statisticians (or, for that matter, atmospheric scientists) are aware that the “Walker” in both terms refers to the same individual, Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker, and that these two appellations arose in conjunction with the same research on the statistical prediction of climate? Like George Udny Yule (the “Yule” in Yule– Walker), Walker’s motivation was to devise a statistical model that exhibited quasiperiodic behavior. The original assessments of Walker’s work, both in the meteorology and in statistics, were somewhat negative. With hindsight, it is argued that his research should be viewed as quite successful.
              Key words and phrases: Autoregressive process, quasiperiodic behavior, Southern Oscillation, teleconnections, Yule–Walker equations.”
              The paper is too long to repeat here but can be Googled. I wanted to look at the data used by the Climate Change commission, but as I said before it is not available. Walker made an estimate of the modification needed to provide the auto orrelations of the auto-regressive process. In plain English, they guessed at a correction needed to adjust the data using the mathematical formulae in the “Yule Walker” equation. However, Walker was able to establish a clear cyclical pattern which causes changes in the Pacific and the other 4 Oceans patterns of weather. The cyclical pattern of sunspot activity was also considered relevant and as a result Walker the Mathematician was able to explain the variations in the Monsoon weather for India.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              The short answer is that we don’t have reliable data over a long enough period to analyze the relatively long climate cycles with any confidence.

  14. Mike C

     /  9th December 2015

    When you look up and see what Georges initial post was above, it’s remarkable that commenter’s are still going so strong … not to mention … passionately. LOL 🙂

    Reply
    • Not remarkable at all Mike C. Evidence the duration and ferocity of Social Media threads, which I call “Personality Cult Bullshit”. Passion about climate change seems to me quite useful by comparison …?

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  9th December 2015

        @PZ

        Okay … you stick to your bullshit then … and I will stick to mine 🙂

        Most of your comments are about the length of a novel … and take fucking ages to read. LOL.

        Reply
        • @ MikeC – Not the one’s that really sting though, eh? LOL. 🙂

          Totally agree about respective bullshits though. I never even read – let alone comment on – the endless “novel length”, episodic streams of BS on social media threads.

          Reply
          • Mike C

             /  9th December 2015

            @PZ

            You need to get a sense of humour about all of this stuff … instead of being so serious all the time. LOL.

            I lost mine about a week ago … but I’ve got it back now 🙂

            Reply
            • Orrwwwahhh! (that sound we Kiwis make)
              I thought I was exercising my sense of humour.
              Dang! Shot down again.

  15. Zedd

     /  9th December 2015

    The Plot THICKENS… 🙂

    Reply
    • Come now Zedd? The veiled ‘cluster bomb’ insult?
      I love rating things but there’s nothing to rate.
      You THICK, me THICK, everywhere a THICK THICK … ?
      Please be more specific?
      Come on, head up above the parapet old son ….? :-]

      Because of what I am writing here myself, I’m inclined to agree with Mike C after all.
      Perhaps threads should have a sort of “auto cut-off” when they reach a certain point of degeneration …?

      Must go work … Bye!

      Reply
  16. Alan Wilkinson, I agree with your comment that we do not yet have the data needed to make scientific hypotheses about the causes of global weather changes. I understand the influences of the Moon and the Sun, and the dynamics of a globe rotating once every 24 hours, I also understand the logic of the Walker and Walker-Yule conclusions. I do not understand the meaning of the exchanges between UK and US Universities about managing the models used by the IPCC, nor the apparent support from NIWA for conclusions which can only be regarded as tentative. I am not naive, and like I believe that politics should not be involved in Sport, nor should Politics be involved in Science more than establishing priorities for funding. We humans don’t know or have all of the answers yet, but we may get there in time (not ours). I am fond of saying that no-one has a monopoly on the truth, I am also fond of saying that position or place is not a replacement for common-sense. I personally am pleased to see the passion being displayed on this blog in the process of identifying the truth. I hope the decisions made at COP21 are based on common-sense and not appeals to emotion.

    Reply
    • BJ

      “I hope the decisions made at COP21 are based on common-sense and not appeals to emotion.”

      I very much doubt it. i normally stay well away from this topic for the simple reason I don’t have the math or science training to get a real good grip on it the topic.

      But what I do detect is a strong evangelical tendency on both sides of the debate that brooks no opposition.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s