On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals? Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:50:28 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:33:09 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:54:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:11:35 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:22:04 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?

It hasn't. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since
1998. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

That's quite true. No argument. But it's flat. Within the statistics,
it's been the same for the last 15 - 17 years, irrespective of 2014.
Didn't you know that? See http://tinyurl.com/ocohxuj for your
education (scroll down to get the whole article). This figure from
that article http://tinyurl.com/5jfe9p shows a flattening off after
~2000, as do others. Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ ,
whose home page shows a similar leveling off from ~2000. Note that the
rise in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 closely parallels
the rise between 1910 and 1940, but nobody was ****ting in their pants
then.

It's cherry picking.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator.gif

The average temperature for that 15 - 17 year period is substantially
higher than the previous 15 - 17 year period.


We had this discussion about six months ago. You're still trotting out
the same poor science as you did then. You haven't learnt anything.
What a pity!

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

Corse they wouldn't improve their job prospects by hyperventilating, eh ?

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see,

No you don't.

we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy.

Nope, just common sense. When the job involves
trying to decide what the effect of man is on world
temps, its hardly very surprising that those who believe
that got the job over other applicants who didn't.

Same with priests that believe there is a god too.
Hardly surprising that not very many atheists apply
for the job and even fewer get that job even when
there is a shortage of applicants for the job.

They could get more money out of the Koch brothers or BP

But those who already believe that man is the
problem are unlikely to apply for those jobs.

although, as on the case of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature
project, that doesn't always turn out well for the deniers.

That doesn't show that the cause is man.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:22:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"mcp" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see,

No you don't.

we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy.

Nope, just common sense. When the job involves
trying to decide what the effect of man is on world
temps, its hardly very surprising that those who believe
that got the job over other applicants who didn't.

Same with priests that believe there is a god too.
Hardly surprising that not very many atheists apply
for the job and even fewer get that job even when
there is a shortage of applicants for the job.

They could get more money out of the Koch brothers or BP

But those who already believe that man is the
problem are unlikely to apply for those jobs.

although, as on the case of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature
project, that doesn't always turn out well for the deniers.

That doesn't show that the cause is man.

That's not what they concluded.

Human Effect

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a
combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas
emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature
trend. After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual
variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror
(and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:24:14 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , mcp
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:50:28 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:33:09 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:54:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:11:35 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:22:04 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?

It hasn't. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since
1998. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

That's quite true. No argument. But it's flat. Within the statistics,
it's been the same for the last 15 - 17 years, irrespective of 2014.
Didn't you know that? See http://tinyurl.com/ocohxuj for your
education (scroll down to get the whole article). This figure from
that article http://tinyurl.com/5jfe9p shows a flattening off after
~2000, as do others. Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ ,
whose home page shows a similar leveling off from ~2000. Note that the
rise in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 closely parallels
the rise between 1910 and 1940, but nobody was ****ting in their pants
then.

It's cherry picking.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator.gif

The average temperature for that 15 - 17 year period is substantially
higher than the previous 15 - 17 year period.


We had this discussion about six months ago. You're still trotting out
the same poor science as you did then. You haven't learnt anything.
What a pity!

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

Does this stuff make testable predictions? Have any predictions
actually been borne out yet? If the answer to either of these questions
is "no", then it's not science.

If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect the earth would be a frozen
ball of ice. The theories do make testable predictions, you are
forgetting the timescale. The earth has warmed 0.9 degrees in the past
50 years, the annual variation in temperature is more than that.

See, the thing about, say, Newton's theory of gravity, is that it
allows one to calculate things like eclipses, and it'd then be pretty
obvious that Newton was wrong if the eclipse didn't happen. And guess
what. That's never happened, which is why it's called Newton's *theory*
of gravity instead of Newton's handwaving ideas about gravity. And what
makes it proper science is that Newton could be proved wrong *tomorrow*
if some eclipse or other showed up at the wrong time or place. That
distinguishes it from dogma or faith.

You are pronouncing the theory is flawed before the eclipse is due.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 19:59:11 +0000, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

(2) Climatologists still have an awful lot to learn about what does
control the climate.

Just because they don't know everything, doesn't mean they don't know
anything.

mcp wrote
Rod Speed wrote
mcp wrote
dennis@home wrote
mcp wrote

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and
99% of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

You mean some of them disagree even
though they get all their cash by agreeing?

I see,

No you don't.

we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy.

Nope, just common sense. When the job involves
trying to decide what the effect of man is on world
temps, its hardly very surprising that those who believe
that got the job over other applicants who didn't.

Same with priests that believe there is a god too.
Hardly surprising that not very many atheists apply
for the job and even fewer get that job even when
there is a shortage of applicants for the job.

They could get more money out of the Koch brothers or BP

But those who already believe that man is the
problem are unlikely to apply for those jobs.

although, as on the case of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature
project, that doesn't always turn out well for the deniers.

That doesn't show that the cause is man.

That's not what they concluded.

Doesn't matter what they concluded, what matters is
what evidence they could find that supports the claim
that human activity is a significant contributor to the
changes in temperature that we have seen.

When the undoubted massive increase in atmospheric
CO2 levels has actually seen a reduction in temperatures
at times, it must be a lot more complicated than is claimed.

Human Effect

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by
a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas
emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.

It is clearly the reason for the ice ages.

After accounting for volcanic and human effects,

Pity they don't say how they do that last.

the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to
closely
mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf
Stream.

Doesn't explain the variation in temperature nowhere near the Gulf Stream.

Its just more waffle.

On 09/11/15 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the *Koch brothers or BP*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see, we're back to 'it's a world wide conspiracy'.

as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.

Try to learn to spell Berkeley

And it is now established that 97% of the people who call climate change
realists 'deniers' are themselves in denial, and the other 3% are lying
deliberately.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 09/11/15 21:14, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/11/2015 20:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/11/15 20:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

99% of priests agree that God is really out there.



That's different to AGW though, there is more chance of the priests
being correct.



How is it different?

Anyway to get back on topic.

The latest on the bbc site includes

"For researchers, confusion about the true level of temperatures in the
1750s, when the industrial revolution began and fossil fuels became
widely used, means that an accurate assessment of the amount the world
has warmed since then is very difficult.

To get over this problem, the Met Office use an average of the
temperatures recorded between 1850 and 1900, which they argue makes
their analysis more accurate."

Does anyone want to explain why taking an average between 1850 and 1900
is the correct thing to do as the met office don't appear to say why or
how they come to that concussion.

You may also note from the article that the BBC stance is a bit softer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036


From "Scientists say that the one degree mark will be broken in 2015
because of a combination of carbon emissions and the impact of the El
Nino weather phenomenon.

"We have seen a strong El Nino develop in the Tropical Pacific this year
and that will have had some impact on this year's global temperature,"
said Stephen Belcher, director of the Met Office Hadley Centre.

"We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first
time we're set to reach the 1C marker and it's clear that it is human
influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory.""

It would be interesting as to the split they propose between CO2 and El
Nino but they don't appear to want to tell us that.


It's all about leaving an impression.


I believe they are forecasting a bitterly cold winter on account of the
El Niño as well. Anything as long as it is 'abnormal' and
'unprecedented', eh?


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 09/11/15 21:20, mcp wrote:
If you can't win an arguement you can always resort to abuse.

I sere you cant spell argument.

However leaving that aside who was it coined the term 'denier'? And is
that a term of abuse?

People in glass houses...

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 09/11/15 23:19, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 19:59:11 +0000, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.


Well that shows how little you understand the science.

Even the most ardent warmist agrees that without 'amplification' the
effect of doubling CO2 is less than one third of a degree.

You didn't read what the man said - 'major' is the key phrase.

No one denies that climate changes or that CO2 has *some* effect.

That's not what is under discussion although denialists like you always
try to pretend that sceptics *are* saying that. They are not.

Which is where your actions are of course openly dishonest.

However that aside, the whole argument rests on the 'positive feedback'
that had to be assumed to make CO2 a major player in climate variability.

For a short period of about 15 years, assuming positive feedback made
CO2 almost fit temperature, if you wiped out the mediaeval warm period
and tortured the data by improper statistics and cherry picked proxy data.

Since then it hasn't fitted the data at all, and anyone with any sense
can see that if the sorts of positive feedback assumed by the warmistas
in fact was the case, earth's climate would have been in the past so
massively unstable that life would probably never have developed.

After all the unmodified forcing of a doubling of CO2 is nothing like as
bad as a big volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact. Or indeed te
differences between winter and summer.

In short the evidence all points - not to CO2 having no impact - but to
CO2 having no *major* impact. And that the feedback is not positive, but
negative, as the water cycle acts as a planetary thermostat, not an
amplifier.

And what really drives climate change is climate itself. Its a chaotic
system, and has no 'stable average' state. Its always wobbling around
some attractor or another, an moves from one to the other all by itself.


(2) Climatologists still have an awful lot to learn about what does
control the climate.

Just because they don't know everything, doesn't mean they don't know
anything.


No, but it doesn't preclude that possibility, either, does it?



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.


(2) Climatologists still have an awful lot to learn about what does
control the climate.

Just because they don't know everything, doesn't mean they don't know
anything.


They have so far failed in every prediction so it appears they know very
little but still make exaggerated claims to get the scare factor.


Let us know what the latest predictions are so we can see if they get it
right with the latest round of scare stories.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:20, mcp wrote:
If you can't win an arguement you can always resort to abuse.

I sere you cant spell argument.

However leaving that aside who was it coined the term 'denier'? And is
that a term of abuse?

People in glass houses...

Indeed, I *can't* resist pointing out your own spelling errors/typos in
the very first line of your reply. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On 10/11/15 19:56, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:20, mcp wrote:
If you can't win an arguement you can always resort to abuse.

I sere you cant spell argument.

However leaving that aside who was it coined the term 'denier'? And is
that a term of abuse?

People in glass houses...

Indeed, I *can't* resist pointing out your own spelling errors/typos in
the very first line of your reply. :-)


I cud sweer I did-ent tipe that..;-)


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article , mcp
writes
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:49:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 19:59, mcp wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:50:28 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:33:09 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:54:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:11:35 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:22:04 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?

It hasn't. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since
1998. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

That's quite true. No argument. But it's flat. Within the statistics,
it's been the same for the last 15 - 17 years, irrespective of 2014.
Didn't you know that? See http://tinyurl.com/ocohxuj for your
education (scroll down to get the whole article). This figure from
that article http://tinyurl.com/5jfe9p shows a flattening off after
~2000, as do others. Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ ,
whose home page shows a similar leveling off from ~2000. Note that the
rise in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 closely parallels
the rise between 1910 and 1940, but nobody was ****ting in their pants
then.

It's cherry picking.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator.gif

The average temperature for that 15 - 17 year period is substantially
higher than the previous 15 - 17 year period.


We had this discussion about six months ago. You're still trotting out
the same poor science as you did then. You haven't learnt anything.
What a pity!

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

all three of them? On grants from the 'prove global warming' ministry?

There are vastly more than three scientists working on climate change.
The oil industry has vastly more money and doesn't have any awkward
rules about spending it on research like grant awarding bodies do.

Cant work out if you are naive, or venal.

If you can't win an arguement you can always resort to abuse.
Yes indeed. Abuse those who question you by calling them "deniers" or
the greatest insult you can muster - Daily Mail readers!!
--
bert

On 09/11/2015 22:24, Tim Streater wrote:
See, the thing about, say, Newton's theory of gravity, is that it
allows one to calculate things like eclipses, and it'd then be pretty
obvious that Newton was wrong if the eclipse didn't happen. And guess
what. That's never happened, which is why it's called Newton's *theory*
of gravity instead of Newton's handwaving ideas about gravity. And what
makes it proper science is that Newton could be proved wrong *tomorrow*
if some eclipse or other showed up at the wrong time or place. That
distinguishes it from dogma or faith.

Point of information. IIRC one of the proofs for relativity was that
Newton's laws got the orbit of Mercury wrong. Not a lot, but it was
measurable.

Andy

On 10/11/15 23:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 09/11/2015 22:24, Tim Streater wrote:
See, the thing about, say, Newton's theory of gravity, is that it
allows one to calculate things like eclipses, and it'd then be pretty
obvious that Newton was wrong if the eclipse didn't happen. And guess
what. That's never happened, which is why it's called Newton's *theory*
of gravity instead of Newton's handwaving ideas about gravity. And what
makes it proper science is that Newton could be proved wrong *tomorrow*
if some eclipse or other showed up at the wrong time or place. That
distinguishes it from dogma or faith.

Point of information. IIRC one of the proofs for relativity was that
Newton's laws got the orbit of Mercury wrong. Not a lot, but it was
measurable.

Certainly. And that was the point. Newton's theory was dislodged.

However: it is still good enough for navigating all over the solar
system. The precession of the orbit of mercury is measured in
arc-seconds per century, and Newton's theory also predicts the effect.
However, he predicted about 6000 and Einstein about 6040. The
difference was very small, but measurable, and it persisted even after
all other gravitational effects were taken into account, such as the
other planets (principally Jupiter).

Newton's theory is actually a subset of Einstein's, so it's not so much
wrong as incomplete.


Which is pretty much where climate change theories are. Of course CO2
makes a minuscule difference. The problem was to make it account for
everything, instead of accepting that a lot else was going on besides,
and that CO2 was a very very minor player, theory had to introduce
positive feedback, and that positive feedback is what gave all the scary
predictions.

NO warmista ever talks about the positive dfeedback, only about the
basics science which *cannot account for the warming by itself*.

As I have said many times before, at that point there were two equally
likely options - that something else was going on to add to warming, or
that something else was going on to multiply the effects of CO2.

Why did they choose amplification instead of addition? Well lets just
say that withiout amplification they couldn't get CO2 to be a legal
pollutant, get it under US legislation, take control of global energy
markets and make obscene portofits out of green energy scams. And of
course gas...

Follow the money.

Without feedback amplification, CO2 induced global warming is completely
insiginificant at te levels of CO2 we have or are ever likely to have,
and the actual climate would be seen to be domianted by water based
negative feedback.

That doesn't get politicians elected, act as a sop to Green idiots, or
make any rent seeking profits for anyone..


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Couple of interesting facebook discussion groups - repeal the act! campaign to repeal the climate change act and national association against wind turbines.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the
consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published
research."

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

On 18/11/2015 20:49, mcp wrote:

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Not exactly true though is it?
If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas
then we would have runaway increases in both.

This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.

Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?

On 18/11/2015 20:50, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?


They tend to get sacked?

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

Because there isn't anything to publish. No one has come up with anything
new on why global temperatures aren't following atmospheric CO2 levels.

We just don't know why that isn't happening yet.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:13:24 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 18/11/2015 20:49, mcp wrote:

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Not exactly true though is it?
If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas
then we would have runaway increases in both.

This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.

Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?

Mainly by increasing cloud cover.

On 18/11/2015 22:41, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:13:24 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 18/11/2015 20:49, mcp wrote:

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Not exactly true though is it?
If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas
then we would have runaway increases in both.

This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.

Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?

Mainly by increasing cloud cover.


That was discounted by the alarmists as it also means that the clean air
acts in Europe resulted in less cloud and could account for the temp rise.

On 18/11/15 20:49, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Try and learn to read and write, dear boy.
Revelation.

Of course the issue is does water vapour make the world warmer or
cooler, and what happens when it rises*above* the bulk of the CO2 laden
atmosphere and turns into ice and snow..releasing huge amounts of energy
to space and reflecting back even more sunlight energy before it gets here..

Not in the models? Oh dear oh dear.





--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:21:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:50:49 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

The '43%' figure originally came from here. http://tinyurl.com/pkuwob3
Hardly a 'politically motivated blog'!

No it did not! The figure of 43% does not appear anywhere in that
document or in the peer reviewed paper by the same authors. The lead
author has pointed out that it is a misrepresentation of their work.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...how/#more-2842

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

I'm sure they have. Plenty of references he-
http://tinyurl.com/nwonskj

A tiny number, 0.7% of published papers on climate science papers
rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global
warming.

On 18/11/15 20:50, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

(a) They do, but the media doesn't report it and they usually lose their
jobs shortly afterwards
(b) because the peer review process is now not scientific, but
political, and the science magazines like nature are totally discredited.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/11/15 20:41, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the
consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published
research."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Like 'published research' might be on almost anything, and nothing to do
with climate modelling per se, Most 'climate research' is 'what will
happen to the Mongolian lesser spotted ****face when the earth warms 3
degrees' (not even questioning whether in fact it will)'

There are almost no papers on the actual climate science itself, because
the party line is that that is 'settled'

And the people running the peer review process and funding the
universities simply don't let any contrary view get publicised.

Science itself is now utterly discredited, as it has become apparent
that scientists are human, and will publish what keeps them in
government funded jobs.

Even if they don't believe it.





--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:11:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:49, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Try and learn to read and write, dear boy.
Revelation.

Of course the issue is does water vapour make the world warmer or
cooler, and what happens when it rises*above* the bulk of the CO2 laden
atmosphere and turns into ice and snow..releasing huge amounts of energy
to space and reflecting back even more sunlight energy before it gets here..

Not in the models? Oh dear oh dear.

Of course it's in the models,

On 18/11/15 22:41, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:13:24 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 18/11/2015 20:49, mcp wrote:

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Not exactly true though is it?
If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas
then we would have runaway increases in both.

This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.

Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?

Mainly by increasing cloud cover.

So does more water and cloud make the earth warmer, or colder?

Are cloudtops above or below the area of greatest CO2 concentration?

How much radiant energy do clouds reflect back to space?

How much radiant energy does snow reflect back to space?

How much radiant energy do clouds reflect back to earth at night?

How does the turbulent nature of convection get modelled in the standard
climate models?

Are any of the above issues correctly handled in any of the climate models?


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/11/15 23:24, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:11:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:49, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Try and learn to read and write, dear boy.
Revelation.

Of course the issue is does water vapour make the world warmer or
cooler, and what happens when it rises*above* the bulk of the CO2 laden
atmosphere and turns into ice and snow..releasing huge amounts of energy
to space and reflecting back even more sunlight energy before it gets here..

Not in the models? Oh dear oh dear.

Of course it's in the models,


Try actually LOOKING.

You would be appalled at what is not in the models.

Or is covered by some grand sweepi8ng assumption that can easily be
shown to be totally unjustified. The whole issue of 'climate
sensitivity' which has been adjusted threefold over the political life
of AGW shows that the equations can't be bent to fit reality.

The Emeperor's New Green Clothes are looking tattered these days.

Its nothing but sleaze, troughing and pressure on academics.

Total disgrace.




--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:04:46 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 18/11/2015 22:41, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:13:24 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 18/11/2015 20:49, mcp wrote:

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Not exactly true though is it?
If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas
then we would have runaway increases in both.

This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.

Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?

Mainly by increasing cloud cover.


That was discounted by the alarmists as it also means that the clean air
acts in Europe resulted in less cloud and could account for the temp rise.

If it's been discounted then why do they include it in their models?

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:16:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:50, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

(a) They do, but the media doesn't report it and they usually lose their
jobs shortly afterwards
(b) because the peer review process is now not scientific, but
political, and the science magazines like nature are totally discredited.

Back to the conspiracy theories again.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:22:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:41, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the
consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published
research."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Like 'published research' might be on almost anything, and nothing to do
with climate modelling per se, Most 'climate research' is 'what will
happen to the Mongolian lesser spotted ****face when the earth warms 3
degrees' (not even questioning whether in fact it will)'

There are almost no papers on the actual climate science itself, because
the party line is that that is 'settled'

And the people running the peer review process and funding the
universities simply don't let any contrary view get publicised.

Science itself is now utterly discredited, as it has become apparent
that scientists are human, and will publish what keeps them in
government funded jobs.

Even if they don't believe it.

Ok, we have now veered firmly into tin foil hat territory.

On 18/11/15 23:34, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:16:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:50, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

(a) They do, but the media doesn't report it and they usually lose their
jobs shortly afterwards
(b) because the peer review process is now not scientific, but
political, and the science magazines like nature are totally discredited.

Back to the conspiracy theories again.

Yeah. its the Koch brothers wot financed it for sure ;-)
Or big oil. Just like the tobacco companies innit?

Is hypocrisy and the Big Lie a requirement for being a Green, or is it
just easier to lie anyway?


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/11/15 23:37, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:22:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:41, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:05:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/11/15 21:49, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:23:55 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 21:09, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:21:53 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 19:59, mcp wrote:

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.



You mean some of them disagree even though they get all their cash by
agreeing?

I see, we're back to it's a world wide conspiracy. They could get more
money out of the Koch brothers or BP although, as on the case of the
Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, that doesn't always turn
out well for the deniers.


There are only one set of deniers, the climate scientists that keep
their methods and data secret. They are denying proper scientific review
by anyone that may disagree with them. It makes their science useless to
anyone that understands science as you can no longer trust them. They
may be correct but I will disregard bad science.

They keep their methods and data secret by publishing regularly in
peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Those that disagree with them
publish in right wing newspapers and online blogs with no scientific
review.

No.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the
consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published
research."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Like 'published research' might be on almost anything, and nothing to do
with climate modelling per se, Most 'climate research' is 'what will
happen to the Mongolian lesser spotted ****face when the earth warms 3
degrees' (not even questioning whether in fact it will)'

There are almost no papers on the actual climate science itself, because
the party line is that that is 'settled'

And the people running the peer review process and funding the
universities simply don't let any contrary view get publicised.

Science itself is now utterly discredited, as it has become apparent
that scientists are human, and will publish what keeps them in
government funded jobs.

Even if they don't believe it.

Ok, we have now veered firmly into tin foil hat territory.

WE haven't veered into tinfoil hat territory. AGW has always been there
since Al Gore.

Lead by the Greens, whose paranoia is only equalled by their touching
faith in Big Words and Bull****


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:45:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 23:34, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:16:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:50, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

(a) They do, but the media doesn't report it and they usually lose their
jobs shortly afterwards
(b) because the peer review process is now not scientific, but
political, and the science magazines like nature are totally discredited.

Back to the conspiracy theories again.

Yeah. its the Koch brothers wot financed it for sure ;-)
Or big oil. Just like the tobacco companies innit?

The Koch brothers and big oil are funding scientists to say things
which hurt their financial interests? You make even less sense than
usual.

You are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists, science
journal editors, peer reviewers, funding bodies, national and
international science academies and the media are engaged in a global
conspiracy. It's not remotely credible.