When they do this sort of thing how can you believe what they say?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...rence-network/

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 19:08:49 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
When they do this sort of thing how can you believe what they say?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...rence-network/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

On 03/12/2016 19:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, 3 December 2016 19:08:49 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
When they do this sort of thing how can you believe what they say?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...rence-network/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts


Are you claiming that you can't download the data and reproduce the results?
Or are you just trying to divert attention?

Not a climate nut, but I do believe that if the earth is getting marker
faster in the face of the facts that the sun is not hotter, and we are not
living through a sudden increase in volcano activity, then there has to be a
reason for it.
The problem is that sifting data to match your own beliefs works for the
climate 'nuts' and the folk who think its not proven.
However should we not be actually saying that if we care about the next
generation at all, we should at least try to stop our contributions to what
is scientifically proven to increase temperature by trapping heat.
The earth to some extent is self regulating but its not able to cope with a
fast rise or fall in the temperature and hence nasty effects can and do
occur.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
When they do this sort of thing how can you believe what they say?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...rence-network/

On 04/12/2016 10:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Not a climate nut, but I do believe that if the earth is getting marker
faster in the face of the facts that the sun is not hotter, and we are not
living through a sudden increase in volcano activity, then there has to be a
reason for it.
The problem is that sifting data to match your own beliefs works for the
climate 'nuts' and the folk who think its not proven.
However should we not be actually saying that if we care about the next
generation at all, we should at least try to stop our contributions to what
is scientifically proven to increase temperature by trapping heat.
The earth to some extent is self regulating but its not able to cope with a
fast rise or fall in the temperature and hence nasty effects can and do
occur.
Brian


Ahh, the scare the **** out of them environmental argument!
harry uses the same one against nuclear.
Others use it against fracking.

best to ignore them as they don't know what they are talking about.

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 13:25:41 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/12/2016 10:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Not a climate nut, but I do believe that if the earth is getting marker
faster in the face of the facts that the sun is not hotter, and we are not
living through a sudden increase in volcano activity, then there has to be a
reason for it.
The problem is that sifting data to match your own beliefs works for the
climate 'nuts' and the folk who think its not proven.
However should we not be actually saying that if we care about the next
generation at all, we should at least try to stop our contributions to what
is scientifically proven to increase temperature by trapping heat.
The earth to some extent is self regulating but its not able to cope with a
fast rise or fall in the temperature and hence nasty effects can and do
occur.
Brian


Ahh, the scare the **** out of them environmental argument!
harry uses the same one against nuclear.
Others use it against fracking.

best to ignore them as they don't know what they are talking about.

And you do?

On 04/12/16 10:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
Not a climate nut, but I do believe that if the earth is getting marker
faster in the face of the facts that the sun is not hotter, and we are not
living through a sudden increase in volcano activity, then there has to be a
reason for it.

You can relax, because actually it isn't getting marker. I guess you
meant warmer.

When you dig down to the raw data you find that since 2000 there has
actually been no significant warming at al;l. It hasn't got any colder,
true, but it hasn't got any warmer in any statistically significant way.

As far as a reason for it, goes, that is also based in very suspect logic.

Just as we get dull days rainy days and sunny days and stormy days and
calm days, so too we get periods of climate that are variable. The
'reason' lies in the inherent nature of 'climate'. WE have just had an
Le Niño event that popped a warm spike into 2016. Its now heading back
the other way towards a fairly cold winter for the Northern Hemisphere.

La Niñas 'cause' el Niños and vice versa. Its in et nature of chaotic
non linear systems with time delayed feedback (ocean warming and
cooling) to behave as quasi-periodic oscillators all by themselves.


Famines are caused by the overpopulation that results from times of
plenty. Its easy to set up a spreadsheet to work out what happens. At
very low reproductive rates, well longer than other effects, you can get
stable populations, but if populations breed very rapidly then they will
breed into starvation, and if the process of feeding destroys next years
seed crops as well, you will get booms and busts in populations. Its all
in the feedback.

And these are not periodic 'cycles' its what looks like plain random noise.


The problem is that sifting data to match your own beliefs works for the
climate 'nuts' and the folk who think its not proven.

Indeed, that's why its important to look at all the data, and keep an
open mind until such time as te probable truth emerges. I never set out
to challenge global warming, or indeeed renewable energy.

I was set on that path by a chance remark, that I, as a qualified
electrical engineer, felt seemed wrong. Basically in the efficacy and
cost of 'renewable energy'. I uncovered what amounted in my book to
deliberate fraud (although you needed to BE an electrical engineer to
spot it), sold on thet basis that renewable energy would lower emissions
(which is hardly does at all) in the western world, where it hardly
matters, to solve the problem of 'climate change' which the more I
looked into it, the more it seemed to actually not be a problem at all,
and certainly not one we could do anything about.

However should we not be actually saying that if we care about the next
generation at all, we should at least try to stop our contributions to what
is scientifically proven to increase temperature by trapping heat.

Why? First of all the amount of heat trapped directly by CO2 is
minuscule. Without the added feedback of the models it really is simply
noise. And the data to support the feedbacks simply does NOT exist.

This is the trick of the warmists. Yes, the phsyics is real, but that
doesn't make AGW real. But they say 'if you deny AGW, you deny the
physics' That's when you *know* you are dealing with fraud and
dishonesty. The likes of James Delingpole arrived at the same
conclusions purely by examining the logic of the arguments used by
warmist. They were full of bad logic, non sequiturs, and false
assumptions. And they were being voiced by people who had to know better.

Secondly when the earth has been a couple of degrees warmer,
civilisations have flourished in places that are now semi or actual
deserts.


So whats not to like about a little global warming?


The earth to some extent is self regulating but its not able to cope with a
fast rise or fall in the temperature and hence nasty effects can and do
occur.

Actually, it is able to cope with large fluctuations in radiation input,
because its got a huge thermal mass in the oceans, and the cloud acts
as negative feedback anyway.

What hasn't happened are any large fluctuations in temperature, except
the massive and sudden drop post El Nino over the last two months.

In the 1950s, I sued to walk to school over frost covered fields in
November and December. Today, there are frost covered fields...nothing
has changed.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

Brian Gaff wrote

Not a climate nut, but I do believe that if the earth is getting marker
faster

Not clear if that 'marker' is a typo or slang.

in the face of the facts that the sun is not hotter, and we are not living
through a sudden increase in volcano activity, then there has to be a
reason for it.

Its not even clear what 'it' is yet.

The problem is that sifting data to match your own beliefs works for the
climate 'nuts' and the folk who think its not proven.

However should we not be actually saying that if we care about the next
generation at all, we should at least try to stop our contributions to
what is scientifically proven to increase temperature by trapping heat.

Sure, but there are political problems with that approach. Nukes do
that but there are problems with changing to just nukes politically.

And its not even clear what the effect of power generation by any
method is when it clearly ends up as heat where its used eventually.

The earth to some extent is self regulating

To a massive extent in fact. And that may well be why, when we know
that say CO2 levels in the atmosphere have done something like triple
in the time between when we were nothing but hunter gatherers till
now, we havent seen a corresponding change in climate. Or even
just over the time since the industrial revolution happened either.

but its not able to cope with a fast rise or fall in the temperature

You don’t know that and there hasn’t been a fast
rise or fall in temperature anyway for some reason.

and hence nasty effects can and do occur.

Sure, but that is true of the natural situation with ice ages particularly.

The earth survived that fine and so did many of the plants and animals.

Sure, plenty more went extinct too, but that’s how things work.


dennis@home wrote

When they do this sort of thing how can you believe what they say?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...rence-network/

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 17:16:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why? First of all the amount of heat trapped directly by CO2 is
minuscule. Without the added feedback of the models it really is simply
noise. And the data to support the feedbacks simply does NOT exist.

It's all a *GIANT* con-game designed to fleece us out of *even more*
taxes.