Australian Politics Forum - mindless hysterics from climate skeptics

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18055
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #135 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:08pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

Was that at the 95% confidence level? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #136 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:10pm

You missed the question Lee. Did you have trouble understanding it?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it. It's mostly activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's why its predictive power is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?

Quote:

The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

Pseudo-intellectual hysterics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18055
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #137 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:37pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:10pm:

You missed the question Lee.

I didn't miss it. I was so amused bu your reference to Mann Bradley Hughes. Seeing as how Mann got his arse handed to him on a plate when he lost the Canadian libel suit against Tim Ball who accused him of fraud. Grin

So now to the question.

The answer is how much? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #138 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:43pm

You are being irrational again Lee. He could be a pedophile axe murderer and the evidence would still support his hockey stick graph. Hence my reference to all the other studies that back it up.

Would you like to put aside your hysterics and try for a straight answer? Are you arguing that scientists are not even claiming that GHG's affect the climate, or were you so hysterical you did not realise what you said?

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it.

So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18055
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #139 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:52pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:43pm:

You are being irrational again Lee. He could be a pedophile axe murderer and the evidence would still support his hockey stick graph.

Then why didn't he provide the evidence that he wasn't a fraud? His "good" name must mean something to him. Wink

The hockeystick graph has been thoroughly debunked by statisticians. It doesn't matter if people use the same methodologies. Tagging thermometer records on to tree ring data is a no-no. Why did he need to do it? Because the last few years didn't support his conclusion. Grin

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Are you arguing that scientists are not even claiming that GHG's affect the climate, or were you so hysterical you did not realise what you said?

I have always said that the so called GHG's will have an effect. lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:37pm:

The answer is how much?

You are such a denier. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #140 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:57pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it. It's mostly activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's why its predictive power is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?

Quote:

The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

Pseudo-intellectual hysterics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

The 'dilatory cockwomble' Mann's hockey stick is bollocks. He sued Steyn for saying as much and lost spectacularly.

https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #141 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:10pm

"Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate"

This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told.

WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate?
What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing)
What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences?
What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know.
Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change.

NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be.

Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you.i

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #142 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:30pm

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:10pm:

"Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate"

This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told.

WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate?
What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing)
What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences?
What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know.
Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change.

NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be.

Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you.i

"I don't understand the science, therefore no-one does."

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #143 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:53pm

Robot wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:30pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:10pm:

"Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate"

This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told.

WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate?
What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing)
What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences?
What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know.
Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change.

NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be.

Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you.i

"I don't understand the science, therefore no-one does."

Well, YOU don't.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18055 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #144 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:32pm Robot meant climate seance.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #145 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it.

Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee?

Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising?

Or do you stand by the claim?

Or will you just run away from the question again?

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18055
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #146 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:59pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

Why is it that educational institutions say don't use wiki? it is not because everyone can use it.

"It goes without saying that students use Wikipedia extensively, probably more than any other social group. Although the website's founder Jimmy Wales once warned readers not to use the website for academic purposes, American research shows that the majority of students browse its pages when researching essays."

"Academics discredit the website for several reasons: articles can be written by anyone, not necessarily a world expert; editing and regulation are imperfect and a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing. Vandalism is also common. There are numerous examples of politicians and public figures amending articles about themselves to erase unfavourable material. Wikipedia's own incomplete list of hoaxes makes interesting and comical reading (I particularly appreciated the fictitious "Township of Asstree, Tennessee")."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/13/should-university-students-use...

From the garudian so it must be true. Wink

And wiki still promotes MBH DESPITE the drubbing Mann got in court. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #147 - Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 10:59pm

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it.

Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee?

Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising?

Or do you stand by the claim?

Or will you just run away from the question again?

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

It is preposterous to say that antropohenic CO2 causes climate change.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18055 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #148 - Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 1:25pm
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 1:34pm by lee » IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96696

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #149 - Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 5:10pm

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 10:59pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't think scientists are saying it.

Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee?

Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising?

Or do you stand by the claim?

Or will you just run away from the question again?

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

It is preposterous to say that antropohenic CO2 causes climate change.

That's why it's scientifically proven, dear boy.

Preposterous, innit.

English is your second language, no?

Back to top

IP Logged