OT: more evidence of AGW scam

formatting link

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom
Loading thread data ...

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

Reply to
Tom Gardner

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2019 11:36:51 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner wrote in :

Bull, the usual 'Russia dunnit' crap. First, if you did read it, the paper is Finnish. Second climate change is not caused by humming beans and neither by human beings but it is the simple sum of the effects of orbital changes

formatting link
scroll down all the way, see the simple addition of sinewaves. we are, it seems, near a maximum?

Third, accessing rt.com from here is difficult, had to reload the page for anything to happen.. ~# host rt.com rt.com has address 82.202.190.90 rt.com has address 82.202.190.91

~ #traceroute 82.202.190.90

1 raspberry (192.168.178.1) 0.842 ms 0.949 ms 1.093 ms 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 145.54.66.133 (145.54.66.133) 335.234 ms 335.374 ms 336.441 ms 5 145.54.66.124 (145.54.66.124) 338.821 ms 338.614 ms 339.024 ms 6 * * * 7 * 193.239.118.168 (193.239.118.168) 29.756 ms rostelecom.newtelco.nl-ix.net (193.239.118.50) 36.541 ms 8 ae1-3.RT.MR.MSK.RU.retn.net (87.245.232.129) 66.467 ms 70.254 ms 70.189 ms 9 GW-Indrik.retn.net (87.245.253.219) 71.830 ms 5.143.255.218 (5.143.255.218) 78.873 ms 82.883 ms

traceroute goes via Moscow, from ~ # whois 87.245.253.219 inetnum: 87.245.253.0 - 87.245.254.215 netname: RETN-RU-MSK-2 descr: ReTN external interconnections in Moscow and takes a long time, after that I had to restart my fvwm file manager in Linux, it became unresponsive, so maybe they install spyware.

I wanted to write a comment but you need to log in, and last time I commented there I got the impression talking to let's say a bit shortsighted people, so I did not bother this time.

Back to Climate Crap, It is big business, maybe invented by Polar Bear Gore, selling 'solutions', and the idea of taxing people goes down well with any ruler.

The fun thing (looking at it from a cosmic POV) is that as it gets warmer mass migration will happen. and then as it gets colder several thousand years later mass migration (if anybody is left) will happen again. And I am sure that will be taxed too, to make more CO2? Such a lot of crap. We had the hottest day in June here since measurement began, when I was a kid I went skating, not much ice here this winter. FWIIW

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

--
  Rick C. 

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since

1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great, featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around lik e you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then maps pretty wel l to the rise in temperature. That alone is more evidence than crying "rai n forest".

--
  Rick C. 

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor Doom wrote in :

The art of taxing is to make people believe it is good for them, so that they INSIST to pay for it (to save the climate).

Well done job!!

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.

Reply to
bulegoge

"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or throws you in jail for doing it.

They do tend to get ostracized from the mainstream scientific community for doing it because a) their evidence/theories/models to the contrary are generally poor and b) you tend to get ostracized from any group of people when you implicitly call all your colleagues frauds but don't back up your claim very good.

The same thing would happen in the National Society of Lumber Scientists, too, if you said the bulk of lumber scientists were publishing fraudulent data/claims about lumber.

Reply to
bitrex

The obvious conclusion is that CD is simply a sharper data analyst than the bulk of climate scientists in the world, who are engaged in a massive cover-up they have all been sworn to secrecy about.

This passes Occam's Razor test for plausibility very well.

Reply to
bitrex

Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Ironically the effect of long-term lead exposure to the CNS probably results in the firm conviction that leaded gasoline is the best.

Reply to
bitrex

Leaded gas was bad, as were the old cars without emission controls. When one of the "classics" passes down the street, it really stinks.

100% of the cars on the road used to be that nasty. Diesel trucks and busses were horrible; most are better now.

Added CO2 is probably a net benefit to Earth. The other gunk wasn't. The Popular Press uses "CO2" and "carbon" and "pollution" interchangeably.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much, or that the added CO2 is bad for the planet. Lots of people want it to be, for various reasons.

This is real

formatting link

and so is this:

formatting link

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

You must have missed the point I was making so I'll repeat it for you: YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT THE HELL YOU LIKE.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

greening-earth

This is a nice excerpt from Robert Brown a leading physicist.

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all, if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about today's temperatures! Seriously. Not one human being on the planet would look at that complete record - or even the complete record of temperatures during the Holocene, or the Pliestocene - and stab down their finger at the present and go "Oh no!". Quite the contrary. It isn't the warmest. It isn't close to the warmest. It isn't the warmest in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. It isn't warming the fastest. It isn't doing anything that can be resolved from the natural statistical variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann's utterly fallacious hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with the LIA* and MWP** restored, it isn't even remarkable in the last thousand years!

Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends 80 to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that cover the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate zone. We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which humans emerged all the way from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern civilization. The Earth's climate is manifestly, empirically bistable, with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely and more stable. As a physicist who has extensively studied bistable open systems, this empirical result clearly visible in the data has profound implications. The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling from the Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant on the scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are nowhere near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000 years ended a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with the Maunder minimum in solar activity.

There is absolutely no evidence in this historical record of a third

hence 'catastrophe'(in the specific mathematical sense of catastrophe, a first order phase transition to a new stable phase). It has been far warmer in the past without tipping into this phase. If anything, we are geologically approaching the point where the Earth is likely to tip the other way, into the phase that we know is there - the cold phase. A cold phase transition, which the historical record indicates can occur quite rapidly with large secular temperature changes on a decadal time scale, would truly be a catastrophe. Even if 'catastrophic' AGW is correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next century, if it stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or delayed the Earth's transition into cold phase it would be worth it because the cold phase transition would kill billions of people, quite rapidly, as crops failed throughout the temperate breadbasket of the world.

Now let us try to analyze the modern era bearing in mind the evidence of an utterly unremarkable present. To begin with, we need a model that predicts the swings of glaciation and interglacials. Lacking this, we cannot predict the temperature that we should have outside for any given baseline concentration of CO2, nor can we resolve variations in this baseline due to things other than CO2 from that due to CO2. We don't have any such thing. We don't have anything close to this. We cannot predict, or explain after the fact, the huge (by comparison with the present) secular variations in temperature observed over the last 20,000 years, let alone the last 5 million or 25 million or billion. We do not

before any modulation due to anthropogenic CO2, and hence we have no idea if those forces are naturally warming or cooling the Earth as a trend that has to be accounted for before assigning the 'anthropogenic' component of any warming.

This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just love to tell stories) but there aren't any particularly successful theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories (none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one tried to actually write *the* partial differential equation for the global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms - if one can actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand! Global Climate Models are children's toys in comparison to the actual underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively available.

The truth of this is revealed in the lack of skill in the GCMs. They utterly failed to predict the last 13 or 14 years of flat to descending global temperatures, for example, although naturally one can go back and tweak parameters and make them fit it now, after the fact. And every year that passes without significant warming should be rigorously lowering the climate sensitivity and projected AGW, making the

These are all (in my opinion) good reasons to be skeptical of the often egregious claims of CAGW. Another reason is the exact opposite of the reason you used 'denier'in your article. The actual scientific question has long since been co-opted by the social and political one. The real reason you used the term is revealed even in your response " we all 'should' be doing this and that whether or not there is a real risk of

working to preserve the environment, and so on.

The problem with this 'end justifies the means'argument - where the means involved is the abhorrent use of a pejorative descriptor to devalue the arguers of alternative points of view rather than their arguments at the political and social level - is that it is as close to absolute evil in social and public discourse as it is possible to get. I strongly suggest that you read Feynman's rather famous 'Cargo Cult' talk:

formatting link

In particular, I quote:

"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. 'Well,'I said, 'there aren't any.' He said, 'Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind.'I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing, and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision."

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Time for a bit of soul-searching, Dr. Bain. Have you come even close to living up to the standards laid out by Richard Feynman? Is this sort of honesty apparent anywhere in the global climate debate? Did the 'Hockey

Do the IPCC reports ever seem to present the counter arguments, or do they carefully avoid showing pictures of the 20,000 year thermal record, preferring instead Mann's hockey stick because it increases the alarmism

any place in any scientific paper ever published given Feynman's rather simple criterion for scientific honesty?

And finally, how dare you presume to make choices for me, for my relatives, for my friends, for all of the people of the world, but concealing information from them so that they make a choice to allocate resources the way you think they should be allocated, just like the dishonest astronomer of his example. Yes, the price of honesty might be that people don't choose to support your work. Tough. It is their money, and their choice!

Sadly, it is all too likely that this is precisely what is at stake in

said, prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of luck convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate today is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen

then there is little incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being done on climate science. There is even less incentive to spend trillions of dollars of other people's money (and some of our own) to ameliorate a

even greater threat of movement in the exact opposite direction to the one the IPCC anticipates.

Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance in addressing this supremely difficult problem, while at the same time as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its benefits against draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.

For shame."

  • Little ice age. A cold period from the 16th to 19th centuries (more or less) when the Thames froze over.
** Mediaeval warm period. A warm period when the Vikings colonized Greenland..only to abandon it when it got too cold to grow crops.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

I think a lot of the vintage pieces you see around now are "worse" than they were, their owners like to tune the timing and air/fuel for high RPM performance and they were made long before the time of variable valve timing and lift. and they think they sound cool driving around at low speed rumbling, spluttering and popping on a fuel-rich mixture

If the Popular Press were experts in emissions controls and climate science they'd be climate scientists, in the vein of what you could say about many other topics they report on

>
Reply to
bitrex

addendum: there are a lot of ways you can "tune" a car to perform worse than it does from the factory, I believe e.g. BMW enthusiasts have found most of them by now.

Reply to
bitrex

Yep, all they ever do is talk shit for attention all day long and never present any substantive research of their own.

OMG, did you know that the vast majority of practical physics problems applicable to the real world, and not simplified toy systems, are complex multivariate PDEs with "nasty nonlinear coupling" that don't have closed-form solutions? this habitual man-splainer acts like this is news to somebody other than anti-AGW beard-stroking head-nodders who are impressed he can use those big words.

If the climate were not described by that kind of equation then the climate would show almost no interesting behavior worth predicting. duh!

Being anti-AGW pundit, is easy job, like being "pro-life." Don't actually have to ever do anything. Just have to run your mouth and collect checks.

Reply to
bitrex

Egomaniacs love to talk, but this one uses a truly impressive amount of grumpy old man egomaniac ranting to say almost nothing.

It's kind of sad and painful to read like a transcript of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle talking with each other and telling each other how great they are for 3 hours at a sci fi book convention

Reply to
bitrex

Based on CD's technical background and achievements that he himself has stated, I doubt he did know that.

But then his opinion is "just as valid" as anyone else's. Isn't it?

Just so.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.