--------------------------------
** The AGW hypothesis is just that.Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.
------------------------------------
Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda - intended to induce fear in the young and gullible.
For the rest, it is simply not working.
Some crazy Scandinavian teen seen ranting on the news one night is not near enough.
Very telling this is the best effort the top AGW loonies can present.
..... Phil
ng.
Which specific AGW fanatic do you have in mind?
Al Gore is about the only AWG enthusiast with serious name recognition, and he doesn't show any sign of fanaticism, nor can I think of anybody that do es.
She may have Aspberger's syndrome, but she doesn't look - or act - like any kind of sick kid. The public image I've seen is remarkably self-possessed.
She looks like a decidedly self-driven adolescent, so I suspect that Phil's prophecy will prove to be inaccurate, if not downright silly.
As if you and our collection of right-wing lunatics aren't being critical a nd patronising already.
.So does the wide acceptance of the evidence for anthropogenic global warmin g. My hypothesis is that you have generally bad judgement in finding stuff worry about.
Identify just one fanatic.
And Phil is happy to work his butt off to engineer her martyrdom.
She certainly hasn't yet sustained the kind of damage that might qualify he r as a martyr, and vilification by Cursitor Doom isn't exactly damaging. Wi th his track record, the only way to avoid being vilified by him would be t o be too ineffective to be noticed.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Well, with no shortage of dickheads around happy to lap-up her every ludicrous pronouncement, I'd say she's got it made.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
y is.
As hypotheses go, it's in good shape. It's had a lot of attention, and whil e fossil carbon extraction industry has financed a lot of alternative hypot heses, all of them have fallen flat when tested against real world data.
When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it, it's accepted orthodoxy. I think I can identify four of the ten holdouts, and t heir scepticism doesn't seem to have rational grounds.
She did quote the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which isn't h appy about the rate at which the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising.
That doesn't make them alarmists. Their unhappiness is entirely rational, e ven if you can't understand the evidence, and don't want to try to.
ar enough.
What gets on the news isn't controlled by anybody except the news media.
Having sixteen-year-old address the UN is unusual, so it gets on the news.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988. It's abou t as far from being lunatic as you can get.
James Hansen has criticised their attitude to sea level rise as excessively cautious - and I think he is right. The fact that you can't get a good inf ormation about what's going on at the bottom of mile-thick ice sheets isn't a good argument for ignoring the risk that might slide off into the sea qu ite fast (as a lot of ice sheets did at the end of the last ice age).
I'm afraid the head-in-the-sand lunatic here is you.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
--------------------
** Since Bill has declared that everything he posts is an unsupported assertion he has no need whatever to justify -there is no need for me or anyone else to reply.
The old fool is just rating like a completely mad bastard.
Hang on, that IS what he has been for decades.
Bonkers.
..... Phil
Since Cursitor Doom is our leading exponent of the art of lapping up ludicr ous pronouncements, his expertise has to be respected.
The fact that Greta Thurnberg hasn't made any ludicrous pronouncements may have escaped him. He lets the Daily Mail and Russia Today do his thinking f or him, and they won't have endorsed Greta Thurnberg.
When Greta Thurnberg quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what she said wasn't in the least ludicrous. The sort of puerile propaganda that Cursitor Doom soaks up like a sponge is aimed at making idiots like h im (and John Larkin) ignore sound advice, and when they demonstrate that th ey have been suckered they do become ludicrous. Of course they are much too dim to realise this.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
That's not what I claimed, and I do make a habit of supporting my assertions, which is more than Phil can manage.
Phil's been looking in the mirror again ...
Probably not. Phil's judgment is erratic when you get away from audio electronics.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Nor have you anything to say.
Phil, you're looking in a mirror?
Well, no, the 291 didn't, the research was gerrymandered to come to that conclusion. Did you READ the paper they wrote?
I quote from the synopsis:
------------(quote)------------
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
-------------(end quote)----------
So, from 32.6% of the abstracts they get 97% for the total? That means it was more like 64% of the papers' authors had no expressed position on AGW - not 97%.
This is called data cherry picking in scientific research.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
John :-#(#
---------------------
( snip mindless garbage)
** You are a brain dead moron - f*ck off.------------------------------------
** ROTFL !!FFS no hypotheses is never " Orthodoxy " !!!!
Only maybe in some lunatic fringe AGW fantatics' minds.
** Bollocks - there is zero real evidence.There are no credible climate models and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.
** Ridiculous crap.
** Lots of alarmist garbage fed to her to be regurgitated.
...... Phil
No, that's an odd conclusion. A scientific paper isn't an endorsement of anything, it's a report on ongoing work. Adding 'endorsement' in a paper would be possible (drawing conclusions in a final paragraph) but in no way expected.
There was never a yes/no/abstain vote. You certainly cannot count 'abstention' as a personal statement of 'no position'.
Wrong paper.
It was published in 2010. You've found a 2013 response in a journal with a much lower impact factor. The lead author is at the University of Queensland, of all places.
The proposition that one should search abstracts to work out whether the authors of the abstract accepted anthropogenic climate happens to be absurd.
It's not the sort of information that gets into abstracts.
The PNAS paper sorted their experts into "convinced by the evidence" - CE and "unconvinced by the evidence" - UE groups.
"We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC".
"We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions."
You've found a nonsense paper, and been suckered by it. Nothing new there either.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Climate models are so detailed that your head would swim if you tried to inspect one. Your credulity is not an acceptible criterion, because you're completely out of touch.
The thermodynamics of a warm planet with a cool atmosphere containing greenhouse gasses says that human products ARE making the climate change, even without depending on any of the details in climate models.
Removing climate models makes it difficult to pinpoint the future, but doesn't change the general prediction of massive costly or disastrous changes.
Wild claims, and fanatics, exist in dark corners and dark imaginations. Not Greta's style.
mostly, that 'propaganda' is knowledge and understanding. Call it by its right name, science; it's a simple courtesy.
Newton's "Law" of gravitation was never more than a hypothesis, but it was the accepted orthodoxy until Einstein refined the model (by throwing in cur ved space-time) falsifying Newton's simpler formulation.
It's the denialist fringe that exhibits real lunacy.
fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.
Phil clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither does John Larkin , who confuses weather prediction with climate modelling, and witters on ab out chaotic systems as if you couldn't make useful prediction on the basis of models of chaotic system. You can't make precise moment-to-moment long t erm predictions, but you can say useful stuff about the year-on-year averag es.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wasn't set up to produce alar mist garbage - if anything it's a bit less alarmist than it ought to be, as James Hansen has pointed out vis-a-vis sea level rise.
Their output wasn't fed to her - it's published internationally and everybo dy can read it. Most people don't bother.
She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of rant .
It certainly expressed disappointment with their performances so far, but r tht didn't make it a rant.
This seems to be the first bit anthropogenic global warming information tha t Phil has paid any attention to, give or take a bit of propaganda from the Australian Green Party, who do seem to aim more for emotional impact than information transfer.
There is better information around, mostly in books.
has been around since 2006, and it has lasted pretty well.
Al Gore's book
was published in 1992, and has lasted pretty well too, but the technology a vailable for generating energy without burning fossil carbon was less well developed back then.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
to claim there are no credible climate models means one would have to describe what a "credible" one would be like. But it sounds like "there are no credible climate models" is an axiom for him and there isn't much point in debating someone's axioms.
There's a school of philosophy that views all "science" which doesn't involve actual physical objects you can immediately point to and observe cause and effect between them with your own eyes, as not actually being physical science, but a type of metaphysics on par with astrology and divining the future from bird entrails.
H.L. Mencken was of that type:
"The human mind, at its present stage of development, cannot function without the aid of fictions, but neither can it function without the aid of facts?save, perhaps, when it is housed in the skull of a university professor of philosophy. Of the two, the facts are enormously the more important.
In certain metaphysical fields, e.g. those of mathematics, law, theology, osteopathy and ethics?the fiction will probably hold out for many years, but elsewhere the fact slowly ousts it, and that ousting is what is called intellectual progress. Very few fictions remain in use in anatomy, or in plumbing and gas-fitting; they have even begun to disappear from economics."
He viewed pure mathematical physics that didn't have an immediate application to the here-and-now as bullshit and speculating upon events that might occur in the future or had occurred in the distant past no more significant than religious prognostications found in the book of Genesis or Revelations.
That is to say he thought any mathematics more sophisticated than the times tables, or any "facts" derived from e.g. an integral involving an infinity was bunkum.
"Physicists and especially astronomers are consequently not real scientists, because when looking at shapes or forces, they do not simply "patiently wait for further light," but resort to mathematical theory."
I wonder if the nuclear bomb, built in quantity in the last decade of his life, made him think any differently. Probably not.
-----------------
** No way to tell merely by looking at one.Predictive models have to make lots of *accurate* predictions before you can have any faith in them. That is how real science works.
Climate Science is a misnomer, just means playing about in the dark with dodgy computer models created by code scribblers.
None of whom can lay claim to fully understand weather or if humans can possibility take control over it.
Total news to a brain dead, four toed pig like you.
.... Phil
Without the computer, the complexity of a world-climate model is intractible. With a computer, it's possible, and useful.
But, it's a useful tool for experts; it's no use TO YOU. The prospect of you trying to handle a climate model, really WOULD be playing in the dark. And you'd blame the tool. In fact, you skipped the trial phase, just went straight to that conclusion without collecting any data at all.
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.