Oh nonsense. If it got that bad, the UK would just re-join in 5 years time. Dah....
What is pretty much fact though, is that if leave had lost it would be forever in the EU, unless the EU itself collapsed.
-- Kevin Aylward
You can (and presumably do!) challenge to your heart's content. But your challenge has to successfully refute the base you're talking about - which is, more or less, data and modelling by scientists in the public realm, peer reviewed.
If you can do that, your current 'apostate' rank will improve :-)
?
There probably is truth in that - but it's a lazy argument that could be applied to a range of things you find disagreeable and does nothing to refute the original point. Mutual exclusivity.
-- Cheers, Rob
Um no. the hypothesis is not the data. The data already refutes the hypoteheis. \Ebem te comntent of the atest IPCC report refites ist executuve syummary!
The tunbng is pore money power and politucs now. Thescience ceased many years ago.
As for 'peer reviews' what could be cosier than having other cliamate change chuns reveiw the crap yuou put out?
Much better skeprical cririus fri sites like WUWT and GWPF etc al. #
No, it wont, because its not about the science.
The science is today very clear
1/. C02 on its own makes an insignificant (but real) difference. 2/. The 'amplification' to makeit significant simply does not exist.Its all about power greed asnd politics.
Nope. the science says its bunk, Ergo all that is left is a band wagon
Cui Bono.
Money speaks louder than truth.
-- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.
Its merely your opinion he isn't.
However he does post stuff like he is a little englander.
r
Only when read by the Natural Philosopher, who has told us that anthropogen ic global warming stopped in 1998 - which is an idiocy that he didn't get f rom any IPCC report.
The science was decided years ago, not that the natural philosopher has not iced.
Scientific studies are continuing - to find out how fast things are going t o get worse. Dealing with the incipient inconveniences does have a politica l aspect.
There's nothing cosy about peer review, and people who have done it find th emselves chucking out a lot of crap, including some from their chums - whic h is why it is usually done anonymously.
If the Natural Philosopher had enough sense to read what he typed before po sting it one might take him a little more seriously, but WUWT probably mean s Watts Up with That
which is part of the denialist propaganda machine
The other acronym might be
which is another denialist propaganda site.
The excessively natural philosopher ought have "gullible sucker" tattoed ac ross his forehead, as a warning to anybody who might take him seriously
The Natural Philosopher is clearly more interested in the financial well-be ing of people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it as fuel - what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin, in large letters,
For a bizarre value of "insignificant".
More CO2 makes the world appreciably warmer. An appreciably warmer world ha s more water vapour above the oceans. Water vapour is a slightly more poten t greenhouse gas than CO2, which in turn makes the world slightly warmer ag ain.
The denialist propaganda that the Natural Philosopher chooses to read and b elieve is all about greed - people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it as fuel make a enough money out of the business to have the power pay liars to lie about anthropogenic global warming.
Arrhenius might be a better candidate, but he got the ball rolling in 1898, and certainly didn't make any money out it. He was a justly famous scienti st, not a science fiction author.
Who is supposed to be making money out anthropogenic global warming - excep t for the merchants of doubt who get paid for spreading lies about it?
e
The natural philosopher - better described as the gullible village idiot - has been told it is bunk by people who are paid to spread lies about the su bject.
"The band wagon" is a rationalisation of that implausible claim.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
You do understand that its not really science but mathematical modelling?
You take some data, manipulate it and produce outputs that match what is observed and then use that to try and predict the future. Now some of the terms in the model are based on scientific theory and can give reasonable predictions over some time period.
For instance weather predictions are like that.
However climate models have a problem, none of the models have been fed with data from the past and successfully predicted what has happen in recent times. That means their ability to make predictions are poor.
There is also the minor problem that is a model doesn't predict the growing temperature rise it is considered to be broken by the peer reviewers. Thus it has to be fixed by adding in maths that may not have any actual basis on science, for instance the feed back on CO2 which there is little actual evidence for.
In the current climate (pun intended) there is no way you will get anyone to agree your model isn't broken no matter how well it fits the available records if it doesn't predict warming in the future. As they say the science is solved so we must be right.
Maybe in 50 years when they still don't match the predictions things may change, until then just keep repeating the mantra.
Yes, I have even had to inject myself twice because the 150mg injections weren't available but the pharmacist had some 100mg ones so I had to discard 50mg and then use two injections.
Then he supplied the 150mg 10 days later when they arrived.
I didn't get that idea from the article.
They probably don't want mobile phones that interoperate either.
RJH also seems to think there's something magical about the models. Models don't "tell" you anything. Models make predictions which are more or are less valid depending on the quality of the boundary conditions fed in and the quality of the model itself.
I can in 20 seconds create a model which, whenever it's run, predicts no global warming. How about that, eh? That it consists of a single statement echoing out the words "There is no global warming", we gloss over. I'm sure I could get TNP to peer review my model.
Then I'd have a peer-reviewed model that gave a consistent result. Would it be worth anything? Of course not.
But don't say that TNP wouldn't be allowed to review it because he's not a climate scientist. You'd be buying into the notion that you have to be part of the hierarchy before you can participate.
Let's have some reviews done by proper scientists such as the likes of Feynman or Hoyle - assuming there are any quality people these days.
-- The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. HL Mencken
You mean people sat on him? Gosh.
ISO is a johnny-come-lately in that arena. It tried and failed to get the useless ISO protocols adopted 25 years ago, but failed in the end as everyone went for the de-facto TCP/IP.
You'll note that all the relevant standards were developed by industry and academia. Not the government.
Yes - that's why we fought the war all right - to make our clothing safe for heroes.
-- The reason you think government is the solution is because you think freedom is the problem. But the truth is that government ensures that the most evil, ruthless people end up in control, because the state is a single point of failure, and a high-value target of corruption. Alan Lovejoy
Nice summary.
-- Lady Astor: "Winston, you are drunk!" Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."
Well no. I am not that dishonest. Climate changes. Why, and by how much is the question.
And how accuate is the data used to measure it is a not inconsiderable problem.
Robert Brown did a fantastic summary of climate science (he is a phd physicist) basically saying that a model that assumed linear partial derivatives plus a few fudge factors could not be used to model a chaotic system with many non linear partial derivatives having more than significant - probably more than half - the causes with any degree of accuracy.
And indeed it is there in the data. Rapid warming 1970-1998: almost no warming since. Assuming a straight logarithmic response between CO2 and warming, as the model does - with appropriate fudged feedback - it can me made to fit one part of that curve or the other.
*It cannot be made to fit both*.This is the killer blow.Its no loner and argument about climate sensitivity, its an argument about the fundamental model assumption, that all or nearly all of late 20th century warming is down to CO2 increase.
It simply has to be false.
Anything powerful enough to virtually stop global warming in its tracks is certainly powerful enough by its absence to have caused it in the first place.
That is you *have* to introduce a new unkown that has more effect on climate than CO2 has. Like Trenberth's 'heat hiding in the oceans' etc etc.
The climate community gets more and more desperate by the year and now simply doesn?t even bother hiding the fact that its making it all up. Even the IPCC reports (for those that read them closely) say in the small print 'low CO2 effect' whilst the headline summarg goes scare alarm polar bears etc.
AGW isn't quite dead, but it sure smells bad to real scientists.
-- "If you don?t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed." Mark Twain
yup. And it is in fact a metaphsycal position now to say that man causes climate warming. It is not a statment that can be questioned, it is taken as a *starting point* of 'climate science' and if the facts dont fit the theory the facts must be wrong and are adjusted away. Or if the facts are accepted as truie then some other temporary issue is proposed as the reason why the facts dont fit the theory.
Somewhere I read a marveloous article wher the 'pause' was exaplined by 'atmospheric pollution', and they pointed out that the curve of tempereature versus dust in the air exactly matched the models for the Pinatubo eruption. But what they didn't realise was that that curve worked *without the amplification they claimed was resposnble for CO2 climate change*!!!! That is, Pinatubo shows no amplification happens..
They got the right result for dust by assuming NO feedback but they could only get a scary result for CO2 by assuming it!
Such doublethink within the same paper by the same author beggars belief and says a lot for how 'peer review' *actually* works.
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell
I didn't say you'd peer-review it *positively*. RJH seems to think that a peer-review is enough, without specifying the *outcome* of the peer-review.
Peer-reviews done by physicists *not* in the field, please.
-- "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.
There's a whole lot of scientific data that establishes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The process of teasing out what it means has involved a lot of mathematical modelling, but that's part of the science, not a separate process.
Not strictly true.
Not true either. Some predictions - like warmer oceans means more rainfall - are trivially easy. Working out where that rain might fall is harder.
Your evidence for this claim is?
The major feedback that amplifies CO2 based warming is extra water vapour in the air, because the vapour pressure of water above a warmer ocean is higher.
This is elementary thermodynamics, and you can collect the evidence for it in the lab. Water vapour does happen to be a slightly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Richard Lindzen did produce a model that didn't predict warming in the future. It got tested on existing data and didn't work there. Pity about that.
Your imagination is a poor substitute for reality.
That is your delusion about what's going on. Science doesn't actually work like that, much as you might like to imagine that it does.
They junked Lidnzen's model because it didn't fit real data. Waiting for fifty years isn't part of the process that actually goes on.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
About 0.4 degrees Celcius warming since 1998. The natural philosopher trust s his denialist web-sites rather more than he should.
The reality is that global warming reflect more than just rising CO2 levels .
The El Nino/La Nina alternation is good for about 0.2 degrees Celcius of di fference from one year to the next.
The much slower Atlantic Multidecadal alternation seems to be slightly bigg er.
Both seem to reflect ocean currents moving around.
Since there are other things affecting global temperature, it can't be expe cted to fit either, except perhaps by idiots like the natural philosopher.
It's certainly fatal to the natural philosoper's credibility. He clearly do esn't know what he is talking about.
se.
Nobody ever said it was. The effect of the El Nino/La Nina alternation make s that obvious to anybody with more sense than the natural philosopher
That argument is not so much false as fatuous.
The process of moving heat from the equator the the poles is carried out by weather and ocean currents. They don't happen to work smoothly and consist ently, and the average global temperature rises and fall by a few tenths of a degree as the ocean current move around. This isn't "stopping global war ming in its tracks". It's just natural variation.
c.
up.
The denialist propaganda machine would like the world to think this. It's a silly idea that they can only sell to gullible twits like the natural phil osopher.
Which bit of "small print"?
97% of the top 300 climate scientist think that the case for anthropogenic global warming is convincing. The ten holdouts are essentially nutters.The natural philosopher's "real scientists" presumably work for the deniali st propaganda machine, and the "real science" they know about is adjusting public opinion to ignore real science in favour of self-serving political p ropaganda which keep the fossil carbon extraction industry in business for few more years.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
You don't have to look far to find where not having a decent standard and enforcing it results in rather more than inconvenience. Grenfell Tower.
Without standards, there will always be someone out to make a fast buck. You'd need to look very carefully how standards are set before condemning any individual one. But that doesn't make for attention grabbing headlines.
--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
True. Your UKIP propaganda is way so much more accurate. England for the little Englanders.
--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
And is an arch supporter of UKIP. Whose true colours seem to be coming out at last.
--
*ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Numerology: every business has 3% of awkward and unprofitable customers that they should ignore and ditch.
Numerology: the UK represents 3% of world trade.
Fact: Norwegian politicians regard the UK as awkward, and wouldn't want us to join them in their arrangements with the EU, because they get on well and cooperate with the EU.
Question: why wouldn't other countries have the same attitude towards the UK, especially if we unilaterally renege on our existing commitments to the EU?
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.