On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:

That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.

The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.

Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.

I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.

How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?

Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.

How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down

mis-

information

Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.

Time you started to acquire them.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.

How are your statistics?

My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?

I was referring to statistics.

I know, and I wasn't surprised.

My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of
Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what?

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.

I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

.... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.

It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.

You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.

I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to
move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.

I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!

In short, no!

You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?

Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway,
how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe
it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!

If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.

It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.

Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?

I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company
Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke
and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after
2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate
change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global
warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the
economy.[8]"

Note the link between tobacco denialism and climate change denialism,
which tells you all you need to know - the latter learnt from the
techniques of the former. As far as funding goes, and, again, note the
link with tobacco ...

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including
$736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[81][115] Greenpeace
reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[52] In
2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of
climate warming, including Heartland.[115][116][117][not in citation
given] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil
was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its
public image.[115]

The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco
companies Philip Morris,[3]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and
pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli
Lilly.[113] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former
supporters.[118] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of
donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct
link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry
and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive
smoking can damage people's health."[57] The Institute opposes
legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the
rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[119]"

So again I ask, why are acting as the unpaid employee of big oil? Or
perhaps you are not unpaid?

Many are.

Who?

All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.

They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.

You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.

In other words, you have no real answer to that statement of fact.

Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly
independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.

They were cleared of dishonestly and intentional wrong-doing, get used
to it.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what?

The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
conclusion is preordained.

LOL! Coming from a denialist, that is breathtakingly hypocritical, but,
although it tells us nothing useful about the IPCC, it does reveal much
about the way your mind works - because you think in terms
conspiracies, you also think that everyone else must be part of one!
The sad, simple truth is that neither you nor the world are that
interesting! Its history shows that most governments couldn't organise
the proverbial function in a brewery, let alone create and maintain over
many decades some fantastical global conspiracy against you or me or
anyone else. I hardly expected to mention Jane Austen's novels twice in
a thread about global warming denialism, but the fact that I can with
some justification merely shows how unchanging is human nature,
including its many flaws. Her novel 'Northanger Abbey' is partly about
a young woman who reads too many far-fetched and fantastic novels and,
when she is unexpectedly invited to stay at the rather spooky eponymous
residence, makes the mistake of thinking that its widowed proprietor
somehow did away with his wife - the truth about her death turns out
to be less interesting. Similarly today we are plied endlessly with
fantastically unrealistic films where one man succeeds in winning
through against some ubiquitous conspiracy involving everyone from the
president himself down to the man sweeping the street in front of the
hero's house, none of whom he can trust. Thankfully, the world is just
not like that, but sadly, global warming is really real and is really
happening, and so the IPCC were set up to investigate it, and are doing
so. This, however boring, is the simple truth.

Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.

Only to those like yourself so misguided as to deny it.

Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.

The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
change?

To improve the modelling so that we can predict the effects better.


ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...

The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.

It was known to be good, because we have had reasonably accurate
thermometers for hundreds of years, let alone since 1960, and there is
no need of 'modern technology' to measure temperature.

... and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm
"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.

Read again what I wrote in my introduction above, it was discovered in
*1995*, *over a decade before* ClimateGate in 2009! Wriggle as you may,
there is no way that you can make this part of your irrational global
conspiracy.

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:

And it corrupted the understanding of the data.

Yes, at least one of the investigations openly acknowledged that, but
that still doesn't make it a conspiracy, and the same investigation
stated that it could find no evidence for one.

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]

"should havebeen made plain".

Exactly, but again that's a mistake or oversight, not a conspiracy.
Read again the following ...

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.