Deer in the Headlights

[LP]

Both Dyson and Happer are forces in science, world leading CO2 experts - and you just diss them.

Nope that's a straight out lie.

In their fields of nuclear physics and maths Freeman Dyson and William Happer were leading scientists, but on CO2 Emissions and Climate Research they are just offering unqualified opinions like everybody else! Some of Happer's alleged claims actually fail the basic math tests discussed earlier, I've no idea why because he was more than capable to doing the math which makes some of his assertions false! Maybe they aren't really his claims at all like those earlier examples offered as statements by Kear.

For example Happer's alleged claim that the Sun is responsible for the measured Climate Change not Humans is just physically impossible and we know nothing has changed to alter that in thousands of years!

Maybe Happer is just taking the piss sometimes and winding up the conspiracy theorists to expose the nutters!

[LP]

Mikey Mann (modeller), Schmidt (god knows), you?

Why do you do this to yourself, you do know Professor Michael Mann was also exonerated, in fact his critics tried multiple avenues to get him removed and his work discredited and they lost every time!

Pretty much every conspiratorial xxxxxxxGate associated with the intial IPCC report, at least those investigated that were not so crazy as to be immediately disregarded, including ClimateGate, AmazonGate and HimalayaGate have been dismissed.

I don't mind you offering genuine counterpoints to the claims of Human Induced Climate Change, Climate Change or Global Warming in general, because debating and defending such assertions is how science works. But not when you are offering the conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe which you seem to have nothing but credulity for, and worse use of allegedly fraudulent sources to assert fraud by genuine climate scientists!

Why do I say allegedly fraudulent sources, because nobody knows where or who corrupted the data they quote in their weird erroneous articles, they may in fact be victims of a fraud and genuinely believe it to be the case that the world is out to fool them.

[flyboy77]

I love the way you diss the recently deceased NZ scientist as not a climate scientist yet fail to answer my question as to what (you think) is required to be so badged?

If you had bothered to read the article it details his long running role as a global leader through the whole IPCC early years.

Clearly others, much better placed than you or me, though he was very much qualified. But again, you revert to the ad hominen. Yawn.

As for Mann being exonerated, that is laughable. He even lost a defamation case in Canada (he instigated) last year after failing to produce his data.....maybe I'm naive but I recall a time when a government funded scientist was obligated to produce his/her data/stats - you know the principle of replication - see K. Popper. 

And I note his rubbish 'hockey stick' charts have now been erased from IPCC reports - any credible scientist knows his stuff was (and is) very suspect. Biffra's efforts were little better.

Happer and CO2 - the bloke made CO2 lasers ffs. 200 peer reviewed papers - lauded by numerous US administrations (before Trump). Here's a few of his research papers - http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happ...tions.html

Dyson? Very much an expert in the field. Was one of the leaders in CC research dating back to the early 70 at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. Guess you didn't know that. I would refer you to his famous 'Paper 105'.

The simple fact that you endeavour to dismiss these guys as 'not experts' or 'not climate scientists' says everything. And is also a serious indictment on your credibility.

I'm sure you appreciate the science behind global warming is pretty straight forward, yet you reckon these blokes have no clue but a modeller does. ROFL.

Very lightweight again LP - i expected more given your certitude (but you know the game is being lost....). And feel free to drop the rhetoric at any time and converse on an actual issue related to the science.

Go Blues.

[flyboy77]

The exoneration was official and came from the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, the committee which conducted the enquiry for the UK Parliament.

The links you provide are not official, they are opinions!

Concerns about Mann’s research included:

Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped “reconstructions” from auto-correlated red noise. Mann’s failure to disclose the algorithm continued even in a 2004 corrigendum.
Mann’s failure to disclose adverse verification statistics in MBH98. Mann also did not archive results that would permit calculation of the adverse statistics. Climategate emails later revealed that Mann regarded this information as his “dirty laundry” and required an associate at the Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) to withhold the information from potential critics.
Mann’s misleading claims about the “robustness” of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of tree ring chronologies, including failing to fully disclose calculations excluding questionable data from strip bark bristlecone pine trees.
Mann’s deletion of the late 20th century portion of the Briffa temperature reconstruction in Figure 2.21 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) to conceal its sharp decline, in apparent response to concerns that showing the data would “dilute the message” and give “fodder to the skeptics.” Mann’s insistence in 2004 that “no researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. But it was later revealed that in one figure for the cover of the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) annual report, the temperature record had not only been grafted onto the various reconstructions—and in the case of the Briffa reconstruction, had been substituted for the actual proxy
Mann’s undisclosed grafting of temperature data for “Mike’s Nature trick,” a manipulation of data which involved: (1) grafting the temperature record after 1980 onto the proxy reconstruction up to 1980; (2) “smoothing” the data; and (3) truncating the smooth back to 1980. ”

I'll stick to footy hereonin. You're in the cult. No facts, or even reality, will sway you.

[LP]

Concerns about Mann’s research included:
.
.
.
I'll stick to footy hereonin. You're in the cult. No facts, or even reality, will sway you.

Reality does sway me fiction doesn't!

Your Mann accusations are old news, dredged up and re-played ad infinitum in the remote hope it influences some general public. It's pointless raising them in this debate because the accusations have long been disproved by multiple investigations, some even chaired or sponsored by climate change skeptics. In some cases the skeptical protagonists were even forced to publish very public apologies!

Repeating false accusations won't make them suddenly become true, it's not Kansas, you're not Dorothy, no matter how often you speak or write the fantasy it will remain fake, fiction will not become reality, even News Ltd accepts that now! ;D

[flyboy77]

If other folk here have any interest in this topic, I'll let them be the judge of the respective quality of the commentary.

[PaulP]

Like many topics on this forum, it starts in earnest and descend quickly into ego based point scoring. Much like some of the characters in Bob Dylan's Desolation Row (Einstein and Robin Hood, Ezra Pound and TS Eliot), too much focus on minor points and details and losing sight of the bigger picture. We all want cleaner air, water and soil. We all want a host of other environmental improvements. Time to stop f@#%ing around and move away from old technologies. Climate change or no climate change. Other countries have shown the way.

[LP]

Time to stop f@#%ing around and move away from old technologies. Climate change or no climate change. Other countries have shown the way.

Yes, sensible actions in the face of a potential risk. The key words being "action", which means do something, and "potential risk", which means something bad might happen!

The trouble is in Australia we have ScoMo in charge, who seems credulous regarding climate change denialism. ScoMo "Wants to Believe" the conspiracies, the real question is perhaps why?

Other Liberals like Turnbull and Abbott had motives that were relatively clear, be they hard right economics or the Small "L" conservatism.

Scotty from Marketing is a weather-vane, and not a very good one it seems because he can't definitively find his way-point! His lack of commitment perhaps presents the highest risk to Australia of all political positions, because we could lose on both fronts, the economy and the environment!

Some countries have chosen Filthy Rich while others choose Clean Broke, Scotty from Marketing seems to have found the secret 3rd path Filthy Broke!

Observers now probably suspect with Scotty from Marketing it's all about Scotty from Marketing, no wonder he idolizes Trump!

[flyboy77]

Like many topics on this forum, it starts in earnest and descend quickly into ego based point scoring. Much like some of the characters in Bob Dylan's Desolation Row (Einstein and Robin Hood, Ezra Pound and TS Eliot), too much focus on minor points and details and losing sight of the bigger picture. We all want cleaner air, water and soil. We all want a host of other environmental improvements. Time to stop f@#%ing around and move away from old technologies. Climate change or no climate change. Other countries have shown the way.

Can't move away from fossil fuels until there is a viable baseload alternative.

Here in Australia, we're so vacuous and self absorbed, we can't even have a reasonable, rational debate on nuclear.

Wind and solar are a waste of space.

Ask South Australians how happy they are with the 'new' energy mantra there.

[PaulP]

Can't move away from fossil fuels until there is a viable baseload alternative.

Here in Australia, we're so vacuous and self absorbed, we can't even have a reasonable, rational debate on nuclear.

Wind and solar are a waste of space.

Ask South Australians how happy they are with the 'new' energy mantra there.

I'd bet London to a brick that it's doable. Between the various forms of clean(er) energy, we can do way better than the current situation.