CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE

posidonia wrote: »

Good for you! No need to shout about it though....

:D:D:D

Nabber

The other issue with NOAA, NASA, Hadley et al. is that they use the same calculation method applied to the same data. Where is the protection against methodological bias?
In fact if they didn't all come to the same conclusions it would damage their reputation, so there is a questionable element of agreement bias.

It's easy to see why AGW has such strong support, there is substantial data provided to both academics and average folks supporting AGW.
When you peel away the layer of data you realise there is very little publications or study on the aspects of the error propagation problem within the core adjusted data. Said data is the primary source indicating AGW as the cause of 'climate change'.

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE

posidonia wrote: »

So, you could be wrong but you're not...



Is anyone here making monetary gain from their posts? Are you? I think we should be told, by you, whether your posts here are paid for by someone - so prove to us you're not being paid to post here!



Of course you'll scoff and proclaim your innocence of the charges but the guilty never admit their guilty do they....


(you see? It's easy to smear someone or thing - and it goes on all the time in this thread...).

RESPONSE..AGAIN!! Does my earlier comment lead you to think it might be so factually viable that I am getting paid ?? ... Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE

Nabber wrote: »

The other issue with NOAA, NASA, Hadley et al. is that they use the same calculation method applied to the same data. Where is the protection against methodological bias?
In fact if they didn't all come to the same conclusions it would damage their reputation, so there is a questionable element of agreement bias.

It's easy to see why AGW has such strong support, there is substantial data provided to both academics and average folks supporting AGW.
When you peel away the layer of data you realise there is very little publications or study on the aspects of the error propagation problem within the core adjusted data. Said data is the primary source indicating AGW as the cause of 'climate change'.

RESPONSE:- From what I have learned from my own research (as uneducated as I may be) the reason they all come in the same is that they are shared throughout the western world, i.e at summits every year. (behind closed doors) The only independent, decades of researched studies are that of the Russian's and they read someting quite different

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If you’re an American climate monitoring service you’re going to use American standards for measurements and calibration. European standards were different in the early part of the 20th century
They don’t even use the same scale as us there needs to be some homogenization to fit global data together that is not required when you’re just interested in measuring the weather at one specific location over time

You mean they use Fahrenheit? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. What American standards? What European standards? How can any of that turn a flat curve into an upward one?

You seem to be clutching at straws at this stage. And that's not even mentioning the Connaught data.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

They don’t even use the same scale as us there needs to be some homogenization to fit global data together

:D:D

(°F − 32) × 5/9 = °C

I think its time someone took the shovel away from Akrasia.

M.T. Cranium

With the desalination suggestion, I was partly thinking in terms of creating large inland basins in places like southern California and Mauretania where land below sea level exists and could be filled, capacity augmented by excavation if feasible, and also plans that would use massive amounts of ocean water on a much larger scale for regional irrigation and general water needs.

The Salton Sea in southern California was created by accident (when a dam broke on the Colorado River before Lake Mead existed around 1905), and is now a very slowly evaporating stinking mess. It used to be a popular weekend destination for urban Californians, now it is largely shunned. And it is over 50 feet below sea level. There has to be a fairly large volume available there, and it could be linked to the Sea of Cortez by just relatively minor excavations to form a channel. Then the desalination would be occurring much closer to where the water is needed most (Palm Springs, Las Vegas etc).

Parts of southern Mauretania are also at or below sea level for miles inland, and Atlantic water could extend into these basins by simply blasting channels through coastal dunes and possibly pre-engineered deeper storage capacity. I don't think the elevation change at present time is very great (5-10 feet generally). I haven't researched the Australian situation but it seems like there might be potential there in northern coastal WA. Namibia might be another location and there is certainly the Persian Gulf region already running out of water from deep artesian wells.

This would be a good international co-operation exercise and a better use of billions of dollars than more and more weapons that will never be used anyway. Let's face it, a major incentive to militarize is economic, it creates thousands of jobs. So why not divert that into projects that actually create something of value instead of stockpiled weapons on a massive scale. Does anyone here think America, China and Russia for example would ever be crazy enough to fight an all-out nuclear war? It would destroy them all and most of the rest of the planet.

NASA -- I had this thought -- they are great at getting people to the Moon and spacecraft to exotic destinations, and people tend to think they can do no wrong. But NASA have in the past done wrong and in this climate project (better left to other agencies perhaps) they have done a lot wrong. That Valentia data set looks very dodgy to me.

We can see for ourselves that there is something fishy about this so-called proven science. All the usual signs are there. The proponents want greater acceptance than the level of actual science merits. They attack their opponents with character assassination, belittlement and ostracism making their only possible path forward an alternate science altogether. We've seen it happen before in science, and the people generally speaking are not convinced that climate science is anything near legitimate. Our opponents try to smear us with the anti-vaxxer flat earther meme, but of course those are different questions that may not have even 1% support among the general public. Climate change skepticism has nearly 50-50 support. It tends to run along generally left-right political lines but even among moderate progressives there are many who are dubious about the claims. The worst of it is the obviously orchestrated media cheerleading which attempts to portray every storm, heat wave, drought, snowstorm, whatever, as "more irrefutable proof" of a theory that cannot be disproved because it basically says "whatever happens is what we predicted, it's bad, and you should pay." Then when anyone tries to track where the money goes when people do pay (carbon taxes) it seems to be swept into general revenues and used for whatever the government has in mind for its patrons.

Not one cent raised by carbon taxes has had any effect on global weather.

If that's not a scam, then what is it?

Retr0gamer

It's true and a disgrace that carbon tax is not being used to combat climate change. However to deny climate change is to deny mountains of provable evidence. The climate denier message is being spread by big corporations as conforming to efforts that will alleviate their affect on the climate will cost them massively in profits. Creating more profits for their shareholders is more important than destroying the planet and the human race. They are pumping millions into this propaganda campaing and have governments in their pocket. And this is truth. Not a conspiracy theory.

The people who swallow this climate change denier guff and spread it are as bad as anti-vaxxers. It's the same thing. A man tries to discredit scientific evidence for his own financial benefit. Calls into question perfectly safe scientific practices and as a result the world is a worse place and people have died from it and yet the people that could benefit from this the most still swallow those lies and spread disinformation. Same is happening with the spread of climate denier fake news and information and the biggest contributors to climate change are laughing all the way to the bank.

M.T. Cranium

Here's a question -- when the IPCC claims such widespread support, how can this claim be validated?

Is there really 99% support for their consensus report

(a) among the atmospheric science professionals

(b) among scientists in general

or are these numbers just made up somewhere?

What would be the real world consequences of a professional scientist raising a dissenting voice on this issue?

I believe that the numbers are lower than 99% by some considerable amount, and that is partly due to a fear factor among some scientists who don't want to be ostracized or blacklisted, but also, just through creative manipulation of any actual data concerning support levels.

Here's another question.

In theory, if a science goes "rogue" and is no longer an actual science, who (as in what body of scientists) has any power to disown the rogue science and define it to be no longer a real science?

What if today, ten of us started a new science to be called weatherology, and claimed every bit of the same authenticity and credibility as meteorology -- is there anywhere we could go to have a hearing to determine which of the two sciences was more legitimate? And if not, why not?

By the way, I am not thinking of starting weatherology although the name for our science was based on a very early wrong turn (supposing that meteors were an atmospheric phenomenon that was part of weather).

I have always hoped that our science would recover its balance and stop encouraging the trends that are rather ominously in full display here, a downgrading of past experience, an unwarranted professional snobbery towards amateurs (not present in the more mature science of astronomy for example), and a general unpleasantness that I associate with far-left politics (if we don't get our way, we'll cause trouble until we do).

The marriage of science and politics is not a good thing, and that has been proven by both fascist and communist states in modern times.

There are people here who think they are scientists, but what they are is more accurately termed "technocrats."

When technocrats are unleashed in large numbers, it can be a good thing for society if the science behind the technology is sound. But if not, then what you get is massive social engineering that leads to things like the poisoning of watersheds, the disappearance of lakes (the Aral Sea, an inland salt lake in the former Soviet Union, has almost totally disappeared through poor planning of its water resources) and the displacement of people.

I was asked to separate the politics from the science, but it was not me who married the two in the first place. When this science saw how much government money was potentially available if they sang the right tune, it was a temptation that few could resist. Governments love schemes where taxpayers phone up and say, "can we perhaps give even more?" ... (to save the earth and keep Greta from scolding them). Yet do you think these government allies will really take the proposals that seriously, or will they be content to maintain the illusion of a planet in some mortal death throes, and their being the only route to salvation through revenues raised yet for what purpose exactly? It is all very murky, the financial side of climate change, who stands to benefit? If they can close down for example Canadian suppliers of LNG or petroleum, won't some other country step in and supply those markets? Would it not perhaps be profitable business to employ some public relations firms to make Canadian resource production appear evil and deadly, so that the other country can quietly step in and make the money which perhaps in an open market, they would not make (because they want to charge a bit more, or for other economic reasons)?

And who might those interests be? Well, wait and see who gets the contracts in the long run.

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's true and a disgrace that carbon tax is not being used to combat climate change. However to deny climate change is to deny mountains of provable evidence. The climate denier message is being spread by big corporations as conforming to efforts that will alleviate their affect on the climate will cost them massively in profits. Creating more profits for their shareholders is more important than destroying the planet and the human race. They are pumping millions into this propaganda campaing and have governments in their pocket. And this is truth. Not a conspiracy theory.

The people who swallow this climate change denier guff and spread it are as bad as anti-vaxxers. It's the same thing. A man tries to discredit scientific evidence for his own financial benefit. Calls into question perfectly safe scientific practices and as a result the world is a worse place and people have died from it and yet the people that could benefit from this the most still swallow those lies and spread disinformation. Same is happening with the spread of climate denier fake news and information and the biggest contributors to climate change are laughing all the way to the bank.

So you can't answer the Valentia question then. Ok.

M.T. Cranium

I think some context might be helpful here. In Canada, there is every chance of a massive political crisis leading as far as breakup of the country, based on some of these issues.

The west coast as with the nearby U.S. Pacific coastal states is very "progressive" and most of the inland parts of western Canada (like counterparts in the U.S.) more conservative and free-enterprise. In recent years, the government of British Columbia (which until 2015 was relatively conservative) has taken to leading the way towards thwarting every effort by the landlocked provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to get their goods to market for customers in Asia.

One of the leading proponents of the green movement is a well known Canadian climate activist and guru who now has an institute (or two) and a staff of dozens of people. Now it may be that individual citizens are funding all this, or it may be that foreign money is coming in (cynically) from countries that might stand to profit if Canada cannot supply the markets. A leading candidate for this would appear to be located in the Persian Gulf region. Some liberal Americans have also taken to meddling in our politics in ways that they don't even attempt to do in their own country. Maybe they are playing both ends against the middle, going green on our turf and investing in petroleum stocks in their country.

And I have to ask myself, is this really necessary, to tear a country apart over some fable that we are destroying the climate? Of course the political steam would go out of the green movement if it became widely understood that changes in climate are largely of other origins, and that we have more urgent environmental concerns, like cleaning up all the garbage that is dumped in the oceans, killing wildlife and fouling beaches. Or providing safe drinking water to millions who don't have it. But no, we have to go off on this exotic crusade against fossil fuels and turn the clock back to the Middle Ages until we have restored the feudal system and the barons can tell the serfs exactly how they may or may not live. Isn't that really what Agenda 21 is all about? And isn't it just communism under a new name, with the same false slogans to fool the masses and get them all worked up against made-up enemies, when the real enemies were always those who brought the revolution (and all the misery that followed)?

Sure there will be winners, the technocrats who I mentioned. They will have it easy. That's why they have descended on me like a cloud of locusts, and why they may be doing the same to you if you raise your voice too loud for their liking.

"I am not a censor, I just know what is right and therefore you need to be silenced." -- the mantra of the modern academic environment.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

:D:D

(°F − 32) × 5/9 = °C

I think its time someone took the shovel away from Akrasia.

Yes, an easy formula, but there are different rounding points between The two scales. If something converts as 14. 4 Fahrenheit that rounds down to 14, if it records as 14.7 Celsius, it rounds up to 15
It’s obvious that you’ve never worked with big datasets if you think this is a non trivial difference.

Let’s look at some other theoretical list of biases that need to be accounted for, when using ‘European’ vs ‘American’ as a short hand for any kind of potential variation

Would converting Fahrenheit to Celsius be counted as adjusting the data?
How about converting feet to meters? If a European Stephenson screen is 1.5 meters off the ground, how high is an American screen off the ground measured in feet and inches. If Europe has daylight saving time on a different date to US daylight saving time,
if European thermometers calibrate to the melting point of ice (or freezing point of water) but the Americans calibrate to the boiling point of water, if the Europeans orient their screens facing north, if Europeans take their measurements at 9am and 9pm but the Americans measure at midday and midnight...
do they use max and min daily temps?
Do they use alcohol, mercury or digital thermometers...
what happens when they try to standardize these measurements, do they adopt the ‘EU standard’ or the ‘US standard’
What happens if one station gets upgraded to digital thermometers 10 years before its neighbor does? Should the data pretend that there are no differences or should it adjust for known biases?

I’d like a detailed answer to how you can reconcile these potential differences within a diverse global temperature dataset to be accurate within a single coherent dataset without ever adjusting or homogenizing the data please

Or you could just scoff.
Or you could just declare that measuring it is too hard do we should go with your intuition instead

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, an easy formula, but there are different rounding points between The two scales. If something converts as 14. 4 Fahrenheit that rounds down to 14, if it records as 14.7 Celsius, it rounds up to 15
It’s obvious that you’ve never worked with big datasets if you think this is a non trivial difference.

Let’s look at some other theoretical list of biases that need to be accounted for, when using ‘European’ vs ‘American’ as a short hand for any kind of potential variation

Would converting Fahrenheit to Celsius be counted as adjusting the data?
How about converting feet to meters? If a European Stephenson screen is 1.5 meters off the ground, how high is an American screen off the ground measured in feet and inches. If Europe has daylight saving time on a different date to US daylight saving time,
if European thermometers calibrate to the melting point of ice (or freezing point of water) but the Americans calibrate to the boiling point of water, if the Europeans orient their screens facing north, if Europeans take their measurements at 9am and 9pm but the Americans measure at midday and midnight...
do they use max and min daily temps?
Do they use alcohol, mercury or digital thermometers...
what happens when they try to standardize these measurements, do they adopt the ‘EU standard’ or the ‘US standard’
What happens if one station gets upgraded to digital thermometers 10 years before its neighbor does? Should the data pretend that there are no differences or should it adjust for known biases?

I’d like a detailed answer to how you can reconcile these potential differences within a diverse global temperature dataset to be accurate within a single coherent dataset without ever adjusting or homogenizing the data please

Or you could just scoff.
Or you could just declare that measuring it is too hard do we should go with your intuition instead

None of the above explains anything. All ifs and maybes. You're making stuff up that has absolutely no influence on a dataset like Valentia. They didn't change the height of the screen, orientation of its opening, round by several tenths of a degree, turn Coke to Pepsi... You're dancing around the fact that a stable record has suddenly become a steep upward curve. None of your explanations explains that. A thermometer is usually calibrated on more than just one temperature, depending on its range. There is no point calibrating an air thermometer with the boiling point of water as that is not within its normal operating range. This is all basic scientific stuff that you're obviously are not familar with.

I don't think we're going to get a resolution to Valentiagate.

SeaBreezes

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

None of the above explains anything. All ifs and maybes. You're making stuff up that has absolutely no influence on a dataset like Valentia. They didn't change the height of the screen, orientation of its opening, round by several tenths of a degree, turn Coke to Pepsi... You're dancing around the fact that a stable record has suddenly become a steep upward curve. None of your explanations explains that. A thermometer is usually calibrated on more than just one temperature, depending on its range. There is no point calibrating an air thermometer with the boiling point of water as that is not within its normal operating range. This is all basic scientific stuff that you're obviously are not familar with.

I don't think we're going to get a resolution to Valentiagate.

Well, not one believers like.

Dr. Fleming already told us. (Whistleblower)
NCAR graphs and NASA graphs show adjusted data.
Estimated data, where there are no sensors are in the areas warming most rapidly.
Troposphere isn't warming, unless you choose only one model and take the highest error range, UK met office warned against this in Climategate.

They even discuss what ocean temp would suit them best in the fricking emails!

And anyone who can't see IPCC has its own trillion dollar vested interests is just never going to look with their own eyes.

Anyone who has read this entire thread and STILL has no doubts at all and believes in consensus, and data adjusting, and data guesstimating where there are no sensors and cherry picking reports and blocking actual Scientists (Zharkova) being published.

Anyone who can look at that Valencia data adjustment to suit the warming narrative.. and not have a doubt..

Well, they BELIEVE.
And if you query it your a DENIER.

Almost religious isn't it?
Welcome to the 20th century.
BELIEVE. Don't question.

Retr0gamer

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you can't answer the Valentia question then. Ok.

The Valentina question is a non issue. It's data pulled from one conspiracy theorist on their personal blog. Nobody else is talking about it because it's nonsense.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, an easy formula, but there are different rounding points between The two scales. If something converts as 14. 4 Fahrenheit that rounds down to 14, if it records as 14.7 Celsius, it rounds up to 15
It’s obvious that you’ve never worked with big datasets if you think this is a non trivial difference.

Let’s look at some other theoretical list of biases that need to be accounted for, when using ‘European’ vs ‘American’ as a short hand for any kind of potential variation

Would converting Fahrenheit to Celsius be counted as adjusting the data?
How about converting feet to meters? If a European Stephenson screen is 1.5 meters off the ground, how high is an American screen off the ground measured in feet and inches. If Europe has daylight saving time on a different date to US daylight saving time,
if European thermometers calibrate to the melting point of ice (or freezing point of water) but the Americans calibrate to the boiling point of water, if the Europeans orient their screens facing north, if Europeans take their measurements at 9am and 9pm but the Americans measure at midday and midnight...
do they use max and min daily temps?
Do they use alcohol, mercury or digital thermometers...
what happens when they try to standardize these measurements, do they adopt the ‘EU standard’ or the ‘US standard’
What happens if one station gets upgraded to digital thermometers 10 years before its neighbor does? Should the data pretend that there are no differences or should it adjust for known biases?

I’d like a detailed answer to how you can reconcile these potential differences within a diverse global temperature dataset to be accurate within a single coherent dataset without ever adjusting or homogenizing the data please

Or you could just scoff.
Or you could just declare that measuring it is too hard do we should go with your intuition instead

LOLs! To scoff would be to save you embarrassment.

As I'm on the phone (normally browse by laptop) I won't answer much right now.

But your use of "Daylight Savings" as a reason for data homogenisation is totally laughable. For example, climate stations are read and recorded at 9UTC in Ireland and UK every day regardless. In June that 9UTC is 10am local time, in December it is 9am local time.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The Valentina question is a non issue. It's data pulled from one conspiracy theorist on their personal blog. Nobody else is talking about it because it's nonsense.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

Isn't it funny how you two guys have such a difficulty with the spelling of Valentia!

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

"I am not a censor, I just know what is right and therefore you need to be silenced." -- the mantra of the modern academic environment.

What, like the way you waffle on at amazing length gets censored here you mean? But it doesn't get censored...

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

LOLs! To scoff would be to save you embarrassment.

As I'm on the phone (normally browse by laptop) I won't answer much right now.

But your use of "Daylight Savings" as a reason for data homogenisation is totally laughable. For example, climate stations are read and recorded at 9UTC in Ireland and UK every day regardless. In June that 9UTC is 10am local time, in December it is 9am local time.

Oh for heavens sake just think about what you write...


https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The Valentina question is a non issue. It's data pulled from one conspiracy theorist on their personal blog. Nobody else is talking about it because it's nonsense.

Who is this conspiracy theorist you keep referring to and which blog? I'm the one who brought up the Valentia data, from several official sources.

M.T. Cranium

That thing about censorship was not meant to be a comment about what happens here, but a comment instead about how things have gone in recent years in the academic world where standards of free speech have been significantly eroded. I don't want to see that spreading to places like weather forums on the internet. But I know of examples where it has already done so (again, not here on boards, although it appears that the Science Police have arrived to break up the riot).

As I said a few days ago, the standards here are not meant to be those of a court of law or a thesis examination. That doesn't make the exchange worthless, but a weather forum is usually a collection of enthusiasts with a few more professional types sprinkled in. Those professional types need to learn some manners and get a grip on the culture of the internet forum, people don't come here to be verbally or emotionally abused. They come to share their interest and in many cases their passion for weather. A large part of that is an interest in historical weather events (it pretty much has to be because there are no current weather events ) ... I find that weather enthusiasts on all three weather forums that I frequent to be knowledgeable and very conversant with climatology questions as I understood them in the days before this climate science rigamarole started. This is a bit of a paradigm shift for old-timers (I am seventy so I suppose that applies to me).

There is a feeling perhaps among older weather enthusiasts in general, and some younger ones too, that a crowd of rather political type people have come barging into our interest group and taken it over for political reasons, and that they know diddly-squat about weather history and statistics. I would bet that I could demonstrate that live in front of an impartial group of onlookers by asking weather enthusiasts and then these crypto-globalist AGW types the same set of questions about past weather events. In most cases the AGW folk would not have a clue. They never thought much about past data, they just found the data and if it didn't fit what they were thinking, they thought long and hard about excuses to change it so it would fit. And then they convinced themselves they had done the work of a scientist.

Nice work if you can get it.

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

That thing about censorship was not meant to be a comment about what happens here, but a comment instead about how things have gone in recent years in the academic world where standards of free speech have been significantly eroded. I don't want to see that spreading to places like weather forums on the internet. But I know of examples where it has already done so (again, not here on boards, although it appears that the Science Police have arrived to break up the riot).

That's a serious allegation. In what way are 'the science police' trying to shut anyone up here?



I see a debate where there are opposing views. Do you mean only your view and that of Danno, Breeze, Goath and the rest should be heard? It sound like that is what you mean........

Fwiw, I've been observing the weather local to me for nigh on fifty years and I have stats for a lot of that time as well...

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

Isn't it funny how you two guys have such a difficulty with the spelling of Valentia!

Autocorrect...

As if it matters anyway. You've just come up with another ridiculous conspiracy theory.

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

That's a serious allegation. In what way are 'the science police' trying to shut anyone up here?

Peer review is there to protect those doing the reviewing like bouncers at the door of a nightclub preventing what they consider riff-raff from entering so unless people are exceptionally naive, those complaining about original research or are opponents of 'climate change' are part of the same empirical umbrella. The 'scientific method' is not only self-promoting but also self-protecting so unlike politicians who have to face the public every 4 years or so, academics have made a cozy and impenetrable environment for themselves behind the walls of universities. Fair play to them but it is not healthy or productive for research in astronomy or Earth sciences.


Climate research hasn't even begun, what exists presently is an experimental theorist view of 'climate' using a much abused common greenhouse as a starting point while defining climate to suit the success of short term weather modeling. People will know that determining surface conditions after 2 weeks is a coin flip but then again the opposition to 'climate change' is exceptionally poor or make things worse than they are.

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

That's a serious allegation. In what way are 'the science police' trying to shut anyone up here?


Fwiw, I've been observing the weather local to me for nigh on fifty years and I have stats for a lot of that time as well...

Come on then. This is a science forum. Less pontificating more science please. Show us your stats with your years of experience.. :-)

Lyan

posidonia wrote: »

What, like the way you waffle on at amazing length gets censored here you mean? But it doesn't get censored...

Being mildly accepted on a niche sub-forum on a small website isn't exactly the pinnacle of free speech.

SeaBreezes

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Autocorrect...

As if it matters anyway. You've just come up with another ridiculous conspiracy theory.

You haven't read the thread yet, have you?

You use terms like conspiracy, denier, flat earthers. Akrasia loves those terms too.

Welcome to the weather forum, on boards since 2002 a moderator and First time I've seen you post here.

I love how you BELIEVE. Your trust in the trillion dollar industry is commendable.

I wish I could be like you and BELIEVE without questioning. It would make life much much easier..

reg114

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

That thing about censorship was not meant to be a comment about what happens here, but a comment instead about how things have gone in recent years in the academic world where standards of free speech have been significantly eroded. I don't want to see that spreading to places like weather forums on the internet. But I know of examples where it has already done so (again, not here on boards, although it appears that the Science Police have arrived to break up the riot).

As I said a few days ago, the standards here are not meant to be those of a court of law or a thesis examination. That doesn't make the exchange worthless, but a weather forum is usually a collection of enthusiasts with a few more professional types sprinkled in. Those professional types need to learn some manners and get a grip on the culture of the internet forum, people don't come here to be verbally or emotionally abused. They come to share their interest and in many cases their passion for weather. A large part of that is an interest in historical weather events (it pretty much has to be because there are no current weather events ) ... I find that weather enthusiasts on all three weather forums that I frequent to be knowledgeable and very conversant with climatology questions as I understood them in the days before this climate science rigamarole started. This is a bit of a paradigm shift for old-timers (I am seventy so I suppose that applies to me).

There is a feeling perhaps among older weather enthusiasts in general, and some younger ones too, that a crowd of rather political type people have come barging into our interest group and taken it over for political reasons, and that they know diddly-squat about weather history and statistics. I would bet that I could demonstrate that live in front of an impartial group of onlookers by asking weather enthusiasts and then these crypto-globalist AGW types the same set of questions about past weather events. In most cases the AGW folk would not have a clue. They never thought much about past data, they just found the data and if it didn't fit what they were thinking, they thought long and hard about excuses to change it so it would fit. And then they convinced themselves they had done the work of a scientist.

Nice work if you can get it.

Ultimately nobody absolutely nobody be they climate scientists, meteorologists or the man / woman in the street knows what the impact humankind will have on global climate change, however , and this point is being ignored by those espousing deep knowledge on the subject... We have 1 planet, we simply cannot afford to NOT overshoot the mark as far as taking every conceivable preventative measure to protect the environment is concerned.

I would rather future generations looked back and said we overreacted to the climate crisis in 2020 instead of the bemoaning how much of a golden opportunity we had and why the hell did we split hairs about the science and free speech.

If there is even the minutest potential that we are endangering the very existence of humankind then to hell with certainties and lets err of the side of caution instead of getting bogged down in climate scientist definitions and data .. All this data precious squabbling amongst climatologists reminds me of the saying : Doctors differ patients die ..

oriel36

reg114 wrote: »

I would rather future generations looked back and said we overreacted to the climate crisis in 2020 instead of the bemoaning how much of a golden opportunity we had and why the hell did we split hairs about the science and free speech.

Ah, but you see, turning environmental issues like atmospheric,surface and oceanic pollution into a global version of tidy towns doesn't suit the modelers because all 'climate change' did was expose the self-promoting and self-protecting indulgences of experimental theorists.

Unlike politicians, academics are not held accountable or responsible for the convictions they eagerly dump into the public realm and have people dance to their dismal and dull tunes with no discernible opposition in sight.

It is not overreaction that future generations will look at, it is a society who can't even express the basic relationship between the daily motion of the planet and the day/night cycle because of some vapid allegiance to late 17th century modeling.

Lyan

@reg114
Another realistic scenario is future generations bemoaning how we hamstrung economies, slowed down global economic growth, curtailed freedoms, and just generally acted like destructive zealots. The negative impacts of climate change political and economic goals are impossible to calculate and a lot of unnecessary suffering may occur as a result.