What Climate change?

[pjclarke]

Right. A majority in agreement with you is losing. Got that. Where would you guys be without Anthony Watts and his propaganda headlines?

Those reading the piece of student journalism being reported discover that (a) the survey question is a bit crap and (b) over 75% did not agree with the statement that 'Global warming is a theory that has not been proven yet' and over two thirds agree that 'Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth'

Which, in a country where one political party and a lot of the media are stubbornly anti science, ain't bad.

[pjclarke]

Study: 'Irreversible' Arctic Decline Is Totally Reversible | The Daily Caller

Another screwy headline.

“Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” echoed Till Wagner, also a Scripps scientist. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice. So if global warming does soon melt all the Arctic sea ice, at least we can expect to get it back if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again.”

[xoggoth]

Few points always ignored in this argument:

1) Even if effect of man-made warming is small compared to that of natural cycles it still does not mean that that the addition will have negligible impact. Consequences, such as release of methane from tundra, are not always linear.

2) Even if it's all bollux, it does make sense to try and decrease our dependency on fossil fuels due to decreasing supplies and their concentration in potentially hostile regions.

3) That said, we need sensible policies. Nationally that could include alternative sources, better efficiency of vehicles or better insulation of houses. However, the main focus must be international. Increasing our manufacturing and service costs with ill thought out policies will hand more of our businesses to China and other emerging nations where fuel efficiency is not a priority and that will simply increase CO2 emissions.

[xoggoth]

if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again

Just need a big umbrella. What's the problem?

PS OK it has to be a rotating umbrella, bit more difficult. Or just lots of umbrellas that open and close according to time of day.

[pjclarke]

most of the historic temp records are revised
most of their absurd predictions are revised
most of pjs posts are revised

Wrong. Raw data are very, very rarely revised, only if found to be incorrect due to a faulty instrument etc. However, data products, such as the various estimates of Global Mean Temperature are produced by homogenisation, gridding and area weighting, do sometimes change as new data are included. This is hardly unusual, it is analogous to the Treasury revising economic numbers months after originally being released as new data are included. The difference being that nobody cries 'fraud' at the Treasury. (Well maybe a few nutters).

The vast majority of raw and processed data are openly available, as is the code used to produce the data products. As Zeke Hausfather has demonstrated, you can cherry-pick a few adjusted weather stations to imply malfeasance if such is your wish, however globally, the adjusted data trend cooler than the raw.

We should stop developing the models?

Editing posts is about removing errors, improving the wording, adding references to expand the point being made. Maybe you should try it ….

[DodgyAgent]

Wrong. Raw data are very, very rarely revised, only if found to be incorrect due to a faulty instrument etc. However, data products, such as the various estimates of Global Mean Temperature are produced by homogenisation, gridding and area weighting, do sometimes change as new data are included. This is hardly unusual, it is analogous to the Treasury revising economic numbers months after originally being released as new data are included. The difference being that nobody cries 'fraud' at the Treasury. (Well maybe a few nutters).

The vast majority of raw and processed data are openly available, as is the code used to produce the data products. As Zeke Hausfather has demonstrated, you can cherry-pick a few adjusted weather stations to imply malfeasance if such is your wish, however globally, the adjusted data trend cooler than the raw.

We should stop developing the models?

Editing posts is about removing errors, improving the wording, adding references to expand the point being made. Maybe you should try it ….

The weakness of your argument is that you always try to prove everything is right. I am a great admirer of margaret Thatcher but I accept that quite a lot of what she did was wrong. I am open minded about the effects of her policies etc etc. You on the other hand take the position of fortifying the battlements and chucking whaever you can to refute any challenge to your position.

There are two things about this. One is that much of what you say is probably right and credible. However people do not like being forced to believe something so they react by taking the opposite stance to everything you say.
The second this is not about climate change. no argument on anything is completely irrefutable yet you seek to impose your will "totally". So what is it? Obvious really that you are a controlling individual that seeks to impose yourself on everyone else. Climate change is the conduit for your real agenda.

[BlasterBates]

Another screwy headline.

In 5 years you will see a cool down and the arctic ice "recovering" due to the AMO and the PDO being in their cold phases, perfectly natural

That's the point where Global Warming will probably become irrelevant.

The question is what is going to replace it,

[DodgyAgent]

In 5 years you will see a cool down and the arctic ice "recovering" due to the AMO and the PDO being in their cold phases, perfectly natural

That's the point where Global Warming will probably become irrelevant.

The question is what is going to replace it,

As the Totem of left wing dogma. They will have to return to the NHS

[pjclarke]

The weakness of your argument is that you always try to prove everything is right. I am a great admirer of margaret Thatcher but I accept that quite a lot of what she did was wrong. I am open minded about the effects of her policies etc etc. You on the other hand take the position of fortifying the battlements and chucking whaever you can to refute any challenge to your position.

There are two things about this. One is that much of what you say is probably right and credible. However people do not like being forced to believe something so they react by taking the opposite stance to everything you say.
The second this is not about climate change. no argument on anything is completely irrefutable yet you seek to impose your will "totally". So what is it? Obvious really that you are a controlling individual that seeks to impose yourself on everyone else. Climate change is the conduit for your real agenda.

Speculating about motives is always prone to error. I don't suppose a single mind was ever changed by the verbiage posted on CUK General, mine or other people's, nor should they be. Clearly this is a topic that interests me and it irritates me when people post BS on it. That's it.

The majority of my posts are an attempt to point out the BS, and correct it, rather than me initiating a thread. This thread, started by you, being a case in point. I waited for 20 posts before illustrating that Coleman is, in fact, unhinged

[BlasterBates]

As the Totem of left wing dogma. They will have to return to the NHS

Well pj might not like this thread but I do....