Reply To: Take Back Control

[Bucksiron]

Oh, so you are going to comment further, Siderite. Anyway, you won’t be reading this so that doesn’t matter.

Another good try but as for ‘manipulating’ data, seriously? You’re doing exactly what climate change zealots always do, which is to imply that Christy can’t be trusted, which is absolute nonsense. I think you’ll find that Christy makes very clear what he’s done and how and why he’s done it throughout his work, although the video to which you refer gives him no opportunity to do so. As for taking any ‘wise sages’ beyond doubt, no I’m not. All that I’ve done is point out that for every ‘debunk’ you’ll invariably be able to find a debunk that debunks the debunk. Confusing and crazy? Very much so but that’s the state this supposed ‘science’ is in. The truth is that Christy doesn’t need to ‘manipulate’ data as you’re implying, i.e. unscrupulously, because the data speaks for itself, as you would find if you actually took the trouble to study it.

As for clouds, there’s nothing remotely archaic about them. All you’re doing is what you always do, which is to make the case for man-made global warming/climate change. Nobody, including me, is arguing with you. What you’re missing, as always, is the magnitude of the problem , which you can’t determine without hard data, which takes us back to models and statistics; and this is where the man-made climate change argument always falls down.

In truth it always will, for very sound reasons. You love your ‘shill’, which is a classic Guardian word also beloved by Gurny, but sticking this in front of ‘supercomputer’ to imply sarcasm doesn’t alter the facts oner little bit. Of course climate doesn’t equal weather, but you’d be better off telling others on here about that rather than me.

Climate is non-deterministic, involves numerous variables that interact with each other in ways that will never be able to be modelled with even the biggest — and shillest — supercomputer imaginable; and we don’t actually understand much about a great deal of it. Clouds are just one example and, no, your explanation doesn’t even begin to cover the realities of what we’re talking about here.

I’d put my house on none of the predictions being made now by climate scientists about the climate in 50 years being correct. OK, that’s hardly a fair bet given many of us are unlikely to be here then, but in many ways that’s the entire point. It’s so easy for climate ‘scientists’ to make these predictions and for politicians and so-called ‘experts’ to use them to scare the daylights out of people because they won’t be held accountable for them.