April 7, 2021 at 11:12 am #204286
“Well that’s a well argued case, Siderite”.
It’s a lot easier to read than your “argued case” that we have all read before over a 100 times!!
What a pointless exercise, posting the same thing over and over and over again!!April 7, 2021 at 11:50 am #204289
And he will continue to post the same things over and over again until we clueless fools eventually accept him as the expert on this and agree that his bollocks is actually correct and we were wrong to doubt the genius. :-)April 7, 2021 at 12:30 pm #204293
You are all forgetting that Buck’s is never wrong, despite plenty of scientific proof to show otherwise. His opinion is above proven science knowledge, you all know this, pleasee conform.April 7, 2021 at 12:33 pm #204294
And there you have it. The typical response to anyone who dares the question the religion of “man-made global warming” or “man-made climate change”.
I say “religion” because despite IA’s faith there there is actually zero evidence for the predictions being made about the future by climate ‘scientists’. All we have is computer models and as any proper scientist will tell you, whenever you use a model you MUST provide the confidence intervals for the results. Yet the climate ‘scientists’ never do so; and that is because the confidence intervals will be close to zero. That isn’t my opinion but a fact for any model with so many variables looking so far into the future.
On top of all that BRI has now said we can’t expect any close correlation between CO2 and temperature — and he’s absolutely correct to do so. In which case the very obvious question is why are climate ‘scientists’ claiming they can predict what the global temperature is going to be in 10, 20 50 and 100 years?
The answer is very simple. They can’t. Yet, apparently, I’m the one talking bollocks.
Well, let’s see how Joe Public reacts when they discover the true consequences of the ridiculous law to reduce our carbon emissions. Houses will need completely new heating systems — not just a heat pump instead of a boiler but new everything — plus the temperatures used will be much lower than at present and the thermal delay in the control systems will be very long. Put simply if you feel cold, tough, it will be hours before your house warms up. By which time, of course, the weather’s likely to have changed.
Plus you’ll need to charge your electric car. Good luck with that. Ever seen a street lined with cars? It’s bad enough in Scunny but just visit a city to see the reality of this.
Of course the electric bills are going to be huge — it’s consumers who will have to cover the costs of the capital investment required to say nothing of their actual consumption. As usual this will affect the poor far more than anyone else.
Yet, apparently, I’m the one talking bollocks. It would be laughable except it just isn’t funny.April 7, 2021 at 12:44 pm #204296
And he will continue to post the same things over and over again until we clueless fools eventually accept him as the expert on this and agree that his bollocks is actually correct and we were wrong to doubt the genius. :-)April 7, 2021 at 1:32 pm #204307
I’m not getting too involved with this, but you only highlight your own ignorance here. I didn’t say there wasn’t a correlation, but it’s unlikely to meet the exact standards of a fit over 150 years, because of things like short term solar cycles. Nor is CO2 the only driver, and many of the other drivers are only increasing in amplitude because of warming induced by CO2. CO2 induces a more humid atmosphere, which means more water and more influence from that. So when looking at CO2 against temperature over time there will be influence from this, which distorts. This doesn’t challenge anything regarding CO2 causing climate change, because the mechanisms are understood.
We can see how CO2 increase can cause temperature increase, we can see how distortions may be because of feedback loops or other short term variations. We have a good idea of what causes climatic imbalance and none of the other factors are as correlated with temperature rise as CO2. You inferthat the imbalances caused by short term fluctuations (such as the Sun) remove the certainty from CO2 causing it. However, without the knowledge of the science, you fail to explain how this could possibly bring on current climate change. Is the climate really sensitive to the 7 year increase in solar activity and less so to the decrease? There’s no evidence for this. If you cannot explain it with empirical evidence, science will go with what we have evidence for.
What we have evidence for is a greenhouse effect. All other known factors are not present. You cannot present such, so will not be able to sway actual scientists. Failing to understand mechanisms and limitations in your own arguments will not impress scientists involved, the majority of which support anthropogenic climate change. If you cannot give evidence for how factors in past climate change can explain today’s warming, when CO2 can, then it will be ignored. If you cannot state what the natural source of climatic imbalance is you will be ignored. We can see evidence for how the Sun and orbital patterns impacts climate, we see it in the seasons, but these haven’t meaningfully changed over 150 years. We have no evidence of some other natural forcer in this time, so stating that it’s natural because of statistical assumptions does not make sense, when we have a mechanism for CO2 induced warming and statistical variations can be explained with other factors which can be accounted for.
It is not some sacrilege to go against your views and I can only interpret it as your ego acting here when you try and degrade others. Those with large egos tend to explain difference in opinion from others (in this case the vast majority of scientists) as some conspiracy against them, because they cannot possibly be wrong. Those with large egos tend to ignore the questions over their assumptions, because to challenge them would dent their pride. I have tried doing so in the past, but have given up, because I no longer see the point. It’s only wasting valuable time. This is not an innate fault of mine to see it as futile, maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror.
The general observation is that you are obsessed with the subject. I am not meaning to be personally abusive here, before you get outraged again. It is meant to be an honest assessment on how you debate. I don’t think you’re a bad person, but I have opinions on what I consider to be your flaws and I am honest with you about them, because I don’t want to give false impressions. I have opinions on why you argue as you do and will say such, because it’s not about political correctness. I state such (e.g. my opinions on your ego), not to be nasty, but because it’s that which I believe to be a flaw here and I am expressing such to state what I see to be an issue as to why you don’t accept science in climatology, as I perceive it.
Of course, feel free to disagree, but I defend my rights to hold my own opinions on how you conduct debate. You do bring up good points, certainly on other things, and it is worthwhile to have opposite viewpoints to the general forum consensus (which is mostly left leaning), but you are not imperfect. I defend my right to call out imperfections as I perceive them. I am aware that I have my faults too, and things like overly opinionated could be attributed to me as well!April 7, 2021 at 2:03 pm #204309
Re correlation, BRI, if I were quoting you I’d have used quote marks. What your comment is saying is that there is no correlation; and, indeed, there isn’t. Not least for the reasons you’ve outlined.
Otherwise I’m afraid you’re the one highlighting your own ignorance. All you’ve done is say what you always do, which is that there’s evidence of global warming due to the greenhouse effect. I’ve never denied this and never will because that is a fact. Nobody is claiming otherwise.
What you seem unable to accept is that it’s climate ‘scientists’ who are the ones claiming they can model the climate and predict what’s going to happen in the future to absurd levels of accuracy, not me. They can’t and you know it.
So I repeat for the umpteenth time: where is the hard evidence, the hard data to support what I can only assume is your view that the world is facing a problem due to MAN-MADE global warming, climate change or anything else you want to call it? The 100% truth is that this only exists in computer models, which is an indisputable fact.
You then proceed to attack me for asking what any proper scientist should be asking — and many are asking it, btw — because of my ego?! You even talk about “the majority of scientists” because you know full well that many scientists do not agree with the claims being made. This in itself reveals just how ridiculous climate ‘science’ has become. Science isn’t settled by a “majority” vote but by hard data and what the data actually reveals is that the problem is nothing like as bad as being claimed.
Yet, once again, apparently, I’m the one talking bollocks.April 7, 2021 at 2:24 pm #204311
On and on Bucks chats shit. :-)
And BRI’s right. You do have an ego. Hence the incredulous response to him and others when they dare to disagree with the genius. :-)April 7, 2021 at 3:13 pm #204316
Yes, Bucks, it does come across to me that you have a big ego. Like I say, you assume that scientists disagree with you because they’re chasing money (not because they know something you don’t), you haven’t ever come up with anything which discounts the queries behind your assumptions, instead you double down and repeat the same points time and time again without answering such. Of course, disagree with me by your wish, but you won’t impress if you cannot explain the problems I have repeatedly pointed out (e.g. the lack of any natural factor, that the anthropogenic source is the same as a natural source and will behave the same, and the lack of any empirical evidence for any kind of unknown warming). We know what factors can influence climate, in accordance with our understanding of it (I am by no means saying we have anything close to a full understanding), so until proven otherwise scientists will continue to focus on the Sun, Milankovich Cycles and the greenhouse effect for climate forcing. These are the things which have driven past natural cycles, so if these other natural factors aren’t at play today (which they aren’t) they cannot be the cause. Therefore, your continued position that it was natural in the past, so must be now, is a false one, especially since your questions over it are based on a lack of reasonability. Short term factors which move temperature away from CO2 rise and a great degree of statistical significance over 150 years (solar cycles, ocean absorption of CO2) should not be used to detract from the evidence that climate change is occurring due to CO2, when this is the only factor which is causing a warming effect, as has been observed. When all the other factors are added in there is a much better correlation, but their presence alone makes direct correlation with CO2 hard. However, without CO2 all the other factors won’t indicate warming at all. Therefore, CO2 is the driver and we know it’s sourced predominantly from human activity.
So, we can show that increased CO2 will lead to increased temperatures, and we have. Again you fail to understand and twist my words to suit, because for you it isn’t about what I say, but what you want me to say. It just will have discrepancies from CO2, because of factors, which will make you say it’s not statistically significant. However, as the CO2 concentrations rise the greater likelihood of a temperature rise there will be. Yet you will still focus on things like the 50s, where aerosols led to a small scale cooling, thus reducing statistical significance from CO2 over 150 years or so, to say there is no correlations and say me admitting such is saying that. It isn’t; I am saying that other factors have had impacts, which may distract the trend slightly, but overall there is an increase in temperature because of it, which can be seen when everything is accounted for. We know what can imbalance climate, we know the factors which aren’t at play now, and if there is an unknown variable which impacts climate I am waiting for the evidence for it (like we have with CO2). If you don’t think these have driven climate in the past, but it is still natural, I am waiting for the theory behind how it drives global temperatures and climates. We know how orbital fluctuations and the Sun can, we know how greenhouse gases can, but we don’t know how unknown factors can. We know random chance can’t, because there has been significant warming and without a factor adding in energy there will be an equilibrium in climate, so the trend should be negligible.
In you’re saying that past climate change has to be natural, and we need to show how anthropogenic CO2 can violate this, you neglect to mention that CO2 has caused warming before (observed in rock record), so this is already a moot point. Of course that doesn’t inherently mean CO2 has to be driving climate today, but we see evidence for that elsewhere, which I have given time and time again. The presence of feedback mechanisms and other small scale fluctuations which detract from the trend does not alter this, because they can be accounted for (i.e. when you see the temperature move away from a perfect correlation with CO2, it can be attributed to something else, but this ends and the temperature trend is still mostly rising with CO2).
I have given hard evidence time and time again, you have ignored it. I am not going to waste time with such. Instead of trying to finger wag at everyone else, try to look at yourself for once. You routinely criticise others on here, and you sometimes have a point (with regards to ignorance of Labour anti-Semitism, for example). However, God forbid anyone point out what they see to be a flaw of yours. I have even emphasised that it’s just my opinion, because I don’t want to be the arbiter of such. You may see it as wrong, but I defend my right to think it when I form that opinion.
You ask for the umpteenth time, but it has been given umpteen times before. Why should I bother when you cannot be bothered to understand arguments or understand why such empirical evidence clearly demonstrates anthropogenic climate change? This is why I say you have an ego; no matter what, your preconceived ideas cannot be wrong. It’s not to ‘attack’ you, it’s because I am bored of having to say the same things over again to someone who asks the same things, and making the same flawed points without an attempt to address the said flaws.
Like I say, feel free to disagree, but I will naturally form such opinions when you give me reasons to do so. You point out flaws with others, yet when others do to you you get outraged and call such attacks. It comes across hypocritical. And it backs up my feelings of your ego.
Yes, Bucks, a small minority of scientists disagree, so what? It doesn’t make you any less in going against what the majority of scientists state. And it doesn’t make it any less presumptuous to think you know more when you aren’t a scientist.April 7, 2021 at 3:17 pm #204317
I will try not to engage any more, as it is futile, and I have far more important stuff to do.
1 user thanked author for this post.April 7, 2021 at 4:32 pm #204328TwoWrightsParticipantOffline
Registered On: December 23, 2013
I will try not to engage any more, as it is futile, and I have far more important stuff to do.
I stopped responding directly to him recently, I found it pointless asking a question to him and very seldom receiving an answer. Also if it’s too near the point, he’ll just disappear for a while, and let it slip down the board. I’ll continue this policy and be happy to snipe from the sidelines. 😋April 7, 2021 at 5:37 pm #204337
“…you cannot be bothered to understand arguments or understand why such empirical evidence clearly demonstrates anthropogenic climate change”
Just what part of “I’ve never denied this and never will because that is a fact. Nobody is claiming otherwise” do you fail to understand, BRI.
I’ve told you umpteen times that I completely accept the “empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates anthropogenic climate change.”
That isn’t and never has been the issue. For the umpteenth time it’s the magnitude of the effect that man is having that is the issue; and for that there isn’t a shred of evidence it’s anything other than negligible. All we have to “claim” there is a problem is computer models, for which nobody will tell us the confidence intervals that are so critical. It isn’t my ego that tells me that I know why that is.
I’m sure you and your mates will continue to throw accusations at me while TW will continue to claim I “never answer his questions” despite the fact I have no idea what questions he’s referring to.April 7, 2021 at 8:35 pm #204359
I’m still not confident there will be any intervals in your stream of crap.April 8, 2021 at 6:29 pm #204421
Well, there you go with yet another typically constructive response from the man-made global warming/climate change brigade.
Exactly what I’d expect from someone who doesn’t have a clue about computer models, which are central to the argument, so just launch personal attacks on those whose opinions they don’t agree with.
Btw, Deerey, how is going with the conversion of your heating system to a heat pump? Given the world’s going to come to a catastrophic end you must be well on the way with the work. After all, it’s heroes like you who will undoubtedly be setting a shining example to the rest of us.
Oh, and your electric car, how is that? Managed to get your charger fitted yet?April 8, 2021 at 6:52 pm #204424
Did you mean ” steaming crap ” DM, he does appear to be getting even hotter than usual under that PR collar. 💩April 8, 2021 at 7:57 pm #204426
Hardly, IA, I found Deerey’s response very amusing. Anyway, Deerey’s the one getting hotter — so much so that the world is facing catastrophe, apparently.
Still, he will at least be able to use his new heat pump to keep cool in the summer.April 22, 2021 at 1:35 pm #205213
Anything to add on EARTH DAY Bucks?
Plenty of doomsday scenarios being pu forward today.April 22, 2021 at 5:34 pm #205222
Welcome news from the US. Thank goodness that orange freak has gone snd taken his bad ideas with him…April 22, 2021 at 6:45 pm #205227
The Bucks campaign and stand to post the same thing over and over again to less than a dozen blokes on a football sub-forum has clearly not had any impact on the international stage.
Told him he was wasting his time.April 26, 2021 at 5:48 pm #205517
I wouldn’t expect mine or anyone else’s comments to make any difference — the politicians are now in charge so expect calamity. Until they realise this won’t win them any votes, that is.
In the meantime the realities of what net zero means are finally starting to sink in and I’d be very surprised if we don’t see a great deal more about the implications of all this over the next few months. In the UK the cost to every household is likely to be between £20,000 and £30,000 just to upgrade people’s homes to meet new standards of heating and insulation. Many properties will fail to meet them because of their construction and their value will collapse.
The national grid will have to increase capacity to levels that renewables won’t stand a chance of achieving without support from gas and nuclear. Get ready for electricity rationing.
China and India will continue to build coal-fired power stations for many years to come. CO2 emissions will continue to rise. The climate will continue to change pretty much as nature chooses. No doubt you’ll all be very pleased with yourselves.
Meanwhile you might be interested in this:
But never mind, it’s all for a good cause.April 26, 2021 at 6:25 pm #205520
Thanks for that. Glad I haven’t got any solar panels.
1 user thanked author for this post.April 26, 2021 at 6:26 pm #205521
Will be your government buddies giving the thumbs up to sign the contracts Buck’s, wonder how many government ministers have shares in some of these companies? Not that it will bother you.April 26, 2021 at 8:06 pm #205525
No need to worry about the commitments that Boris had made on behalf of the UK.
Not sure if you have noticed that he tells a lot lies.April 27, 2021 at 1:43 pm #205557
No one said it would be easy Bucks. There’s no quick fix, but greater awareness has to be a good thing surely?
As I’ve said before, some of your arguments have mileage, but your posts come across as arrogant and dismissive.
The attitude of “none of these proposals will work so we may as well carry on as before” cannot possibly be the correct one.April 27, 2021 at 3:40 pm #205567
“your posts come across as arrogant and dismissive.”
I could say the same thing about a lot of posters on here, NI.
It isn’t a question as to whether “none of these proposals will work so we may as well carry on as before”. The reason they won’t work is because there isn’t a problem in the first place, at least where CO2 emissions are concerned. Climate ‘scientists’ have conned the politicians into believing the problem is far, far greater than it actually is.
A schoolboy can tell you that in order to understand how big a problem is you have to have data. Let’s face it, that’s hardly difficult for anyone to understand; and As I’ve explained on numerous occasions that data can only be arrived at through the use of computer models. There simply is no other way and anyone telling you otherwise is just plain lying.
I’ve also explained that for any computer model to have any credibility the confidence intervals for the results MUST be revealed. They never are for climate models and for one very simple reason, which is that for any computer model looking even just five years into the future, let alone longer, the number of variables involved means the confidence interval will be pretty much zero. In plain English the results from such models aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
If you want to know why this has happened, as always just follow the money. This idea that academics are any less vulnerable to greed and success than anyone else is pure naivety. In fact they’re probably worse. Business people have realised they can make a huge amount of money out of all this while governments can both make money and control people’s lives.
What you all need to realise is just how serious this is going to get. The cost is going to be astronomical and it’s the poorest who will suffer most. The interruption to life is also going to be huge. There is absolutely no way the UK government can meet its targets without having to ration electricity, which is what we’ll see happen. It’s already happening in places across the world now relying on renewable energy, which is no fault of the renewables themselves but purely down to politicians who don’t understand the engineering problems involved.
If any of this was likely to make a difference, OK, but it won’t. People have absolutely no idea of the scale of what’s going to hit them. Well, it won’t be too long before they start to find out.April 27, 2021 at 4:11 pm #205573
Your going round in circles as usual Buck’s in fact your becoming even more boring then usual, if such a thing is possible. Go on jog on, haven’t you a dog to walk or something?April 27, 2021 at 6:47 pm #205595
It isn’t a question as to whether “none of these proposals will work so we may as well carry on as before”. The reason they won’t work is because there isn’t a problem in the first place
Wow! That’s pretty much a denialist statement which puts you back in Zoe Phinn territory.
I’d say that if you ask any schoolboy (or schoolgirl) they’d tell you that they’re very concerned, scared even, about the future of the planet.
How would you alleviate their worries?April 27, 2021 at 10:17 pm #205657
None of that matters. When he realises he’s wrong about this he’ll probably just write a ranty post in CAPITALS saying how much Zoe and the other cranks have let him down. He’ll be angrier with her than he is with Swann at the moment. Hell hath no fury than a let down PR prat. Swanny must be brickin’ it 😂April 27, 2021 at 10:43 pm #205665
“I’d say that if you ask any schoolboy (or schoolgirl) they’d tell you that they’re very concerned, scared even, about the future of the planet”.
“A schoolboy can tell you that in order to understand how big a problem is you have to have data”.
Now I am getting confused. Will the schoolboy tell you that they’re very concerned or is it in order to understand how big a problem is you have to gave data?
Hard work being a schoolboy these days.April 27, 2021 at 10:56 pm #205672
“your posts come across as arrogant and dismissive.”
“I could say the same thing about a lot of posters on here, NI”.
No need to be modest Bucks. You are definitely the most arrogant and dismissive!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.