[Siderite]

Yes, everyone against you is a conspiratorial villain. There is no such thing as good faith disagreement. Everyone is against you.

[Siderite]

Well, it comes across that way when you try and claim that reasonable and connected concerns about Brexit from 64 are akin to blaming Brexit for the China protests.

Meanwhile everything in the UK is hunky dory and we have those great trade deals on our own terms, no red tape and sunlit uplands, as we were promised.

[Siderite]

I heard the London lot were property developers, which didn’t sound promising, but were there any other rumours about them and where can I see them?

[Siderite]

Ok, fair. I take back my comments about them being dressed as such and apologise to Bucks. Though, I do think their attire is commonly interpreted as such and this is obviously where the controversy lies.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

How are you not aware that people dressed in chain mail with the cross of St George are commonly dressed as Crusaders or at least it could be interpreted as such? How are you unaware that Arabic nations see this as offensive? Rightly or wrongly, Arabs will see it as Crusader attire

Now, I don’t agree with why they get so irate about it. I have already stated that I am uncomfortable with the idea of banning it, before you start your usual straw manning. It was 1000 years ago, the emotion should be long worn, but the idea the attire has nothing to do with the Crusades is just daft and ignorant.

[Siderite]

Desperate from Bucks. He’s not talking about outlandish far off concerns.

Well done 64 for being able to change his mind.

[Siderite]

You seem to trust his judgement on Starmer following his manifesto. Yet Starmer has said nothing about cutting immigration numbers, like UKIP would. The manifesto Farage is talking about says he would enact a five year school ban on migrants. Starmer is not for this.

We can disagree on Starmer’s immigration policy, and I am not overly keen on it, without saying it’s like UKIPs. That’s a line by Farage to try and undermine the government and escalate Labour infighting.

[Siderite]

His work on workers’ rights is commendable. Best keep him off the topic of Russia.

[Siderite]

Interesting you trust Farage about this. Whatever you think about Starmer on this, his immigration policy is not a UKIP one.

Also, Nick Griffin endorsed Corbyn.

[Siderite]

Wright has had some appalling abuse, and that is condemnable, and has problems at home which should generate sympathy. However, if he is unable to do his role at the moment because of these things, a temporary fan director or representative should be there in his stead.

[Siderite]

lol, yeah. A lifelong anti-racism campaigner (I presume Corbyn) who pals with those who say Jews drink the blood of Christian children, says he has valuable things to say without questioning such speak, lays wreaths for terrorists involved with killing Jews, fights to keep up murals of crude Jewish caricatures, says Jews don’t get British irony and turned a blind eye to the stuff which permeated Labour during his time. That doesn’t seem very anti-racist to me.

I don’t need my ‘Blairite pals’ to tell me anything. My opinion was not formed on what anyone else said or did. Just Corbyn’s own actions and words. Same with many leftists. You only have to go on some leftist spaces to see what a sewer it is, as Baddiel and many others pointed out. I don’t need my ‘Blairite pals’ to tell me stuff like face huggers with the star of David around the statue of Liberty’s face is anti-Semitic. Yet such stuff, and worse, are commonly found in some leftist quarters.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

I thought the podcast was good, but none of Baddiel’s hypocrisy takes away from the message he was saying about anti-Semitism. This hasn’t just been said by Baddiel, and there’s a lot of hypocrisy on the left who have made it clear how much they have disdain for Jews.

At least Baddiel made an apology. Ash Sarkar, Bastani and co will continue to bask in their own bigotry.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

The USA were better than us because they have a coach who has them well drilled and playing to their strengths. Ours doesn’t seem to know how to use any creative talent and wastes what we do have.

[Siderite]

Yes, criminalising people for who they are is just small fry. What really matters are upset theists for being called out for being horrible to others. Won’t someone think of their hurt feelings?

[Siderite]

Couldn’t give a stuff about ‘cultural or religious beliefs’ if they impact others. We care too much about hurt feelings because of people’s beliefs being offended.

As for chain mail, I can see why it’s offensive. Not because of Christianity, but because of the Crusades. That said, as alluded to above, I am not sure if there is a strong moral case for banning it, even if I wouldn’t have done it and find it eye roll worthy.

[Siderite]

Yep. I expect higher standards from governing ministers than I do ordinary supporters, no matter their affiliation. They are the ones who are running the country, after all.

[Siderite]

Why are you so desperate to carry on this debate and why do you think I would bother which such an obvious farce? This is the first time I have heard of it, as I didn’t bother reading your post, as said. Such a bet would be as meaningful as the farcical “I bet evolutionists £100,000 if they can find the missing link” from creationists. The evidence would be ignored, you’d find a way out of it, regardless. I am not a fool.

Some people disagree with you and are not convinced by the ‘evidence’ you bring up, as explained. Get over it.

[Siderite]

Personally, I don’t like the dismissals of papers because of editorial slants, regardless of the information entailed. This includes The Guardian and the Daily Mail, and especially when it’s not an opinion piece. It’s unthinking and not very critical of thinking. It wasn’t the Guardian that triggered this issue about Gove, for one. The nature of it is therefor not affected by the Guardian’s slant.

However, the latter is less reputable. I’d say the Telegraph is a better analogy for the Guardian.

[Siderite]

Tbf, I did say something again. Though, I haven’t said anything new. I just find it amusing that he’s still going.

[Siderite]

At least I have stopped boring everyone with my tuppence worth, TwoWrights. :-)

I have stopped reading Bucks’s guff, partly because I don’t want to get sucked in any further. Also, there is nothing more to be said (saying more would just be wanting to get the last word and to ‘show’ my stance has to be correct, based on ego) and, for what I am concerned, anyone can make their own minds up from that. The flaws with what Bucks has put speak for themselves for anyone in the know. Posting cherry picked data has never been shown to be good.

[Siderite]

I have not read an of the above, but I was probably guilty of ‘getting the last word in’ to.

All I’ll say is that anyone who has placed worth in someone’s work who misled data, omitting many key details and showing one thing which suits a narrative, has already lost credibility, no matter what ‘final word’ they have to say.

[Siderite]

‘Debunked’ by the wise sages you place as beyond question no doubt. The fact is that video shows how Christy has manipulated data. There are no other ways about it, and if you place trust in that it makes me doubt all your credibility in model assessment. There are no two ways about it. Improper smoothing to minimise results and just showing an average of an ensemble of models is dodgy. It’s quite clear you don’t understand quite why this is erroneous. Showing just an average of climate models to compare with has never been shown to be proper use. Pinning your tail to this just makes me doubt your authority further from your proclamations and increase confidence in my disregard of them.

If you’re leaving me with archaic ‘controversies’ about clouds, then there’s not much more to do than raise an eyebrow. Of course clouds induce complexity, as I keep saying, no-one is arguing this is simple. However, we have evidence of how clouds feed into the recent climate trend, including as a feedback mechanism. Saying that cloud cover affects climate, when increased cloud cover is a feedback mechanism, does not negate anything about the anthropogenic nature of climate change. There have been many studies into this, but of course they’re all shills out for a supercomputer, unlike the great work of those whose work cannot be questioned or it makes you duplicitous. Nor does modelling clouds for weather purposes, I presume, mean anything when climate does not equal weather. If anyone thinks it does it just demonstrates ignorance and casts further doubt on any authority in which they proclaim.

Now, that really is it. I won’t bother reading any response. I have more important deadlines to meet.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

I agree with you 100% Deerey. There is, indeed, no cause for concern.

Childish.

[Siderite]

Yes, of course, disagreeing with someone who agrees with Bucks is wrong and duplicitous. Being a leading figure in his field means little if his work is flawed. Good science is allowed to be critiqued. Seemingly the Bucks-proclaimed leader of his field’s isn’t. That’s the mindset of an authoritarian and is highly anti-scientific.

There have been many critiques of his work. Here is one*. But, of course, because he dares to disagree with Bucks it has to be in bad faith and wrong to rubbish. If Christy’s work was worthwhile it would be able to answer these questions, and the ones I have put. Simply moaning about it being ‘rubbishing’ fails to understand the point of science. Science is about being open to question. You frequently accuse climatologists who support anthropogenic climate change of this, so it’s ironic and amusing that any questioning of the sacred cow, John Christy, gets dismissed. All he has to do is not distort data and draw misleading conclusions, but seemingly questioning that is out of bounds. God forbid us question and critique. We need to blindly accept the proclamations of those Bucks agree with.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSEXCQ9U6c&t=202s

No, Bucks, feedback mechanisms exist, both positive and negative, so the observed temperature record will not be a direct relationship with CO2. Expecting to see the temperatures correlate perfectly from modelled temperatures and expecting it to correlate perfectly with CO2 rise will fail, as it would with any variable, because feedback mechanisms exist. This tells us nothing about the cause, because these feedback mechanisms can only happen because of changes to the climate. We have evidence for what they are, such as oceans absorbing CO2 as a response and dampening temperatures, so they cannot be used as evidence against the anthropogenic nature of climate change. All the empirical evidence suggests recent warming (i.e. from 1800s onwards) is CO2 induced. We know the CO2 is human sourced due to isotopic signatures, we know that CO2 is trapping heat from tropospheric osbervations of radiation being captured by CO2, we know that there is a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature rise (paper posted by me, but roundly ignored by Bucks; not doing so again, because it’s futile) and the models aren’t even that far off if you look at non-cherry picked/non-manipulated data.

There really is no point in me saying any more. It is quite clear from your reaction, that you cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you. You have poured scorn on me daring to criticise your disciple. It’s ok for you to rubbish highly respected scientists, but when I do it it’s wrong. Typical hypocrisy.

I will leave it at that.

[Siderite]

Really? I thought we’d left the EU.

[Siderite]

Honestly none, just some date quite a while ago that first popped into my head.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Probably the same ‘climate scientists’ who signed those petitions, when the closest they come to being one is that they took a climate module in a geology degree back in 1981 or something.

I do admit to a brain fart above though. It’s been a while since I looked into Christy and this kind of thing. I remember the problems with his baselines, but got the issue the wrong way round. He uses too small a baseline for surface, not atmospheric data.

[Siderite]

Or, I should say, not from climate models alone.

[Siderite]

No, the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of climate change does not come from climate models about temperature increase. It comes from the empirical evidence we have for current warming, an understanding of physics and looking at observed temperature. The models are used for an estimation of climate change, but we have the evidence of the anthropogenic nature without them and no other explanation can match.

I don’t care about credentials, I care about the argument. The fact is Christy is outnumbered by so many climate scientists, so if climate scientists is of any importance, these others would matter more. Oh, right, everyone who disagrees has to be a shill for a supercomputer. Yawn.

Anyone familiar with Christy knows his arguments are bunkum. Another typical ‘sceptic’ who uses misleading graphs to cherry pick data which agrees with him. For example, he commonly uses inappropriately small baselines for satellite data and measurements of atmospheric temperatures. Other climatologists have argued how this skews the output. This is why, I suspect, Christy shows inappropriate baselines. The model errors are much larger, so it suits his narrative. Look at more appropriate baselines than 20-30 years in the atmosphere and the errors decline, and the evidence shows that the errors decrease. Going beyond that, there are complaints about inconsistent smoothing of data, which sets alarm bells of manipulation to suit his own interpretation and he doesn’t publish uncertainties in his data. He is guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. He is free to spout what he wants, but it’s important to acknowledge the very real questions in what he is saying. That’s all I will say, as I am not getting sucked into this. It’s been done to death and previous arguments have failed to convince me.

Of course, none of this can be in good faith, because anyone who dares to disagree with the ‘sceptics’ have to be in on some conspiracy for a supercomputer (I wish I’d get more money, if so), and it cannot be there are flaws in their work. That’s too much for their ego.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Author]

Posts