Re: Onions please!

Rowland McDonnell wrote:
nigel <useweb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

x-no-archive: yes

JW wrote:

nigel wrote:

The Met Office can't get the weather right hours, days, weeks or
months in advance, yet today's tabloid says that they predict 2080
will have a Summer temp reaching 41C (WTF is that in English?) in
Southern England. Of course it's not really a serious prediction,
just some climatoscamological scare-mongering so they will get a
bigger budget and can hire more non-jobbers.


I think it was the climate campers who walked around with a big
banner that read: "We are armed only with peer-reviewed science,"
well at least until the police decided to make some corrections.

I'm about as scientific as a Third Reich discussion of the Holy
Grail but if man-made climate change is really peer-reviewed
science,

It isn't peer-reviewed science, it's a weak conjecture just like the
conjecture that the FTSE 100 would reach 8000 last year.

I've read the peer reviewed science, some of it. Your claim is a lie.

The data is utterly convincing - and it's published in peer reviewed
journals and it's been subjected to minute scrutiny for decades and
*NONE* of the objectors to the idea of man-made climate change I've
heard have so much as attempted to rubbish the data sets that pretty
much prove we are modifying global conditions in a way that normally
only happens when you have a catastrophic episode of vulcanism of the
sort that makes Krakatoa's explosion look like popcorn going off.

The data shows that the planet's in fine shape, but that mankind has
fucked up the global ecology so badly that it's going to cause an
awful lot of expense if we want to carry on with a high standard of
living and a large global population.

If you develop extremely complex climate models which take every
possible scientific variable into account you get predictions a bit
like the weather forecasts of a few years back - horribly wrong and
usually beaten by 'same as yesterday'.

Again, that shows a total absence of understanding of the science
behind weather and climate forecasting, which are two separate jobs.

The reason modern weather forecasts are more accurate than a few years
ago is that they use *MORE* variables, and do *MORE* calculations -
but the models are just the same, it's just that they have more
powerful computers so can feed more data in and run the models over
smaller cells.

I'm afraid your `reasoning' is pure nonsense.

Today's climate models tend to be more
like 'same as yesterday plus a bit', the same technique as used by
FTSE forecasters (who tend to have better mathematical credentials
than climate modellers).

isn't it up to you to prove otherwise?

No, I'm not the one trying to raise taxes and recruit an army of
non-jobbers. It's up to climato(scamo)logists to prove their case and
they haven't.

But they have done - they have proven that mankind has caused a
significant change in atmospheric composition, that this change is
going to get markedly worse, and that the change is causing large
scale climate change.

All this is proven - what's in doubt is what exactly the future will
hold, because perfect predictions of future climate cannot be
generated.

And you use the fact that such predictions are impossible to claim
that the hard science already done is nonsense.

Someone's trying a scam here, and I don't think it's the scientists.

Branding people "climatoscamologists" or
quoting the cold summer we had recently (short-term weather trends
do not count) is not proof.

True, but when they predict an exceptionally mild winter and they're
wrong, it shows that something's wrong with their calculations.

No, it shows what we always knew: that it is not possible to make such
predictions with any accuracy. And that it is not possible to predict
what climate change we're going to get.

None of that has any bearing on the fact that we're heading towards
major climate changes which will be very expensive to deal with. We
just can't possibly know what exactly will turn up.

> Neither is appealing to 'experts' who turn out
to be on the payroll of some corporation.

Neither is relying on the independence of UN 'experts' or university
'experts'

No, they're relying on the perceived need to stop anyone charging
their paymasters a decent whack for emitting carbon, and so do
whatever it takes to denigrate the established research base.

The ones who pay for the `research' think that unless they stop all
this concern over the future, then they will lose money - so they
spend a bit of money publishing dishonest `reseach' findings to
protect their future earnings.

That's why these experts you decided to denigrate by putting in
inverted commas are much more reliable than those paid by the firms
which make money by screwing up the global ecology.

It's why university experts /are/ independent - because they don't
depend on publishing the expected results if they want to see any more
money.

The `experts' you prefer to `trust' are employed by firms simply to
produce the results that the bosses want to see, which is why their
results must be ignored.

whose continued employment or next year's research budget
depends on there being man-made climate change.

The existing data proved many years ago that we are certainly causing
climate change with atmospheric carbon emissions, and the models
suggest what that might turn out to be in the end. But there is not
enough data and the models aren't good enough to predict what exactly
will turn up - the best we can do is make lots of different runs of
the model with different input data and see what sorts of things turn
up. That way, the climate modellers can say `Okay, we're looking at
X, Y, or Z type of scenarios, within this sort of parameter, maybe'.

The only question is `What sort of ***-up are we causing?' not `Are
we fucking things up?'

But since it's impossible to predict the future of climate change, you
decide to use honest scientific uncertainty in any attempt to trash
the idea that mankind is changing the climate.

That's your usual dishonest tactic - why not try honesty? Oh, I know
- you're not interested in anything but pushing the lies of your
tabloid newspaper owning overlords.

Waiting for your reply. Thanks.

Remember the ozone-layer scam?

What ozone layer scam? There is a problem with ozone depletion that's
still a problem. There's no `scamming' involved.

That's just you doing your normal dishonest job of denigrating
something honest without any evidence for your sneering at all.


<yawn>

--
Munty


.