The Crikey Daily Mail’s hallowed Comments, Corrections, Clarifications and C*ck ups section is always jammed with heated arguments over climate science. In particular, there’s one regular commentator who manages to poke at this particular sore so effectively as to enrage and engage readers in a never ending tit for tat that, quite frankly, drives our production editor insane (we’re looking at you, Tamas Calderwood.)
So in the interests of creating a bit of breathing space in the email, and sharing the (not always informed) debate with Rooted readers, we’d like to present the CLIMATE CHANGE CAGE MATCH — a fight to the death.
There’s a robust discussion taking place on the Wilkins Ice Shelf (or what’s left of it) elsewhere on the blog, but the following debate will take place around the general consensus on climate change (yes, there are still a few out and proud sceptics who love to thrash it out and who are we to stop people from making fun of them?)
Picking up where we left off, here’s Tamas Calderwood from yesterday:
Stephen Morris (yesterday, comments) says that CO2 has recently increased to the “unprecedented” concentration of almost 0.0004 of our atmosphere and says this increase “almost exactly corresponds with the large temperature increases over the last 50-100 years”. First, CO2 has been more than 10x current levels in the past.
Second, what large temperature increases is he talking about? Once again, we’ve had zero warming in the past 10 years, less than 0.4C in the past thirty years and around 0.7C in the past hundred. The data are available to anyone with access to Google and the ability to type “temperature data”.
Ding ding ding! Play nice kids…
2,274 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 42 43 44 45 [46] Show All
kdkd #2250
Notice that you are trying your statistical and Dunning Kruger arguments out on BP. He seems a remarkably well educated chap who is not impressed with your auto-fellated points.
Ken #2251
This post demonstrates your scientific ignorance rather nicely. You’ll also note that BP is getting a thorough going over over on SS regarding his insistence that scientific problems are essentially interchangeable with mathematical/logical/engineering problems.
But I wouldn’t expect you to understand this, you’ve displayed your scientific ignorance, and inability to acknowledge your lack of understanding of this area in spades, which is why your argument is such a winner – because you fail to deal with the evidence properly, but in such a way that maintains the illusion of intractable uncertainty rather nicely.
kdkd #2252
Looks like BP is doing OK in the latest posts. A healthy respect for each other in a civil discussion.
Pity your presence here has dragged this blog down to a punch-up – but hopefully when your foul mouthed self leaves – others will dramatically improve the tone.
Ken #2253
Nope thats your delusions taking over again. BP is doing very poorly and starting to expose his superficial approach to the subject (as you confounding measurement uncertainty with scientific uncertainty, and attempting to claim unsuccessfully that scientific problems are equivalent to engineering or mathematical problems).
And the reason you get a face full is because of your lack of attention to the evidence, and my total bordeom with and contempt for your argument. SS has a strong comments policy – I can’t be dragging any of the discussion down as none of my recent posts have been deleted. It’s your pathetic biases and delusional approach to this topic that have you shadow boxing at the moment.
You should be satisfied with your victory though and so should go away and stop wasting my time.
Ken
Anyway what happened to that “climate scientist” that you claimed to be talking to? Just bluster? Or someone with impeccable delusional credentials? Or did they just start telling you things that you didn’t want to hear?
Ken
Well you must have gone away to leave me alone, because you were spotted repeating the same old discredited crap elsewhere, but you couldn’t answer my simple question at #2255.
It’s general practice for the winner to hide themselves away like that. I must assume that your claimed expert also called you out as a foolish ideological delusional fuckwit.
#kdkd 2255,56
I have not got permission to quote ‘climate scientist’ by name. But he/she is a class act – whom I would not sully by exposure to your grubby invective.
Suffice to say that I received some revealing and serious answers which confirmed the large uncertainties in the science.
I will share this quote with you however to show where we are at; (comment is on the von Schukmann OHC paper)
Quote
“I am aware of at least 6 other analyses of ocean heat content that find
rather different results and there seems to be no doubt that the
oceanographers have not yet got their act together on processing and
analysis of data.” endquote
Ken:
This statement clearly supports my argument that you’re confusing measrurement uncertainty with scientific uncertainty, and that you can’t draw strong conclusions about AGW from the current OHC analyses. Ergo your argument is intellectually bankrupt and based on a delusional approach to the topic.
kdkd #2258
It’s there but we just can’t measure it?? Turning the scientific method on its head kdkd. Observe (measure) and then propose a theory – test it against further measurement.
OHC is uncertainty personified – not theorized nor measured in any coherent way.
Ken,
Thanks for supporting my point that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions from the OHC/TOA energy balance stuff due to the incoherence of the data. It’s certainly not a coherent argument to try to use this uncertainty to propose a variant of the it’s not happening argument, which is what you appear to be trying to do (or possibly the it hasn’t warmed since 1998 argument, which we’ve done to death and comprehensively demonstrated your idiocy on that score).
kdkd #2260
Ah! ….but the bit you are missing is that TOA imbalances must show up in the only significant storage device in the biosphere ……….the oceans.
And because you don’t understand basic thermodynamics —-the first law—-you can’t make the connection of how important OHC is in confirming ‘global warming’.
SS’s John Cook made the connection clearly in the “Robust warming of the global upper ocean” blog, where he correctly states that TOA imbalances must show up in the oceans.
The evidence he produced for global warming via OHC increase was seriously flawed; as amply demonstrated by BP and myself.
When OHC is measured comprehensively accurately and repeatably enough we will then have good evidence for the presence and extent of global warming.. that is when “oceanographers got their act together on processing and
analysis of data”……and wide, accurate collection of data.
Maybe new Prime Minister Julia will be able to summon up such evidence from her and Ms Wong’s extensive knowledge of the subject.
Ken,
My understanding of thermodynamics is far superior to your pathetic understanding of statistics (as seen by the way that you dismiss statistical arguments as irellevant despite their extreme importance). Both of these concepts are extremely important for understanding this system.
It’s obvious to everyone that the OHC/TOA measurement model is inadequate for drawing strong conclusions, which is why the work we see at the moment is exploratory rather than confirmatory, and therefore useless for drawing strong conclusions. However you keep trying to do so, despite the clear invalidity of your approach in the absence of a much better measurement model. Or put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Stop wasting your time until the measurement model is of better quality.
kdkd #2262
“Or put it another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
For once I agree; and the logical extension of that is:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor evidence of presence.”
Boom…. boom..
Ken,
To make a strong conclusion about the absence of AGW based on this logical contortion means ignoring the multiple lines of independent evidence. You achieve this through a combination of selective blindness and a dash of ideologically driven paranoid conspiracy theory.
Again, stop wasting your time with the OHC stuff until the measurement model is better. Stick with the very large amount of remaining evidence – for reading, start with the Copenhagen Diagnosis.
actually a nice display of the moronic desperation of your argument. Let me paraphrase what you said for you:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence.
I already said that idiot. Clearly desperately grasping at straws. Stop wasting my, and your time.
kdkd #2265
Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW kdkd. The issue has always been about quantifying the CO2GHG effects and all the related effects.
I would not be too worried about catastrophe kdkd – CO2GHG effect is logarithmic and radiative cooling is exponential. The OHC and energy balance stuff simply points to there being a flattening of the warming, which puts in doubt the magnitude of the CO2GHG effect.
Temperature measurement is under review – CRU data is being investigated, USA land temperatures are probably distorted and exaggerated by the waste heat effects. I would have a punt on there being more scandals on the horizon with discovery of manipulation by advocacy scientists to sex-up the AGW story.
I notice than Tim Flannery has gone quiet since the drought has broken and there is more water in inland Australia than there has been for 20 years. Maybe global warming brings more rain – how good is that??
Ken #2266
Blah blah. Read the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Your latest post is just the usual discredited delusionist crap and misdirection. You can go away now.
kdkd
You should not team up with mate Chris to have a go at my numbers kdkd. Thats a good way to get a bloody nose..
Ken
I thought you’d gone away to have your shallow argument torn to shreds elsewhere. Anyway, we’ve clearly established that your argument is based on a lack of evidence, and a lack of understanding of critical things like statistics.
kdkd #2269
It looks like you are talking to yourself on SS kdkd. Notice how the blog owner John Cook never intervenes on any OHC discussion where BP or I am involved. Probably gone to have a hard look and think about his ‘ROBUST” and Von Schukmann posts. Anyway – SS is by far the best discussion despite recent tendencies to personalize and engage in rather silly smear tactics.
Ken,
I think you’re engaging in transference there. I think that the moderators are allowing your defective arguments to speak for themselves – especially in the way neithr you or BP never address the critical flaws with your arguments, rather maintaining the “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU APPROACH” to maintaining your deluded approach to the topic. At least you both spout better quality bullshit than Tamas I suppose though, so thank heavens for small mercies.
kdkd #2270
Well, by the poor quality of the recent topics on SS, I would say that the owner is running out of good science to throw up.
My job is just about done. The Rudd kiddie was riding for a fall, and even I did not anticipate the ruthlessness with which the Maid of Melbourne was induced into pulling the trigger. At least we will be spared the Rudd ETS – a potential plaything of finance spivs here and abroad. Anyone heard from Ms Wong lately? Is she a crouching tiger or a burnt out dragon??
I see you also have delusions of grandeur Ken. From an objective point of view your job was to retreat into your own delusional head space (aka up your own arse) even further than previously.
Looking forward to the Greens having the balance of power in the senate. Did you see how the chinese are trying to ratfuck us in a devious manner?. It certainly confirms your do as little as possible approach (sarcasm)!
Also this list is an excellent resource against the disinformation supplied by delusional fools such as you, Tamas and co.
Pages: « 1 … 42 43 44 45 [46] Show All