Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
No need to waste precious time on the standards of debate here then.
Phil Clarke
"No need to waste precious time on the standards of debate here then.
Nov 22, 2019 at 11:26 PM | Phil Clarke"
"Nov 22, 2019 at 8:38 PM | Phil Clarke"
Lying and dishonesty to support lying and dishonest Climate Science obviously pays you too well, to stay away for long.
golf charlie
Interglacial temperatures peak in the middle of the interglacials. We are cooling, Phil, and folks, and any warming man can contribute will be net beneficial. Don't forget the bounteous greening we've been about.
Temperature varies in degree and location more than the alarmists are willing to admit. Natural variation has been the cause of temperature rising for the last couple of centuries, and the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 is not distinguishable yet from natural temperature rise.
Alarmism is becoming frantic in its failure. We are in for a rough ride.
===================================
kim
Utter Bollocks
Phil Clarke
" standards of debate "
please use "utter testes".
Charly
"Lying and dishonesty to support lying and dishonest Climate Science obviously pays you too well, to stay away for long.
Nov 23, 2019 at 9:42 PM golf charlie"
"Utter Bollocks
Nov 26, 2019 at 9:29 PM Phil Clarke"
QED
golf charlie
I've already shown that @PhilClarke's comment Nov 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM
was incorrect.
stewgreen
Sorry Stewie, but once again, it is you who have your facts hopelessly wrong.
In your post Nov 22, 2019 at 4:17 PM you stated
"We invite you to endorse the letter “Solve the biodiversity crisis with funding,” which will be published in September in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Click here to read and sign the letter. (that is the 2017 article)But of course, that was not the 2017 article, in fact scientist signatures are now closed on the actual 2017 article. The one you cite is a completely distinct piece.
Please perform more diligence before throwing out unfounded accusations.
Phil Clarke
Nov 18, 2019 at 8:11 PM Phil ClarkeTosh , thinks everyone else
?? The paper and the list of names are where they always have been.
cos the 2019 paper and the request to sign it were always at oregonstate.edu but after publication they first fiddled with the list then took it down
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM fred
The paper is no longer hosted at https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/ and the link now goes to OUP
And the signatories aren't there now - click the link on the "View the signatories " button.
Phil still doesn;t get it .
Nov 19, 2019 at 11:21 AM Phil Clarke
The paper was published online in Bioscience
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
Stil there. This was the link provided in the dedicated thread on the study..
Yes BUT that is NOT where it has always been
Nov 19, 2019 at 3:57 PM stewgreenI asked again
Was the report viewpoint OPINION piece at Bioscience servers when the signatories sighed it or was it on the Oregon State website ?
https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
Still Phil didn't answer but Tomo did
Nov 20, 2019 at 9:08 PM | Registered CommentertomoTomo included the researchgate link which goes to a message
"when the signatories signed it" it was on the Oregon State website - the links are still up around the place .
"I just signed the #ScientistsWarningToHumanity climate emergency initiative. This letter is recently in-press with BioScience Magazine. If you are a scientist you can support this new initiative by reading, sharing this and adding your signature here: http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/.
Phil tries to claim that is a different paper
Nov 21, 2019 at 3:42 PM | Phil ClarkeI showed Phil it was the same paper ..and speculated he was maybe confused cos that page lists 2 papers the new 2019 paper and the old 2017
Different paper Tomo.
Nov 21, 2019 at 9:27 PM stewgreen"Different paper Tomo "Phils confused post
Nope the page I gave hosts the two listsThe old report .. and their new one
AFAIK it was the original place where the opinion piece started
and where you clicked the button to sign
Nov 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM Phil ClarkeI then quoted the oregonstate.edu page on Nov 22, 2019 at 4:17 PM
The old report and their new one
Old Report? Two Lists? So different papers then. (Yes that is right)You're conflating two articles, the 2017 'Warning to humanity' and the 2019 'Climate Emergency' article which is the subject of this digression. (NO I am not conflating, I merely speculating you said it a "different paper" cos you are looking at the bottom of the page where the 2017 paper is, instead of the top of the page where the 2019 paper has ALWAYS been )
For both the process was the same: the article was submitted to BioScience, whilst in press a version was made available for signatories to read and endorse. Once published the 'in press' version was taken down.
Nothing ever 'vanished'
(no the list of signatures was available on the oregonstate.edu whilst people signed it and AFTER publication , then adjusted, then removed altogether yes "vanished").
I quoted from the page exactly the only thing I added was in brackets
Your retort now is
"But of course, that was not the 2017 article, in fact scientist signatures are now closed on the actual 2017 article."
... em It is the 2017 that I have always talked about that has always been on the oregonstate.edu page
I have talked about no other 2017 article
However that is beside the point cos we are talking about the 2019 article which has always been on that oregonstate.edu page
Your Nov 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM post made 2 statements
I had conflated a 2017 paper with a 2019 paper
NOPE
"Nothing ever 'vanished'."
..emm yes it has ..the list of signatories that was always on the oregonstate.edu whilst people signed it and AFTER publication , was adjusted, then removed altogether ... yes "vanished"
stewgreen
From the 27th of July 2019 the oregonstate.edu page said
\\ If you are a scientist from any scientific discipline, we invite you to sign our Viewpoint article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by Ripple et al. 2019, which is now in press with Bioscience Magazine.//
clicking the buttons took you to the PDF paper held on the oregonstate.edu server
stewgreen
SG, It's funny how some things stick in the memory. When investigating US Universities (from the UK) prior to starting my Ph.D. studies, Oregon State was one of those that I contacted.
Maybe I just like some female American accents, but their automated telephone response system was voiced by a woman who sounded like she was auditioning for, or had experience of, a porn movie.
To my shame, I was so impressed with their level of "salesmanship" that I phoned back to check that I really had heard what I thought I had. Twenty five years later I am just glad that I never went there for any science education.
michael hart
The 'vanished' list of signatories is now the supplementary info to the paper, the paper and the list are freely avalable at the click of a mouse.
Phil Clarke
Heh, Phil, 'Nuts!' to you.
========
kim
Something to think about, here. At least one is realising the poverty that does exist; maybe others will follow.
(Cue a diatribe against the site and against the author and the person about whom he writes, with not one note debunking the argument.)
Radical Rodent
What argument? That's an article in American Thinker about an article in The Quadrant about an ebook. What are the chances the quotes are representative?
The link to the English version of the book takes you to a German web page for the Japanese Edition. A version with some English content (same one?) is available for 99p from Amazon, perhaps you could download it and write us a precis?
He seems to be making the case that climate models are not fit for purpose, and forecasting future climate is not possible, even while he concedes that 'I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little' (!). Fair enough, if he is correct then a Nobel awaits and he can retire on the profits from his 99p ebook.
He has certainly changed his tune since 2013, when he not only made a climate prediction, he predicted cooling, stating 'when predicting climate change, the effects of global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases also need to be taken into consideration.'
Phil Clarke
Thank you, Mr Clarke. Yet again, you never fail to disappoint. ☹ 😉😊
Radical Rodent
So, in summary, a single Japanese scientist has put out a 99p ebook in which he claims the entire global climate modelling community are deluded.
Note I am not saying he is wrong, he may not be, but surely you can see the improbability?
No doubt you self-describe as 'sceptical'.
Phil Clarke
Dec 4, 2019 at 11:57 PM | Phil Clarke
But you always fall for lying Hockey Teamsters and their frauds. Based on the simple balance of probabilities and your disastrous track record, there is a 97% probability that you are wrong. No bent Climate Modelling required at all.
golf charlie
Certainly more sceptical than you are, Mr Clarke – ask others on this site, most of whom have had some sort of challenge from me. This does not mean that I am right, of course, but I do prefer to argue the case, not ridicule the author. Odd, how often a single scientist can put out a book claiming the entire [pick whatever discipline you want] community is deluded, and later turns out to be correct! I bet you would have had Charles Darwin quaking in his boots 😊
Never mind; you did exactly as I predicted, and immediately attacked the messenger, without a single glance at the message.
Radical Rodent
"Never mind; you did exactly as I predicted, and immediately attacked the messenger, without a single glance at the message.
Dec 5, 2019 at 8:40 PM Radical Rodent"
Hockey Teamsters know nothing else.
golf charlie
Never mind; you did exactly as I predicted, and immediately attacked the messenger, without a single glance at the message.
No message has been presented. You haven't read the book, so you do not know what the 'message' is, you're relying on media coverage from sources with dubious records, putting it mildly.
Things move faster these days, if Nakamoto was indeed a modern day Darwin, we'd know it by now. Hint: He's not.
Phil Clarke
Wow! You never stop to think, do you, Mr Clarke. Nope – keep on digging, let’s keep digging… (You’re not a fish, are you? Perhaps a blue dory…? Never mind.)
Not much of a message, here, is there?
Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can't be judged "with the knowledge and technology we currently possess."Now, offer a critique of this message, and stop your deriding of the author. So what if he is Japanese; so what if he has bad hair (who knows, he might even have bad breath); so what if he has not yet shaken the world; just read what he has written, and discuss that.Other gross model simplifications include
# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics
# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.
# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: "Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet."
# Inability to deal with water vapor elements
# Arbitrary "tunings" (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood
Concerning CO2 changes he says,
I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system …
… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.
Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity". He says, "It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No."
Radical Rodent
The modelers are deluded to believe the models are powerful enough and supplied with adequate physics and data to be fit for the purpose of prediction.
Your problem, Phil, is that when the future shows that cold is to be feared, and anthropogenic warming and greening are not to be feared, then you and yours will be revealed as deluded or paid propagandists.
This is sure, but it may take a while. The mills of history grind fine, and not always to the taste of the powerful.
=================================
kim
You make my point for me, RR, you're quoting Tony Thomas's interpretation of what Nakamoto wrote. Take this paragraph:
Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged “with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”
Nakamoto wrote the text in bold, Thomas wrote the rest. You're trusting Thomas to paraphrase accurately.
Good luck with that.
As for the rest, to take one example: 'Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity".
That's wrong, pure and simple. The IPCC acknowledge, and document the change in solar forcing. It's insignificant, but it is not zero.
I said nothing about the author's nationality or his hair, you made that up.
Phil Clarke
Phil Clarke, the turd-polishing turd.