stewgreen

Debating science and winning is a bit of an odd concept in itself. The Big Bang being a non-climate related example.

Getting oneself banned from 3 sceptical/luke warm websites is more of an achievement though.

EM, you only win if you change someone's mind. How many 'wins' have you clocked up? Are you sure you haven't spurred someone on by never conceding a single point, no matter how good? Raff has put this arrogant little discussion up basically demanding we prove that a) we've been banned and b) it turned us from true believers into sceptics. Well I wasn't, it didn't but his attitude is PART of what makes sceptics. You are so far removed from reality that you forget YOU have to convince US. Not acting on CO2 is the default position and one most people embrace.

Look at how poorly attended the consensus blog sites are. I don't blame people. What is there to say but 'I agree' that won't get you rudely shown the door? How boring. You'd think there were no questions unanswered or debateable, going by warmist web sites. You’d think there were never any dodgy graphs or lying politicians the way they usually toe the line. Though you can’t blame them after the most extraordinary reaction to the twitter comments on Prof Peter Wadhams presentation at the Royal Society. Those who live by the consensus die by the consensus.

By making climate science above scepticism you made it weak in the way Pravda made Soviet news a comic. When the lies/flaws are hidden we never know where they stop and the truth starts. We assume the worst.

TinyCO2

I find your do-nothing approach alarming.

Do you do nothing when a burglar alarm or fire alarm sounds?

Do you do nothing when a lump appears in your breast or testicle?

In both cases you react and then confirm the problem Climate change is also something to which you should react and then confirm. Waiting until there is no doubt is little use. All you learn is that you should have done something about it years ago.

GWPF's Peisler suggested that warmists should be liable for the financial costs incurred by their policies. Perhaps sceptics should be made liable for the costs due to the climate change you assure us is not happening.

As for who should be convincing whom. The null hypothesis is that climate is constant, which most of usus (except the deniers) would agree has been falsified.

The two alternative hypotheses are that the change is due mainly to natural variation, or due to AGW. Each side must present its case.

The only reason why the onus of proof should be on me only here is that BH is your home ground. Like a church, it is where the inhabitants' delusion is the default option.

Paul Matthews

if you had included evidence for your assertions it might have been more positively received. From the moderator viewpoint the comment reads as propaganda, containing the following false and familiar propoganda memes.

1) " The models have no meaning" They are actually useful simulations of the main features of climate behaviour.

2) "Their predictions are failing to materialuse" In fact models whose parameters matched subsequent conditions of insolation, vulcanism and pollution also matched subsequent temperatures.

3)" The IPCC predicted 0.2C/ decade " Indeed they did, as a long term trend. You are trying to debunk that on the basis of a 14 year time period, far too short to draw meaningful conclusions.

All three statements are contrary to the knowledge, experience and practice of those moderating the site. Your comments identify you as ignorant and mistaken at best, and intentionally disruptive at worst. Either way your contribution made no useful contribution to the discussion and was removed.

EM's tactic is disrupt threads with ridiculous bogus claims that are completely off-topic, abusing the tolerance of our host.
Oct 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

[Sorry to have taken EM's bait and responded to his off-topic rubbish]

Oct 27, 2014 at 6:33 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I don't think either of you have done much harm. I regard this thread merely as an attempt by Raff to derail the site.

And I always enjoy reading EM trying to claim that natural variation is not a null hypothesis.

EM "All three statements are contrary to the knowledge, experience and practice of those moderating the site. Your comments identify you as ignorant and mistaken at best, and intentionally disruptive at worst. Either way your contribution made no useful contribution to the discussion and was removed." So you agree that your being banned from 3 sceptic sites was justified.

Martin A has the right analogy for climate change as a risk but I'll add the doctors are waving a rusty saw and a sledge hammer. Even if you think there's something wrong, the cure looks like it might be worse than the illness.

michael hart
What better place to put Raff than Archives at Ballymucky (aka Discussion)

Martin A

Once again let me remind you how models are used. They do not predict what the future climate WILL be. They project what the future climate MAY be under particular conditions.

The physics goes in as equations of state and change. These define the behaviour of the system.

What cannot be predetermined are the short term variable parameters such as vulcanism, pollution and the rate of human CO2 production. These are guided by past averages. These are randomised or chosen to suit the investigation. The model is then run.

The parameters are then changed and the model run again. The same CMIP5 model design was used for a variety of investigations investigating a variety of parameters and possible future scenarios.

Put them all together and you get a range of output temperatures Their mean reflects expectations for average conditions of vulcanism, pollution etc.

In practice the world outside the window had more vulcanism and more pollution than generally accepted. It ran considerably cooler than the model average over the time since the models were run.

A model run with low vulcanism and low pollution runs warm compared with the real world. A model with above average vulcanism and above average pollution, as we actually got, correctly projects the outcome in the real world.

That is why I regard the models as useful. Put in reality and you get out reality.

"They project what the future climate MAY be under particular conditions."

But those conditions were used and the models did not predict correctly, which is why they are having to come up with new theories why the warming is missing. CO2 was even at the highest scenario. They either have to give the aerosols more effect, the sun more effect or find some new reason where the heat went (deep ocean). All of which invalidate the original model parameters.

Where's your evidence that vulcanism has been out of the ordinary? If anything volcanic activity has been relatively quiet until recently. Man made SO2 has only risen since 2000 due to Chinese emissions but if that has had a significant cooling effect the much larger drop from 1975 till about 2000 should have had a coresponding warming effect.

Away for a day and there's two extra pages. I could spend several hours responding... but I won't.

stewgreen:
"- Can you name any Skeptic blogs where the debate atmosphere is less than super-civilised ?"

Try CA, WUWT and Bishop Hill. Post a few comments that question the skeptic line here and see how long it takes before you are being accused of being a troll or ignorant teenager or some such put down (BH) or worse (WUWT).

"- Can you name any Alarmist blogs where the debate atmosphere is non-toxic ?"

I've found SoD to be very good and I've seen sceptics describe it as warmist (although I think it just seems factual). ATTP is generally good, certainly no worse that BH. Open Mind was very good although now dormant (or maybe closed;). James' Empty Blog is also fine as is Moyhu, VV, the Rabbet's place etc. In fact I don't know any "toxic" blogs in this category, but maybe I don't I have the wrong viewpoint to recognise them - just like you don't thing BH and WUWT are toxic.

I said that I couldn't raise any sceptical questions, but that is not really true. What is true is that I cannot do so on a subject like why CO2 has such an effect despite being only 400ppm. It is just not possible to question that in good faith. But there's plenty of things I find puzzling, so maybe I'll try a few innocent questions and see what happens. Might be fun. Don't hold your breath though...

Martin A
Re The Grand National, where I used work we had an office sweep on The National every year. Every year someone would win. For climate models there have been more entrants in the sweep and so far there have been no winners.

Radical Rodent
I think the medical analogy is more like:

You go to the doctors with stomach pain, He says you have got Duodenal Ulcers which require an immediate operation and you can only eat very expensive food on this list. You say but that's been proved to be nonsense. He says no you need an operation now and it may already be too late. So you go to an Australian doctor instead.

A bit more OT
Models despite being Reality In - Reality Out haven't really been very good. Is there a reference to how the Hidden Heat in the deep ocean is modeled and when CO2 is going to start heating the atmosphere again?

It's interesting that EM appears to be the only person to have achieved multiple bannings, most sceptics have given up after continued censorship. It seems, if this true, therefore that warmists are much more subtle than sceptics in how they achieve removal of dissenting voices.

"I could spend several hours responding... but I won't. " Raff.

A mere two pages and you can't even be bothered to respond to them on your own discussion. So you present for us yet another warmist characteristic - you're lazy. Or more likely, we've answered your ugly question and you prefer instead to ignore the evidence rather than admit you were wrong.

Raff, dishonest to choose as an example "400ppm is too small to matter" which is a leftfield gambit and not part of the mainstream sceptical argument. Very few of us could argue that in good faith.

Try asking about the (lacking) sense of using model ensembles, why they all run hot, why sea level rise decelerated over the last quarter of the last century, why models didn't predict the levelling-off of temperature (and still don't), why did the Argo network fail to see the heat pass it on its alleged way to the depths, why the models that settled science were built on didn't model this transport, why they still don't model clouds and the hydrological cycle properly, why methane outgassing has been much less than predicted by models? There's a few to start with.

There are other, slightly more tangential questions: why the very well organized and funded warmist gestapo has failed to find any dirt on any of us with regard to shady funding, why do climate conferences have to involve air travel, why do the spokespeople of the warmist movement have the largest carbon footprints, why does the warmist side want to suppress all dissenting voices in media, why is climate research funded in part by big oil interests, why do poor people pay for renewables that don't actually reduce emissions, why does the consensus side want to convince people that almost all scientists agree on everything about climate science when they don't. They simply don't.

It looks like this discussion should be terminated and a new on models started. It looks to me like EM and Raff amongst others (I include myself) have forgotten which thread they are posting on.

TheBigYinJames, "dishonest to choose as an example "400ppm is too small to matter" which is a leftfield gambit...".

Rubbish. More likely you are out of line with respect to skepticism as exhibited here and elsewhere.

Read the beginning of the thread:

This thread is inspired by what various people have said to me: that they were once true believers (or some such) but were driven away from the consensus side by the arrogance and rudeness of others. On the "Here we go again" thread, Radical Rodent said:

I, too, was a firm believer of the AGW lie, though was puzzled as to how such a small change of a very minor component of the atmosphere could create such havoc. When I asked about this, I was rounded upon by those on "warmist" sites, many being particularly savage, suggesting self-harm and suicide; on the more sceptical sites, the response was not so unpleasant, though no more informative.

"Very few of us could argue that in good faith."

But that doesn't stop people doing so. That is exactly why they get snipped or banned and why warmists despise them - for arguing in bad faith. Plenty of people here claim that CO2 behaves itself as a greenhouse gas in the lab, but once set free is it's own man, so to speak. It is standard fare. It's the "acceptable face" of GHE denial - on the lines of "I don't deny the GHE; CO2 clearly works as a GHG in the lab; but outside in the real world....oh, no it is different there".

Go tell Rodent and stewgreen they are wrong on the Importance of CO2 thread.

On you Gish Gallop of skeptical themes, thank, I'll try a few.