Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?
RR. Of course I knew you were really referring to global climate change but I was feeling rather sorry for EM and resonsible for yet another bout of EM bashing. I know he often asks for it (and seems relatively immune) but not this time. So I thought I would redeem myself by helping out.
With regard to the local effects of irrigation, we do an awful lot of this activity all over the world. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a global effect, but probably a small to very small one. This whole topic is deja vu for me, having just defended the view that AGW is real (but probably offset by AGC and natural restorative processes). Human activities on local and global scales are far from insignificant. If we can remove mountains, affect global atmospheric compositions, it is not unreasonable, as a first hypothesis, to suggest we affect global climate. It's just that there is little to no evidence (other than that which has been manipulated to fit) to support it. In times of normal scientific endeavour, the hypothesis would long have been shown the door.
I am interested in how an intelligent and obviously well informed man like EM can reach diametrically opposed conclusions to mine. However, it s clear I cannot explore that subject here without both myself and EM coming under attack from the usual suspects. I do recognize that I'm being cowardly (before one of the usual subjects jumps in and says it for me).
Mint cake
How do you change your nom de blog? My evil spellchecker tried to do this, posted with a new name, but nothing happened. You see how technologically inept I am, thus explaining the success of my spellchecker's takeover.
Alan Kendall
Mr K.: I know what you mean about defending EM; there have been times when others have been unnecessarily rude to him, and I felt I had to intervene on his behalf. Even the saints you find here can fall into some terrible group-think practices. There are also some times when he gets everything he deserves; I suspect he falls into the trap of having spent too long as the cleverest one who knows the most on the subject in the classroom, and still thinks he is there.
Changing your nom de blog? If you are not logged in, you can change the name in the little form that pops up every time you post; if you are logged in – sorry, can’t help there! I managed to do it on mine, as it initially insisted on it being one word and lower case; however, I tinkered around, somehow, somewhere, and managed to change it to how your see it, now. It was all guesswork and luck, and so long ago, I cannot remember how to do it.
Radical Rodent
Alan Kendall, the hides of hippos kept in captivity do require artificial irrigation. I still get visions of Reggie Perrin's Mother-in-Law fixation at the thought.
As previously discussed, artificial irrigation introduces increased risk of malaria. Are there any other bio-hazards, other than those from sewage/drinking water etc created by man?
golf charlie
...You get thrown off conventional climate websites because you bring rudeness, not evidence.
May 5, 2016 at 6:47 PM Entropic man
I take it that this is the same Entropic man who, as a result of my stating the indisputable fact that GCM climate models are programmed to simulate the warming effect of CO2, wrote
...I find myself considering new vocabulary to describe you. Most of them are synonyms for "senile old fool" (...) Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM Entropic man
Am I right in my assumption that it's the same EM?
If it is the same EM, it illustrates what we often notice - that EM will imagine something and then it becomes, for him, reality. Not exactly the trade-mark of the scientific mind.
Martin A
Thank you, Martin A, for your defence of sweet, little ol' me; however, I do have the hide of a hippo,
RR, I'd been assuming rhino, rather than hippo. Based solely on the limited evidence available, of course.
As an aside, MartinA, do you still play tennis?
Never have done. Another Martin A perhaps? Although I did play badminton when I was around 14, but only as a way to meet girls.
"global climate" which really does not exist in any identifiable way?
One of the many clues that climate science is not science is its belief that 'global climate' exists and moreover that it can be directly related to a so-called "temperature anomoly".
I suspect he falls into the trap of having spent too long as the one who knows the most on the subject in the classroom, and still thinks he is there.
I doubt that EM really thinks he is still in the classroom. However, a manner of interacting with people when dealing with technical subjects, developed over decades, tends to remain in place.
It is all that is needed to explain EM's slightly quaint mannerism of explaining things to people who, in many cases, are clearly far brighter than him, as if they were slightly dim thirteen year-olds.
Martin A
(Stewgreen muttering to himself : "well if they had started a new thread, then I could get on with making the LITTLE point about the BBC I prepared this morning"
"I absolutely wish EM the best of luck, but can't understand why these talented BH guys here let themselves be drawn down a rabbit hole of a personal discussion about him when they could be discussing more important ISSUES"
"Of course EM's points are commonly easy to rebutt and I made notes earlier")
stewgreen
Another Martin A perhaps? Perhaps. The MartinA I recall used to bat around Wimbledon for a couple of weeks a year, and – if rumour is to be believed – was also most interested in meeting girls. No idea what the day job was, though could have been whatever you do (or did); are you really sure that it was not you? It was a while ago, you know…
Radical Rodent
No, definitely not me. I'm pretty sure I have never, ever played tennis, not even once. And the closest I have been to Wimbledon was passing through it on a Southern Region train to Waterloo now and then.
Martin A
I am greatly flattered that you spent most of a page telling each other why you should not listen to anything I say.
May I congratulate you all on your ability to filter out uncomfortable truths.
"You cant believe that because Entropic Man said it." is a classic denial response. "You cant believe that because Michael Mann says it", You cant believe that because James Hansen says it." and "You cant believe that because Gavin Schmidt says it." are other variations on the theme.
Along with your collective beliefs in fiddled temperature records and general conspiracy theories it reveals a lot about your collective psychology.
Alan Kendall is right. There is no possibility of changing your minds because your denial of AGW is not based on reason, but on something buried much deeper.
Entropic man
Yes, EM, you are right, as always.
Martin A
You cant believe that because Entropic Man said it.Please direct us to where anyone on here said that, or anything like it, EM. What usually happens is that you proffer some argument, it gets ripped to shreds, and you revert to your usual cant about how we are all deniers. Oh, and, of course, you rarely answer any challenges others throw at you.
Have a look at what this chappie has to say, and rip it to shreds.
You’re welcome.
Radical Rodent
EM.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I get into trouble enough here on my own.
As I have explained I am interested in why you have chosen one side of the argument whereas I chose the other. However I don't fancy running the gauntlet of conducting such a discussion here.
Alan Kendall
Mr K.: you openly demonstrate a good example of sound, scientific thinking. ’nuff said.
Radical Rodent
... it illustrates what we often notice - that EM will imagine something and then it becomes, for him, reality. Not exactly the trade-mark of the scientific mind.>>>
May 6, 2016 at 1:41 PM Martin A
Alan Kendall is right. There is no possibility of changing your minds because your denial of AGW is not based on reason, but on something buried much deeper.>>>
May 6, 2016 at 8:08 PM Entropic man
EM.
Please do not put words into my mouth.(...)
May 6, 2016 at 8:35 PM Alan Kendall
See what I mean?
Martin A
Radical Rodent
You linked to a Fish Gallop.
Pick one, preferably greenhouse effect related. and we' go around the roundabout once more.
Entropic man
Odd. My pressing the link takes me straight to an article about a retired German climate scientist whose opinions might be different from yours; no fish, galloping or otherwise, in it at all. Is this the site you connect to, or are you shunted on to something about Billingsgate? In case you are just dismissing the site as it contains much you do not like as you cannot answer, please note that, with a bit more effort taken by actually reading the article, you will find that it does have greenhouse-effect-related items, but only to tell us that it is negligible. Now, what else can you come up with to dismiss the thoughts of a climate scientist who disagrees with you?
Your response reminds me of the responses of other Believers who cannot answer the points I offer; they can only resort to insult and invective, with not a drop of science involved. The quotation at the top of that site is what I consider sound thinking: “Not here to worship what is known, but to question it” – Jacob Bronowski. You, it would appear, do not think that anything known (about climate – ha!) should be questioned. Perhaps you would disagree with Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent
Alas, the fish emerged from my ongoing struggle with the spell checker on my tablet.
I'm not going to do parallel arguments about all his points.
Pick one, give the supporting evidence why you think it is correct, and I will attempt to refute it.
Entropic man
EM
I wonder if your spellchecker was born in the same Chinese factory as mine was.
If so, then be afraid, be very, very afraid.
Got mine de-fanged, I think by one of Bish's minions.
I'm not sure, however, if they can operate in foreign lands like Ulster.
Interesting that it's feeding you fish; is it offering you difficult words like sturgeon or barracuda? If so, show no mercy, kill it before it takes over your life and gets you into all sorts of puzzlements. See, mine's at it again. I've never used the word puzzlement before in my life, yet out it comes and as a plural (which SC doesn't wish to acknowledge).
Be brave, do the right thing.
Alan Kendall
Entropic man
Why is the supporting evidence required? RR has given a link all that's required is the point of interest (or perhaps two?). Thereafter it's for you to put forward evidence that it is wrong. I can't see why RR has to elaborate further.
SandyS
You really do not understand scientific argument, do you, EM? I presented you with my side of the discussion (arguments from a real climate scientist that show you might be wrong); you now have to refute what I have offered – all my supporting evidence is there.
Radical Rodent
OK re : @EM's point "Carbon Brief says skeptics insignificant on Twitter", Here's my notes from yesterday
Let me run PROJECTION tests, by quoting EMs words back at him with the roles reversed
"It is very easy to ridicule you, mostly because you are ridiculous.You tell each other in echo chambers like BH CarbonBrief that the evidence for AGW CAGW is wrong irrefutable
"You get thrown off conventional climate websites because you bring rudeness, not evidence."
"Credit to BH, he has not banned me as Watts, Tisdale and Tallbloke did"
"This is done politely and without the acrimony you bring to the AGW debate."
"The number of realists 'True-Believers' posting at BH can be counted on the fingers of one hand"
"I came here orininally hoping for convincing evidence to falsify the AGW paradigm.None has been forthcoming" (because you are 100% sure that present climate is not varying within the bounds it might do with out man, and that adding mans CO2 effect to natural variability will certaintly lead to some climate catastrophe)
"Anyone accepting AGW at BH is not banned, but are certainly discouraged. Note Michael Hart's 9.48pm insult, typical of a BH regular addressing a non-sceptic."
(The actual interchange)
EM :"I live in a small town in Ulster.(with a small range of conversation)"
That insult :"Bishop Hill is where you come to find that your opinions don't match those of a significant number of other people in the world."
Hardly an insult.
stewgreen
stewgreen - please quote in full.
You live in a small mind in Ulster.
Bishop Hill is where you come to find that your opinions don't match those of a significant number of other people in the world.
splitpin
Thanks @splitpin I'd missed that part
..Still it counts as a funny putdown rather than proof that "Anyone accepting AGW at BH is not banned, but are certainly discouraged."
..a small humorous putdown like that should hardly be a big discouragement.
stewgreen
Now I'll wet myself if I don't make the small point i wanted to add yestersay, before you folks (EM) turned up and drove the thread off topic.
@Bob Made the point That reforming the Royal Society is the priority not reforming the BBC. Cos the RS is the voice of Authority on Climate Science.
I made the point that the RS is the wholesaler and the BBC is the retailer of info to the public.
@Bob's point seems to be that if the RS reforms then the BBC can take it as a voice of authority.
The problem is the BBC has a whole number of other suppliers who are not reformed (Greenpeace etc.)
I then realised yesterday that the problem is that many people regard the BBC as a voice of Authority.
So by @Bob's logic if the RS must be reformed cos it is a voice of authority,
.........then so must the BBC must be reformed cos it is a voice of authority.
stewgreen
Thank you, Martin A, for your defence of sweet, little ol’ me; however, I do have the hide of a hippo, and there is nothing our little piece of Mint Cake could say that would penetrate it, even if he wanted to, which I doubt he seriously does. (As an aside, MartinA, do you still play tennis?)
Mr K.: to remain seriously off-topic, ’cos someone wants us to – you have really hit the problem on the head with your reference to the climate of a valley being changed by humans. I was talking about global “climate”, which is what seems to be the point of so many of the “we are changing the climate!” memes. Which climate? Local ones, which will happen and does happen with change of land-use (and it is not only humans who are engaged in that sort of activity; we just do it on a faster, grander scale), regional ones, such as, say, changing the pattern of monsoons (none of which have been shown to have changed, to date), or the “global climate”, which really does not exist in any identifiable way?