Fanatical Climate Evangelist , Pot calling Kettle Black. Strawmen and Heated Sophistry.

If we actually want to try to mitigate the effects of AGW we need to act before feedback mechanisms take it out of our hands. Is three years realistic? The former UN climate chief knows what she is talking about, global warming will accelerate if we don't act.

Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres among signatories of letter warning that the next three years will be crucial to stopping the worst effects of global…
THEGUARDIAN.COM
Comments
Dave Brown 3 years? Really? Chortle chortle.

Reply
2
July 1 at 9:14pm
Remove
Glyn Goodwin Still no peer reviewed paper or any thing but your opinion Dave? Chortle chortle. I'll go with the experts thanks.
Remove
Jim Broughton I have been hearing about this " iminent " threat for so many years, that it is becoming laughable. See you in three years time, Glyn.

Reply
2
July 1 at 9:48pm
Remove
Glyn Goodwin You haven't read the article I see. There is a really good opportunity for Britain post brexit to make a difference with the need to remove CO2 and turn to renewables. The tories have spurned this opportunity in the past, relying on their oily funders, but maybe there is hope if then opportunity to regrow industry is taken.
Doubtful the tories have the imagination to see what is in front of their face though.
Remove
Dave Brown Youll still be banging on about climate change in 3 years , glyn. In fact , youll still be yaking about climate change in 30 years.
Remove
Glyn Goodwin Maybe you will have found a single reason to let us know why you think the obvious is wrong by then Dave 
Remove
Glyn Goodwin It predicts mass migration, which you may ave notice has already started.http://climatenewsnetwork.net/22574-2/

30 June, 2017 – Where can the climate refugees go, if…
CLIMATENEWSNETWORK.NET
Remove
Dave Brown Fill in the channel tunnel with concrete, using british labour and have our navy patrol the north sea and english channel.problem sorted.
Remove
Roger Lewis The Article is pure Rhetoric. The Science has been increasingly going towards a better understanding of the Natural Carbon Cycle and Carbon Syncs both in the Ocean ( Henry´s Law) and also Global Greening. ( CO2 really is Plant Food)
Glassman's Rocket S
cientists Journal remains the best Condensed explanation of what the Science3 really tells us as opposed to the Spin Doctors and Politicians.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

My Own Reader on this can be found at this link.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../climate...


Solar energy as modeled over the last three centuries contains patterns that match the full 160 year…
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
Edit
Glyn Goodwin Summed up in one simple graph:
Remove
Jim Broughton Yes, noone is denying that CO2 has increased. It's proven that it is great for food production.
Remove
Glyn Goodwin No one is denying CO2 is an essential part of life on the planet. Just like water. You can still drown though...
Remove
Jim Broughton Optimal level of CO2 for food production is around 2000ppm. We are a long long way from drowning Glyn. 
Why do you only see potential downsides to CO2? I never see you talking about the upsides.
Remove
Glyn Goodwin You can have too much of a good thing. Upside would be that the last time the atmosphere had 2000 ppm was 150 million years ago! Yaaay!
It is estimated that every doubling of co2 increases temperature by 2.5 -3 degrees with all the happy plants that would bring. Photosynthesis stops at about 105 degrees from memory.
http://www.climatecentral.org/.../the-last-time-co2-was...


The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the…
CLIMATECENTRAL.ORG
Remove
Roger Lewis What do you conclude from that Graph Glyn? https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../re...

Chomsky, Linguistics, Philosophy, Poetry,…
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Edit
Roger Lewishttp://davidmalonegreenpartycandidate.weebly.com/forum....

David Malone official Green Party Candidate Site
DAVIDMALONEGREENPARTYCANDIDATE.WEEBLY.COM
Edit
Glyn Goodwin I conclude that C02 levels are much higher than they were before.
Remove
Glyn Goodwin As the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been well established for 200 years the conclusion is blindingly obvious.
Remove
Roger Lewis Glyn Goodwin That is a matter of opinion, Temperatures for the whole record rise ahead of Co2 increasing. The other point on CO2 levels is that the CO2 level is in constant flux. There are also huge metrological questions related to applying Manoa Loa ...See More

Reply
1
22 hrsEdited
Edit
Jim Broughton Thank you for posting this, Roger. I thought about posting something similar, but didn't have the time. Over to you, Glyn Goodwin

Reply22 hrs
Remove
Roger Lewis Hi Jim, I am in fact a committed environmentalist and advocate for Renewables. I find the general discourse on Climate change incredibly frustrating, the Alarmists are clearly blinded by confirmation Bias and often time The Sceptics of AGW are also irrational in their criticisms of the scientific case and economic case for renewables.
On renewables I get probably most frustrated of all as Monetary Measures of Value are completely illogical, who uses a variable to measure anything and Money is, of course, a variable.
All in all, Jim, if one is a Technologist, A Scientist, or someone who values common sense and Truth the Climate Debate is a pretty shabby neighbourhood to find one's self.
I do always recommend science of DOOM for people who want to read up seriously on the subject and then to make up their own minds. I am myself Sceptical of the AGW CO2 Hypothesis and much more inclined to Svesmarks work but in my own view, this is not a field where anything is settled.

https://scienceofdoom.com/.../the-confirmation-bias-a.../


A long time ago I wrote The Confirmation Bias…
SCIENCEOFDOOM.COM

ReplyRemove Preview21 hrs
Edit
Jim Broughton Thanks for this Roger. My own story is as follows. As a aerospace design engineer, with a degree in physics, for many years I was bewildrered by the two camps either side of the AGW debate. Naively I thought it was simply a case of reading up on the science and finding out. So, after many years in my spare time, reading all IPCC reports, as many science papers as I could find, books galore, both sceptic and pro AGW, I found myself tending towards skepticism, especially on the CO2 mitigation debate.
Even if CO2 is causing Warming, it is a massive leap to suggest that it is essentially detrimental to mankind. And if that leap is made, it is another great leap to believe that we can control it. And if we could convince ourselves that we can control it, it is another great leap to actually achieve it.
I am also a fan of renewables, but am also a realist. Use of fossil fuels will continue to increase for the forseeable future. 
I actually believe that the alarmism and political pointscoring around AGW, destroys sensible debate and effective problem solved solutions. Alarmism is probably the best way of promoting AGW, as it destroys the credibility of those doing the alarming.

Reply
1
21 hrsEdited
Remove
Glyn Goodwin Roger you have been over these arguments many times on various forums. I have followed them with interest. I didn't find them convincing tbh, but interesting nevertheless. Jim has stated his point of view which seems to me to not connect the link between us burning fossil fuel and adding that to the natural cycle. I would agree with him that there are question marks over whether we will be able to control it as methane is gushing from permafrost as we speak and then if that has passed the tipping point then there is no comeback. Sensible debate needs to be on how to change to renewables and take CO2 out of the atmosphere before it becomes runaway climate change.

Reply18 hrs
Remove
Jim Broughton No, Glyn, sensible debate needs to be on whether taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is our priority, or whether we have other Global crises which are more important.

Reply18 hrs
Remove
Glyn Goodwin Well we haven't got to the point where we have even started discussing it so you're not going to change your mind. I can't think of anything else which constitutes a possible end of life on the planet scenario that we can do anything about, so I go by the precautionary principle. The worst that could happen is we end up with a cleaner healthier planet.

Reply18 hrs
Remove
Jim Broughton No again. The worst thing that can happen is that we make millions, or even billions, poorer.
I imagine it is very hard to worry about a 0.5C theoretical increase of temperature when you don't even know where the next meal is coming from.

Reply18 hrs
Remove
Roger Lewis CO2 for me is simply a non-issue. Environmenatl damage from Tar Sands Extraction and Fracking are huge issues. Particulates and air quality again are huge issues.
The FIxation on CO2 is I think a distraction and pushed by the Money Elites as a debt bas
...See More


ReplyRemove Preview17 hrs
Edit
Glyn Goodwin I know you think quoting Nasa makes people extremists or fanatics Roger and all their data has been tampered with. Who do you think tampered with it? The global elite? But then you worry that politicians are taking notice of fanatics like me even though they have already tampered with all the data, and let's face it there is a lot of it.
Your tin hat is glowing red hot....

Reply15 hrs
Remove
Roger Lewis Glyn a standard recourse to Ad Hominem. You will see that all of the links I have stated in my own PDF and on many discussions of this sort. I present evidence and the Fanatics including yourself throwback Ad-Hominem. That is the Cultish behavious of those who worship the secular religion of CO2 Alarmism.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../red...


ReplyRemove Preview4 hrs
Edit
Roger Lewis Glyn Goodwinhttp://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../authenti...

A golden Rule in folklores Canon

holds what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander
do unto others that which to you would be done
thus applied in discussion, we should always avoid slander.

Leave at the first introduction
the habits of Authority and induction
When those listening seem deaf to what you tell
refrain if you please from poisoning the well

if your working hypothesis requires certitude
refrain from tailoring cloth that renders the emperor nude
If to your point, you wish others to allude
refrain from a hypocritical sneering attitude.

When your correspondent appeals to evidence
consider their sources, were they well meant?
In all matters, skepticism will serve you with equivalence
and always remember to mistrust the Government.


``man müsse das Volk stets in Armuth erhalten, damit es gehorsam bleibe."(2)


Chomsky, Linguistics, Philosophy, Poetry,…
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

ReplyRemove Preview3 hrs
Edit
Glyn Goodwin You accuse me of being a 'fanatic' and an 'extremist' and 'Pathetic' for quoting Nasa. And somehow me asking you why/who tampered with Nasa data is ad hom?
Ok.

Reply1 hr
Remove
Roger Lewis Glyn, You are projecting again and throwing around Strawmen. I have not accused you of being anything " For Quoting Nasa".
Nasa is a huge Government Agency it has a lot of Departments many of whom see different questions differently.
I often use NASA P
ublished Data Myself, what we are talking about is Alarmist interpretations of Data stretched beyond its own Boundaries of error. 
You are a Fanatic Glyn, and Alarmist positions are of course fanatical by definition. Where evidence is clear and irrefutable there is no call for histrionics.
I particularly Like this old Quote from Jeremy Bentham's anonymous pen on the Self Evidentiary Nature of the Rights to Liberty claimed in the USA Declaration of Independence.

They are about “to assume,” as they tell us, “among the powers of the earth, that equal and separate ( 120 ) station to which” — they have lately discovered — “the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What difference these acute legislators suppose between the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, is more than I can take upon me to determine, or even to guess. If to what they now demand they were entitled by any law of God, they had only to produce that law, and all controversy was at an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call sell-evident truths. “All men,” they tell us, “are created equal.” This rarity is a new discovery; now, for the first time, we learn, that a child, at the moment of his birth, has the same quantity of natural power as the parent, the same quantity of political power as the magistrate.
https://persistentenlightenment.com/.../details/cihm_20519

You have only to produce the Evidence Glyn, that you do not is I think because you can not, it does not in fact exist and this is a Work in progress.


Notes on the Enlightenment as Historical Period and Continuing Project
PERSISTENTENLIGHTENMENT.COM

ReplyRemove Preview1 hr
Edit
Glyn Goodwin Roger, i'm afraid it is you who is the fanatic. The evidence is all there and you chose to believe otherwise. Up to you of course.

Reply1 hr
Remove
Roger Lewis Glyn I am open to evidence that CO2 is the Main Problem Glyn, I am also open to Evidence of other Causes and Processes. I have an Open Mind. I am probably Fanatical on Monetary Reform but certainly not on Climate Change, CLimate Science or even the AGW CO2 Hypothesis.
On Monetary Reform I do try to Kerb my enthusiasm as I recognise the dangers of Becoming convinced and the Confirmation Bias that inevitably follows.

Here's

some very valuable NASA-Funded Research, Some of the Best Data there is on Climate and particularly the Global Temperature Record.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/.../2017/may/May2017_update_bar.png


ReplyRemove Preview43 mins
Edit
Stephen Gardner please please.. no more climate change denial crap.. the debate is over

Reply21 hrs
Remove
Jim Broughton Yes, Stephen, I think you are right. The debate should now be over. No more of this alarmist " The end is nigh" bullplop please.

Reply21 hrs
Remove
Glyn Goodwin It has been over for a very long time. Even exxon's own data shows they have known about it for half a century. Time to do something before it is too late.
https://www.desmogblog.com/.../there-no-doubt-exxon-knew...


Reply15 hrs
Remove
Roger Lewis This is yet another Kite Flying exercise Here is my Blog that went to the souce material and low and behold "There is not There There."

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../facts...


ReplyRemove Preview4 hrs
Edit
Roger Lewis This is very interesting what strikes me as obvious is the confession in the opening paragraphs. ( "We analysed the observational data by fitting all June temperature observations to a distribution that shifts proportional to the smoothed global mean temperature. This method assumes that global warming is the main factor affecting local temperatures on the 100-yr time scale." )
https://wwa.climatecentral.org/ana.../europe-heat-june-2017/

This sort of speculation is very interesting but what most Statistical Modellers end up doing is believing their model represents the thing in itself. In this Study, they not only take their model to be the thing in itself but go further in Reducing the thing in itself to the Temperature record of the last 100 years. What is striking about this sort of Pseudo-Scientific alarmism is how desperately amateurish it is.

The Weather System is complicated, The Climate System is whole orders of magnitude more so especially when one pretends one can extrapolate to a whole earth model and make sensible predictions.

I build computer models for sounds particularly of Guitar Timbres and have for many years marvelled at the inability of those who have note been fully inducted into my own Nerdy world, to get their head around the limitations of Probabilistic Modelling. The Maths is actually quite simple once the necessary logic switch is located in ones brain, until then though it is actually hugely confusing. I remember the first early lectures I attended on Fluid Dynamics and back then as a Younger man I had not cottoned on to the Abstract nature of the pursuit of mathamaticaL Description. The worse offenders on these sorts of questions are not in fact in my experience Climate alarmists but actually, a certain breed of Economics half-wit usually touting a newly minted MBA fro some Ivy League Business school or another. To them, I always recommend this lecture from John Mirrlees the Nobel prize winning economist.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../james...


Record June Temperatures in Western Europe June 29 — Key Points Record-breaking heat…
WWA.CLIMATECENTRAL.ORG

ReplyRemove Preview4 hrsEdited
Edit
Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/.../james...

Chomsky, Linguistics, Philosophy, Poetry, Music and…
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

ReplyRemove Preview4 hrs
Edit
John Bassford What caused the even hotter June which we experienced in 1976 then?

Reply38 mins
Remove
John Bassford I remember going to a lecture at Imperial College given by an American "climate scientist" when I was a 6th form science student. It would have been about 1977 I guess. He told us that fossil fuels would be exhausted completely by 1990 but that, none the less, by then we would see desertification of large areas of Europe - as far north as Southern England by the time that that happened - and that it would take decades for temperatures to return to "normal" after that. I recall that he said that we would be just beginning to re-establish some kind of agriculture in the English southern counties by now. He said that it may already have been too late then. And that we had 2 years, at most, to stop burning coal, oil and gas.

Reply
1
29 minsEdited
Remove
Glyn Goodwin Sounds like he got that wrong. Does that mean all climate scientists are wrong then?

Reply7 mins
Remove
John Bassford There is a long history of climate "scientists" making excitable and alarmist predictions about what it going to happen in the immediate and long term future Glyn. Because they have been at it for almost half a century now, their hostages to fortune are now all free and talking their heads off. Would you like to tell me why we should be any more convinced by todays alarmist and excitable predictions? Yours seems to be just another such hostage to the same fortune which has let so much egg on the faces of these "scientists" with moist foundation garments' predecessors.

Reply2 mins
John Bassford There was actually quite a body of climate "scientists" in the 1960s and 70s who were predicting a new ice age in just the same apocalyptic terms!

Reply1 min
John Bassford And all of this was based on irrefutable evidence!

ReplyJust now

Comments