Take Back Control

[Deereyme66]

Thanks for explaining it properly Siderite.

‘There are plenty of climate scientists who agree with Christy but are too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs’.

That’s handy Bucks! Which ones have said that and how çan you demonstrate their credibility?

[Siderite]

Probably the same ‘climate scientists’ who signed those petitions, when the closest they come to being one is that they took a climate module in a geology degree back in 1981 or something.

I do admit to a brain fart above though. It’s been a while since I looked into Christy and this kind of thing. I remember the problems with his baselines, but got the issue the wrong way round. He uses too small a baseline for surface, not atmospheric data.

[Deereyme66]

‘1981 or something’? Any reason why you honed in on this period?

[Siderite]

Honestly none, just some date quite a while ago that first popped into my head.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Bucksiron]

So there you have it, a perfect example of how a highly respected climate scientist who doesn’t agree with the establishment view is rubbished. Of course the usual suspects will thank and go along with Siderite’s comment because it suits their agenda to do so. For the sake of anyone with a more balanced view who might be reading this, first, I would recommend they watch the video if they haven’t already done so; and, second, I would ask them to consider that many climate scientists — even those in the IPCC — do not agree with the claims being made by the establishment around the ‘catastrophe’ we are supposed to be facing. Plenty of scientists daren’t speak out about this because they do fear losing their jobs, as has happened with a number of high profile cases that shame the academic world.

Whatever Siderite might claim, Christy’s views are not seen as bunkum except by those whose agenda they fail to agree with. As Christy says, the data simply doesn’t support the claims being made. If you look at this data — and it’s publicly available — you’ll see that Christy is correct.

What Siderite also fails to understand, or at least to point out, is that all he’s describing is a theory. What he is saying is correct EXCEPT that you HAVE to use models to determine the SIZE of the impact of ‘man-made CO2’ on climate change (I’ve used caps for emphasis, nothing more). Nor is this just about future predictions. It’s just as true for the here and now. Why? Because there is no such things as a ‘climate change measuring device’.

Put simply, the only way you can ‘measure’ the size of the impact of CO2 on climate change is to feed a lot of very complex data into a computer and model it. That would be fine if climate was fully understood, which it isn’t, and if all the models agreed with each other, which they don’t. I keep banging on about confidence intervals for the simple reason that no results from any model should ever be provided without them, yet they never are for climate models. Why, any reasonable person would ask, might that be?

[Deereyme66]

As you’ve said in the past, people reading it can make their own minds up. I see no cause for concern here.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bucksiron

[Bucksiron]

I agree with you 100% Deerey. There is, indeed, no cause for concern.

[Siderite]

Yes, of course, disagreeing with someone who agrees with Bucks is wrong and duplicitous. Being a leading figure in his field means little if his work is flawed. Good science is allowed to be critiqued. Seemingly the Bucks-proclaimed leader of his field’s isn’t. That’s the mindset of an authoritarian and is highly anti-scientific.

There have been many critiques of his work. Here is one*. But, of course, because he dares to disagree with Bucks it has to be in bad faith and wrong to rubbish. If Christy’s work was worthwhile it would be able to answer these questions, and the ones I have put. Simply moaning about it being ‘rubbishing’ fails to understand the point of science. Science is about being open to question. You frequently accuse climatologists who support anthropogenic climate change of this, so it’s ironic and amusing that any questioning of the sacred cow, John Christy, gets dismissed. All he has to do is not distort data and draw misleading conclusions, but seemingly questioning that is out of bounds. God forbid us question and critique. We need to blindly accept the proclamations of those Bucks agree with.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSEXCQ9U6c&t=202s

No, Bucks, feedback mechanisms exist, both positive and negative, so the observed temperature record will not be a direct relationship with CO2. Expecting to see the temperatures correlate perfectly from modelled temperatures and expecting it to correlate perfectly with CO2 rise will fail, as it would with any variable, because feedback mechanisms exist. This tells us nothing about the cause, because these feedback mechanisms can only happen because of changes to the climate. We have evidence for what they are, such as oceans absorbing CO2 as a response and dampening temperatures, so they cannot be used as evidence against the anthropogenic nature of climate change. All the empirical evidence suggests recent warming (i.e. from 1800s onwards) is CO2 induced. We know the CO2 is human sourced due to isotopic signatures, we know that CO2 is trapping heat from tropospheric osbervations of radiation being captured by CO2, we know that there is a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature rise (paper posted by me, but roundly ignored by Bucks; not doing so again, because it’s futile) and the models aren’t even that far off if you look at non-cherry picked/non-manipulated data.

There really is no point in me saying any more. It is quite clear from your reaction, that you cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you. You have poured scorn on me daring to criticise your disciple. It’s ok for you to rubbish highly respected scientists, but when I do it it’s wrong. Typical hypocrisy.

I will leave it at that.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

I agree with you 100% Deerey. There is, indeed, no cause for concern.

Childish.

[Bucksiron]

Good try, Siderite, but you’ll find that the video to which you’ve referred “debunking Christy” has, itself, been debunked. This is the problem with climate science, it’s unbelievably complex and we simply don’t understand enough about the myriad of variables involved to say otherwise.

The rest of your comment is just the usual stuff supposedly ‘justifying’ what you’re saying. It all sounds very clever and convincing while, of course, you hurl all the usual accusations in my direction, ignoring all your comments, ‘cherry picking’ data, etc, etc, etc. Apparently I’ve even ignored a paper posted by you demonstrating a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature rise, when anyone who knows anything about basic statistics knows there will ALWAYS be a statistically significant relationship between two variables trending in the same direction (caps for emphasis).

So of course there’s a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature. It’s the biggest trap anyone can fall into and is the very reason behind the famous saying that “correlation does not mean causation”. There will be a statistically significant relationship between CO2, temperature and the number of nappies used in the UK or, indeed, any-other-variable-you-care-to-mention that’s increased over the past 100 years or so!!!!!! It means absolutely zip. Oh, and even climate scientists accept the models all run hot while claiming they’re “not far off” depends entirely by how you define ‘far off’. They’re certainly nowhere near good enough for the crazy predictions being made, which won’t surprise anyone who truly understands how these things work. They can’t even agree with each other.

Anyway, given you’re not going to make any further comments, Siderite, I’ll leave you with one thought, which is the impact of clouds. There’s a growing body of evidence that clouds play an even bigger role in global temperatures than has previously been understood or recognised. One reason for this is that clouds are notoriously difficult to model, in fact probably impossible to do with any level of accuracy. I know this from personal experience while working on British Gas’s computer model for thermal dynamics when I was based at BG’s Watson House R&D centre after I left university in the early 1980s — not sure I’ve ever mentioned this before, so now’s a good time to do so (the usual suspects will probably claim I’m making this up).

Clouds are just one very difficult problem. There are many others.

[Siderite]

‘Debunked’ by the wise sages you place as beyond question no doubt. The fact is that video shows how Christy has manipulated data. There are no other ways about it, and if you place trust in that it makes me doubt all your credibility in model assessment. There are no two ways about it. Improper smoothing to minimise results and just showing an average of an ensemble of models is dodgy. It’s quite clear you don’t understand quite why this is erroneous. Showing just an average of climate models to compare with has never been shown to be proper use. Pinning your tail to this just makes me doubt your authority further from your proclamations and increase confidence in my disregard of them.

If you’re leaving me with archaic ‘controversies’ about clouds, then there’s not much more to do than raise an eyebrow. Of course clouds induce complexity, as I keep saying, no-one is arguing this is simple. However, we have evidence of how clouds feed into the recent climate trend, including as a feedback mechanism. Saying that cloud cover affects climate, when increased cloud cover is a feedback mechanism, does not negate anything about the anthropogenic nature of climate change. There have been many studies into this, but of course they’re all shills out for a supercomputer, unlike the great work of those whose work cannot be questioned or it makes you duplicitous. Nor does modelling clouds for weather purposes, I presume, mean anything when climate does not equal weather. If anyone thinks it does it just demonstrates ignorance and casts further doubt on any authority in which they proclaim.

Now, that really is it. I won’t bother reading any response. I have more important deadlines to meet.

[Bucksiron]

Oh, so you are going to comment further, Siderite. Anyway, you won’t be reading this so that doesn’t matter.

Another good try but as for ‘manipulating’ data, seriously? You’re doing exactly what climate change zealots always do, which is to imply that Christy can’t be trusted, which is absolute nonsense. I think you’ll find that Christy makes very clear what he’s done and how and why he’s done it throughout his work, although the video to which you refer gives him no opportunity to do so. As for taking any ‘wise sages’ beyond doubt, no I’m not. All that I’ve done is point out that for every ‘debunk’ you’ll invariably be able to find a debunk that debunks the debunk. Confusing and crazy? Very much so but that’s the state this supposed ‘science’ is in. The truth is that Christy doesn’t need to ‘manipulate’ data as you’re implying, i.e. unscrupulously, because the data speaks for itself, as you would find if you actually took the trouble to study it.

As for clouds, there’s nothing remotely archaic about them. All you’re doing is what you always do, which is to make the case for man-made global warming/climate change. Nobody, including me, is arguing with you. What you’re missing, as always, is the magnitude of the problem , which you can’t determine without hard data, which takes us back to models and statistics; and this is where the man-made climate change argument always falls down.

In truth it always will, for very sound reasons. You love your ‘shill’, which is a classic Guardian word also beloved by Gurny, but sticking this in front of ‘supercomputer’ to imply sarcasm doesn’t alter the facts oner little bit. Of course climate doesn’t equal weather, but you’d be better off telling others on here about that rather than me.

Climate is non-deterministic, involves numerous variables that interact with each other in ways that will never be able to be modelled with even the biggest — and shillest — supercomputer imaginable; and we don’t actually understand much about a great deal of it. Clouds are just one example and, no, your explanation doesn’t even begin to cover the realities of what we’re talking about here.

I’d put my house on none of the predictions being made now by climate scientists about the climate in 50 years being correct. OK, that’s hardly a fair bet given many of us are unlikely to be here then, but in many ways that’s the entire point. It’s so easy for climate ‘scientists’ to make these predictions and for politicians and so-called ‘experts’ to use them to scare the daylights out of people because they won’t be held accountable for them.

[Iron-awe]

Last word Larry, was it ever thus.

[Northumbiron]

This is a bit like the crew of the Titanic arguing over whose fault is was that they hit the iceberg. And whether it’s going to stay afloat or sink in one, two or twelve hours!

Man-made, natural or both (the argument seems to be over the percentage points) it’s happening and action has to be taken.

Where I do agree with Bucks is over the zero emissions deadlines. Unless everyone is going to start travelling the world by sailing ship or hot-air balloon surely this will be impossible.

Coincidentally, I was talking with my mate’s son-in-law last week. He works for Nissan and reckons that electric cars will eventually become obsolete as they are already looking into other methods of propulsion such as hydrogen. He also said that EVs are not as clean as some would have you believe as they still give off particle pollution and the manufacturing process is no cleaner than for internal combustion vehicles.

Perhaps that’s where the science should be directed, but it would seem that there is no quick fix for any of it.

[Siderite]

I have not read an of the above, but I was probably guilty of ‘getting the last word in’ to.

All I’ll say is that anyone who has placed worth in someone’s work who misled data, omitting many key details and showing one thing which suits a narrative, has already lost credibility, no matter what ‘final word’ they have to say.

[Bucksiron]

There you go again, Siderite, sounding every bit the climate change zealot. It’s extraordinary how someone as intelligent as you can be fooled into making the comments you do about ‘misleading data’, ‘omitting many key details’ and ‘showing one thing which suits a narrative’. John Christy is a climate scientist who doesn’t agree with the establishment view. There many more who agree with him but don’t hold the secure academic position he does and therefore daren’t speak out.

In physics Christy would be welcomed as someone with an alternative view, but in climate ‘science’ alternative views aren’t allowed. This makes a mockery of the climate ‘science’ community; and those who make absurd claims comparing Christy to someone who would support smoking regarding lung cancer are in cloud cuckoo land. There are two variables with smoking and lung cancer, which are easy to analyse. For climate there are literally hundreds of variables, many interacting with each other and all on a global scale. We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the oceans, while you only have to look at clouds and experience how they change temperature on your face to understand that modelling them on a global basis is impossible.

Yet climate science claims it can predict what’s going to happen in the years to come at remarkable levels of accuracy. It can’t and any proper scientific community would understand and recognise this, but this is no longer about science. Now it’s about politics and money.

NI, it doesn’t matter what action is taken, you won’t stop climate change. Ever. It’s what Mother Nature has always done and what Mother Nature will always do; and your mate’s son-in-law is 100% correct. EVs aren’t anything like as clean as the ‘experts’ would love you to believe. Not only that but the human cost in mining the materials needed for EV batteries is a scandal.

Net zero is a total and utter con. It’s driving hundreds of millions into poverty and depriving billions of others from the energy that could lift them out of poverty, increase their lifespan and make their lives infinitely better.

[TwoWrights]

Water, two atoms of hydrogen an explosive gas, and one atom of oxygen. That’s what cars should eventually be run on. Oh, and I see duo faceted BI is commenting on someone posting again when they said they wouldn’t. The same BI that once posted ‘This forum is a farce, goodbye’. ‘Hello’ soon followed! 🤭

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Siderite

[Deereyme66]

‘other methods of propulsion such as hydrogen.’

What about methane NI? Plenty of that about and may aswell be utilised.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron

[Siderite]

At least I have stopped boring everyone with my tuppence worth, TwoWrights. :-)

I have stopped reading Bucks’s guff, partly because I don’t want to get sucked in any further. Also, there is nothing more to be said (saying more would just be wanting to get the last word and to ‘show’ my stance has to be correct, based on ego) and, for what I am concerned, anyone can make their own minds up from that. The flaws with what Bucks has put speak for themselves for anyone in the know. Posting cherry picked data has never been shown to be good.

[Deereyme66]

Guff propelled cars. It’s the future!

[Northumbiron]

“NI, it doesn’t matter what action is taken, you won’t stop climate change.”

Not my point, you’re arguing for the sake of it.

Plenty of actions can be taken. Even if you can’t stop climate change you can minimise the impact of it.

[Bucksiron]

No, I wasn’t, NI, but thank you for the clarification — I agree entirely. This is where the focus should now be going, to mitigate the impact of climate change because reducing CO2 emissions will effectively do nothing.

What we also do need to do, however, is reduce pollutants because these are very damaging to health; and people need to understand that CO2 is not a pollutant. Millions in poorer nations are being exposed to highly toxic pollutants as a result of having to cook and keep warm with open fires in unventilated spaces. Access to cheap energy would dramatically increase their lifespan and standard of living. Net zero means this is unlikely to happen, though hopefully the African nations will stick two fingers up to the extreme environmentalists, pump their own oil and grow their own economies.

One big problem with hydrogen is that it’s a very small molecule and very difficult to stop leaking, which is why it almost certainly won’t be suitable for domestic use unless mixed with natural gas. This means it could be some time before hydrogen-powered vehicles are available and the irony here is that EVs are probably going to do far more environmental damage than existing ICEs.

Siderite, I’ll bet you £10,000 that 20 years from now, when I hope we’ll both still be around, the predictions being made about global warming will be wrong. Are you up for it?

[Heath]

Please don’t bite Siderite. Another 20 hours of this guff is enough. I fail to see why he keeps trying to impress a handful of people with his superior knowledge as if we will all suddenly agree with all that he says.

Surely a man who does radio interviews has bigger battles to fight?

[Northumbiron]

In 20 years time £10,000 will be your monthly direct debit to EDF Energy!

[Iron-awe]

TwoWrights wrote:

Water, two atoms of hydrogen an explosive gas, and one atom of oxygen. That’s what cars should eventually be run on. Oh, and I see duo faceted BI is commenting on someone posting again when they said they wouldn’t. The same BI that once posted ‘This forum is a farce, goodbye’. ‘Hello’ soon followed!

Don’t forget he’s a Tory, completely within character.

[Siderite]

Tbf, I did say something again. Though, I haven’t said anything new. I just find it amusing that he’s still going.

[Author]

Posts