[Siderite]

Desperate from Bucks. He’s not talking about outlandish far off concerns.

Well done 64 for being able to change his mind.

[Siderite]

You seem to trust his judgement on Starmer following his manifesto. Yet Starmer has said nothing about cutting immigration numbers, like UKIP would. The manifesto Farage is talking about says he would enact a five year school ban on migrants. Starmer is not for this.

We can disagree on Starmer’s immigration policy, and I am not overly keen on it, without saying it’s like UKIPs. That’s a line by Farage to try and undermine the government and escalate Labour infighting.

[Siderite]

His work on workers’ rights is commendable. Best keep him off the topic of Russia.

[Siderite]

Interesting you trust Farage about this. Whatever you think about Starmer on this, his immigration policy is not a UKIP one.

Also, Nick Griffin endorsed Corbyn.

[Siderite]

Wright has had some appalling abuse, and that is condemnable, and has problems at home which should generate sympathy. However, if he is unable to do his role at the moment because of these things, a temporary fan director or representative should be there in his stead.

[Siderite]

lol, yeah. A lifelong anti-racism campaigner (I presume Corbyn) who pals with those who say Jews drink the blood of Christian children, says he has valuable things to say without questioning such speak, lays wreaths for terrorists involved with killing Jews, fights to keep up murals of crude Jewish caricatures, says Jews don’t get British irony and turned a blind eye to the stuff which permeated Labour during his time. That doesn’t seem very anti-racist to me.

I don’t need my ‘Blairite pals’ to tell me anything. My opinion was not formed on what anyone else said or did. Just Corbyn’s own actions and words. Same with many leftists. You only have to go on some leftist spaces to see what a sewer it is, as Baddiel and many others pointed out. I don’t need my ‘Blairite pals’ to tell me stuff like face huggers with the star of David around the statue of Liberty’s face is anti-Semitic. Yet such stuff, and worse, are commonly found in some leftist quarters.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

I thought the podcast was good, but none of Baddiel’s hypocrisy takes away from the message he was saying about anti-Semitism. This hasn’t just been said by Baddiel, and there’s a lot of hypocrisy on the left who have made it clear how much they have disdain for Jews.

At least Baddiel made an apology. Ash Sarkar, Bastani and co will continue to bask in their own bigotry.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

The USA were better than us because they have a coach who has them well drilled and playing to their strengths. Ours doesn’t seem to know how to use any creative talent and wastes what we do have.

[Siderite]

Yes, criminalising people for who they are is just small fry. What really matters are upset theists for being called out for being horrible to others. Won’t someone think of their hurt feelings?

[Siderite]

Couldn’t give a stuff about ‘cultural or religious beliefs’ if they impact others. We care too much about hurt feelings because of people’s beliefs being offended.

As for chain mail, I can see why it’s offensive. Not because of Christianity, but because of the Crusades. That said, as alluded to above, I am not sure if there is a strong moral case for banning it, even if I wouldn’t have done it and find it eye roll worthy.

[Siderite]

Yep. I expect higher standards from governing ministers than I do ordinary supporters, no matter their affiliation. They are the ones who are running the country, after all.

[Siderite]

Why are you so desperate to carry on this debate and why do you think I would bother which such an obvious farce? This is the first time I have heard of it, as I didn’t bother reading your post, as said. Such a bet would be as meaningful as the farcical “I bet evolutionists £100,000 if they can find the missing link” from creationists. The evidence would be ignored, you’d find a way out of it, regardless. I am not a fool.

Some people disagree with you and are not convinced by the ‘evidence’ you bring up, as explained. Get over it.

[Siderite]

Personally, I don’t like the dismissals of papers because of editorial slants, regardless of the information entailed. This includes The Guardian and the Daily Mail, and especially when it’s not an opinion piece. It’s unthinking and not very critical of thinking. It wasn’t the Guardian that triggered this issue about Gove, for one. The nature of it is therefor not affected by the Guardian’s slant.

However, the latter is less reputable. I’d say the Telegraph is a better analogy for the Guardian.

[Siderite]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

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

Childish.

[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]

Really? I thought we’d left the EU.

[Siderite]

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

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[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.

[Siderite]

Or, I should say, not from climate models alone.

[Siderite]

No, the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of climate change does not come from climate models about temperature increase. It comes from the empirical evidence we have for current warming, an understanding of physics and looking at observed temperature. The models are used for an estimation of climate change, but we have the evidence of the anthropogenic nature without them and no other explanation can match.

I don’t care about credentials, I care about the argument. The fact is Christy is outnumbered by so many climate scientists, so if climate scientists is of any importance, these others would matter more. Oh, right, everyone who disagrees has to be a shill for a supercomputer. Yawn.

Anyone familiar with Christy knows his arguments are bunkum. Another typical ‘sceptic’ who uses misleading graphs to cherry pick data which agrees with him. For example, he commonly uses inappropriately small baselines for satellite data and measurements of atmospheric temperatures. Other climatologists have argued how this skews the output. This is why, I suspect, Christy shows inappropriate baselines. The model errors are much larger, so it suits his narrative. Look at more appropriate baselines than 20-30 years in the atmosphere and the errors decline, and the evidence shows that the errors decrease. Going beyond that, there are complaints about inconsistent smoothing of data, which sets alarm bells of manipulation to suit his own interpretation and he doesn’t publish uncertainties in his data. He is guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. He is free to spout what he wants, but it’s important to acknowledge the very real questions in what he is saying. That’s all I will say, as I am not getting sucked into this. It’s been done to death and previous arguments have failed to convince me.

Of course, none of this can be in good faith, because anyone who dares to disagree with the ‘sceptics’ have to be in on some conspiracy for a supercomputer (I wish I’d get more money, if so), and it cannot be there are flaws in their work. That’s too much for their ego.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

In some ways the damage has already been done. The dead workers, the repressive nature of the state, these things were all known about 12 years ago. There could have been action to refuse to play, but money speaks.

I personally support actions for civil rights, within proportion, and think sport is a great opportunity to highlight this, but many want to play it on easy mode. I am happy for them to take the knee, but it’s no more than a gesture. There is not much societal cost. It doesn’t make them civil rights activists in the manner of Rosa Parks, who faced real consequences for her activism. As soon as any consequence makes their gestures harder, they shrink. They couldn’t do the bare minimum because they feared a yellow card.

Those Iranian players showed greater bravery. They would know there is a real risk to their family back home for their action, and the consequences are far more severe than a yellow card. The England squad have set themselves up as supporting such causes, but when causes get even moderately tough they run away.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Awaywego

[Siderite]

I think a large number would have sympathies, but not 90%.

[Siderite]

Let’s backtrack slightly. The post above the one where you said you are tired of explaining to me that you accept manmade climate change has me saying CO2 is driving climate change. I am going to assume this is what you were referring to, since it’s the only associated comment for this. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that this is not an unfair comment, because it’s clear you don’t think current climate change is CO2 driven. Therefore, responding to my comment about CO2 is driving climate change by saying “of course you accept manmade climate change, and you’re fed up of telling me otherwise” is slippery. You don’t think such and my comments since have been aimed at that alone, and it’s obviously a fair representation to say you don’t think such.

You would have a better time understanding if you read what I was saying and what it was responding to, instead of trying to straw man and twist words all the damn time. My last few points had little to do with the actual debate, so maybe try viewing through that lens instead of jumbling it together with arguments I made posts ago and changing debate focus on a whim to suit you. It’s this kind of behaviour which I am fed up with, and why I am not going into significant debating points. There isn’t a hope in hell of you bothering to understand what I say, because everything gets twisted to suit an agenda.

I would have more trust in your judgement if you hadn’t, repeatedly, failed to understand fundamental elements about climatology. As it is, baseless proclamations are worth very little. I have never argued climate to be simple, we know it isn’t, but complexity doesn’t equal lack of ability to understand. Areas requiring further research do not equate to us not being able to form any theory, otherwise we would have zero confidence in any scientific idea (including gravity, which we know very little about). I have repeatedly talked about positive feedback mechanisms, so this shows that not all warming can be linked directly to CO2. However, these positive feedback mechanisms would not exist without a cause, so to say this shows natural climate change would be eyebrow raising. I have gone into the evidence for such previously, so I am not going to do so again when I have learned it’s futile. I have repeatedly spoken about shorter term climate impacts, from natural sources, but also spoken about why they cannot explain the longer term trend.

To sum up, I accept that you say you think some climate change can be explained by CO2, but your comment about me needing to be explained about how you accept manmade climate change and are fed up of telling it, comes across as a false response to a fair comment about CO2 driving current climate trends. I think it’s obvious that when I say that CO2 is driving warming I mean CO2 is the cause for current climate trends. It may be a misunderstanding on your part, but given everything in the past, I really wouldn’t be surprised if you are twisting words and straw manning me yet again.

[Siderite]

I support the campaign and you’re right that it’s cowardly. What’s more, the Qatari captain wore a Palestinan flag for an armband. That, I would argue to be political, so the hypocrisy is rank.

2 users thanked author for this post.

waltersleftfoot, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Wolves?

[Author]

Posts