Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Ann · 23 November 2018

There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.

In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!

It could be as simple as planetary orbits causing climate change long term, just as the earth's tilt causes winter and summer and as the rotation of the earth causes day and night. It seems the most likely and logical explanation.

I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.

SirRumpole · 23 November 2018

Ann said:
There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.

In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!

It could be as simple as planetary orbits causing climate change long term, just as the earth's tilt causes winter and summer and as the rotation of the earth causes day and night. It seems the most likely and logical explanation.

I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.

View attachment 90451

If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? "Probably not anything very perceptible," says Kent. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us." Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. "Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see," said Kent. "On the other hand, all the CO2 we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-scientists-climate-deep.html#jCp

ghotib · 23 November 2018

Ann said:
There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.
...
I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.

View attachment 90451

You might want to try another graph Ann. This one:

(a) Doesn't label the vertical axes. Are these temperature anomalies? Absolute temperatures? Global temperatures? Northern hemisphere temperatures? Do they include polar regions? Are they temperatures, or something else entirely?

(b) Continues to about 2200. Nothing wrong with showing projections, but it's possibly misleading not to indicate that they are projections rather than data.

If you intend to discuss the current trends in global temperature I expect you'll find information that goes much further back than 450CE and is much clearer about the underlying data.

I read your post to another thread where you said you'd investigated the global warming "debate" some years ago and come to conclusions that satisfied you. I did the same thing, starting on this forum when Wayne posted a link to the Global Warming Swindle movie and continuing for several years, often in response to Wayne's further posts. Eventually I came to the position that the climate science consensus (and IMO it really is greater than 95%) makes sense and that much of the material that claims to refute it was ill-informed at best and often intended to mislead or confuse. I continue to follow climate science as best I can because I find it fascinating and often beautiful, but I see no value any more in arguing about it. In the slow motion emergency we now face, what we do counts for infinitely more than why we do it.

Cheers

So_Cynical · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
It seems the most likely and logical explanation.

Simpler and more logical than 10 million+ years of carbon being cycled into long term storage, oil, gas, shale.

Logique · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
There is some really dodgy stuff and 'creative accounting' going on with this Global Warming mob. I will go into more detail further down the track.

In the meantime, if it isn't poor little CO2 causing all this commotion about climate change what could it be? Sometimes we find the simplest answer is more often than not, the right one. Remember the old adage, keep it simple, stupid!

It could be as simple as planetary orbits causing climate change long term, just as the earth's tilt causes winter and summer and as the rotation of the earth causes day and night. It seems the most likely and logical explanation.

I have put in a planetary orbits graph to show the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods. Looking at the graph you can see we are likely to be getting colder in the not too distant future. It puts a whole new slant on history, seeing this graph and knowing what sort of temperatures were going on at any given time.

View attachment 90451

Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.

Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed

Ann · 24 November 2018

ghotib said:
You might want to try another graph Ann. This one:

(a) Doesn't label the vertical axes. Are these temperature anomalies? Absolute temperatures? Global temperatures? Northern hemisphere temperatures? Do they include polar regions? Are they temperatures, or something else entirely?

(b) Continues to about 2200. Nothing wrong with showing projections, but it's possibly misleading not to indicate that they are projections rather than data.

If you intend to discuss the current trends in global temperature I expect you'll find information that goes much further back than 450CE and is much clearer about the underlying data.

I read your post to another thread where you said you'd investigated the global warming "debate" some years ago and come to conclusions that satisfied you. I did the same thing, starting on this forum when Wayne posted a link to the Global Warming Swindle movie and continuing for several years, often in response to Wayne's further posts. Eventually I came to the position that the climate science consensus (and IMO it really is greater than 95%) makes sense and that much of the material that claims to refute it was ill-informed at best and often intended to mislead or confuse. I continue to follow climate science as best I can because I find it fascinating and often beautiful, but I see no value any more in arguing about it. In the slow motion emergency we now face, what we do counts for infinitely more than why we do it.

Cheers

G'day ghotib, as I said in my post, this was a graph of planetary orbits not temperature. It also says on the graph (with a typo) it was a graph of planetary orbits. It was demonstrating how the rising and falling of temperature could well be entirely related to orbiting planets causing oscillations in temperature. The graph could go back and forward in time for as long as you like, the shape of orbitting planets won't change much in the short term few millennia. I hope that has made it clearer for you.

There is no high figure consensus. That was a deceptive, cherry picked number 'The Big Lie'. Their whole argument is based on a lie of misleading statistics. It was then marketed by a major New York advertising agency. You have been conned by a little Aussie cognitive psychologist aka a spin doctor.

Logique said:
Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.

Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed

You are so right Logique, the subject of GW is excruiciatingly boring, there is so much fatigue on this subject, which is probably their aim. Most people don't care or believe it anymore but they are focusing on the young, gullible and marginalized. At a quick glance it looks like their targeted demographic is lesbians, feminists, vegetarians and the groups with a green hue. In their digest of spin, it is suggested that you ignore the unconvertible to work on those who may be more susceptical. These small groups can be a very powerful lobby group who can still frighten politicians into the myth of global warming and a carbon tax. No the wealth won't be re-distributed into the third world any more than it is now.

How clever to work out how to tax fresh air, still they have the best spin doctors and advertising agency in the world all coordinated by that enormous political behemoth the UN under an innocent sounding group called the IPCC who are there to massage and alter climate change research papers behind closed doors.

Ann · 24 November 2018

This whole global warming myth is based on dodgy mis-information which I will fully explain shortly as in "Lies, damn lies and statistics". In the meantime a little bit of comic strip fun.

Smurf1976 · 24 November 2018

Logique said:
Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed

Except in Australia we’ve managed to do both of those whilst increasing emissions at the same time.

Quite bizarre really. One could be excused for thinking our “leaders” weren’t actually working for the good of the country and its people.

Ann · 24 November 2018

Smurf1976 said:
Except in Australia we’ve managed to do both of those whilst increasing emissions at the same time.

Quite bizarre really. One could be excused for thinking our “leaders” weren’t actually working for the good of the country and its people.

Which is remarkable since the higher power prices have all but killed industry in Australia, not too many emissions coming from this neck of the woods. OK everyone, stop breathing, you are letting out too much CO2!

Ann · 24 November 2018

Logique said:
Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'.

You can bet on that! The GW mob even have phone apps you can download which will give you an instant scripted response to any negative GW argument raised. The spin doctors are on the job 24/7.

Ann · 24 November 2018

basilio said:
The analysis of the "The Great Global warming Swindle" ........

Why would one ever accept anything else proposed in such a program when you can see such overt deceptions ? They have trashed their credibility. It just doesn't make sense.

That is so true for the "Great Global Warming Myth". It doesn't make sense to build a whole story on cherry picked, deceptive manipulated statistics. They most certainly have trashed their credibility.
They are running scared now, they have mounted a huge legal defence fund as no doubt the litigations will be coming in thick and fast.

Smurf1976 · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
Which is remarkable since the higher power prices have all but killed industry in Australia

No argument there although I’ll note that the increased prices don’t have much to do with CO2. It’s not a zero factor but it’s a long way down the list of reasons why electricity has become expensive in Australia.

Ann · 24 November 2018

Smurf1976 said:
No argument there although I’ll note that the increased prices don’t have much to do with CO2. It’s not a zero factor but it’s a long way down the list of reasons why electricity has become expensive in Australia.

It used to be individual states had their own electricity generation and they used to vie with each other for manufacturing in their own states. The government in their wisdom decided to monopolize electricity into a national grid and then privatize it. The competition was gone, so was cheap power and then manufacturing. Now, not only is there no competition or cheap power but we are being forced to subsidize inefficient and expensive 'alternate' energy sources which are not and probably never will be a viable alternative to cheap efficient coal and gas, other than in the minds of the utopians.

cynic · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
That is so true for the "Great Global Warming Myth". It doesn't make sense to build a whole story on deceptive manipulated statistics. They most certainly have trashed their credibility.
They are running scared now, they have mounted a huge legal defence fund as no doubt the litigations will be coming in thick and fast.

View attachment 90464

If one were to liken that article to toilet paper, another could reasonably argue that such an act is tantamount to the perpetration of a terrible injustice. Toilet paper has always had far greater reliability, integrity and utility. As such, it has proven itself to be a worthy servant of mankind whenever nether regions required wiping.
Cook et al. 's "paper", on the other hand, is so blatantly dishonest, it doesn't really merit discussion. I seriously doubt anyone with a modicum of impartiality, or reasoning capacity would dare defend it, let alone wipe one's @#%& with it!!

Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".

Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 66.4% stated a negative position on AGW.

From my earlier comments, I trust that you can see that I do share your contempt for the deceitfulness and/or inanity of Cook's conduct, as evidenced by the contents of that "paper", and that my contempt also extends to the deceitfulness and/or inanity of those standing by him. My main concern here, is that any expression of valid criticisms of that "paper", is held to a high standard, free from careless misrepresentations, distortions, or outright deceptions. Anything less, and the credibility of an otherwise well justified challenge could be seriously undermined by an attentive critic, thereby easing the casual dismissal of an otherwise worthy challenge.

SirRumpole · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
but we are being forced to subsidize inefficient and expensive 'alternate' energy sources which are not and probably never will be a viable alternative to cheap efficient coal and gas, other than in the minds of the utopians.

So explain why the government or some of them at least are talking about taxpayer funding of new coal power stations when no one in private enterprise will have a bar of them ?

Ann · 24 November 2018

cynic said:
If one were to liken that article to toilet paper, another could reasonably argue that such an act is tantamount to the perpetration of a terrible injustice. Toilet paper has always had far greater reliability, integrity and utility. As such, it has proven itself to be a worthy servant of mankind whenever nether regions required wiping.
Cook et al. 's "paper", on the other hand, is so blatantly dishonest, it doesn't really merit discussion. I seriously doubt anyone with a modicum of impartiality, or reasoning capacity would dare defend it, let alone wipe one's @#%& with it!!

Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".

Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 62.4% stated a negative position on AGW.

From my earlier comments, I trust that you can see that I do share your contempt for the deceitfulness and/or inanity of Cook's conduct, as evidenced by the contents of that "paper", and that my contempt also extends to the deceitfulness and/or inanity of those standing by him. My main concern here, is that any expression of valid criticisms of that "paper", is held to a high standard, free from careless misrepresentations, distortions, or outright deceptions. Anything less, and the credibility of an otherwise well justified challenge could be seriously undermined by an attentive critic, thereby easing the casual dismissal of an otherwise worthy challenge.

Thank you very much cynic. How do you think it should be set up to make it clear there was no consensus. I was trying to demonstrate the heading of no concensus between the papers. What would be your suggestion? I have no desire to be deceptive but I also don't wish to make the bars too complicated. I was trying for the KISS principle but also making it clear and not deceptive. If the bars are too complicated it will look like I am trying to wriggle in the truth.

Ann · 24 November 2018

SirRumpole said:
So explain why the government or some of them at least are talking about taxpayer funding of new coal power stations when no one in private enterprise will have a bar of them ?

At a guess Sir Rumpy, it may well be the government want to take back control of our power stations and make it hard for private enterprise to to hold us to ransom as they are doing so currently. Dunno, what do you reckon?

Ann · 24 November 2018

cynic said:
Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".

The problem I have cynic is knowing that it was abstracts that were being reviewed, not the papers written by the scientists.

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding, or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose.
This was a common complaint amongst the scientists that their papers were misquoted, edited or otherwise interfered with to massage an outcome.
So I am aware the 'no position' stance may have also been manipulated to achieve the outcome in the summary (abstract) as demanded by the powers that be. It appears the authors of the abstracts not the papers are the ones being counted in these percentage groups. There is a group of one hundred people who wrote the abstracts for the YES group as well as I can ascertain but it is made very hard to understand. I understand these summaries/abstracts are written behind closed doors at the IPCC.
It is a really slimy bit of shifty, fudging, statistical house of cards they have built. If this was a company and a really good auditor went in, I reckon the CFO would face a prison sentence for illegal representation.

So to actually fully and truthfully represent this on a simple graph would be nigh on impossible.

cynic · 24 November 2018

Ann said:
Thank you very much cynic. How do you think it should be set up to make it clear there was no consensus. I was trying to demonstrate the heading of no concensus between the papers. What would be your suggestion? I have no desire to be deceptive but I also don't wish to make the bars too complicated. I was trying for the KISS principle but also making it clear and not deceptive. If the bars are too complicated it will look like I am trying to wriggle in the truth.

My understanding is that the 66.4% was largely attributable to those abstracts where a position did not appear to have been explicitly or implicitly stated.
The important thing to me is that the "66.4% No" is put in a way that reflects this. The best suggestion I can think of is, perhaps to use a short phrase akin to "No position stated" in the green bar (possibly including an "*" alerting the reader to be on the lookout for some clarifying commentary under the chart.)

Ann · 24 November 2018

cynic said:
My understanding is that the 66.4% was largely attributable to those abstracts where a position did not appear to have been explicitly or implicitly stated.
The important thing to me is that the "66.4% No" is put in a way that reflects this. The best suggestion I can think of is, perhaps to use a short phrase akin to "No position stated" in the green bar (possibly including an "*" alerting the reader to be on the lookout for some clarifying commentary under the chart.)

Easy peasy cynic! Did you read my previous post?

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Ann

SirRumpole

ghotib

THIMKER

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

Logique

Investor

Ann

Ann

Smurf1976

Ann

Ann

Ann

Smurf1976

Ann

cynic

SirRumpole

Ann

Ann

Ann

cynic

Ann

Similar threads

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

THIMKER

The Contrarian Averager

Investor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency