Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Darc Knight]

I haven't read all the comments but agreed in principle that yes anyone should call out bullying and that should be done no matter who the bully is.

Correct, and a few weeks ago I was a target of his nonsensical attcks.

 

[wayneL]

From one I consider an honest broker, on extreme weather events

 

[rederob]

From one I consider an honest broker, on extreme weather events[/MEDIA]

He is well credentialled to recognise weather events - no dispute.
However there is no science to suggest that the number of the type of weather events Pielke Jr talks about will increase, as it consistent with what we know.
Instead, from the outset Pielke Jr notes increased numbers of heatwaves, and extreme precipitation events. However he hides extreme events like heatwaves, by lumping them under droughts, while extreme precipitation is hidden by suggesting there are no more floods than usual.
It is a fact of physics that additional energy will alter the intensity of an event, and there is no way that can be got around.
I won't add too much more beyond the common knowledge in climate science that Pielke Jr is infamous for obfuscation and cherrypicking. His misuse of data on insurance costs, especially relating to Munich Re, is legendary in the climate science community.

 

[ghotib]

I won't add too much more beyond the common knowledge in climate science that Pielke Jr is infamous for obfuscation and cherrypicking. His misuse of data on insurance costs, especially relating to Munich Re, is legendary in the climate science community.

It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.

 

[wayneL]

It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.

I know of more recent references, but will have to spend some time to dig them out.

Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.

 

[SirRumpole]

Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.

Of course, the "fossil fuel" community has no agenda ?

 

[qldfrog]

Tr

Of course, the "fossil fuel" community has no agenda ?

Treat both with suspicion.
They both have agendas and money involved.there is no robbin hood in life

 

[qldfrog]

Obviously, it is easier to see a save the planet sign as being honest
Like the current ads on tv for Sodastream...
learn to be able to have an INFORMED opinion
Make your mind, fear propaganda..the fake/true news

 

[rederob]

It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.

The best place to start for a quick overview of attribution is here. There are links to the 138 papers examined, but I never found WayneL's "honest broker" in the picture?

 

[rederob]

Obviously, it is easier to see a save the planet sign as being honest
Like the current ads on tv for Sodastream...
learn to be able to have an INFORMED opinion
Make your mind, fear propaganda..the fake/true news

Are you "cynic" reincarnate?
Are you just offering opinions, or are you going to present some science to support how people can be better informed?

 

[rederob]

Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.

One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.

 

[wayneL]

One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.

Not at all my unhappy friend.

I am 100% agreement with @qldfrog, all those with an agenda should be regarded with suspicion. Including CC gravy train riders, oil lobby, wind, solar, etc etc etc.

 

[rederob]

Not at all my unhappy friend.

I am 100% agreement with @qldfrog, all those with an agenda should be regarded with suspicion. Including CC gravy train riders, oil lobby, wind, solar, etc etc etc.

I have no care for baseless opinions which are equally devoid of logic.
Stump with some useful science instead of trotting out a has-been with nothing if recent merit in the area you cast him in.

 

[wayneL]

I dont walk to the beat of your drum who can never be convinced of anything outside if a specific narrative, rederob. There is enough discourse, sans your typical ad hominem elsewhere.

You have proven yourself unwilling for respectful and reasonable debate.

 

[rederob]

I dont walk to the beat of your drum who can never be convinced of anything outside if a specific narrative, rederob. There is enough discourse, sans your typical ad hominem elsewhere.

You have proven yourself unwilling for respectful and reasonable debate.

On the contrary.
I deal with reason.
You presented a link to a scientist well known for misuse of data, aside from the fact that what he presented was of little value given that so much more is available on the specific topic.
Get over yourself and present something relevant.

 

[wayneL]

On the contrary.
I deal with reason.
You presented a link to a scientist well known for misuse of data, aside from the fact that what he presented was of little value given that so much more is available on the specific topic.
Get over yourself and present something relevant.

"deal with reason"

 

[Ann]

Somehow my computer posted a draft after the original, and I only write directly into a thread, so I have deleted this post.

This can be a bit of a trap Rob, it is a feature of the forum which has mixed blessings. I have come to love it. If I have to leave a post half way and do something, I don't lose the post draft, even if I turn my computer off. The flip side is sometimes extra stuff is there and unseen, that can be a bit of a whoops sometimes.

I haven't abandoned you or the thread, I am focusing on one of our earlier discussions and it is taking a lot of time-consuming research. Have you read Ian Plimer's book Heaven+Earth?

 

[rederob]

Have you read Ian Plimer's book Heaven+Earth?

No, I only read actual climate science literature.

 

[basilio]

funny thread

As usual a great detailed point by point rebuttal. And of course so was the next video you cited.

The facts. The evidence. The science.
The Real science done by real scientists rather than the range of easily disproven assertions trying to create a new reality.

 

[Joules MM1]

As usual a great detailed point by point rebuttal. And of course so was the next video you cited.

The facts. The evidence. The science.
The Real science done by real scientists rather than the range of easily disproven assertions trying to create a new reality.

yes, maybe, more than that.....it's always that one step....the step is the "balance" of knowledge he points out, not in a 'ha-ha-gottya' kinda way, just, what does the science say, how can we verify the science and what is there new (if anything should alter the pre-existing acceptance of the science) that might give us a different perspective