Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Thanks, glad I'm not the only one pointing that out.

It's just bull**** and people are eating it up.

Cook is heavily invested in climate change. His career, income and professional standing are all linked to promoting AGW and associated climate change. The worse it seems and the more "dire" it is the more relevant he becomes.

That's a clear definition of someone who is not "impartial" and his work should be treated with the same suspicion as anything the petroleum industry funds.

EDIT: As a good example this is a quote off his skeptical science website:

"That's why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They've been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the "consensus gap." Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%."

He talks about misinformation campaigns by those with opposing views and in the same sentence links climate change with 90% consensus. None of even his own papers have dared to try to link any sort of consensus on Climate Change, they all address Global Warming. Two very different things, but no one picks this crap up and it gets spouted as fact by all and sundry.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Kamikuza said..

Thanks, glad I'm not the only one pointing that out.

It's just bull**** and people are eating it up.

Cook is heavily invested in climate change. His career, income and professional standing are all linked to promoting AGW and associated climate change. The worse it seems and the more "dire" it is the more relevant he becomes.

That's a clear definition of someone who is not "impartial" and his work should be treated with the same suspicion as anything the petroleum industry funds.

EDIT: As a good example this is a quote off his skeptical science website:

"That's why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They've been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the "consensus gap." Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%."

He talks about misinformation campaigns by those with opposing views and in the same sentence links climate change with 90% consensus. None of even his own papers have dared to try to link any sort of consensus on Climate Change, they all address Global Warming. Two very different things, but no one picks this crap up and it gets spouted as fact by all and sundry.

You two are obviously right across the science - why not submit your findings for peer review and get them published?
If your evidence stacks up the understanding of consensus will change.

Until then I'm happy to accept what the consensus of actual climate scientists say.

Life is too short to waste time listening to armchair experts

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

You two are obviously right across the science - why not submit your findings for peer review and get them published?
If your evidence stacks up the understanding of consensus will change.

Until then I'm happy to accept what the consensus of actual climate scientists say.

Life is too short to waste time listening to armchair experts

I'm not "across" anything, just pointing out that your assertion that there is a scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. Even if you believe the findings of Cooks papers even they only show a consensus on AGW, not climate change.

I can only point out the facts, whether people choose to accept them is another thing.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
I'm not "across" anything, just pointing out that your assertion that there is a scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. Even if you believe the findings of Cooks papers even they only show a consensus on AGW, not climate change.
I can only point out the facts, whether people choose to accept them is another thing.

I don't understand the science well enough to believe or not believe - I accept what the consensus of climate scientists say.

If I had toothache and was able to see 10 dentists for advice - if 9 told me I needed an extraction that's what I'd get done, even if one insisted my teeth were perfect




Your original quote was " there is no scientific consensus on climate change or AGW.
That is the fundamental issue. Anyone who believes that is basing any argument or belief on an untruth."


When presented with the Research Letter, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, you changed to say "to link any sort of consensus on Climate Change, they all address Global Warming. Two very different things".

Can you provide research material to support your new assertion?

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

If I had toothache and was able to see 10 dentists for advice - if 9 told me I needed an extraction that's what I'd get done, even if one insisted my teeth were perfect

Never met a dentist who said my teeth were perfect...... just saying.

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Re. AGW consensus vs climate change consensus - can you provide research material to support your assertion that they're "two very different things"?

Definition is always a changeable thing depending on perspective....however this climate office website defines it fairly well. climate.ncsu.edu/edu/DefineCC

For context my comment refers to "very different things" in relation to the studies that derived a 90% + "consensus" The criteria was very focused on Global Warming, ie observable global temperature increases over time and the role of Anthropogenic CO2 in that increase.

None looked at or gained consensus on the larger "Climate change" issue that can be defined as encompassing changing weather patterns, wind, droughts, storms, melting ice, sea level rise and other aspects that may or may not be derived from the Anthroponegenic Global Warming.

I get you on the dentist thing. What I am trying to tell you is that maybe 9 dentists are not telling you take it out. That in reality 2 dentists said take it out, 3 said it may need to come out, 4 said it may be of concern but they are unsure and 1 said a filling is all it needs. Then the receptionist looked at all that and advised you that 9 out ten said it had to come out.

My (and others) reading of Cooks data on the 90+ consensus is the receptionist one. The tooth is still of concern and needs action, but it's not really the disaster that you are being told by the media receptionist.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

azymuth said..

Re. AGW consensus vs climate change consensus - can you provide research material to support your assertion that they're "two very different things"?

Definition is always a changeable thing depending on perspective....however this climate office website defines it fairly well. climate.ncsu.edu/edu/DefineCC

For context my comment refers to "very different things" in relation to the studies that derived a 90% + "consensus" The criteria was very focused on Global Warming, ie observable global temperature increases over time and the role of Anthropogenic CO2 in that increase.

None looked at or gained consensus on the larger "Climate change" issue that can be defined as encompassing changing weather patterns, wind, droughts, storms, melting ice, sea level rise and other aspects that may or may not be derived from the Anthroponegenic Global Warming.

I get you on the dentist thing. What I am trying to tell you is that maybe 9 dentists are not telling you take it out. That in reality 2 dentists said take it out, 3 said it may need to come out, 4 said it may be of concern but they are unsure and 1 said a filling is all it needs. Then the receptionist looked at all that and advised you that 9 out ten said it had to come out.

My (and others) reading of Cooks data on the 90+ consensus is the receptionist one. The tooth is still of concern and needs action, but it's not really the disaster that you are being told by the media receptionist.

so you're trying to split hairs between global warming and climate change. that just sounds desperate.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

azymuth said..

Re. AGW consensus vs climate change consensus - can you provide research material to support your assertion that they're "two very different things"?

Definition is always a changeable thing depending on perspective....however this climate office website defines it fairly well. climate.ncsu.edu/edu/DefineCC

For context my comment refers to "very different things" in relation to the studies that derived a 90% + "consensus" The criteria was very focused on Global Warming, ie observable global temperature increases over time and the role of Anthropogenic CO2 in that increase.

None looked at or gained consensus on the larger "Climate change" issue that can be defined as encompassing changing weather patterns, wind, droughts, storms, melting ice, sea level rise and other aspects that may or may not be derived from the Anthroponegenic Global Warming.

I get you on the dentist thing. What I am trying to tell you is that maybe 9 dentists are not telling you take it out. That in reality 2 dentists said take it out, 3 said it may need to come out, 4 said it may be of concern but they are unsure and 1 said a filling is all it needs. Then the receptionist looked at all that and advised you that 9 out ten said it had to come out.

My (and others) reading of Cooks data on the 90+ consensus is the receptionist one. The tooth is still of concern and needs action, but it's not really the disaster that you are being told by the media receptionist.

If science can't currently prove a disaster is looming there's no climate change problem at all?

There's always hyperbole at the extremes but the latest IPCC 2019 Special Report (full link below) makes it clear we have plenty to worry about.

I accept the findings, the contributors are experts - I'm not and from what I can tell nor is anybody else contributing to this thread



From the Foreword;

This Special Report confirms that climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihoods all around the world. It shows that limiting warming to 1.5?C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
It finds that there are clear benefits to keeping warming to 1.5?C rather than 2?C or higher. Every bit of warming matters. And it shows that limiting warming to 1.5?C can go hand in hand with achieving other global goals such as the Sustainable Development Agenda. Every year matters and every choice matters.

This Special Report also shows that recent trends in emissions and the level of international ambition indicated by nationally determined contributions, within the Paris Agreement, deviate from a track consistent with limiting warming to well below 2?C.
Without increased and urgent mitigation ambition in the coming years, leading to a sharp decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, global warming will surpass 1.5?C in the following decades, leading to irreversible loss of the most fragile ecosystems, and crisis after crisis for the most vulnerable people and societies.


www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

My (and others) reading of Cooks data on the 90+ consensus is the receptionist one. The tooth is still of concern and needs action, but it's not really the disaster that you are being told by the media receptionist.

I've never had a dentist's receptionist tell me when to pull out my teeth, ever! And there lies the problem. You, in this instance, are the receptionist and the dentist are the climate scientist. Who should I believe?

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Paradox said..
I'm not "across" anything, just pointing out that your assertion that there is a scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. Even if you believe the findings of Cooks papers even they only show a consensus on AGW, not climate change.
I can only point out the facts, whether people choose to accept them is another thing.

I don't understand the science well enough to believe or not believe - I accept what the consensus of climate scientists say.

If I had toothache and was able to see 10 dentists for advice - if 9 told me I needed an extraction that's what I'd get done, even if one insisted my teeth were perfect




Your original quote was " there is no scientific consensus on climate change or AGW.
That is the fundamental issue. Anyone who believes that is basing any argument or belief on an untruth."


When presented with the Research Letter, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, you changed to say "to link any sort of consensus on Climate Change, they all address Global Warming. Two very different things".

Can you provide research material to support your new assertion?

If you can read, read Cook's original paper. Look at the methodology. Look at the number of people who wrote the papers whose results he aggregated who wrote to him and said "my paper didn't conclude that at all".

"Consensus on consensus" is Cook again.

If the climate changes to an ice age, that isn't global warming is it. AGW would be a part of climate change.

Select to expand quote

JulianRoss said..
Never met a dentist who said my teeth were perfect...... just saying.

I always thought my teeth were iffy - but my dentist gets cheesed off 'cause he cant find anything wrong that he can charge for!

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Paradox said..
I'm not "across" anything, just pointing out that your assertion that there is a scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. Even if you believe the findings of Cooks papers even they only show a consensus on AGW, not climate change.
I can only point out the facts, whether people choose to accept them is another thing.

I don't understand the science well enough to believe or not believe - I accept what the consensus of climate scientists say.

If I had toothache and was able to see 10 dentists for advice - if 9 told me I needed an extraction that's what I'd get done, even if one insisted my teeth were perfect




Your original quote was " there is no scientific consensus on climate change or AGW.
That is the fundamental issue. Anyone who believes that is basing any argument or belief on an untruth."


When presented with the Research Letter, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, you changed to say "to link any sort of consensus on Climate Change, they all address Global Warming. Two very different things".

Can you provide research material to support your new assertion?

There is no such thing as a consensus in science. The much quoted 97% agreed that "CO2 had SOME effect on GW." It did NOT say there was a crisis or an emergency, which is what the media keeps repeating.
34,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition saying no crisis.
Lookit! Answer 2 questions 1. The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were similar or warmer than today. They were times of great PROSPERITY!!!!!! Getit? Why should today's slight warming be any different? Eh? Clever clogs? ANSWER! Know what LOGIC is?
and 2. Name 2 BAD things PRESENTLY from GW? ANSWER!! Reefs eaten by acid? No. seawater buffered 7.9pH to 9pH. There would have to be 10 TIMES more acid to even get to NEUTRAL. (pH logarithmic.) Timor Leste 3C warmer than the Great Barrier reef, but corals flourishing!
AND, when water gets warmer it can hold LESS CO2. At 0C 4 times the amount at 27C. "Oh! Didn't think of that."
More draughts? No. Rainfall slightly increasing. The Sahel greening.
More storms? No. Several papers showing LESS storms 1950 to 2000 than 1900 to 1950.
More forest fires? No. 100 times LESS fires in USA than in the 30s, today. (By area consumed.)
And good things from GW? Plants growing 50% faster average today cf. 1950. Tree numbers in USA today 2 times those of 1900. Longer growing seasons; LESS water use.
The GW efect of CO2 is logarithmic. (Like our hearing and sight........to make your stereo TWICE as loud, you need an amp 100 times more powerful. want it 3 times louder? Need amp 1000 times more powerful.) Doubling CO2 would do virtually NOTHING!
I, like most, strongly for a good environment. Built an eco friendly house using recycled material. Stackwall, so no outside cladding or interior gyproc. Placed to the South of an evergreen windbreak. A passive solar conservatory on S. side with night curtain, silvered to reflect most of heat. Salad veggies/herbs year round..........analysed stomach parts of crabs from Liverpool bay, dissolving them with HF in solid GOLD crucibles. Found it took 15 years for HALF the pollution in the bay to clear. So in 30 years, 1/4 STILL there! Disgusting.
So, yes, for a clean planet, but this CO2 hysteria is rubbish. Best wishes!

No no no! We're going to burn!

Don sack cloth and ashes and bow down to Greta you heretic!

Actually, we're going to steam. (Joke, sorry)

Select to expand quote

kilo54 said..


I, like most, strongly for a good environment. Built an eco friendly house using recycled material. Stackwall, so no outside cladding or interior gyproc. Placed to the South of an evergreen windbreak. A passive solar conservatory on S. side with night curtain, silvered to reflect most of heat. Salad veggies/herbs year round..........analysed stomach parts of crabs from Liverpool bay, dissolving them with HF in solid GOLD crucibles. Found it took 15 years for HALF the pollution in the bay to clear. So in 30 years, 1/4 STILL there! Disgusting.
So, yes, for a clean planet, but this CO2 hysteria is rubbish. Best wishes!

So you're a pom troll. Must be desperate to spend your time shooting the breeze on an Oz windsport website.

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

If science can't currently prove a disaster is looming there's no climate change problem at all?

No, I didn't say that. I do believe burning fossil fuels and endlessly pumping out CO2 is not a good thing and needs to be addressed. But I also am deeply suspicious of the climate change message being sent at the moment as much of it just seems to be overblown or misleading hype based on reports like Cooks and models that are not really being proven accurate.

One pro climate change expert can make themselves a handsome career and money/fame by making the right noises with dodgy papers. One expert speaking out against poor scientific processes misleading people will be shunned/punished by most employers and branded a "denier" if they are viewed to be questioning the accepted social paradigms and "Scientific Consensus". It's all too much like the emperors new clothes to me.

The biggest issue I have with it all is that climate change is drowning out real issues, both in coverage and money/effort. There are many more critical things that in my opinion are much more important to the planet than CO2 emissions and there is massive amounts of money that is being wasted in efforts to curb CO2 that are unlikely to actually do much at all.

While I am on the subject, my opinion is that anyone who believes that we are approaching a climate disaster from burning fossil fuels and doesn't support nuclear power is a crank with no grasp on reality. They are instantly dismissed as clueless as far as I am concerned.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..One pro climate change expert can make themselves a handsome career and money/fame by making the right noises with dodgy papers.

But no where near as well as pro fossil fuel experts that "make themselves a handsome career and money/fame by making the right noises with dodgy papers".

See tobacco and asbestos denial history and their "experts".

I would rather trust the CSIRO and BoM.

www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/global-climate-change/trends/

www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Most policy will adopt government backed scientists rather than private funded oil and coal backed reports.

Yes I too find the best way to convince the government to do what I want is to annoy and inconvenience the plebs they already don't care about...
www.bbc.com/news/uk-50000110

Groucho do your self a favour & read the book velvet glove iron fist .
The history of the anti smoking movement.
Sure big tobacco lied but not one tenth of the amount the anti smoking movement did .
Basically everything that's on a cigarette packet as a warning is a lie yet it's now accepted as fact even though it fly's in the face of the science
If it's seen as politically correct these lies are just glossed over & accepted as fact .
Here is an example
It was claimed that people would get arsenic from secondhand smoke & that's accepted as fact they print it on cigarette packets smoking will give you arsenic etc
But to get the same level that's found in a glass of water you would have to be in a 2mtr cube & exposed to 195 000 cigarettes.
This is from an anti smoking study group testing the affects .
But they never retract from the initial statement when the science proves it wrong because that's not politically correct
The same thing is happening again.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
Groucho do your self a favour & read the book velvet glove iron fist .
The history of the anti smoking movement.
Sure big tobacco lied but not one tenth of the amount the anti smoking movement did .
Basically everything that's on a cigarette packet as a warning is a lie yet it's now accepted as fact even though it fly's in the face of the science
If it's seen as politically correct these lies are just glossed over & accepted as fact .
Here is an example
It was claimed that people would get arsenic from secondhand smoke & that's accepted as fact they print it on cigarette packets smoking will give you arsenic etc
But to get the same level that's found in a glass of water you would have to be in a 2mtr cube & exposed to 195 000 cigarettes.
This is from an anti smoking study group testing the affects .
But they never retract from the initial statement when the science proves it wrong because that's not politically correct
The same thing is happening again.

Log man approves

Select to expand quote

groucho said..
Great summary of three common forms of climate change denial.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/three-types-of-climate-change-denier-most-of-us-at-least-one/11587924

Similar stuff was published in the Soviet Union. Those who disputed the scientific superiority of Socialism were often diagnosed as mentally ill. This usually resulted in lethal consequences.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..While I am on the subject, my opinion is that anyone who believes that we are approaching a climate disaster from burning fossil fuels and doesn't support nuclear power is a crank with no grasp on reality. They are instantly dismissed as clueless as far as I am concerned.

Agree - it's time to re-evaluate nuclear (in particular SMRs) and get ready for fusion.

Extremism from some Greens and nutters like Helen Caldicott has not been helpful, although it seems many serious environmentalists see the benefits.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/small-modular-reactors-nuclear-explained/11386856

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Agree - it's time to re-evaluate nuclear

well. since solar + battery is already 10x cheaper then fossil ,
100x then nuclear
then only kid can get this right.Old priks seems to have brains completely calcified and impregnated to this simple truth.
I am afraid that this kid can be right this time.In older times, ancestors left heirs some equity in real estate,
Those day they will leave debts and mortgages.The same with almost everything else. Instead of gold you will dig all bottles and rubbish everywhere in your fields.In years to come whole Earth crust will be composed of plastic bottles, ocean filled with urine and runoff waste.

Fake news

F^cking climate has change radically here today. Pissing with rain.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
well. since solar + battery is already 10x cheaper then fossil ,
100x then nuclear

Source? Cos nowhere I've seen makes those actual claims.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
well. since solar + battery is already 10x cheaper then fossil ,
100x then nuclear

Source? Cos nowhere I've seen makes those actual claims.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
Similar stuff was published in the Soviet Union. Those who disputed the scientific superiority of Socialism were often diagnosed as mentally ill. This usually resulted in lethal consequences.

The modern version is simply screaming "racist!" or "nazi!" or "denier!" at people until they just roll their eyes and leave the debate...

After all, we all know there is 97% consensus amongst climate scientists that GW is caused by human activities.