Select to expand quote

japie said..

DelFuego said..
^^ you really don't get it do you, the differences between climate and weather

Okay, you tell me.

What is the difference between climate and weather?

Climate; "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period"

Weather; "the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc." (my emphasis).

Climate is what normally happens on average; weather is what is happening at any particular moment.

If you say "in general, there's a good north-easter blowing in Gerroa on spring afternoons" you are talking climate. If you say "dammit, today at 2:12pm there's no wind at Gerroa because a rainsquall killed it an hour ago" you're talking weather.

It's a very simple and very basic but very important difference. With respect, if you don't know such a basic thing you shouldn't really be slinging **** at experts who have been working in the field for decades. It's like saying "I don't know the difference between windsurfing and kitesurfing but I'm so ****ing good I know more about them than the professionals do".

The weather conditions can be very, very different from the top of an airconditioned ivory tower though.....apparently

So from way up there, is that called climate control or weather control. Or just trying to beat gods control.

The people in the ivory towers are the ones who reckon they are such Gods that even though they have never studied the climate, they know more about it than the people who have spent their lives studying it.

By the time someone has got a PhD in a climate science area, they've spent about 13,000 hours learning about it from the experts. Logically, they know more about climate science than people who not studied it like that. It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning - it's just logical that the vast majority of the people who work in the field know more about it than the vast majority who do not. That's not putting people in an ivory tower - it's just logic and respect.

^^but I was told you live in the tower and that was from someone who has been foruming for a long time so they deserve respect and must be right. its simple logic.

You really reckon that sitting on a forum is equivalent to getting a PhD? Hmmmm......

It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

It's obviously news to you, but Al Gore is not a scientist; nor is Greta. They are irrelevant to the science, just as right wing whackos are.

But your cartoon brings up a good point - we should follow the money. That means we should look at those who have made billions or trillions from fossil fuels, like oil company CEOs, the Saudi royal family, and commercial media that sells petrol ads, and we'll see how money gives them a powerfully motivation to attack the climate scientists who earn far less than the fossil fuel spin doctors do.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

I can't decide who the bigger spinner of BS is, the dude pinned to the wheel or the dude that pinned the post. And as Chris 249 indicates above, how much does Al gore gain by preaching his crap(through his whole life) and how much is the fossil fuel industry worth (per day)? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'll bet one is a tiny percentage of the other!

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

No, if you're trained in something and then do it for a long time, you are much more likely to be right than someone who has never done what you do.

Select to expand quote

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

I can't decide who the bigger spinner of BS is, the dude pinned to the wheel or the dude that pinned the post. And as Chris 249 indicates above, how much does Al gore gain by preaching his crap(through his whole life) and how much is the fossil fuel industry worth (per day)? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'll bet one is a tiny percentage of the other!

Climate capitalists are doing ok. Al Gore is loaded.

The climate change industry is worth trillions globally.

Money is a big motivator for both oil and renewable industries.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

lotofwind said..
It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

No, if you're trained in something and then do it for a long time, you are much more likely to be right than someone who has never done what you do.

Unless the scientists was biased or had an activist mindset, that would influence their findings.

Or if you were a scientist that wanted to keep your job, then you would only produce results that supported agw. You would not publish the truth like Peter Ridd did about the great barrier reef, it got him fired.

Al Gore is not a climate expert he just Mann spreads alarm from his advisor.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

lotofwind said..
It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

No, if you're trained in something and then do it for a long time, you are much more likely to be right than someone who has never done what you do.

Unless the scientists was biased or had an activist mindset, that would influence their findings.

Or if you were a scientist that wanted to keep your job, then you would only produce results that supported agw. You would not publish the truth like Peter Ridd did about the great barrier reef, it got him fired.

Ahhhh, nope, the scientists who do well are those who produce results that break down old ideas. Take for example Brian Schmidt. Coming from an unfashionable uni, he took an under-resourced team and came up with results that showed that the established ideas about our whole phreakin universe were wrong.

So what happened? Did he stuff up his career? No. Did he lose his job? No. Did he lose funding? No. Did he get a Nobel Prize, fame, and fortune? Yes. Because that's what happens about science - you advance your career by showing that old ideas are wrong. In fact, arguably the pressure to do that has caused the replication crisis that leads to dodgy results that you can find with, for example, James Heathers' GRIM test - as you'd know, being an expert 'n all.

I'm married to a scientist, in another field. She and others spend ages talking careers and results. The claim that scientists promote their careers by following the corporate line is bull****. The big names are those who break down existing ideas and come up with new ones, not those who follow the herd.

Ridd got fired for other reasons, by the way, as you'd know if you'd done some research like read the judgment. But actually doing research is not something you'd get into, apparently.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Take for example Brian Schmidt.

Brian Schmidt led the team that figured out that the acceleration of the universe is positive when up to that point it was thought to be negative. The data collection and analysis and conclusion are pretty straightforward for peers to assess.

Climate research is at the other end of the spectrum. It is classified as a complex system science. The emergent behaviour of the system is not readily determined by an understanding of the components. One can imagine there's a little more room for a climate scientist to manoeuvre (for whatever reason) when writing abstracts and summaries while still being strict with the scientific method in the main body of the paper that nobody can understand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

cssociety.org/about-us/what-are-cs

"The most famous quote about Complex Systems comes from Aristotle who said that "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".
Complex systems are systems where the collective behavior of their parts entails emergence of properties that can hardly, if not at all, be inferred from properties of the parts. Examples of complex systems include ant-hills, ants themselves, human economies, climate, nervous systems, cells and living things, including human beings, as well as modern energy or telecommunication infrastructures."

^^ So what? That doesn't mean the science on CC is wrong. You're only making an allegation without substantiating it.

Humans have been wrong about simple things many times, on the other hand.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

japie said..

DelFuego said..
^^ you really don't get it do you, the differences between climate and weather

Okay, you tell me.

What is the difference between climate and weather?

Climate; "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period"

Weather; "the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc." (my emphasis).

Climate is what normally happens on average; weather is what is happening at any particular moment.

If you say "in general, there's a good north-easter blowing in Gerroa on spring afternoons" you are talking climate. If you say "dammit, today at 2:12pm there's no wind at Gerroa because a rainsquall killed it an hour ago" you're talking weather.

It's a very simple and very basic but very important difference. With respect, if you don't know such a basic thing you shouldn't really be slinging **** at experts who have been working in the field for decades. It's like saying "I don't know the difference between windsurfing and kitesurfing but I'm so ****ing good I know more about them than the professionals do".

I was hoping DelFuego would respond, Of course I know what the difference between climate and weather is.

My comments about the climate changing when the weather changes have always been tongue in cheek. I do it because I hear so many FW people on the media crapping on about the climate changing when the weather gets hot. as it has for eons. or when the there is a violent thunder storm, as there have been for yonks,

The media don't miss an opportunity to draw attention to extremes in the weather, If you can call them that, and if they don't come out and say it which they usually do the reason is always global warming.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

I can't decide who the bigger spinner of BS is, the dude pinned to the wheel or the dude that pinned the post. And as Chris 249 indicates above, how much does Al gore gain by preaching his crap(through his whole life) and how much is the fossil fuel industry worth (per day)? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'll bet one is a tiny percentage of the other!

Climate capitalists are doing ok. Al Gore is loaded.

The climate change industry is worth trillions globally.

Money is a big motivator for both oil and renewable industries.

Trillions?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

lotofwind said..
It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

No, if you're trained in something and then do it for a long time, you are much more likely to be right than someone who has never done what you do.

Unless the scientists was biased or had an activist mindset, that would influence their findings.

Or if you were a scientist that wanted to keep your job, then you would only produce results that supported agw. You would not publish the truth like Peter Ridd did about the great barrier reef, it got him fired.

Ahhhh, nope, the scientists who do well are those who produce results that break down old ideas. Take for example Brian Schmidt. Coming from an unfashionable uni, he took an under-resourced team and came up with results that showed that the established ideas about our whole phreakin universe were wrong.

So what happened? Did he stuff up his career? No. Did he lose his job? No. Did he lose funding? No. Did he get a Nobel Prize, fame, and fortune? Yes. Because that's what happens about science - you advance your career by showing that old ideas are wrong. In fact, arguably the pressure to do that has caused the replication crisis that leads to dodgy results that you can find with, for example, James Heathers' GRIM test - as you'd know, being an expert 'n all.

I'm married to a scientist, in another field. She and others spend ages talking careers and results. The claim that scientists promote their careers by following the corporate line is bull****. The big names are those who break down existing ideas and come up with new ones, not those who follow the herd.

Ridd got fired for other reasons, by the way, as you'd know if you'd done some research like read the judgment. But actually doing research is not something you'd get into, apparently.

Ridd got wrongfully fired because he wouldn't go along with the bs of the activist scientist at his university. The truth is irrelevant to these activist scientist, only their ideology matters.

www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

Select to expand quote

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

I can't decide who the bigger spinner of BS is, the dude pinned to the wheel or the dude that pinned the post. And as Chris 249 indicates above, how much does Al gore gain by preaching his crap(through his whole life) and how much is the fossil fuel industry worth (per day)? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'll bet one is a tiny percentage of the other!

Climate capitalists are doing ok. Al Gore is loaded.

The climate change industry is worth trillions globally.

Money is a big motivator for both oil and renewable industries.

Trillions?

Absolutely

Select to expand quote

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

bobajob said..

TonyAbbott said..

I can't decide who the bigger spinner of BS is, the dude pinned to the wheel or the dude that pinned the post. And as Chris 249 indicates above, how much does Al gore gain by preaching his crap(through his whole life) and how much is the fossil fuel industry worth (per day)? I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I'll bet one is a tiny percentage of the other!

Climate capitalists are doing ok. Al Gore is loaded.

The climate change industry is worth trillions globally.

Money is a big motivator for both oil and renewable industries.

Trillions?

Haha !!!



Benny Peisar


Haha!!

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

lotofwind said..
It's the same with board shaping, brain surgery or gearbox reconditioning. If you have been doing it a long time they must be right.
In todays multi media society, yes. Do any Kardashian's have phd's ??? Theses days you don't even need to know how to spell phd to earn the respect of todays society you are talking about

No, if you're trained in something and then do it for a long time, you are much more likely to be right than someone who has never done what you do.

Unless the scientists was biased or had an activist mindset, that would influence their findings.

Or if you were a scientist that wanted to keep your job, then you would only produce results that supported agw. You would not publish the truth like Peter Ridd did about the great barrier reef, it got him fired.

Ahhhh, nope, the scientists who do well are those who produce results that break down old ideas. Take for example Brian Schmidt. Coming from an unfashionable uni, he took an under-resourced team and came up with results that showed that the established ideas about our whole phreakin universe were wrong.

So what happened? Did he stuff up his career? No. Did he lose his job? No. Did he lose funding? No. Did he get a Nobel Prize, fame, and fortune? Yes. Because that's what happens about science - you advance your career by showing that old ideas are wrong. In fact, arguably the pressure to do that has caused the replication crisis that leads to dodgy results that you can find with, for example, James Heathers' GRIM test - as you'd know, being an expert 'n all.

I'm married to a scientist, in another field. She and others spend ages talking careers and results. The claim that scientists promote their careers by following the corporate line is bull****. The big names are those who break down existing ideas and come up with new ones, not those who follow the herd.

Ridd got fired for other reasons, by the way, as you'd know if you'd done some research like read the judgment. But actually doing research is not something you'd get into, apparently.

Ridd got wrongfully fired because he wouldn't go along with the bs of the activist scientist at his university. The truth is irrelevant to these activist scientist, only their ideology matters.

www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

Instead of looking at biased second-hand sources like the GWPF, look at the actual judgment written by the judge. He said, very early on;

"Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of nonoffensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views. 2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. "

The man who runs the trial knows what it's about, and he said specifically that it was NOT about silencing scientists with unpopular views.

JCU didn't behave well. Universities are often terrible at carrying out internal investigations and discipline. Yes, replication of science is an issue. But Ridd was ONE scientist who worked in ONE university, and you are taking your information from ONE side in the issue. Claiming that one instance in a vast field is proof that the entire field is rigged is illogical, particularly when we know as a fact that the judge himself said that the case was NOT about silencing people with controversial views and therefore the "sceptics" who claim that it is are being dishonest.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..

Take for example Brian Schmidt.

Brian Schmidt led the team that figured out that the acceleration of the universe is positive when up to that point it was thought to be negative. The data collection and analysis and conclusion are pretty straightforward for peers to assess.

Climate research is at the other end of the spectrum. It is classified as a complex system science. The emergent behaviour of the system is not readily determined by an understanding of the components. One can imagine there's a little more room for a climate scientist to manoeuvre (for whatever reason) when writing abstracts and summaries while still being strict with the scientific method in the main body of the paper that nobody can understand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

cssociety.org/about-us/what-are-cs

"The most famous quote about Complex Systems comes from Aristotle who said that "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".
Complex systems are systems where the collective behavior of their parts entails emergence of properties that can hardly, if not at all, be inferred from properties of the parts. Examples of complex systems include ant-hills, ants themselves, human economies, climate, nervous systems, cells and living things, including human beings, as well as modern energy or telecommunication infrastructures."

Yes, but the point is that Schmidt remains an example of someone who showed that the existing paradigm was wrong and was rewarded for it instead of being punished. His is just one example that shows that the 'sceptics' are wrong when they claim that scientists have to follow the herd to save their careers.

^^ The "snouts in the trough" theory is just another anthropogenic climate change denier's sub-conspiracy theory.

Anything to discredit the truth.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Chris 249 said..

japie said..

DelFuego said..
^^ you really don't get it do you, the differences between climate and weather

Okay, you tell me.

What is the difference between climate and weather?

Climate; "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period"

Weather; "the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc." (my emphasis).

Climate is what normally happens on average; weather is what is happening at any particular moment.

If you say "in general, there's a good north-easter blowing in Gerroa on spring afternoons" you are talking climate. If you say "dammit, today at 2:12pm there's no wind at Gerroa because a rainsquall killed it an hour ago" you're talking weather.

It's a very simple and very basic but very important difference. With respect, if you don't know such a basic thing you shouldn't really be slinging **** at experts who have been working in the field for decades. It's like saying "I don't know the difference between windsurfing and kitesurfing but I'm so ****ing good I know more about them than the professionals do".

I was hoping DelFuego would respond, Of course I know what the difference between climate and weather is.

My comments about the climate changing when the weather changes have always been tongue in cheek. I do it because I hear so many FW people on the media crapping on about the climate changing when the weather gets hot. as it has for eons. or when the there is a violent thunder storm, as there have been for yonks,

The media don't miss an opportunity to draw attention to extremes in the weather, If you can call them that, and if they don't come out and say it which they usually do the reason is always global warming.

Okay, but lots of people don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather, and that seems to affect both sides. You're right, some people use one isolated example of hot weather to "prove" the climate is getting warmer, but the other side does exactly the same thing - look for example at the guy here who claimed that his memory of his pool's temperature "proved" something about the climate of the entire world.

While some "warmists" go over the top, so do many "denialists", like the ones who claim that the BoM has decided to reject old temperature records because of a modern conspiracy, when in fact if those guys did any basic research they'd see that the BoM decided to reject old records over a century ago because it was well known at that time that many of them were unreliable.

This discussion has little difference to any other in recent history where science proposes a shift beyond tradition or contemporary belief. Galileo, Darwin, Newton etc. all faced ridicule & persecution for their observations of nature.

The recourse sector and its cohort are currently engaging in comparable tactics the Tabaco lobby used when faced with growing evidence that smoking really isn't good for your health. The recourse sector are ensuring a prolonged debate so they can make money for as long as possible before the burning of fossil fuels is wound down to a whimper.

With regard to our house getting hotter, the Garnaut Report in the mid 2000s took a punt applying a timeline to the observable effects of climate change, in B&W below. Feel free to apply your own bias...


History has shown those that scream heresy to rising evidence & fact have the most to loose. When it comes to who to believe on this topic, I'll go with the consensus of scientist rather than a collective of politicians, a boardroom of billionaires or an internet of trolls.

^^ Gee look at that! Despite the hysterical climate denial rhetoric about predictions being wrong, seems in fact they are dead right.

Literally, DEAD right.

I'm currently dealing with the local "racing industry" (AKA gambling cabal) who want to maintain access to pristine beaches abutting nature reserves to run their racing horses out on the soft sand and cool waters. They trample all the dune vegetation, defecate and piss in the carpark, sand and water and complain when we, the ordinary residents startle their precious horses.

When the local community voted to end this selfish practice, the state Liberal government was lobbied by the powerful gambling industry and the local residents were overruled.

F^ck em and their dirty money.

Select to expand quote

Brent in Qld said..
This discussion has little difference to any other in recent history where science proposes a shift beyond tradition or contemporary belief. Galileo, Darwin, Newton etc. all faced ridicule & persecution for their observations of nature.

The recourse sector and its cohort are currently engaging in comparable tactics the Tabaco lobby used when faced with growing evidence that smoking really isn't good for your health. The recourse sector are ensuring a prolonged debate so they can make money for as long as possible before the burning of fossil fuels is wound down to a whimper.

With regard to our house getting hotter, the Garnaut Report in the mid 2000s took a punt applying a timeline to the observable effects of climate change, in B&W below. Feel free to apply your own bias...


History has shown those that scream heresy to rising evidence & fact have the most to loose. When it comes to who to believe on this topic, I'll go with the consensus of scientist rather than a collective of politicians, a boardroom of billionaires or an internet of trolls.

Natural variability

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..


Yes, but the point is that Schmidt remains an example of someone who showed that the existing paradigm was wrong and was rewarded for it instead of being punished. His is just one example that shows that the 'sceptics' are wrong when they claim that scientists have to follow the herd to save their careers.

Yes but Schmidt wasn't able to draw a link between the expanding universe and climate change. If so he would have tripled his fame, fortune and research funding.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Brent in Qld said..
This discussion has little difference to any other in recent history where science proposes a shift beyond tradition or contemporary belief. Galileo, Darwin, Newton etc. all faced ridicule & persecution for their observations of nature.

The recourse sector and its cohort are currently engaging in comparable tactics the Tabaco lobby used when faced with growing evidence that smoking really isn't good for your health. The recourse sector are ensuring a prolonged debate so they can make money for as long as possible before the burning of fossil fuels is wound down to a whimper.

With regard to our house getting hotter, the Garnaut Report in the mid 2000s took a punt applying a timeline to the observable effects of climate change, in B&W below. Feel free to apply your own bias...


History has shown those that scream heresy to rising evidence & fact have the most to loose. When it comes to who to believe on this topic, I'll go with the consensus of scientist rather than a collective of politicians, a boardroom of billionaires or an internet of trolls.

Natural variability

Agree, there always was & always will be natural variability. This is mandatory historic data for calculating & presenting recommendations like the Garnaut Review.