Sheaf Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 I can't believe you linked to Mann's Twitter page to support the fact you think what was said on my link was wrong, go on Google and do a quick search on the case, Mann had to pay court costs and continually delayed producing the data to support how he came up with his hockey stick graph. The guys a fraud and has been called out over and over again. Take a look at this https://victorygirlsblog.com/michael-mann-whines-about-losing-climate-hockey-stick-libel-case/ That link... Jesus Christ. Jesus f*cking Christ! Ball did NOT win the court case. He himself applied to have it dismissed on the grounds of his age and ill health. Mann was NOT ordered to pay any costs, nor was there any ruling that he failed to provide his data. It is already in the public domain FFS - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/ The FCPP settled out of court in June and issued a full retraction and apology to Mann - https://web.archive.org/web/20190609170116/https://fcpp.org/retraction-and-apology-to-michael-mann/ But yeah, other than that, everything on the GWPF article is completely kosher and above board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 It's interesting that you have deliberately omitted the rest of the 'funding sources' section of their Wiki entry, which paints a very different picture from their launch statement. The GWPF is no more a charity than Eton school is. The only reason it even has charity status is to avoid paying any tax and revealing its sources of funding. Lol. You should take that up with HMRC as they are the ones that certify 'charitable status' for tax purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs! You're the one saying it's not a secret ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 Lol. You should take that up with HMRC as they are the ones that certify 'charitable status' for tax purposes. So what are you saying? You genuinely believe they are a shining beacon of truth and integrity seeking to educate the public on climate science? The Charity Commission ruling that their work was more political than educational, forcing them, to create a non-charitable subsidiary to continue, is rather telling, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 That link... Jesus Christ. Jesus f*cking Christ! Ball did NOT win the court case. He himself applied to have it dismissed on the grounds of his age and ill health. Mann was NOT ordered to pay any costs, nor was there any ruling that he failed to provide his data. It is already in the public domain FFS - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/ The FCPP settled out of court in June and issued a full retraction and apology to Mann - https://web.archive.org/web/20190609170116/https://fcpp.org/retraction-and-apology-to-michael-mann/ But yeah, other than that, everything on the GWPF article is completely kosher and above board. For every one you come up with I can come up with 10 saying exactly the opposite. GWPF not quite an unbiased organisation is it. Just do a simple google search, Mann had to pay costs. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud Read that and many more, you link to Mann's Twitter page and a webpage of an organisation that peddles this bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 So what are you saying? You genuinely believe they are a shining beacon of truth and integrity seeking to educate the public on climate science? The Charity Commission ruling that their work was more political than educational, forcing them, to create a non-charitable subsidiary to continue, is rather telling, don't you think? No. I'm saying they aren't 'secrectly funded'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 You're the one saying it's not a secret ffs This is correct - ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 yes, if it makes a difference to the 'climate emergency'...which it will not and we pay a fortune for it As I said, change has to start somewhere and we are not going to influence others if we don’t make changes ourselves. Mighty oaks from small acorns grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 As I said, change has to start somewhere and we are not going to influence others if we don’t make changes ourselves. Mighty oaks from small acorns grow. we wont be influencing others even if we live off the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 we wont be influencing others even if we live off the earth If what you say is true nothing would ever change. Do you ever go into supermarkets? Have you noticed anything different regarding the use of carrier bags? Things are already changing even if you can’t see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 If what you say is true nothing would ever change. Do you ever go into supermarkets? Have you noticed anything different regarding the use of carrier bags? Things are already changing even if you can’t see it. oh, things will change. When China/USA get remotely interested. that aint 'appening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 oh, things will change. When China/USA get remotely interested. that aint 'appening Maybe not at the moment. It doesn’t mean that they won’t change in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 Maybe not at the moment. It doesn’t mean that they won’t change in the future. in the meantime, we have to pay for the UK to save the world. nice one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 in the meantime, we have to pay for the UK to save the world. nice one It isn’t just us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 It isn’t just us. we are the only country in the world (according to a piece on 5live) that has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030. That date is way too far away for some as we will all be incinerated by then! all that will come from our pocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 we are the only country in the world (according to a piece on 5live) that has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030. That date is way too far away for some as we will all be incinerated by then! all that will come from our pocket Funnily enough a lot of people think it is a price worth paying. You clearly don’t but are happy for us to spend a fortune on nuclear weapons that we will never use. I know where I would rather the money was spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 (edited) For every one you come up with I can come up with 10 saying exactly the opposite. GWPF not quite an unbiased organisation is it. Just do a simple google search, Mann had to pay costs. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud Read that and many more, you link to Mann's Twitter page and a webpage of an organisation that peddles this bull**** How can you possibly give any credence to a blog which begins with a complete falsehood? The hockey stick has not at any point been 'definitively established to be fraud' as he claims. This is just utter nonsense. There have been numerous reconstructions of the study over the years which have all supported its general conclusions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][17] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[18] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions. Edited 8 November, 2019 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 we are the only country in the world (according to a piece on 5live) that has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030. That date is way too far away for some as we will all be incinerated by then! all that will come from our pocket Then we’ve done our bit and can at least put pressure on other countries to follow suit without being hypocrites. Of course it will come from our pocket, where else will it come from. Sadly all of these issues are things people will naturally just ignore until it’s too late. Right now many people aren’t bothered about food and clean air because they’re just there and we take them for granted. It’s no good waiting until the atmosphere is like Delhi or Beijing to try and do something, we need to try and prevent it in the first place. That means spending money to change things whilst they’re still ‘fine’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 How can you possibly give any credence to a blog which begins with a complete falsehood? The hockey stick has not at any point been 'definitively established to be fraud' as he claims. This is just utter nonsense. There have been numerous reconstructions of the study over the years which have all supported its general conclusions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy So Mann had a libel case that went on for eight years, he could have shown his stats and how he created the hockey stick graph on the first day and it would have been game set and match.....but he thought it was better to just drag it out for eight years, you've got to hand it to him he's a cĺever bloke. If you've not spent two minutes, gone on Google and seen that pretty much every search result shows that Mann lost and was ordered to pay costs then you're not worth debating with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 I can't believe you linked to Mann's Twitter page to support the fact you think what was said on my link was wrong, go on Google and do a quick search on the case, Mann had to pay court costs and continually delayed producing the data to support how he came up with his hockey stick graph. The guys a fraud and has been called out over and over again. Take a look at this https://victorygirlsblog.com/michael-mann-whines-about-losing-climate-hockey-stick-libel-case/ I love the internet that Dr Tim ball is an interesting guy isn't he? Seems like he spends a fair amount of time in litigation I've highlighted the funniest bit Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[48] claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[49] Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.[50] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere, ignoring the fact Ball's PhD thesis in 1983 was on climate and weather.”[42] In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[49][failed verification] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography,[42] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[49][51] In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the Canada Free Press which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility.[52][53] Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming.[54] In February, 2018 Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Ball was dismissed completely. The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views...".[55][56] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 I love the internet that Dr Tim ball is an interesting guy isn't he? Seems like he spends a fair amount of time in litigation I've highlighted the funniest bit Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[48] claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[49] Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.[50] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere, ignoring the fact Ball's PhD thesis in 1983 was on climate and weather.”[42] In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[49][failed verification] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography,[42] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[49][51] In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the Canada Free Press which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility.[52][53] Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming.[54] In February, 2018 Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Ball was dismissed completely. The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views...".[55][56] And? Unless you can show me that he lost the libel case against Mann and Mann showed up in court with all the stats and proved his hockey stick graph I don't really care what sort of person he is. Mann's graph was used by Al Gore when it kicked off about this man made climate crap. If Mann's graph is wrong and he cannot show the stats to back his graph up then it should bring a lot of what has followed since into question. Debate is healthy and my problem with this is that so many scientists who believe this is not the disaster were 're being told it is are not listened to. Man made climate change is going to generate billions for big business and cost all of us money, let's see both sides of the argument so we can all make a judgement with more of the facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 And? Unless you can show me that he lost the libel case against Mann and Mann showed up in court with all the stats and proved his hockey stick graph I don't really care what sort of person he is. Mann's graph was used by Al Gore when it kicked off about this man made climate crap. If Mann's graph is wrong and he cannot show the stats to back his graph up then it should bring a lot of what has followed since into question. Debate is healthy and my problem with this is that so many scientists who believe this is not the disaster were 're being told it is are not listened to. Man made climate change is going to generate billions for big business and cost all of us money, let's see both sides of the argument so we can all make a judgement with more of the facts yep looks like the judge was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 And? Mann's graph was used by Al Gore when it kicked off about this man made climate crap. That’s nonsense, Arvid Högbom predicted that burning coal would eventually increase the Earth’s temperature back in 1896 - maybe it was just a lucky guess? Even Margaret Thatcher warned about global warming back in the 80s. Not sure why you are so obsessed with the accuracy of one man’s graph, it’s an irrelevance. Politicians are saying now what scientists were saying decades ago, if some scientists are exaggerating the risks it’s because they have been banging their head against a brick wall for years and years trying to get the facts across to a public unwilling and un able to understand the potential seriousness of it. What is your theory behind the recent warming then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 That’s nonsense, Arvid Högbom predicted that burning coal would eventually increase the Earth’s temperature back in 1896 - maybe it was just a lucky guess? Even Margaret Thatcher warned about global warming back in the 80s. Not sure why you are so obsessed with the accuracy of one man’s graph, it’s an irrelevance. Politicians are saying now what scientists were saying decades ago, if some scientists are exaggerating the risks it’s because they have been banging their head against a brick wall for years and years trying to get the facts across to a public unwilling and un able to understand the potential seriousness of it. What is your theory behind the recent warming then? judging by a post further up he subscribes to these guys theory https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ they say Q.Are you saying there’s been no global warming? A.No, but global warming and global cooling are natural phenomena. Our analysis shows that there was indeed some global warming from 1980s-2000s. But, it followed a period of global cooling from 1950s-1970s, and before that an earlier period of global warming from 1920s-1940s. There is less data available for earlier years, but there are also suggestions of a period of global cooling ending in the late 1890s. In other words, global temperatures seem to alternate between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, lasting several decades. We found that the groups previously analysing the data failed to properly account for various biases in the data, and so underestimated the rate of 1950s-1970s cooling, and overestimated the rate of 1980s-2000s warming. In other words, it was probably just as warm in the 1930s/1940s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 November, 2019 Share Posted 8 November, 2019 So Mann had a libel case that went on for eight years, he could have shown his stats and how he created the hockey stick graph on the first day and it would have been game set and match.....but he thought it was better to just drag it out for eight years, you've got to hand it to him he's a cĺever bloke. If you've not spent two minutes, gone on Google and seen that pretty much every search result shows that Mann lost and was ordered to pay costs then you're not worth debating with. Yes, I have done a Google search, and I also understand a bit about how easy it is to get your articles promoted in their searches. I found a load of blogs and opinion pieces from the usual suspects, most of which have no credibility. Just because you found loads of articles saying he lost the case, doesn't mean they are right. If I type "the Earth is flat" into Google I would undoubtedly get loads of results saying it is, but that doesn't make them right. It's not about numbers, it's about facts - something the denial machine sees as a minor nuisance and not to get in the way of a good rant. So let's examine the facts here and look at the actual court transcript of the dismissal of this case... https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm Now I'm going to make a concession here - yes I can see that the judge made reference to costs going to Ball as the case had been dismissed. But to then infer from that that Mann 'lost' the case is a logical fallacy. The judge made no ruling in either party's favour, and this crucial detail is conveniently omitted from every article claiming otherwise. The case was dismissed on grounds of delay, in light of Ball's age and ill health. Now, I agree it seems odd that Mann would allow the situation to drag on for so long, but the insinuation that he did so because he was refusing to submit his data is ridiculous. His data has been available in the public domain since long before this action was brought, and as I posted previously, his original 1998 study has been reproduced multiple times with the researchers supporting the original findings. So to summarise... Mann did not lose the case. Ball has not been vindicated of his libellous comments. The website which published his comments settled out of court and issued an unreserved apology and retraction. The hockey stick study has not been proven to be fraudulent. Subsequent studies have supported its findings using the same data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 That’s nonsense, Arvid Högbom predicted that burning coal would eventually increase the Earth’s temperature back in 1896 - maybe it was just a lucky guess? Even Margaret Thatcher warned about global warming back in the 80s. Not sure why you are so obsessed with the accuracy of one man’s graph, it’s an irrelevance. Politicians are saying now what scientists were saying decades ago, if some scientists are exaggerating the risks it’s because they have been banging their head against a brick wall for years and years trying to get the facts across to a public unwilling and un able to understand the potential seriousness of it. What is your theory behind the recent warming then? The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity, the earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing. We are still in real terms in an ice age but for large parts of earth history there were no polar ice caps. Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. The biggest green house gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 Yes, I have done a Google search, and I also understand a bit about how easy it is to get your articles promoted in their searches. I found a load of blogs and opinion pieces from the usual suspects, most of which have no credibility. Just because you found loads of articles saying he lost the case, doesn't mean they are right. If I type "the Earth is flat" into Google I would undoubtedly get loads of results saying it is, but that doesn't make them right. It's not about numbers, it's about facts - something the denial machine sees as a minor nuisance and not to get in the way of a good rant. So let's examine the facts here and look at the actual court transcript of the dismissal of this case... https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm Now I'm going to make a concession here - yes I can see that the judge made reference to costs going to Ball as the case had been dismissed. But to then infer from that that Mann 'lost' the case is a logical fallacy. The judge made no ruling in either party's favour, and this crucial detail is conveniently omitted from every article claiming otherwise. The case was dismissed on grounds of delay, in light of Ball's age and ill health. Now, I agree it seems odd that Mann would allow the situation to drag on for so long, but the insinuation that he did so because he was refusing to submit his data is ridiculous. His data has been available in the public domain since long before this action was brought, and as I posted previously, his original 1998 study has been reproduced multiple times with the researchers supporting the original findings. So to summarise... Mann did not lose the case. Ball has not been vindicated of his libellous comments. The website which published his comments settled out of court and issued an unreserved apology and retraction. The hockey stick study has not been proven to be fraudulent. Subsequent studies have supported its findings using the same data. If you know about google and SEO you'll understand thst the days of doung a bit of keyword research, throwing up a website, stuffing it with keywords and getting it ranked in Google are far gone. Google's algorithms are far more complex than they were back in the day, websites that get ranked high on a search list are authoritative sites that are trusted by Google and have been around for a while. Those sites that show in the Google search about that court case are not in any way scam sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 If you know about google and SEO you'll understand thst the days of doung a bit of keyword research, throwing up a website, stuffing it with keywords and getting it ranked in Google are far gone. Google's algorithms are far more complex than they were back in the day, websites that get ranked high on a search list are authoritative sites that are trusted by Google and have been around for a while. Those sites that show in the Google search about that court case are not in any way scam sites."trusted by Google". Shudder. Have a read of Douglas Murray's new book and specifically his chapter on Google image search in different countries. It's eye opening and shows why Google being the judge of "truth" is a terrifying thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 Yes, I have done a Google search, and I also understand a bit about how easy it is to get your articles promoted in their searches. I found a load of blogs and opinion pieces from the usual suspects, most of which have no credibility. Just because you found loads of articles saying he lost the case, doesn't mean they are right. If I type "the Earth is flat" into Google I would undoubtedly get loads of results saying it is, but that doesn't make them right. It's not about numbers, it's about facts - something the denial machine sees as a minor nuisance and not to get in the way of a good rant. So let's examine the facts here and look at the actual court transcript of the dismissal of this case... https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm Now I'm going to make a concession here - yes I can see that the judge made reference to costs going to Ball as the case had been dismissed. But to then infer from that that Mann 'lost' the case is a logical fallacy. The judge made no ruling in either party's favour, and this crucial detail is conveniently omitted from every article claiming otherwise. The case was dismissed on grounds of delay, in light of Ball's age and ill health. Now, I agree it seems odd that Mann would allow the situation to drag on for so long, but the insinuation that he did so because he was refusing to submit his data is ridiculous. His data has been available in the public domain since long before this action was brought, and as I posted previously, his original 1998 study has been reproduced multiple times with the researchers supporting the original findings. So to summarise... Mann did not lose the case. Ball has not been vindicated of his libellous comments. The website which published his comments settled out of court and issued an unreserved apology and retraction. The hockey stick study has not been proven to be fraudulent. Subsequent studies have supported its findings using the same data. It's been an interesting argument to follow but I read the outcome of the court case differently to you.... My synopsis : Mann published 'hockey stick' and Ball asked for data sets and workings from Mann so his findings could be peer reviewed - standard practice in the scientific community. Mann refused to give Ball his 'workings' - the data sets are in the public domain. Ball attempted to reverse engineer the 'hockey stick' but the only way he could get close to the results that Mann published was by allegedly leaving out some of the data sets. Ball then called Mann a fraud. Mann sued Ball for libel due to his comments. As part of the libel case, Ball asked for Mann's workings and how he derived the results of his hockey stick as part of disclosure. I don't believe it is mentioned in the Judge's summary - nor do I think it legally should have been - but there was apparently a court order directing Mann to provide the information Ball asked for. 8 years down the line and Mann still hadn't produced the information so Ball applied for case against him to be thrown out. Judge threw out the case and awarded costs to Ball. I think the website producing their apology is a red herring as they presumably did that to cover their arses in case Mann decided to sue them as well. For me, the court case - and the fact that it was thrown out by the judge - was more about the decision by Mann NOT to provide his workings when ordered to do so by the court. Obviously that is open to interpretation but the logical assumption is that perhaps he did 'manipulate' some of the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 It's been an interesting argument to follow but I read the outcome of the court case differently to you.... My synopsis : Mann published 'hockey stick' and Ball asked for data sets and workings from Mann so his findings could be peer reviewed - standard practice in the scientific community. Mann refused to give Ball his 'workings' - the data sets are in the public domain. Ball attempted to reverse engineer the 'hockey stick' but the only way he could get close to the results that Mann published was by allegedly leaving out some of the data sets. Ball then called Mann a fraud. Mann sued Ball for libel due to his comments. As part of the libel case, Ball asked for Mann's workings and how he derived the results of his hockey stick as part of disclosure. I don't believe it is mentioned in the Judge's summary - nor do I think it legally should have been - but there was apparently a court order directing Mann to provide the information Ball asked for. 8 years down the line and Mann still hadn't produced the information so Ball applied for case against him to be thrown out. Judge threw out the case and awarded costs to Ball. I think the website producing their apology is a red herring as they presumably did that to cover their arses in case Mann decided to sue them as well. For me, the court case - and the fact that it was thrown out by the judge - was more about the decision by Mann NOT to provide his workings when ordered to do so by the court. Obviously that is open to interpretation but the logical assumption is that perhaps he did 'manipulate' some of the data. Manipulation of data is the whole problem with the hysteria about climate change and why I believe scientists that do not believe that man made climate change is any where near as bad as we are told should have their say. For instance between the 1940's and 1970's Co2 in the atmosphere went up yet global temperatures went down, you can't have it both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 "trusted by Google". Shudder. Have a read of Douglas Murray's new book and specifically his chapter on Google image search in different countries. It's eye opening and shows why Google being the judge of "truth" is a terrifying thing. I've got that book on my Kindle although I've not read it yet, he explains emotive issues like nobody else I've ever listened to, one of the big tv stations should give him his program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 Manipulation of data is the whole problem with the hysteria about climate change and why I believe scientists that do not believe that man made climate change is any where near as bad as we are told should have their say. For instance between the 1940's and 1970's Co2 in the atmosphere went up yet global temperatures went down, you can't have it both ways Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that 'mankind' is contributing to climate change, but I also think that potentially we are also seeing a 'natural' climate change at the same time which is distorting figures - I have no evidence for this, just my opinion! Our planet has proved itself to be incredibly resilient over the millenia and whilst we are certainly doing some damage to mother earth, I suspect we are only really scratching the surface. The planet will survive - in one way, shape or form - long after mankind has destroyed itself (or a meteor hits and wipes everything out again!). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 November, 2019 Share Posted 9 November, 2019 Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that 'mankind' is contributing to climate change, but I also think that potentially we are also seeing a 'natural' climate change at the same time which is distorting figures - I have no evidence for this, just my opinion! Our planet has proved itself to be incredibly resilient over the millenia and whilst we are certainly doing some damage to mother earth, I suspect we are only really scratching the surface. The planet will survive - in one way, shape or form - long after mankind has destroyed itself (or a meteor hits and wipes everything out again!). All very philosophical and not wrong in itself but you're talking about long terms patterns over thousands, or tens of thousands of years. We're talking about the very real and immediate issues facing us in the next 50 years or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 November, 2019 Share Posted 10 November, 2019 The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity, the earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing. We are still in real terms in an ice age but for large parts of earth history there were no polar ice caps. Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. The biggest green house gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. I’m no scientist so am not in a position to challenge their results but a quick google and they don’t seem to have a lot of credibility. I watched 45 mins of that video you posted and they still hadn’t got round to explain their theory, just criticism of the scientific community and something about urbanisation. This seemed a credible theory but I studied the heat island effect in A level geography so I would be very surprised if it wasn’t taken into account by modern day science. A few opinions of their work I found: the work of the Connolly, is so childish as to be as some one once said, of such low value as to not even be wrong! I hope their hobby is at least amusing LOL! I note that the content you refer to was self-published in 2014 to a website created just for the purpose of presenting the researchers’ work. They invite an open ‘peer review’ process and did receive a few responses, which to my ear have a crankish sound to them. In short, this effort is not peer-reviewed. I further note that the authors have felt it necessary to invent a ‘hitherto overlooked’ mechanism of energy transmission which they term ‘pervection’, which appears to be critical for their argument that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This concept appears to have languished since 2014. Igor Stravinsky famously declined specific criticism of the Disney treatment of his music from Rite of Spring, saying the segment did not, as an “unresisting imbecility,” merit it. It appears to me that the research community has made a comparable assessment of the work of the Drs. Connolly. What “article”? It’s not an article, but a presentation in front of a crank group. If I remember correctly, they’ve already been explained that the balloon data they use simply does not have the temporal and locational resolution to see the expected change, so instead of getting it reviewed in credible climate-related journals, they created their own journal and ‘published’ papers in that. And apparently now go to crank groups to present that work… RB 4: increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no influence at all on global temperatures. BPL: There is so overwhelmingly much evidence to the contrary, we can be sure the authors of the said article slipped up somewhere. Thanks for posting that link to the YouTube video where the Dr Connollys (C&C) describe their results: . They provide evidence that supports my research into why the current climate models are unable to reproduce abrupt climate warmings such as those that initiated the Bølling-Allerød inter-stadial and at the end of the Younger Dryas. It seems to me that the Irish doctors have shown that the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above as is currently envisaged. That is what I argued last month on this forum. However, their conclusion that because the current models are wrong then “increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not influence at all on global temperatures” is a total non sequitur. Moreover, the correct model where absorption by CO2 is restricted to the boundary layer means that its effect is driven by the Bouguer-Lambert-Beer law which results in additional warming directly related to the concentration of CO2 rather than the logarithmic relation envisaged by the current models. The work of C&C fits with the results of Christy and Spencer (C&S) who showed that the rise in temperature in the troposphere measured by satellites was less than that predicted by the computer models. But C&C have gone further and found that there are three regions in the troposphere: boundary layer, convection layer and LTE. The ground stations show a rise in temperature in the boundary layer, and the satellites of C&S measure the change in temperature in the convective and LTE layers. These show a lesser rise as the results of C&C imply. But that shows that global temperatures are rising as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2. As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone. Thomas Huxley, not Feynman wrote “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The idea that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is controlled by the outgoing longwave radiation from CO2 has been slain by C&C’s experiment. Occam may have stated that ‘Entities should not be multiplied without necessity’, but Einstein said: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The OLR balance is controlled by outgoing shortwave radiation produced by ice sheets and clouds. They are produced by a warmer surface as CO2 concentration rises. It is an oversimplification to claim that CO2 directly controls the TOA balance. For those wishing to make a reply to Roy Banks @4 but who consider listening to the two idgits Connolly & Connolly droaning on for half the day, the slides from their talk (all 106 of them) which presents the latest serving of their grand theory are available hear. And to whet your appetites, their grand theory concludes:- The IPCC was wrong to conclude recent climate changes were due to greenhouse gases. Computer models they were relying on were based on flawed early 20thcentury science. “Carbon mitigation” should no longer be considered a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 10 November, 2019 Share Posted 10 November, 2019 The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity, the earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing. We are still in real terms in an ice age but for large parts of earth history there were no polar ice caps. Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. The biggest green house gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. OK let’s break this down bit by bit… The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity Of course, the sun is the primary source of all heat energy on Earth and is obviously a huge influencing factor in our climate.. Numerous satellites have been recording solar activity since the late 70s, and due to the inherent uncertainty resulting from how you combine the data from these satellites, they show either a very slight cooling trend or a very slight warming trend. But either way, this still does not account for the increased rate of warming seen during the 20th century. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/has-the-sun-been-more-active-in-recent-decades-and-could-it-be-responsible-for-some-global-warming/ The earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing If you are going to refer to the Milankovitch cycles then really you ought to make sure to mention all three of them and give them their proper name, otherwise it kind of looks like you don’t really know what you are talking about. These are well known natural cycles which affect the Earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years, and are assumed to be the primary cause of glacial periods. They are well understood and accounted for in all climate modelling. They do not, however, come anywhere close to explaining the current rate of warming, which is around ten times greater than that which would be expected due to any natural forcings and/or inferred from ice core records. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/ Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. You won’t find a single climate scientist who will disagree with the first part of this sentence. But the last bit is completely inaccurate I’m afraid. If you doubt that CO2 can have any effect on the Earth’s climate, then I suggest you read about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period in Earth’s history when runaway warming of between 5-8 degrees followed a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and lasted for around 200,000 years. The actual cause of this release of CO2 is still largely unknown, but what is known is that it happened at a far lower rate than at which we are dumping it into the atmosphere currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum The biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. This is just plain wrong, I’m afraid. It’s true that water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and is abundant in our atmosphere. But it only has a very short residence time in the atmosphere before precipitating out, and crucially, it does not control the Earth’s surface temperature. The build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere is a feedback effect resulting from increasing temperatures (basic physics – warmer air can hold more water). Water vapour cannot explain the observed warming since the mid 20th century, and it most certainly does not have a greater warming effect than CO2. This is GCSE level stuff, and should never, ever be used as an argument against AGW. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. Ah, the Connollys. The last part of your sentence is utter nonsense. Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!). Even a simpleton can see the faulty logic in that conclusion. These guys were invited speakers at the Heartland Institute’s annual conference in 2015, and recently co-authored (with Willie Soon – a man who is proven to have lied about his fossil-fuel funding) an absolutely laughable hatchet job on Greenpeace which was published by Heartland https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/ This is the same ‘think tank’ that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 90s to spread disinformation and convince the world that the research showing the dangers of smoking was just alarmist nonsense. No reputable climate scientist would, in their right mind, have anything to do with them whatsoever. They are just like the GWPF – set up by wealthy backers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and using pseudo-science to advance their agenda. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously in climate change debates, then you need to avoid anybody linked with Heartland like the plague. You started this discussion by saying that you like to do your own research on the subject. I can’t fault that. I would strongly recommend anybody seek out alternative viewpoints and test their validity – that’s just basic good science. But from what I have seen so far from your posts, you are looking in all the wrong places. The sites you have linked to so far have been those of either highly partisan conservative commentators or neoliberal lobby groups. You won’t find a single ounce of objectivity or scientific rigor on these sites, and by even citing them as ‘evidence’ to support your position, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research. Your posting style and language gives the impression that you are, in fact, the opposite. You have shown a clear indication of confirmation bias (a logical fallacy to which we are all susceptible to some degree or another) as you appear to have already made your mind up that you believe AGW is a hoax, and are willing to seek out any sources, however unreliable they might be, to support that position, while blatantly disregarding all others which contradict it. This is the very epitome of bad science. So to re-phrase my question from a previous post – If you have some *credible* sources which contradict the consensus on AGW then please share them with us, because so far you have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 10 November, 2019 Share Posted 10 November, 2019 Manipulation of data is the whole problem with the hysteria about climate change and why I believe scientists that do not believe that man made climate change is any where near as bad as we are told should have their say. For instance between the 1940's and 1970's Co2 in the atmosphere went up yet global temperatures went down, you can't have it both ways You can if there is a very simple explanation for that... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/langswitch_lang/in/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 11 November, 2019 Share Posted 11 November, 2019 OK let’s break this down bit by bit… The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity Of course, the sun is the primary source of all heat energy on Earth and is obviously a huge influencing factor in our climate.. Numerous satellites have been recording solar activity since the late 70s, and due to the inherent uncertainty resulting from how you combine the data from these satellites, they show either a very slight cooling trend or a very slight warming trend. But either way, this still does not account for the increased rate of warming seen during the 20th century. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/has-the-sun-been-more-active-in-recent-decades-and-could-it-be-responsible-for-some-global-warming/ The earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing If you are going to refer to the Milankovitch cycles then really you ought to make sure to mention all three of them and give them their proper name, otherwise it kind of looks like you don’t really know what you are talking about. These are well known natural cycles which affect the Earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years, and are assumed to be the primary cause of glacial periods. They are well understood and accounted for in all climate modelling. They do not, however, come anywhere close to explaining the current rate of warming, which is around ten times greater than that which would be expected due to any natural forcings and/or inferred from ice core records. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/ Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. You won’t find a single climate scientist who will disagree with the first part of this sentence. But the last bit is completely inaccurate I’m afraid. If you doubt that CO2 can have any effect on the Earth’s climate, then I suggest you read about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period in Earth’s history when runaway warming of between 5-8 degrees followed a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and lasted for around 200,000 years. The actual cause of this release of CO2 is still largely unknown, but what is known is that it happened at a far lower rate than at which we are dumping it into the atmosphere currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum The biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. This is just plain wrong, I’m afraid. It’s true that water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and is abundant in our atmosphere. But it only has a very short residence time in the atmosphere before precipitating out, and crucially, it does not control the Earth’s surface temperature. The build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere is a feedback effect resulting from increasing temperatures (basic physics – warmer air can hold more water). Water vapour cannot explain the observed warming since the mid 20th century, and it most certainly does not have a greater warming effect than CO2. This is GCSE level stuff, and should never, ever be used as an argument against AGW. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. Ah, the Connollys. The last part of your sentence is utter nonsense. Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!). Even a simpleton can see the faulty logic in that conclusion. These guys were invited speakers at the Heartland Institute’s annual conference in 2015, and recently co-authored (with Willie Soon – a man who is proven to have lied about his fossil-fuel funding) an absolutely laughable hatchet job on Greenpeace which was published by Heartland https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/ This is the same ‘think tank’ that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 90s to spread disinformation and convince the world that the research showing the dangers of smoking was just alarmist nonsense. No reputable climate scientist would, in their right mind, have anything to do with them whatsoever. They are just like the GWPF – set up by wealthy backers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and using pseudo-science to advance their agenda. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously in climate change debates, then you need to avoid anybody linked with Heartland like the plague. You started this discussion by saying that you like to do your own research on the subject. I can’t fault that. I would strongly recommend anybody seek out alternative viewpoints and test their validity – that’s just basic good science. But from what I have seen so far from your posts, you are looking in all the wrong places. The sites you have linked to so far have been those of either highly partisan conservative commentators or neoliberal lobby groups. You won’t find a single ounce of objectivity or scientific rigor on these sites, and by even citing them as ‘evidence’ to support your position, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research. Your posting style and language gives the impression that you are, in fact, the opposite. You have shown a clear indication of confirmation bias (a logical fallacy to which we are all susceptible to some degree or another) as you appear to have already made your mind up that you believe AGW is a hoax, and are willing to seek out any sources, however unreliable they might be, to support that position, while blatantly disregarding all others which contradict it. This is the very epitome of bad science. So to re-phrase my question from a previous post – If you have some *credible* sources which contradict the consensus on AGW then please share them with us, because so far you have not. If you are going to refer to the Milankovitch cycles then really you ought to make sure to mention all three of them and give them their proper name, otherwise it kind of looks like you don’t really know what you are talking about. Get over yourself it's a football forum not the Cambridge Scientific Debating Society Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!) That's not even close to what they said I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research I'm not open minded You're the one who continued to try to defend Michael Mann even after I pointed out that all he had to do to end the court case was show the data and how he used that data to make the graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 11 November, 2019 Share Posted 11 November, 2019 (edited) I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research I'm not open minded You're the one who continued to try to defend Michael Mann even after I pointed out that all he had to do to end the court case was show the data and how he used that data to make the graph. And yet your total fixation with this Mann court case kind of proves my point. You keep banging on about it as if it represents some kind of slam dunk proof that he is a fraud and that man-made climate change does not exist, but it does nothing of the sort and is a total red herring. Now, as I have already said, it does certainly appear odd that Mann would allow the court action to just languish in the way that he did. I can’t offer any genuine reasons for that myself (maybe ask him – he’s very active on Twitter and seems willing to engage with most people who want to debate him sensibly). But to draw the conclusion from this that he refused a court order to turn over his data and must therefore be guilty of fraud is one of the most spectacularly flawed leaps of logic you could ever make. The transcript of the court dismissal states that literally nothing happened to move the matter forward, and made no mention whatsoever of any order to submit data or refusal to comply with such an order. If that was the actual reason for the delay, don’t you think the judge would have mentioned this very important detail when dismissing the case? Anyway it’s completely irrelevant, because - for the last time – Mann’s data and methodology are available in the public domain and have been for a very long time. It’s not this big secret that he refuses to share with anyone. It’s out there for all to see if you can be bothered. It’s now been over 20 years since Mann et. al. first published their paper, and in the intervening years it has been scrutinised, dissected, tested, reconstructed, reproduced – whatever – dozens of times, and not one of those studies has ever been able to identify any fatal flaws in its conclusions or evidence of deliberate manipulation of the data. Not one. If you still doubt that, have a read for yourself… https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225961901_Robustness_of_the_Mann_Bradley_Hughes_reconstruction_of_Northern_Hemisphere_surface_temperatures_Examination_of_criticisms_based_on_the_nature_and_processing_of_proxy_climate_evidence “Our results show that the MBH climate reconstruction method applied to the original proxy data is not only reproducible, but also proves robust against important simplifications and modifications. The results of this study demonstrate that the primary climatological claim described in [Mclntyre and McKitrick 2005] – that the method used by MBH to form PC summaries of climate proxies from data-rich regions results in calibrations that inappropriately weight proxies with a single-bladed hockey stick-like shape in the 20th century – cannot be upheld, and leaves unchanged the overall MBH result of uniquely high Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th century (relative to the entire 15th–20th century period).” Or how about this, the further paper that Mann co-authored in 2008 which expands on the previous study due to the wealth of further information available following an extra decade of research... https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252 This time they reconstructed the surface temperatures for the past 1,300 years, both with and without the original tree ring data used in 1998, and guess what? The results were pretty much identical and fully supported the original findings – the warming in the 20th century is anomalous in the recent historic record. Here is a list somebody compiled of all the studies they could find which support Mann’s findings… http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html Perhaps you would like to review them all for us and provide a succinct summary of why you are so certain that they are all wrong but the Connollys are right? This ground has been covered over and over again in recent years, to the point that, frankly, I find it astonishing that there are people out there who are still flogging the dead horse of the “Mann’s a fraud” narrative. It is total bunkum. The only people still pushing this narrative are those with a serious financial interest in maintaining the status quo, and their useful idiots who swallow it blindly and regurgitate it as fact. If you’re still not convinced about that then have a read of this… https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html It’s an email chain which shows a sting by a member of Greenpeace purporting to be a representative of a middle eastern oil company, who contacted William Happer of the GWPF to enquire about getting them to author a paper which would portray CO2 as purely beneficial to the planet. Not only does Happer agree to this in principle, he also advises how he can arrange for the paper to ‘bypass’ any kind of rigorous peer review process, and how reimbursement can be made without it showing on any official accounts as payment for that particular work. They are utterly corrupt and devoid of any credibility whatsoever. Edit: Oh and by the way, have a guess who was the academic chairman of the GWPF at the time of this scandal and resigned very shortly afterwards? https://www.desmog.co.uk/2016/01/06/climate-denying-gwpf-academic-chairman-ross-mckitrick-resigns None other than one of the authors of the 2005 critique of Mann et. al.'s paper, which was thoroughly evaluated in a peer-reviewed study and found to be without merit - see link above. Are you seeing the connections now? The vast majority of the people pushing the denial narrative are all part of a large, well-funded, well-oiled machine, which goes to great lengths to appear credible, but it is anything but. Edited 12 November, 2019 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 11 November, 2019 Share Posted 11 November, 2019 Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!) That's not even close to what they said. Have you even read their site? Here’s a direct quote: “Our experimental results show that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere is completely independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 13 November, 2019 Share Posted 13 November, 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50401308 Climate change or natural phenomenom? Highest tide ever (1966) = 1.94m Second highest tide (2019) = 1.87m However, that is since records began in 1923 so potentially there could have been higher tides that weren't recorded. Does this occurence fit with current science - should there be more 'second highest tides ever' recorded around the globe to prove the science or is this just a one-off and a bit of bad luck for a city that is flooded anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 13 November, 2019 Share Posted 13 November, 2019 Have you even read their site? Here’s a direct quote: “Our experimental results show that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere is completely independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory” What they are talking about is the atmosphere being in thermal dynamic equlibriam, if they are right about this then according to one of Einstiene's theories Co2 could not cause warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 November, 2019 Share Posted 13 November, 2019 What they are talking about is the atmosphere being in thermal dynamic equlibriam, if they are right about this then according to one of Einstiene's theories Co2 could not cause warming. It's equilibrium, Einstein and CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 November, 2019 Share Posted 13 November, 2019 (edited) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50401308 Climate change or natural phenomenom? The frequency of natural phenomena varies depending on the state of the earth. Cut down forests on hills you get more landslides, plant more trees you get more rain, take too many fish from the ocean you get more jellyfish. One isnt unaffected by the other. Edited 13 November, 2019 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 November, 2019 Share Posted 13 November, 2019 It's equilibrium, Einstein and CO2. I think what's slightly more important than the mis-spelling of his name is the fact that he didn't even write the laws of thermodynamics! And even more important than that is the fact that the atmosphere is not actually in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2553-x And even more important than that is the fact that, even if it was, the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the second law anyway. Some other cranks tried arguing otherwise a few years ago and were savagely put in their place by some scientists who actually know what they are talking about... https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X The Connollys didn't get the same treatment, because it's already been done and they are just too insignificant in the eyes of the climate science community to even bother publishing a paper rebutting their wild claims. The closest I can find is this... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/05/unforced-variations-may-2019/comment-page-4/ "Jim Ryan @155, You ask if Soon et al (2015) ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’ has been rebutted [this is the paper co-authored by the Connollys]. I don’t see a rebuttal of Soon’s ‘work’ since a bit earlier (eg here) and there is today quite a collection of denialist ‘work’ referencing Soon et al (2015). Of course Soon et al (2015) is a rather long ‘work’ running to 49 pages, “running” being the operative word. It doesn’t stop once to properly compare its individual assertions with the actual science it is trying to overturn. Perhaps a summary would be in order for folk here to appreciate the labours of these denialist running-dogs. (1) Solar variability over recent centuries is discussed at length (pp3-19). The coverage does end with a “Summary of the Current Debates” but this begins badly [saying “Solar input is probably one of the most important drivers of Earth’s climate.”] and anything usefully set out is entirely ignored within the remainder of the ‘work’ which is doing no more than following Scarfetta & Willson (2014). (2) A novel ‘composite’ NH land temperature record 1880-to-date is constructed using selective “rural” data from China, USA, Ireland & (less selectively) the Arctic, concluding that it is significantly different from other NH land temperature records (pp19-32). (3) While their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is significantly different from all others, they fail to investigate why this may be so (effectively asserting that it is due to Urban Heat Islands) and instead compare their ‘composite’ directly with NH SST records, glacier-length records and Wilson et al (2007) ‘A matter of divergence: Tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree ring data’, prividing themselves with a conformatory tick in all cases (pp32-35). (4) A quick ‘attribution’ analysis shows their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is “a remarkably close fit” with their chosen solar variability reconstruction leading to a conclusion “that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution” which is entirely contrary to the findings of IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:from Global to Regional” but which is dismissed as being purely a “claim” (pp37-43)." Surprise surprise, Willie Soon is also a favourite of the Heartland Institute who, as I have previously mentioned, is know to have been less than forthcoming about his funding from the fossil fuel industry, and only recently admitted to it as part of a submission to a court in relation to a claim against some fossil fuel companies for costs arising from climate change by San Francisco and Oakland. One of the other people to also submit information was our old friend Will Happer from my previous post. It's all one big global network of deceit and propaganda. Do yourself a big favour Scally and don't be one of their useful idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 14 November, 2019 Share Posted 14 November, 2019 I think what's slightly more important than the mis-spelling of his name is the fact that he didn't even write the laws of thermodynamics! And even more important than that is the fact that the atmosphere is not actually in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2553-x And even more important than that is the fact that, even if it was, the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the second law anyway. Some other cranks tried arguing otherwise a few years ago and were savagely put in their place by some scientists who actually know what they are talking about... https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X The Connollys didn't get the same treatment, because it's already been done and they are just too insignificant in the eyes of the climate science community to even bother publishing a paper rebutting their wild claims. The closest I can find is this... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/05/unforced-variations-may-2019/comment-page-4/ "Jim Ryan @155, You ask if Soon et al (2015) ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’ has been rebutted [this is the paper co-authored by the Connollys]. I don’t see a rebuttal of Soon’s ‘work’ since a bit earlier (eg here) and there is today quite a collection of denialist ‘work’ referencing Soon et al (2015). Of course Soon et al (2015) is a rather long ‘work’ running to 49 pages, “running” being the operative word. It doesn’t stop once to properly compare its individual assertions with the actual science it is trying to overturn. Perhaps a summary would be in order for folk here to appreciate the labours of these denialist running-dogs. (1) Solar variability over recent centuries is discussed at length (pp3-19). The coverage does end with a “Summary of the Current Debates” but this begins badly [saying “Solar input is probably one of the most important drivers of Earth’s climate.”] and anything usefully set out is entirely ignored within the remainder of the ‘work’ which is doing no more than following Scarfetta & Willson (2014). (2) A novel ‘composite’ NH land temperature record 1880-to-date is constructed using selective “rural” data from China, USA, Ireland & (less selectively) the Arctic, concluding that it is significantly different from other NH land temperature records (pp19-32). (3) While their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is significantly different from all others, they fail to investigate why this may be so (effectively asserting that it is due to Urban Heat Islands) and instead compare their ‘composite’ directly with NH SST records, glacier-length records and Wilson et al (2007) ‘A matter of divergence: Tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree ring data’, prividing themselves with a conformatory tick in all cases (pp32-35). (4) A quick ‘attribution’ analysis shows their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is “a remarkably close fit” with their chosen solar variability reconstruction leading to a conclusion “that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution” which is entirely contrary to the findings of IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:from Global to Regional” but which is dismissed as being purely a “claim” (pp37-43)." Surprise surprise, Willie Soon is also a favourite of the Heartland Institute who, as I have previously mentioned, is know to have been less than forthcoming about his funding from the fossil fuel industry, and only recently admitted to it as part of a submission to a court in relation to a claim against some fossil fuel companies for costs arising from climate change by San Francisco and Oakland. One of the other people to also submit information was our old friend Will Happer from my previous post. It's all one big global network of deceit and propaganda. Do yourself a big favour Scally and don't be one of their useful idiots. I'm not sure where I said Einstein wrote the law of thermodynamics and as for the spelling mistake, get a life. Sorry but I thought science worked by some one putting a theory forward that could be challenged in the future if new evidence was discovered, so the Connolly's could be right in their theory that the atmosphere is in dynamic equilibrium. This debate has run it's course, it's just a your scientist vs my scientist argument, and your scientists is right and mines just a nut job because his views don't suit your narrative. The only way to settle this is to come back in 10 years and see if the climate alarmists have got it totally wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 14 November, 2019 Share Posted 14 November, 2019 I'm not sure where I said Einstein wrote the law of thermodynamics and as for the spelling mistake, get a life. Sorry but I thought science worked by some one putting a theory forward that could be challenged in the future if new evidence was discovered, so the Connolly's could be right in their theory that the atmosphere is in dynamic equilibrium. This debate has run it's course, it's just a your scientist vs my scientist argument, and your scientists is right and mines just a nut job because his views don't suit your narrative. The only way to settle this is to come back in 10 years and see if the climate alarmists have got it totally wrong again. Lol. Their paper is 6 years old, I think it’s fair to say if their theory was correct they would have a Nobel prize by now given that if true they would save the world’s government’s billions. There is not one country on this planet that wouldn’t want their theory to be true because climate change is an expensive inconvenience to everyone regardless of politics. Like me you are obviously not a scientist, why are you so eager to believe these obvious crack-pots over the many reputable scientific bodies, NASA etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 14 November, 2019 Share Posted 14 November, 2019 Lol. Their paper is 6 years old, I think it’s fair to say if their theory was correct they would have a Nobel prize by now given that if true they would save the world’s government’s billions. There is not one country on this planet that wouldn’t want their theory to be true because climate change is an expensive inconvenience to everyone regardless of politics. Like me you are obviously not a scientist, why are you so eager to believe these obvious crack-pots over the many reputable scientific bodies, NASA etc? It fits his world view that climate change is an evil conspiracy so if he finds something on the net that fits that view he will grab it with both hands while decrying how blind everyone else is to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 14 November, 2019 Share Posted 14 November, 2019 (edited) I'm not sure where I said Einstein wrote the law of thermodynamics and as for the spelling mistake, get a life. Sorry but I thought science worked by some one putting a theory forward that could be challenged in the future if new evidence was discovered, so the Connolly's could be right in their theory that the atmosphere is in dynamic equilibrium. This debate has run it's course, it's just a your scientist vs my scientist argument, and your scientists is right and mines just a nut job because his views don't suit your narrative. The only way to settle this is to come back in 10 years and see if the climate alarmists have got it totally wrong again. OK so if you weren't referring to the laws of thermodynamics then perhaps you could tell us which one of Einstein's theories you think negates the possibility of the existence of the greenhouse effect? Look I have tried to be as respectful as possible and point out to you the serious flaws in all of the arguments you have so far put forward, but you're obviously just sticking your head in the sand and there is clearly nothing I can do to convince you, so I'm just going to be blunt... If you don't even understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis then you are clearly out of your depth. If the Connollys' contention about thermal equilibrium contradicting the greenhouse effect has any validity then why was it necessary for them to self-publish it? Why did they not submit it to a credible science journal? The answer is quite simple - because it would never get past the rigorous peer review process in any reputable publication, due to the massive inherent flaws in their reasoning. And like aintforever says, if there was any validity to their claims then why haven't they won any awards for this groundbreaking work and why has nobody else done any further research to expand on it in the intervening years, given the huge implications of them being correct? Also, why do they associate themselves with proven corrupt organisations to get their point across? And no, this isn't about my scientist vs your scientist, it's about good science vs bad science. Clearly you don't have even the slightest clue how to tell the difference between them, otherwise you would have recognised the very loud alarm bells ringing about the Connollys' work. When you study science at degree level, as I have, one of the most important lessons you learn is the evaluation of sources. There are key pointers you can use to help you identify whether a study is credible or if it is dubious. Things like presentation, objectivity, methodology. When you look at the loaded language the Connollys use on their website, it's immediately obvious there is no objectivity in play here. Just the name of the site - Global Warming Solved - is enough to tell you that these guys are not interested in good objective science. It's no wonder nobody else pays them any attention except the fossil fuel lobby they do their presentations for. And when you claim that I'm only dismissing them as nutjobs because their views don't suit my narrative - you could not be more wrong and this is a clear indication of projection on your part. The reason I asked you to show us some credible sources to support your argument is because I am always genuinely interested to see if anyone can come up with anything that can disprove the theory of AGW. I would love for it to be untrue and that everything was fine, really I would, but all the evidence of my studies and independent research tells me that's not the case. You, on the other hand, clearly have this internal narrative that global warming is this massive lefty conspiracy, and you are so convinced that this is the case that you are prepared to wilfully dismiss an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary and put all your faith in the work of some discredited individuals because that fits with your pre-existing view. You show all the signs of a classic conspiracy theorist in that you want to believe you are somehow special - like the boy in the story of the emperor's new clothes - because you can see what none of the other brainwashed sheeple can see. And if it's all the same with you, I would rather not wait another ten years to see if you are right. Even if there was the slightest bit of validity in what you are saying, there is this thing in science called the precautionary principle, but I don't expect you to be familiar with this concept either. Given some of the terrifying warning signs of what is to come we have seen in the last few years (like massive, unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires in the Arctic this year), I would much rather trust my own understanding of the science thanks. Edited 15 November, 2019 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 20 November, 2019 Share Posted 20 November, 2019 What a cnt this bloke is https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-co-founder-calls-holocaust-just-another-f-ery-in-human-history-11865863 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2019 Share Posted 22 November, 2019 (edited) What a cnt this bloke is https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-co-founder-calls-holocaust-just-another-f-ery-in-human-history-11865863Just someone who hates humanity and sees it as a virus. He should do everyone a favour if that's what he believes and end his own life for the good of the planet. Edited 22 November, 2019 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now