It's global cooling, not warming!

Junkyard – Would you admit that that is also a possibility?

I would accept that anything is a possibility but surely as the great stats guru you are we should be discussing probability 🙄

Now do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

No I just look at the data – the clustering illusion clearly says that it is humans seeing patterns in random data for this to be true then C02would not actually be increasing it is random and we are all misinterpreting and the same with temperature? Clearly that is a load of b0ll0ks as a hypothesis. Barrel scrapping in the extreme.
As for patterns science is data led not agenda led – nothing else can change it’s paradigms like science it s why it is so powerful – not go forth and gather the daat – not pop psychology- to persuade me.

You're the one who introduced the word possibility!

natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includes man made C02 release

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it – of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

And wooly mammoths probably caused the last ice age, as prior to then, there were no mammoth made climate inputs!

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

yes that is exatky what science doed how incredibly perceptive off you – FFS if that is your view – which is ridicolous beyond words – there is NO point in debating it with you as whatever evidence I produce you will just repeat that line.

Culd you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

Could you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

(I take it you meant if CO2 is not actually increasing temperature)

Can you explain how I was able to produce a downward trend from the same data?

its a circular argument – either of us can cherry pick the start and end point to prove our point!

No I meant just C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing or are you also suffering from the same affliction as us all when we look at C02 ppm readings?
So if we look at C02 data and

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

draw a downward trend just for C02 for us – best of luck

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it – of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

Whats that Junkyard, you don't like people reducing your thinking to the point reductio ad absurdum? 😈

C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing

Look, I can even give you a nice correlation graph of historical CO2 levels that proves that CO2 levels can rise whilst still being part of an overall downward trend:

Wheres your correlationlink between temperature and CO2 now?

I am pleased that at least I have finally taught you the difference between a graph and a correlation. I suepect that is the best I can do with the limited materials I am working with 😉

C'mon junkyard!

What do you see before you? Upward or downward trend in CO2?

Of course, if you want to cherry pick the last century worth of data…

😆

CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias

No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a completely biased bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

Z11 said:

but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion either way

Duh!

You seem to have gone a bit gung-ho. I think you've let the fact that we found a point of agreement go to your head and you just made another stupid statement.

As junkyard points out, we are talking probabilities not possibilities. Just because 2 things are possible, doesn't mean that they are equally probable (though it's nice to hear that you are open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is a possibility that you are completely wrong).

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

We already discussed that some time ago.

Then you should see the problem with trying to play ad hominem with the analysis of climategate on the basis that it was from SPPI shouldn't you?

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

Not me anymore experts and their consensus vieas you have converted me thanks.
Smoking is linked to cancer Pah what do you know expert we had cancer before people smoked well deny eh see you cant , can you ,natural cycle innit …cherry picking their data **** Doctors with their consensus views …. mass hysteria about the clustering illusion… I tell thee…. just boils my pi55.

zulu-eleven:

I just had a look for the Bemer RA (2001) paper on Web Of Knowledge (a global database of peer reviewed research, in case you didn't know) reportedly the source of the CO2 curve you posted and couldn't find it anywhere.

Do you have it?

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

You know what, that's the first thing you've said that slightly winds me up. You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, because it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it. I'm afraid I have to say that I rank Lord Monckton somewhere in the vicinity of David Icke on my list of people worth listening to. I do read skeptic stuff, but not theirs.

…….do you honestly think of yourself as a modern day Darwin?

You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, because it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

You've discovered one of ratty's most treasured tacit. Many a time he's told me what I think, and why I think, what I think.

why do you call him ratty ernie? Sounds interesting

Oh, sorry RPRT, I forgot you told us that you were convinced by the argument… you never told us which aspects of that argument of course though 😉

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with – Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

Junkyard – Ratty, my former login here was Labrat… twelve years in pharma toxicology research, oh, the things I could tell you about torturing data to prove something is safe 😈

Ernie – hello kettle, this is pot, colour check, over 😀

why do you call him ratty ernie?

😕 Because he's labrat ?

Plus "ratty" sounds more cuddly………….I've always liked Wind in the Willows

rightplacerighttime – Member
CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias
No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a completely biased bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

That, and your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Ashmo, I would guess its something to do with – Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. Am. J. Sci., v. 301, p. 182-204.

I wasn't being awkward, I genuinely couldn't find the paper. The typeface made Berner look like Bemer.

Unsuprisingly the paper has been placed in an erroneous context.

a general point:

That paper uses modelling to reconstruct paleozoic temperature. Now these models are NO WHERE near as constrained as Pleistocene climate models, for which we have a pretty much spot on idea of paleogeography and a direct record of atmospheric composition since circa 400kya. Yet these models are rejected and the less constrained deep-time models are used as a pro-sceptic argument.

a fundamental point:

Humans do not exist on a 100's mya timescale. At different times in time different climate forcings become important. Vostok/GRIP/EPICA have shown that natural changes in co2 occur in the Quaternary which are of similar size to anthropogenic input. If a natural input which correlates well with changes catastrophic (to humans at least) changes in near time, on time scales important to humans. An extension upwards of these trends is not unreasonable given the C budgets involved. The obvious conclusion therefore that those changes are important, not changes in the Paleozoic where paleo-geographies and resolvable timescales are totally different.

This thread has just gone round in circles now and it's clear you're just another "sceptic" who, for whatever reason, refuses to listen to professionals, evidence and reason but likes listening nutcases putting together graphs in Excel in their bedrooms.

So yeah, in a bit Charles.

No Ashmo, I'm a skeptic who thinks that the alarmist extrapolation of data to "prove" that the sky is falling in, the end of the world is nigh and we're all going to die because of climate change of a fraction of a degree is a wholly pointless exercise, given

i) Adaptability of the human race, and

ii) The real, tangible threats and immediate challenges that face the vast majority of the worlds population now and in the near future

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

Nearly a million people die every year from malaria, last year up to half a million kids were subjected to blindness through Vitamin A deficiency -the financial cost of dealing with this would pale into insignificance against the amount of money being bandied around in cap and trade CO2 credits.

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability – the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

CatpJon said (about me):

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

But a page later he said:

your other posts on this thread confirm to me you're not interested in evaluating evidence presented to you in anything like a rigorous manner.

Quite the analyst aren't you?

The only thing that can be known for certain is that some level of climate change, up or down, sooner or later, is an inevitability – the human race is foolish to think that it can stand like Canute preventing it, and needs to concentrate on how it will adapt to cope with it!

Amen.

Or even better, get the nuclear rocket program back up and running and move to Mars (we've got the whole planetary warming thing sussed after all).

When we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets start worrying about tomorrow.

The thing is, climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about. That's why I for one am worried about climate change.

I would also argue that our rate of economic growth and the speed at which we are exploiting and burning hydrocarbons are in themselves (even without the climate change) causing all those things.

But in any case it's not a zero sum game. You can worry about all those other things AND worry about climate change.

BTW we had plenty of money to deal with malaria long before cap and trade, but we chose to spend it on other things. Again, it's not a zero sum game. Why do you make such an idiotic point?

Why do you make such an idiotic point?

Why is spending money on something useful idiotic? Money is finite. Choices have to be made.

rprt – I would imagine Cptnjohns opinion might have been swayed by the comment

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it

Whilst of course asserting that you had been thoroughly convinced by open minded analysis of the arguments rather than merely backing the consensus!

climate change is likely to cause all of those things you are worried about

All the more reason to do something about them then, because if you're wrong about the cause, and it is independent of CO2, then the precautionary principle would suggest its the safest action to take…

Money is finite. Choices have to be made.

Indeed!

5th Elephant

It's idiotic because Z11 presents it as if it was a straight choice between cap and trade and preventing malaria – which of course it isn't.

I'm not against spending money on preventing malaria but that is an unrelated issue. Trying to combine the two is a straw man argument.

Z11 said:

Whilst of course asserting that you had been thoroughly convinced by open minded analysis of the arguments rather than merely backing the consensus!

Are you telling me that you read EVERYTHING on the science of climate change?

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative? For example, stuff that you know is peer reviewed?

Z11 said:

All the more reason to do something about them then

I thought I made it clear in the same post that you quote that I think it would be good to slow down our exploitation of fossil fuels anyway, because I think that our rampant thirst for oil is causing all of those problems you mention.

edit – and which would of course happily have the knock on effect of reducing CO2 and climate change.

5th Elephant said:

Money is finite.

Sorry, missed this first time, and maybe I shouldn't risk the thread going off at another tangent, but maybe you should think about that statement a bit more.

Or do you use your discretion and read what you think might be genuinely informative?

No rp – I just dismiss things out of hand because I disagree with the source! 🙄

regards my statement on money – Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was

our rate of economic growth

I didn't dismiss it out of hand – I told you, I already had an opinion about the group that published the report.

That is not "out of hand"

Do you not see that?

dismissing it without reading it is dismissing it out of hand rp!

The reflexive dismissal of any study or report because of its source is an intellectually lazy excuse not to have to think, period. It's a convenient excuse not to have to face evidence that challenges your existing fervent belief!

regards my statement on money – Sorry again RP, I thought you made it clear the problem was "our rate of economic growth"

I don't understand your point.

Spot the difference.

The Ordovician glaciation is a temperature drop that we don't have an explanation for. Gondwana went over the pole which with a low CO2 level would have been enough to cause a glaciation, but CO2 estimates for the period are high and the glaciation would have required a rapid fall in CO2 or some other event such as a rapid fall in solar output. How the Earth was able to lose so much heat and get so cold at the time if CO2 did remain high is still not clear. We need an event or set of conditions and we don't have either yet – unless you know different.

The Carboniferous glaciations fit quite well with what we've seen in the Quaternary: low CO2, north-south land masses restricting ocean circulation and a significant land mass over the pole favouring ice formation.

Edit: The authors of the paper the CO2 graph is derived from recognise that the resolution of their model is insufficent to show changes in CO2 over periods of 10 million years which could explain the Ordovician glaciation. Just because their graphs doesn't show a drop in CO2 doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Z11 – have you read it? (there may be a test later)