On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:52:12 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 12:22:35 PM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 11:47, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:27:56 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 04/01/2020 10:58, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:09:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh
wrote:

This is quite an alarming animation. It seems to me that the
chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg are long since
gone. A warming well in excess of 2 deg seems much more
likely.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1213272332464082944

Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire

Agree. Not if you go by Roy Spencer, however:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/...-observations/

There's always one, but you never know, the lone voices (and
Trump) may be right...

Spencer has cleverly chosen to compare real-life data with model
predictions, and in doing so was 'on a winner' as the models have
consistently failed to predict anything that's actually turned
up in reality.

The real-life data clearly shows the current 20-year plateau in
the temperature 'anomaly' that the models dare not reflect as it
could mean a threat to their creators' funding, publications,
travel to conferences, etc, as has happened all too often for
those whose research results are 'off message'.

Spencer mentions the possibility that the models incorporate too
much positive feedback, but this is a necessary part of the
current reliance of CO2 as a driver for the claimed planetary
warming.

'claimed' and a reliance on one person's perspective, as opposed
to almost every other single person working in climate science.

Presumably, this is science that you don't want to unite behind.

Says it all really 'spike'.

"It" being your argumentum ad populum, you mean.


--
Spike

To you 'Spike' and to Spencer, that would be exactly right. You two
know what's happening, don't you? The rest of science, with
overwhelming evidence, which you could research if you wished to, is
wrong.

You haven't presented any evidence! All you've done is ranted "my team
is bigger than your team", with nothing at all to back it up.

As it will always be for you. *))

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Burt's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Spike's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have to
be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of nailing
him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen because you
don't like what he says.


--
Spike

On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Spike's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have to
be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of nailing
him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen because you
don't like what he says.


--
Spike

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?

Keith (Southend)

In article , lid
says...
but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more.

[...]

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

[...]


It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work


I'm sure Mr Garvey would not suggest that Spencer is an anonymous troll.
He must be talking about someone else.



--
Alan LeHun

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:01:50 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter
Burt's point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA,
The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations'
national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've
presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an
anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but
the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years
ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on,
past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others,
far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your
head in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element'
supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have
to be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of
nailing him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen
because you don't like what he says.



You tell him, Burt!

They've got no answers for you, Burt.

On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:
On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Spike's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have to
be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of nailing
him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen because you
don't like what he says.

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?

"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

--
Spike

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:
On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Spike's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have to
be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of nailing
him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen because you
don't like what he says.

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?

"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

--
Spike

I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating.

However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to.

To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before.

Graham
Penzance

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 09:12:31 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:
On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter
Spike's point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA,
The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations'
national scientific associations' comments and publications.
I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to
for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are
finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same
dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The
scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom
comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking
your head in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or
the microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the
'chlorine is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an
element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that -
have to be explored scientifically rather than the emotive
approach of nailing him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in
his abdomen because you don't like what he says.

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it
is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening
around the world, how bad has it got to get?

"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.


People have variously described you as petty, spiteful, and bitter,
Burt. And, in just one post, you've demonstrated all three descriptors
to be accurate - classy.

Well done, Burt!

P.S. I bet Greta could get a diplomatic passport, if she wanted one,
Burt.

On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?


"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating.

The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to
Spencer's page and said "There's always one".

However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to.

I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have
been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the
family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety
attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome,
high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective
mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside
her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't
already have a copy.

But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a
religion, it is a scientific subject.

To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before.

I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more
significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or
analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment
that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.

Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?


"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating.

The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to
Spencer's page and said "There's always one".

However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to.

I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have
been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the
family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety
attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome,
high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective
mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside
her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't
already have a copy.

But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a
religion, it is a scientific subject.

To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before..

I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more
significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or
analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment
that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.

Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

--
Spike

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.