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

It was you that introduced her name into the thread, with the sole purpose of mocking & rubbishing both her and the argument.

You used to raise the occasional point which I felt deserved a serious response that was lacking, but any sympathy I ever felt for you has gone.

You don't have to be a scientist with expertise in climate change to realise
that climate change could create some real problems for mankind, and that it would mankind clearly needs to minimise it's impact the Earth's environment.

On 06/01/2020 09:12, Spike wrote:
"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.

A few months ago, I completed a test for autism. A score of 16 was the
average. 80% of autists scored 32 or more. I scored 36. This was judged
to indicate the high probability of me being autistic. As I also have an
IQ in the top 1%, this would have classified me as an Aspie under the
old system (Asperger's is no longer a separate classification so I would
be simply marked as autistic). I have also suffered from clinical
depression for at least forty years. I therefore find your remarks
insulting and disgusting but sadly unsurprising.

I am also a scientist, having specialised for several years in
climatology, with special regard to Arctic Ice, and and have previously
demonstrated to you that climate models have been correctly forecasting
the effects of CO2 on global temperatures for several decades. However,
you continue to bury your head in the sand. I have no objection to you
continuing to do that but just wish that you would desist from spreading
your ill-informed ideas on a scientific newsgroup.


http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...limate-change/

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:24:15 +0000
Spike wrote:


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.

That's an impressive bit of back-peddling, there, Burt!

Can you tell us what your intentions were when you started the thread
entitled: "OT: Gretta Tuneborg sits on floor of train." in uk.d-i-y ?

Here is the body of your post:

"According to the news this morning, the brat complained in a tweet that
she had to sit on the floor of a crowded train, while returning form
some climate junket or other. The German rail operator couldn't get her
into First Class fast enough.

I take it she realises that, come her carbon-neutral future, sitting on
the floor of crowded trains is going to be the norm?

--
Spike"

Face it, Burt; you're a deeply unpleasant, bitter, old man.

On 07/01/2020 16:02, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 06/01/2020 09:12, Spike wrote:

"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.

A few months ago, I completed a test for autism. A score of 16 was the
average. 80% of autists scored 32 or more. I scored 36. This was judged
to indicate the high probability of me being autistic. As I also have an
IQ in the top 1%, this would have classified me as an Aspie under the
old system (Asperger's is no longer a separate classification so I would
be simply marked as autistic). I have also suffered from clinical
depression for at least forty years. I therefore find your remarks
insulting and disgusting but sadly unsurprising.

Well, diagnosed autism runs in my close relatives, and my IQ is in the
top 2%. I've never suffered from depression. So what now?

I am also a scientist, having specialised for several years in
climatology, with special regard to Arctic Ice, and and have previously
demonstrated to you that climate models have been correctly forecasting
the effects of CO2 on global temperatures for several decades. However,
you continue to bury your head in the sand. I have no objection to you
continuing to do that but just wish that you would desist from spreading
your ill-informed ideas on a scientific newsgroup.

You, nor anyone else, has proved my 'ideas' to be wrong - or even
responded to them.

http://www.scarlet-jade.com/science/...limate-change/

Have you thought of changing your interests to an area that attracts
fewer doom-mongers?

--
Spike

On 07/01/2020 09:53, Graham Easterling wrote:
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.

It was you that introduced her name into the thread, with the sole purpose of mocking & rubbishing both her and the argument.

So you claim. Note that all those characteristics mentioned - and more -
have been used by her supporters and family to promote her image. and
you might care to ask yourself why that might be.

You used to raise the occasional point which I felt deserved a serious response that was lacking, but any sympathy I ever felt for you has gone.

So? I don't seek sympathy, I seek discussion of the science. This has
been noticeably absent from any replies that have been made.

You don't have to be a scientist with expertise in climate change to realise
that climate change could create some real problems for mankind, and that it would mankind clearly needs to minimise it's impact the Earth's environment.

But we are heading, sooner or later, for an ice age. It has been
suggested that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could delay the onset of
that by 50,000 years - surely a worthy goal - while noting that the
current interglacial warm period is some ~2degC colder than the last one.

That's the core message as far as I'm concerned. You need people like her to get the importance of the message across.

So the message, and the messenger, are of far more importance than the
science, of course.

Just my opinion.

And mine!


--
Spike

On 08/01/2020 10:36, Spike wrote:

So? I don't seek sympathy, I seek discussion of the science.

But it's very clear that you do not 'seek discussion of the science' but
have other motives. If you'd done any background research on this topic
and had any real grasp of the science involved, you'd realise 3 things:

1. Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from satellite
data is technically very challenging because of all the corrections that
need to be made to account for issues like orbital decay. Satellite data
is an interesting contribution to the overall picture, but far from
definitive.

2. The UAH group have been widely criticised, especially with the
introduction of v6 of their dataset, because of the excessive and - to
many in the scientific community - unwarranted use of corrections that
set out to minimise the warming trend. (Though despite their best
efforts to underplay the warming, UAH still shows a current warming
trend of 1.3C/century.) If you're going to use satellite data at all
then use the more objective RSS dataset.

3. The tricks used by Christy (more so than Spencer I suspect) in
concocting that spurious comparison of UAH and CIMP5 model trends have
been repeatedly exposed - there's plenty of information out there on the
web if you're genuinely interested in learning.

On 08/01/2020 11:55, JGD wrote:
On 08/01/2020 10:36, Spike wrote:

So? I don't seek sympathy, I seek discussion of the science.

But it's very clear that you do not 'seek discussion of the science' but
have other motives. If you'd done any background research on this topic
and had any real grasp of the science involved, you'd realise 3 things:

1. Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from satellite
data is technically very challenging because of all the corrections that
need to be made to account for issues like orbital decay. Satellite data
is an interesting contribution to the overall picture, but far from
definitive.

Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from near-urban
temperature data sites is technically very challenging because of all
the corrections that need to be made to account for issues like the heat
island effect. Surface data is an interesting contribution to the
overall picture, but far from definitive, there being rural stations
around the globe that have recorded no temperature increase in the last
100 years.

2. The UAH group have been widely criticised, especially with the
introduction of v6 of their dataset, because of the excessive and - to
many in the scientific community - unwarranted use of corrections that
set out to minimise the warming trend. (Though despite their best
efforts to underplay the warming, UAH still shows a current warming
trend of 1.3C/century.) If you're going to use satellite data at all
then use the more objective RSS dataset.

The IPCC have been widely criticised, especially with the selection of
their datasets, because of the excessive and - to many in the scientific
community - unwarranted use of corrections that set out to maximise the
warming trend. (Through their best efforts to overplay the warming, the
IPCC shows a current warming trend in the 'alarmist' mode.) If you're
going to use data at all then use more objective datasets.

3. The tricks used by Christy (more so than Spencer I suspect) in
concocting that spurious comparison of UAH and CIMP5 model trends have
been repeatedly exposed - there's plenty of information out there on the
web if you're genuinely interested in learning.

Is that a 'Nature trick'? You may not have have noticed that Spencer's
analysis *includes* the RSS data.

I was struck by the exchange of emails between a university professor
and some of the leading lights in the global warming industry. The prof
had attempted to reproduce some of the IPCC's temperature predictions
using their own published data, but couldn't do so, and wrote to the
data holders querying this. My recollection is that he was essentially
given the bum's rush, even though he was a climate scientist himself,
and the matter was never resolved.


--
Spike

Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from near-urban
temperature data sites is technically very challenging because of all
the corrections that need to be made to account for issues like the heat
island effect. Surface data is an interesting contribution to the
overall picture, but far from definitive, there being rural stations
around the globe that have recorded no temperature increase in the last
100 years.


--
Spike

Here we go again. I really don't know if i can be bothered dismissing this extraordinary paragraph - we've been round these arguments so many times before. The game is up, Spike.

Julian Mayes

On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 3:57:52 PM UTC, wrote:

Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from near-urban
temperature data sites is technically very challenging because of all
the corrections that need to be made to account for issues like the heat
island effect. Surface data is an interesting contribution to the
overall picture, but far from definitive, there being rural stations
around the globe that have recorded no temperature increase in the last
100 years.


--
Spike

Here we go again. I really don't know if i can be bothered dismissing this extraordinary paragraph - we've been round these arguments so many times before. The game is up, Spike.

Julian Mayes

Yup. The irrelevant seldom know that they are. No-one cares what they say about climate science any more, except the irrelevant themselves. No-one cares about them, as these arguments are as old and tired as they are. Like you, Julian, I can't be arsed any more providing arguments to counter deniers; it's all been done - but it's funny to watch them posting. *))

Early this evening the MO verified and accepted the 18.7C at Achfary, Highland, reached on 28 Dec - a new Dec UK record confirmed. https://twitter.com/metoffice

In case you are reading this, Spike, rest assured that this is not distorted by any urban heat-island effects!

Julian Mayes

PS The reason I could not be bothered to post earlier this afternoon was because I was compiling a spreadsheet of snowfall at an entirely rural site in west Wales - a 50-year decline being quite apparent. The warming rate there is quite comparable to more urban areas in southern Britain. Odd how the urban heat-island is exaggerated in the minds of much of the public - and the deniers.