Following some recent discussions, I decided to relax my usual policy of banning climate denialists. So, I’m opening a forum where anyone who thinks they have something useful to contribute on the topic. Some rules
- Real names only, no pseudonyms. If you have something to say on this topic, own it.
- If your point is on this list, don’t bother making it.
- For the moment, only climate science arguments, not policy claims like “Australia only contributes 1 per cent”.
Initially, at least I’d prefer to leave the field open to sceptics/deniers. The rest of us can have our say a bit later.
To prevent spam/trolling etc all posts from new contributors will be moderated.
John Quiggin 
“2. We can examine how well model projections at the time they were published compare to actual changes in temperature. A study was just published looking at this. Summary: They performed well.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378”
No they’ve been an absolute catastrophe. Every last one of them has failed. They don’t hindcast, they don’t forward cast. They barely calibrate. All of them have been useless. Go to your link and you will find that the people critiquing these models are the same malign forces conjuring the data. Let them try and predict data that they themselves do not control.
If you control your own data you can get your computer model to predict the data that you yourself are controlling. People pay a lot of money for good forecasts. No-one is paying these three to forecast anything. The fact that the computer models have been absolutely useless proves that their assumptions are wrong. Did the computer models predict a clear cooling trend in the lower Stratosphere? Certainly took me by surprise. Let them predict the satellite data before they embarrass themselves with all this patting themselves on the back.
Curt I cannot go much further without highlighting that many areas of science are in a bad way. So for example the idea that lightning is caused by friction within clouds. The idea that hurricanes gain their energy from luke warm water. The fusion version of how stars work. These are all very bad ideas, but it ought not be necessary to overturn most of physics and cosmology just to get people to focus on that information that we can all trust, and to forget questionable graphs that have gotten a lot of media coverage.
Once we have that discipline to only work with good sources, then we find that if there is cause for concern, there isn’t cause for panic. And that if we focus on excellence in environmental policy and biodiversity directly, the CO2 will take care of itself. But we have seen enough to know that if we concentrate on CO2, we get all kinds of perverse and counter-productive behaviour. The left have allowed themselves to be skewed off course. With the right its that usual torpor and “she’ll be right” attitude. But she won’t be right. The libertarian thinking may have some good points to it, but this time we need intervention.
Mikhail, it seems as if you are under the impression that you know more about all areas of science than the millions of working scientists who have devoted their lives to studying various aspects of it. Don’t you think you should consider the simpler explanation that you have made a fundamental mistake in the way you reason about the world? Even if you don’t want to consider that, I think you have demonstrated it here, and I request no further comments from you.
Well, the denialists had a lot of fun, but it was beyond tedious for the rest of us.
I confess: I skimmed. A lot.
Asking politely never seems to work, but I always try it first. Mikhail, you had your chance. You are permanently banned – JQ
MC I stopped arguing about the accuracy of climate change modelling some years ago with Climate Change Skeptics some time ago when I realised you just had to look at what is happening or has happened to realise Global Warming is real! Empirical data gathered and recorded by scientists on the ground, observed events are there for all to see from melting glaciers around the world, ice sheets melting in Greenland, lack of sea ice in the Arctic, bleaching coral reefs, oceans that are warming and becoming more acidic due to CO2 absorption, 600 km of coastline mangroves dying in the Gulf of Carpentaria, the great kelp forests off the east coast of Australia dying off and on and on it goes. The climate catastrophe is happening now, we don’t need forecasting models to tell us we are on the brink!
If you dig a cesspit you should be under no illusions about what will fill it.
Bernie everything you say here is a fantasy. We have a lot of very serious environmental problems. Just none that you mentioned. You are having a problem differentiating between media hype and scientific grade data.
Check out the balloon data and you will see no global warming for the last 60 years.
@ The Dudermensh
But Graeme you’ve just been shown the door as Mikhail, so as a human being you’re really just a colossal cheat in general.
Pr Quiggin – I’m having problems posting comments – could be multiples lurking in cyberspace to re-emerge inappropriately.
Trying again –
The quality of arguments presented have been extraordinarily poor in my opinion – even amongst climate science denial arguments that rarely have substance.
Some do not appear to be arguments in good faith at all (even leaving aside the unsubstantiated allegations of data fraud and model fixing) and appear to be intentionally misleading. eg presenting a graph of satellite temperature data for lower stratosphere (TLS) – high in the atmosphere where mainstream climate science predicts temperatures to go down due to enhanced Greenhouse Effect (and they do) – instead of lower troposphere (TLT) from the same source, that clearly shows the warming nearer to ground level that is predicted as well as observed by mainstream climate science.
Or pointing to a temperature graph of December only, Contiguous US only, post 2004 only as evidence there is no global warming. Or stitching together two balloon temperature data sets, the latter showing the past 3 decades have been warming (except at stratospheric altitudes).
Simply passing over so many measures clearly showing or consistent with global warming (Surface temperatures, Ocean Heat Content, Sea level rise, ice sheet, glacier, sea ice, snow cover etc) doesn’t make them go away.
Yet what our Prime Minister is saying and doing with respect to climate, energy and mining only make sense if he too is passing over all the strongest of science based evidence and expert advice in favour of weak arguments and claims that cannot be substantiated.