Comments on: NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist

By: Climate Conversation Group » Laking recycles dishonesty

Climate Conversation Group » Laking recycles dishonesty — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:03:31 +0000

[...] the comments, the author made allegations against me which regurgitate the well-known Renowden distortions of the joint Climate Conversation/NZCSC paper, “Are we feeling warmer yet?” (AWFWY), [...]

By: Gareth

Gareth — Mon, 09 May 2011 09:14:04 +0000

Note to all: this has moved a million miles away from the original topic, and I would ask you to please take the conversation to an open thread -- and given it's been a month since the last: here's a new one...

By: Mike Palin

Mike Palin — Mon, 09 May 2011 08:31:17 +0000

AP, I’ll accept your apology for being unclear, whether intentional or otherwise. But I wonder, if you accept the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change, then why repeat all the misinformation? Where do you want this to go? No matter how far climate science advances, there can never be absolute certainty. In other words, when in an out-of-control vehicle, when do you apply the brake and take evasive action? Is the likelihood of a crash enough or do you wait for the experience?

By: ArchPrime

ArchPrime — Mon, 09 May 2011 03:19:30 +0000

Sorry Mike, I am obviously not being clear.
I think, based on my reading to date that AGW is likely happening.
Is this the bit that demonstrates my laziness, lack of learning or lack of comprehension?

Or is it the bit where I think that the science is probably not settled – i.e at a point where everything is fully understood, there is no longer anything to learn, no surprises are likely

Even narrowing it down to one of those two options for me would help

By: ArchPrime

ArchPrime — Mon, 09 May 2011 03:02:52 +0000

Hi Adelady. Thankfully, somebody with a point to make. and respectfully!

“Mathematical modelling” isn’t just statistical modelling – it is also physics modelling. In fact by definition, a mathematical model can be any system that is represented by numeric relationships – i.e maths. A climate model as you point out is based on physics – a complex series of mathematical relationships between a large range of physical and non physical parameters is defined, that in principle will describe behaviour resulting from the posited interaction. I agree with everyone here that there is a good level of consensus behind AGW as modelled at the current state of play.

By: ArchPrime

ArchPrime — Mon, 09 May 2011 02:39:06 +0000

Um, nope – (with a few partial exceptions) they actually haven’t. It would seem MY reading skill isn’t the cause of your problem after all.
You, Dappled Water & Bill in particular seem just determined to represent the screaming skull fraternity – substituting personal attack and derision for anything likely to persuade anybody of anything. demonstrating only arrogance but no no actual insight , comprehension or even opinion of your own about AGW – whether tired & debunked or otherwise. I am sure you must have such, but you are clearly much more stimulation by repeatedly exposing your opinion of me, and what you take to be my “ilk”

This sort of display goes some way to explaining why the valid arguments put forward on AGW are getting lost in the noise.

By: RW

RW — Sun, 08 May 2011 23:32:40 +0000

“…than to identify exactly what you disagree with and why”

Several others have already gone into considerable detail about that – can’t you read?

Mike Palin’s last post to you nails it. Go away and bore someone else.

By: adelady

adelady — Sun, 08 May 2011 23:10:17 +0000

Arch “I am aware of no other mathematical model of such complexity that …”

There’s one problem right there. Climate models are physical, not mathematical/statistical.

See “What is the difference between a physics-based model and a statistical model?” on this page, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/ for more details.

By: ArchPrime

ArchPrime — Sun, 08 May 2011 22:16:49 +0000

Hmm references to “denialist tactics” again…
OK, “another typical warmist tactic”, “as they grow ever more desperate” blah blah ..”now committed, can’t afford to acknowledge emperor not wearing any cothes” blah blah.”history will write them off “blah blah “environmental movement set back years as new data discredits AGW predictions” blah blah …

Have I covered them all yet? Let me know if I am missing anything else you would find convenient in your useful pigeon holing process..

It is sooo much easier and more satisfying to cast aspersions on the tactics, motives , lack of originality, lack of credibility etc of those who you think are wrong than to identify exactly what you disagree with and why

By: RW

RW — Sun, 08 May 2011 21:03:06 +0000

It’s clear that as the AGW “dissenters” grow ever more desperate in the face of overwhelming evidence, they will inevitably resort to playing the “religious authority” card – characterising anyone who quotes anything from that body of evidence as a diehard adherent of a cult. Absolutely preposterous – but the naysayers have backed themselves into a corner, and anything else is preferable to the terrible admission that they’re WRONG. Uness this behaviour changes, history will write them off as having no more integrity than the liars and hucksters employed by the tobacco industry.