Climate Change Denial and Brexit

[woodburner]

The above is about all I would expect from a denier troll. Take one sentence out of its context from an article of several thousands words and make a case from it. Woodburner, you have just gone even further down in my estimation.

If you had read the whole article you would have seen that adjustments are made for among other things, the increased temperatures caused by increasing urban heat islands that you have used elsewhere on this forum to denigrate the temperature records. On the one hand you tell us that the temperature records are biased by urban heat islands and when you are told that account is taken of this you again complain.

You are no more than a troll, Woodburner.

To sum up, if anyone questions your religeon, you resort to name calling. This is useful because others who read this can then see your case must be weak.

Adjusting the temperatures with the small variations involved in the measured values is never going to be supportable. Why not stop using unreliable methods and use balloons and sattelites which don’t suffer from this?

And do stop calling people names who don’t agree with you or the skeptical science website run by John Cook who was disingenuous in making claims of 97% of climate scientists agree etc etc.

[kenneal - lagger]

To sum up, if anyone questions your religeon, you resort to name calling. This is useful because others who read this can then see your case must be weak.

Adjusting the temperatures with the small variations involved in the measured values is never going to be supportable. Why not stop using unreliable methods and use balloons and sattelites which don’t suffer from this?

And do stop calling people names who don’t agree with you or the skeptical science website run by John Cook who was disingenuous in making claims of 97% of climate scientists agree etc etc.

I only resort to name calling when I get exasperated by someone who has no knowledge of a subject and has no interest in gaining any knowledge of a subject criticises scientists who have an in depth knowledge of that subject. You are either arrogant or a pratt or both to think that you have a better knowledge of a subject than those who study it full time!

The reason that the scientists use satellite data, backed up by land derived data is to get a sufficiently dense data set to be able to predict temperature changes and weather. The required data density to get accurate models and forecasts wouldn't be possible with just land derived data. It is the difference between 1940s weather forecasting and today's weather forecasting.

The reason that data has been adjusted is because the data was shown to be erroneous but when adjusted for certain known parameters, such as the urban heat island effects which you have used to criticise the science in the past, have then been found to give a truer picture. The adjusted data was all historic data so they couldn't go back and measure it again, could they.

John Cook gives the working and references for the 97% figure in those articles and others. You have not provided any references to scientific papers which show that the 97% isn't a true figure.

[woodburner]

Sorry Mr. Lagger, but you resort to name calling when someone questions your belief, the belief that man made CO2 is responsible for the recent temperature increases.

I have tried to get it over to you that maybe that view is questionable, yet you have been persistently rude. I presume this is because of a personal insecurity.

However have a look at this. Though I expect a denigration of the presenter, in the usual style.

[kenneal - lagger]

My view might be questioned by fossil fuel companies looking after their bottom line but it was supported in the past by those companies own scientists and then hushed up for a couple of decades or more.

Re William Happer - "William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy" i.e. he is not a climate scientist nor with his output in his own field is he likely to have the detailed knowledge of the science that people actually researching in the field would have.

Both the following answer William Happer's "tales."

https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_William_Happer.htm

Woodburner you are always questioning the claim that 97% of climate scientists support the theory of anthropomorphic climate change but you have only once come up with something that has been said by a climate scientist and even that was questionable. If their are loads of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus why do you not quote them instead of scientists in unrelated fields?

[woodburner]

My view might be questioned by fossil fuel companies looking after their bottom line but it was supported in the past by those companies own scientists and then hushed up for a couple of decades or more.

Re William Happer - "William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy" i.e. he is not a climate scientist nor with his output in his own field is he likely to have the detailed knowledge of the science that people actually researching in the field would have.

Both the following answer William Happer's "tales."

https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_William_Happer.htm

Woodburner you are always questioning the claim that 97% of climate scientists support the theory of anthropomorphic climate change but you have only once come up with something that has been said by a climate scientist and even that was questionable. If their are loads of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus why do you not quote them instead of scientists in unrelated fields?

Views do change, that’s also the nature of science. In the 1970s the media was warning us, following statements by governmentts and specialists, that we were entering a mini ice age. The professed view has now changed. Was the view of the 1970s wrong? or is the present one wrong?

There are probably many people who do not hold a formal badge of climate scientist, just as tehre are many people who do not hold a badge saying they are engineers, but I have met some of those people in in engineering who are “only qualified in physics�, I can tell you, they were bloody good engineers.

Tim Noakes was a carbohydrate diet supporter when he was Professor of Sports Medicine in South Africa. He has since changed his views an now recognises that high carbohydrate intake is not a good energy source, and has consequences.

I have scanned through the desmogblog link and as far as I can see seems to be a reasonable biography. It does not seem to attempt to colour the reader’s opinion.

I have read some of the skepticalscience page too. That is an overt attempt to ridicule any opinion which doesn’t agree with the religeous mantra. On the left column is a list of “myths�, and the right column is a list of the acceptable views according to the followers of John Cook.

Could the definition of, and qualifiction for, being a “climate scientist� be “someone who believes anything written on the skepticalscience web pages? Maybe that’s how they get 97% agreement, as you don’t qualify unless you believe in the “climate bible� which is of course, er..........., the skepticalscience website.

Well done for not dropping into insult and ridiucle mode.

[kenneal - lagger]

The definition of climate scientist is someone who publishes papers on climate science for peer revue in recognised scientific publications. Those people would therefore be quoted and referenced in Skepticalscience.com. Views do change in climate science and all the more recent data and views published ere on the side of more and more concern about the speed of change and the more serious consequences of global warming/climate change to the people and other inhabitants of the earth.

Those people who you have met who are good engineers but are "only qualified in physics" are good engineers because they are working in the field of engineering and have done so for most of their working lives. There are many mathematicians, for instance, working in the field of climate science, and who have done so all their lives, who are very good climate scientists. My criticism of the poeple who you quote, woodburner, is that they are working in fields other than climate science rather than their actual qualification.

You have still not referenced any of the supposed 3% of climate scientists who hold contrarian views.

And thank you for you patronising final remark.

[emordnilap]

I remember an episode of QI where three of the guests had been on previous episodes. They were awarded points they should have been given on those previous episodes because the facts had changed, meaning, of course, that more information had been acquired, changing our knowledge of relationships, effects, causes, perspectives and predictions.

We all make different decisions based upon how much we know - and we now know far more about humanity’s effect on the planet than ever.

“You mean we’ve made the world a better place and climate change isn’t real?�