Australian Politics Forum - UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #60 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:31pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal.

Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears.

What. Now you are gibbery and drooling as well as linking to a freaks video who shows nothing at all.

You accept that there has been a 17 year pause, but then you go on with this shite
Quote:

warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

Richard Alley has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change. He is recognised by the Institute for Scientific Information as a "highly cited researcher." He is certainly not a freak.

that doesn't make him infallible or even close. ultimate the proof of every hypothesis is that it holds true in the real world and that its predictions actually happen. Anything less that that means it is either not really right or is totally wrong. It seems the climate hysterics definition of proof and accuracy is a little different to everyone else's

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #61 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:36pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Of course I accept that there has been a statistical pause in atmospheric warming over the last 17 years. Just as I accept there has been warming trend over the last 16 years and a warming trend over the last 18 years. You have to cherry pick 17 years for this to be statistically correct.

What does it mean in the real world. It means that what was once an extremely hot outlier is now normal.

Did the cooling trend that lasted 21 years between 1957 and 1978 mean the end of the long term warming trend? No it didn't. The physics hasn't magically changed. Our planet is accumulating heat, and it will only be a matter of time before this particular statistical trick disappears.

it has taken 3 months for you to accept that 16 year pause. the fact that it took the UN IPCC to prove it to you is deeply disturbing. plus you are wrong in that there has NOT been warming in the last 16 years - not statistically speaking.

It has been an interesting experience watching you and your idiot sidekick- rabbitfood - defending the indefensible. for months you said it wasnt true and now you finally admit - without further evidence - that we were right. and what changed?? a train driver said it was true.

while you go on and on about deniers and sceptics remember that the one thing they have in common is a refusal to blindly swallow an orthodoxy simply because some group of scientists say so. However you DO blindly accept an orthodoxy and cherry pick the data to support it.

watch now as temperatures over the next 10 years fall slightly and watch just as predictably the IPCC and is cabal of goons continue to call it global warming. Make sure you are not one of them.

You are a liar, longy. I never suggested that you couldn't construct a statistical pause. What I've always questioned is what that means in reality. And what it means is that an exceptionally hot outlier has become the norm. Look at the 5 year period around 1998 and the last 5 years. If you can't see that the planet has got warmer, you really are a dill.

By the way, longy, if you pick 1999, you certainly have a 16 year warming trend.

that's called cherry picking of data which is a climate hysterics favorite tool. no one is saying the GW hasn't occurred. what we are saying and you have FINALLY ADMITTED is that in the last 17 years there has not been any statistically significant warming. and that doesn't mean just the 1st and 17th year. "statistically' implies EVERY year.

IM not overly fussed by the pause. In is own right it is relatively meaningless unless it is followed by a drop. what HAS been very illuminating is watching the hysterics come out one-by-one saying it hasn't happened and it will never happen and btw the world is going to die and the ooops... apparently the train driver disagrees and suddenly there IS a pause.

the ACC crowd is a religion with its own pope and this week the pope spoke and the faithful rallied around.

Meanwhile in the land of actual real scientist - aka skeptics by nature - we smile and move on knowing what weve always known to be true. its a hyped up non-catastrophe.

There is nothing to finally admit. I never questioned the fact that you could cherry pick 1998 to create a statistical pause. However, see what happens when you pick 1997 or 1999.

But the Train Driver for the IPCC doesnt seem to agree which is a sin, isnt it? He said there IS a statistically significant pause - not by comparing 1996 to 2013 but by comparing EVERY year inbetween.

give it up MOTR. you are wrong. The only shame is in pretending you are right when the facts and evidence points the other way.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #62 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:52pm You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #63 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:00pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates.

wow... you just dont get it do you? Perhaps it is because cherry-picking is (literally) a climate scientist tool-in-trade and it has just seeped into your methodology. Why not 1998 or 2000? well that would be because its not the answer you want.

the trend has gone flat. That is all. it is no real biggie. the 'biggie' is the outright refusal of so many otherwise bright people to accept it without being virtually forced to do so. the clowns running the ACC hysteria could have simply accepted it had happened and even tried to explain it away but no, they took the politicians handbook and simply denied it every happened. That is why everything these bozos say is so unbelievable - because they lie ad obfuscate over everything.

is this the end of GW? I don't know. But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that the last people on the planet to know when it ends will be the IPCC and is legion of clown followers. the blind religious followers are always the last to know.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #64 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am

Who is disputing the fact it's flattened out. Look at the 5 year running mean, longy.

You'll see plenty of times when the graph has flattened out, or even dropped over the last century. It doesn't mean the long term warming has stopped. The physics hasn't changed so we know the next most likely direction is up.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #65 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years?

I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #66 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:33am

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years?

I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

Is this what you want, olde.sault.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:46am by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #67 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:44am

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

You are wrong, longy. If you pick 1997 or 1999 you can't create a statistically significant warming trend. You've claimed to have some sort of expertise in modelling, create your own trendline using 1997 and 1999 as your starting dates.

wow... you just dont get it do you? Perhaps it is because cherry-picking is (literally) a climate scientist tool-in-trade and it has just seeped into your methodology. Why not 1998 or 2000? well that would be because its not the answer you want.

the trend has gone flat. That is all. it is no real biggie. the 'biggie' is the outright refusal of so many otherwise bright people to accept it without being virtually forced to do so. the clowns running the ACC hysteria could have simply accepted it had happened and even tried to explain it away but no, they took the politicians handbook and simply denied it every happened. That is why everything these bozos say is so unbelievable - because they lie ad obfuscate over everything.

is this the end of GW? I don't know. But one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is that the last people on the planet to know when it ends will be the IPCC and is legion of clown followers. the blind religious followers are always the last to know.

Yeah right, longy. The top 700m of ocean increased in heat content from 3 x 1022 Joules in 1997 to 10 x 1022 Joules in 2010. The chances of this being the end of GW are very remote indeed.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #68 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:46am

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Who is disputing the fact it's flattened out. Look at the 5 year running mean, longy.

http://globalcooler.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/project1.jpg

You'll see plenty of times when the graph has flattened out, or even dropped over the last century. It doesn't mean the long term warming has stopped. The physics hasn't changed so we know the next most likely direction is up.

we are not talking running means. we are talking annual temperatures with no statistical measures take over the data.

and anyhow, the entire argument has been about getting you and your cabal of climate clowns to actually accept that the pause has happened. What it means is an entirely different topic and one that maybe we can now discuss now that you have reluctantly and at the prodding of the IPCC admitted, finally that the pause has happened.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #69 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:48am

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.
Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years?

I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

Is this what you want cods?

I'm not cods and I don't understand why the pasted-in photograph.

Our children face a lot of horrors, one being snatched off the street by paedophiles. Having them frightened by faulty science if not leftard hoax is an under-belly blow.

Whatever climates brings it'll not be solved by turbines or lies from leftards such as you, Mohr!

By the way, do you still believe taht the sun rises in the west?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #70 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:55am Sorry, olde.sault. I confused you with cods. Now, without the frothing, explain to me why you think our school children are going to benefit from ignorance. Perhaps you could also explain why the discussion of scientific theories is a left wing thing.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Feb 24^th, 2013 at 8:37am by MOTR » Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #71 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 8:24am

olde.sault wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:29am:

There is now a concensus, a peer-reviewed concensus, not just a made up fudge factor piddly number like in the past, that AGW is bunk.

Anyway 17 year pause in warming. 15 - 17 year model rule to go back to the drawing board if no warming for that time period. "would suggest we dont know what we thought we knew"

The IPCC needs to stop misrepresenting science, then they can expect themselves not to be misrepresented.

And dumb schoolteachers should stop frightening their pupils with the GW hoax. Even if it were a fact, shouldn't our kids have some worry-free years?

I'd advise parents to tell their kids not to listen to leftard-teachers. That it'll make children less respectful is the only problem.

That is what I tell my kids. There is no need for kids to take on stress of any kind, let alone doomsday stress. There is plenty of time for kids to start worrying about meteors, world annialation, doomsday cults when they get older.

If I find anyone brainwashing my child with doomsday cult AGW, I will give them a piece of my mind.

Back to top

IP Logged

buzzanddidj Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14248 Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC Gender:	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #72 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:39pm longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am: Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? THAT is a total FURPHY ! One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed
Back to top	'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #73 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:52pm

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW?

THAT is a total FURPHY !

One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed

Is that what IPCC are up to. Well I never.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #74 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 1:20pm

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW?

THAT is a total FURPHY !

One of those it was hoped - if told OFTEN enough - would start to be believed

You can certainly construct a 17 year pause in atmospheric temperatures if you cherry pick 1998. However, unless the physics has magically changed, the warming hasn't stopped. It's just accumulating somewhere else.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged