Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

Oh people don't understand the Fallacy of appeal to authority.
I will explain more tmw (too late today to do my funny story)

but basically life is not a question of picking the best AUTHORITY and trusting them, as that does not give you "truth"

Authorities are not manufacturers of scientific truth, they are merely wholesalers.
However, if you find errors in their promotion of their product then that tells you their product may not be truth.
Even the best authority maybe selling you bunk.

The BBC should not be going into 1 wholesaler, and accepting its product, rather it should always have a good look around the marketplace first

Apr 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stewgreen

The BBC should not be going into 1 wholesaler, and accepting its product, rather it should always have a good look around the marketplace first

What do you do when your wholesaler produces a high quality product and the marketplace is full of plastic crap?

Apr 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"What do you do when your wholesaler produces a high quality product and the marketplace is full of plastic crap?"
An excellent description of what of what the climate consensus gluts the market place with.

Apr 29, 2016 at 8:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Apr 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM | Entropic man, you ask,

What do you do when your wholesaler produces a high quality product and the marketplace is full of plastic crap?

Well, firstly you need to test the quality.
It's easy to stay with your supplier and assume that's the best. But it's not necessarily so.

If your supplier refuses to engage in comparisons with the alternatives then you can be pretty sure they aren't competitive after all.

Newsworthy AGW proponents refuse to debate with their opponents. They refuse to test their product.
Their product ain't worth buying, in their own opinion.

Apr 29, 2016 at 8:31 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Hunter

I must have missed your high quality product. Are you thinking of Richard "Iris" Lindzen?
Judith "stadium wave" Curry? Doug "sky dragon slayer" Cotton?

Your high quality product must quantitatively describe, and provide a mechanism to explain past climate. It must describe and explain current weather and climate trends. It must have skill at forecasting future outcomes as a tool for those deciding policy.

The current climate science paradigm does all three. What high quality product would you use to replace it?

Apr 29, 2016 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

M Courtney

The main reason why the BBC gave up going to your market stall is that your shelves are empty.

You keep saying that the climate science shirt is rubbish, but you have no alternative shirt to sell to replace it

Apr 29, 2016 at 8:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man, Yes!
You've got it.

We do not know the weather in 100 years time. And we can admit it. Because we are honest tradesmen.

Don't buy that Bridge. It's not really on sale.

Apr 29, 2016 at 9:05 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

M CourtneyBut a man needs a shirt. Better to wear a shirt, whatever it's quality, than to go naked as you advocate.

Apr 29, 2016 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you're going naked anyway it's best not to buy immaterial clothes. It costs more.

Metaphors aside, it's better to make judgements after assessing our knowledge rather than acting on faith.

The 1st commandment is not arrogance on the part of God. It expresses the truth that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Apr 29, 2016 at 9:46 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Your high quality product must quantitatively describe, and provide a mechanism to explain past climate. It must describe and explain current weather and climate trends. It must have skill at forecasting future outcomes as a tool for those deciding policy.

The current climate science paradigm does all three. What high quality product would you use to replace it?
Apr 29, 2016 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - replace "does" with "fails on" and you'd not be far off the reality. But I realise that you have a talent for seeing what you want to see so not too surprising that is your view.

What high quality product would you use to replace it? A frank admission of the limits of our knowledge would be a good start.

Apr 29, 2016 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

CO2 theory does not explain past climate. Climate science would prefer to rewrite history and erase the LIA and MWP.

CO2 theory does not explain current climate or trends. Climate science tries to argue there has been no pause.

CO2 theory has no skill at forecasting. Climate science denies it can forecast, as soon as forecasts are shown to be wrong.

This high score of zero out of three, is demonstrated by the Hockey Stick.

Apr 30, 2016 at 12:35 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc - EM imagines things that suit his view of how things are and then states what he has imagined as if it were reality. Hence his absurd statement "...The current climate science paradigm does all three ". (It seems he's found another new word. )

Even when the evidence is on his screen in front of him, he imagines the contrary of what the evidence says. On another thread he said

Martin A
You are inconsistent.

On an earlier post you insisted that lack of evidence proved that there was no Climategate insider at UAE.

Now you insist that lack of evidence does not prove that there is no God.(...)
Apr 28, 2016 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

when he only had to re-read what I had said, on the screen in front of him, to see that I had done neither of those things.

Imagining something and then discussing what he has imagined as reality is EM's primary talent, it seems. When he displays his use of this talent on things that can easily be checked, it means that what he says on other things cannot be taken even a little bit seriously. People are generally consistent in things - particularly in their attitude to checking whether what they say is correct.

Apr 30, 2016 at 7:38 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. Re last sentence (Apr 30; 7.38) I have said I was sorry!!!

!!THIS IS A JOKE!!

Apr 30, 2016 at 8:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Martin A

And an ad hom attack is your usual response to losing an argument.

Apr 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The current climate science paradigm does all three. What high quality product would you use to replace it?

Apr 29, 2016 at 8:43 PM | Entropic man

Would you like to explain or justify your statement, as it seems a hopeless way to lose an argument, because climate science does nothing of the sort.

Apr 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

And an ad hom attack is your usual response to losing an argument.
Apr 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - I simply pointed out your consistent track record of getting things wrong, even though the evidence to the contrary is to be seen in front of you, is on the same lines as the risible statement you had just made. And how such clangers make it difficult to take other things you say seriously.

My advice (seriously) is to click the "Create Post" button less often, and each time, before clicking it, to ask yourself whether what you have typed is going to stand up when looked at by mildly critical readers such as me. My suggestion is to aim for posting only things where everyone here is obliged to concede something like "Got to admit it - he's got a point there".

Apr 30, 2016 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

If you were sent on TV to argue the case against all you would be able to say is that you believe it to be wrong.

You have no evidence that it is wrong.

You have no alternative explanation for the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels, the melting ice, the more frequent droughts and floods or the increase in extreme weather.

You, or your favourite accountant, have nothing to say. That is why the media have stopped inviting you.

Apr 30, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

It is strong today. Or high volume.

Apr 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

And an ad hom attack is your usual response to losing an argument.
Apr 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - I simply pointed out your consistent track record of getting things wrong, even though the evidence to the contrary is to be seen in front of you, is on the same lines as the risible statement you had just made. And how such clangers make it difficult to take other things you say seriously.

Apr 30, 2016 at 6:02 PM | Martin A

Martin A, please don't single out Entropic Man,as he is just representing the best thinking and logic of climate science.

Apr 30, 2016 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


You have no evidence that it is wrong.

You have no alternative explanation for the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels, the melting ice, the more frequent droughts and floods or the increase in extreme weather.


What a curious argument.
It can be applied to defend lots of explanations; the intervention of the Lizard People, vengeful Atlanteans and, of course, the malevolence of Cthulhu.

All of the above, and CO2, can be defended with "You can't prove it's wrong".

Except for one. We have proven it's wrong in the case of CO2. The missing Tropical Hotspot has been cited. As has the failure of the climate models to predict the water cycle or the rate of warming.
Faith in newsworthy AGW is actually less justifiable than faith in Atlanteans.

The rate of warming in the first half of the 20th century is the same as the rate in the second. But CO2 emissions are far greater in the second half of the 20th century. So whatever caused the warming in the first half (not CO2) could have caused the warming in the second with negligible help from CO2.
It could also have ended the Little Ice Age (again - not CO2).

We don't know what that is. We do know what it is not.
Why do you have faith that it disappeared in order to let CO2 takeover? That's irrational.

Occam's Razor is a tool of science; it cuts up AGW like a kipper.

Apr 30, 2016 at 11:35 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

M Courtney

How are you going to explain that to Andrew Neil?

May 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

M Courtney

You mean this hot spot .

You mean these models.,

You mean this water vapour trend .

You mean this this pre-1940 CO2 increase (Figure 2).

This is the point I was making. You are making arguments which have been made obsolete by accumulating evidence. You are unable to falsify AGW or provide an alternative All you can present to a television audience is your incredulity..

Remember this is science. It is never possible to prove a hypothesis, but if it is wrong it should be possible to falsify it If you want to break the consensus around a paradigm you show that you have a better paradigm..

May 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Apr 30, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - the BBC's relentless pushing of the CAGW religion and its rigorous censoring of anything that migh cast the slightest doubt on the religion has nothing to do with science.

As has been pointed out to you many times, which would have been unnecessary if you actually understood what science is about and how it works:

If someone comes up with a flaky theory, whether it is humans are causing CAGW or whether it is that inter-molecular resonance information transfer between DNA has teh result that, in rare cases, the consumption of raw lettuce causes degradation of the human immune system, it is not necessary to come up with an alternative theory. It is sufficient to point out the flaws in what has been touted.

If I were invited to speak on the BBC, I would have plenty to say about fiddled temperature records, predictions that failed, things that cannot be explained; the use of unvalidated models as "evidence" etc etc. My case against the prosecution would be sufficiently convincing that a criminal court would, without any question, announce that CO2 was NOT GUILTY, without any need for me to produce counter evidence. It's sufficient to show that the prosecution has failed to make its case.

May 1, 2016 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

CAGW religion

rigorous censoring

flaky theory

fiddled temperature records

I take it back. Putting you on television to argue against climate science would be a marvellous idea.

May 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man, May 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM. I’ll respond point by point.
1:

You mean this hot spot .

Yes. That's right. And following your link the abstract says,
Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models.

That's the very hotspot. The one that doesn't exist as the AGW models require for AGW to be worrisome.

2:

You mean these models.,.

No, I don’t recognise that graph at all. It refers to IPCC AR5 fig 11.25 but doesn’t reflect that at all. IPCC AR5 fig 11.25 (see here) refers to future projections and starts in 2020. It isn’t related to observations in anyway. Whoever sold you that graph has mis-referenced it. You’ve been sold a pup.
Go to the mainstream science. The IPCC says in AR5 Box 9.2
Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing GHG and other anthropogenic forcing. The CMIP5 model trend in ERF shows no apparent bias against the AR5 best estimate over 1998–2012. However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global mean aerosol loading.
We sceptics are in the mainstream of IPCC science. Don’t be fooled by that junk science graph.

3:

You mean this water vapour trend .

Yes. That trend that can’t be distinguished from interannual vaiability but which pseudo-scientists extrapolate to a century. I quote the abstract you link to.
Since the trends are similar in magnitude to the interannual variability, it is likely that the latter affects the magnitude of the linear trends.

Also, just look at your graph. That trendline is ridiculous. The El Nino in 1998 dominates everything. AGW doesn’t control El Ninos. Look at your own data. It supports my comment.

4:

You mean this this pre-1940 CO2 increase (Figure 2).

No. That links to trends over hundreds of thousands of years from ice-core proxies. I referred to the first half of the 20th century and the second half. Like for like measurements where we know that nothing interfered with the comparison. Here is that temperature graph. You can see that the trend is the same pre-1950 as afterwards. That is a problem for those who say CO2 emissions are a large factor in the trend. And saying “Look over there, a Jurassic Squirrel” doesn’t change the reality. Focus on the issue at hand.

Finally, the old Tory Andrew Neil can study the science for himself. It’s not my job to explain the basics to him. I’m having enough trouble enough trying to explain it to you.

May 1, 2016 at 5:13 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney