BBC Blog Network

User Profile

U13900240

Listed below are comments made by U13900240 between Wednesday, 22nd July 2009 and Thursday, 23rd July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Deep-sea heat: now there's the rub 11:04am on 23 Jul 2009 Mind you it seems like the denialists have answered the question. They think that AGW is real with a confidence of 90% in that assessment.

Now, according to the Stern Report, it will cost much more to leave things get worse than to fix them. Let's say it's 10 trillion cost to fix, 100 trillion damage will be done if AGW is right and nothing it done.

Expected loss for doing something: 10 Trillion.
Expected loss for doing nothing: 90 Trillion. (there's a 10% chance doing nothing is right)

So we should do something.
Deep-sea heat: now there's the rub 11:00am on 23 Jul 2009 "The 90% certain expression is straight from the IPCC - not from me. "

It is?

Here?

"Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface".

If that's where you say it is 90% from then you're lying.

It's at least 90%.
Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows 10:51am on 23 Jul 2009 ""average global temperature" comes from direct measurements over very limited regions of the earth "

And read up on statistics.

It will tell you.

And what happens when you select a subset of a greater group?

You get an error on your estimation of what the REAL average is by equating it to the average you read from the subselection.

If you'd done any maths and stats courses (funny how you didn't have to do that for your modelling work, then again, who knows whether you're telling the truth...), you may have heard of one way of quantifying this:

The Student's T-distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution

Now are you going to say that centuries of mathematicians are wrong?
Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows 10:47am on 23 Jul 2009 "Hmmmm, let me see, if you do not consider Tripp to be a climate scientist, are you now saying that the IPCC's claim of 2500 scientists working on the AR4 is a lie?"

Here is the broken brain of a denialist open for all to see.

He states correctly that I do not consider Tripp to be a climate scientist. Even Tripp himself thinks he isn't.

He then jumps straight to "scientist" and drops the "climate" bit.

There's more science than climate science.

So the answer is, Yes, he isn't a climate scientist and no, the 2500 scientists was approximately correct.

Now, what gives Tripp in your estimation the power to say the other ~2499 scientists were wrong?

He's not a climate scientist.

He's a CEO of a manganese mining company.

He co-wrote (and you still haven't shown where the IPCC calls Tripps a LEAD AUTHOR, so so far it's only the denialists who have called him such) a small section on how manganese is refined and mined.

This doesn't require he know anything about climate science.

Prove that he does.
Deep-sea heat: now there's the rub 10:40am on 23 Jul 2009 "Hi Tim !

So can we agree that the 90% idea is a way of turning an opinion into a number ? "

And so we see the denialists "brain" at work again.

He read Tim's message and got this far:

"Very likely = 90 to 99% probability"

And stops without reading the 99.

Ignoring YET AGAIN, 99% is there and just as likely as the 90% they want to concentrate on.

And ignoring the rest of the post, since it doesn't give him anything to mislead and tell you thinks that are not the truth nor the facts:

"Likelihood refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future, and may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views."

And jumps straight to "it's all made up".

And ignores a question (but what's new with that with denialists: big on ASKING question, complete pants at answering them):

"I'll ask again, if two doctors (you asked for a second opinion) told you that they were 90% certain that your heart would fail over the course of the next year, unless they operated - how would you respond?
(Confidence/certainty levels are used in medicine too.)"

So, Jack, what would you do? Ignore them until they were 100% certain?
Deep-sea heat: now there's the rub 10:36am on 23 Jul 2009 "90% certain means 10% doubt"

No it doesn't.

A grown male is 5'8". There is a 90% chance they are that height within 2 inches.

This doesn't mean there's doubt that he has any height at all.

You do not know anything, do you.

Physics? No. Statistics? No.

All you "know" is that AGW is wrong.

Yet you are unable to explain why.
'Global warming is all a myth', according to the Spectator 10:32am on 23 Jul 2009 You don't believe the peer-reviewed IPCC reports. Or the peer-reviewed MBH paper.

This paper is horrendously wrong. And saying "oh, that blog doesn't prove it" doesn't cut it.

If that paper were right, then nighttime in the UK on a clear night would be just as cold as the Saharan clear night time temperature.

It isn't.

Because CO2 does trap heat.

That paper is completely and utterly wrong.

The Rabbett link shows you a complete dissertation of where it is wrong.

If you have a problem with it, then explain where it is wrong.
Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows 00:37am on 23 Jul 2009 wrapup warm now states:

"1 A global temperature is a nonsense."

But how then can he say this:

"All of the historical evidence shows that global warming has occurred in the past followed by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/according_to_james_delingpole.html#P83224801

?

Or this:

"The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted."

"CO2 emissions rising global temperatures in stasis/falling."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82943593

Or this:

"Lets agree to disagree, because my view is that because global warming is not continuing as predicted, despite rising CO2 levels "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82947334

(mind you, in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82943593

he says this:

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

When in this post

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/some_climate_models_arent_wort.html#P83249069

he says

"Computer models for complex systems such as climate do not work it is as simple as that "

It seems he really doesn't care what he says so long as it says "AGW is wrong".

Denialist.
'Global warming is all a myth', according to the Spectator 11:33pm on 22 Jul 2009 "Difference of opinion is not an accusation of lying"

It is when your opinion differs from the facts.
Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows 11:30pm on 22 Jul 2009 Maybe Larry et al are going for the Insanity Plea...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

U13900240