On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:17:23 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:

As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled
"Global Warming Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming
is occurring. He simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact
as he documents earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another
article titled "2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly
steady increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest
Global Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a
steady increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.

Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global
warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those
are natural climate cycles.

Lol, it isn't those that the discussion has been about. Perhaps you
should get up to date. Although as far as accepted, the quality of the
data behind all thes cycles would be luck to produce a Model T Ford.

We're coming out of a cooling cycle called
the Little Ice Age

Your teams pulling in opposite directions. Tom says it is now back to
cooling. It seems your the problem is you're both thinking of different
cycles.

so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling
towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before
the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman
Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now,
periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods
of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in
Greenland.

Correlation =/= causation. And the problem is "human well being" has SFA
to do with it. BTW, what you are both taking as definite cycles are
themselves not widely accepted as the data correlations are very poor.


The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not
one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their
bullying, are the following:
1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove
that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely
disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota
temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an
inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2,
that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical
legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other
trees.

All the data you quote has a higher correlation to reality than all the
"natural cycles" being pulled out of hats to "counter" claims.

The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere
temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and
even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was
easily proven to be random bull****.

Wow, you're calling all Tom's beloved mercury thermometer readings
"bull****"? Great team work there boys.

But the Glabal Warming Hysterics,
like you and News18,
Oooh, you have to have a bogey man.
I'm just posting arguments that you can not couunter and the fundamental
point is that if we're are wrong, nothing bad will happen, but if we are
correct, then you'd better start chasing a faecal transplant from a
termite gut very fast. if that is a "zoom' in your mental understanding,
you might like to get up to dats with the latest's ( ie last decades)
research into the effects on rising CO2 on plant grow and whatit means to
human nutrition.

carry right on as if the Hockey still stands.

It does., but then you're the man who believe wolrd history was all
documented in the 1500s or so.

2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or
unnatural?

Again, no one is arguing about "warming' existing as in "temperature',
what is being pointed out is energy flows in weather/climate.

hint. colr/colour of noise is largely that.

It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's
site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr
Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance
interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted.

Meanwhile, the poles are doing someething out of all expectation?
That is like saying that IQ tests prove human intellect because the
average is consistently 100.

3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and
Christie, who're real scientists,
Is this the "all my cats are scientists because they study bugs"
definitioon of 'scientist'?

but the IPCC clown car of climate
thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a
neb-marxist redistributionist agenda
Thats a new one. hint, in scientific matters you are supposed to define
new terms.

that claims industrialisation is to blame.
Gee, given the amount of energy that industrialisation now produces as 7
billion arseholes demand the latest iphone, you could be forgiven to
believing so.

But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in
the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry,
There you go conflating "global warming" with temperature again. No
wonder you can not come to grips with "global warming"

and the
Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke
smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution.

There you go conflating correlation with causation again and anyone who
has a modern education would know size matters, despite what you may say,
e.g. arsehoes in the world and number with access to the technology.

Once again you're trying to drive by looking backwards. There is a reason
why those backward pedalling bicycles are not very popular.

snip repetition.

4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for
a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant.

Yes, because it lasts in the environment for centuries. so taking massive
amount of Carbon from under the ground and transforming it to Carbon
Dioxide and thus removing twice as much oxygen from the air is such a
great idea Hey!!!

Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food,

Which we have less and less of each ear.
Hint, it is also "food" for a lot of stuff we eat and givena plentiful
supply of CO2 to grow in, those plants tend to produce cellulose rather
than the sugars we seel in out diet. you of course already knew this?

Lol, you should seek out those Americans that come out to Australia and
get "lost in the bush", then they suddenly re-appear to claimed they
liven on "nuts and berries". They must know the secret of the foods that
will come to exist globally. Hint "woody pear" if you don't know why
everyoe rolls around laughing. (Hmm must de due for another ne soon.)

eh, if nobody has told you
before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming?

As above.


5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or
manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James
Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global
warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed
we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had
listened to them...)
We don't have to imagine as we'll soon know.
Funny how we can 'see' acid rain, but not "ocean acidification" Out of
sight, out of mind again.

6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up
to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural
effloration?
How long ago was that? If they did. they know differently now.

Hint, only and out and out ignorant inoramous could have suggested that
life will continue as normal from such. One moment you suggest humans
matter not one iota, then you say the whole planet could be changed for
the benefit of humans an none of the other organisms that live on this
plant will give a damm and continue to support our every growing
population. shrug, i'd prefer not to reach Soylent Greeen as even the
elite probably wont "enjoy the crops on the surface".


You didn't know that, did you,

I did and laughed at the stupidity. We even had an ex-Prime Minister who
said so and given that he is known as the Mad Rabbit, you'll understand
why it was taken as a joke. He is marginally more respected than "The
Donald".

because you and the other
clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision
Makers,

Actually, I've collected measurements used in the fandango. Interesting,
that was how "climate change" was making this ancient tree sterile and
that it only existed in modern times because it was on the right part of
Gondwanna that drifted north. Sadly its current propagation method wont
work for human survival.


which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and
politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years
changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome.

No, it was just the usual scientific questioning mind asking "does it
matter". And the posting of the sad an desperate as they flail more in
the growing mountain of evidence. shrug, All data can produce similar
patterns if you're selective.

In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before
you lecture you betters

"You Betters". Umm, is this the tic bird that hangs around with rhinos so
the cats leave it alone?

on how flat the earth is.
There by neatly summing up your knowledge of the science; "It all looks
flat to me".

At the very least you
should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first
one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement
have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on
this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're
late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke
here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good
guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and
facts.
Dr Spencer's cracked record needs a needle change.

Andre Jute Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus

Finally you're honest about yourself. Now if only you'd sat down the
front with the smart kids.