Conquer Club

The charge against the graph is that it used the high point of 1983 to start from. The second is that it chose 90 climate models that started off at a higher point.

The charge which you are saying, that it doesn't match temperature records has not been laid. The charge that the models chosen differ over the last decade plus has not been laid.

What is agreed upon then is that the temperature record is correct and that the models chosen only differ from other models that might have been chosen in the early stages of the graph. What is agreed is that other models are wrong currently as well and by an amount as displayed on the graph.

It you wish to compare with the IPCC, then take into account that the IPCC made the Medieval warm period disappear following their initial report.

shickingbrits wrote: The charge which you are saying, that it doesn't match temperature records has not been laid.

It absolutely has. As the post I linked observed, the UAH record is actually different in the 1979-1983 period than the HadCRUT4 data, but Spencer is plotting them starting at both at 0.0 -- that is, by plotting them on the same axis he's making you believe that they agreed in the year 1983, which they absolutely did not. This had the effect of globally lowering that curve with respect to the HadCRUT4, when in fact it was a temporary blip and for the rest of the period plotted, they are in very close agreement.

The charge that the models chosen differ over the last decade plus has not been laid.

He also manipulated the presentation of the climate model data by choosing the 1979-1983 baseline, a period where the agreement was not the closest between the models and the data. By doing this, he's making it look like the models were off for the next 20 years, when in fact it was mainly only the 1979-1983 period that they were wrong during. In other words, he's taking the worst possible five year stretch for the climate models and then just straight up lying to you, because he's making it look like they did agree at 1983 and then disagreed later.

...I don't even know why I bothered with this, you either won't understand what I just said, or you'll ignore it.

It you wish to compare with the IPCC, then take into account that the IPCC made the Medieval warm period disappear following their initial report.

No, they didn't "make the medieval warm period disappear."

By the way: Here's the actual figure from the first IPCC report:



Somehow, whoever made the image you linked managed to have actual IPCC temperatures for the medieval period, when the iPCC figure is merely a schematic not presenting real data. Now that is fascinating; could it be that your favorite climate "skeptics" are falsifying data? Nah, couldn't be...

Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

shickingbrits wrote:Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

Irony.

shickingbrits wrote:The charge against the graph is that it used the high point of 1983 to start from. The second is that it chose 90 climate models that started off at a higher point.

What?

In your post, you suggest that the data was incorrect. No one has made such an allegation.

What has been said, is that they used the high temperature point of 1983 to start the graph.
What has been said, is that if other models were used, the difference would only be seen in the early years of the graph, 1983-2000, while the later years of the graph hold true regardless of the models chosen.

I didn't say either of those things. At this point, you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

Sorry, my position is that the climate models have failed time after time in a specific direction, suggesting greater temperatures than have been witnessed.

The model makers have not said, look based on observation, we over estimated the heating capacity of man's influence on climate and here are our revisions based on observation.

What they have done is ignored observation and persisted with a blatantly false dialogue.

What's your position?

DoomYoshi wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

Irony.

If you posted three definitions of 'irony' from reputable sources, sabotage would disagree with them all, post his own definition on urbandictionary.com, and copy-paste it here to 'prove' you wrong.

I find it amusing how I have posted several mitigating factors of on climate change based on CO2. Mets didn't challenge any of them, in fact he agreed with them all at yet still insists that CO2 causes drastic climate change. After then saying he gets paid by the government to hold this position, you find my position ironic rather than his.

Ironic.

shickingbrits wrote:I find it amusing how I have posted several mitigating factors of on climate change based on CO2. Mets didn't challenge any of them, in fact he agreed with them all at yet still insists that CO2 causes drastic climate change. After then saying he gets paid by the government to hold this position, you find my position ironic rather than his.

Ironic.

demonfork wrote:
You're wasting your time with mets dude.

The guy is a clueless blowhard. There is nothing that you can say or no evidence that you could supply that could deviate his position.

You're right demon, and since learning he is getting paid by the government to demand they raise a carbon tax have foed him.

BBS coming next.

shickingbrits wrote:Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

--Andy

shickingbrits wrote:Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

Speaking of irony, isn't it interesting that someone whose nickname is sabotage seems to get awfully offended by my supposed scheme to steal money from the government and then use it to convince them to pass laws to get me more money?

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:Due to your inability to discuss anything which doesn't conform to your tunnel view, which is probably not guided by any worthwhile human traits, and the fact that it cost taxpayers money to hear your spin and will cost them even more if they bother listening, I have foed you.

If at any point you wish to be honest, I will unfoe you.

Speaking of irony, isn't it interesting that someone whose nickname is sabotage seems to get awfully offended by my supposed scheme to steal money from the government and then use it to convince them to pass laws to get me more money?

I find it odd that sabotage (most likely) uses 'green' capital, whose R&D has been funded by government, and then sells his products to irrationally fearful consumers, who are willing to impoverish themselves with investments that reap near-zero or negative returns.

Talk about an exploitative capitalist.

To use his argument, obviously he dislikes government because it'll compete against him in the energy sector, thus reducing his profits. Since his position is profit-driven, all his arguments are false.

Andy, thanks for the translation. I've been unable to focus on what is in the description, sab's gibberish.

I sell monitoring and remote control of building utilities. Basically, we talk to a business and say, we can cut your bill in half saving you 12k annually and we will charge 9k to do it, paid with the savings as they are seen. We then more or less set their thermostats properly and wait.

It doesn't involve green capital, it involves knowing how to work a remote.

sabotage: a modern day trisector?

shickingbrits wrote:I sell monitoring and remote control of building utilities. Basically, we talk to a business and say, we can cut your bill in half saving you 12k annually and we will charge 9k to do it, paid with the savings as they are seen. We then more or less set their thermostats properly and wait.

It doesn't involve green capital, it involves knowing how to work a remote.

So your story about off-the-grid jobs and $10k solar panels was a bunch of rubbish? Or were you making up more numbers? Maybe it was a hypothetical job like your hypothetical wife? It's hard to follow your stories coherently. If you throw up enough smoke screens, no one can make sense of your claims. Thus you'll perceive that every dissenter is wrong, so you become 'correct' (e.g. this entire thread).

Small building controls, that is my job. I am extremely limited in what my job entails, due to regulation. Were the industry less regulated, then I would be able to offer my clients a broader range of services. So far we have been unsuccessful in getting the government to adopt more amenable regulations. As such we offer services mainly to businesses.

shickingbrits wrote:Small building controls, that is my job. I am extremely limited in what my job entails, due to regulation. Were the industry less regulated, then I would be able to offer my clients a broader range of services. So far we have been unsuccessful in getting the government to adopt more amenable regulations. As such we offer services mainly to businesses.

I like that goal, but let's apply your argument against Mets.

1. Deregulation would decrease your operating costs (and what not), thus resulting in possibly increasing your profit (assuming the competition doesn't drive you from the market). Mets' position as a lobbyist and/or scientist also entails profitable opportunities since the demand for his services would increase as people become more concerned about climate change (assuming Mets wants to switch more toward lobbying).

(1a) i.e. profit is involved in advocating for one's position, which if appealed to government officials is essentially lobbying. So, both of you are now lobbyists.

2. Therefore, the advocate's claims are all wrong.

You used this essential argument against Mets when you couldn't explain or even sufficiently challenge the methodological issues of the debate. Do you think it's a fair and correct way to argue?

Kind of.

I'm prevented from providing well tested solutions to customers thereby saving them money do to government regulation.

Mets would like to enrich the government via a tax that would further encourage them to regulate against such solutions and limit the solitons I can offer.

Or I work to provide people with greater independence and Mets works to provide the government with greater authority.

shickingbrits wrote: Mets would like to enrich the government via a tax that would further encourage them to regulate against such solutions and limit the solitons I can offer.

I just want to make it clear for everyone else reading this thread: if I got the revenue-neutral carbon tax I was asking for, I would trade every single existing US greenhouse gas regulation for it, if I needed to. Get rid of all of them.

Roberto's shirt here is awesome. Can't argue with a get-up like that:

shickingbrits wrote:I sell monitoring and remote control of building utilities. Basically, we talk to a business and say, we can cut your bill in half saving you 12k annually and we will charge 9k to do it, paid with the savings as they are seen. We then more or less set their thermostats properly and wait.

It doesn't involve green capital, it involves knowing how to work a remote.

No lighting controls? No damper changes?

So basically you reduce there costs but then charge them 75% of their costs? For how long? Is there a contract? Do you make any changes to the building or the BMS?

Why should I trust or believe you? You cheat at an online game.