JaMa Party

IN the United States Senate, members have their own little desks. In more frugal times, before the first Senate office building was opened for business in 1909 – and long before the Capitol became the plutocratic casino/latrine of insider-trading it is today – the chamber was their only workplace. In the early twentieth century (no earlier examples exist), senators began inscribing their names inside these “writing boxes.” In the ranks of an ascendant ruling class, their misdemeanor vanity was perhaps inspired by the hubris with which Theodore Roosevelt dispatched the White Fleet in 1907. That dazzling flotilla, after all, announced to foreigners the arrival of a new imperium and to Americans their stake in a global destiny. For freshmen, the old signatures make some of the desks treasures to inherit. There is no such tradition in Australia’s Upper House. In a brilliant maiden speech I’m christening the Golden Aims Oration, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – the star newcomer to Canberra following the Morrison government’s well-earned ouster – did, however, lay claim to the symbolic desk of one famous predecessor: Senator Neville Bonner’s.

The first Aboriginal Australian to become – and be elected – a member of the national Parliament (in 1971-72), the Queenslander’s grandfather was a fully initiated Jagera man. That’s how close he was to the ancient and how far he had to walk to live the modern. But for the fact he was a Liberal (and custom permitting), Bonner’s handsome visage – crowned with possibly the best head of hair in parliamentary history – would have been on a banknote years ago. Northern Territorian Price not only associated herself with his philosophy of society and government, she also told the story of how the condescension of Labor’s Bill Hayden affirmed once and for all Bonner’s determination to stay with Menzies’ mob: “How dare someone come up to me and presume that because I am black I had to support one particular party.” That was more than 50 years ago.

Times may have changed but the left still thinks Aborigines who free themselves from its manacles are dangerous runaways. As Bonner’s incredible life demonstrates, however, that ownership mentality isn’t exclusively a vice of the Labor Party. He crossed the floor to vote against a Liberal government 34 times. When Bolt, Murray and Kroger boost Senator Price as a future prime minister, not only are they getting ahead of themselves, they are also making assumptions about which ‘side’ she will come down on over the course of a long parliamentary career. Moreover, in politics the hype of adulation is as ill-advised as the bigotry of low expectations. She must answer the call of conscience and constituency regardless of what anyone thinks.

Unlike Roger Franklin, I am not dumbfounded at all by David Littleproud benching Price during the biggest Aboriginal rights derby since Kevin Rudd said sorry to the ‘Stolen Generation’ on behalf of rich urban whites in 2008. These days, alas, it makes imperfect, predictable sense. Apropos of the Voice she has steadfastly opposed all along, the ‘Opposition’ is attempting to pull off another spectrum creep con of the Morrison-Joyce kind. Price threatens that modus operandi. She lionised Neville Bonner for a reason. When the Liberals pressured him to back off on this issue or that, he refused. To fool what remains of their base, Littleproud and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have obviously decided that theatrically quibbling over “the details” of a Voice – rather than fighting for something so indecorous as non-negotiable principle – will protect them from the Labor-stoked ignominy of a referendum’s success or failure.

Yes, that’s the great promise of surrender: you’ll never have to lose or fight again. Matt Canavan – like his new sister-in-arms, Price – won’t give in. Correctly declaring Scott Morrison’s bizarre net zero by 2050 ‘target’ dead during the federal election campaign in April, the Queensland senator (and economist) must have known he’d be sent to Coventry in a Tesla for truth-bombing his own side. “I’m not focused on the Prime Minister or anyone else in Canberra,” he told the Today Show’s Ally Langdon when asked about Morrison’s displeasure. Everything that has gone wrong in energy markets around the world since then has vindicated his stand. Instead of transitioning to reality after losing office, however, a confessional Littleproud assured the Sydney Morning Herald’s Mike Foley in May that the Nationals would never abandon the climate cause again. Maybe you’ve been wondering if a humiliated Coalition will at long last put its John Hancock to a declaration of war against false premises and fashionable lies. Wonder no more.

This entry was posted in Federal politics, History. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to JaMa Party

  1. and says:

    There have been so many wrong predictions about the climate in the last fifty years or so (has there been even one correct prediction? LOL) it’s a wonder anyone takes the climate disaster-porn merchants seriously.

    A gift for Propsero (& Snot)

    https://extinctionclock.org/#show

  2. Franx says:

    Prospero – What else is the party line on climate if not a conspiracy.
    But the science … . Yes, well, science does not occur in a vacuum devoid of human interaction, often and of necessity interaction conspiratorial in nature, no less so than when science has to to do with ambition as well as at times with lousy epistemics. There is refuge indeed in being a conspirator along party lines.

  3. Buccaneer says:

    It’s ok Bruce, Prepo can hang on to his beliefs because according to him, everyone who does science using actual observations is dying out and his politicised view of the world will be dominant.

  4. Prospero says:

    So everything’s a conspiracy if that’s the way you want to use the word. Most people use it in the sense of a plan with at least some degree of secrecy, though.

    Anyway, all gone dull now: the usual crowd has started going “ha ha we know better than [insert whichever scientific body that has looked into it for decades]”.

    You can believe that if you want, but I wish you stop expecting politicians to follow crank contrarian explanations instead of your pet belief, established 15 or 20 or so years ago, that you won’t change no matter what the updated graphs show. Because “ew, experts, we don’t trust them. They’re all lefties who want to control me.”

    Just get behind your rolled gold denialists, like Pauline.

  5. Boambee John says:

    Preposterous Perversity

    Nothing on your scientific credentials? Do you actually have any, or do you just ape whatever opinion satisfies you.

    Speaking of eggspurt advice, how many jabs and boosters have you had? Do you wear a mask at all times, and socially distance at all times?

    So many eggspurts, so many orders to follow.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Prospero – That’s very funny. When confronted with multiple official datasets of real world data which all shows that global warming/climate change/catastrophe is not actually happening, you have gone ad hominem and accused us of being cranks and denialists.

    That seems to be a very religious sort of response. Very emotional. One based on unfounded belief not empirical data.

    The irony about all this is qualified guys like me are saying there’s nothing to worry about, thermaggedon isn’t coming next week, nor at all (at least not until the Sun becomes a red giant). Yet when we say no one has to panic we get castigated. It’s weird.

  7. Tel says:

    Prospero is a genuis at carefully ignoring evidence.

    The more evidence you present to him … the less he can see.

  8. Prospero says:

    Delete “instead” in previous post.

    everyone who does science using actual observations is dying out and his politicised view of the world will be dominant.

    Hey Bucco: be serious. It’s gotta count for something, doesn’t it, that there is no “school” of climate contrarians. Crank (or just wrong) theories or explanations just die out over time for lack of confirmation. Something like plate tectonics had a “school” of sorts, and it took about 50 odd years of investigation and evidence gathering before everyone agreed it was right, and the doubters were wrong. The fact that climate change science is not like that should tell you something.

    And no, you would be quite ignorant if you think “but they predicted a new ice age in the 70’s” is a compelling argument. It’s a straw man argument based on a minority view quite quickly abandoned when better data and modelling came along. It shows science working, not failing.

  9. Prospero says:

    Look, I know there’s a lot for Bruce and others to cherry pick from, but just be honest – if it was going to be a “who’s got the most graphs to post” contest, you know there are thousands available on the “climate change is real” side. It’s just tedious if you want to deny that.

    As I say, you can if you want, but stop complaining that politicians won’t follow you down your “I know better than NASA, IPCC, etc etc” route.

  10. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Prospero – The seventies ice age scare was at the bottom of the 60 year thermohaline cycle. The current global warming scare is at the top of the 60 year thermohaline cycle.

    That should tell you quite a lot about the global warming scare.

    AMO

    Hadcrut 3 detrended

  11. Buccaneer says:

    Apparently, having a school means you’re right.
    The Eugenic Education society were just misunderstood.

  12. Prospero says:

    Not following you down your graphing rabbit hole, Bruce. Science is done by publishing and having it critiqued by other scientists, not on blogs. You’ve been told before, no doubt, that you could be a hero to the global economy if you could prove we may as well burn another 200 years of coal and that the IPCC is completely wrong.

    You won’t, probably because you know it won’t hold up and you’d prefer to be a hero to conservative blog readers. (Not including me, of course.)

  13. Prospero says:

    Apparently, having a school means you’re right.

    Not necessarily, but not having a school makes it way less likely that you are.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Prospero – That’s hilarious in a way you cannot possibly understand. My life has been hard science since an early age. My qualifications are hard science. My career has been in hard science. And you are now telling me what science is and how to do it…

    As for the “cherry picking” you are talking about temperature, without the analysis of what underlies it. I am talking about temperature with multivariate analysis of it, tornadoes, hurricanes, Arctic ice cover, Antarctic ice cover, snow cover extent, jet stream variations, Greenland ice mass balance and wildfire burn acreage. I have linked all of those in the last few hours (if you looked at them). So who exactly is cherry picking?

  15. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    Science is done by publishing and having it critiqued by other scientists, not on blogs.

    A quote for you.

    Nobel prize winning physicist Richard P. Feynman famously said that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

    But you (being non-scientist) feel free to bow down before eggspurts, as it is a matter of faith for you.

  16. Boambee John says:

    Bruce of N, Buccaneer, Tel, it is always possible to tell when a gerbil worming fanatic is getting desperate. The slurs “denialist” or its alternative “denier” (something to do with stockings, apparently, are deployed in a last ditch stand.

  17. Buccaneer says:

    Prepo, “I won’t click your links in case you’ve found something I don’t want to see”

    According to your responses in this thread you are already in the rabbit hole.

  18. Boambee John says:

    And their final card is “Well, science and your opinions don’t matter, because the political decisions have already been made, and the world is going to change”.

    Forgetting that a few bad polls can/will cause a rapid change to those political decisions.

    PS, Coal use is forecast to rise beyond 8 billion tons next year. A new world record may be in sight for a stranded and abandoned asset!

  19. Prospero says:

    Bucco, I have looked at Bruce’s links (or most of them) and it is 100% clear that without fuller context they are meaningless. He rabbits on about his qualifications, but won’t expose his theories to critique by other scientists. And have you noticed, his method is to just rely on a grab bag of “maybe it’s this” stuff that is always, always chosen for it’s “anything but CO2” aspect, no matter that scientists who work in the field have looked at all possibilities and explained at great length why they have extremely high confidence in knowing that greenhouse gases are far and away most responsible for current climate change.

  20. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Prospero – So you are saying all the official climate data, except the adjusted terrestrial temperature record, is meaningless? Big call that. The climate science fraternity might want to be told, it being their data and all.

    Your task is to show what I have said is incorrect using science and data.
    That is called “falsification”. Links, sir, to sources that are defensible, and believe me I am quite good at pointing out where guys like SkS and Real Climate are incorrect.

    I have falsified the CAGW hypothesis, you can now show me where I am in error.

  21. Prospero says:

    You haven’t put a coherent case, Bruce. And you refuse to do with scientists to review it.

    You know of Nick Stokes, the Australian CSIRO scientist who runs Moyhu blog and has called out Anthony Watts’s mistakes and falsehoods for years?

    Why not put your arguments and cherry picked graphs into one “paper” and send it to him for review and comment? You bluff your way with the gullible here, so why not subject your extremely confidently held view to actual comment and review by a qualified scientist and with lots of expertise in the field?

  22. Buccaneer says:

    Unprepared to stump up. Prepo says follow me to another blog. Oh look, another one of his rabbit holes dressed up as an appeal to authority. You are predictable…

  23. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    So you’re saying you’re not a scientist?
    Maybe you could invite Nick to come over here to CL’s blog.
    I’d be happy to discuss the data with him, although I might need CL to up the allowable links per comment.

    I’m amused by your saying all those official datasets are cherry picked. The point is the hypothesis of the climate realists actually fits them. All of them, whereas the hypothesis of the catastropharians only fits the adjusted terrestrial temperature record, and only does that with truly heroic adjustments that aren’t reflective of the underlying dataset. That tells me the climate clique is very apprehensive that they will be called out. As they should be, given the misery they’re inflicting on people right now.

    (I’ve had professional contacts with CSIRO people for about 30 years btw. Not with Dr Stokes though. I’d enjoy a discussion with him.)

  24. Prospero says:

    Bucco, you are pretty dumb, even though you hate being told that.

    Your argument about “appeal to authority” is completely disingenuous.

    Bruce is the one claiming that he is the authority that readers here should believe, and his argument is a series of links to graphs with his extremely brief one (like, one sentence) explanation as to what they mean.

    Even you should be smart enough to understand that this is not a coherent, detailed case – it’s a piecemeal, contextless, bits and pieces, here and there “and I say this means X” argument.

    If he won’t write it up properly and publish it anywhere (even Quadrant! They’re always looking for shite to publish), you ought to be deeply suspicious.

    If you’re not, you’re the one who been sucked in by a self proclaimed “authority”.

    As for Bruce – you’re back with the disingenuous “but I’m open to discussion” line, as if you would be happy to be proved wrong. And you want people to come to you, rather than vice versa.

    You’re the one who is the tiny outlier in the world of science. Just as I don’t expect scientists to run to examine the next proof of a perpetual motion machine on the basis of a line drawing posted on a conservative blog, I don’t expect Stokes to run to you either if you’re too lazy to put your arguments in a coherent way.

  25. Buccaneer says:

    Bruce didn’t appeal to authority, he provided you data (published by the authorities you claim to believe), made some assertions and invited you refute it. You just hand waved and said some other dude who is in a position of authority would refute it all if he was presented it.

    What a crock, then you call people dumb.

    Hand waving, name calling, appeal to authority. It’s all you have.

  26. Prospero says:

    Bucco – you are not a scientist, I am not a scientist. The problem is not with graphs per se, it’s with Bruce’s interpretation (his “assertions”) of what they mean. That’s what needs elaboration, and what he refuses to do.

    That may be convincing to you, it’s not to me.

  27. Buccaneer says:

    Prepo, you have no idea about who i am, or what my experience is. Just like it’s pretty clear you have no idea about the rest of it.

    I have made no assertion about the veracity of Bruce’s argument. I did correct you when you verballed his sources. What is clear, is that he has not shifted the goalposts constantly to defend his position.

    Given that you outed yourself as a troll earlier in this thread, I doubt anyone other than you really cares what convinces you. I certainly don’t and I know no one that would take too much notice of someone who throws as many casual insults as you do in a vain attempt to impose your world view on others.

  28. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    scientists who work in the field have looked at all possibilities and explained at great length why they have extremely high confidence in knowing that greenhouse gases are far and away most responsible for current climate change.

    Like Tim Flummery? Nil relevant qualifications.

  29. Boambee John says:

    Bruce of N

    So you’re saying you’re not a scientist?

    I suspect that both Perverse Preposterous and Non Mentis have to use spell check to write “science”.

  30. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Prepostrous

    Your argument about “appeal to authority” is completely disingenuous.

    Bruce is the one claiming that he is the authority that readers here should believe, and his argument is a series of links to graphs with his extremely brief one (like, one sentence) explanation as to what they mean.

    You are the one appealing to the authority of NASA, IPCC, and the klimate scientists of the world. Bruce is offering an hypothesis based on his actual, real, scientific knowledge and experience. Different thing entirely.

  31. Boambee John says:

    You’re the one who is the tiny outlier in the world of science.

    So was the bloke who solved the stomach ulcer cause. Go back, Preposterous, and look again at the Feynman quote.

  32. Jannie says:

    All this Climate Change, “The Science is Settled” nonsense will be over in 50 years.

    The Western useful idiots who babble the stuff will cancel themselves out of existence, or will get early termination by their replacements, if they don’t freeze to death first.

    And there will still be a climate.

  33. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Looks like my reply to Prospero was eaten by the spam gatekeeper, it had two links to Danish government datasets in it. Maybe it doesn’t like Danes. Have to wait until CL disinters the comment.

    In short Prospero I’m entirely happy to discuss and debate any and all the specific datasets I’ve put up, plus any you wish to present yourself. You only have to ask.

  34. Jannie says:

    tiny outlier in the world of science.

    One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that “to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”*

    There are so many little facts to disprove the theory, too many to mention, but try the Little Ice Age, or The Roman Warm Period for starters.

    * https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein/Nazi-backlash-and-coming-to-America

  35. Prospero says:

    BJ: so if I say “medical science overwhelmingly supports vaccination as a good thing” and someone here links to some Andrew Wakefield “it causes autism” nonsense, I would be accused of dismissing their argument because I’m only “appealing to authority”.

    Is that how it works?

  36. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Nope, comment still hasn’t appeared.

    You got any requests Prospero? I’m happy to address your questions.

  37. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    No, because there is massive evidence that conventional, well-tested, vaccines work. The evidence for the autism link, however, is not substantive.

    Stop trying to be smart, you are not.

    PS, the evidence in favour of poorly tested, new technology, vaccines is also not substantive. How many jabs did you get, on eggspurt advice?

  38. Prospero says:

    I see that Jannie thinks the Roman warm period somehow disproves AGW.

    I’m not just going to snark, although the temptation is strong. I will post something that, internet link cancer prevents me pointing you to the original. It is from the blog formerly on the Houston Chronicle website, by John Nielson-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist (he’s held the job for a long time.) He is apolitical enough to have worked with Anthony Watts on his surface station paper which proved – nothing much. Here is the explanation as why an anomalous regional warm period in history does nothing to disprove current AGW:

    “If carbon dioxide supposedly causes global warming, then what caused the Roman Warm Period?”

    This question just floors me. I have a hard time figuring out why I’m supposed to fully understand the energy balance of the Earth 2,000 years ago, prior to the first thermometer or the second satellite,* before I’m allowed to examine data from comprehensive global observing systems to figure out what’s happening right here and now.

    I’m pretty sure that what’s really being asked is the following: “The Earth’s climate has had warm and cold periods before. Why can’t this be the same old thing again?” This is a little easier to address, but still there’s the unspoken expectation that all possible natural explanations need to be understood and excluded before we should accept an anthropogenic explanation.

    This does sound like a cautious choice, seemingly consistent with Sherlock Holmes the climate scientist, who would say that you should exclude all the plausible explanations before concluding that the remaining explanation, however implausible, is the correct one. The problem, though, is that the anthropogenic explanation is not the implausible one, it’s the obvious one…..

    …at least one of the primary causes of the relatively warm decade of the 2000s is obvious: WE’VE MUCKED WITH THE ATMOSPHERE SO MUCH THAT IT HAD TO GET WARMER. Even just the direct effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be enough for a few tenths of a degree of warming, and the odds are overwhelming that climate feedbacks would further enhance the warming. Heck, we’ve probably done so much to the atmosphere that some of the natural processes are no longer in play. My guess is that we’ve fairly successfully prevented the next glacial period, for example….

    In my previous post, I discussed some of the things that affect the Earth’s climate. I need to know more about them to see how they affected the Roman Warm Period. How much brighter was the Sun during that time? Was there a lull in volcanic activity? How much did the Romans clear forests and alter the local climate? I need to know how the climate forcings changed before I can say which one (or which combination) caused the Roman Warm Period.

    After all, the only reason we know that greenhouse gases have been a major contributor to the current warming is that we’ve got decent global measurements of them, we’ve got observations from space that show the reduced infrared emissions because of those gases, and we can calculate (with simple or complex models, it doesn’t matter) that the expected rise in temperature is in the right ballpark to be greenhouse-gas induced. Oh, and we can measure the other forcings, such as solar output and aerosols from volcanoes, and they’re nowhere near large enough. Many of them, in fact, would cause cooling!

  39. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    The Texan is more honest than the Michael Manns of this world (the kind of eggspurts you demand that we defer to), who claim to be able to “estimate” the climate for periods further back than the Roman Warm Period. And who could forget the infamous Climategate emails, one of which bewailed the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period from the temperature record.

    Then he says:

    and we can calculate (with simple or complex models, it doesn’t matter) that the expected rise in temperature is in the right ballpark to be greenhouse-gas induced.

    Quietly ignoring the reality that the complex models virtually all “predict” higher temperatures than are later measured, and the models have to be fudged again, so that they match the measured results.

  40. Prospero says:

    2019 paper:

    Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
    Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

  41. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Prospero – that is as laughable as Tamino and Rahmsdorf’s paper.

    Anyone can draw a line up the side of a sine curve and say hey it fits!

    The problem is we’re now at the top of the sine curve and the models no longer fit, because they ignore the thermohaline cycle. (The curve has more of a square-wave shape because the PDO and AMO aren’t quite in synch.)

    The cycle caused about 70% of the “warming” from 1970 to 2005. Now it’s gone flat. And as you see in the previous two cycles it’ll go right back down again. The cycle is well known in the paleodata btw, Mike Mann has a 2005 paper on it.

  42. Tel says:

    Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
    Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

    Do you even read the articles that you post?

    Hilarious in a sad way … but this is a classic …

    Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

    You get the right prediction when you come back after the fact and make some adjustments.

    That works very similar to my lotto number prediction engine … which reliably gets last week’s numbers … after I’ve sufficiently adjusted the inputs to get the answer I know I needed to get. Annoyingly, the deniers at the lotto office refuse to pay.

    I wonder if they used the same technique when they first predicted that Australia would have endless drought and we need to build desalination plants all over the country … and then when it did rain hard for three years running, they claim it’s exactly what was expected and clearly caused by Global Warming.

    This is a remarkably versatile methodology. Tesla could adopt this mechanism with their self driving … after the system detects that the vehicle has crashed, it automatically adjusts the inputs until it didn’t crash and keeps driving from there.

  43. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous
    ROFLMAO! A “study”, the great cop out. There is a graph plotting the “predictions” of the GCMs since about 1990. Of more than 100 models, only a couple came close to the later measurements. To fudge the figures a bit (in the climate tradition), around 97% of the models read too high, and have to be “adjusted” to appear even vaguely accurate.

  44. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Of more than 100 models, only a couple came close to the later measurements.

    The closest is the Russian one. Which includes the thermohaline cycle.
    No surprise that the Russians don’t much believe in CAGW.

    That’s also why the Indians don’t much believe in it either. One of the links I gave earlier was a paper by U. Rao.

    Udipi Rao was a GCR astrophysicist and just happened to be head of the successful Indian space program for many years. Which caused great pride for India. He correctly pointed out that the Sun caused more than half the warming last century, not CO2.

    The Chinese also don’t believe in it, which is certainly apparent from the many climate science papers they put out. And their laughable COP “promises”. Their main interest though is to keep the West committing hari kiri.

  45. Entropy says:

    Their main interest though is to keep the West committing hari kiri.

    Yes indeed, never pay attention to what diplomats say, watch what their countries actually do.

  46. Prospero says:

    Wow, there was some use in commenting here – to show up how completely Tel does not understand climate modelling. In fact, it’s almost incomprehensible how you cannot understand what that paper showed.

    This is obviously what you don’t get: climate models do runs based on assumptions of changes in forcings over time – CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but also other factors (aerosols for example) that have effects on temperature. Those assumptions (or estimates, or whatever you want to call them) of the future changes in forcings may not be right – volcanoes may erupt, industry may stop using certain gases, methane production may change, etc. So obviously that will mean the model might have given an inaccurate estimate of future warming because of factors outside of the model’s control, so to speak.

    But 50 years later, you can look back at the actual measurement of those forcings compared to the estimate used in the original model runs. You can adjust those inputs and run the model again, and see if the calculations based on actual, not estimated, changes in forcings over the period match the measured temperature increase.

    And this exercise shows that several old models were pretty accurate.

    Your comment is just an embarrassing display of non comprehension.

  47. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    So obviously that will mean the model might have given an inaccurate estimate of future warming because of factors outside of the model’s control, so to speak.

    But 50 years later, you can look back at the actual measurement of those forcings compared to the estimate used in the original model runs. You can adjust those inputs and run the model again, and see if the calculations based on actual, not estimated, changes in forcings over the period match the measured temperature increase.

    Does this mean that we must wait for 50 years to find out if there really is a problem with Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Climate Change? Don’t tell the alarmists, they are panicking now, when you indicate that they should be waiting.

    I note that you have never responded with any comment about the relative significance of the anthropogenic influence. Nor have you offered any evidence (other than babbling about models that you now suggest we have to wait for 50 years to know if they are accurate) about whether the change will be catastrophic, or even nett harmful.

    And this exercise shows that several old models were pretty accurate.

    Several? There are over 100 in use, which ones are supposedly “pretty accurate”, even if we have to wait 50 years to know? Why are the others still in use?

  48. Prospero says:

    BlowJ, I don’t have time to engage with you. It’s obvious you have been conned by contrarians (such as Spencer, who I think is the source of your 100 model comparison show them all running way too high), and I don’t have time to point you to the corrections that are all on the internet if only you wanted to search for them.

    And besides, your last comment shows something like wilful stupidity. It’s nonsensical – to paraphrase your comment “oh so you claim that old models are pretty accurate after running them with updated, historical forcings plugged in. So that means we have to wait another 50 years to make sure they are still accurate with another 50 years of forcings plugged in.”

    No you moron – it means there is no reason to think they are wildly out of line with what we can expect over the next 50 years.

  49. Boambee John says:

    Perverse Preposterous

    No you moron – it means there is no reason to think they are wildly out of line with what we can expect over the next 50 years.

    No you moron – it means the only reason to think they are not wildly out of line with what we can expect over the next 50 years is if you seriously think that volcanoes will not erupt, industry may not stop using certain gases, or may not start using new gases, methane production may not change, etc. The same factors apply to the future to make models unreliable as applied in the past to make them unreliable. Read and try to comprehend your own words, repeated below.

    climate models do runs based on assumptions of changes in forcings over time – CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but also other factors (aerosols for example) that have effects on temperature. Those assumptions (or estimates, or whatever you want to call them) of the future changes in forcings may not be right – volcanoes may erupt, industry may stop using certain gases, methane production may change, etc. So obviously that will mean the model might have given an inaccurate estimate of future warming because of factors outside of the model’s control, so to speak.

    Congratulations you wilfully stupid idiot, you have now demonstrated the reason that GCMs are a total WOFTAM.

    And still nothing to say about the relative significance of the anthropogenic influence? Nor about whether the change will be catastrophic, or even nett harmful? Can’t find something to support your fears on the internet? Try again.

  50. Prospero says:

    Shorter BlowJ: who knows! Yellowstone might turn into a supervolcano! An asteroid might hit the planet! Where would your “accurate” models of climate change be then!

    You’re just a fool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.