Yippee, I think we’ve just spotted the first “Cuckoo Trolls” of the season.

Cuckoo troll. (Prunella Moduloudest)
“Like most trolls, cuckoo trolls are tortured by a terrible nagging fear that no one will ever take what they have to say very seriously. This fear is well justified. Cuckoo trolls try to get round this by mimicking the values of their host community. So, for example, they will seek to mislead with comments like “What makes you think I’m a Labor voter?” or “Actually I’m very open-minded on the subject of climate science. I just….”. The purpose is to make them come across like reasonable other people, instead of the hard-left/deep-green activists they in fact are.”

James Delingpole, Troll Spotters Handbook.

The Cuckoo troll is gregarious and often flocks with such species as the Greater Green Galah. Mostly the Cuckoo Troll echoes the call of other troll calls with shrill, ear piercing screeches. Most active during the “policy season”.

Researchers now believe that these species are in severe decline however, they tend to cover this up by being shriller than other species, thus creating the impression that they are representing greater numbers than is the case.

Troll spotting anyone?

Lexi,

GY said:
“…you're politicising a debate that ought to be mostly about facts”

It does have that appearance. It appears that most left wing people don’t buy the climate change thing either. It looks as if you are (no doubt sincerely) promulgating an idea that appears to have originated as an attempt to politicize it so that left wing people will tow the line.

“Correction: I am not hostile to Catholic belief.”
Thank you for the correction. Out of curiosity would you agree that most Catholic beliefs are shared by other Christians? Also, theologically minded Christians of all stripes enjoy arguing pedantic differences but there are few clear substantial distinctions between Catholics and other Christians in belief given the protestant diversity. Only three examples come to mind.
1. A belief in the teaching authority of the Pope/infallibility in certain circumstances.
2. Catholics believe in the real presence. Others consider it symbolic. Even fundamentalists who argue that the Bible should be taken literally don't take that literally.
3. Catholics believe that we are divinely required to be open to being fruitful and multiplying within marriage. Although this belief isn’t uniquely held by Catholics I believe it is the only Church that has it as doctrine.
When I referred to Catholic belief are those 3 what you had in mind?

“I am a Catholic.”
I apologise for saying “an identity as a Catholic in conjunction with a hostility toward Catholic belief”. I meant to express my surprise when two things are surprisingly together rather than to assert you aren’t. If it is me those things wouldn’t be together but you are not and you have corrected me concerning the idea that you reject Catholic beliefs.

Eclipse Now,

I ran out of posts and you have given a lengthy answer to some of what I have written. Therefore merely continuing is awkward in case you have answered something already so I'm vacillating as to whether to continue first or go through your links first or to cherry pick from what I was going to say. I'll play it by ear.

It finishes with a look at how Climate model runs from 14 modelling runs (without quantification of how much is hindcast and how much is forecast) and points out that it fits the data between 1900 and 2000. Again of course it was likely done 1990 or later so that isn’t compelling.

Update: You seem to have some explanation that a model is created and then tested backward. In other words you consider the modellers to be ignoring the past and choosing components for their model then testing them out on the past. But surely if it didn't work they would tweak it until it did. Tweaking the model until it works backward is no substitute for working forwards. Surely it would be too easy and probably necessary to tweak things to fit before releasing the model?

”Yes, you noticed? Tell me, does your Denial of science ...”

I’m not trying to deny science. I just wanted to get to the bottom of this. Either this is something to save the planet or twaddle. I’m not going to accept either view on blind faith.

”He worked on the computers "building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office" but as far as I can tell is NOT a climate modeller. My wife designs beautiful website LOOKS, but doesn't code them up. That's the backend work we pay a coder for. As far as I can tell real climate modellers told Evans how the software should work, then he coded it up or ran the math. That's about all he is qualified for. Unless you've found a secret climate Phd somewhere? ;-)”

The Director of Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability has a PhD in computer science. Evans publically claims he did the models. A PhD in computer science sounds more like something giving skills for coding and a PhD in electronic engineering sounds more something giving skills to tell the IT guys what to do. Evans says he produced the models. Maybe he is an IT geek. I don’t know. But you seem to dismiss him too quickly.

Good Morning Graham,

I am no more of a cheerleader than anyone else.
I do try to see things from more than one
perspective as a general rule - and all this
fuss over my response to Raw Mustard's initial
post is simply a storm in a teacup as I see it.
Your using terms like "People like you and Eclipse,"
didn't help mattters. Of course neither did
my terminology as you pointed out. Perhaps we
all need to re-read our posts and check the language
we use before pressing the send button.

Dear mjpb,

Again Thanks for a well reasoned post.

Dear spindoc,

Trolling is typically unleashing cynical and
sarcastic remarks on another poster, because it's
the Internet, and hey, you can!

Eclipse Now,

“You mentioned of my friend Barry Brook that:
<<and thus has a living dependent on Climate Change being accepted>>
Tell me, does your scepticism of scientists paid by the public purse also include those terrible drains on the public purse like doctors, health specialists, cancer researchers, immunisation programs, ... and then if we include normal public servants can we trust ANYTHING primary teachers, high school teachers, garbage collectors, sewerage plumbers and contagion specialists might tell us? Where do we stop?”

On that basis it only extends as far as groups who are dependent on funding from a government who are committed to a particular view or dependent on earning a living from a group that exists because of a particular view. A good example is working for an “Institute of Climate Change…” How could the group exist if there wasn’t climate change?

”But if you DO in fact DENY the empirically tested and measured FACTS of our heating world that EVERY SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION ON THE PLANET has independently verified…”

And who have scientists who convert to thinking it is bunk while working there and say so publically. Doesn't that get your attention?

” He hangs out with climatologists …”
Sorry but I’m giving that one a miss. Hanging out doesn’t slice it for me.

” The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions.”

The earliest couldn’t have been before the 80s if Hansen is the pioneer as the video seemed to imply and most must have been from 1990. Of course they would.

” If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away”

Don’t you mean that if there are enough holes in the claims it won’t exist in the first place? Many people just want to know if there is anything in this and they get greeted with this type of response.

Hi Eclipsed, you can do trends on climate over whatever period you want, climate doesn't care. There is a five year trend, just as there is a one year, 10 year, 20 year 1,000 year trend, whether it is significant is another issue.

No, I was not referring to ENSO, which is expressed as a pressure differential, so couldn't possibly be compared to temperature. Check the graph out again. The issue is purely about what has happened in the last 13 years. I'll agree it doesn't necessarily mean the trend is broken, but it is a significant departure from the models.

I do not understand however why you want to deny the fact that it exists.

You just keep linking to the only dataset that shows that 2010 might have been warmer (but not statistically warmer) than 1998. The problem with that is that because of errors in measurement no scientist is going to make that claim as there is only so much precision that you can give to a measurement. And as all the other datasets diverge from this one, on the balance of probabilities it was cooler, but certainly no warmer.

BTW, I was wondering. I'd got the impression that you were opposed to nuclear power, but now I understand that I was wrong. Am I reading that right?