Sheaf Saint

So despite quoting it, you clearly didn't bother to read, or didn't understand the content of the more recent study I shared. Why am I not surprised 🙄 For clarity - and I feel like I'm repeating myself here -the McKitrick study that shows this was flawed, using cherry picked data to deliberately create a false narrative. And you accuse climate scientists of deliberately adjusting data to create a desired result. Astonishing that you are so blind to this practice when it comes to studies that feed your own confirmation bias. You're right, I haven't. Not yet anyway. Because until recently these things have been prohibitively expensive. Not that I have to justify my environmental credentials to you, but if it reassures you to know, I use an e-bike to get to work when I need to be in the office, rather than a car.

Quite a spectacular lack of self-awareness isn't it.

You mean rightly correct for the influence of stratoshperic cooling effect in the MSU signal... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15129277/ It's interesting isn't it. This study was published in 2004 and is widely available, yet McKitrick deliberately ignores it and cherry picks his model realisations so as to make the discrepancy look much larger than it actually is, while neglecting to offer any valid explanations for it. I wonder what possible reason he would have to do that?

Of course you do. To a simple layman with zero understanding of paleo-climatology, an increase of less than 1 would appear to be "not much", which demonstrates further how ill-informed you are on this topic.

OK GM, I'll humour you this one last time. The section of the 'paper' you cited is based predominantly on this study by Ross McKitrick (an economist and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute - another Koch-funded "think tank"), which attempts to describe a large discrepancy between the observed tropical tropospheric warming and that projected by models (specifically the CMIP6 models used by the IPCC), claiming there is a deliberate upward bias in the 38 models compared for the study. However, a more recent study by a team of actual climate researchers (not economists), goes much further and explains the reasoning for the discrepancy between the models and the satellite observations, and also explains why McKitrick's study is flawed... I'll leave it up to you to decide who you think has more credibility in this field of science. Edit: you also seem to be confusing observed tropical tropospheric warming with observed GMST. I'm sure with your vast knowledge on this subject you don't need me to explain the difference between them, do you?

This is the chief author of the article you posted GM. I won't call it a paper because it is nothing of the sort. If you honestly think this is somebody who can be trusted to provide sound scientific information on climate change, there is no hope for you.

Jesus Christ GM. The signatory and sponsor list on that is like a Who's who of some of the most notorious pseudo-scientific climate misinformation peddlers (ie - Conservative "think tanks" and oil industry stooges) you could possibly imagine. Have a look at some of their funding in the links below and tell me if you can see a pattern... Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Heritage Foundation CO2 Coalition National Center for Public Policy Research Patrick J Michaels (admits 40% of funding comes from big oil) Oh and BTW - calling me 'numb nuts' and then going on to whinge about being subjected to ad hominem attacks from other posters really isn't a good look.

Because then he would have to admit that he got it from somewhere like the Association of British Drivers' website (which he once did), and not from an actual reputable science journal. This particular copy and paste job gives the veneer of authenticity, but is completely irrelevant because it's only talking about temperature variation in the troposphere and ignores the surface temperatures, which is the actually important bit. I also love the bit where it says CO2 is actually beneficial because some studies have confirmed - get this - that some plant species grow better in higher temperatures with more atmospheric CO2. I mean, ground-breaking stuff or what!

You've posted some delusional nonsense over the years, but this is right up there with the very worst of it. As usual GM, you're talking total codswallop.

And this highlights perfectly what is so wrong with people like GM. They would rather get their information about climate science from baseless op-ed pieces in notoriously biased, agenda-driven publications like the WSJ than from people who actually work in it. And still expect to be taken seriously.

Time. A 3-part prison drama on iplayer starring Sean Bean and Stephen Graham. It's intense and hard to watch at times, but the acting from Bean and Graham is outstanding. Well recommended.

CO2 emissions from diesel engines are lower than from equivalent sized petrol ones, that's true. Around 20-25 years ago, there was a huge marketing campaign to get people to switch to diesel because you could get more miles per gallon and more gallons to the pound, so they were much more economical. And when manufacturers started making family cars with diesel engines that didn't sound like a rusty old tractor, people duly obliged and there was a massive spike in sales. Of course, with rising demand came an inevitable rise in prices, so it wasn't long before the cost per litre benefit of diesels all but disappeared. Unfortunately, what they forgot to tell everyone is that diesels are worse for the environment in other ways, thanks to the much higher emissions of other pollutants like NOx and particulate matter. So although we've seen a slower increase in CO2 emissions than if diesel engines were still reserved for vans, lorries and tractors (the rate of increase in the sheer number of cars on the road means there was never a drop), we've also seen a marked drop in air quality. The refining process of diesel is also more energy-intensive than petrol, which leads to higher emissions from production, so the actual saving in terms of the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is negligible. Electric cars really are the way forward in emissions terms. Of course, there are concerns about the availability of materials needed to make the batteries, and the overall carbon cost of manufacturing them. But the latter also applies to petrol and diesel cars, so over the lifespan of an electric car there is a significant GHG emission saving. The range and charge time on new models is getting better every year, so they are much more practicable now than they were even 5 years ago. Ultimately, if we want to hit the target of net zero emissions, we all need to take personal responsibility to use less energy in our lives. Collectively, we also need to invest in much better public transport to reduce the number of cars on the roads, and in better national infrastructure. And we also need to reduce unnecessary consumerism and waste. Unfortunately, none of this is compatible with a neoliberal economic system that prioritises corporate profits above all else and demands infinite growth, compelling us to constantly buy more, consume more and waste more. In a nutshell, we're fucked.

Meh. Chelsea are looking exceptionally good this season and I expected us to get beaten two or three nil before KO. First half they should have been out of sight really. It's all very well saying we let them play through us too easily, but you have to give them credit because they played some beautiful one-touch stuff going forward. To get to HT at only 1-0 was quite remarkable really. Then you have to give Ralph a lot of credit. Usually it's the other way round, but he made the tactical switch and we got much more control in midfield and frustrated Chelsea. It was a nice move to play in Tino to win the penalty, and when we had got to 1-1, we really looked like we would at least hold on for a really good point. And then Mike Dean intervened again didn't he. As soon as I saw he was going to be on VAR today I should have placed a large bet on us getting a red card, and he duly obliged. It was a late tackle, but there was no malicious intent and he wasn't off the ground or out of control. So although there is an argument to be made that it *could* have been deserving of a red anyway, the ref made his initial decision and there really wasn't enough there to claim he had made a clear and obvious error, so it shouldn't have been upgraded to red on review IMO. Of course, we'll never know if we would have held on for a draw had the red card not happened, but it changed the game and there was only ever going to be one outcome once Chelsea started piling on the pressure again. So, overall, I'm not too down-hearted. We got the sort of result I was expecting before the game anyway, having played some good stuff in the 2nd half and fought our way back into the game. There were a few positives to take from it: We kept Lukaku quiet most of the afternoon. McCarthy made at least one really good save and was unfortunate not to keep it out for the third goal, and is actually looking much better than many people gave him credit for before the season started. And Nathan Tella looked lively and full of promise.

Which is precisely my point. Where is the 'clear and obvious' error? There isn't one, ergo it shouldn't have been changed to red on review.

It was an unnecessary decision, but inevitable with Dean on VAR. I thought the whole point of VAR was to correct 'clear and obvious' errors? There is an argument to be made that it could have been judged worthy of a red card, but it wasn't so clear cut that you could say Atkinson was completely in the wrong to give it only as a yellow. It was a late and un-necessary tackle (as he wasn't going to win the ball), but IMO there wasn't a good enough reason to upgrade the yellow card to red on review. Just Mike fucking Dean wanting to grab all the headlines again.

It did.

That much was obvious last week against Wolves. No idea why Ralph decided it would be a good idea to throw him in there again against a much better team.

And that's 3. Cheers Dean, you massive prick.

It was very late, but it wasn't a stupidly high, studs up, intent to injure the player tackle. I think it's harsh IMO.

I reckon we will appeal that and win. That's nonsense.

Oh surprise surprise. It was late, granted. But seriously? Was it really worth a red?

Amazing how quiet the whingers have gone since HT when we've been playing quite well.

Walcott looking a little rusty on his return from injury. Is anyone genuinely surprised by that?

Because they have a very expensively assembled squad of world class players.

I think he actually did very well to get any contact on it at all. With the pace on the cross it wasn't a gimme by any stretch.