homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back briefly to a favourite subject on this thread - the Great Global Warming Swindle, since I've just come across another rebuttal from someone whose work appears in the film.

Nathan Rive and Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen were cited by the programme for their work on suspot activity and the supposed correlation with global temperatures. Yet again, they demonstrate that Durkin has made up data to make up his argument - a whole chunk of missing data has been filled in, and most recent temperatures omitted, which would specifically indicate a correlation with anthropogenic global warming.

Their full rebuttal can be found here. There is also a handy compendium of exactly how much fraudulent data was used in the prorgamme here, complete with original and doctored graphs etc.

To the few supporters of the programme left - so they have provably frigged world tempertures, frigged the correlation with solar rays, frigged CO2 levels and volcanos, miscaptioned seemingly the vast majority of contributors to invent credentials and distorted the views of some of the genuine ones. And we should believe it... why?

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because there's really no rational reason to believe otherwise. There is no 'man made global warming' of the shrill since this club was created by denial of previous high temperatures and the natural variation of the same pattern in the previous two centuries.

I see from your link that they have been struggling very hard to work out how Durkin got his graph, seems pathetic that they didn't simply ask him.

The sun's activity shows remarkable correlation to driving the earth's temperature while CO2 shows nothing of the kind, let alone man-made CO2 as has still not been answered by you, but anyway to take the sun and our relationship to it out of modelling is simply daft.

The historical pattern shows this clearly, as do actual field studies which continue to find dead trees in the arctic as this natural pattern of global warming and cooling explains rationally as coming from burial under a previous icy covering.

As before, you say you're interested in the science, but you'd much rather argue about the bickering.

You have not yet proved that what we are going through is anything unusual in the the last 450,000 years let alone the last two thousand nor disproved that the rise in temperature of the last 200 is not man made.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jim Goodfellow

A thoroughly decent chap
# 12121

 - Posted      Profile for Jim Goodfellow   Email Jim Goodfellow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've hesitated to join in this discussion, as I don't possess the detailed knowledge to support a reasoned argument. (Prodnose: Oh, get on with it, man). Well, it seems to me that if global warming is to be laid at humankind's door, then over-population could be a contributory factor. Day and night, more and more of us are exhaling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. On the other hand,afforested areas are decreasing, so creating a serious imbalance. Other contributory factors would include rear-end methane emissions from farm animals and such, and from humans too, even including me on occasion. (Exits hurriedly, pursued by fart police). Sorry to be flippant, but I do offer this as a serious argument and, for what it's worth, I'm told James Lovelock agrees with me.

--------------------
Buffer's Yeoman

Posts: 478 | From: The Golden Triangle | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When the IPCC say that global warming is (to a large part) caused by human activity (to better than 90% probability) they also list what human activity they mean - and deforestation is second only to burning fossil fuels. And, deforestation is closely linked to population - forests are cut down to provide fuel and building materials, space for farms to grow food and space for housing.

Our contribution through "biological processes" isn't really significant. There are a lot of us, but we've largely displaced other animals. The total number of creatures breathing out CO2 and emitting methane hasn't really changed that much.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You have not yet proved that what we are going through is anything unusual in the the last 450,000 years let alone the last two thousand nor disproved that the rise in temperature of the last 200 is not man made.

Again, I wonder what planet you are on. Did you read that link? It was written by the people who published the research about solar rays that Durkin and you believe causes all the global warming. They say that anthropogenic causes are behind recent warming, and that Durkin fraudulently used their data. Once again, since this does not suit your indefensible prejudices, this magically translates into "there is no evidence whatsoever". And incidentally, The Independent DID go straight to Durkin for his sources, and received only parital information. His stock reply to helpful enquiry is on record as being "go f**k yourself", so this is the level we are on in serious debate.

I've said a number of times now that I can't be bothered to follow up your posts. Each time they make me angry at their wilful, relentless stupidity in the face of questions that have been repeatedly answered by people on this forum, and much more importantly by the experts in the field. You will no doubt reply with a massive long quote from an irrelevant source and make a ludicrous statement like "no-one has provided ANY evidence" when they so consistently, authoritively and abundantly have. Even when the people you idolise flatly contradict you, it just pings of a titanium skull. In the name of humanity and sanity, enough is enough.

I'm still very interested in the ongoing debates on this thread, but with one exception. So please anyone hold me to this if I fall again, but this is absolutely the last time I respond to anything else on this thread from Planet Myrrh.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jim Goodfellow - brave soul for posting! I agree, population growth is a huge factor, with some enormous questions which need to be addressed. It should be a global priority to face up to this issue. I don't condone China's ruthless policy on the subject, but it's undeniable that it is effective. On a broad level, birth rates in the affluent west have reduced massively through better education and healthcare, surely the desirable way to go. Easy in theory - much much harder in practice for poor countries to achieve this.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The sun's activity shows remarkable correlation to driving the earth's temperature while CO2 shows nothing of the kind, let alone man-made CO2 as has still not been answered by you, but anyway to take the sun and our relationship to it out of modelling is simply daft.

Myrrh

Actually the argument that solar activity, not humanity, is entirely responsible for global warming has huge problems with the last 20 odd years as the former has not increased but the latter has.

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bastards.

There's no other word, really. At least the contrarians on this forum don't brag about how important climate change is and how they are leading world efforts to combat it, while secretly undermining it. The US is sinking to a new low. I don't know why I am surprised, as they've been at this business for a long time - but to be so bullish publicly all the while knowing what their behind the scenes tactics are is beneath contempt.

Bastards, bastards, bastards, bastards.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is consistent with US policy though. It's been a long time since anyone in the US Administration actually denied human influence in the climate. But, there's been a very consistent message from the US Administration that they believe that the effects of human activity on the climate can be mitigated without binding commitments to specified reductions in CO2 (equivalent) emissions. And, a touching belief in the ability of technology to come up with a solution.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is consistent with US policy though.
There is perhaps another aspect to what the US is doing: for instance, IIRC Canada is not very close to meeting its agreed to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of what I've read suggests much of Europe isn't either: one article said the vast majority of net reductions have come from East bloc countries, although I'd like to hear Alan's take on that.

So maybe we're 'bastards' but we're less disingenuous than some.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
IIRC Canada is not very close to meeting its agreed to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of what I've read suggests much of Europe isn't either: one article said the vast majority of net reductions have come from East bloc countries, although I'd like to hear Alan's take on that.

Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. The Canadian target under Kyoto was a 6% reduction*, in 2004 Canadian CO2 emissions were 27% above 1990 levels - where even the US that didn't ratify Kyoto had only increased emissions by 16%. I don't know why this happened - it could be that Canada was starting from a relatively low CO2 emission rate compared to other developed nations.

The EU had a target of 8% reductions, with nations within the EU given different targets to achieve the overall aim. Current projections are a reduction of about 5% will be achieved by 2008. Within the EU, some countries (including the UK) are on target to meet their own targets - though the UK government has unilaterally set a 20% reduction target (in excess of the Kyoto target) that we're probably going to struggle to meet.

The former Soviet Bloc countries have all significantly reduced their CO2 emissions - mostly because of the collapse of heavy industry and the closure of old, inefficient power generating capacity.

quote:
So maybe we're 'bastards' but we're less disingenuous than some.
Well, if you don't sign up for difficult targets you can't be told off when you fail to meet them. It probably is more honest to say "we can't meet those targets" and not sign than sign up and then fail to act to achieve them. But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.

-------------------------------------------
* note, in all cases the Kyoto Treaty specified reductions relative to 1990 emissions for an average period between 2008-2012.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.
Fair point. And good on the UK.

It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.

Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh boy, oh boy. Just when we thought we had enough dead horses, the Surrey School Board has decided that they need "balance" in teaching climate change issues:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/05/14/bc-truth.html
This is the same school board that has repeatedly tried to ban children's books dealing with another dead horse issue (GLBT parents). I don't know where they stand on evolution. [Roll Eyes]

And yes, observers are correct in noting that Canada is doing a wretched job of the Kyoto accord, which was neglected by the Liberals and is being disavowed by the Conservatives, despite pretty solid public support. I wrote to Steve a couple of weeks ago, but haven't received an answer. The Conservatives seem to be forgetting that Kyoto has provisions for economic sanctions on signatories who don't meet their targets. Missing Kyoto goals could cost Canada big-time in the long run. OliviaG
ETA The Surrey School Board also banned a school production of "The Laramie Project" - a play about Matthew Shepard - which was eventually mounted in a more enlightened school district.

[ 15. May 2007, 18:12: Message edited by: OliviaG ]

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

So now what you said is a subtle joke? If you think so.

But I hope you understand there are people of 'good will', trying to hear whatever point you have, who won't because of your flippancy.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
But, signing up for a difficult target (or self-imposing a difficult target, where there isn't then international sanction for failure) should focus the political mind on finding ways to meet it.
Fair point. And good on the UK.
Not necessarily. This government sets itself targets and then changes them when they realise they aren't going to meet them. So don't be fooled by our self-righteous posturing (I'm talking about the government here and not Alan, btw!).

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
This government sets itself targets and then changes them when they realise they aren't going to meet them.

They've cahnged them? To the best of my knowledge the 2001 Labour manifesto commitment of a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010 still holds, even though it's becoming increasingly likely we'll miss it.

In addition, the climate change bill currently at draft stage would commit to 60% cuts by 2050 (with an interim 26-32% cut by 2018-2022). Also the EU has a 20% cut by 2020 commitment (30% if there's a wider international agreement). Perhaps it's these other targets that keep getting mentioned that make you think the existing target has changed.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan: I was just speaking generally.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
tfbundy
Shipmate
# 9914

 - Posted      Profile for tfbundy   Email tfbundy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm REALLY not convinced by this global warming idea. The green message is long overdue to be adopted, but now it is an ideal way for Governments to add yet further to the burden of tax rather than anything else. The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2. The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing. The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.
Posts: 119 | From: Norfolk | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What makes you think that governments need the spectre of global warming to justify raising taxes? Normally they just say it's for the health service or defence or bin collection or police and people generally grumble a bit then pay up.

As to the scientific community being divided - no. It isn't. As this thread has quite fulsomely shewn...

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tfbundy:
The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2.

Do you have any evidence whatever for this even split of opinion?

quote:
The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing.
Horseshit.

quote:
The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.
That's a simplification. And we can do something about the destruction of the rainforests - we can boycott the industries that promote it, we can lobby businesses and politicians, and we can draw attention to the seriousness of the issue in public forums such as this.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
fredwa
Apprentice
# 12401

 - Posted      Profile for fredwa     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
tfbundy comments
quote:

The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2.
quote:

As I understand it the science suggests that CO2 increases global warming and global warming increases CO2. That is the really worrying bit.

Fred

Posts: 5 | From: Tiger country | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633

 - Posted      Profile for Clint Boggis   Author's homepage   Email Clint Boggis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
re:tfbundy

Bugger, this is frustrating.

Where do people get the idea that scientists can't decide about this (so we might as well go on buggering up the planet then)?

No, scientists (real ones) aren't evenly divided. If anyone can find any real evidence please tell us. We'd love it all to be a big mistake so we can avoid the extra effort and worry. Really.

When you ask people who come out with this kind of ill-informed shite, they can't just admit they read it in the Daily Mail or similar lie-sheet (cos we'd all just laugh at them) so they just go all quiet. Or else they quote some bloke living alone in Oregon (or similar hideaway) who has managed to produce a website (no scientific papers, no reputation for research) which claims mysterious new findings which overturn the scientific orthodoxy. No, it F***ing doesn't.

I think I feel slightly better now. Thankyou for listening.
.

Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What makes you think that governments need the spectre of global warming to justify raising taxes?

They don't. But it's a great opportunity for them to add to their list of excuses. As I found when I booked my flight to Tanzania and the tax had doubled (airport tax plus darling Mr Brown's eco tax).

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
So now what you said is a subtle joke? If you think so.

But I hope you understand there are people of 'good will', trying to hear whatever point you have, who won't because of your flippancy.

Good heavens, 206. I made a serious comment about the Bush administration (about which I am still very angry). I was concerned you'd misinterpreted this as referring to all Americans, so I clarified. I added some - ya Gads - light hearted comments in defence of a couple American things I love, The Simpsons and Team America. So sorry if all this befuddled you.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tfbundy:
I'm REALLY not convinced by this global warming idea. The green message is long overdue to be adopted, but now it is an ideal way for Governments to add yet further to the burden of tax rather than anything else. The scientific world seems ever increasingly divided about CO2, with as many saying CO2 increases global warming as those who say global warming increases CO2. The credibility of science therefore diminishes as time goes by and the global warming message and its insistence we all adopt altered behaviours seems unconvincing. The bigger problem seems to be something we have no control over, namely the destruction of rain forests, something I always understood to be the lungs of the earth.

I know it can be very dull to re-read entire long threads when joining late, but tfbundy, it might be a good idea if you'd read at least a little bit of this one before posting.

Oh, and what Teufelchen said. And Clint and... well, pretty much everyone else by the looks of it!

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
So sorry if all this befuddled you.
After all you've done to prolong this thread I feel some obligation to help out: those hundreds of millions of dying Africans have given me pause.

And if I've got the numbers wrong I'm sure you'll point it out.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
After all you've done to prolong this thread I feel some obligation to help out: those hundreds of millions of dying Africans have given me pause.

And if I've got the numbers wrong I'm sure you'll point it out.

My turn to not be quite sure what you mean, 206! I think you are saying that the projected negative consequences for Africa have made you re-evaluate (indeed, wasn't it you that started the "it's happening, what should we do?" thread?) If so, good for you.

In other thread-prolonging news, yet another paper reports that actual measurements have massively exceeded the computer models. This time it is the Southern Oceans, which is absorbing less CO2 than expected. This was forecast, but not for another 40 years.

And in other other news, New Scientist has had a go at rebutting the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions. I've skimmed a few, and while they obviously and expectedly follow science orthodoxy on the subject, they crucially seem to do a good job at criticising the climate change movement too where the science has been inflated. It looks like a readable and fair summary.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It's just the 'bastard bastard bastard bastard' stuff wears me out.

Just to be clear, this was referring to the Bush Administration (who so deserve it) in particular not Americans in general. After all, America gave us The Simpsons. And Team America - who in turn also reminded us that America gave the world McDonalds, Wal-Mart, The Gap, Baseball, NFL, Rock and roll, The Internet, Slavery, Starbucks, Disney world, Porno, Valium, Reeboks, Fake Tits, Sushi, Taco Bell, Rodeos, Bed bath and beyond, Liberty, White Slips, The Alamo, Band-aids, Las Vegas, Christmas, Immigrants, Columbine, Democrats, Republicans and Sportsmanship.

Oh, and my personal favourite - Books.

There were no immigrants or slavery before America?

[ 17. May 2007, 23:32: Message edited by: Papio ]

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
There were no immigrants or slavery before America?

Well, not before Team America, anyway.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. ...

Indeed, the government of the day that signed the accord refused to do anything about meeting the goals, prefering to dither away the years.

Now, it is impossible to meet the targets, and the current government has determined a realistic target. This seems to me to be a reasonable thing.

Also, I can't idle my car now for more than 3 minutes or I will get a fine - unless it is very hot or very cold. So, that would be May and September. [Biased]

[ 18. May 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This probably belongs on the old "it's happening: what should we do" thread, but since there has been a lot of talk on Africa, development and technology here I thought I'd stick with the one that people have been following. This illustrates in practice what some of us were saying about how renewable energy (mainly solar) could be a Godsend to Africa, implemented properly. It is a BBC story about rural Namibia, and getting electricity and communications to isolated communites. Good stuff.

[ 20. May 2007, 22:52: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the worlds religions finally unite?! And what better cause than to unite against the Bush Administration? It gladdens the soul to read that more than 20 religious groups including Christian, Jewish and Muslim, have gone to Capitol Hill to petition for action on climate change.

Altogether now, "we shall overcome..."

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.


quote:
Drake's equation.

Drake's equation is an interesting critter named for Dr. Frank Drake, an astrophysicist who received an "extraterrestrial" radio signal, later discovered to be a false alarm, but who went on to organize several SETI conferences and ultimately to shape a government program around this search. A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.

We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years. They give us computer models showing the truth, and proof, of their theories. They give us high sounding speeches by intelligent sounding people using five dollar words proclaiming the debate is over because they've determined their theories to be proven.

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result. Many of us are taken in, though, because everything looks impressive, and we don't have the background to know or understand that it's all hooey. (Frosty Burrage Jnr)

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result.
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

Whereas for Myrrh, if the majority of people believe it, it must be a conspiracy.

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Canada has a very long way to go, and from what I've read the current Canadian government has effectively said they'll totally ignore the Kyoto Treaty even though it was ratified five years ago. ...

Indeed, the government of the day that signed the accord refused to do anything about meeting the goals, prefering to dither away the years.

Now, it is impossible to meet the targets, and the current government has determined a realistic target. This seems to me to be a reasonable thing.

Also, I can't idle my car now for more than 3 minutes or I will get a fine - unless it is very hot or very cold. So, that would be May and September. [Biased]

O Canada!

quote:
Dr. Tim Ball,
Former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
“Stopping climate change” may be all the rage with celebrities and environmental lobbyists, but fortunately for the rest of us, the scare’s scientific foundation is rapidly disintegrating.
One of the fundamental pillars of the hypothesis that humanity is causing dangerous climate change is the belief that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas of concern in countries such as Canada, have been rising steadily since the start of the industrial revolution. ....

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, “The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.” continued on (Continued on Tim Bell)

He ends: "Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as ‘solid’ as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.
But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history."




Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.


quote:
Drake's equation.

Drake's equation is an interesting critter named for Dr. Frank Drake, an astrophysicist who received an "extraterrestrial" radio signal, later discovered to be a false alarm, but who went on to organize several SETI conferences and ultimately to shape a government program around this search. A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.

We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years. They give us computer models showing the truth, and proof, of their theories. They give us high sounding speeches by intelligent sounding people using five dollar words proclaiming the debate is over because they've determined their theories to be proven.

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result. Many of us are taken in, though, because everything looks impressive, and we don't have the background to know or understand that it's all hooey. (Frosty Burrage Jnr)

But their computer models can't forecast the weather for last year, or any other year that we already know the result.
Quoted in full, to exhibit its idiocy.

1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ah democracy, if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

Whereas for Myrrh, if the majority of people believe it, it must be a conspiracy.
You can fool all of the people some of the time..


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

quote:
You state in your section on Climate Change: "Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from an estimated 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to 380 ppm today. During the last century, the earth’s surface temperature rose by about 0.6°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that it could rise by between 1.4 and 5.8°C by the end of this century."

Are you not aware of the lack of correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? The data are clearly uncorrelated during the 20th century record. While correlation cannot PROVE cause and effect, lack of correlation will DISPROVE cause and effect.

Data over the 600,000-year Vostok ice core record show temperature changes LEAD changes in both methane and carbon dioxide by 200-800 years, i.e., temperature changes first, then methane and CO2.

In the scientific method, a theory is shown to be invalid if one can cite a single contrary example. There is a record spanning 500 million years that is contrary to the theory that rising CO2 causes climate change.(Bob Webster)

Garbage in, garbage out.

Myrrh

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:


1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?

Who the hell are you?


quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.
The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.

Myrrh

T. [/QB][/QUOTE]

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Are you not aware of the lack of correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? The data are clearly uncorrelated during the 20th century record. While correlation cannot PROVE cause and effect, lack of correlation will DISPROVE cause and effect.
Lack of correlation may indicate lack of cause and effect; it certainly shows a complex system. And, the "lack of correlation" isn't quite as clear in the data as some armchair 'scientists' claim, especially once the effects of particulate pollution and other complicating factors are taken into account.

quote:
Data over the 600,000-year Vostok ice core record show temperature changes LEAD changes in both methane and carbon dioxide by 200-800 years, i.e., temperature changes first, then methane and CO2.
Now, how many times should it need repeating. In the natural system where a temperature rise allows the release of CO2 from oceans there will be a time lag of several centuries because of the time scale of circulation between deep oceans and surface waters. If you get your carbon from another reservoir (eg: fossil carbon in coal, oil and gas) then you're talking about a different system with different dynamics.

quote:
In the scientific method, a theory is shown to be invalid if one can cite a single contrary example.
And, that is such a wildly bizarre description of "scientific method" that it beggars belief. At best it can be described as "Popularised Popperian Falsification", though Popper himself would be the first person to describe it as unscientific.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Garbage in, garbage out.

Absolutely. Now, if perhaps you'd start to take in some decent science rather than the garbage thrown up by sad-gits-in-their-sheds-running-a-website ...

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Climate models and weather forecasting models are completely different beasts (even if they share some underlying physical principles). To discount climate models because they can't make weather predictions is akin to rejecting Newtonian mechanics because it can't predict the outcome of the 3.30 at Haydock.

He could be meaning the Jan Esper and Von Storch work which shows the hockey stick doesn't correspond to the reality of our weather.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Hockey Stick may not correspond to the realities of our weather. It does a pretty fair job of corresponding to the realities of our climate. And, as I said, weather and climate are different things; anyone who's failed to understand that has no real basis to make pronouncements on subjects such as climatology or meteorology.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Hockey Stick may not correspond to the realities of our weather. It does a pretty fair job of corresponding to the realities of our climate. And, as I said, weather and climate are different things; anyone who's failed to understand that has no real basis to make pronouncements on subjects such as climatology or meteorology.

Picky picky picky, you're beginning to sound weather-beaten.

It was comment, not pronouncement, and everyone has a right to his opinion.

You however who do make pronouncements from your claim to expertise on the subject continue to brush aside conflicting evidence to the data imput used in climate models.

Which is worse, someone who gets the terminology wrong but is still coherent or someone who gets the data wrong and presents a future weather scenario which is gobbledegook?

We touched on this earlier when I was still trying to make sense of the arguments about it. If the CO2 ice core measurements used in climate models is garbage in the whole man-made global warming fear is a storm in a tea-cup, but this coupled with the use of the hockey stick which has been shown to be a flawed representation of our past weather conditions,(*) shows a deliberate unscientific approach to climate analysis.


So we've finally got a soap-opera of global interest, not only one everyone can watch and discuss the next day, but one in which everyone can actually become a bit player - and like all good soap-operas it has to come up with cliff-hangers and angst driven plots.

quote:
Two more global warming false alarms

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted December 18, 2006

The global warming debate has developed a pattern: In part A, a scientist makes a scary claim and gets headlines for himself, and his funding source, across the known world. In part B, a few months later new evidence blows the scary claim away—but with no press coverage of its demise.

Two more global warming scares have just been quietly blown away: the claim that global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes; and the claim that warming threatens to shut down the great Atlantic Ocean conveyor currents.

....

Keep this "scare-now and discredit-later" pattern of global warming press releases firmly in mind for the future. Weather is highly variable, and the climate's constant changes only reveal trends over long periods—but the global warming scare tactics have wrung $18 billion out of recent federal budgets for climate change research. ([qb]Two more global warming false alarms
)

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, missed the edit window.

(*)(using its methodology to retrospectively predict it showed no relation to the reality of our weather - the model excludes the highs and lows of the actually significant hot and cold periods in the last 2000 years because the model has been designed to do that, any numbers thrown into it will churn out the same hockey stick).

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was comment, not pronouncement, and everyone has a right to his opinion.

OK, so it was a comment rather than a pronouncement. And, Frosty Burrage Jr (who???) has a right to his opinion as much as anyone else. But, you quoted the comment as though it somehow indicated something important for consideration. Why should we consider the opinion of someone who's making comments about climatology without even showing any evidence of recognising the difference between weather and climate?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and once more into the Hockey Stick discussion. The Hockey Stick is data (albeit data determined from some calculations from primary data), it's not the output of climate models. What's more, since Manns data was included in the 2001 IPCC report it's possibly one of the most intensively studied data in climate science (and, indeed in many other sciences). Experts in the field have raised questions about the methodology Mann employed, his selection of primary data and umpteen other things. Though some criticisms have been shown to have some validity, overall his data has held up well under scrutiny. Several major reviews of the studies into Manns data (I've linked to a couple somewhere in this thread already) have shown that the general picture of the 'Hockey Stick' is a reasonably accurate description of the temperature record over the last 1000 years or so.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the data I've posted on the hockey stick show the flaws to completely alter the sense of our historic climate. I've seen nothing in the "revised" hockey stick and excuses to excuse this corruption climate reality.

If it's not bad enough that one set of garbage data is being used (man-made CO2 from all the nonsense CO2 claims) the two together make this a scientific joke.

I'm not sure who is the poorer for it, real scientists or the gullible public.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Data can only "corrupt our sense of climate history" if that sense of climate history was initially wrong. Put simply, the MWP and LIA weren't that significant in global terms, whereas recent climate changes have been a) global in scope b) as large in magnitude as the end of glaciations and c) faster than any other changes we know of. As the data of climate scientists such as Mann have shown. If that's changed our sense of climate history then good; we can't go on living in the lie that we're not impacting the world we live in.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools