|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
You'd honestly be better off debating a young earth creationist, a 9/11 "truther", an Obama "birther" or a moon-landing denialist.
You'd have better chances w/ all 4 at once probably. It doesn't seem to matter what evidence you propose, or how ridiculous the implications of the theories she espouses are (i.e. rapid death), you won't break through the wall.
My sig is an apropos, I think, response to Myrrh-think (in general).
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Maybe this account contains a clue. The effect on Marion Keech and her followers, when her 'end of the world' prediction did not happen, was reportedly that "they reacted to the dissonance of being wrong: by becoming even more certain that they were right". Will something similar happen here?
Something similar has been happening in many areas. It seems to become exponentially difficult to get people to step back from their biases and enter "thinking mode" rather than a defensive "reacting mode."
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
Myrrh
Just in case anyone is tempted to believe Myrrh's nonsense about the Mauna Loa CO2 observations, see here.
Likewise I presume that plants and animals also have an agenda and are changing their habitats to further this evil climate change conspiracy.
See here
Basically this whole exercise links back to the OP and shows why I avoid most climate change online messaging. Clearing up the mess made by skeptics/deniers is akin to sharing a flat with an incontinent elephant. [/QB]
Ahhh, but Mr. Tambourine Man sir, You can tell them links's part o' the conspiracy on account they are all rational n' stuff. Not a single line in all caps, no multi-colour text...tsk.
Don't get me started on them tricksy animals...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ahhh, but Mr. Tambourine Man sir, You can tell them links's part o' the conspiracy on account they are all rational n' stuff. Not a single line in all caps, no multi-colour text...tsk.
Don't get me started on them tricksy animals...
Shrug, a 'scientist' wanting to prove a little known idea about CO2 contributing to warming, chose the largest active volcano in the world in one the worlds most active regions for CO2 emissions, a hot spot creating volcanos (the islands), constantly feeding five volcanos, hundreds of earthquakes every year, warm seas releasing said etc. etc. ... He began by chucking out all available data on measurements on CO2 which didn't fit what he wanted to be his base line, they showed considerable variation and not at all 'this mythical well mixed', and having carefully cherry picked the figures he wanted he then set about measuring CO2 levels and wouldn't you know it, less than two years later, yes really, I hope that has sunk in, this man is called a scientist, he decided that there was a rising trend in CO2 world wide caused by industrial pollution.
Hansen meanwhile says that these measuring stations are placed in pristine environments as poss to avoid local contamination..
When you've read as many examples of this nonsense I have there is no way you could take this seriously.
You may well be serious in thinking to give me proof by published data, but why are you having problems understanding I consider them junk because they have been proved to be junk time and time again? The figures are continually manipulated, the emails also showed that...
Who is going to remember what the graph looked like in 1981 when it is published again 30 years later considerably and, in favour of AGW, much more scary..
Hansen's Global Temperature
The temperature is whatever they want it to be, this is not science.
There is no 'scientific consensus' that AGW is real, it's a fraud because they organised it to be a fraud, from the nutty agenda of Keeling (continued and co-ordinated by his son), to Gore his devoted disciple who accused him of having senile dementia when Keeling began to get some qualms about his method and understanding.
By then it was too late. The gravy train was up and running and dealing in CO2 is too lucrative to give up.
There doesn't seem to be as much ranting on about 'this is scientific consensus therefore it is real', as there used to be before the emails showed how this 'consensus' was engineered. Shame on the scientific community hiding its head on this.
Those who want to believe this is science regardless of the countless examples of anything but scientific practice then of course they will continue to do so, it has become a faith position.
But no one can call this science, because even one example of manipulating data to an agenda discredits anything as science.
And in this regard it has been thoroughly discredited.
Myrrh
How can any take data from this source as credible to prove man-made emissions of CO2 produce AGW?
Mauna Loa
Global Hawaii
I don't think any amount of altering the size and colour of print will get through to someone who believes this is perfectly reasonable science..
..but it is interesting, worth a study in its own right, how the art of manipulating history usually reserved to cover up a nation's recent past (Japan after WWII and such), changes so rapidly here with a back up adjustment, excuse and/or rant against objectors put into place almost before you can blink.
M
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, there can't NOT be AWG as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, there can't NOT be AWG as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.
Shhh....don't let rationality get in the way of the fantasies being portrayed by a certain person here.
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, there can't NOT be AWG as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.
It has never been shown to have done so in historical records. etc. etc.
This is a con Martin, it is certainly not science because when you ask for actual proof that CO2 creates rises in global temperatures, there isn't any to give.
As I said, this is a faith position. The constant manipulation of data to fit the agenda will one day be the downfall of 'science', because its scientists have been proved to be corrupt and/or simply dim.
How do they measure global temperature Martin? It didn't take this 15 year old long to see how utterly bereft of scientific logic this key area of the AGW claim.
15-Year-Old Byrnes Outsmarts NASA's Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen
But none of this matters to those who think it perfectly scientifically rational to measure global man-made CO2 emissions from the world's most active volcano.
All you have to do in this science consensus is adjust the data to fit.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I came across this You Tube clip from Prof. Phiip Stott (Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZBP-JYzQKg
Climate change? Another Professor Stott quote below:
"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma."
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I came across this You Tube clip from Prof. Phiip Stott (Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
And I should care what he says why?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Increase greenhouse gas and the immediate, direct effect of that will be AGW. Not AGC and not stasis. It's kiddy chemistry. Even that kid could do it. Gaia responds to that cybernetically.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I came across this You Tube clip from Prof. Phiip Stott (Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
And I should care what he says why?
The quote and you tube clip illustrate the lack of consensus (and its growing) towards some man made climate change ideas. I tend to agree with Stott and feel he has a lot of very valid ideas.
There are an increasingly growing number of ''big hitters'' (I mean valid scientists and informed laymen not wacky fringe UFO believers etc as was postulated by a.n.other a few threads back) who are questioning some of the more outlandish ideas associated with man made g.w.
Here is a another relevant quote by Stott which sums up the position nicely IMO:
Quote:
"... the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate 'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm."
Saul
[ 04. September 2010, 06:42: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Stott wouldn't be part of the mass consensus for AGW since he is not, and never has been, a climate researcher (or related fields). He has no credentials, no peer reviewed publications, and no basis from which to speak.
He also appears to be a moron in his own field, based on quotes from wikipedia.
Feel free to bring up a useful source sometime.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[On second thoughts ... I'll post that in Hell]
[ 04. September 2010, 06:59: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Most un-Hadean Alan, it should be here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Stott wouldn't be part of the mass consensus for AGW since he is not, and never has been, a climate researcher (or related fields). He has no credentials, no peer reviewed publications, and no basis from which to speak.
He also appears to be a moron in his own field, based on quotes from wikipedia.
Feel free to bring up a useful source sometime.
I automatically scroll past anything Stott says now and only remembered after listening to a couple of seconds of that video. BBC Radio 4's "Home Planet" programme on nature and the environment often has him on. He loves to witter on, quoting numbers to ridiculous, misleading levels of precision and sound like he knows what he's talking about - on any subject under the sun, when he's so obviously reading out stuff he found online.
His opinion on things outside his expertise is of no interest. He's one of those like Bellamy, who hope their ill-informed views on other subjects will impress people, on the basis that they have the title Professor of another scientific discipline. I call them POSEs - "Professors Of Something Else".
Saul: quote:
I tend to agree with Stott and feel he has a lot of very valid ideas.
I'd suggest seeking out people who know a lot more than Stott does about climate science and listen to them.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In the field about which he has knowledge (physics) he agrees with the scientific consensus that CO2 concentrations are increasing due to human activity, and that this will cause global warming. In the fields where he isn't an expert, the impact of the physics on the climate, he's much more optimistic than the majority of climate scientists. The first two paragraphs are someone talking about their field of expertise (near enough), the rest is from someone who's merely an educated layperson who isn't an expert.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
William Happer is Chair of the George C Marshall Institute. Here, from the Exxon Secrets website is some information about the extent of funding from Exxon of that Institute. Happer also worked for 2 years in the early 1990s for the George H W Bush administration in the Department of Energy.
To quote Mandy Rice Davis, "well he would" say that.
[ 05. September 2010, 13:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You see Myrrh, I'm even MORE cynical than you and Saul, but like the once great liberal-left-radical comic-writer-dramatist Ben Elton, I can't stand the people who share my beliefs.
They're all nutters.
So even if they are all absolutely right. They're wrong.
Tony Blair is right and the worst case global warming scenarios are NOTHING in comparison with the dangers of implacable Islamism.
But AGW, like evolution, 1+1=2, is a FACT. And will feed the implacable Islamism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
Myrrh
Of course, since it matches your predetermined outcome. Even though, of course, it matches none of your actual beliefs about what is happening in the climate.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
Myrrh
Of course, since it matches your predetermined outcome. Even though, of course, it matches none of your actual beliefs about what is happening in the climate.
He sums up the range of arguments in the main categories, very well done.
And the main point is that consensus on garbage in garbage out doesn't equal science..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
So, you agree that quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
?
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, it would at least be a starting point, Alan. After umpty-seven climate change threads, Myrrh appears to have moved from "I see no ships" to "well, yes there are ships, but they are not really all that important". From denial to optimism?
Unfortunately, the science-rubbishing arguments appear to be continuing, but maybe that's just an old habit dying hard? The inconsistency is obvious, but what the heck, who is totally consistent anyway?
Maybe I'm being an optimist, here? Thinking that some slight change of mind has occurred? It would be nice to think that all this patient argumentation might have had some slight effect. I'm not saying it would make my day to see some kind of conceding of a small change of mind, but it might raise a weak smile!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
So, you agree that quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
?
I think not only Happer's initial statement (see below for the full paragraph) that you part-quote, is worthy of consideration, the whole statement is also worth a read in my view.
He also pertinently puts the climate change debate within some sort of wider historical and social boundaries e.g. his US prohibition illustration. As a non scientist, this approach seems eminently sensible, as science does not exist in a bubble and Happer's knowledge of these wider considerations, and his scientific background, is worthy and his Orwellian perspective is insightful; even if you don't agree with him.
Saul
Happers opening comments to the hearing body in the USA:
''We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm. The key question is: will the net effect of the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity?''
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I hadn't quoted the rest of the first paragraph because Myrrh has previously acknowledged that the last 200 years have shown global warming, and that the pattern has included fluctuations around the long term trend (although it should be noted that 2010 is set to end the few years of no real change as it's likely to be the warmest year on record). She's attributed that warming to natural cycles and a return to more normal temperatures following the so-called Little Ice Age, rather than human activity.
It's the increase in CO2 (including measurements from Muana Loa) and the greenhouse potential of CO2 that she's repeatedly denied in past posts. So, that was the bit I was wondering if she has now reconsidered her opinion give that what she's described as "terrific" and "a really good observation" takes those facts as given.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Saul
Alan has already observed that Happer accepts the human contribution to CO2 levels but is more optimistic than most about the significance of the increase. "We're doing it but it doesn't matter to the extent of making major changes to counteract it."
Reminds me of the four stage Foreign policy according to Sir Humphrey Appleby and Foreign Secretary Sir Richard Wharton (Yes Prime Minister).
quote:
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When you've read as many examples of this nonsense I have there is no way you could take this seriously.
Ahh yes: last time we went through this you were very proud of the two weeks you spent bringing yourself up to the level of a post-doc. Must be amazing to have the ability to gain such intimate knowledge in such a short time.
Alternatively, I suggest you have an agenda and simply disregard any information of any kind which doesn't agree with your bias, sticking doggedly to a position which has been shown time and time and time again to be based on irrational misunderstandings.
There's a word for that kind of thinking: obsession. Or phobia.
The funny thing is, I scrolled past everyone else's posts because I really wanted to know what you'd say next. You're kind of the Howard Stern of climate threads.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is hope, as Alan may possibly recall I was both in ID-er within the extremes of biology (origin and consciousness) and an AGW sceptic. I'm now neither. I've been Pneumatomachian and Sabellian in my time too.
Like Arthur Koestler who woke up one morning and realised he wasn't a communist any more, these things moult, slough off in time.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Saul
Alan has already observed that Happer accepts the human contribution to CO2 levels but is more optimistic than most about the significance of the increase. "We're doing it but it doesn't matter to the extent of making major changes to counteract it."
Reminds me of the four stage Foreign policy according to Sir Humphrey Appleby and Foreign Secretary Sir Richard Wharton (Yes Prime Minister).
quote:
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Nice one Barnie!
Yes Alan I understand why you quoted that particular section re. Myrhh.
Mind you I now have my own ''special'' section in ''hell''. Its quite amusing really and a dubious 'badge of honour'. Reminds me of student days when we loudly recounted which pubs we had been banned from! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) But, I haven't justified so many pages as Myrrh, bless her. I have a paltry 2 pages and am fading fast from notoriety ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) then again maybe not.
Saul
[ 06. September 2010, 13:46: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up then again maybe not.
I think the temptation to post something in order to get a particular reaction is a deeply perilous one - one worth acknowledging and resisting. I don't doubt that posters can get a buzz from it. But then regaining credibility becomes a bit harder afterwards, the temptation for another buzz seems even less resistable... and before you know it you're hiding under bridges and waiting for billy goats.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Maybe I'll post something hellish to get my liberal/left leaning chums all worked up then again maybe not.
I think the temptation to post something in order to get a particular reaction is a deeply perilous one - one worth acknowledging and resisting. I don't doubt that posters can get a buzz from it. But then regaining credibility becomes a bit harder afterwards, the temptation for another buzz seems even less resistable... and before you know it you're hiding under bridges and waiting for billy goats.
Yes, you're absolutely right there mdijon.
I shall resist temptation.
Oh dear Lord deliver me.
Saul
PS. Back to the OP. now. Sorry about the minor detour.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Terrific. A really good observation on the state of play in this.
So, you agree that quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm.
?
And out of context of everything else he's actually written on the effect?
On this particular point, no, I wouldn't agree with him, but I've noticed others putting it in as a throwaway line. But as he goes on to thoroughly debunk its relevance, do read it, as well as summing that its all based on manipulated temperature records by the coterie who presented themselves 'the Scientific Consesus' by thoroughly despicable fraudulent practices, you have missed his point.
As have those here who agree with you. That y'all continue to put faith in this against all the evidence of corrupted science is more evidence of Bush's observation - 'you can fool some of the people all of the time and its these we need to concentrate on'.
It didn't take a 15 year old to spot the fiddling in gathering temperature records, and any 10 year old would be able to see the nonsense it is of 'measuring global man-made CO2 emissions', from the world's largest active volcano in the world's greatest hot spot...
Give me a break, you really don't need to be a rocket scientist or have countless degrees following your name to spot that there is no science, just continual manipulation of data and cover ups and appeals to blind emotion.
Campaign for something worthwhile if you want a cause, against the use of depleted uranium in the wars our governments inflict around the world, in their continual con that they do this from the moral high ground..
For this junk, you'd still be arguing it's real when our interglacial comes to an end if you continue to block out all that's false in this AGW ..
And learn to read graphs.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Do you have ANY friends ?
Do you serve ANY ONE ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
If you knew your friends were being conned, you'd lie to them by agreeing the con was true? You think it more honourable to join in victimising them?
quote:
quote:
.., Dr. Jones assured D. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine wht the peer-review literature is!"
Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scients: That's "peer review", climate-style.
Whatever tht is, it certainly doesn't sound like science to me.
Climategate
It certainly isn't science, it's politics.
And the biggest victim here is CO2.
Perhaps there's a self-correcting mechanism somewhere in our DNA for mutant carbon life forms turning against the source of their own food and oxygen supply..?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you knew your friends were being conned, you'd lie to them by agreeing the con was true? You think it more honourable to join in victimising them?
We don't question your sincerity. We question your rationale (or lack thereof), and the conclusions that come from it. We question your basic understanding of science and statistics.
quote:
.., Dr. Jones assured D. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine wht the peer-review literature is!"
Actually, it's a wonderful example of how peer review works, since the papers in question were published anyways, despite these two relative luminaries attempting to stop it. (though I recall the papers being eventually pulled as pieces of shit, and thereby vindicating Mann, but I may be confusing that with something else)
Oh, and your 15 year old should have received a F for that piece of work.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
You can continue to believe the next re-jigging of figures which somehow, 'proves', the objections are still wrong..
..you obviously don't give a shit that these people have been excluding real scientific discussion on the subject all the while concocting more and more absurd 'global temperature' figures.
Proved dishonest, time and again, a hockey stick methodology which when finally tested produces hockey sticks regardless the numbers shoved into it.
Just quit telling me this is science. It has been shown to be a fraud.
Conclusively.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
excluding real scientific discussion on the subject
I'm not sure such a thing is even possible.
quote:
Just quit telling me this is science. It has been shown to be a fraud.
Conclusively.
If so, the papers would be retracted. Too many hungry people could make a great start to their research career for them to ignore this. This is where your conspiracy theory falls short (and that it would need to be over a hundred years old, of course, makes it rather ludicrous).
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It certainly isn't science, it's politics.
It's science (and damn good science too boot). It's also politics. We're dealing with things that are caused by human activity, and can (possibly) be mitigated by changes in human activity. You've got to be a very special sort of person to study the world, find conclusive evidence that there's something adversely affecting the lives of billions of people and decide that some notion of "objectivity" means that you're not going to let yourself get involved in trying to do something about it.
quote:
And the biggest victim here is CO2.
How can a simple molecule be a victim?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On this particular point, no, I wouldn't agree with him,
Interesting. He starts off by making his scientific credentials very clear.
quote:
I am not a climatologist .... I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.
So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
In other contexts, such a process of taking quotes out of context simply because in isolation they support a view that's already formed gets termed "proof texting".
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Alan - you point out the irony of Myrrh agreeing with him in an area that is not his specialism. However, I'd like to add that Myrrh quite clearly doesn't just disagree with him on the areas he does know well but she thinks that you'd have to be an idiot or in on some consipiracy to think that way. It is way more than disagreement and makes you wonder why she has any time for him at all - considering just how stupid she thinks people like him are.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
On this particular point, no, I wouldn't agree with him,
Interesting. He starts off by making his scientific credentials very clear.
quote:
I am not a climatologist .... I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.
So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
You prove his point about the level of so called 'scientific consensus' arguements here..
I was disagreeing with no such thing.
quote:
In other contexts, such a process of taking quotes out of context simply because in isolation they support a view that's already formed gets termed "proof texting".
To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
Or, something else.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
Or, something else.
OK, can you clarify for me what it is you disagree with? I asked if you agreed with his statement quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm
And, you said that you disagreed. I took that too mean that - You disagree that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 to 380ppm over the last century. As you've also questioned the Muana Loa data (which support that statement), I thought I was on a winner to assume you disagreed with that.
- You disagree with the statement that burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in CO2 - well, if you disagree that CO2 has increased then burning fossil fuels is irrelevant
- You disagree with the statement that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause the surface of the earth to warm. I'm sure we've had that conversation before
Is that a fair assessment of your points of disagreement. And, if it is then what is the "something complete different" that you think I'm saying you disagree with?
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Here's a thought. Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change should demonstrate their faith by buying a house by the sea - at sea level, in fact. If in, say, 70 years or so the house is underwater there will be no compensation. In fact, there may be a crowd of jeering meteorologists singing an "I told you so" song as you take the dog out for a swim. If the house isn't getting a tad wet by then - you win.
Any takers?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Here's a thought. Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change should demonstrate their faith by buying a house by the sea - at sea level, in fact. If in, say, 70 years or so the house is underwater there will be no compensation. In fact, there may be a crowd of jeering meteorologists singing an "I told you so" song as you take the dog out for a swim. If the house isn't getting a tad wet by then - you win.
Any takers?
A tidal inlet of the sea runs about 20 yards from my back garden. The house was bought about 3 years ago. I cannot say I stay awake at night worrying about global warming flooding the place. I cannot be the only person unconcerned as there are plenty of people willing to buy these houses. The insurance company seems to be happy too.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To ask me one question and then say I am disagreeing with something complete different is either disingenuous or straw man.
Or, something else.
OK, can you clarify for me what it is you disagree with? I asked if you agreed with his statement quote:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm
And, you said that you disagreed. I took that too mean that - You disagree that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 to 380ppm over the last century. As you've also questioned the Muana Loa data (which support that statement), I thought I was on a winner to assume you disagreed with that.
- You disagree with the statement that burning fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in CO2 - well, if you disagree that CO2 has increased then burning fossil fuels is irrelevant
- You disagree with the statement that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause the surface of the earth to warm. I'm sure we've had that conversation before
Is that a fair assessment of your points of disagreement. And, if it is then what is the "something complete different" that you think I'm saying you disagree with?
And how from that do you get to this?:
quote:
So, you disagree with him on his views on the interactions of IR and CO2, which has been one of the subjects of his professsional scientific life (if I get time today, I might look up how many of his 200+ papers relate directly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Yet, on the other points where he admits he isn't an expert you agree with him.
Where have I disagreed with him on his specialist subject? You've managed to turn this about completely. It's those points you mention I disagree with where he is not a specialist.
Is he an expert on measuring CO2 levels in ice core and does he know the skullduggery of the Mauna Lao and other Scripts crap?
I can only suggest you actually try reading him for comprehension, where he is a specialist he makes it very clear he thinks AGW is not only wrong and unscientific, but dangerous, creating as it does this mentality of crusading fanatics who refuse to listen to reason regardless how often it's pointed out that this manipulation includes doctoring and forging data and excluding real scientific objections by establishing a coterie creating their own peer review body by intimidation and deceit.
As it stands, from his speciality he says that doubling the amount of CO2 from fossil fuel is at most going to add one degree and then it cannot do more, and that anyway, it's complete nonsense to, etc. etc. etc., because CO2 is good for us, for our plant life etc. etc. etc. Try reading it again. As a summary it's very good reading, covering as it does the main points necessary to understand what's going on here for those without the time to wade through the arguments.
I'm not going to argue the detail again, this AGW theory is long past having any credibility to deserve scientific scepticism.
If having to get a freedom of information request to get data wasn't ridiculous enough and yet raised no red flags for AGW supporters, then no wonder the supporters weren't bothered when proponents began putting CO2 on poison lists and producing tv ads frightening children with bedtime stories of what a nasty thing CO2 was, our source for food and oxygen, it shows this bandwagon has been driven into a lunatic assylum; that it wasn't science was the easier aspect to deal with.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can only suggest you actually try reading him for comprehension, where he is a specialist he makes it very clear he thinks AGW is not only wrong and unscientific, but dangerous
I suggest you try reading the first paragraph again, for comprehension.
A handy quote.
quote:
I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics
i.e. every area where you agree with him is him speaking outside of his specialty.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Nope, Alan claimed opposites as being the same, I can see the difference, and have explained it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nope, Alan claimed opposites as being the same, I can see the difference, and have explained it.
Myrrh
There's no way possible that you're actually responding to me. Please read what I wrote again, and respond to it.
I'll even helpfully rephrase it here. You think this dude is an expert in climatology. He is not. You are wrong, and therefore your opinion on what he says is baseless.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Yes I was responding to you. Alan said one thing first and something else second, thereby changing the meaning of what I was objecting to, creating a straw man as I explained.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
