From Reason to Radical, a language shift:
-
V. wrote:
I don't think you ever agreed on something I said,
Except that Leuven is a great place for eating and drinking!
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
:laugh: Well that's something we've got. ;P
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
From the Iinergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the official, UN Authority): Increases in temperature could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk of heat or drought The rate of climatic warming may exceed the rate of shifts in certain species ranges The likelihood of many of these changes in Earth systems is not well-known, but is probably very low; however, their likelihood is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change Global climate change is likely to bring changes in climate variability and extreme events From Stop Climate Chaos (the Millitants): Global warming is creating more extreme weather, melting of the ice caps, floods and droughts. In turn this will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of millions more, severely affect animal and plant life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year. From the politicians (Blair): Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. Form the the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor (Sir King): Global Warming is more dangerous than terrorism. I am not going to insult your intelligence by having to elucidate on the insdious change of language between the scientists (and although the Hockey Stick graph is very, very quesitonable, one has to give them credit for being cautious in their language), and the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
So whatever the future will be re: climate change, what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment? I suspect from what I've read in your posts past you know someone who works in the climate study business, earns more than you and doesn't work as hard: you've a bee in your bonnet old bean.
-
So whatever the future will be re: climate change, what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment? I suspect from what I've read in your posts past you know someone who works in the climate study business, earns more than you and doesn't work as hard: you've a bee in your bonnet old bean.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment?
Nothing. But demonising CO2 isnt helping protect the environment.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
you know someone who works in the climate study business, earns more than you and doesn't work as hard
No, I dont. In anycase, I probably earn a damn sight more than most climate change scientists, so I only care about the assumptions and theorieas that have mutated into public 'truths'.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
you've a bee in your bonnet old bean
Yes I do. When I see adverts on TV banging on about 'carbon foot prints' and so on. And when governments introduce taxes based on the public aceptance of the tax because of the 'truths' and the created fears, and that those taxes will have no effect but to raise revenue for the government, I get angry, really really angry.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
:laugh: Well that's something we've got. ;P
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveAnd Breakfast at Tiffany's
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
And Breakfast at Tiffany's
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
Was idd the song I had in mind when I wrote the post :-D
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
From the Iinergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the official, UN Authority): Increases in temperature could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk of heat or drought The rate of climatic warming may exceed the rate of shifts in certain species ranges The likelihood of many of these changes in Earth systems is not well-known, but is probably very low; however, their likelihood is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change Global climate change is likely to bring changes in climate variability and extreme events From Stop Climate Chaos (the Millitants): Global warming is creating more extreme weather, melting of the ice caps, floods and droughts. In turn this will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of millions more, severely affect animal and plant life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year. From the politicians (Blair): Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. Form the the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor (Sir King): Global Warming is more dangerous than terrorism. I am not going to insult your intelligence by having to elucidate on the insdious change of language between the scientists (and although the Hockey Stick graph is very, very quesitonable, one has to give them credit for being cautious in their language), and the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
(I'm more careful this time :) ) What is your point?
We're the regulators that de-regulate We're the animators that de-animate
K(arl) wrote:
What is your point?
I was hoping I wouldnt have to spell it out. I hoped the obvious change of language is enough to tell us to be cautious of the spin put on the scientific text by the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
K(arl) wrote:
What is your point?
I was hoping I wouldnt have to spell it out. I hoped the obvious change of language is enough to tell us to be cautious of the spin put on the scientific text by the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
From the Iinergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the official, UN Authority): Increases in temperature could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk of heat or drought The rate of climatic warming may exceed the rate of shifts in certain species ranges The likelihood of many of these changes in Earth systems is not well-known, but is probably very low; however, their likelihood is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change Global climate change is likely to bring changes in climate variability and extreme events From Stop Climate Chaos (the Millitants): Global warming is creating more extreme weather, melting of the ice caps, floods and droughts. In turn this will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of millions more, severely affect animal and plant life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year. From the politicians (Blair): Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. Form the the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor (Sir King): Global Warming is more dangerous than terrorism. I am not going to insult your intelligence by having to elucidate on the insdious change of language between the scientists (and although the Hockey Stick graph is very, very quesitonable, one has to give them credit for being cautious in their language), and the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
I am not going to insult your intelligence
You already have. Over and over again. This week, last week, and probably the week before that. You repeat the same old canards. They are as ridiculous today as they were last week.
-
From the Iinergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the official, UN Authority): Increases in temperature could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk of heat or drought The rate of climatic warming may exceed the rate of shifts in certain species ranges The likelihood of many of these changes in Earth systems is not well-known, but is probably very low; however, their likelihood is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change Global climate change is likely to bring changes in climate variability and extreme events From Stop Climate Chaos (the Millitants): Global warming is creating more extreme weather, melting of the ice caps, floods and droughts. In turn this will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of millions more, severely affect animal and plant life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year. From the politicians (Blair): Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. Form the the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor (Sir King): Global Warming is more dangerous than terrorism. I am not going to insult your intelligence by having to elucidate on the insdious change of language between the scientists (and although the Hockey Stick graph is very, very quesitonable, one has to give them credit for being cautious in their language), and the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
fat_boy wrote:
I am not going to insult your intelligence
You already have. Over and over again. This week, last week, and probably the week before that. You repeat the same old canards. They are as ridiculous today as they were last week.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You repeat the same old canards
I dont see that ducks have any relevance to this matter. :confused:
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Apparently, language is a problem for you.:rolleyes: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with google or any of a dozen different online dictionaries.
-
Apparently, language is a problem for you.:rolleyes: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with google or any of a dozen different online dictionaries.
You see, here I attempt to have a serious discussion and you debase the thread with personal insults. Please dont bother replying to anything I post. I know your views, and if you cant present them reasonably, I dont want to hear them.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
You see, here I attempt to have a serious discussion and you debase the thread with personal insults. Please dont bother replying to anything I post. I know your views, and if you cant present them reasonably, I dont want to hear them.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Nah - as long as you continue to create new thread after new thread rehashing the same old points - Attacking science and demanding we keep our heads in the sand and pretend it will be OK I'll continue to point out the tedious sameness of your argument.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment?
Nothing. But demonising CO2 isnt helping protect the environment.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
you know someone who works in the climate study business, earns more than you and doesn't work as hard
No, I dont. In anycase, I probably earn a damn sight more than most climate change scientists, so I only care about the assumptions and theorieas that have mutated into public 'truths'.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
you've a bee in your bonnet old bean
Yes I do. When I see adverts on TV banging on about 'carbon foot prints' and so on. And when governments introduce taxes based on the public aceptance of the tax because of the 'truths' and the created fears, and that those taxes will have no effect but to raise revenue for the government, I get angry, really really angry.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
demonising CO2 isnt helping protect the environment.
Why? It is a fact that concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing year after year (+ 0.5% in 2005[^]). It is also a fact that climate is warming, as shown by mutliple studies, as the migration of vegetable species to higher altitudes or the reduction of ice sheets worldwide. It is also a fact that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'[^]. So even if the correlation between the two events is not fully demonstrated yet, the risks are higher enough to take care of CO2 rising. As I said before, do you need to be sure to have a car crash to use your safety belt?
We're the regulators that de-regulate We're the animators that de-animate
-
From the Iinergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the official, UN Authority): Increases in temperature could open new areas to cultivation, but they also could increase the risk of heat or drought The rate of climatic warming may exceed the rate of shifts in certain species ranges The likelihood of many of these changes in Earth systems is not well-known, but is probably very low; however, their likelihood is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change Global climate change is likely to bring changes in climate variability and extreme events From Stop Climate Chaos (the Millitants): Global warming is creating more extreme weather, melting of the ice caps, floods and droughts. In turn this will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of millions more, severely affect animal and plant life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. Climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year. From the politicians (Blair): Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. Form the the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor (Sir King): Global Warming is more dangerous than terrorism. I am not going to insult your intelligence by having to elucidate on the insdious change of language between the scientists (and although the Hockey Stick graph is very, very quesitonable, one has to give them credit for being cautious in their language), and the activists and politicians.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Here's how the corrupt system works (and has worked for countless "science"-based activist topics): 1. Leftists sit around smoking weed, getting more paranoid by the second about a government unsympathetic to their drug habit. 2. Some scientist proposes a doomsday scenario. 3. Some leftist reads about this doomsday scenario in his local underground newspaper. 4. This leftist finds the doomsday scenario particularly palatable because it jives with his anti-industrial, Marxist sentiments and (since he's high) naturally accepts it as fact. 5. Leftists join together with this belief because, even though many probably realize it's flawed, it serves their Marxist purpose. 6. Protests begin. 7. Scientists' eyes all turn into little dollar signs while "cha-ching" noises are herd around the world. 8. Scientists demand funding, lest we all kill ourselves. Thanks to leftist protests, they get it. 9. Scientists skew their interpretation of results towards what will get them more funding (as is often the case). 10. The Doomsday scenario worsens with points-of-no-return and irreversible damage. 11. The dissenting scientists are ignored because their viewpoint is contrary to most of the (Marxist) media's. 12. Emergency legislation is passed to save us all, thereby adversely effecting economies. 13. 20 years later, everyone has forgotten about the fiasco and evidence demonstrates that the scientists seeking funding were wrong. Nobody cares. 14. Repeat.
-
Here's how the corrupt system works (and has worked for countless "science"-based activist topics): 1. Leftists sit around smoking weed, getting more paranoid by the second about a government unsympathetic to their drug habit. 2. Some scientist proposes a doomsday scenario. 3. Some leftist reads about this doomsday scenario in his local underground newspaper. 4. This leftist finds the doomsday scenario particularly palatable because it jives with his anti-industrial, Marxist sentiments and (since he's high) naturally accepts it as fact. 5. Leftists join together with this belief because, even though many probably realize it's flawed, it serves their Marxist purpose. 6. Protests begin. 7. Scientists' eyes all turn into little dollar signs while "cha-ching" noises are herd around the world. 8. Scientists demand funding, lest we all kill ourselves. Thanks to leftist protests, they get it. 9. Scientists skew their interpretation of results towards what will get them more funding (as is often the case). 10. The Doomsday scenario worsens with points-of-no-return and irreversible damage. 11. The dissenting scientists are ignored because their viewpoint is contrary to most of the (Marxist) media's. 12. Emergency legislation is passed to save us all, thereby adversely effecting economies. 13. 20 years later, everyone has forgotten about the fiasco and evidence demonstrates that the scientists seeking funding were wrong. Nobody cares. 14. Repeat.
Now that is paranoid!:rolleyes:
-
fat_boy wrote:
demonising CO2 isnt helping protect the environment.
Why? It is a fact that concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing year after year (+ 0.5% in 2005[^]). It is also a fact that climate is warming, as shown by mutliple studies, as the migration of vegetable species to higher altitudes or the reduction of ice sheets worldwide. It is also a fact that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'[^]. So even if the correlation between the two events is not fully demonstrated yet, the risks are higher enough to take care of CO2 rising. As I said before, do you need to be sure to have a car crash to use your safety belt?
We're the regulators that de-regulate We're the animators that de-animate
K(arl) wrote:
Why?
Because plants depend on CO2, so do we. If we dont have enough we forget to breathe. If plants dont have enough they casnt produce sugar and they die. Life on earth can handle CO2 levels far higher than those of today. In fact, it is even beneficial to have higher CO2 levels. At 1800 ppm (today it is 380ppm) plant growth is at a maximum.
K(arl) wrote:
So even if the correlation between the two events is not fully demonstrated yet
What is interesting if you look at the temperature CO2 graph for the last 650 thousand years (the one used by the IPCC) you wil see that the temperature spike precede the CO2 spikes. That tells us the is is likely that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels. Forest fires and faster decay of organic material are two possibilities for this.
K(arl) wrote:
It is also a fact that climate is warming
And has been since 1750, the low point of the little ice age. The earth also warmed up to the high point of the medieval warm period. The earth also warmed up out of the last ice age 18000 years ago. These are all natural occurances, unaffected by man. And, quite possibly linked to solar activity. We have also seen an increase in solar activity this century, and particularly since 1940.
K(arl) wrote:
It is also a fact that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'[^].
Yes, a minor one. About 10% approximately. Water vapour is a far bigger contributor at 78% approx. Additionally there is methane at about 6%, produced aparently by animals for the most part. An additional factor is that since 1940 to 1990 CFC's were used in aerosols. These aparently, have a reflective effect on solar radiation. So the temperature jump seen in afetr 1990 could be due to them being banned. It should also be noted that although CO2 levels have risen since 2000, temperature hasnt. One study of some part of the sea actually documents a sharo fall after 2003. So it looks as if reality and the climate models created in the 1990s are falling out of step. Now, that mankind produces CO2, and that it helps warm the planet is undeniable. But by what amount. If solar radiation accounts, according to studies, for 2/3 of the rise, and green house gasses for the reast, then CO2 accouts for a tenth of a third. 3.3%. Mans contribution
-
So whatever the future will be re: climate change, what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment? I suspect from what I've read in your posts past you know someone who works in the climate study business, earns more than you and doesn't work as hard: you've a bee in your bonnet old bean.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
what exactly is wrong with doing something to protect our environment?
When that something involves crashing the worldwide economy, there's something wrong with it.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Why?
Because plants depend on CO2, so do we. If we dont have enough we forget to breathe. If plants dont have enough they casnt produce sugar and they die. Life on earth can handle CO2 levels far higher than those of today. In fact, it is even beneficial to have higher CO2 levels. At 1800 ppm (today it is 380ppm) plant growth is at a maximum.
K(arl) wrote:
So even if the correlation between the two events is not fully demonstrated yet
What is interesting if you look at the temperature CO2 graph for the last 650 thousand years (the one used by the IPCC) you wil see that the temperature spike precede the CO2 spikes. That tells us the is is likely that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels. Forest fires and faster decay of organic material are two possibilities for this.
K(arl) wrote:
It is also a fact that climate is warming
And has been since 1750, the low point of the little ice age. The earth also warmed up to the high point of the medieval warm period. The earth also warmed up out of the last ice age 18000 years ago. These are all natural occurances, unaffected by man. And, quite possibly linked to solar activity. We have also seen an increase in solar activity this century, and particularly since 1940.
K(arl) wrote:
It is also a fact that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'[^].
Yes, a minor one. About 10% approximately. Water vapour is a far bigger contributor at 78% approx. Additionally there is methane at about 6%, produced aparently by animals for the most part. An additional factor is that since 1940 to 1990 CFC's were used in aerosols. These aparently, have a reflective effect on solar radiation. So the temperature jump seen in afetr 1990 could be due to them being banned. It should also be noted that although CO2 levels have risen since 2000, temperature hasnt. One study of some part of the sea actually documents a sharo fall after 2003. So it looks as if reality and the climate models created in the 1990s are falling out of step. Now, that mankind produces CO2, and that it helps warm the planet is undeniable. But by what amount. If solar radiation accounts, according to studies, for 2/3 of the rise, and green house gasses for the reast, then CO2 accouts for a tenth of a third. 3.3%. Mans contribution
fat_boy wrote:
Because plants depend on CO2, so do we
The problem is not CO2 by itself but the excess of it.
fat_boy wrote:
it is even beneficial to have higher CO2 levels. At 1800 ppm (today it is 380ppm) plant growth is at a maximum.
It may benefical for some plants. Question is, it is benefical for human beings?
fat_boy wrote:
quite possibly linked to solar activity
It may also be a parameter, but it does not seem to explain recent warming[^].
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, a minor one. About 10% approximately. Water vapour is a far bigger contributor at 78% approx. Additionally there is methane at about 6%, produced aparently by animals for the most part.
Did water vapour or concentration rise? :confused: If methane concentration are growing too, then yes, methane may be also a problem.
fat_boy wrote:
It should also be noted that although CO2 levels have risen since 2000, temperature hasnt
Beg your pardon? :wtf: Between 2000 and 2005, the average temperature was above normal at 95% of the locations we studied. Alaska experienced the most warming on average, with Talkeetna reporting average temperatures 4.6° F above normal. Outside of Alaska, weather stations in Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming reported the highest above-normal temperatures for the period[^] The year 2005 was the hottest on record. The average global surface temperature of 14.77 degrees Celsius (58.6 degrees Fahrenheit) was the highest since recordkeeping began in 1880.[^]
We're the regulators that de-regulate We're the
