Governments reject GW as a reality
-
fat_boy wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: You really are an ignorant little f***er. Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Oh come on. You know damn well you're acting like a prick because you enjoy getting a rise so there you go. Truth be told I was baiting you with my original reply about Rudd anyway, I knew the assumption you'd draw and I knew you'd jump in without verifying it.
Let me quote fomr the site I used for this thread: "Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt" So its all pro GW in Australia is it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one? As for water thats a laugh. There is more frech water dumped into the sea in the UK in a year to feed the earth a million times over. (OK, that IS an exageraiton, but you get the point I am sure).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one?
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be. The point of the water is not that we don't have nay: we have plenty though still need to build a desalination plant on the Essex coast but that there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
This is how all ideas are fought against. Why use facts or alternate explanations when you can't destroy the idea any other way.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're tackling the issue as a politician instead of a scientist
bingo! :) Thinking has been replaced with a religious like process of demonization to support what someone doesn't or does want to do now. If AWG is proven to be fact beyond any reasonable doubt, than the whole world of man would have to change how it lived. Economies, etc would cease to function as they do now, because as a worse case scenario humanity would go extinct if it didn't adapt.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory
I didn't think I was either.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
It's posts like his and CSS that drive away any good conversation that hasn't been hashed over twenty times already. Like his reply to my post. I wasn't even talking to him. It was just a rant. Failing to respond to any portion of what I said or really understanding that I gave no assertion to the existence of AWG, just that it didn't matter. What kind of surprise can you have when you get what you elect? Since oil is traded on the world market in dollars how does more domestic drilling change that? Any oil drilled on or off our shores, or on land in the US going to drop prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Even if AWG doesn't exist, is it not in US national security interest to get off of it? I don't pretend I can solve the world's problems, but I also don't pretend I don't have any impact on it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Let me quote fomr the site I used for this thread: "Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt" So its all pro GW in Australia is it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
-
Actually I thought this discussion was about scientific rigour. If you want facts then refer to my previous mails regarding lack of significant warming and the beneficial weffects of CO on plant growth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I've seen your previous posts and we've discussed them at length... And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking. You assume from the start that anything that supports your view is correct, and anything that opposes your view must be corrupt or erroneous. That's the behavior that undermines YOUR credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one?
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be. The point of the water is not that we don't have nay: we have plenty though still need to build a desalination plant on the Essex coast but that there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be.
And yet the wealth and health of people has gone up in real terms for the last 40 years or so. Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all. Our populations are stable. As for China, with the laws they had way their poopulaiton is likely to plumet.
digital man wrote:
there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
Yes, and we can help them with engineering solutions (and birth controll ones) if they let us. However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I've seen your previous posts and we've discussed them at length... And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking. You assume from the start that anything that supports your view is correct, and anything that opposes your view must be corrupt or erroneous. That's the behavior that undermines YOUR credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking
No its not. CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking! :) I mean, 10,000 years! Thats the whole fucking cherry orchard! And during this time temperatures have been gradually falling. I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt. Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking
No its not. CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking! :) I mean, 10,000 years! Thats the whole fucking cherry orchard! And during this time temperatures have been gradually falling. I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt. Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking!
Good for plants, bad for humans. Which are you? And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking. I could go even further back and pick a point in the middle of the last ice age, saying "Hey, look how hot it's getting compared to X!" Hell, let's go back a few billion years, pick a point right near the planet's formation, and say "Hey, we have a lot more water today!" Cherry-picking means selecting specific data points that support your position, instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt.
But right there, you made an assumption. You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
And again, you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
digital man wrote:
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be.
And yet the wealth and health of people has gone up in real terms for the last 40 years or so. Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all. Our populations are stable. As for China, with the laws they had way their poopulaiton is likely to plumet.
digital man wrote:
there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
Yes, and we can help them with engineering solutions (and birth controll ones) if they let us. However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all.
Not yet, perhaps but there may come a time when the only means for water poor countries is to use force to get it. I'm not saying they'd win out over the west but it won;'t be, to say the least, pleasant.
fat_boy wrote:
However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can f*** off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
I'm sure you don't really hold to such a simplistic view of the world. Yes, many would die but, as I said above, left with no choice countries with water shortages will have no choice but try to extract water by whatever means. It may not happen in my life time or yours but it could happen in our childrens lifetime and I don't want that for them as I'm sure you don't for yours. Still, moot, really, as it might not happen at all and we can all relax and enjoy life.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What you are forgetting is that petrol is a waste product, it is only used for driving cars. Most oil is turned into products, plastics, nylons, medicine etc, so we will need oil for a while yet, even if we all drive cars powered by a Mr Fusion car engine. Still, there is always coal, and Britain has about 20,000 years reserves.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all.
Not yet, perhaps but there may come a time when the only means for water poor countries is to use force to get it. I'm not saying they'd win out over the west but it won;'t be, to say the least, pleasant.
fat_boy wrote:
However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can f*** off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
I'm sure you don't really hold to such a simplistic view of the world. Yes, many would die but, as I said above, left with no choice countries with water shortages will have no choice but try to extract water by whatever means. It may not happen in my life time or yours but it could happen in our childrens lifetime and I don't want that for them as I'm sure you don't for yours. Still, moot, really, as it might not happen at all and we can all relax and enjoy life.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
As we all knew many governments spouted GWisms just to get the green votes, and then actually did nothing. Well, it seems either the green vote was so small, or those voters have turned because now major world governments are finally waking up to the fact that support for GW policies are almost non existant, and, unnecessary: "Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism." http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1182-green-catastrophism-collapses.html[^] Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do. Not that I am against renewable energy, and the industry and jobs it creates, on the contrary, I am very much in favour. But AGW alarmism has not only damaged the world of science, it has also damaged the world of renewable energy. Reasonable people will for decades when presented with the words 'science' or 'renewable' always start to laugh, remembering the ridiculaous scam called AGW that so abused these words their value became derrided to the point of worthlessness. And that, is a shame. On a global scale.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The shallow reserves were finished decades ago. Yes, there is coal but the costs of getting it out are too high.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Not at £100 per ton it isn't.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking!
Good for plants, bad for humans. Which are you? And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking. I could go even further back and pick a point in the middle of the last ice age, saying "Hey, look how hot it's getting compared to X!" Hell, let's go back a few billion years, pick a point right near the planet's formation, and say "Hey, we have a lot more water today!" Cherry-picking means selecting specific data points that support your position, instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt.
But right there, you made an assumption. You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
And again, you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Good for plants, bad for humans
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking...
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
A 10000 year trend isnt general enough for you? You think the AGWers using the last 150 years is? Just after the LIA?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as if he represents the entire scientific community.
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW? And Hansen happens to run one of the major data sets used, ehich I am sure you knew, but chose to forget in order to try to make a point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Good for plants, bad for humans
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking...
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
A 10000 year trend isnt general enough for you? You think the AGWers using the last 150 years is? Just after the LIA?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as if he represents the entire scientific community.
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW? And Hansen happens to run one of the major data sets used, ehich I am sure you knew, but chose to forget in order to try to make a point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. For humans, carbon dioxide is a waste product. You never specified anything about concentration levels. If it's toxic at 10%, then it stands to reason that it gradually becomes toxic as it approaches that concentration, so lower concentrations may be within our tolerance but are not "good" for humans. And of course, unless you're going to allege that the density of the atmosphere will increase, then more CO2 means less of something else... What? Is it oxygen? Because that would also be bad for humans.
fat_boy wrote:
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
You're confusing the gap between the data points with the accuracy of the trend itself. The economy has gone up since 1990, down since 2000, down since 2007, up since the end of 2008, up since yesterday... All of these statements are true, but which of them actually tells us what's happening, and which best helps us predict what it'll be like next year? And keep in mind that whether your two data points are 10000 years apart or 10000 seconds apart, they're still only two points. If you pick your reference point as the middle of an ice age, or the middle of a warm period, it's going to spin your results in one direction.
fat_boy wrote:
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Have you? Or have you just read blogs from people who have shown you charts with select bits of the numbers? I could go on the pro-AGW sites and do the same thing, but I'm not.
fat_boy wrote:
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW?
Did I say that? Read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth. Like I keep saying, you're making this political instead of scientific.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
And the Littlest Captain is doing what about it? BTW: Your Constitution was shredded some 150 years ago.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
You forget that in fb's mind, anything with a slight correlation means that it is a cause/effect scenario. So, if he thought Kevin Rudd was actually gay, then the fact that he banged his wife once was actually the reason he got sacked. He'll use any correlation and spout it as proof of cause and effect. He doesn't subscribe to the first rule of reason which says that "in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think". And before debating someone, if that person doesn't follow reason, then there's no point in trying to "reason" with them.
modified on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:25 PM
-
Ah, but it wouldn't be an NCB run operation, do it with private companies and make it pay!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave