fat_boy has finally convinced me.
-
(noting the tongue in the cheek!) Actually alhough he is a bad advert for anti AGW, only a fool would ignore the evidence out there for the absolute lies and misrepresentation that the GW lobby are employing to get OUR money for their continued existance. They cannot show all the data because it would not help them, it is ambiguous. They have been shown to have manipulated data to back their arguments. They refuse to answer critics who ask reasonable questions. They claim there is absolute proof but cannot release it for 'security reasons'. This is just bad science, and bad science should not be funded.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Looks to me like there are lies and misinterpretations on both sides. The problem is that "We're doing a study to find out whether X is true or false" doesn't get as much attention as "We're doing a study to prove that X is [true/false], even though we already know it". The latter is bad science, but that's what everyone likes to see. Studies of the first type are, I assume, happening, but they're sidelined because they aren't yelling at the top of their lungs, "Look at me! Look at me!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You know, until I started debating with fat_boy in this forum, I was on the fence about the whole global warming issue. I figured we needed a lot more research before we could claim to have any real answers. I think I'm finally hopping off that fence, so to speak. I've decided that if fat_boy's arguments are the best the anti-GW crowd can come up with, their position must be a lot weaker than I had thought. Actually, I wonder if he's intentionally trying to make that side of the issue look foolish, in order to push us toward supporting the AGW theory. If so, it's worked on me. So I'm officially joining the AGW side. Not the doomsday sect, of course, but it's pretty obvious that if all his crowd can do is nitpick typos and bad wording in the climate models, they must be pretty solid. Hard to say exactly how much our heavy industry is changing things and how much of the change is natural, but it's pretty obviously non-zero. Thanks, fat_boy... You've shown me the light. (Note: This post is partially tongue-in-cheek. Exactly which parts are serious is left as an exercise to the reader)
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:
Note: This post is partially tongue-in-cheek. Exactly which parts are serious is left as an exercise to the reader
That's always fun - throw oil on the fire, but don't say which fire. I always get a chuckle out of baiting people into angrily screaming their point of view... when I already held the same viewpoint. A little sadistic, I suppose... but what the hell. I'm easily amused. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Note: This post is partially tongue-in-cheek. Exactly which parts are serious is left as an exercise to the reader
That's always fun - throw oil on the fire, but don't say which fire. I always get a chuckle out of baiting people into angrily screaming their point of view... when I already held the same viewpoint. A little sadistic, I suppose... but what the hell. I'm easily amused. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
A little sadistic, I suppose...
Sadistic? Me? Never! Ok, maybe a little... :) We need an emote for an evil laugh... Or maybe just a grinning smiley with devil horns...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
LunaticFringe wrote:
A little sadistic, I suppose...
Sadistic? Me? Never! Ok, maybe a little... :) We need an emote for an evil laugh... Or maybe just a grinning smiley with devil horns...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You know, until I started debating with fat_boy in this forum, I was on the fence about the whole global warming issue. I figured we needed a lot more research before we could claim to have any real answers. I think I'm finally hopping off that fence, so to speak. I've decided that if fat_boy's arguments are the best the anti-GW crowd can come up with, their position must be a lot weaker than I had thought. Actually, I wonder if he's intentionally trying to make that side of the issue look foolish, in order to push us toward supporting the AGW theory. If so, it's worked on me. So I'm officially joining the AGW side. Not the doomsday sect, of course, but it's pretty obvious that if all his crowd can do is nitpick typos and bad wording in the climate models, they must be pretty solid. Hard to say exactly how much our heavy industry is changing things and how much of the change is natural, but it's pretty obviously non-zero. Thanks, fat_boy... You've shown me the light. (Note: This post is partially tongue-in-cheek. Exactly which parts are serious is left as an exercise to the reader)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Climate Sceptic’s Creed[^] I understand the radiative capture of CO2. I accept that radiative capture causes warming. I acknowledge that there is climate feedback to warming. I assert that the rest is unknown. Neither a believer nor a denier be.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Looks to me like there are lies and misinterpretations on both sides. The problem is that "We're doing a study to find out whether X is true or false" doesn't get as much attention as "We're doing a study to prove that X is [true/false], even though we already know it". The latter is bad science, but that's what everyone likes to see. Studies of the first type are, I assume, happening, but they're sidelined because they aren't yelling at the top of their lungs, "Look at me! Look at me!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You are out of your goddamn mind. You still clutch onto the theories of Micheal Mann and the UN IPCC propaganda.
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[^]
-
You are out of your goddamn mind. You still clutch onto the theories of Micheal Mann and the UN IPCC propaganda.
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[^]
-
Yes, we can all agree that Ian is out of his goddamn mind. He is a climate cultist, a worshiper of obama, and a big city neo-trendy mind-slave.
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[^]
-
Yes, we can all agree that Ian is out of his goddamn mind. He is a climate cultist, a worshiper of obama, and a big city neo-trendy mind-slave.
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[^]
Aww, I didn't know you cared :-O And yes, I AM out of my mind. I'm a sci-fi/fantasy author, and that only works if you're certifiably insane. And no, you don't need LSD or mushrooms to be creative, my little drug-dealing friend.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Climate Sceptic’s Creed[^] I understand the radiative capture of CO2. I accept that radiative capture causes warming. I acknowledge that there is climate feedback to warming. I assert that the rest is unknown. Neither a believer nor a denier be.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Yes, I know all that... But don't ruin my joke :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Looks to me like there are lies and misinterpretations on both sides. The problem is that "We're doing a study to find out whether X is true or false" doesn't get as much attention as "We're doing a study to prove that X is [true/false], even though we already know it". The latter is bad science, but that's what everyone likes to see. Studies of the first type are, I assume, happening, but they're sidelined because they aren't yelling at the top of their lungs, "Look at me! Look at me!"
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:
Looks to me like there are lies and misinterpretations on both sides.
You see, this is where your utter ignorance comes into play. GW is the NEW theory on the block. It is trying to replace hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions. The onus is on GW to proove itself to be true. And THAT is the debate. So, your statement that the sceptics are lying is stating that all that constituted our understanding prior to GW coming along is a lie.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You know, until I started debating with fat_boy in this forum, I was on the fence about the whole global warming issue. I figured we needed a lot more research before we could claim to have any real answers. I think I'm finally hopping off that fence, so to speak. I've decided that if fat_boy's arguments are the best the anti-GW crowd can come up with, their position must be a lot weaker than I had thought. Actually, I wonder if he's intentionally trying to make that side of the issue look foolish, in order to push us toward supporting the AGW theory. If so, it's worked on me. So I'm officially joining the AGW side. Not the doomsday sect, of course, but it's pretty obvious that if all his crowd can do is nitpick typos and bad wording in the climate models, they must be pretty solid. Hard to say exactly how much our heavy industry is changing things and how much of the change is natural, but it's pretty obviously non-zero. Thanks, fat_boy... You've shown me the light. (Note: This post is partially tongue-in-cheek. Exactly which parts are serious is left as an exercise to the reader)
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:
but it's pretty obvious that if all his crowd can do is nitpick typos and bad wording in the climate models, they must be pretty solid
If you think that the only argument against GW is typos and wording in climate models (a statement itself that I barely understand, BTW a climate model is a program, I would have thought as a SW engineer you would know this) then you havent listened to a single thing I have said about: 1) Lack of evidence in the temperature record of an effect of CO2. 2) Lack of tropospheric warming inline with GW theory. 3) Lack of antarctic warming in line with GW theory. Forget the climate models, the REAL model is refuting GW theory.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Looks to me like there are lies and misinterpretations on both sides.
You see, this is where your utter ignorance comes into play. GW is the NEW theory on the block. It is trying to replace hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions. The onus is on GW to proove itself to be true. And THAT is the debate. So, your statement that the sceptics are lying is stating that all that constituted our understanding prior to GW coming along is a lie.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
It is trying to replace hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions.
Could you point to studies prior to say 1900 to support this claim?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
It is trying to replace hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions.
Could you point to studies prior to say 1900 to support this claim?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
riced wrote:
Could you point to studies prior to say 1900 to support this claim?
Herschel, 1812.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Herschel, 1812.
Two points. 1 The only Herschel (and 1812 publications) I'm aware of that might fit is the following: Herschel, Sir John Frederick William, bart., 1792-1871. On a remarkable application of Cote's theorem. Laid before the Cambridge Analytical Society, May 1812. f.2. A.MS.s. notebook; Slough, 1812. 50f.(82p.) 1v. Notes on the theory of exponential functions. How are these relevant? If not could you provide a more precise reference? 2 One reference does not show that this was the prevailing view, unless of course it provides evidence by referring to a number of studies. And it would have to show that these studies were the prevailing view.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Herschel, 1812.
Two points. 1 The only Herschel (and 1812 publications) I'm aware of that might fit is the following: Herschel, Sir John Frederick William, bart., 1792-1871. On a remarkable application of Cote's theorem. Laid before the Cambridge Analytical Society, May 1812. f.2. A.MS.s. notebook; Slough, 1812. 50f.(82p.) 1v. Notes on the theory of exponential functions. How are these relevant? If not could you provide a more precise reference? 2 One reference does not show that this was the prevailing view, unless of course it provides evidence by referring to a number of studies. And it would have to show that these studies were the prevailing view.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
A link between sunspots and crop prices was first suggested two centuries ago. In 1801, the German-British astronomer William Herschel reported that five prolonged periods of few sunspots or "solar minima" had coincided with peaks in the price of English wheat[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
A link between sunspots and crop prices was first suggested two centuries ago. In 1801, the German-British astronomer William Herschel reported that five prolonged periods of few sunspots or "solar minima" had coincided with peaks in the price of English wheat[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
So where is the "hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions" in this? I'm still trying to locate "Herschel, 1812" but lacking a fuller reference makes it pretty nigh impossible.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.