Back then, when we all believed...
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You really don't know what GW is do you...
ROFL It is really hard to keep up with the definitions since every time one is shown to be wrong, another takes its place. As I understand it the latest theory is that Global Warming is like to bring a great deal of Global Cooling. Did I get it right?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
No, thats the old terminology. THe latest is, wait for it... GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION! Ye hee, bellsm and whistles, drun roll please! THis is the new daddy of alarmist propaganda. And what a peach it is. Just the right dose of fear, a soupscon of science and there you have it!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
He got that wrong didnt he!
Yes, Johnny One Note, he did. Have you anything new to add to the subject of AGW, GW, Climate Change? Poor Johnny One Note Sang out with Gusto And just overloaded the place. Poor Johnny One Note Yelled willy-nilly Until he was blue in the face, For holding one note was his ace.
I find a heck of lot of posts on CP boring. Anything to do with sport, almost anything to do with computers. Do I insult the authors? Do I instst they stop posting? So whats with AGW? Why do so many people, perhaps including you, react when I deride it? Answer that honestly if you can.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You really don't know what GW is do you...
ROFL It is really hard to keep up with the definitions since every time one is shown to be wrong, another takes its place. As I understand it the latest theory is that Global Warming is like to bring a great deal of Global Cooling. Did I get it right?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
As I understand it the latest theory is that Global Warming is like to bring a great deal of Global Cooling
Apparently you can't read. I said it has large impacts on weather. Again, why don't you do some basic reading. Oh wait you seem to be illiterate because you think someone wrote/said it brings global cooling. Just because the average temp is rising doesn't mean all temps rise. You obviously know nothing about statistic even. Here... rather then I rant on an on about you knowing nothing why don't you prove me wrong and read something that shows how "Right" you are.... Derrr.. How do I find out more teach?... Me not so smart u c.[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I find a heck of lot of posts on CP boring. Anything to do with sport, almost anything to do with computers. Do I insult the authors? Do I instst they stop posting? So whats with AGW? Why do so many people, perhaps including you, react when I deride it? Answer that honestly if you can.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Do I insult the authors?
fat_boy wrote:
Yeah, sure, 4 of the five snowiest NH winters are since 2003 and you say I dont recognise an average? Idiot.
Why yes... Yes you do. Who sounds like the idiot now?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Oakman wrote:
As I understand it the latest theory is that Global Warming is like to bring a great deal of Global Cooling
Apparently you can't read. I said it has large impacts on weather. Again, why don't you do some basic reading. Oh wait you seem to be illiterate because you think someone wrote/said it brings global cooling. Just because the average temp is rising doesn't mean all temps rise. You obviously know nothing about statistic even. Here... rather then I rant on an on about you knowing nothing why don't you prove me wrong and read something that shows how "Right" you are.... Derrr.. How do I find out more teach?... Me not so smart u c.[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Apparently you can't read. I said
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the "scientists" who are trying to explain why all of their predictions have turned out to be wrong.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You obviously know nothing about statistic even.
Anyone who comes to that conclusions based on the (false) premise that I did not know that and/or didn't take it into account would appear to know nothing about logic.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
rather then I rant on an on about you knowing nothing why don't you prove me wrong and read something that shows
I've read a great deal about the issue, especially since I started off believing that man-made global warming was a serious threat and the carbon dioxide was the cause. I would certain NOT bother to read something that, in its title, shows that it is not an independent and objective study of the issue, but simply more b.s. When, if, you ever decide to discuss the issue rationally rather than conducting a series of ad hominem attacks because you have no ad rem arguments, do get back to me, but please, no more schoolyard insults. It's a waste of Chris's bandwidth.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
No, thats the old terminology. THe latest is, wait for it... GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION! Ye hee, bellsm and whistles, drun roll please! THis is the new daddy of alarmist propaganda. And what a peach it is. Just the right dose of fear, a soupscon of science and there you have it!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION!
And if disruption don't scare you, then maybe datruption will.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
fat_boy wrote:
Do I insult the authors?
fat_boy wrote:
Yeah, sure, 4 of the five snowiest NH winters are since 2003 and you say I dont recognise an average? Idiot.
Why yes... Yes you do. Who sounds like the idiot now?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Who sounds like the idiot now?
You. Consistently. Why don't you try conducting a discussion/argument as an adult for a change?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
fat_boy wrote:
Do I insult the authors?
fat_boy wrote:
Yeah, sure, 4 of the five snowiest NH winters are since 2003 and you say I dont recognise an average? Idiot.
Why yes... Yes you do. Who sounds like the idiot now?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Christ thats so feeble. You know full well I am refering to OPs in my first statement and a brainless prick in my second. I'll tell you what, join the club. Fuck off too.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Oakman wrote:
As I understand it the latest theory is that Global Warming is like to bring a great deal of Global Cooling
Apparently you can't read. I said it has large impacts on weather. Again, why don't you do some basic reading. Oh wait you seem to be illiterate because you think someone wrote/said it brings global cooling. Just because the average temp is rising doesn't mean all temps rise. You obviously know nothing about statistic even. Here... rather then I rant on an on about you knowing nothing why don't you prove me wrong and read something that shows how "Right" you are.... Derrr.. How do I find out more teach?... Me not so smart u c.[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just because the average temp is rising doesn't mean all temps rise. You obviously know nothing about statistic even.
And you dont know jack shit about the theoretical effect of CO2. Yes, all temps will rise, with the cold areas and periods rising the most. And the troposphere will rise more than the surface, since its in the troposphere where the heat is supposedly collected and reradiated back to the surface. And you also seem to know very little about averages, since extreme values, or duration, or extent will skew even a global average. So we have record cold over large parts of the earth for many years. So whats the average doing? Chump.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just because the average temp is rising doesn't mean all temps rise. You obviously know nothing about statistic even.
And you dont know jack shit about the theoretical effect of CO2. Yes, all temps will rise, with the cold areas and periods rising the most. And the troposphere will rise more than the surface, since its in the troposphere where the heat is supposedly collected and reradiated back to the surface. And you also seem to know very little about averages, since extreme values, or duration, or extent will skew even a global average. So we have record cold over large parts of the earth for many years. So whats the average doing? Chump.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Chump.
Is that all you are filled with is insults? No intelligence eh. I guess you are just a "Fat Boy" Grow up dude and get your butt back to school. I'm done as this thread is going no where...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Chump.
Is that all you are filled with is insults? No intelligence eh. I guess you are just a "Fat Boy" Grow up dude and get your butt back to school. I'm done as this thread is going no where...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Is that all you are filled with is insults?
Unlike some, I dont suffer fools gladly.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No intelligence eh.
I know the limitations of trying to educate the willfuly stupid.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Grow up dude and get your butt back to school.
If get any older I'll be dead. Chump.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
I find a heck of lot of posts on CP boring. Anything to do with sport, almost anything to do with computers. Do I insult the authors? Do I instst they stop posting? So whats with AGW? Why do so many people, perhaps including you, react when I deride it? Answer that honestly if you can.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
So whats with AGW? Why do so many people, perhaps including you, react when I deride it?
Nothing, it is an interesting topic, but going nana n nana at climatologists is boring. You linked to an article Solar Activity and Climate, which was interesting. But then you presumed that the authors (who would ride roughshod over the likes of Mann and Jones) were 'afraid' to propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2. Why would they? How could they? They have not even confirmed the mechanism by which Solar Activity affects the climate. Had they done that, they would be no better than the 'Hockey Team'.
-
fat_boy wrote:
So whats with AGW? Why do so many people, perhaps including you, react when I deride it?
Nothing, it is an interesting topic, but going nana n nana at climatologists is boring. You linked to an article Solar Activity and Climate, which was interesting. But then you presumed that the authors (who would ride roughshod over the likes of Mann and Jones) were 'afraid' to propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2. Why would they? How could they? They have not even confirmed the mechanism by which Solar Activity affects the climate. Had they done that, they would be no better than the 'Hockey Team'.
ict558 wrote:
Why would they?
In order to get published.
ict558 wrote:
ow could they?
By rationalising their desire for truth aith their desire to get published.
ict558 wrote:
They have not even confirmed the mechanism by which Solar Activity affects the climate.
Thia has ben done by others and is well understood.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
Why would they?
In order to get published.
ict558 wrote:
ow could they?
By rationalising their desire for truth aith their desire to get published.
ict558 wrote:
They have not even confirmed the mechanism by which Solar Activity affects the climate.
Thia has ben done by others and is well understood.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Let's try again. Why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures? How could the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures?
fat_boy wrote:
Thia has ben done by others and is well understood.
Oh? "The science is settled", then?
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Let's try again. Why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures? How could the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures?
fat_boy wrote:
Thia has ben done by others and is well understood.
Oh? "The science is settled", then?
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
Why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures?
Thats explained in the piece.
ict558 wrote:
Oh? "The science is settled", then?
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel. http://www.agu.org/history/sv/articles/ARTL.html[^]
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
Why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures?
Thats explained in the piece.
ict558 wrote:
Oh? "The science is settled", then?
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel. http://www.agu.org/history/sv/articles/ARTL.html[^]
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Let us try again. 'The piece' refers to the paper "Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?"[^], which claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, and that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause. (I did manage to grasp that it was not attempting to promote CO2 as a driver of climate change.) The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures. The study correlated Solar Activity and those temperatures. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the hemispheric effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the global effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, propose Solar Activity as an alternative to CO2 as the driver of climate. So, why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2, on the basis of a study which could not support the claim?
fat_boy wrote:
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel.
Try: <irony>Oh? "The science is settled", then?</irony> Being that your dismissive reaction was so similar to that of the 'Hockey Team'. As you say, science is never settled. That is why scientists specialising in the effect of Solar Activity on the climate can suggest several known mechanisms (based on published research) by which the 'blocking' effect could be produced. Studies continue to determine which (or, possibly, new) mechanisms.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Let us try again. 'The piece' refers to the paper "Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?"[^], which claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, and that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause. (I did manage to grasp that it was not attempting to promote CO2 as a driver of climate change.) The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures. The study correlated Solar Activity and those temperatures. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the hemispheric effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the global effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, propose Solar Activity as an alternative to CO2 as the driver of climate. So, why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2, on the basis of a study which could not support the claim?
fat_boy wrote:
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel.
Try: <irony>Oh? "The science is settled", then?</irony> Being that your dismissive reaction was so similar to that of the 'Hockey Team'. As you say, science is never settled. That is why scientists specialising in the effect of Solar Activity on the climate can suggest several known mechanisms (based on published research) by which the 'blocking' effect could be produced. Studies continue to determine which (or, possibly, new) mechanisms.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
You really cant read between the lines can you? Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate? Of course not. Its too much. But a paper which states that it affects only Europe (and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data, yet they have. And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant) can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
You really cant read between the lines can you? Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate? Of course not. Its too much. But a paper which states that it affects only Europe (and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data, yet they have. And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant) can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate?
"The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system". The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study.[My emphasis] Lockwood, M 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum Proc. R. Soc.
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant
Agreed, your point was, indeed, irrelevant.
fat_boy wrote:
But a paper which states that it affects only Europe ... can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
You are so 2009.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate?
"The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system". The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study.[My emphasis] Lockwood, M 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum Proc. R. Soc.
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant
Agreed, your point was, indeed, irrelevant.
fat_boy wrote:
But a paper which states that it affects only Europe ... can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
You are so 2009.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
What part of "They needed only to refer to the European climate records." did you not understand?
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain