Ever wonder if the media thinks for itself?
-
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
o you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community?
I used them as an examples as I used the Catholic Church as an example. Al Gore, for instance, did not invent the Internet, and his movie, while definitely inconvenient, has been shown to be wrong in so many particulars that it cannot be considered a "truth." The head of the UN's climate research council has admitted to falsifying data. NASA has been shown to falsifying research and hiding results that do not support Global Warming and ditto for NOAH. And so on and so on. At a certain point, one has to begin assuming that those who agree with them are, themselves, refusing to deal with the truth. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I am justified in thinking it's probably a duck until shown otherwise.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all.
As I said, I've never seen him do so. But I am afraid that fat_boy's lack of social graces in a chat room that once upon a time was known for its tough-mindedness is, for me, neither here nor there. I certainly have crossed swords with him on other issues where we have gone many rounds and taken a certain amount of joy in telling the other one he didn't know what he was talking about. But ultimately, for me, Global Warming is at best an open question and the folks who seek to silence those who question it more reminiscent of those who sought to silence Galileo than those who thought that perhaps an earth-centric view of the universe might not be all it was cracked up to be. Sometimes the Holy Fathers, whether they reside in Rome or East Anglia, are blowing smoke up our collective butt. I have found however, that folks who complain about his rants never seem to avail themselves of the simple option of ignoring his posts, or at least the threads he starts. For the life of me, I don't understand that.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Majerus wrote:
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts.
I'd be willing to bet that the next one you watch would be your first.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Another bet you lose. His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy. It give me pause to think you believe that crap.
Majerus wrote:
Another bet you lose.
Frankly, I doubt it. You may indeed, see outtakes on the Daily Kos or Media Matters, but I can't imagine you sitting there for 1/2 hour and watching him without changing the channel.
Majerus wrote:
His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy
We aren't talking about his theories - or at least I wasn't. I have already indicated that some of his opinions are not believable to me. I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department: the people he has dig up verifiable facts that are either unknown to, or ignored by others. I do find it useful, often, to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
Majerus wrote:
It give me pause to think you believe that crap
I doubt that, too. Since the original OP made it clear that I wasn't discussing his theories, I have to assume that you embraced such a ludicrous idea without pausing to think at all. FYI: Until and unless he can someday deal straightforwardly with the idea that many of the Founding fathers were agnostic or deists (look it up, I don't have the time to explain it.) I will have to listen to him for the facts he offers that I can verify independently without paying a whole lot of attention to his interpretation of them. I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with, whenever I see them doing something that is admirable, or at least serviceable. Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to. This includes Beck, fat_boy, and even you. Have a nice day. I have to go sort socks now, so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Majerus wrote:
Another bet you lose.
Frankly, I doubt it. You may indeed, see outtakes on the Daily Kos or Media Matters, but I can't imagine you sitting there for 1/2 hour and watching him without changing the channel.
Majerus wrote:
His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy
We aren't talking about his theories - or at least I wasn't. I have already indicated that some of his opinions are not believable to me. I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department: the people he has dig up verifiable facts that are either unknown to, or ignored by others. I do find it useful, often, to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
Majerus wrote:
It give me pause to think you believe that crap
I doubt that, too. Since the original OP made it clear that I wasn't discussing his theories, I have to assume that you embraced such a ludicrous idea without pausing to think at all. FYI: Until and unless he can someday deal straightforwardly with the idea that many of the Founding fathers were agnostic or deists (look it up, I don't have the time to explain it.) I will have to listen to him for the facts he offers that I can verify independently without paying a whole lot of attention to his interpretation of them. I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with, whenever I see them doing something that is admirable, or at least serviceable. Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to. This includes Beck, fat_boy, and even you. Have a nice day. I have to go sort socks now, so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Frankly, I doubt it
Just another indicator of your closed mind. A constant thread throughout your posts show a complete unwillingness to go beyond your preconceived notions about who you are speaking with.
Oakman wrote:
I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department
Yeah that's pretty silly. "He's got fantastic data points, too bad he spins them into crazy theories." I did show my open mind to the issue to discover some great piece of his that highlights this awe inspiring reseach dept, but you can't do that.
Oakman wrote:
to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
I know exactly what you are saying and it isn't that "I watch him for his reasearch." I'm sure that's what you told your mom when she found your copies of Hustler. And his research team? They don't show anything beyond a passing ability to use Google.
Oakman wrote:
I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with
That you can "appreciate" Beck is still quite disturbing. His pieces are insane, regardless of the quality of the "research". Is still gives me pause that you can appreciate anything about him. That he is directly implicated in 5 instances of right wing terrorism puts him completely beyond the pale.
Oakman wrote:
Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to
Actually, I see that behavior in you quite often.
Oakman wrote:
I have to go sort socks now
I hope you have more success with that than you have here.
Oakman wrote:
so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
Thanks for admitting your failure to make your case.
-
You keep using the old "You already know I'm right" argument... Quite arrogant and presumptive, and goes a long way to convincing people that you're wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)How is it arrogant and presumptive to assume that you already know of the IPCC graphic that shows 4/5ths of factors affexting climate having a "very low level of scientific understanding"? If you havet looked into this dont turn your ignorance into an accusaiton of arrogance.
"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
-
How is it arrogant and presumptive to assume that you already know of the IPCC graphic that shows 4/5ths of factors affexting climate having a "very low level of scientific understanding"? If you havet looked into this dont turn your ignorance into an accusaiton of arrogance.
"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
Which part of them have this "very low level of understanding?" Are they categorized as a "very low level" because we don't understand WHY they behave the way they do? Because that would just as easily describe gravity. We know precisely how it affects the universe, but we still don't know why it's there. Are they significant enough to matter? If we know that the air is 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and contains a few dozen other gases, we can know 98% of the equation even if most of the factors aren't understood. Are these less understood factors related to the causes or the effects? It's common knowledge that we don't know exactly how GW is going to affect things, because the system is just too complex to completely predict. Just as we can tell what the weather will be like tomorrow, but can only make educated guesses about what it'll be like two weeks from now. (Yes, I know weather and climate are two completely different things - This was just an analogy) Details matter.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Which part of them have this "very low level of understanding?" Are they categorized as a "very low level" because we don't understand WHY they behave the way they do? Because that would just as easily describe gravity. We know precisely how it affects the universe, but we still don't know why it's there. Are they significant enough to matter? If we know that the air is 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and contains a few dozen other gases, we can know 98% of the equation even if most of the factors aren't understood. Are these less understood factors related to the causes or the effects? It's common knowledge that we don't know exactly how GW is going to affect things, because the system is just too complex to completely predict. Just as we can tell what the weather will be like tomorrow, but can only make educated guesses about what it'll be like two weeks from now. (Yes, I know weather and climate are two completely different things - This was just an analogy) Details matter.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Take a look at the IPCC grapghic that sys this, you will get an idea of just how unknown these factors are.
"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:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?)
Then we are in accord, and in accord with many scientists. We will see some warming, but not as much as the alarmists say, not by a long stretch. So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact. So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people. A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
"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:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansIan Shlasko wrote:
all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Actually, sounds lke you managed to model the French. Hmm, think you might have stumpled onto somethign there, ever thought of ppublishing? :)
"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
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?)
Then we are in accord, and in accord with many scientists. We will see some warming, but not as much as the alarmists say, not by a long stretch. So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact. So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people. A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
"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, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact.
The temperature increase is only the initial effect... Changing the amount of energy in the atmosphere can cause all sorts of adverse effects, and THOSE are the ones we can't predict accurately. More severe weather is likely, along with some shifting climate patterns. The question is where and how much.
fat_boy wrote:
So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herring-in-the-Climate-Change-Debate.html[^]
fat_boy wrote:
A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
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:
all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Actually, sounds lke you managed to model the French. Hmm, think you might have stumpled onto somethign there, ever thought of ppublishing? :)
"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
:laugh:
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:
So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact.
The temperature increase is only the initial effect... Changing the amount of energy in the atmosphere can cause all sorts of adverse effects, and THOSE are the ones we can't predict accurately. More severe weather is likely, along with some shifting climate patterns. The question is where and how much.
fat_boy wrote:
So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herring-in-the-Climate-Change-Debate.html[^]
fat_boy wrote:
A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)We have been through this before, and pulling a cople of links off the internet that fly in the face of established science does not constitute any kind of refutation. Fact. C02 is good for plants. Period. Farmers have ben using it for decades OK. Fact. THe last 10,000 years, this interglacial, has seen a steady cooling from temperatures a few degrees higher than today.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
can cause all sorts of adverse effects
Ian Shlasko wrote:
More severe weather is likely
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here? Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures. I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
"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
-
We have been through this before, and pulling a cople of links off the internet that fly in the face of established science does not constitute any kind of refutation. Fact. C02 is good for plants. Period. Farmers have ben using it for decades OK. Fact. THe last 10,000 years, this interglacial, has seen a steady cooling from temperatures a few degrees higher than today.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
can cause all sorts of adverse effects
Ian Shlasko wrote:
More severe weather is likely
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here? Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures. I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
"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:
We have been through this before
Which is why I'd rather just post a link instead of going through the same argument again... Seems only fair, after your repetitive postings of the same boring anti-GW sites.
fat_boy wrote:
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here?
No, because as I said, we don't know the exact effects.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures.
http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
There's that "You know I'm right" argument again... Except in all this time, you haven't proved your side at all. You've just tried to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
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:
We have been through this before
Which is why I'd rather just post a link instead of going through the same argument again... Seems only fair, after your repetitive postings of the same boring anti-GW sites.
fat_boy wrote:
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here?
No, because as I said, we don't know the exact effects.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures.
http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
There's that "You know I'm right" argument again... Except in all this time, you haven't proved your side at all. You've just tried to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)MWP? Sure, there are lots of alarmists sites that will say its only European in extent. Who cares? I said over the last 10000 years, there is bore hole data from all round the world that shopws that temperatures have declined steadilly and that it has in that time been 2 or so degrees warmer. A time when human civilisation developed. Therefore we know that higher temperatures in the order of 1.2 degrees, which is what doubling CO2 will do theoretically, are not a problem for us. We also know that CO2 is good for plants. Yes, I a sure you can find alarmist sites that say its not so, but this is bull because farmers have been using CO2 for inctreased crop yields for decades. So, like I said, you have nothing but alarmist crap to support your position that CO2 is dangerous. I have decades of established science that says it isnt. And, while all this is going on, tell me, just what HAS the effect of adding 30% CO2 been? (Assuming that that is what mankind has aded so far) WHats it done? Wheres the chaos its suposed to cause, according to you? Where is the massive destruction of human society that you fear? Its not happened Ian, and its not going to happen if we add another 30% and another 30%. (Because quite simp;y the effect of CO2 is one of diminishing returns and we have already added enough to have had the majority of any supposed effect). Oh, and also, that tenperature rise is thoeoretical. NASA erecently suggetsed that CO2 in the upper atmosphere may cause cooling because of the greater distance between mollecules in he atmosphere thus its ability to turn kinetic into IR radiaiton becomes important. However, I am sure you will know of this too since you will have investigated this topic as thoroughly as I have. :)
"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
-
MWP? Sure, there are lots of alarmists sites that will say its only European in extent. Who cares? I said over the last 10000 years, there is bore hole data from all round the world that shopws that temperatures have declined steadilly and that it has in that time been 2 or so degrees warmer. A time when human civilisation developed. Therefore we know that higher temperatures in the order of 1.2 degrees, which is what doubling CO2 will do theoretically, are not a problem for us. We also know that CO2 is good for plants. Yes, I a sure you can find alarmist sites that say its not so, but this is bull because farmers have been using CO2 for inctreased crop yields for decades. So, like I said, you have nothing but alarmist crap to support your position that CO2 is dangerous. I have decades of established science that says it isnt. And, while all this is going on, tell me, just what HAS the effect of adding 30% CO2 been? (Assuming that that is what mankind has aded so far) WHats it done? Wheres the chaos its suposed to cause, according to you? Where is the massive destruction of human society that you fear? Its not happened Ian, and its not going to happen if we add another 30% and another 30%. (Because quite simp;y the effect of CO2 is one of diminishing returns and we have already added enough to have had the majority of any supposed effect). Oh, and also, that tenperature rise is thoeoretical. NASA erecently suggetsed that CO2 in the upper atmosphere may cause cooling because of the greater distance between mollecules in he atmosphere thus its ability to turn kinetic into IR radiaiton becomes important. However, I am sure you will know of this too since you will have investigated this topic as thoroughly as I have. :)
"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:
MWP? Sure, there are lots of alarmists sites that will say its only European in extent. Who cares? I said over the last 10000 years, there is bore hole data from all round the world that shopws that temperatures have declined steadilly and that it has in that time been 2 or so degrees warmer. A time when human civilisation developed. Therefore we know that higher temperatures in the order of 1.2 degrees, which is what doubling CO2 will do theoretically, are not a problem for us. We also know that CO2 is good for plants. Yes, I a sure you can find alarmist sites that say its not so, but this is bull because farmers have been using CO2 for inctreased crop yields for decades.
http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
And, while all this is going on, tell me, just what HAS the effect of adding 30% CO2 been? (Assuming that that is what mankind has aded so far) WHats it done? Wheres the chaos its suposed to cause, according to you? Where is the massive destruction of human society that you fear? Its not happened Ian, and its not going to happen if we add another 30% and another 30%. (Because quite simp;y the effect of CO2 is one of diminishing returns and we have already added enough to have had the majority of any supposed effect).
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm[
-
fat_boy wrote:
MWP? Sure, there are lots of alarmists sites that will say its only European in extent. Who cares? I said over the last 10000 years, there is bore hole data from all round the world that shopws that temperatures have declined steadilly and that it has in that time been 2 or so degrees warmer. A time when human civilisation developed. Therefore we know that higher temperatures in the order of 1.2 degrees, which is what doubling CO2 will do theoretically, are not a problem for us. We also know that CO2 is good for plants. Yes, I a sure you can find alarmist sites that say its not so, but this is bull because farmers have been using CO2 for inctreased crop yields for decades.
http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
And, while all this is going on, tell me, just what HAS the effect of adding 30% CO2 been? (Assuming that that is what mankind has aded so far) WHats it done? Wheres the chaos its suposed to cause, according to you? Where is the massive destruction of human society that you fear? Its not happened Ian, and its not going to happen if we add another 30% and another 30%. (Because quite simp;y the effect of CO2 is one of diminishing returns and we have already added enough to have had the majority of any supposed effect).
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm[
Links: #1 Well, as I said, its not only Greenland ice core data, but also Vostok. Got a refutation for that? Other temperature reconstructions based on proxies also show a similar picture so it is global in extent showing temperatures 2 degrees or so warmer (some show more by the way so 2 is conservative). #2 Unscientific. Studies show that a 2 degree fall kills more people than a 2 degree rise. #3 Not disputed. #4 States the effect of extra CO2 is increaslingly weak. Tries to conter this by saying that the rate at which we are producing CO2 is increasing, thus negating this. This is of course logically eroneous. It just means we will reach the state where adding extra CO2 has almost no effect sooner. #5 States that CO2 is not yet saturated. This is correct. #6 Fails to state that direct evidence of CO2 causing warming has been found. It states it should be found in theory, that lab experiments have fond it, and that outgoing IR at certain frequencies has been affected. SO this totally backs up what I said that no evidence to data has been found that CO2 causes warming. (Because the climate is more complex than we understand and its sugested CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere so the net efect might be zero) Its an interesting site, sceptical science. As its name sugests it sets out to be sceptical, but of course it isnt. It is reasonably acurate though. It doesnt lie, it just words things carefully and avoids certain subjects (as mentioned above).
"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:
MWP? Sure, there are lots of alarmists sites that will say its only European in extent. Who cares? I said over the last 10000 years, there is bore hole data from all round the world that shopws that temperatures have declined steadilly and that it has in that time been 2 or so degrees warmer. A time when human civilisation developed. Therefore we know that higher temperatures in the order of 1.2 degrees, which is what doubling CO2 will do theoretically, are not a problem for us. We also know that CO2 is good for plants. Yes, I a sure you can find alarmist sites that say its not so, but this is bull because farmers have been using CO2 for inctreased crop yields for decades.
http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
And, while all this is going on, tell me, just what HAS the effect of adding 30% CO2 been? (Assuming that that is what mankind has aded so far) WHats it done? Wheres the chaos its suposed to cause, according to you? Where is the massive destruction of human society that you fear? Its not happened Ian, and its not going to happen if we add another 30% and another 30%. (Because quite simp;y the effect of CO2 is one of diminishing returns and we have already added enough to have had the majority of any supposed effect).
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm[
And so I relooked at that web site. It seems to be less accurate than in the past. I dug abit deeper and found that this body is behind that web site: Vision: A peaceful, just and sustainable world community as called for in the UN Charter. Mission: The UU-UNO has a two-fold mission: * We engage in the work of the UN to advance a peaceful, just, sustainable and pluralistic world community that promotes human rights. * We engage and inspire Unitarian Universalists and others to support and participate in this work. Share and Enjoy: [^] So basically a non scientific body whose aim is human rights, peace, and Universalism? Just look at the language used: http://climate.uu-uno.org/topics/view/23695/[^] http://climate.uu-uno.org/topics/view/23695/#Disturbing_Elements[^] This is not mature scientific debate, this is politicised, clearly their use of right wing, surely a term that has no place in science, indicates this? "Bottom Line: Quacks, Tobacco, Right-Wing Think Tanks, and Contrarians" is this any basis from which to discuss whether CO2 wil warm by 1 or 3 degrees? WHether CO2 at 600, or 1000 PPM is beneficial for crop produciton? Before you use the scepticalscicnce.com site again just remember the nature of those behind 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
modified on Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:23 AM
-
Links: #1 Well, as I said, its not only Greenland ice core data, but also Vostok. Got a refutation for that? Other temperature reconstructions based on proxies also show a similar picture so it is global in extent showing temperatures 2 degrees or so warmer (some show more by the way so 2 is conservative). #2 Unscientific. Studies show that a 2 degree fall kills more people than a 2 degree rise. #3 Not disputed. #4 States the effect of extra CO2 is increaslingly weak. Tries to conter this by saying that the rate at which we are producing CO2 is increasing, thus negating this. This is of course logically eroneous. It just means we will reach the state where adding extra CO2 has almost no effect sooner. #5 States that CO2 is not yet saturated. This is correct. #6 Fails to state that direct evidence of CO2 causing warming has been found. It states it should be found in theory, that lab experiments have fond it, and that outgoing IR at certain frequencies has been affected. SO this totally backs up what I said that no evidence to data has been found that CO2 causes warming. (Because the climate is more complex than we understand and its sugested CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere so the net efect might be zero) Its an interesting site, sceptical science. As its name sugests it sets out to be sceptical, but of course it isnt. It is reasonably acurate though. It doesnt lie, it just words things carefully and avoids certain subjects (as mentioned above).
"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:
#1 Well, as I said, its not only Greenland ice core data, but also Vostok. Got a refutation for that? Other temperature reconstructions based on proxies also show a similar picture so it is global in extent showing temperatures 2 degrees or so warmer (some show more by the way so 2 is conservative).
Sure, Vostok is mentioned here[^]
fat_boy wrote:
#2 Unscientific. Studies show that a 2 degree fall kills more people than a 2 degree rise.
Strawman. No one is arguing that global cooling would be harmless. Only that warming would be more harmful than current levels.
fat_boy wrote:
#4 States the effect of extra CO2 is increaslingly weak. Tries to conter this by saying that the rate at which we are producing CO2 is increasing, thus negating this. This is of course logically eroneous. It just means we will reach the state where adding extra CO2 has almost no effect sooner.
And what point are you trying to make? That it's ok because it's happening faster?
fat_boy wrote:
#6 Fails to state that direct evidence of CO2 causing warming has been found. It states it should be found in theory, that lab experiments have fond it, and that outgoing IR at certain frequencies has been affected. SO this totally backs up what I said that no evidence to data has been found that CO2 causes warming. (Because the climate is more complex than we understand and its sugested CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere so the net efect might be zero)
And you determine that net effect by taking empirical measurements and seeing how they correlate to CO2 levels... Which is what was done. Hey, look... They match. What a shocker.
fat_boy wrote:
Its an interesting site, sceptical science. As its name sugests it sets out to be sceptical, but of course it isnt. It is reasonably acurate though. It doesnt lie, it just words things carefully and avoids certain subjects (as mentioned above).
Being skeptical is good. A good scientist should always be skeptical of all viewpoints, his own and those of others. You seem to be equating skepticism with
-
fat_boy wrote:
#1 Well, as I said, its not only Greenland ice core data, but also Vostok. Got a refutation for that? Other temperature reconstructions based on proxies also show a similar picture so it is global in extent showing temperatures 2 degrees or so warmer (some show more by the way so 2 is conservative).
Sure, Vostok is mentioned here[^]
fat_boy wrote:
#2 Unscientific. Studies show that a 2 degree fall kills more people than a 2 degree rise.
Strawman. No one is arguing that global cooling would be harmless. Only that warming would be more harmful than current levels.
fat_boy wrote:
#4 States the effect of extra CO2 is increaslingly weak. Tries to conter this by saying that the rate at which we are producing CO2 is increasing, thus negating this. This is of course logically eroneous. It just means we will reach the state where adding extra CO2 has almost no effect sooner.
And what point are you trying to make? That it's ok because it's happening faster?
fat_boy wrote:
#6 Fails to state that direct evidence of CO2 causing warming has been found. It states it should be found in theory, that lab experiments have fond it, and that outgoing IR at certain frequencies has been affected. SO this totally backs up what I said that no evidence to data has been found that CO2 causes warming. (Because the climate is more complex than we understand and its sugested CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere so the net efect might be zero)
And you determine that net effect by taking empirical measurements and seeing how they correlate to CO2 levels... Which is what was done. Hey, look... They match. What a shocker.
fat_boy wrote:
Its an interesting site, sceptical science. As its name sugests it sets out to be sceptical, but of course it isnt. It is reasonably acurate though. It doesnt lie, it just words things carefully and avoids certain subjects (as mentioned above).
Being skeptical is good. A good scientist should always be skeptical of all viewpoints, his own and those of others. You seem to be equating skepticism with
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, Vostok is mentioned here[^]
And it clearly shows the decline in temperature over the last 10000 years.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Strawman. No one is arguing that global cooling would be harmless. Only that warming would be more harmful than current levels.
Except that it IS getting colder. See above.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what point are you trying to make?
That their refutation is spurious, clearly.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And you determine that net effect by taking empirical measurements and seeing how they correlate to CO2 levels... Which is what was done. Hey, look... They match. What a shocker.
As I said, 'might'. I am not calculating anything, just following the science bwecause what surprises me is that CO2 is supposed to warm, and we should have seen a fair bit already, but cant identify CO2 based warming distinct from natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Skepticism means withholding judgement until you have concrete data...
Yes, see above. There isnt yet any empiricle data that shows CO2 causes warming.
"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
-
And so I relooked at that web site. It seems to be less accurate than in the past. I dug abit deeper and found that this body is behind that web site: Vision: A peaceful, just and sustainable world community as called for in the UN Charter. Mission: The UU-UNO has a two-fold mission: * We engage in the work of the UN to advance a peaceful, just, sustainable and pluralistic world community that promotes human rights. * We engage and inspire Unitarian Universalists and others to support and participate in this work. Share and Enjoy: [^] So basically a non scientific body whose aim is human rights, peace, and Universalism? Just look at the language used: http://climate.uu-uno.org/topics/view/23695/[^] http://climate.uu-uno.org/topics/view/23695/#Disturbing_Elements[^] This is not mature scientific debate, this is politicised, clearly their use of right wing, surely a term that has no place in science, indicates this? "Bottom Line: Quacks, Tobacco, Right-Wing Think Tanks, and Contrarians" is this any basis from which to discuss whether CO2 wil warm by 1 or 3 degrees? WHether CO2 at 600, or 1000 PPM is beneficial for crop produciton? Before you use the scepticalscicnce.com site again just remember the nature of those behind 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
modified on Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:23 AM
fat_boy wrote:
And so I relooked at that web site. It seems to be less accurate than in the past. I dug abit deeper and found that this body is behind that web site: Vision:
Funny, the about page[^] gives credit to a physicist from Australia, with all of its funding coming from Paypal donations. Where do you see this connection to UU-UNO?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)