And so it starts....
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
Filters.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
That would be a pretty big filter - it would have an area of approximately 128 million square kilometers (50 million square miles)! I grant you that it's more feasible than Larry Niven's idea of moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn, but it would still be a massive undertaking! Assume that the filter has a mass of 1 gram per square meter; the total mass of the filter would be 128 billion kg, or 128 million tons. Even if we improved our launching abilities so as to be able to boost 100 tons in each payload, we would need a million launches. Add to that the launches for the construction workers, food, other perishables, etc. What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
Care to make a comment on the comment[^]?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Nighthowler wrote:
So you think CAGW is a fraud?
Of course it is.
Nighthowler wrote:
do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution?
Of course not.
Nighthowler wrote:
smoking and lung cancer
Lame attempt to associate plant food with a carcinogen. I see two people were convinced by it though. :rolleyes:
I see. So we can pollute the environment but not cause catastrophic changes to it.
-
What boneheads upvoted this? :doh:
Nighthowler wrote:
do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution?
Why would you even assume that? You must see link that I don't at all.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
It's a valid question. It isn't immediately obvious how much he's denying.
-
You should read "State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton You wil love it.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I'm going to write a novel too. It will be called "State of Ignorance" A lot of people will ignorelove it.
-
I see. So we can pollute the environment but not cause catastrophic changes to it.
Sigh. No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Its effect on temperature is muted and entirely beneficial.
-
It's a valid question. It isn't immediately obvious how much he's denying.
No it wasnt, it was a mock question couched to make it appear as if I dont care about the environment and that I think smoking is not damaging to ones health.
-
I'm going to write a novel too. It will be called "State of Ignorance" A lot of people will ignorelove it.
Its certainly a topic you are familiar with. ;P
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No, we have to stop wasting time and money pretending we are and do something about the impact of any warming if it is in any way negative. So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA. And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
Strike my reply above. You are right about the stuff in the second half (you should've said so in the first place!), although I do think we should err on the side of caution about AGW. There is no way we're gonna conclusively prove it either way.
-
No it wasnt, it was a mock question couched to make it appear as if I dont care about the environment and that I think smoking is not damaging to ones health.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
and that I think smoking is not damaging to ones health.
Considering that a smoking is usually wore only in weddings and formal parties, I disagree.
CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver "Go ahead, make my day"
-
Care to make a comment on the comment[^]?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
What is there to comment about, your link tries to defend Karls work. THIS story is about climate scientists speaking out, and having the confidence to do so. That is certainly the way I highlighted it. (Anyway, Karls work is junk, its been known to be junk for ages in the scientific community. You cant adjust accurate sea temperature data from bouys with inaccurate ships engine intake pipe temperature data)
-
Care to make a comment on the comment[^]?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Sure! Peer review != proper archiving for independent analysis of findings. The article references the offset on the graph and acknowledges the difference of analysis technique (chose baselines, as the case may be), but is meant to show that the deviation trends more dramatically towards the back end of the data set. That's pretty clear, and a change in baseline does not affect that, even in the "corrected" graph. We're not talking about a major difference here, we're talking about a "massaging" of the data points to maximize the impact of a hypothesis, which is wildly unethical by any standard. Nothing stated actually objectively counters anything that was said by someone that was an insider. Calling it "fake news" right at the start to try to completely marginalize the whole thing without discussion. Stay classy.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Sure! Peer review != proper archiving for independent analysis of findings. The article references the offset on the graph and acknowledges the difference of analysis technique (chose baselines, as the case may be), but is meant to show that the deviation trends more dramatically towards the back end of the data set. That's pretty clear, and a change in baseline does not affect that, even in the "corrected" graph. We're not talking about a major difference here, we're talking about a "massaging" of the data points to maximize the impact of a hypothesis, which is wildly unethical by any standard. Nothing stated actually objectively counters anything that was said by someone that was an insider. Calling it "fake news" right at the start to try to completely marginalize the whole thing without discussion. Stay classy.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
Calling it "fake news" right at the start to try to completely marginalize the whole thing without discussion
Its the usual "move along please, nothing to see here" approach alarmists use when they cant just dismiss the facts.
-
That would be a pretty big filter - it would have an area of approximately 128 million square kilometers (50 million square miles)! I grant you that it's more feasible than Larry Niven's idea of moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn, but it would still be a massive undertaking! Assume that the filter has a mass of 1 gram per square meter; the total mass of the filter would be 128 billion kg, or 128 million tons. Even if we improved our launching abilities so as to be able to boost 100 tons in each payload, we would need a million launches. Add to that the launches for the construction workers, food, other perishables, etc. What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
f moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn,
That would take a lot of cranes.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
Perhaps a better solution is just more sunscreen. If Obama were President again he'd give free sunscreen for everyone. Well, except middle-class white people. :laugh:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
It's a valid question. It isn't immediately obvious how much he's denying.
Nighthowler wrote:
It's a valid question.
How so? Wait a second, what do you think CAGW stands for? I think you two are talking about two different things. :^)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Calling it "fake news" right at the start to try to completely marginalize the whole thing without discussion
Its the usual "move along please, nothing to see here" approach alarmists use when they cant just dismiss the facts.
Well that's the problem. There are facts to discuss, but people treat the whole concept like religion, on both sides. Every time this shady crap comes up it calls the whole concept into question. On the other hand, supporters will believe literally anything without proper vetting. I could claim that jerking off caused climate change, with a pretty graph, and half the population would freak out about the masturbation issue, and the other half would exhaust themselves just to prove it false (well, not "just").
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The Mail on Sunday
Ah yes - the Daily Mail. That bastion of truth and reliable journalism. :rolleyes: It's all right, everyone. We can pack in the research into climate change. The Daily Mail has told us it's all a hoax. And that must be true, because I read it in The Daily Mail[^]. :laugh: Let me know if anyone ever comes up with credible evidence, rather than a few distorted graphs and a journalist's rant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The Mail on Sunday
Ah yes - the Daily Mail. That bastion of truth and reliable journalism. :rolleyes: It's all right, everyone. We can pack in the research into climate change. The Daily Mail has told us it's all a hoax. And that must be true, because I read it in The Daily Mail[^]. :laugh: Let me know if anyone ever comes up with credible evidence, rather than a few distorted graphs and a journalist's rant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Strike my reply above. You are right about the stuff in the second half (you should've said so in the first place!), although I do think we should err on the side of caution about AGW. There is no way we're gonna conclusively prove it either way.
You didnt give mke a chance, and I dont think I should have to provide a list of declaimers when ever I post about CAGW. As for the precautionary principle it is only valid when there is a risk. There isnt with CO2. Because the answer to your second statement is that it has been proved. The earth has proved that it is not that sensitive to CO2 based on the now 60 odd years of data we now have.
-
Feel free to point out one fact that is wrong in the article. Waiting....
Quote:
the ‘Climategate’ affair ... suggested they had manipulated and hidden data.
There's one for a start. The fact that the tabloid press didn't understand the content of the leaked emails doesn't mean they get to make up their own meaning. Now, feel free to point out which part of the article marks the end for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". I assume that's what you're referring to, and not "Citizens Against Government Waste", or "Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
