If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   Finally, some good news about climate change: if you live on the coast, you probably won't have to worry about wild fires   (treehugger.com) divider line 113
    More: Scary, climate change, sea-level rise, sea levels, greenhouse gases, environmental mitigation, global warming  
•       •       •

2822 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Jul 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 11:02:39 AM

jigger: Farking Canuck: zarberg: Another libtard scare tactic to get the government to spend money.

Solid logic. All the liberals I know sit around their kitchen tables every night an ask themselves "How can I get my taxes to be higher??"

/Republicans actually believe this

Change it to "How can I get other people's taxes to be higher?" and you've nailed it.


Seeing as the super rich in the USA are paying half the tax rate I pay, down from a top marginal rate of 60% when Reagan came to office (and 70% or more under Eisenhower), I have some quite specific people in mind to pay higher taxes. And many of them are saying "I should be paying higher taxes" because they know it isn't just that they should pay 18% on millions or billions while their underlings pay 36%, no counting all the paycheque deductions.

It's been nice for the super rich to go back to Belle Epoque tax rates. For ninety years they whined because they were paying more than they did in 1912 when the income tax became permanent, but seeing as many of them are paying less than the bottom tax bracket in Canada (0-$27,000), I suspect that whining super-rich people are a problem we can all learn to live with--again--like we did for the last century during which all those social security payments and medicare and medicaid and welfare and unemployment insurance payments and etc. came to be deducted from the paycheques of those of us who work for a living or live hand to mouth or both.
 
2012-07-05 11:20:42 AM

Mad_Radhu: It is 65 in Seattle today, so global warming is obviously a hoax and Sarah Palin is President for life.


You're in luck. The North West coast was a refuge during some of the worst climate-related disasters in geological history. It looks like it'll be a cool spot even under global warming regime over the next few centuires (or more--we don't know how long it will last if we continue to pump what's left of millions of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere for as long as it if technically possible to dig it up and economically possible to keep the machines running).

The climate predictions that I saw in the late 1980s (yes, that long ago) predicted that North Eastern Canada would see relatively small climate change albeit with rising sea levels, and Scandinavia is another natural refuge in times of climate change.

The predictions made then (thirty years ago) still stand. We can expect 4-5 degrees Celsius here (having seen that much for a month or more at a time already, we can imagine what it'll be like year round).

What can we expect--variable winters (some much colder, some much warmer, with major consequences for water storage and flow and for insect pests and agriculture). The mountain pine beetle and other invasive species devestating our forests. The climate gradually becoming more suitable for carolingian oak forests. More droughts restricting run-of-river hydro-electric production and more heatwaves pushing Hydro Ontario and Hydro Quebec into the danger zone, resulting in more frequent blackouts. Reduced agricultural production for some crops but improvements for others. A further switch of the hardiness zones northwards.

And for Canada as a whole, going from 0.2% of the land area of 10,000,000 square kilometers in the temperatre zone (think Virginia) to 8.5% or so. Weeeeeee-ha! The Ontario wines should just get better and better but our ice wines are going to be harder to produce unless the vines are replanted northwards.

Recently I saw a map of fine-detail predictions that was done for the LA region. Some bits of LA will scarcely warm--Venice Beach and ironically, Waits, home to the race riots--a ring around downtown is as warm as it gets now. The desert suburbs are going to be several degrees hotter, which means that water use and AC and other costs will be much higher. Look it up. It's really worth seeing as it is the first really fine scale prediction--most predictions are based on cells that are 100 by 100 kilometres, which is 10,000 square kilometers, rather large for a pixel.
 
2012-07-05 11:31:36 AM

dready zim: Farking Canuck: SVenus: Remember when the sea level was so high, Norway and Sweden was an island?

Oh, wait, that was the _last_ time it got warm between ice ages. My bad.

Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

By the same logic, since people died from natural causes in the past people cannot die from unnatural causes now!! Great news ... everyone is bulletproof!!!

The anti-science crowd has spoken ... all bow down to the derp!!!

I think the point is that we are within the range of natural variability so change within the naturally occuring range is not proof of anything. The rate of change is another discussion for you to derp in. Also the points you refute are not present in the post you replied to...


Sea level itself may be within a range of what has been caused by natural variability, but the cause of the change is not necessarily natural, and only plausibly so if you ignore all of the evidence of human contributions to warming - carbon isotope ratios provide one important smoking gun, for example.

It's entirely irrelevant whether the sea level is higher or lower than it's ever been at any time in the past, ever. It's much more relevant to determine how much it is changing from its current level, and why. Sticking your head in the sand and saying that all that coastline used to be underwater, so it's perfectly natural for it to be flooded again really doesn't address the issue.
 
2012-07-05 11:39:27 AM
If you think that climate change will not affect the Great Lakes, think again. The water levels in the Great Lakes vary but Superior is down at least a foot or two. The whole system can expect less steady re-filling and more withdrawals. There are plans to draw water from Lake Michigan through Chicago, essentially creating a southern drainage that by-passes the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence drainage basin. This could be a boon to the survival of agriculture and urban centers in the Mid-West but Canadians and Americans downstream in the natural basin are not going to be benefited or happy.

The Great Lakes are less threatened by a lack of water than invasive species like the Zebra Mussel. This foreigner is so efficient and hard-working that it takes jobs away from Americans and Canadains by purifying the water to levels never seen in history. This means no food for anything else. Have you ever seen a skinny salmon? It's not a pretty sight. They're all head and spine. Yikes! Looks like a deep-sea monster fish.

As a result of climate change, the Great Lakes region will be warmer much of the time, but colder some of the time. You can expect some really massive lake effect snowfalls in places like Buffalo, where 25 feet is not unheard of in the winter months. You can expect more droughts and floods, more heatwaves and cold snaps, more snow and water levels rising and fallinig by more than in the recent past.

During the last Ice Age, the Great Lakes were part of a massive lake backed up behind ice. There was a shallow salt water sea over Eastern Ontario and Northern New York State, which included the area around Ottawa and Lake Champlain. I live on an outcrop of rock which includes Parliament Hill and downtown Ottawa. It was an island about 19,000 years ago, rising from a vast shallow lake.

Sea level rise from the total melting of Antartica and the rest of the world's ice caps would not reach such levels again most likely, but the brackish waters of the lower Saint Lawrence River could easily reach as far as Quebec City or maybe even Trois-Rivières. Trouble tends to flow downstream, but it can also flow upstream when money and people are involved.

People make and solve most problems. We are the only species that can do anything consciously and with foresight. Thus all responses to climate change are on our shoulders, are our responsability.

All in all, I don't think that we need to worry about sea level rise affecting us directly, but it will affect people in the Himalayas indirectly, and you never know how the consequences will work through world supply chains that stretch around the world three times.

Food will be more expensive over the next thirty years at least for many reasons, climate being one and economics and politics being others. Water will be scarcer and more valuable also. So will fossil fuels and minerals. China means to be be as rich as America and although I laughed at the Chinese Party Member who told me this in the mid-Eighties because I knew it was a crazy pipe-dream from an ecological point of view, there's no reason they can't try from an economic point of view. They might just be able to do it sustainably, which would leave us in the dystopian world of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s novels, a world where China has adapted and is a rich superpower, while the USA has refused to adapt wisely and is a basket-case except for the very rich.

The is the world of Hocus Pocus and Breakfast of Champions, and to some extent, one of his earliest novels, Player Piano, where nobody has any real work any more except for the bosses and their secretaries. Vonnegut is as good a, or better prophet than Bradbury, Huxley or Orwell. Fear the future if our leaders and the people do not act to prevent collapse like Jared Diamond predicts for those who do not choose life over death and sustainability over wanton destruction.
 
2012-07-05 12:17:47 PM
Please, climate change deniers, pray the weather back to normal already!!!
 
2012-07-05 04:10:00 PM
Farking Canuck:
SVenus: Remember when the sea level was so high, Norway and Sweden was an island?

Oh, wait, that was the _last_ time it got warm between ice ages. My bad.

Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

By the same logic, since people died from natural causes in the past people cannot die from unnatural causes now!! Great news ... everyone is bulletproof!!!

The anti-science crowd has spoken ... all bow down to the derp!!!

Where do you get off with this bullshiat? He never said what you claim (the bold bit.)

Part of the bullshiat claims of the tree-huggers (of which the publication of TFA, "Treehugger" is no doubt a part) is always along the "never before" and "unnatural" and "unprecedented" axis -- implying that sea levels have never risen before, it has never been this warm before, the temperatures have never risen this fast, blah, blah, woof, woof.

Then, when someone points out that the claims of uniqueness are bullshiat, that ocean levels have risen higher, as recently as the previous interglacial, some jackass, like you, will take that as a claim that it CAN'T be caused by human activity. That is yet another sign that your "side" in this is full of shiat -- you repeatedly insist upon arguing against what you would LIKE people to have said, rather than what they said.

And, while we're on the subject, perhaps a look at how sea levels have changed during THIS interglacial period would be instructive...


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-05 04:57:42 PM

GeneralJim: "never before" and "unnatural" and "unprecedented" axis


[citation needed]

People say: The amount of CO2 produced by man is unprecedented.

People say: The amount of impact on climate that man is having is unprecedented.

Nobody claims that, over the 4.5+ billion years the earth has existed, the ocean levels have never been at this level or higher. That is ridiculous.

The fact is that the oceans have been much higher in the past just goes to show what will happen when the planet heats up enough. The issue here is the fact that this time man is generating the CO2 that is doing the heating over ~100 years ... instead of the Milankovitch cycles releasing CO2 and methane over tens of thousands of years.

This here is an example of another ridiculous straw-man from the green-threadshiatter. Take your lies elsewhere.

/take note deniers of the much higher quality derp that the green-threadshiatter produces over the pathetic attempts that you guys made.
//nobody lies as well as the General
 
2012-07-05 05:53:38 PM
Farking Canuck:
SVenus: Farking Canuck: By the same logic

Oh, and good luck with that strawman you have there.

So you are saying that you didn't argue that, because something happened naturally in the past that the cause must be natural now??

Go read what you wrote. It can't be a strawman if you wrote it yourself.

You are actually, literally retarded, aren't you? Yes, yes it CAN be a straw man if he wrote it himself -- all you have to do is argue against a point he did not make, rather than what he actually said. You have done that. Therefore, you are arguing against a straw man.
 
2012-07-05 05:59:28 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
The most entertaining part for me is that these fatalistic predictions completely fly in the face of the "it's all a conspiracy for ... ... ... something!" theories, since they are suggesting that even drastic actions would not yield significant results. Yet here comes the tard parade whining about a one-world government commanded by satanic climate scientists.

Wow. You need to get your meds adjusted.
 
2012-07-05 07:12:12 PM
Farking Canuck:
Scientists have been looking at the causes of the current heating, they have compared it to previous heating cycles and have concluded, with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic. They have mountains of proof.

Bullshiat, plain and simple. In the beginning of this fracas, you know, back before they started altering the data, information that is known now was not known, important information. Some of those bits of information are that the sun alters the weather with magnetic activity, as well as insolation -- and that the magnetic activity of the sun amplifies the warming effect on the planet. First pass guesses also suggested that the climate was very sensitive to carbon dioxide, as positive feedbacks were assumed. (That is, once the "ice age panic" was over, and the planet started to warm in the 1970s.)

But we now know about solar magnetic activity warming the planet, and deal with that, rather than assuming that the warming from solar magnetic activity was due to carbon dioxide. And, we now know that there is a strong negative feedback for changes in GHG levels, so atmospheric sensitivity to GHG level changes is quite low.

So, if you are going to shill for the climate change industry, please show this "mountain of work" that allows scientists to conclude, "with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic." I'll wait.
 
2012-07-05 09:00:16 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Scientists have been looking at the causes of the current heating, they have compared it to previous heating cycles and have concluded, with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic. They have mountains of proof.
Bullshiat, plain and simple. In the beginning of this fracas, you know, back before they started altering the data, information that is known now was not known, important information. Some of those bits of information are that the sun alters the weather with magnetic activity, as well as insolation -- and that the magnetic activity of the sun amplifies the warming effect on the planet. First pass guesses also suggested that the climate was very sensitive to carbon dioxide, as positive feedbacks were assumed. (That is, once the "ice age panic" was over, and the planet started to warm in the 1970s.)

But we now know about solar magnetic activity warming the planet, and deal with that, rather than assuming that the warming from solar magnetic activity was due to carbon dioxide. And, we now know that there is a strong negative feedback for changes in GHG levels, so atmospheric sensitivity to GHG level changes is quite low.

So, if you are going to shill for the climate change industry, please show this "mountain of work" that allows scientists to conclude, "with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic." I'll wait.


You'd have been much more convincing if you had supplied even one reference to solar magnetic activity being the cause of global warming, or for negative feedback for greenhouse gases, or even for your claim that the planet "started to warm in the 1970s".

Of course, "more convincing" is relative, since someone would have to be insane to believe you in any case, but at least you could apply a thicker veneer of pseudo-scientification to your posts.

Plus then we could figure out which particular reading comprehension failure you were displaying so magnificently.
 
2012-07-05 11:52:56 PM
Farking Canuck:
Ahhh ... the old "cherry pick a few years data and imply that is a trend" stupidity. Usually you guys come up with much higher quality denier derp. Almost makes me wish the green thread-shiatter was here ... he is always up on all the latest blog posts.

I am here, you useless tool.

Hey, you should look up the definition of "cherry-picking." It is YOU jackasses who are cherry-picking. Let's look at a few different time scales..... and see if it is cooling or warming.


c3headlines.typepad.com
Last ten years:
No discernible trend, cooling expected


www.worldclimatereport.com
Last 2000 years:
Slight cooling, LOTS of variation


upload.wikimedia.org
Since we warmed after the end of the last major glaciation:
About an 8000 year cooling trend


lh3.ggpht.com
The last 65 million years:
Serious cooling ~ 10.0 K


www.paulmacrae.com
The last 650 million years:
Varies between "warm" and "cool" state - currently in "cool"


Yep... about the ONLY way you can make it look like we are in a warming trend is to start somewhere between 1850 and 1880. And that, you ignoranus, is cherry-picking. On almost every time scale, we are cooling, not warming.
 
2012-07-05 11:55:30 PM

GeneralJim: So, if you are going to shill for the climate change industry, please show this "mountain of work" that allows scientists to conclude, "with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic." I'll wait.


Why??

You've been shown literally hundreds of times. You trot out your lies ... they are all meticulously debunked ... you flail around for a little while posting walls of green lies and occasionally insane world domination conspiracy theories ... then you repeat in the next thread. You care absolutly nothing about real evidence ... you've get all the 'evidence' you need from your anti-science blogs.

You have proven time and time again you are not interested in a single thing that the evil scientists are saying (unless you misinterpret them and think they support you ... then they are the one honest scientist). You cling to your blogs with a religious fervor ... parroting everything they write as if it is gospel.

No. I will not waste my time posting evidence you will yet again ignore. I'm not going to encourage a dog who keeps pissing on the rug.
 
2012-07-06 12:55:49 AM
HighZoolander:
LouDobbsAwaaaay: Farking Canuck: Do the people who present these simplistic arguments actually think that the best and brightest in the field didn't actually think to check if it was a natural cycle?? Do they actually believe that they thought of something that the experts overlooked???

The Dunning-Kreuger Effect in action. They can't perceive the notion that something exists outside of their ability to comprehend it, so anything they can think of off of the top of their head is, by definition, the "cutting edge".

I think their thought process goes something like this:

I can't understand the science
I can't accept that scientists are smarter than me
Therefore scientists don't understand the science either
Therefore the science must be a scam that corrupt /stupid scientists are in on
I'm very smart because I saw through the deceit
I'm smarter / less corrupt than those idiot/corrupt scientists who buy into the bullshiat
I must tell everyone how much better than scientists I am
I'll be the savior of mankind!
I'll be rich and famous and everyone will want my opinion on everything!
I'll meet a woman and seduce her with my mind powers!

/etc.

Wow. Excellent. Thank you so much for the textbook perfect example of the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. Um, you WERE producing an example of the Dunning-Kreuger Effect, weren't you? I mean, you don't believe that tripe... right?
 
2012-07-06 12:59:36 AM

Farking Canuck: SVenus: Ambitwistor: Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?

Ambitwistor: SVenus: Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?

Because it seemed to me that those who don't remember the last interglacial warm period are doomed to repeat it.

Clearly you are a person well versed in repeating talking points.

This one is another long debunked denier lie. I suspect all the others on the blog you got this one from have been debunked as well.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-06 01:01:24 AM
Farking Canuck:
Spaz-master: The point is that it was never within our control to begin with...
Just some douchebags wanting to make money off of the masses.

That is what the people who want you to do nothing claim.

The evidence does not support this position. History and science have shown what CO2 does in the atmosphere (it is a greenhouse gas) ... man has added massive amounts of CO2. It is having an effect that is completely outside of the natural forcings.

I call bullshiat. Prove that, or STFU.
 
2012-07-06 01:32:39 AM
Olympus Mons:
What is the liberal word being married to this BS anyways.. either it will happen or not. Science isn't our enemy. Its not "liberal" sea water rising you morons. How the hell did this head up your ass mentality happen to this country?

Hey, glad you asked. What happened is that the far leftists in this country and especially in the U.N. wanted more taxes, and more government control of business. At the U.N., they also want to send vast amounts of wealth from the first world to the third world. A catastrophe based upon anthropogenic global warming due to carbon dioxide was PERFECT for them. It allowed them to tax the crap out of businesses, and consumption in the first world especially, and do it under the cloak of "saving the planet."

When the science failed to pan out, the few scientists willing to commit fraud to make AGW look more realistic were sent out. Michael Mann generated some studies using Keith Briffa's fraudulent tree-ring studies, which turned the IPCC's own map of past temperatures, seen in the lower graph below, into the debunked fraudulent graph above it.


1.bp.blogspot.com


With that in place, James Hansen was sent out to alter the historical record at NASA, where he made changes to historical data so that they lined up better with the falsified AGW hypothesis. These can be seen easily by comparing the data available at various times from NASA GISS. Here's a sample:


img.photobucket.com


But, the short answer is that maintaining the fiction of AGW suits the leftist cause perfectly. It gives government more power, allows the collection of massive amounts of money, allows insiders to make a killing, and then they get to blame it all on business and the first world.

It also fits into the leftist world view of manipulation. Somehow they figured that erasing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from the data would be as easy as it was for the Soviets to erase Trotsky from official records of the Soviet Union. It has, however, proven to be much more difficult. They would need years to alter all the textbooks, and data sets can be copied with almost no effort, so many people have historical data prepared before the fix was set up... awkward.


la.indymedia.org
An early leftist re-write of history
 
2012-07-06 02:32:56 AM
brantgoose:
It's been nice for the super rich to go back to Belle Epoque tax rates. For ninety years they whined because they were paying more than they did in 1912 when the income tax became permanent, but seeing as many of them are paying less than the bottom tax bracket in Canada (0-$27,000), I suspect that whining super-rich people are a problem we can all learn to live with--again--like we did for the last century during which all those social security payments and medicare and medicaid and welfare and unemployment insurance payments and etc. came to be deducted from the paycheques of those of us who work for a living or live hand to mouth or both.

Oh, yeah. Ten percent of us (Americans) paying 65% of the taxes JUST ISN'T ENOUGH. WE MUST PUNISH THE SUCCESSFUL. Right. Nice socialist rant. And, the lowest 40% actually get money out of income taxes.

4.bp.blogspot.com
The U.S. tax rate for various income levels, 2011

3.bp.blogspot.com
Where Income tax comes from, by income
 
2012-07-06 02:49:22 AM
brantgoose:
People make and solve most problems. We are the only species that can do anything consciously and with foresight. Thus all responses to climate change are on our shoulders, are our responsability.

That's quite a load of hubris you've got there... The Canadian White Man's Burden...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-06 03:28:33 AM
this was awesome:

You accuse someone of being off their meds for thinking you're a conspiracy nut....

GeneralJim:
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
The most entertaining part for me is that these fatalistic predictions completely fly in the face of the "it's all a conspiracy for ... ... ... something!" theories, since they are suggesting that even drastic actions would not yield significant results. Yet here comes the tard parade whining about a one-world government commanded by satanic climate scientists.

Wow. You need to get your meds adjusted.




then you apparently forgot to take your own meds...


GeneralJim:
Hey, glad you asked. What happened is that the far leftists in this country and especially in the U.N. wanted more taxes, and more government control of business. At the U.N., they also want to send vast amounts of wealth from the first world to the third world. A catastrophe based upon anthropogenic global warming due to carbon dioxide was PERFECT for them. It allowed them to tax the crap out of businesses, and consumption in the first world especially, and do it under the cloak of "saving the planet."

When the science failed to pan out, the few scientists willing to commit fraud to make AGW look more realistic were sent out. Michael Mann generated some studies using Keith Briffa's fraudulent tree-ring studies, which turned the IPCC's own map of past temperatures, seen in the lower graph below, into the debunked fraudulent graph above it.

{graphs omitted}

With that in place, James Hansen was sent out to alter the historical record at NASA, where he made changes to historical data so that they lined up better with the falsified AGW hypothesis. These can be seen easily by comparing the data available at various times from NASA GISS. Here's a sample:

{graph omitted}

But, the short answer is that maintaining the fiction of AGW suits the leftist cause perfectly. It gives government more power, allows the collection of massive amounts of money, allows insiders to make a killing, and then they get to blame it all on business and the first world.

It also fits into the leftist world view of manipulation. Somehow they figured that erasing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from the data would be as easy as it was for the Soviets to erase Trotsky from official records of the Soviet Union. It has, however, proven to be much more difficult. They would need years to alter all the textbooks, and data sets can be copied with almost no effort, so many people have historical data prepared before the fix was set up... awkward.


psst - your conspiracy theory is showing!

Seriously - can't you keep your own bullshiat straight?
 
2012-07-06 05:57:23 AM
Farking Canuck:
The fact is that the oceans have been much higher in the past just goes to show what will happen when the planet heats up enough. The issue here is the fact that this time man is generating the CO2 that is doing the heating over ~100 years ... instead of the Milankovitch cycles releasing CO2 and methane over tens of thousands of years.

This here is an example of another ridiculous straw-man from the green-threadshiatter. Take your lies elsewhere.

The fact that you are too stupid to understand a point does NOT make it a lie; more Dunning-Kreuger effect. It has been conclusively shown that changes in other GHG levels are compensated for by water vapor and clouds. And, it has been PROVEN, in the only field that has real proofs -- mathematics. PROOF HERE.

You know, you are free to put your fingers in your ears, and pretend that reality doesn't exist if you can't hear it -- but that has no effect on reality. If you're too dumb to recognize a simple scam when you see it, and too delusional to accept it when those involved in the scam admit it, that does not mean that the scam doesn't exist. It also does not mean that those who do accept the admissions of the people involved are "crazy conspiracy theorists."

That whole bit of ignoring reality is a symptom of the fact that leftists have had control of the media for so long. If they want to think that Obama never makes a gaffe, the mainstream media certainly won't bother them with any of them... after all, who wants to see someone mis-speaking? Unless, of course, it is a Republican who mispeaks, and then THAT makes it to lead story.
Obama gaffes.

It's the same way with AGW. The media has a position, and they either don't report, or seriously under-report anything which does not support their position. It's the same with grants -- there is money flowing freely in climatology -- but only for the "correct" approach. Check a list of grant projects,, and you'll find that most of them are along the lines of "Describe the effects of AGW on Renaissance artwork, and describe how the damage might be mitigated." So, if your data suggest that there's no problem, that AGW is indeed real, but so tiny that it will be difficult to detect, so no actions need to be taken -- well, there really isn't any money for a further study of THAT inconvenient truth.

But the problem is not in using questionable political tactics in science, as objectionable as that may be. The real problem is that it certainly appears that many of the warmers believe that, if they DO manage to silence any critics, by making a lack of faith in AGW a felony, for instance, that somehow, when a "consensus" believes in AGW, that will make AGW real. You're getting delusional magical thinking in my science, and THAT is the big problem.

Science is our best tool to find out new stuff. When you screw with the process by, for example, ensuring that anyone with a paper which casts doubt on AGW never sees the light of day, you might "win" the politics of science, but we're not learning anything by "rooting" for AGW as if it were a sports team, and a crooked sports team at that. As a matter of fact, what with the changes of data, and the "lost" and destroyed data, we're moving backwards in the centers of climatology. We are losing information.


www.grouchyoldcripple.com
A warmer alarmist listens carefully to opposing views
 
2012-07-06 08:32:56 AM

GeneralJim: The fact that you are too stupid to understand a point does NOT make it a lie


The fact is people have taken the time to debunk your talking points literally dozens of times with evidence meticulously referenced to primary sources and yet you keep reposting these exact same talking points.

The first time you post something you are making an argument. Once you know they are not correct and you keep reposting them ... then they are lies and you are a liar.
 
2012-07-06 11:35:00 AM

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: "never before" and "unnatural" and "unprecedented" axis

[citation needed]

People say: The amount of CO2 produced by man is unprecedented.

People say: The amount of impact on climate that man is having is unprecedented.

Nobody claims that, over the 4.5+ billion years the earth has existed, the ocean levels have never been at this level or higher. That is ridiculous.

The fact is that the oceans have been much higher in the past just goes to show what will happen when the planet heats up enough. The issue here is the fact that this time man is generating the CO2 that is doing the heating over ~100 years ... instead of the Milankovitch cycles releasing CO2 and methane over tens of thousands of years.

This here is an example of another ridiculous straw-man from the green-threadshiatter. Take your lies elsewhere.

/take note deniers of the much higher quality derp that the green-threadshiatter produces over the pathetic attempts that you guys made.
//nobody lies as well as the General


People also say the speed of temperature rise is unprecedented but if you look at the temperature graph for just before 1850 there is a temperature rise of over half a degree from then (about 1820-30 or so) with the same gradient (speed) or greater than we have now. So natural heating can be as rapid as the heating we see now. Assertion is not proof.
 
2012-07-06 12:20:41 PM

GeneralJim: The fact that you are too stupid to understand a point does NOT make it a lie; more Dunning-Kreuger effect. It has been conclusively shown that changes in other GHG levels are compensated for by water vapor and clouds. And, it has been PROVEN, in the only field that has real proofs -- mathematics. PROOF HERE.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. LOL. That is the funniest thing you've said in a while... So now Miscolszi has 'mathematically proven' his ideas? In the same paper you've been touting for a while (but never before claiming was mathematical proof) - what, did you finally read it?

Maybe in a year or two you'll understand all the criticisms of that paper, and recognize that it's seriously flawed (in ways that have been pointed out to you hundreds of times).

Also, more mathematical proofs you might fall for -

I wouldn't take his investment advice either...

This should make *you* think
 
2012-07-06 06:59:23 PM
HighZoolander:
You'd have been much more convincing if you had supplied even one reference to solar magnetic activity being the cause of global warming, or for negative feedback for greenhouse gases, or even for your claim that the planet "started to warm in the 1970s".

They've been supplied literally dozens of times. WTF? Do you re-spawn at the beginning of every thread, with no memory of anything that went before? Actually, that WOULD explain a good deal of your behavior.

Anyway, HERE IS A GOOD EXPLANATION. It links to literally DOZENS of peer-reviewed articles.

And, are you seriously enough of a dick to argue that it did NOT start warming in the 1970s after a period of cooling? I think I've seen this before...

And, here's what I'm talking about.... note how the temperature drops from the early 1940s until the late 1970s, and then turns up.


www.paulmacrae.com


Of course, "more convincing" is relative, since someone would have to be insane to believe you in any case, but at least you could apply a thicker veneer of pseudo-scientification to your posts.

Really? Insane? Do you know what the wrong side of every debate has in common? They label the other side as insane or evil. And, with EVERY bit of scientific misconduct having taken place on the warmer alarmist side, one needn't even examine the science itself to know who is in the wrong here -- only those in the wrong, and KNOWINGLY in the wrong, feel the need to cheat.
Plus then we could figure out which particular reading comprehension failure you were displaying so magnificently.

Really? Speaking of reading comprehension, what about the temperatures dropping starting in the early 1940s and turning up in the late 1970s don't YOU understand?

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-06 07:13:22 PM
Farking Canuck:
You've been shown literally hundreds of times. You trot out your lies ... they are all meticulously debunked ... you flail around for a little while posting walls of green lies and occasionally insane world domination conspiracy theories ... then you repeat in the next thread. You care absolutly nothing about real evidence ... you've get all the 'evidence' you need from your anti-science blogs.

Your level of denial is prodigious. In case you haven't noticed, I present points with peer-reviewed science, and you counter with blog copypasta.

And, you don't understand the concept of debunking. Let me see if I can simplify it. I have a friend who believes that the Earth is hollow, has a sun in the middle of it, and that the inside is populated. I have proved to him, mathematically, that if that were the case, the people on the inside would fall into the sun, as the center of gravity would be the center of the sun in the center of the Earth... but it makes no impression. He has carefully explained his idea to me, and "proven me wrong" literally hundreds of times, just like you jackasses "prove" the peer-reviewed science "wrong" unless it supports your fraudulent, falsified hypothesis. Does his "proving" me wrong mean that there IS another sun inside the hollow Earth? Just as much as you jackasses spouting nonsense falsifies the peer-reviewed science I post.


i50.tinypic.com


But, to be fair to my friend, he DID have a parasitic worm infection, and they ate part of his brain. What's YOUR excuse?
 
2012-07-06 07:31:28 PM
HighZoolander:
psst - your conspiracy theory is showing!

Seriously - can't you keep your own bullshiat straight?

You know, I think you might actually be stupid enough to think something is a "conspiracy theory" when the perpetrators have ADMITTED what they were doing. I used to think you were just being a dick, and denying it because it weakens or destroys your case... but now...

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-06 07:38:24 PM
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: The fact that you are too stupid to understand a point does NOT make it a lie

The fact is people have taken the time to debunk your talking points literally dozens of times with evidence meticulously referenced to primary sources and yet you keep reposting these exact same talking points.

The first time you post something you are making an argument. Once you know they are not correct and you keep reposting them ... then they are lies and you are a liar.

Let me guess -- this does not apply when people prove YOUR bullshiat to be untrue, right?

All of AGW has been scientifically falsified. It has been proven, with evidence which will hold up in court, that both the NASA GISS and HADLEY CRU data sets have been altered by humans -- which ANYONE can observe by looking at the historical data NASA has released at various times. The IPCC has been routinely putting environmental activist literature into IPCC reports, and calling them "peer-reviewed" literature -- and routinely getting busted doing it. And, yet, you continue to spout that crap as if it were true. So, you are admitting that you are lying to support your case?

But, all YOU jackasses do is yell "NUH-UH" and post copypasta from the skepticalsciece blog. Throw that shiat out, it's old and busted, too.
 
2012-07-06 07:53:18 PM
HighZoolander:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. LOL. That is the funniest thing you've said in a while... So now Miscolszi has 'mathematically proven' his ideas? In the same paper you've been touting for a while (but never before claiming was mathematical proof) - what, did you finally read it?

Ah, yes, maniacal laughter... What a putz.

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math. And, dumbass, I have used this and similar phrases MANY times in the past couple years. I read Miscolszi's paper years ago; too bad about your brain damage.

Miscolszi's paper was out about five years before anyone responded to it. If it had a simple math error, it would have been noted immediately. And, I have not seen ANYTHING which proves Miscolszi wrong -- just people saying they disagree. If THAT is going to count, AGW is false because I disagree with the premises. Part of the reason you're an asshole is that you insist upon different rules for others than you are willing to accept for yourself. And, you do this in EVERYTHING: If I post something from a blog, that's a cause for derision. If a warmer posts something from a blog, it "debunks" peer-reviewed research. If I post peer-reviewed research, people say "it is full of errors a high school student wouldn't make," and other similar. If a warmer posts peer-reviewed literature, that's the be-all and end-all of the argument. A fact from long ago that you think supports AGW is "established." A fact from long ago that speaks against AGW is "outdated." You're a liar and a hypocrite -- which makes your position on the AGW side inevitable.
 
2012-07-06 07:59:21 PM
HighZoolander:
Also, more mathematical proofs you might fall for -

I wouldn't take his investment advice either...

This should make *you* think

You are equating bullshiat that starts with "So, if the theory of evolution is correct we should expect that 1 out of every 2 monkeys should give birth to a human" to a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper? I think I've discovered one of your many problems.
 
2012-07-06 10:06:16 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. LOL. That is the funniest thing you've said in a while... So now Miscolszi has 'mathematically proven' his ideas? In the same paper you've been touting for a while (but never before claiming was mathematical proof) - what, did you finally read it?
Ah, yes, maniacal laughter... What a putz.

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math. And, dumbass, I have used this and similar phrases MANY times in the past couple years. I read Miscolszi's paper years ago; too bad about your brain damage.

Miscolszi's paper was out about five years before anyone responded to it. If it had a simple math error, it would have been noted immediately. And, I have not seen ANYTHING which proves Miscolszi wrong -- just people saying they disagree. If THAT is going to count, AGW is false because I disagree with the premises. Part of the reason you're an asshole is that you insist upon different rules for others than you are willing to accept for yourself. And, you do this in EVERYTHING: If I post something from a blog, that's a cause for derision. If a warmer posts something from a blog, it "debunks" peer-reviewed research. If I post peer-reviewed research, people say "it is full of errors a high school student wouldn't make," and other similar. If a warmer posts peer-reviewed literature, that's the be-all and end-all of the argument. A fact from long ago that you think supports AGW is "established." A fact from long ago that speaks against AGW is "outdated." You're a liar and a hypocrite -- which makes your position on the AGW side inevitable.


Actually, it was noted immediately, that's one reason it has no credibility - except from you, who claims it's a mathematical proof as well established as a proof that the angles of triangle add to 180 degrees.

See point 1

Sounds like a simple math error to me.
 
2012-07-06 10:15:00 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Also, more mathematical proofs you might fall for -

I wouldn't take his investment advice either...

This should make *you* think
You are equating bullshiat that starts with "So, if the theory of evolution is correct we should expect that 1 out of every 2 monkeys should give birth to a human" to a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper? I think I've discovered one of your many problems.


Not exactly. It was really just a test to see if you understood the difference between a mathematical proof and bullshiat, since you failed to distinguish between proof and hypothesis/model in the case of Miskolszi's paper.

So congratulations! You get a D-

/keep it up, and maybe you'll get a B for effort.
 
2012-07-07 12:19:16 AM
HighZoolander:
See point 1

Sounds like a simple math error to me.

It was a mis-statement, and Miscolszi has acknowledged it. However, even Miscolszi's critics acknowledge that the error has no effect on the calculation of optical depth. Oh, and thanks for validating my claim that you believe a blog entry supersedes a peer-reviewed paper... as long as the blog supports your falsified hypothesis.

And, while it must be challenging to find someone whose continued funding depends upon AGW being a big problem in need of lots of research who is willing to speak against someone who just falsified the AGW hypothesis, lining up in teams is NOT how science is done. Science is done by comparing one's guesses against reality. And, just how are the predictions made by warmer alarmist "science" holding up? NOT SO WELL.

Actually, it looks like nearly EVERY prediction made by the environmental movement has turned out to be bollocks. Did you ever stop to think that lying about consequences to try to goad the public into action just might be the wrong approach?

So, by way of comparison, how does Miscolszi's prediction hold up to OBSERVATIONAL data, rather than model predictions? Miscolszi states that the temperature rise from doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the air (climate sensitivity or CS) would be between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. When a strictly observational study was done, the CS was determined to be 0.50 K to 1.10 K, at 95% certainty. THE STUDY.


sharetv.org
 
2012-07-07 02:38:28 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: See point 1

Sounds like a simple math error to me.
It was a mis-statement, and Miscolszi has acknowledged it. However, even Miscolszi's critics acknowledge that the error has no effect on the calculation of optical depth. Oh, and thanks for validating my claim that you believe a blog entry supersedes a peer-reviewed paper... as long as the blog supports your falsified hypothesis.

And, while it must be challenging to find someone whose continued funding depends upon AGW being a big problem in need of lots of research who is willing to speak against someone who just falsified the AGW hypothesis, lining up in teams is NOT how science is done. Science is done by comparing one's guesses against reality. And, just how are the predictions made by warmer alarmist "science" holding up? NOT SO WELL.

Actually, it looks like nearly EVERY prediction made by the environmental movement has turned out to be bollocks. Did you ever stop to think that lying about consequences to try to goad the public into action just might be the wrong approach?

So, by way of comparison, how does Miscolszi's prediction hold up to OBSERVATIONAL data, rather than model predictions? Miscolszi states that the temperature rise from doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the air (climate sensitivity or CS) would be between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. When a strictly observational study was done, the CS was determined to be 0.50 K to 1.10 K, at 95% certainty. THE STUDY.

[sharetv.org image 334x250]


Well then, it was completely honest of you to mention that error and its correction at the time you mentioned it was a "mathematical proof". Oh wait, you didn't.

I was just being lazy by posting the blog, but fine.

This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.

Back to the blogs, but this discussion was particularly negative - "[Miskolczi's article]...finds that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not change its spectroscopic properties - a conclusion violating the laws of physics"

The van Dorland and Forster paper linked there is a fun read, but I'm not sure it has been published anywhere else.

Since you care about 'not lining up in teams'- what do you have to say about the editor of the journal Miskolczi published in admitting that she was following a political agenda? Maybe you think it's ok when your team does it though.

Link


The Lindzen and Choi study you link to is interesting, but since their critics destroyed their earlier paper (and this paper is an attempt to address those criticisms), I'll wait to hear more about it before I draw any conclusions thanks.


btw, I spelled Miskolczi wrong earlier, and you've followed my error. I just wanted to point it out. We should probably spell his name right - well, particularly you, since you know his work so well and all.
 
2012-07-07 07:16:41 AM
HighZoolander:
btw, I spelled Miskolczi wrong earlier, and you've followed my error. I just wanted to point it out. We should probably spell his name right - well, particularly you, since you know his work so well and all.

Damn, you're a toxic little asshole. YOU make a mistake, I just clip his name out of your post and you give me shiat about it? Micsoda seggfej.
 
2012-07-07 07:21:41 AM
HighZoolander:
This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.

Well, la dee farking dah. Something in science is debatable? Imagine that. Of COURSE it's debatable. EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled." Hell, the latest go-around is questioning the character of the Big Bang, and it looks like they might even be right.
 
2012-07-07 07:42:51 AM
HighZoolander:
Well then, it was completely honest of you to mention that error and its correction at the time you mentioned it was a "mathematical proof". Oh wait, you didn't.

Oh, you must have missed the part where even his critics admit that the error in question has no effect on his calculation of optical depth.

Furthermore, Miskolczi calculated that CS would be between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. Observationally, the CS was determined to be 0.50 K to 1.10 K, at 95% certainty. Pretty freaking spot-on, wouldn't you say? Especially in light of the IPCC pants-wetting estimates in AR4, in the range of 2 to 4.5 K

Are you bright enough to note that the IPCC estimates of CS are off approximately as much, and in the same direction, as the predictions of the various GCMs that the IPCC uses? Do you also note that BOTH of these are well outside the error bars? Do you know what it means when measured reality falls (well!) outside the error bars for your calculations? It means that at least one of the basic assumptions you make about the behavior in question is incorrect.


cdn.indulgy.com
 
2012-07-07 08:22:52 AM
HighZoolander:
The Lindzen and Choi study you link to is interesting, but since their critics destroyed their earlier paper (and this paper is an attempt to address those criticisms), I'll wait to hear more about it before I draw any conclusions thanks.

In other words, you're going to wait until the skepticalscience blog has an attack on it prepared?

Their "error" was in not allowing a properly-timed average of data to allow for a full precession cycle of the satellite. The only result of that is more noise than is necessary on the signal. And it doesn't change the results appreciably, only the error bars.

So, if this is "destroying" a paper, what's your take on Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which the graphing program does not accurately graph the data? Did that squicking he took over that count as having it "destroyed?"
 
2012-07-07 12:02:01 PM

GeneralJim: Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."


GeneralJim:
sharetv.org


You were saying?
 
2012-07-07 12:15:38 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.
Well, la dee farking dah. Something in science is debatable? Imagine that. Of COURSE it's debatable. EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled." Hell, the latest go-around is questioning the character of the Big Bang, and it looks like they might even be right.


I think you should focus more there on the 'untenable physics' - if your model violates the laws of physics, it's wrong.

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: The Lindzen and Choi study you link to is interesting, but since their critics destroyed their earlier paper (and this paper is an attempt to address those criticisms), I'll wait to hear more about it before I draw any conclusions thanks.
In other words, you're going to wait until the skepticalscience blog has an attack on it prepared?

Their "error" was in not allowing a properly-timed average of data to allow for a full precession cycle of the satellite. The only result of that is more noise than is necessary on the signal. And it doesn't change the results appreciably, only the error bars.

So, if this is "destroying" a paper, what's your take on Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which the graphing program does not accurately graph the data? Did that squicking he took over that count as having it "destroyed?"


No, I meant that I'll wait for his critics to weigh in again. No less than 3 papers took his earlier work to task. The first paragraph of the paper you link to explains all that. It's great for them that they found the same result with their new study, but I'm not expert enough to know whether they introduced new problems or not.

As I'm sure you would agree, this paper, despite your game show graphic, will not be the last word on the subject.

Even if Michael Mann's paper was destroyed as you say (I'm too lazy to look, but I'll pretend you're right), that result has been independently confirmed many times. Much more than once. Surely you remember the physicist funded in part by the Koch brothers who set out to disprove it, only to end up confirming it?

Where is your enthusiasm for those results?

Oh wait, they don't fit your pre-existing conspiracy theorist worldview, so of course you will use any excuse to discredit them.

Try to have a shred of objectivity next time, mmmkay?
 
2012-07-07 08:27:25 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."

GeneralJim:
[sharetv.org image 334x250]
Disapointment

You were saying?

You know, at this point, it doesn't even surprise me that you don't know the difference between falsifying a hypothesis, and saying that we know everything about a subject. I'll bet you even thought your response was clever.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-07 09:04:10 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: HighZoolander: This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.

Well, la dee farking dah. Something in science is debatable? Imagine that. Of COURSE it's debatable. EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled." Hell, the latest go-around is questioning the character of the Big Bang, and it looks like they might even be right.

I think you should focus more there on the 'untenable physics' - if your model violates the laws of physics, it's wrong.

Oh, really? You mean, if you have a hypothesis that would violate the widely-accepted theory of parity, it's wrong? Someone was in that position, with weak interactions, and it turns out that reality violated parity. This meant that parity was wrong. Reality trumps ANY theory or hypothesis. That's one of you warmer alarmists' biggest problems -- you don't seem to get that you can't simply dismiss or change data if it doesn't agree with your hypothesis. Well, I suppose you CAN, but then what you're doing is not science, but some form of politics or religion.

BOTH the warmer alarmists, and the observational scientists have hypotheses. Miskolczi's hypothesis is backed up by measurements to an astonishing degree. AGW panic is falsified, AT EVERY INSTANCE by reality. You're fighting a losing battle... well, no, the battle is already lost. But, for some reason, you keep thumping on the corpse's chest, and telling us it's going to go for a walk. I have seen this behavior before.


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-07 09:10:21 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: HighZoolander: The Lindzen and Choi study you link to is interesting, but since their critics destroyed their earlier paper (and this paper is an attempt to address those criticisms), I'll wait to hear more about it before I draw any conclusions thanks.

In other words, you're going to wait until the skepticalscience blog has an attack on it prepared?

Their "error" was in not allowing a properly-timed average of data to allow for a full precession cycle of the satellite. The only result of that is more noise than is necessary on the signal. And it doesn't change the results appreciably, only the error bars.

So, if this is "destroying" a paper, what's your take on Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which the graphing program does not accurately graph the data? Did that squicking he took over that count as having it "destroyed?"


No, I meant that I'll wait for his critics to weigh in again. No less than 3 papers took his earlier work to task. The first paragraph of the paper you link to explains all that. It's great for them that they found the same result with their new study, but I'm not expert enough to know whether they introduced new problems or not.

Well, it only goes to show that a scientist's life is a lot easier if one keeps one's methods secret, and refuse to release one's data. Lindzen and Choi should have taken a lesson from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. If they had refused to release their data and methodologies, then nobody could have found a problem for them to fix.
 
2012-07-07 09:39:58 PM
HighZoolander:
As I'm sure you would agree, this paper, despite your game show graphic, will not be the last word on the subject.

No, of course not. Again, anyone saying we know all we need to know about a mathematically chaotic system is clearly retarded. But, lest you repeat your previous mistakes (NEW mistakes amuse me) there is nothing that says a hypothesis cannot be shot down, like the alarmist version of AGW has been. New facts will be discovered, and new hypotheses developed to account for those new facts. And, most of THOSE hypotheses will be shot down as well. That's how science works. With everyone gunning at them, those hypotheses which survive are probably the truth, to the extent we know it.

Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.


cdn.cyclingforums.com


Even if Michael Mann's paper was destroyed as you say (I'm too lazy to look, but I'll pretend you're right), that result has been independently confirmed many times. Much more than once. Surely you remember the physicist funded in part by the Koch brothers who set out to disprove it, only to end up confirming it?

Mann's work WAS confirmed -- but only by Mann. And he had to get Keith Briffa to create a phony tree-ring study, and then over-weight THAT study to get it to work.... but, I guess that is TECHNICALLY correct.


Where is your enthusiasm for those results?

That was utterly debunked -- and by that, I mean shown to be a lie -- right after it was released. Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, made claims about the B.E.S.T. study which the data of the study itself proved to be a lie. Slick, very slick. An article describing his dishonesty, and his being called out on it by his main collaborator, Judith Curry, is HERE.

See? It's not the Koch brothers; Muller was clearly corrupted by environmental activist groups. (But I KNOW you love the Koch.)

So, yes, that IS about on a par with the rest of the warmer science hoax: Lie and predict terrible consequences in the future. When caught, do some combination of lying more, predicting even MORE dire consequences, and moving the timetable up. Eventually, people are no longer scared by the phony bullshiat.


i68.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-07 10:02:46 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."

GeneralJim:
[sharetv.org image 334x250]
Disapointment

You were saying?
You know, at this point, it doesn't even surprise me that you don't know the difference between falsifying a hypothesis, and saying that we know everything about a subject. I'll bet you even thought your response was clever.

[i46.tinypic.com image 576x447]


Nice dodge there. You clearly suggested that the study you linked to had settled the issue. Or does "game over" mean "let's keep playing" to you?

Now you're saying that 'game over' means 'falsified a hypothesis' and 'settled' means 'know everything about a subject'.

I don't know what language you're speaking, but it sure as hell isn't English.

/also, for some mysterious reason you spelled 'disappointment' wrong when you inserted it into the text of mine you were quoting.
 
2012-07-07 10:09:48 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: The Lindzen and Choi study you link to is interesting, but since their critics destroyed their earlier paper (and this paper is an attempt to address those criticisms), I'll wait to hear more about it before I draw any conclusions thanks.

In other words, you're going to wait until the skepticalscience blog has an attack on it prepared?

Their "error" was in not allowing a properly-timed average of data to allow for a full precession cycle of the satellite. The only result of that is more noise than is necessary on the signal. And it doesn't change the results appreciably, only the error bars.

So, if this is "destroying" a paper, what's your take on Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which the graphing program does not accurately graph the data? Did that squicking he took over that count as having it "destroyed?"

No, I meant that I'll wait for his critics to weigh in again. No less than 3 papers took his earlier work to task. The first paragraph of the paper you link to explains all that. It's great for them that they found the same result with their new study, but I'm not expert enough to know whether they introduced new problems or not.
Well, it only goes to show that a scientist's life is a lot easier if one keeps one's methods secret, and refuse to release one's data. Lindzen and Choi should have taken a lesson from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. If they had refused to release their data and methodologies, then nobody could have found a problem for them to fix.


So what you're saying is that Lindzen and Choi should have deliberately obscured their research methods, so that no one would call them out on the problems with it.

Why am I not surprised that you would advocate an unethical approach to science. Is that what you've learned from the Urantia book? You should be ashamed of that statement.

Listen you gigantic bag of fail, there is no evidence anywhere at all that Mann and Jones hid their data or methods, and so no basis to suggest that they could be the kind of negative role model you want Lindzen and Choi to follow.

It's to their credit (Lindzen and Choi's) that they are openly engaging with their critics in this fashion.
 
2012-07-07 10:36:55 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: This commentary is meant to show that several relationships derived in Miskolczi (2007) are debatable and, in my opinion, based on untenable physics.

Well, la dee farking dah. Something in science is debatable? Imagine that. Of COURSE it's debatable. EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled." Hell, the latest go-around is questioning the character of the Big Bang, and it looks like they might even be right.

I think you should focus more there on the 'untenable physics' - if your model violates the laws of physics, it's wrong.
Oh, really? You mean, if you have a hypothesis that would violate the widely-accepted theory of parity, it's wrong? Someone was in that position, with weak interactions, and it turns out that reality violated parity. This meant that parity was wrong. Reality trumps ANY theory or hypothesis. That's one of you warmer alarmists' biggest problems -- you don't seem to get that you can't simply dismiss or change data if it doesn't agree with your hypothesis. Well, I suppose you CAN, but then what you're doing is not science, but some form of politics or religion.

BOTH the warmer alarmists, and the observational scientists have hypotheses. Miskolczi's hypothesis is backed up by measurements to an astonishing degree. AGW panic is falsified, AT EVERY INSTANCE by reality. You're fighting a losing battle... well, no, the battle is already lost. But, for some reason, you keep thumping on the corpse's chest, and telling us it's going to go for a walk. I have seen this behavior before.

[i45.tinypic.com image 609x537]


What you're missing here, and really missing, is that interpretation of data is never as clear cut as you want to make it.

According to you, the data for faster than light neutrinos that made the news recently is reality that falsifies Einstein's theories. Which is total bullshiat. There was an explanation for the observations (equipment malfunction/error). Observations are not infallible. Sometimes we never figure out what went wrong with them, but they are nevertheless spurious (you don't jettison working theories for observations that make no sense - if eventually they do start to make sense, and the old observations that the old theories accounted for also still make sense with the new theory, then fine, progress. If not, then who gives a shiat).

What you don't ever seem to grasp is that reality, particularly in complex scientific experiments, does not ever just jump out and say LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME. What you're claiming to be 'reality' is never that simple. Before you can claim that your theory matches your data to 12 decimal places, you need to make sure that your theory is right, and that your data is right. If either or both are wrong, then your decimal precision means squat.

Check out the van Dorland and Forster paper I mentioned above (the linked blog has a link to the paper, click on "who wrote" after their names) - they claim that his observations don't match his theory as well as he claims they do.

Now sure, you can disagree with them, you can accept that there is a dispute, a difference of opinion or of interpretation, or whatever.

But what you've done is claim that Miskolczi = MATHEMATICAL PROOF and the supposed match between his theory and his data = REALITY. All of which is complete farking horseshiat. And you should know better than to make absolute claims like that.

I'm surprised you failed to grasp what 'mathematical proof' means, that's an easy one. I'm less surprised that you're failing to grasp how an interpretation of reality is based on data, but you are.
 
2012-07-07 10:43:59 PM

GeneralJim: That was utterly debunked -- and by that, I mean shown to be a lie -- right after it was released. Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, made claims about the B.E.S.T. study which the data of the study itself proved to be a lie. Slick, very slick. An article describing his dishonesty, and his being called out on it by his main collaborator, Judith Curry, is HERE.


I don't know the story here, and I'm too lazy to care at this point, but I'll say two things.

First, I'd believe you before I believe anything printed in the Daily Mail - seriously (and that's not a compliment - it's a statement of how pathetic the Daily Mail is). If that's your source for these claims, get a grip, come back to the real world.

Second, without really knowing the story there I really can't comment. So if you have a better source for this story, have at it.
 
2012-07-07 11:25:48 PM
HighZoolander:
Nice dodge there. You clearly suggested that the study you linked to had settled the issue. Or does "game over" mean "let's keep playing" to you?

"Dodge?" Seriously? You don't get it after ALL of this. Okay, I'll try to go BELOW a grade one level...

"Game Over" refers to the alarmist AGW hypothesis. IT IS FALSIFIED.

I don't care if sub-par knuckle-draggers, and/or paid shills don't get it, it has been disproved. Falsified. It's kaput. It means bupkis. Get it? That theory (the models) made predictions that are several times outside the error bars. The planet is telling you that you are wrong. That is the END OF THE STORY for this busted, falsified, just-plain-wrong hypothesis. Scientists made a reasonable guess, but it turned out to be wrong. That's okay, that's how science works. It just means that you need a NEW hypothesis.

What is NOT okay, is that ignorant anti-science types, like you, insist on KEEPING the corpse of AGW around, and trying to resuscitate it. That is NOT how science works. "Backing your team no matter what" is somewhat questionable anywhere it is used, but it's simply WRONG to do that in science. The objective in science is to LEARN how things work, not try to bully them into working how you want them to work.

When you cling to a falsified hypothesis, and deny its falsification, you are behaving EXACTLY as the anti-vaxxers (or vaxxers) behave. They had a hypothesis, that vaccines cause autism. Just like climatologists had a hypothesis, that carbon dioxide increases were causing the warming of the planet, and by a significant account. Both of these hypotheses were supported by lying researchers. And, in both cases "the faithful" STILL believe in the hypothesis, long after it has been falsified.

The DIFFERENCE between the two positions is that lots of governmental units back the AGW hypothesis, and governments DON'T support the "vaccines cause autism" hypothesis. For one reason, there's no way to institute a massive tax for stopping the use of vaccines. So, research funding flooded into climatology, multiplying the money in that field TWENTY TIMES. Now, if a climate scientist says "AGW is bollocks, people aren't making a significant difference by their carbon dioxide emissions," he is, in essence, saying "Please cut the funding to my field of study by 95%."

Okay, that's the falsified hypothesis. Got that?

Now, the field of climatology, normally, would simply have moved past AGW, and started developing new hypotheses, and dealing with trying to prove THOSE wrong. Most of them likely would be wrong. But, the learning in the field never stops. When I say that "the science is settled" is retarded, it means that we will NEVER know everything about climate, and if we ever start to think that we DO, it's time to start with the basics, and question everything again.

CLIMATOLOGY will never be "settled." But an individual hypothesis, like AGW, can, and in this case, HAS been falsified. That is "game over" for AGW, but climatology isn't "settled," Those who said it was generally don't want people to learn more, because they like the current ideas, and can somehow make a buck off of them... Like Al Gore. As long as AGW was a reasonable hypothesis, he could make money talking about it, and selling carbon credits, and so on. Once it's falsified, his gravy train is derailed, and he just looks stupid, AGAIN. He's a big failure in yet another field.

Get it? A field of science can never be "settled," but a single hypothesis can be falsified, and be done with, as in "game over."

And, I hope you get it this time. I honestly don't think I can dumb it down any further, and even more repetitions than I have here probably won't help, either.
 
2012-07-07 11:30:53 PM

GeneralJim: I don't care if sub-par knuckle-draggers, and/or paid shills don't get it, it has been disproved. Falsified. It's kaput. It means bupkis.


GeneralJim: Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."


bolded for truth
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report