Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Register)   Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming, only CO2 can save us. Norway that's happening, man. Norway   (theregister.co.uk ) divider line 151
    More: Unlikely, carbon dioxide, Swedish, ice ages, Little Ice Age, warm period, University of Gothenburg, atmospheric carbon dioxide, quiet period  
•       •       •

2874 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Nov 2012 at 7:34 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-10 06:51:12 PM  
Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming

The sun's zooming in;
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin?

/i live by the river
 
2012-11-10 06:51:55 PM  
someone needs to double check their math
 
2012-11-10 07:06:07 PM  
perhaps explaining why temperatures have been merely flat for the last 15 years or so, rather than descending.

Aaaaaaaaannd flaming bullshiat.
 
2012-11-10 07:16:54 PM  

RodneyToady: Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming

The sun's zooming in;
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin?

/i live by the river


Nice catch.
 
2012-11-10 07:40:52 PM  
"CO2, save us. You're our only hope."
www.pocobor.com
 
2012-11-10 07:48:50 PM  
That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.
 
2012-11-10 08:00:21 PM  
FTMFA: The scientists have calculated that the potential is there for Swedish peatlands to triple in extent, enormously increasing their carbon sink effect. By extrapolating to include the rest of the world's high-latitude temperate areas - the parts of the globe where peatland can expand as it does in Sweden - they project the creation of an extremely powerful carbon sink.

The CO2-sink effect of peatlands is real, but it's not restricted to those in high latitudes, and peatlands worldwide are on the decline as they are harvested for fuel and drained for development.

2/10

Nevertheless, this argument will soon "go green."
 
2012-11-10 08:02:20 PM  
Norway, Swedish scientists, you're Finnished.
 
2012-11-10 08:07:55 PM  

Dorf11: Norway, Swedish scientists, you're Finnished.


You would doom them to live in an Iceland?
 
2012-11-10 08:16:29 PM  
The effects of carbon dioxide level changes on planetary temperature are negligible. We'll need a better "savior" than that.
The ice age (technically, a major glaciation) IS coming - probably in about 1500 years.
 
2012-11-10 08:17:00 PM  
Re: peat
 
2012-11-10 08:22:20 PM  
malaktaus
That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.

It is roughly a 110,000 year cycle, but only 10-20 thousand of that is interglacial, like now. MOST of the time spent in a geological ice age is spent in a colloquial ice age. Until the planet warms up, after we leave the galactic arm, we will be in a cycle like this.
 
2012-11-10 08:24:40 PM  
I'm looking forward to a calm, reasonable and polite discussion on this topic.
 
2012-11-10 08:24:50 PM  
Do your part. Hyperventilate.
 
2012-11-10 08:26:05 PM  
Working to solve the graph shortage:

4.bp.blogspot.com

 
2012-11-10 08:40:03 PM  
Just more scientists trying to push the obvious lie that CO2 has any impact at all on the climate. Amirite, my republican brethren?
 
2012-11-10 08:40:51 PM  
Bah. Repeat from 1977:

www.kiwiblog.co.nz
 
2012-11-10 08:42:35 PM  
Hey look it's Mr. Special Green Text, now with more out of context and cropped graphs!
 
2012-11-10 08:42:58 PM  

untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]


Fake.
 
2012-11-10 08:44:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.


No, really?

bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2012-11-10 08:45:08 PM  

untaken_name: LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.

No, really?

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 452x339]


What can I say? GW deniers still try to pull this one over on people.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:54 PM  

GeneralJim: The effects of carbon dioxide level changes on planetary temperature are negligible. We'll need a better "savior" than that.
The ice age (technically, a major glaciation) IS coming - probably in about 1500 years.



And Romney will win the popular vote, 54.5% to 45.5%. Right?

Your problem is that you believe in data that fits your preconceptions rather than reality.


GeneralJim: Working to solve the graph shortage:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 570x475]



And no matter how many times you've been shown that your data and/or your interpretation of it is wrong, you persist in saying the same old things in the same old way.

These two things aren't unrelated. When will you learn that reality isn't something that adjusts to your wishes?
 
2012-11-10 08:59:44 PM  
Good, I'd like it to bloody snow for once like when I was a kid.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:31 PM  

Kazan: someone needs to double check their math


Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?
 
2012-11-10 09:05:29 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: LouDobbsAwaaaay: untaken_name: Bah. Repeat from 1977:

[www.kiwiblog.co.nz image 299x400]

Fake.

No, really?

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 452x339]

What can I say? GW deniers still try to pull this one over on people.


Tsk. You should capitalize the "D." As in" "LOOK! Over there! A nest of Global Warming Deniers! STONE THEM! PUT THEM IN REEDUCATION CAMPS!"

See? That is SO much more effective.
 
2012-11-10 09:06:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


Religious people scare me.
 
2012-11-10 09:12:08 PM  
I'll take the word of a non scientist over a real scientist any day
 
2012-11-10 09:25:58 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?



All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.
 
2012-11-10 09:52:56 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?


It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?
 
2012-11-10 10:02:19 PM  
it's too early for an ice age, we don't have a country in space
or flying ramjet space craft either

I'm not looking to rescuing angels off the ice
 
2012-11-10 10:15:14 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.


precisely.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


i'm an earth sciences nerd, and i CAN farkING READ AND DO BASIC MATH.
 
2012-11-10 10:16:42 PM  
Didn't Niven and Pournelle write about this one?

i43.tower.com
 
2012-11-10 10:17:35 PM  

untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.


People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.
 
2012-11-10 10:19:17 PM  

Kazan: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?


All you have to do is read the article. They looked at expanding peatlands in Norway and extrapolated that trend while ignoring the global data, which shows that peatlands are actually shrinking on a global basis. Not only is the CO2 sink getting smaller, but burning peat is an active contributor to atmospheric CO2, so what's presented as a potential offset to warming (changes in peatland area) is in reality a twofold contributor.

The basic facts in the article are correct (peatlands do act as CO2 sinks, and they are expanding in Norway). Unfortunately, the extrapolated conclusion (expanding peatlands will suck up enough CO2 to trigger a new glaciation) is contradicted by other basic facts which are conveniently left unmentioned.

precisely.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

i'm an earth sciences nerd, and i CAN farkING READ AND DO BASIC MATH.


I'm sure you can. But did you gather and enterpet the data yourself?
 
2012-11-10 10:20:47 PM  

RedVentrue: People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.


That's what I said. Religious people scare me.
 
2012-11-10 10:25:46 PM  

RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.



People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.
 
2012-11-10 10:54:04 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.


What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.
 
2012-11-10 11:02:47 PM  

RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.


*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.
 
2012-11-10 11:24:02 PM  

Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.


The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?
 
2012-11-10 11:28:09 PM  

RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?


*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.
 
2012-11-10 11:30:05 PM  
I'd rather it got warmer instead of colder. Warmer means we have more arable land. Colder means we start having problems feeding everyone.

Climates going to change. That's why it's climate
 
2012-11-10 11:51:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?


Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.
 
2012-11-10 11:51:30 PM  

RedVentrue: Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.

The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?



Link to an explanation (original sources included).

The periodic temperature spikes observed in the ice-core data are driven by Earth's rotational and orbital cycles, but their effect is greatly amplified by the CO2 released as a result. It's a two-stage process: Changes in Earth's rotation and orbit have a modest effect on temperature and CO2; the increased CO2 then triggers more significant additional warming of its own. As noted in the link, this initial CO2 lag and subsequent amplification was first predicted over 20 years ago.

This isn't some new discovery disproving the old global-warming paradigm, it's a handful of feathers and lube from the Politics tab.
 
2012-11-10 11:54:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.


???? So concern about the unintended consequences of fanatical meddling to "fix" something that has not yet been proven all of a sudden = fundamentalist religious belief? Really? Really?
 
2012-11-10 11:55:29 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?

Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.



Three percent of climatologists are GW religious fanatics (whatever the fark they are)?
 
2012-11-11 12:02:47 AM  

RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.


THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.
 
2012-11-11 12:06:18 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

???? So concern about the unintended consequences of fanatical meddling to "fix" something that has not yet been proven all of a sudden = fundamentalist religious belief? Really? Really?



Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?
 
2012-11-11 12:10:21 AM  

Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.


>>>>the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption

You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics
 
2012-11-11 12:15:08 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?

Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.


Three percent of climatologists are GW religious fanatics (whatever the fark they are)?


I used the term "religious fanatics" because the most vocal GW Believers have a religious intensity to their beliefs and - like Xian/Islamic fundies - quickly resort to personal attack and demonization of those that refuse to march in lockstep with their pronouncements.
 
2012-11-11 12:16:26 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics


as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

You refuse to agree that reality is reality. Until such a time that you join the real world we can hold no meaningful conversation. Good day, sir.
 
2012-11-11 12:17:49 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.


Bullshiat.
 
2012-11-11 12:25:40 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.

>>>>the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption

You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics



The urban heat island effect has been duly noted and accounted for.

Link

Of course, the deniers scream that the data has now been tampered with...
 
2012-11-11 12:29:32 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When did you get your degree in Global Warming science?

It's called 'climatology'. Do you go to the dentist and demand to see a tooth-doctor?

Well.... except for the inconvenient fact that not 100% of all climatologists agree that global warming even exists. I was making the distinction between those climatologists and the GW religious fanatics.


Three percent of climatologists are GW religious fanatics (whatever the fark they are)?

I used the term "religious fanatics" because the most vocal GW Believers have a religious intensity to their beliefs and - like Xian/Islamic fundies - quickly resort to personal attack and demonization of those that refuse to march in lockstep with their pronouncements.



So do the deniers, as anyone familiar with these threads is well aware.
 
2012-11-11 12:31:19 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

???? So concern about the unintended consequences of fanatical meddling to "fix" something that has not yet been proven all of a sudden = fundamentalist religious belief? Really? Really?


Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?


Since I don't believe in any sort of God that actually takes an active interest in what we do, no I'm not. I'm merely skeptical of scientific claims put forward in a manner and argumentative language more suitable to snake oil salesmen from the old Wild Wild West. It's really not difficult for me to tell when a person is lying and/or trying to convince themselves; it's a gift I've cultivated for many years.

The occasional crap that surfaces, such as pictures of temperature sensors right next to A/C vents, and the Memogate info that came forth regarding "adjusted" climate data, contribute to my skepticism.

Next, I'm always suspicious of anyone who in effect says "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! DON'T THINK, THERE'S NO TIME, JUST DEMAND THAT YOUR LEADERS DISMANTLE THE ECONOMY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!" Sounds waaaaaay too much like a used car saleman trying to get me to buy his clunker "BEFORE SOMEO0NE ELSE DOES!"

Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?
 
2012-11-11 12:34:56 AM  
I love science, or more correctly, the OCD level drive of scientists to prove other scientists wrong. The guys who published this will know what it's like to be roasted in the belly of the Solr, I'll tell you.
 
2012-11-11 12:35:32 AM  
"Slor"
 
2012-11-11 12:38:41 AM  

Kazan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics

as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

You refuse to agree that reality is reality. Until such a time that you join the real world we can hold no meaningful conversation. Good day, sir.


What is it about those pictures that you do not understand? Hell, I can personally show you a temperature station right here in OC at the UCI/DA Agricultural Station in Irvine that is directly in line with the hot air stream from the building's A/C unit!

>>>>>as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

No, I am not. Unless, of course, you are referring to the conspiracy of my own lying eyes compared to the frantic arguments of GW fanatics.

Typical run-and-hide tactics on your part. Throw out an ad hominem label, hoist your little elitist nose into the air and proclaim that I'm reality-challenged, and run away. LOL!

OK, if those pictures are not real, then what are they? What did I see at the UCI/DA station? Was I hallucinating? Are you going to answer, or slink away back under your rock?

Waiting...... (crickets)
 
2012-11-11 12:45:10 AM  
Just Another OC Homeless Guy

the only person here showing signs of fanaticism is you, which is why i have no time for you.

I'm off to play computer games, something that isn't a complete waste of my time :D
 
2012-11-11 12:46:04 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.

Bullshiat.


Not really. The paragraphs you're thinking of are probably these:

"It is not just environmental activists. Many scientists also have profound concerns about the safety of geoengineering. Tim Palmer, of Oxford University, told New Scientist recently that, according to climate change models, any form of sunshade has the potential to bring famine to billions - or ''turn the Amazon to desert''. Indeed, when proposals to deliberately alter the planet - to terraform Earth back to its pre-industrial state - were first aired, there was a horrified reaction from many researchers.

In 2008, Professor Alan Robock, from Rutgers University in New Jersey, wrote a paper in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled Twenty reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. The potential dangers, Robock pointed out, include marine acidification, ozone depletion, human error and military use of ''weather control'' technology.

''I don't think geoengineering is a solution,'' he now says. ''If solar radiation management could be implemented - it is an imaginary, unproven technology - it could produce benefits and risks, and we do not know whether the benefits would outweigh the risks.''"

What's not pointed out is that the results could be monitored and if they started to look pear shaped you FOLD UP THE GODDAMNED SUNSHADE. Done! The world returns to the way it was!

Now things like putting plankton, or iron filings, or other assorted things in the oceans... that is a couple of orders of magnitude up on the "ooops" scale. Once you do it, you're stuck with it.
 
2012-11-11 12:51:45 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Since I don't believe in any sort of God that actually takes an active interest in what we do, no I'm not. I'm merely skeptical of scientific claims put forward in a manner and argumentative language more suitable to snake oil salesmen from the old Wild Wild West. It's really not difficult for me to tell when a person is lying and/or trying to convince themselves; it's a gift I've cultivated for many years.

The occasional crap that surfaces, such as pictures of temperature sensors right next to A/C vents, and the Memogate info that came forth regarding "adjusted" climate data, contribute to my skepticism.

Next, I'm always suspicious of anyone who in effect says "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! DON'T THINK, THERE'S NO TIME, JUST DEMAND THAT YOUR LEADERS DISMANTLE THE ECONOMY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!" Sounds waaaaaay too much like a used car saleman trying to get me to buy his clunker "BEFORE SOMEO0NE ELSE DOES!"

Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.
Because lacking a 4 billion year time series has always been a reason we can't get accurate data over a longitudinal series of measurements.
Because there weren't several authoritative bodies that examined the memos you speak of and found no actual malfeasance or wrongdoing.
Because no economist has ever studied the economic costs and effects of global warming and compared them to the costs and effects of preventative measures.
Because pragmatic attempts to correct a serious problem are exactly the same as dismantling the economy.

This is how I know you're living in the echo chamber. Because you are claiming all of these things, and they are all not just bullshiat, but factually incorrect, easily disproven bullshiat that a modicum of research would reveal to be bullshiat. Instead, I am sure you spent a long time digging through various blog sites to find the talking points that agree with your preconceptions, rather than actually studying what the best scientific and economic consensus that humanity can provide concluded.

Wake up and smell the coffee. There's no conspiracy. There's no grand malicious attempt to subvert the economy or academia. There's just complicated climate science being done by climate scientists who had to work long and hard to tease out comprehensible and reliable data and conclusions from that data, and a bunch of shills for the vested interests covering their asses in order to milk as much money out of fossil fuels as posible for as long as possible by trying to confuse the matter.
 
2012-11-11 12:57:42 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy

the only person here showing signs of fanaticism is you, which is why i have no time for you.

I'm off to play computer games, something that isn't a complete waste of my time :D

LOL! Run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away .......


How utterly childish. Your arguments get curbstomped by factual rebuttals, so you whine and cry and make shiat up, pull up tired and debunked talking points, and when someone tells you you're full of shiat and not worth talking to, you claim victory.

What are you, 12? Grow the fark up.
 
2012-11-11 01:02:38 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?


Since I don't believe in any sort of God that actually takes an active interest in what we do, no I'm not. I'm merely skeptical of scientific claims put forward in a manner and argumentative language more suitable to snake oil salesmen from the old Wild Wild West. It's really not difficult for me to tell when a person is lying and/or trying to convince themselves; it's a gift I've cultivated for many years.

The occasional crap that surfaces, such as pictures of temperature sensors right next to A/C vents, and the Memogate info that came forth regarding "adjusted" climate data, contribute to my skepticism.



See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link

Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.


Next, I'm always suspicious of anyone who in effect says "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! DON'T THINK, THERE'S NO TIME, JUST DEMAND THAT YOUR LEADERS DISMANTLE THE ECONOMY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!" Sounds waaaaaay too much like a used car saleman trying to get me to buy his clunker "BEFORE SOMEO0NE ELSE DOES!"


That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.


Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?
 
2012-11-11 01:04:06 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: RedVentrue: What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

*rolleyes*

no, global warming is not "a guess based on unproven assumptions." only someone truly ignorant would say that (note I said ignorant, not crazy).

the thermal insulating properties (in regards to radiative cooling) are not an unproven assumption
the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial era is not an unproven assumption
the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic temperature record is not an unproven assumption
the geologic CO2 record is not an unproven assumption
basic math is not an unproven assumption
basic chemistry is not an unproven assumption.

The fix (use energy sources that are carbon neutral) is not worse than the problem - numerous economic analysis have shown this. The only people harmed by switching away from fossil fuels is fossil fuel producers. stop listening to FUD.

>>>>the instrumental temperature record is not an unproven assumption

You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics


The urban heat island effect has been duly noted and accounted for.

Link

Of course, the deniers scream that the data has now been tampered with...


Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.

That's the East Anglia code. Hopefully there are other models being used now that are better written.
 
2012-11-11 01:06:23 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.

That's the East Anglia code. Hopefully there are other models being used now that are better written.


There are about 5 or 6 major data sets used for analysis, all collected independently, and they all agree with each other to a very high degree.
 
2012-11-11 01:08:17 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: RedVentrue: untaken_name: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: someone needs to double check their math

Really? When did you get your degree in Global Warming science? They are scientists; are you?

Religious people scare me.

People who want to fark up the planet over an unproven belief system scare me.

When you have another Earth to use in a double blind study, I'll believe the results. One data point does not a study make.


People who want to despoil the planet because God won't let bad things happen scare me, too.

What gets me is we don't really know what's going to happen. It's all a giant guess based on unproven assumptions. The cure may be worse that the disease.

THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.

Bullshiat.

Not really. The paragraphs you're thinking of are probably these:

"It is not just environmental activists. Many scientists also have profound concerns about the safety of geoengineering. Tim Palmer, of Oxford University, told New Scientist recently that, according to climate change models, any form of sunshade has the potential to bring famine to billions - or ''turn the Amazon to desert''. Indeed, when proposals to deliberately alter the planet - to terraform Earth back to its pre-industrial state - were first aired, there was a horrified reaction from many researchers.

In 2008, Professor Alan Robock, from Rutgers University in New Jersey, wrote a paper in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled Tw ...


What I was responding to was your statement that the idea of orbital mirrors had been dismissed, that "not another peep was heard." My link was to an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald, showing that the discussion is alive and well.
 
2012-11-11 01:31:53 AM  

CujoQuarrel: I'd rather it got warmer instead of colder. Warmer means we have more arable land. Colder means we start having problems feeding everyone.

Climates going to change. That's why it's climate


not true
it is completely unknown what warmer would mean. assume no rise in sea level, so no lost land.
warmer changes the weather. who knows where and how much new desert there would be ...
 
2012-11-11 01:37:35 AM  

malaktaus: That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.


um
dood
you got this completely wrong
Link
the temp PEAKS are 100k year apart, we have been in one of those peaks for 13k years now.
time to start sliding down that slope.

strangely enough, each of those peaks also represent peaks of co2.
not saying that the ice age is coming, but it is coming ....
no one has a farking clue when, almost certainly not in our lifetime.

BUT
2 mile time machine .... great book by the people who counted the farking layers of snow in the ice cores. THESE are teh people who KNOW, and they will tell you, they have no clue.
It could be MUCH MUCH faster than anyone would suspect. and if could yo-yo so fast that your head would explode.

seriously fun book to read
 
2012-11-11 02:02:30 AM  

namatad: CujoQuarrel: I'd rather it got warmer instead of colder. Warmer means we have more arable land. Colder means we start having problems feeding everyone.

Climates going to change. That's why it's climate

not true
it is completely unknown what warmer would mean. assume no rise in sea level, so no lost land.
warmer changes the weather. who knows where and how much new desert there would be ...


I'm thinking large parts of Siberia and Canada become more usable.
 
2012-11-11 06:25:07 AM  

namatad: CujoQuarrel: I'd rather it got warmer instead of colder. Warmer means we have more arable land. Colder means we start having problems feeding everyone.

Climates going to change. That's why it's climate

not true
it is completely unknown what warmer would mean. assume no rise in sea level, so no lost land.
warmer changes the weather. who knows where and how much new desert there would be ...


You know, there is a way of seeing how the climate would be if it was warmer and that is to look at how the climate was when it was warmer. Seems a bit obvious to state I know.

The last time it was warmer there was an explosion of animal and plant life, a basic land of plenty scenario.

sorry.

/would you be happier if I said all life died last time?
//or if I said that it wasn`t one of the factors that helped humans develop civilisation?
 
2012-11-11 06:31:37 AM  

namatad: malaktaus: That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.

um
dood
you got this completely wrong
Link
the temp PEAKS are 100k year apart, we have been in one of those peaks for 13k years now.
time to start sliding down that slope.

strangely enough, each of those peaks also represent peaks of co2.
not saying that the ice age is coming, but it is coming ....
no one has a farking clue when, almost certainly not in our lifetime.

BUT
2 mile time machine .... great book by the people who counted the farking layers of snow in the ice cores. THESE are teh people who KNOW, and they will tell you, they have no clue.
It could be MUCH MUCH faster than anyone would suspect. and if could yo-yo so fast that your head would explode.

seriously fun book to read


yeah, the warm peaks are 100,000 years apart with about 80,000-90,000 cold years inbetween.

do the maths.

upload.wikimedia.org

looks to me like we are overdue for it to get cold. What do you see here?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 06:36:28 AM  
Each year, around 20 grams of carbon are absorbed by every square metre of peatland.

ZOMG 20g!!!!!
 
2012-11-11 06:42:19 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?


Myself I prefer democratic candidates so FFS stop trying to make this a political argument and go back to the politics tab. Your prejudice is showing.

real science does not have a political slant.

KiltedBastich: CujoQuarrel: Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.

That's the East Anglia code. Hopefully there are other models
being used now that are better written.

There are about 5 or 6 major data sets used for analysis, all collected independently, and they all agree with each other to a very high degree.


Nice misdirection answering a statement about the validity of the models with an assertion about the validity of the data set. Keep up the good work. 

If I took the data set and coded a model that showed that we would all turn into melons in 5 years would you still say because the data set is good that we WILL all turn into melons?

Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2012-11-11 06:59:53 AM  

vpb: Each year, around 20 grams of carbon are absorbed by every square metre of peatland.

ZOMG 20g!!!!!


"By volume, there are about 4 trillion m³ of peat in the world covering a total of around 2% of global land area (about 3 million km²)"

3 million square kilometres is 3 trillion square metres (3 million million) so that`s 60 trillion grams of CO2 per year just being absorbed by peat.

That`s 66,138,700 tons of CO2 per year if I have done my maths right (let me know if I have not, sometimes I get confused between tons and tonnes). Sounds a little better than 20g (although not in the Gigaton range)

Scale, how does that work?
 
2012-11-11 07:19:29 AM  
Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

Yup, nothing to see here. Complete transparency and openness. Fair discussion in an open forum. Impartiality. 

It`s crap like this that makes a lot of people not trust what they are told. Just release the data, show what adjustments have been made, show the models and allow discussion and if you are right then everybody who disagrees will just have to shut the hell up.

Keep it under wraps, hide data, destroy original data, refuse freedom of information requests, have secret debates that decide what will be reported, politicise the issue etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.
 
2012-11-11 07:23:33 AM  

namatad: not saying that the ice age is coming, but it is coming ....

 
fc00.deviantart.net
 
2012-11-11 08:53:46 AM  

dready zim: It`s crap like this that makes a lot of people not trust what they are told. Just release the data, show what adjustments have been made, show the models and allow discussion and if you are right then everybody who disagrees will just have to shut the hell up.


the data HAS been released, and they HAVE shown that adjustments were made. "Equal time" is the biggest bullshiat thing in the media. You don't give equal time between experts talking in their field of expertise and wide-eyed conspiracy theorists and paid shills. Giving equal time where not deserved is not news, it's a travesty

Stop making conclusions, then trying to rationalize them after the fact.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-11 08:57:02 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.


a) just because code is messy doesn't mean that it is giving an incorrect result
b) the "fudge factor" IS explained, very thoroughly. just not in a code comment
C) Their "Fudge Factor" is ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURES TO BE LESS WARM - it's their farking adjustment to correct for City Heat Island


If you're going to parrot criticisms (that you don't understand), you cannot should not both criticize them for X and criticize them for correcting for X
 
2012-11-11 09:03:50 AM  

dready zim: Keep it under wraps, hide data, destroy original data, refuse freedom of information requests, have secret debates that decide what will be reported, politicise the issue etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.


except for..

false accusation, false accusation, false accusation, false accusation, false accusation, false accusation

let me put those into your statement so it is clear what claims i'm referring to

dready zim: Keep it under wraps (false accusation 1), hide data (false accusation 2), destroy original data (false accusation 3), refuse freedom of information requests (false accusation 4), have secret debates that decide what will be reported (false accusation 5), politicise the issue (false accusation 6) etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.


1) nobody "keeps it under wraps" .. it's farking science. they submit their stuff for peer review. just because it didn't show up on DERP NEWS doesn't mean it was kept under wraps
2) see 1
3) East Anglia destroyed their COPY of the data, they didn't destroy the original. They didn't gather the data, they just licensed it and used it to do math. Some of the countries they pulled data from don't have public records laws on their data like the united states does [so you have to sign a contract to see it]
4) that was the only thing that East Anglia actually did, however this is still a false accusation because FoIA requests without merit that are fishing expiditions
5) Sane people don't give "Equal Time" between experts and conspiracy theorists. To do so gives an anti-scientific anti-knowledge anti-responsible-journalism false sense of controversy
 
2012-11-11 09:29:54 AM  

loonatic112358: it's too early for an ice age, we don't have a country in space
or flying ramjet space craft either

I'm not looking to rescuing angels off the ice


Came to make this reference.
 
2012-11-11 10:00:17 AM  
www.woodfortrees.org

And this is AFTER they "adjusted" the data.
 
2012-11-11 12:23:01 PM  
Graciously offering to assist with CO2:

upload.wikimedia.org

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Exxon_logo.s v g/500px-Exxon_logo.svg.png
 
2012-11-11 12:35:49 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.


One big problem with the geoengineering fixes is that once you start them, you're pretty much committed. Studies on the effects of atmospheric aerosol injection as a possible solution to warming strongly suggest that intermittent application would actually be significantly worse than not doing anything at all. Of course, we're already putting huge amounts of energy into geoengineering by altering atmospheric composition..
 
2012-11-11 01:34:28 PM  

KiltedBastich: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Kazan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy

the only person here showing signs of fanaticism is you, which is why i have no time for you.

I'm off to play computer games, something that isn't a complete waste of my time :D

LOL! Run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away run away .......

How utterly childish. Your arguments get curbstomped by factual rebuttals, so you whine and cry and make shiat up, pull up tired and debunked talking points, and when someone tells you you're full of shiat and not worth talking to, you claim victory.

What are you, 12? Grow the fark up.


>>>>Your arguments get curbstomped by factual rebuttals

Really? All I read were categorical statements that were arguments from unspecified authority (ie: no real facts, no references, simply assertions that things are really that way). Followed by more ad hominem attacks (you're irrational, you're biased, you're ignorant) and then a truly 12 year old "take my ball and go home with it" ending.

See, here's the nub of the problem with Global Warming belief and skepticism:

First, it is a VERY technical, highly statistical area which most people, myself included, are hopelessly unable to understand at the "gritty" formula-rich level. It's rather like being able to understand the details of quantum theory or M-theory.. (Aside: there's also a bit of suspicion with many people about those theories, as well, but the presentation of them has always been much smoother and sophisticated, which leads to my next point.)

Second, because of the technical/statistical nature of climatology, most people therefore have to rely on the judgement pf those whom they consider to be (trusted or not) scientific authorities in the field. But those scientific authorities, in communicating their positions, often seem to rely on the traditional debating tools of the shyster, con man and snake oil salesman: name calling, broad brushing, and "would I lie?" and "just trust me, OK?" verbiage. The stupid people, being used to and comfortable with being chivied around by authority figures, just accept this; the smarter ones recognize the "dog whistles" and evaluate the science of the position on the perceived veracity of it's spokespeople.

Third, that same dynamic is at work when the NON-technically adroit GW spokespeople get done with their little acts. For example, Al Gore (who has personally made over $100,000,000 off of Global Warming) is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for your position. The Global Warming people have chosen to politicize their position by welcoming selected politicians as their conduits of information to the non-technical masses.

Fourth, the terrible urgency assigned to finding immediate solutions to the "problem" also breeds suspicion. Generally, in the real world, when someone exhorts you to make an immediate, urgent decision, they are desirous of you NOT including other facts, not immediately apparent, in your decision.

And finally, the above points lead the smart people to the inescapable conclusion that the whole Global Warming song and dance is a gigantic power/money grab. No thank you.
 
2012-11-11 01:50:02 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?


Since I don't believe in any sort of God that actually takes an active interest in what we do, no I'm not. I'm merely skeptical of scientific claims put forward in a manner and argumentative language more suitable to snake oil salesmen from the old Wild Wild West. It's really not difficult for me to tell when a person is lying and/or trying to convince themselves; it's a gift I've cultivated for many years.

The occasional crap that surfaces, such as pictures of temperature sensors right next to A/C vents, and the Memogate info that came forth regarding "adjusted" climate data, contribute to my skepticism.


See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link

Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.


Next, I'm always suspicious of anyone who in effect says "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! DON'T THINK, THERE'S NO TIME, JUST DEMAND THAT YOUR LEADERS DISMANTLE THE ECONOMY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!" Sounds waaaaaay too much like a used car saleman trying to get me to buy his clunker "BEFORE SOMEO0NE ELSE DOES!"


That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.


Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?


Good post. My responses:

>>>See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

I believe my "adjusted" comment was in regard to the memogate issue, not the misplaced temperature stations. Maybe I missed the link, but where is information regarding the temperature stations?

>>>>"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.

Sorry, but I looked at the link, and each of the authorities cited by this obviously non-neutral and highly politicized website appear to me to have dogs in the fight and therefore be already tainted.
 
2012-11-11 02:04:02 PM  

Erix: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.

One big problem with the geoengineering fixes is that once you start them, you're pretty much committed. Studies on the effects of atmospheric aerosol injection as a possible solution to warming strongly suggest that intermittent application would actually be significantly worse than not doing anything at all. Of course, we're already putting huge amounts of energy into geoengineering by altering atmospheric composition..


Because if one thing screams "can be instantly turned off," it's a giant structure that's hundreds of thousands of miles from the nearest anything.
 
2012-11-11 02:25:14 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Really? All I read were categorical statements that were arguments from unspecified authority (ie: no real facts, no references, simply assertions that things are really that way). Followed by more ad hominem attacks (you're irrational, you're biased, you're ignorant) and then a truly 12 year old "take my ball and go home with it" ending.


This is because no one here is interested in spelling out the facts for you for the millionth time when it is obvious you're not at all interested in anythng other than validating your preconception. There's this thing out there, you see, called Google, which can be used to find information from valid sources about this very well studied topic. Apparently you're unaware of it.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: First, it is a VERY technical, highly statistical area which most people, myself included, are hopelessly unable to understand at the "gritty" formula-rich level. It's rather like being able to understand the details of quantum theory or M-theory.. (Aside: there's also a bit of suspicion with many people about those theories, as well, but the presentation of them has always been much smoother and sophisticated, which leads to my next point.)

Second, because of the technical/statistical nature of climatology, most people therefore have to rely on the judgement pf those whom they consider to be (trusted or not) scientific authorities in the field. But those scientific authorities, in communicating their positions, often seem to rely on the traditional debating tools of the shyster, con man and snake oil salesman: name calling, broad brushing, and "would I lie?" and "just trust me, OK?" verbiage. The stupid people, being used to and comfortable with being chivied around by authority figures, just accept this; the smarter ones recognize the "dog whistles" and evaluate the science of the position on the perceived veracity of it's spokespeople.


Are you similarly suspicious of particle physics? How about thermodynamics? Maybe organic chemistry? Or perhaps it's geology that you suspect of lies and conspiracies along with climatology. Pray tell, are you a creationist as well?

Here's a clue, you just made a huge argument from personal incredulity, a very basic fallacy, along with a sweeping ad hominem attack on all the members of an entire discipline. Are you really so close minded and ignorant that you cannot see why that is not an argument worth more than a cursory dismissal?

Let me spell out what is going on for you in simple terms. This information you so suspect has been validated over and over again for close to 4 decades now, in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name. The people who have been actually engaging in the tactics of the con man as you describe are the nay sayers, who have also been industriously projecting that behaviour on to the proponents of climate change.

You don't believe the scientists? Then go read their research directly. Again, I direct you to that Google thing you seem so unaware of. Most of the information is easily found if you take the time. Oh, but that's right, you don't understand the information - and so therefor they must all be lying and involved in a conspiracy. Uh huh. Just like every other scientific discipline you don't understand is a conspiracy.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Third, that same dynamic is at work when the NON-technically adroit GW spokespeople get done with their little acts. For example, Al Gore (who has personally made over $100,000,000 off of Global Warming) is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for your position. The Global Warming people have chosen to politicize their position by welcoming selected politicians as their conduits of information to the non-technical masses.


Who gives a shiat? Who the spokesperson is has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information. This argument is tantamount to saying "I don't like you so you're wrong". That argument is always invalid, regardless of whether the actual position being challenged is true or not! You have just admitted that you're a partisan who cares more about the politics than the truth of the science.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Fourth, the terrible urgency assigned to finding immediate solutions to the "problem" also breeds suspicion. Generally, in the real world, when someone exhorts you to make an immediate, urgent decision, they are desirous of you NOT including other facts, not immediately apparent, in your decision.


Urgent decision? Have you been living under a rock for the last 4 decades? The evidence for climate change has been accumulating since the late 70's. There's been a movement to try and curtail the problem since the 80's. The reason there is urgency now is that all the models show us feeling actual effects now that will simply get stronger and stronger unless we start to act on this scientific information that has been repeatedly validated over and over again since its first discovery.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And finally, the above points lead the smart people to the inescapable conclusion that the whole Global Warming song and dance is a gigantic power/money grab. No thank you.


The above points lead gullible partisans such as yourself to swallow the talking points of vested interests who want to continue making unrestricted profits from fossil fuels and other sources of CO2. The smart people listen to the climatologists.

Please get this straight. There is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Grant money is a pittance compared to oil profits, and its disbursement is under very strict oversight to be used only for more research. The money and power involved are all on the side of the oil companies. Hence their ability to stymie the conclusions of the research of every major climate scientist on the planet using only PR lies and a few badly done skewed studies. Your inability to get your head out of your ass about this topic is a case in point of just how effective they are in using that money and power.
 
2012-11-11 02:32:53 PM  

dready zim: Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

Yup, nothing to see here. Complete transparency and openness. Fair discussion in an open forum. Impartiality. 

It`s crap like this that makes a lot of people not trust what they are told. Just release the data, show what adjustments have been made, show the models and allow discussion and if you are right then everybody who disagrees will just have to shut the hell up.

Keep it under wraps, hide data, destroy original data, refuse freedom of information requests, have secret debates that decide what will be reported, politicise the issue etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.


That would expose the political agenda to make Billions and Billions by scaremongering the world.
 
2012-11-11 02:59:11 PM  

RedVentrue: dready zim: Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

Yup, nothing to see here. Complete transparency and openness. Fair discussion in an open forum. Impartiality. 

It`s crap like this that makes a lot of people not trust what they are told. Just release the data, show what adjustments have been made, show the models and allow discussion and if you are right then everybody who disagrees will just have to shut the hell up.

Keep it under wraps, hide data, destroy original data, refuse freedom of information requests, have secret debates that decide what will be reported, politicise the issue etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.

That would expose the political agenda to make Billions and Billions by scaremongering the world.


So do you present the same arguments about particle physics, or evolution, or cosmology, or any other scientific discipline? Because I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all scientific conclusions are based on the carefully considered opinions of a small elite of highly educated experts who are not accountable to the general public for their results. We generally call them "scientists".

Newflash: Science is not decided by popular vote, sorry. And to repeat what should be blatantly obvious, there is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Otherwise the fossil fuel lobbyists and their private partisan think tanks would not be able to successfully thwart the collective consensus of 97% of the world's climate scientists and the decades of painstaking research they base their conclusions on.
 
2012-11-11 03:12:24 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Do you believe this as well? Or do you simply believe there is no "proof" that climate change is taking place (which raises the question of what proof you would accept)?


Since I don't believe in any sort of God that actually takes an active interest in what we do, no I'm not. I'm merely skeptical of scientific claims put forward in a manner and argumentative language more suitable to snake oil salesmen from the old Wild Wild West. It's really not difficult for me to tell when a person is lying and/or trying to convince themselves; it's a gift I've cultivated for many years.

The occasional crap that surfaces, such as pictures of temperature sensors right next to A/C vents, and the Memogate info that came forth regarding "adjusted" climate data, contribute to my skepticism.


See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link

Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.


Next, I'm always suspicious of anyone who in effect says "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! DON'T THINK, THERE'S NO TIME, JUST DEMAND THAT YOUR LEADERS DISMANTLE THE ECONOMY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!" Sounds waaaaaay too much like a used car saleman trying to get me to buy his clunker "BEFORE SOMEO0NE ELSE DOES!"


That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.


Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Good post. My responses:

>>>See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

I believe my "adjusted" comment was in regard to the memogate issue, not the misplaced temperature stations. Maybe I missed the link, but where is information regarding the temperature stations?

>>>>"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.

Sorry, but I looked at the link, and each of the authorities cited by this obviously non-neutral and highly politicized website appear to me to have dogs in the fight and therefore be already tainted.


Dammit, it got posted before I was finished.

>>>>>That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Thank you for recognizing the validity of my suspicions. You're second sentence, however, seems to be jumping to a conclusion. I do NOT deny the existence of climate change because I disagree with some of the proposed solution. First, it is quite possible, even probable, that climate change (NOT necessarily warming - I note that you have suddenly changed the emphasis from warming to change!) is occurring. It is NOT clear to me that the bulk of it, or indeed any of it is caused by man-made (industrial) activities. And if it is, it is not clear how much of that is being offset by natural processes. It is also unclear to me how any of the proposed solutions would have any actual effect - and what the ecological unintended consequences of those solutions might be..

On this last, in other words, Climate Change proponents are demanding the inclusion of massive "quick fixes" into a gigantic, relatively dimly understood, fairly delicate with apparent "butterfly effect" tipping points, climate system. The sheer arrogance of that is somewhat breathtaking.

(Which is why my personal preferences for "saving" the system tend towards quickly reversible solutions (such as the solar mirror option). If things go pear shaped you turn the damn thing off.)

>>>>>There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

You have a good point. I retire that argument, at least as pertains to ancient periods. I still maintain that there is a possible disconnect as regards.actual/imputed temperature readings. Earth's climate is a vast, slow system. Can we extrapolate from only several thousand data points of only several hundred years?

>>>>>>Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

I don't see the contradiction. And most of the proposals I've heard of involve massive capping of industrial and even in some cases agricultural production, and mandated (ie: at the point of a gun) replacement of lower-cost "fossil" (see Thomas Gold) fuels with higher cost alternatives. Almost by definition, the majority of "solutions" I'm aware of mean higher costs for the consumer.

For example, one "solution" I've heard seriously proposed is an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. This would discourage "frivolous" use of cars and, yes, would certainly contribute to a lowering of carbon dioxide levels. Possibly only a minute lowering, but a lowering nonetheless. But what about the "unintended" consequences of a $5.00 per gallon gas tax? Well, for one thing, the price of virtually every single consumer good, including food, would increase (so as to cover the increased freight cost of hauling stuff from point A to point B). Who would this hurt most? In this country, poor people. In the world economy, Brown People, who are a disproportionate percentage of the less prosperous nations. This consequence is so blindingly obvious to me, and to anyone I talk to in conversation. This is why I put the word "unintended" in quotes. My fear is that NO ONE could be stupid enough to not realize this; which means that their proposal of a $5.00 gas tax must deliberately target the poor and therefore Brown People.

>>>>>So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Climate change is undoubtedly real. And has been for 4 billion years. I believe our activities should center around, first, adjusting to it, and second creating technological fixes that can be turned off should unintended consequences to those fixes arise. And, yes, being an independent thinker and not a Republican, I would look at suspicion no matter WHO was trying to stampede the world into this crap.
 
2012-11-11 03:16:45 PM  

Erix: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
THIS. If we MUST meddle, let's do it in a way that can be instantly turned off if things start going pear-shaped. For instance, there has been a serious proposal to create orbital mylar "umbrella" shading that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, thus offsetting other heating effects. Such a project would have other beneficial effects (economic, scientific, etc.). Of course, after the New Luddites finished savaging the idea, not another peep was heard about it.

One big problem with the geoengineering fixes is that once you start them, you're pretty much committed. Studies on the effects of atmospheric aerosol injection as a possible solution to warming strongly suggest that intermittent application would actually be significantly worse than not doing anything at all. Of course, we're already putting huge amounts of energy into geoengineering by altering atmospheric composition..


Agreed. Which is why I favor solutions like the solar mirror/umbrella. The effects of such would be reversible. Additionally, such a project would have huge spin-off economic advantages, not the least of which would be increased employment.
 
2012-11-11 05:28:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And finally, the above points lead the smart people to the inescapable conclusion that the whole Global Warming song and dance is a gigantic power/money grab. No thank you.


Yeah, but what do you believe?
 
2012-11-11 05:44:33 PM  

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: dready zim: Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?

Yup, nothing to see here. Complete transparency and openness. Fair discussion in an open forum. Impartiality. 

It`s crap like this that makes a lot of people not trust what they are told. Just release the data, show what adjustments have been made, show the models and allow discussion and if you are right then everybody who disagrees will just have to shut the hell up.

Keep it under wraps, hide data, destroy original data, refuse freedom of information requests, have secret debates that decide what will be reported, politicise the issue etc etc and naturally people will think "What have they got to hide" and even if you are totally correct you have given skeptics, trolls, schills, deniers or whatever you want to call people who disagree with you every weapon they need.

That would expose the political agenda to make Billions and Billions by scaremongering the world.

So do you present the same arguments about particle physics, or evolution, or cosmology, or any other scientific discipline? Because I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all scientific conclusions are based on the carefully considered opinions of a small elite of highly educated experts who are not accountable to the general public for their results. We generally call them "scientists".

Newflash: Science is not decided by popular vote, sorry. And to repeat what should be blatantly obvious, there is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Otherwise the fossil fuel lobbyists and their private partisan think tanks would not be able to successfully thwart the collective consensus of 97% of the world's climate scientists and the decades of painstaking research they base their conclusions on.


AGW seems to be, and scientific conclusions ARE decided by popular vote, among scientists, and science gets VERY political. When money is involved, scientific agnostisism can go right out the window. The AGW arguement is very politically motivated. AGW belongs in the politics tab, not the geek tab.
 
2012-11-11 05:52:01 PM  

dready zim: namatad: malaktaus: That would be pretty peculiar, considering that glacial periods have been occurring on a 100,000 year cycle for some time now and the last one ended what, 13,000 years ago? I think somebody misplaced a decimal point somewhere along the line.

um
dood
you got this completely wrong
Link
the temp PEAKS are 100k year apart, we have been in one of those peaks for 13k years now.
time to start sliding down that slope.

strangely enough, each of those peaks also represent peaks of co2.
not saying that the ice age is coming, but it is coming ....
no one has a farking clue when, almost certainly not in our lifetime.

BUT
2 mile time machine .... great book by the people who counted the farking layers of snow in the ice cores. THESE are teh people who KNOW, and they will tell you, they have no clue.
It could be MUCH MUCH faster than anyone would suspect. and if could yo-yo so fast that your head would explode.

seriously fun book to read

yeah, the warm peaks are 100,000 years apart with about 80,000-90,000 cold years inbetween.

do the maths.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 564x377]

looks to me like we are overdue for it to get cold. What do you see here?



Past trends become less relevant when a new forcing mechanism takes over. For example, temperatures correlated quite well with solar output for decades...up until CO2 became a more important factor:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-11-11 05:59:37 PM  

dready zim: common sense is an oxymoron: And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Myself I prefer democratic candidates so FFS stop trying to make this a political argument and go back to the politics tab. Your prejudice is showing.

real science does not have a political slant.



WTF? I was responding to someone else, who politicized the discussion by invoking economic collapse and "Brown People."

You seem to be getting a bit touchy. Take a pill.
 
2012-11-11 06:20:11 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: common sense is an oxymoron: And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Myself I prefer democratic candidates so FFS stop trying to make this a political argument and go back to the politics tab. Your prejudice is showing.

real science does not have a political slant.


WTF? I was responding to someone else, who politicized the discussion by invoking economic collapse and "Brown People."

You seem to be getting a bit touchy. Take a pill.


The AGW final solution to climate change invariably involves killing 6-8 tenths of the world population. Forgive us if we are a bit touchy about that.
 
2012-11-11 06:22:17 PM  

RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: common sense is an oxymoron: And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Myself I prefer democratic candidates so FFS stop trying to make this a political argument and go back to the politics tab. Your prejudice is showing.

real science does not have a political slant.


WTF? I was responding to someone else, who politicized the discussion by invoking economic collapse and "Brown People."

You seem to be getting a bit touchy. Take a pill.

The AGW final solution to climate change invariably involves killing 6-8 tenths of the world population. Forgive us if we are a bit touchy about that.


That's some high quality shiat you're smoking. You should go check out the "(11 / 11) / 12 = 0.0833333333" thread.
 
2012-11-11 06:46:30 PM  

Baryogenesis: RedVentrue: common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: common sense is an oxymoron: And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Myself I prefer democratic candidates so FFS stop trying to make this a political argument and go back to the politics tab. Your prejudice is showing.

real science does not have a political slant.


WTF? I was responding to someone else, who politicized the discussion by invoking economic collapse and "Brown People."

You seem to be getting a bit touchy. Take a pill.

The AGW final solution to climate change invariably involves killing 6-8 tenths of the world population. Forgive us if we are a bit touchy about that.

That's some high quality shiat you're smoking. You should go check out the "(11 / 11) / 12 = 0.0833333333" thread.


Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.
 
2012-11-11 07:01:56 PM  

RedVentrue: Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.


Your post is ridiculously hyperbolic. No one is calling for the total elimination of all fossil fuels overnight (scaling down to zero a few decades from now as it is replaced with alternatives is very different). Energy efficiency is the simplest approach to help reduce CO2 emissions while alternative energy is just a matter of political will and funding.

We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change.

and you're forgetting the costs of doing nothing which could also have drastic consequences for farming, water supplies and the spread of disease.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
 
2012-11-11 07:29:38 PM  

KiltedBastich: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Really? All I read were categorical statements that were arguments from unspecified authority (ie: no real facts, no references, simply assertions that things are really that way). Followed by more ad hominem attacks (you're irrational, you're biased, you're ignorant) and then a truly 12 year old "take my ball and go home with it" ending.

This is because no one here is interested in spelling out the facts for you for the millionth time when it is obvious you're not at all interested in anythng other than validating your preconception. There's this thing out there, you see, called Google, which can be used to find information from valid sources about this very well studied topic. Apparently you're unaware of it.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: First, it is a VERY technical, highly statistical area which most people, myself included, are hopelessly unable to understand at the "gritty" formula-rich level. It's rather like being able to understand the details of quantum theory or M-theory.. (Aside: there's also a bit of suspicion with many people about those theories, as well, but the presentation of them has always been much smoother and sophisticated, which leads to my next point.)

Second, because of the technical/statistical nature of climatology, most people therefore have to rely on the judgement pf those whom they consider to be (trusted or not) scientific authorities in the field. But those scientific authorities, in communicating their positions, often seem to rely on the traditional debating tools of the shyster, con man and snake oil salesman: name calling, broad brushing, and "would I lie?" and "just trust me, OK?" verbiage. The stupid people, being used to and comfortable with being chivied around by authority figures, just accept this; the smarter ones recognize the "dog whistles" and evaluate the science of the position on the perceived veracity of it's spokespeople.

Are you similarly suspicious of particle physics? How about thermodynamics? Maybe organic chemistry? Or perhaps it's geology that you suspect of lies and conspiracies along with climatology. Pray tell, are you a creationist as well?

Here's a clue, you just made a huge argument from personal incredulity, a very basic fallacy, along with a sweeping ad hominem attack on all the members of an entire discipline. Are you really so close minded and ignorant that you cannot see why that is not an argument worth more than a cursory dismissal?

Let me spell out what is going on for you in simple terms. This information you so suspect has been validated over and over again for close to 4 decades now, in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name. The people who have been actually engaging in the tactics of the con man as you describe are the nay sayers, who have also been industriously projecting that behaviour on to the proponents of climate change.

You don't believe the scientists? Then go read their research directly. Again, I direct you to that Google thing you seem so unaware of. Most of the information is easily found if you take the time. Oh, but that's right, you don't understand the information - and so therefor they must all be lying and involved in a conspiracy. Uh huh. Just like every other scientific discipline you don't understand is a conspiracy.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Third, that same dynamic is at work when the NON-technically adroit GW spokespeople get done with their little acts. For example, Al Gore (who has personally made over $100,000,000 off of Global Warming) is a TERRIBLE spokesperson for your position. The Global Warming people have chosen to politicize their position by welcoming selected politicians as their conduits of information to the non-technical masses.

Who gives a shiat? Who the spokesperson is has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information. This argument is tantamount to saying "I don't like you so you're wrong". That argument is always invalid, regardless of whether the actual position being challenged is true or not! You have just admitted that you're a partisan who cares more about the politics than the truth of the science.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Fourth, the terrible urgency assigned to finding immediate solutions to the "problem" also breeds suspicion. Generally, in the real world, when someone exhorts you to make an immediate, urgent decision, they are desirous of you NOT including other facts, not immediately apparent, in your decision.

Urgent decision? Have you been living under a rock for the last 4 decades? The evidence for climate change has been accumulating since the late 70's. There's been a movement to try and curtail the problem since the 80's. The reason there is urgency now is that all the models show us feeling actual effects now that will simply get stronger and stronger unless we start to act on this scientific information that has been repeatedly validated over and over again since its first discovery.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And finally, the above points lead the smart people to the inescapable conclusion that the whole Global Warming song and dance is a gigantic power/money grab. No thank you.

The above points lead gullible partisans such as yourself to swallow the talking points of vested interests who want to continue making unrestricted profits from fossil fuels and other sources of CO2. The smart people listen to the climatologists.

Please get this straight. There is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Grant money is a pittance compared to oil profits, and its disbursement is under very strict oversight to be used only for more research. The money and power involved are all on the side of the oil companies. Hence their ability to stymie the conclusions of the research of every major climate scientist on the planet using only PR lies and a few badly done skewed studies. Your inability to get your head out of your ass about this topic is a case in point of just how effective they are in using that money and power.



>>>>This is because no one here is interested in spelling out the facts for you for the millionth time when it is obvious you're not at all interested in anythng other than validating your preconception.....

I'm so sorry. You want to prove a point? You seem to be unaware that it is up to YOU to prove it to me. Not with handwaves ("look at google"), not with links to obviously propaganda websites (Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) but with links to actual purportedly objective sites. In the context of GCC this happens all too rarely. THAT, in itself, is deeply suspicious.

>>>>>Are you similarly suspicious of particle physics? How about thermodynamics? Maybe organic chemistry? Or perhaps it's geology that you suspect of lies and conspiracies along with climatology. Pray tell, are you a creationist as well?

Straw Man much? Also deeply suspicious. You see, you people are constantly falling back on the "logic" used by con artists! Do you really wonder that intelligent people take your message with a large grain of salt?

But, in answer to your questions, no, I am not a creationist, and feel quite comfortable with thermodynamics, organic chemistry and geology. It's the slick performance put on by Neils Bohr that I have trouble with. That was the starting point of the decline of classical physics (communicable to non-physics people) and the rise of quantum physics (extremely difficult to explain to non-physics people). This is curious, since every other science prior to quantum physics was intelligible to or at least explainable to a person of average intelligence. It's almost as if the quantum revolution - accepted also or particularly by quantum physicists - became the new "dogma" (accepted on faith, since no rational explanation of it was possible). .Quantum physicists accept it for one reason, and one reason only: it works. It explains everything (except gravity, which is the reason another complex and almost incomprehensible edifice - string theory - was erected "on top" of quantum theory).

Note, however, that I could make up a theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does everything, and explains everything. In terms ONLY of the pragmatic point of explaining everything, that would be just as valid as quantum theory.

>>>>Here's a clue, you just made a huge argument from personal incredulity, a very basic fallacy,...

When a "science" is not explainable to the average intelligent man on the street, all that is really left is the common sense ability to "cull the wheat from the chaff" so to speak. Lots of people have it, and use it, every day. That does NOT make it a fallacy.

>>>>>.... along with a sweeping ad hominem attack on all the members of an entire discipline.

Generalize much? My point has always been that it is NOT all members of the entire discipline. There are many (though perhaps a minority) climatologists who are quite skeptical about the whole GW GCC issue. Once again, you make use of the "logic" of a con man.

>>>> Are you really so close minded and ignorant that you cannot see why that is not an argument worth more than a cursory dismissal?

And again, a conman's argument, a casual and slippery hand wave which allows you, you hope, to slip out of the discussion intact.

>>>>Let me spell out what is going on for you in simple terms. This information you so suspect has been validated over and over again for close to 4 decades now, in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name.

You keep saying that, but I notice that you pre-define the validated info by stating it has been validated "in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name." In other words, literature that does NOT validate is by definition not scientific and worthless. I believe that was the same argument used by Church officials when the threatened to burn Galileo at the stake for his heretical views.

>>>> The people who have been actually engaging in the tactics of the con man as you describe are the nay sayers, who have also been industriously projecting that behaviour on to the proponents of climate change.

As YOU define them.

>>>You don't believe the scientists?

No, not all of them.

>>>>Then go read their research directly. Again, I direct you to that Google thing you seem so unaware of. Most of the information is easily found if you take the time.

YOU are trying to prove the positive. The ball's in your court. To do otherwise would not be scientific on your part.

>>>>Oh, but that's right, you don't understand the information - and so therefor they must all be lying and involved in a conspiracy. Uh huh. Just like every other scientific discipline you don't understand is a conspiracy.

Why no, it's not a conspiracy. Again, more straw men. And, again, the arguments of a conman.

>>>>Who gives a shiat? Who the spokesperson is has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information. This argument is tantamount to saying "I don't like you so you're wrong". That argument is always invalid, regardless of whether the actual position being challenged is true or not! You have just admitted that you're a partisan who cares more about the politics than the truth of the science.

No, I have not. And using common sense and a basic knowledge of human psychology to "read" the telltales of a spokesperson and determine the likelihood that that spokesperson is trying to hustle you is NOT the same thing as saying "I don't like that person". In fact, con artists are generally very likeable people.I know; I've met quite a few.

>>>>Urgent decision? Have you been living under a rock for the last 4 decades? The evidence for climate change has been accumulating since the late 70's. There's been a movement to try and curtail the problem since the 80's. The reason there is urgency now is that all the models show us feeling actual effects now that will simply get stronger and stronger unless we start to act on this scientific information that has been repeatedly validated over and over again since its first discovery.

Yes, so we accept your words on faith and then begin massive economic ans social movements to forestall the problem? Gee, sounds familiar.

>>>>>The above points lead gullible partisans such as yourself to swallow the talking points of vested interests who want to continue making unrestricted profits from fossil fuels and other sources of CO2. The smart people listen to the climatologists.

Gullible? Really? Now who's throwing around ad hominem?

>>>>Please get this straight. There is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Grant money is a pittance compared to oil profits, and its disbursement is under very strict oversight to be used only for more research.

It's called job security. And the money being a pittance compared to oil profits is a non-sequitur.

>>> The money and power involved are all on the side of the oil companies. Hence their ability to stymie the conclusions of the research of every major climate scientist on the planet using only PR lies and a few badly done skewed studies.

Non-sequitur. Also, whose now talking conspiracies? LOL! Come ON, either talking of conspiracies is either a sign of craziness, or it isn't. Or is it just crazy if your opponents do it? LOL!

>>>>Your inability to get your head out of your ass about this topic is a case in point of just how effective they are in using that money and power.

Again, the argument of a shyster.

Have a great day.
 
2012-11-11 07:31:03 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: And finally, the above points lead the smart people to the inescapable conclusion that the whole Global Warming song and dance is a gigantic power/money grab. No thank you.

Yeah, but what do you believe?


Cute. I bet my IQ is higher than your.
 
2012-11-11 07:48:42 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

>>>>>That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Thank you for recognizing the validity of my suspicions. You're second sentence, however, seems to be jumping to a conclusion. I do NOT deny the existence of climate change because I disagree with some of the proposed solution. First, it is quite possible, even probable, that climate change (NOT necessarily warming - I note that you have suddenly changed the emphasis from warming to change!) is occurring. It is NOT clear to me that the bulk of it, or indeed any of it is caused by man-made (industrial) activities. And if it is, it is not clear how much of that is being offset by natural processes. It is also unclear to me how any of the proposed solutions would have any actual effect - and what the ecological unintended consequences of those solutions might be..

On this last, in other words, Climate Change proponents are demanding the inclusion of massive "quick fixes" into a gigantic, relatively dimly understood, fairly delicate with apparent "butterfly effect" tipping points, climate system. The sheer arrogance of that is somewhat breathtaking.

(Which is why my personal preferences for "saving" the system tend towards quickly reversible solutions (such as the solar mirror option). If things go pear shaped you turn the damn thing off.)



First, I'm not always consistent in calling this "climate change" vs. "global warming." "Anthropogenic climate change" would be most accurate, although both can be correct.

With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise.

As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

Finally, worrying about the possible side effects of possible "quick fixes" while ignoring the possible side effects of the much more massive "quick fix" of anthropogenic CO2 itself, including the risks associated with reaching an atmospheric "tipping point" to a new (and possibly quite unfavorable) climatic mean, isn't arrogant, but it is inconsistent. I agree with you about reversible solutions for this very reason.


>>>>>There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

You have a good point. I retire that argument, at least as pertains to ancient periods. I still maintain that there is a possible disconnect as regards.actual/imputed temperature readings. Earth's climate is a vast, slow system. Can we extrapolate from only several thousand data points of only several hundred years?


There certainly is some error in the temperature record, and any extrapolations have to take into account, as you say, a number of poorly understood interactions and feedback mechanisms. On the other hand, the current changes are occurring on a scale of decades, which can't be resolved even back to the onset of the present glacial/interglacial cycle. Even if we could accurately predict the long-term climatic drivers and their effects, the more powerful short-term effects of CO2 would make those forecasts all but meaningless.

As flawed and as noisy as it is, the short-term data is really all we have. It's no surprise that various studies have reached a wide range of conclusions, sometimes contradicting each other.


>>>>>>Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

I don't see the contradiction. And most of the proposals I've heard of involve massive capping of industrial and even in some cases agricultural production, and mandated (ie: at the point of a gun) replacement of lower-cost "fossil" (see Thomas Gold) fuels with higher cost alternatives. Almost by definition, the majority of "solutions" I'm aware of mean higher costs for the consumer.

For example, one "solution" I've heard seriously proposed is an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. This would discourage "frivolous" use of cars and, yes, would certainly contribute to a lowering of carbon dioxide levels. Possibly only a minute lowering, but a lowering nonetheless. But what about the "unintended" consequences of a $5.00 per gallon gas tax? Well, for one thing, the price of virtually every single consumer good, including food, would increase (so as to cover the increased freight cost of hauling stuff from point A to point B). Who would this hurt most? In this country, poor people. In the world economy, Brown People, who are a disproportionate percentage of the less prosperous nations. This consequence is so blindingly obvious to me, and to anyone I talk to in conversation. This is why I put the word "unintended" in quotes. My fear is that NO ONE could be stupid enough to not realize this; which means that their proposal of a $5.00 gas tax must deliberately target the poor and therefore Brown People.



These "solutions" are proposed by politicians, not climatologists, and just prove that there are ignorami on both sides of the discussion (including any climatologists who might actually be making economic proposals).


>>>>>So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Climate change is undoubtedly real. And has been for 4 billion years. I believe our activities should center around, first, adjusting to it, and second creating technological fixes that can be turned off should unintended consequences to those fixes arise. And, yes, being an independent thinker and not a Republican, I would look at suspicion no matter WHO was trying to stampede the world into this crap.



You seem to be confusing the proposed solutions to climate change with climate change itself. How is Al Gore stampeding the atmosphere into containing more CO2?

Yes, some of the fixes acknowledge not only that CO2 is a leading cause of climate change, but that the fossil fuels responsible for the CO2 in the first place are finite resources, and that sooner or later we're going to have to make do with less anyway. I guess you could call it social engineering, but you could also call it inevitable. Either way, there are other solutions which you would support, so why focus on those which you don't?
 
2012-11-11 07:53:35 PM  
OC homeless guy, favorited as an anti fluoridation loon. Why stop at one conspiracy theory?
 
2012-11-11 09:31:26 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..

>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 and became Global Heat Death. Now, suddenly, some scientists are again talking Ice Age.

We don't know what we don't know. The number of possible factors involving Earth climate are immense. Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
- anthropogenic effects,
- naturally reinforcing positive and negative feedback weather cycles,
- peat bog growth,
- earthquakes that change the coarses of rivers,
- volcanoes that emit greenhouse gases and sun-blocking clouds
- the changing temperature of the sun, sunspots, solar flares,
- the position of the solar system in it's orbit around the galaxy (are we traveling through a dust cloud?)
- probably dozens or hundreds of others.

A large number of these are cyclic in nature, and the cycle frequencies vary wildly. Remember the old "Biorhythm" fad in the 70s? Most used 3 cycles: Physical (23 days), Emotional (28 days), and Intellectual (33 days). Some, today, use seven, adding Spiritual (53 days), Awareness (48 days), Aesthetic (43 days), and Intuition (38 days). When the cycles cross weird things supposedly happen.

An example more firmly grounded in reality would be the "rogue wave" effect, where a 200 foot wave, the additive effect of many different waves of different cycles coalescing, suddenly appears in the open ocean.

How the hell can we claim any kind of certainty when we don't even know all the causes of climate change, much less how they work?

>>>>Finally, worrying about the possible side effects of possible "quick fixes" while ignoring the possible side effects of the much more massive "quick fix" of anthropogenic CO2 itself, including the risks associated with reaching an atmospheric "tipping point" to a new (and possibly quite unfavorable) climatic mean, isn't arrogant, but it is inconsistent. I agree with you about reversible solutions for this very reason.

The possible side effects of most politically-generated "quick fixes" are social and economic disruption, drastically lowered living standards, mass starvation of (mostly) Brown People, and potentially totalitarian control measures.

The possible side effects of most scientifically-generated "quick fixes" have the potential for definite and disastrous pear-shaped results. Release of vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere and/or the ocean? Really? Do we know with certainty what ALL consequences of that would be? We do not.

The possible side effects, and the timing, of increasing levels of carbon dioxide are unknown in their entirety. See Conclusion

.............more stuff

>>>>>There certainly is some error in the temperature record, and any extrapolations have to take into account, as you say, a number of poorly understood interactions and feedback mechanisms. On the other hand, the current changes are occurring on a scale of decades, which can't be resolved even back to the onset of the present glacial/interglacial cycle. Even if we could accurately predict the long-term climatic drivers and their effects, the more powerful short-term effects of CO2 would make those forecasts all but meaningless.

>>>As flawed and as noisy as it is, the short-term data is really all we have. It's no surprise that various studies have reached a wide range of conclusions, sometimes contradicting each other.

I basically agree.

.....stuff about solutions

>>>>These "solutions" are proposed by politicians, not climatologists, and just prove that there are ignorami on both sides of the discussion (including any climatologists who might actually be making economic proposals).

THERE'S the PR problem! Climatologists have let the politicians some of those politicians being Climatologists) define the problem and the solutions.

 
2012-11-11 09:36:49 PM  

Baryogenesis: RedVentrue: Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.

Your post is ridiculously hyperbolic. No one is calling for the total elimination of all fossil fuels overnight (scaling down to zero a few decades from now as it is replaced with alternatives is very different). Energy efficiency is the simplest approach to help reduce CO2 emissions while alternative energy is just a matter of political will and funding.

We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change.

and you're forgetting the costs of doing nothing which could also have drastic consequences for farming, water supplies and the spread of disease.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.


How can you estimate the cost of an unknown?
 
2012-11-11 10:29:33 PM  

RedVentrue: Baryogenesis: RedVentrue: Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.

Your post is ridiculously hyperbolic. No one is calling for the total elimination of all fossil fuels overnight (scaling down to zero a few decades from now as it is replaced with alternatives is very different). Energy efficiency is the simplest approach to help reduce CO2 emissions while alternative energy is just a matter of political will and funding.

We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change.

and you're forgetting the costs of doing nothing which could also have drastic consequences for farming, water supplies and the spread of disease.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

How can you estimate the cost of an unknown?


It's not an unknown. There are a range of possibilities and costs depending on the severity of the changes. You could try reading the report or at least the summary to get an idea of their methods to find out.

Stern Review
 
2012-11-11 10:40:01 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..



I've pointed that out myself. I've also pointed out that if you have a number of possible contributing factors, and only one of them currently shows a strong correlation, then it's not unreasonable to consider the one correlated factor the most likely #1 contributor until proven otherwise.


>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 and became Global Heat Death. Now, suddenly, some scientists are again talking Ice Age.



Not true. Even in the 1970s, far more published articles were concerned about imminent warming than about returning glaciation in a couple of millennia:

www.skepticalscience.com


We don't know what we don't know. The number of possible factors involving Earth climate are immense. Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
- anthropogenic effects,
- naturally reinforcing positive and negative feedback weat ...



Sure, there are any number of factors which may have some negligible effect on temperature, and it's also true that at some point several of these factors might coincide to produce a greater-than-expected effect. However, regarding those factors for which we have actual data, the numbers just don't add up, and none of these additional factors addresses the observed correlation between the theoretical greenhouse effect of increased CO2 and the observed temperature data.


The possible side effects of most politically-generated "quick fixes" are social and economic disruption, drastically lowered living standards, mass starvation of (mostly) Brown People, and potentially totalitarian control measures.

The possible side effects of most scientifically-generated "quick fixes" have the potential for definite and disastrous pear-shaped results. Release of vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere and/or the ocean? Really? Do we know with certainty what ALL consequences of that would be? We do not.



So the answer is to do nothing? And again, you fret over the effects of releasing chemicals into the environment to combat warming, but you downplay the effects of the vast release of the specific chemical that brought on the warming in the first place.


The possible side effects, and the timing, of increasing levels of carbon dioxide are unknown in their entirety. See Conclusion


From your link:

Conclusion

If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.


In other words, climatologists are in agreement about the overall effects; only the magnitude and speed of the change are in question.
 
2012-11-12 01:02:51 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..


I've pointed that out myself. I've also pointed out that if you have a number of possible contributing factors, and only one of them currently shows a strong correlation, then it's not unreasonable to consider the one correlated factor the most likely #1 contributor until proven otherwise.


>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 ...


Mind giving the source for that graph?
 
2012-11-12 01:18:14 AM  
Put your mouse cursor over the graph.
 
2012-11-12 01:42:19 AM  

RedVentrue: AGW seems to be, and scientific conclusions ARE decided by popular vote, among scientists, and science gets VERY political. When money is involved, scientific agnostisism can go right out the window. The AGW arguement is very politically motivated. AGW belongs in the politics tab, not the geek tab.


The science is the science. That it has been politicized is beside the point. And you are quite wrong when you say scientists decide by popular vote. Phlogiston was very popular. So was geocentrism. They were both factually incorrect, and that was the important point. Science is not a popularity contest. It is a contest of logic, fact, and mathematics, none of which are subject to popularity. The social aspect of science, where popularity plays a very large role, is involved in what the accepted questions are, which disciplines are deemed important and which not, who gets political support, etc. Those are all very important and have a critical role, but it does not have bearing on the accuracy and validity of the underlying science except to the extent that it can interfere with the availability of resources (time, money, equipment, manpower, etc.) needed to do that science.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I'm so sorry. You want to prove a point? You seem to be unaware that it is up to YOU to prove it to me. Not with handwaves ("look at google"), not with links to obviously propaganda websites (Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) but with links to actual purportedly objective sites. In the context of GCC this happens all too rarely. THAT, in itself, is deeply suspicious.


Hey wonder-boy, try Googling Jon Snow and Fark, and see just how many threads here on Fark have involved extensive explanations of GCC from just that one poster. And now you want to have all that rehashed just because your ignorant ass got up on a soapbox and started blathering bullshiat? Sorry, you're not worth the time. You're just one more deluded denialist grasping at straws.

I'm not bothering not because I can't, but because it's just the same tired old bullshiat. But frankly as it is absurdly easy to find accurate data if you can bother yourself to open your eyes and pull your fingers out of your ears, I'll give you one freebie. Start Here.

But I'm willing to bet you're going to say something like, "Oh Noes! That's a partisan site! They have an axe to grind or something to prove! It must all be lies!" in order to dismiss it all without reading the relevant data. Never mind of course that's a question-begging, partisan position. Because everyone knows all data in favor of GCC is partisan because only partisans believe in GCC which means that all data in favor of GCC is partisan because... and so on.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Straw Man much? Also deeply suspicious. You see, you people are constantly falling back on the "logic" used by con artists! Do you really wonder that intelligent people take your message with a large grain of salt?

But, in answer to your questions, no, I am not a creationist, and feel quite comfortable with thermodynamics, organic chemistry and geology.


Climatology uses exactly the same basic philosophical premises and methodological assumptions as all those other sciences I mentioned. The methods of determining accuracy and validity, and accepting conclusions thereby, also use exactly the same reasoning. Yet you accept without question all the results of the other sciences I named, and you question climatology, for what appear to be exclusively partisan political reasons.

Intelligent people understand that. Which is why intelligent people are able to critically evaluate GCC and understand why it's conclusions hold up to reasonable scrutiny, and denialist derping does not.

So incidentally, not only is it not a straw man to make the argument I made, it also demonstrates quite handily what a partisan hypocrite you are.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's the slick performance put on by Neils Bohr that I have trouble with. That was the starting point of the decline of classical physics (communicable to non-physics people) and the rise of quantum physics (extremely difficult to explain to non-physics people). This is curious, since every other science prior to quantum physics was intelligible to or at least explainable to a person of average intelligence. It's almost as if the quantum revolution - accepted also or particularly by quantum physicists - became the new "dogma" (accepted on faith, since no rational explanation of it was possible). .Quantum physicists accept it for one reason, and one reason only: it works. It explains everything (except gravity, which is the reason another complex and almost incomprehensible edifice - string theory - was erected "on top" of quantum theory).

Note, however, that I could make up a theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does everything, and explains everything. In terms ONLY of the pragmatic point of explaining everything, that would be just as valid as quantum theory.


Complete and utter bullshiat. Most of science and engineering is not comprehensible to the lay person except in the most vague and general sense. Or can you tell me how to calculate an orbital insertion for a probe heading from Earth to Jupiter? Can you tell me how to distinguish between the cis- and trans- isomers of a benzene derivative organic molecule by experimental techniques? How about giving me a full breakdown of the regions and functions of the human brain down to the neuron level? Can you derive Godel's incompleteness theorem?

There's a reason most human subjects are worked on by experts who have had extensive in-depth training. Because only the experts who have had that training know enough to be able to understand the details and nuances of their areas of specialty beyond the most gross and superficial levels. We are long, long past the days of the Renaissance men who could be expected reasonably to be well-versed in every discipline.

You are making an argument from personal incredulity. That is **always** a fallacious argument because the truth or falsity of a point is not in any way affected by your ability or inability to understand it.

The reason we use quantum theory (and incidentally climatology) is because it gets results. The theories have predictive value that has been validated by literally tens of thousands of experiments, in quantum physics enough for six-sigma statistical certainty for every result. I dare you to go look up how much work it takes to reach that level of certainty.

So, you don't like it, you don't understand it, it makes you uneasy because it violates your "common sense"? Too farking bad for you. Against that mountain of empirical evidence, your small-minded ignorant incredulity has less value than a gnat's fart in the wind.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When a "science" is not explainable to the average intelligent man on the street, all that is really left is the common sense ability to "cull the wheat from the chaff" so to speak. Lots of people have it, and use it, every day. That does NOT make it a fallacy.


Again, this is bullshiat. Many people believe they have such an ability. In fact, they do not. Humans are highly biased towards that which confirms their existing belief, and are nowhere near as good at detecting falsehoods as they believe they are. The best human lie detectors, highly trained, reach at best about a 65% certainty. Most people are no better than a coin flip, and that's with neutral information that they have no existing biases towards either way. Falsehoods that agree with what they already believe will be very likely accepted, and truths that disagree will be disbelieved. Go look at birthers and truthers if you want a clear-cut real world example.

In fact, a very large part of the training process of any scientist or academic is drilling in to them that error is inevitable, and that it's good because it gives you the chance to improve your knowledge, and that every criticism or refutation must be carefully considered on it's merits, not on whether you already agree or disagree with it, let alone understand it. A lesson you in particular appear desperately to need to learn.

So sorry to break this shocking news to you, but your incredulity is very much a fallacy, on every possible level.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Generalize much? My point has always been that it is NOT all members of the entire discipline. There are many (though perhaps a minority) climatologists who are quite skeptical about the whole GW GCC issue. Once again, you make use of the "logic" of a con man.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You keep saying that, but I notice that you pre-define the validated info by stating it has been validated "in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name." In other words, literature that does NOT validate is by definition not scientific and worthless. I believe that was the same argument used by Church officials when the threatened to burn Galileo at the stake for his heretical views.


When 97% of the world's climate scientists, including all the leading experts agree on a topic, and the remaining fraction publish poor quality material rife with errors and biases that is easily and routinely refuted, that does not mean that the two positions have equal merit. It does not mean that lay people should feel justified in asserting that the consensus viewpoint is wrong. It just means that there are a few people who are either wrong or are shilling for someone.

That you insist on projecting the lies and bullshiat of those fringe elements and partisan shills onto the enormous majority group who's work has been independently confirmed by skeptics, is simpy indicative of your own intellectual bankruptcy and blindness to your own biases.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: YOU are trying to prove the positive. The ball's in your court. To do otherwise would not be scientific on your part.


No, actually, when the vast majority of the experts on a subject assert a conclusion based on a mountain of empirical evidence and decades of research and analysis, the onus is on the naysayer to do the work necessary to prove that the nay position they espouse offers a better explanation for the observed data and offers better predictive value in terms of understanding and forecasting future events than the existing theory. The fact that you don't understand that point already further indicates to me you have no training whatsoever in the sciences.

It's not enough to squint your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NO!" over and over again at the top of your lungs like you are currently doing. You actually have to prove that your position is better-supported by evidence and logic.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: No, I have not. And using common sense and a basic knowledge of human psychology to "read" the telltales of a spokesperson and determine the likelihood that that spokesperson is trying to hustle you is NOT the same thing as saying "I don't like that person". In fact, con artists are generally very likeable people.I know; I've met quite a few.


First, you are nowhere near as good at that as you think you are, and you are deeply affected by your existing biases, as I have already pointed out. You are going to be predisposed to "read telltales" that push you towards accepting what you already believe and rejecting what you already disbelieve, just like every other human alive. That why scientific research tries as much as possible to make the opinions of the researcher either completely irrelevant (as in the natural sciences and quantitative social sciences) or completely obvious and fully disclosed (as in the qualitative social sciences), because anything else distorts the validity and accuracy of the research.

And second, none of that matters. Who the spokesperson is has absolutely no bearing on the truth of falsity of a statement. That's why an ad hominem is a fallacy in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa saying 2+2=5 or Hitler saying 2+2=4; the former statement is still false, and the latter statement is still true. So you don't like Al Gore? I do not give even the slightest of shiats. It has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific validity of GCC. Neither would loving Al Gore to the point of wanting to have his babies, if that is how you were so inclined. It does not now matter, never has mattered, and never will matter how you feel about the spokesperson for GCC or any other topic you care to name. All that matters is the validity of the evidence offered.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yes, so we accept your words on faith and then begin massive economic ans social movements to forestall the problem? Gee, sounds familiar.


No, dipshiat, you accept if based on a mountain of evidence and the same methodological and philosophical assumptions that allow you to accept every other science out there. Compared to something like relativity physics, cosmology or quantum physics, climatology is simple and mundane. You really aren't very well versed in this whole 'science' idea, are you?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gullible? Really? Now who's throwing around ad hominem?


It would only be an ad hominem if my calling you and those like you gullible was an argument. It's not. The argument is the science and the empirical data. The fact that you are gullible is just an obvious observation that arises as a consequence of your reaction to said science and data and to the lies being peddled by the shills trying to confuse things.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's called job security. And the money being a pittance compared to oil profits is a non-sequitur.


/jaw hanging open, staring in disbelief.

Job security. Job security?! Are you really that stupid? Really!? Here's a big, farking clue for you. If GCC magically vanished tomorrow, people would still be studying the climate, because there's still all kinds of things we would need to be studying, like weather patterns, hurricane formation, droughts, and so on. You know, all the stuff that climatologists were studying before anyone ever heard about GCC, and the stuff that many of them are still studying now. And because it's not a job with much money or prestige associated with it, there would not be much change in the number of people studying it. The people who get into climatology are the people who like climate science.

Meanwhile, the fact that oil profits are enormously high and stand to be heavily impacted if society enacts strict limits on the burning of fossil fuels is not at all a non-sequitor. It's the direct or indirect cause of the vast majority of the anti-GCC derping out there. And as long as they continue to believe that spending some of that money on confusing the matter to prevent any real change will result in more money for them in the final tally than they would have if restrictions on fossil fuels went into effect, they will keep spending money to do so.

Job security. I can barely believe you'd make such a ridiculous argument.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Non-sequitur. Also, whose now talking conspiracies? LOL! Come ON, either talking of conspiracies is either a sign of craziness, or it isn't. Or is it just crazy if your opponents do it? LOL!


In order for this to be a conspiracy, it would have to involve all of the oil companies acting in concert to a secret organized plan. They aren't. They are all acting as individual corporations - but with similar results because the economic pressures are very similar. They are spending money to prevent anti-GCC regulations from affecting their profits. There is loose coordination in the form of lobby groups, and think tanks that receive funding from multiple similar sources, but no outright cabal. It's not necessary. Each of the oil companies as an individual corporate entity has enough clout in terms of money and political influence to create confusion on it's own. Look how much money the Koch brothers alone have poured into anti-GCC PR and pseudoscientific "research". No conspiracy necessary, or even warranted. It would be a waste of their time and resources as well as potentially dangerous (not to mention illegal) for the oil companies to bother with that level of collusion and secrecy.

On the other hand, assuming that 97% of all climate scientists, be they otherwise liberal or conservative, people who are all professional rivals of one another who could make their individual careers by successfully disproving a widely held theory in their discipline, who are all looking to get published in the most prestigious journals possible (instead of the other guys also trying for the same thing), are actually all colluding to deceive and defraud the general public, well, THAT's a conspiracy theory of huge-tinfoil-hat proportions.

Overall, you're talking out your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about, no idea why what you're saying is bullshiat, and demonstrate not only enormous bias, but a complete unwillingness to seek out truth couple with a willingness to go to enourmous effort to rationalize your existing preconceptions.

In short, you're just another close-minded partisan denialist desperately trying and failing to prove that your ignorance is better than the expert's knowledge.
 
2012-11-12 02:05:42 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


1) Make up your mind. Is global warming a conspiracy to starve brown people or to ramp up the economies of the Third World at the expense of the developed countries?

2) Since when do wingnuts care about brown people?
 
2012-11-12 03:08:28 AM  
Kazan:
RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?

*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.

So you're claiming that the laws of physics are different at different times? Well, that IS an interesting approach. Ignorant, but interesting.

The Vostok ice cores show a 400,000 year period. In that period, carbon dioxide levels follow temperatures. At no time does the physics "reverse" and have temperatures following carbon dioxide levels. That's the way it is. Blather all you want, but that fact, alone, falsifies the idea that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions will have any significant effect on climate.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT to your own facts. Carbon dioxide level changes FOLLOW changes in global temperature; ipso facto, those carbon dioxide levels do not control the temperature.
 
2012-11-12 03:26:45 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
The periodic temperature spikes observed in the ice-core data are driven by Earth's rotational and orbital cycles, but their effect is greatly amplified by the CO2 released as a result. It's a two-stage process: Changes in Earth's rotation and orbit have a modest effect on temperature and CO2; the increased CO2 then triggers more significant additional warming of its own. As noted in the link, this initial CO2 lag and subsequent amplification was first predicted over 20 years ago.

Really? So, do YOU want to take a whack at explaining how carbon dioxide level changes have no effect during the time of the Vostok ice core samples, and DO have an effect when released by orbital changes? This is a busted hypothesis.
 
2012-11-12 03:41:38 AM  

GeneralJim: Kazan: RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?

*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.
So you're claiming that the laws of physics are different at different times? Well, that IS an interesting approach. Ignorant, but interesting.

The Vostok ice cores show a 400,000 year period. In that period, carbon dioxide levels follow temperatures. At no time does the physics "reverse" and have temperatures following carbon dioxide levels. That's the way it is. Blather all you want, but that fact, alone, falsifies the idea that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions will have any significant effect on climate.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT to your own facts. Carbon dioxide level changes FOLLOW changes in global temperature; ipso facto, those carbon dioxide levels do not control the temperature.



'Chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them.'
 
2012-11-12 03:58:01 AM  
Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.
 
2012-11-12 09:40:24 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Some people douse their drawers over the religious beliefs of others. That amuses me. 

www.deathvalleymag.com
That man doesn't believe what I believe

 
2012-11-12 09:52:19 AM  
Kazan:
Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics

as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

You refuse to agree that reality is reality. Until such a time that you join the real world we can hold no meaningful conversation. Good day, sir.

Oh, so you're one of the "Why, yes, our weather station is in the pizza oven, but we correct for that" people? Weather stations MUST meet the requirements set for those stations, or they invalidate the readings.
 
2012-11-12 11:16:35 AM  
KiltedBastich:
Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.

You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?
 
2012-11-12 11:54:16 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link

Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.

You will accept ANYTHING that supports your position, won't you? The same people that "debunked" charges against Jerry Sandusky are the ones who "debunked" charges against Michael Mann. They did the same fine job in both cases. If you buy that, well...

And if you think that the stations dropped were the most egregiously poorly placed ones, you're sadly mistaken. If the "hot" stations were dropped, why does the temperature LEAP up when they are removed? The truth is, COOLER stations were removed, not the ones that were poorly sited. See for yourself:


www.youdontsay.org

 
2012-11-12 12:09:53 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded. Second, again, nobody of which I am aware is denying that climate changes. What IS being denied is that the alarmist claims of the warmers, which have been repeatedly falsified by research, are true. Humans are NOT wildly changing the climate through carbon dioxide release. The planet is amazingly resistant to temperature changes due to changes in GHGs.

And this skepticism is NOT the result of "oil companies" having shills. That's a pants-on-head conspiracy theory. Energy companies will make MORE money, over a longer time, if draconian carbon taxes are implemented. They are NOT fighting this. Not that they are interested in saving people money... It is just that their lobbyists have written the proposed legislation, which now gives them a guaranteed profit. Energy companies have quit resisting this, just as insurance companies quit resisting Obamacare, once their lobbyists had written the bill. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Current "skepticism" is not even that -- currently, the science has falsified AGW, and resistance to the warmer alarmists is simply science resisting political influence. There is no science backing alarmist predictions of massive temperature change. Here's what science shows:

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)
 
2012-11-12 01:12:41 PM  

BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.


Facts be dammed huh?
 
2012-11-12 01:14:38 PM  

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.
You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?


Do you know what the standards are for weather stations?
 
2012-11-12 01:30:21 PM  

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: AGW seems to be, and scientific conclusions ARE decided by popular vote, among scientists, and science gets VERY political. When money is involved, scientific agnostisism can go right out the window. The AGW arguement is very politically motivated. AGW belongs in the politics tab, not the geek tab.

The science is the science. That it has been politicized is beside the point. And you are quite wrong when you say scientists decide by popular vote. Phlogiston was very popular. So was geocentrism. They were both factually incorrect, and that was the important point. Science is not a popularity contest. It is a contest of logic, fact, and mathematics, none of which are subject to popularity. The social aspect of science, where popularity plays a very large role, is involved in what the accepted questions are, which disciplines are deemed important and which not, who gets political support, etc. Those are all very important and have a critical role, but it does not have bearing on the accuracy and validity of the underlying science except to the extent that it can interfere with the availability of resources (time, money, equipment, manpower, etc.) needed to do that science...


The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.
 
2012-11-12 01:32:59 PM  

guyinjeep16: BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.

Facts be dammed huh?


Your facts are not facts, they are inferences. :)
 
2012-11-12 02:28:28 PM  

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.
You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?


And as everyone and their kid brother has been telling you ad nauseam, any problems that may have arisen from that effect in the USA have already been accounted for. Note that GCC is a global problem, not a USA problem. The data used for calculations about GCC are not limited to the USA.

But you know all that already. You're just too much of a dishonest partisan to ever admit it.
 
2012-11-12 02:34:30 PM  

RedVentrue: guyinjeep16: BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.

Facts be dammed huh?

Your facts are not facts, they are inferences. :)


Do you know what the temperature of the earth would be if you took all the CO2 from the atmosphere?
 
2012-11-12 02:37:18 PM  

RedVentrue: The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.


That's the point. When you have multiple possible interpretations, the proper response is not an ideological he-said/she-said argument. It is to formulate a research question that can resolve the issue with more data. If you can't find such a question, then the issue remains unresolved at that time until new methods or ideas make possible a distinction. "I don't know" is a better answer from a scientific perspective than an answer derived from partisan popularity or unpopularity. That's a fairly decent shorthand for the process of science in general, actually, because all new data leads to new possible interpretations, which leads to the need for new data, and so on.

Regardless of what a lay person would think, the popularity of an scientific assertion is never, ever a valid reason to accept or discount that scientific assertion. Popularity is certainly a reason that does motivate people to attack or defend an idea, but that's because we're all human and we do things for the wrong reasons routinely.

Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.
 
2012-11-12 02:39:23 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.
Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded. Second, again, nobody of which I am aware is denying that climate changes. What IS being denied is that the alarmist claims of the warmers, which have been repeatedly falsified by research, are true. Humans are NOT wildly changing the climate through carbon dioxide release. The planet is amazingly resistant to temperature changes due to changes in GHGs.

And this skepticism is NOT the result of "oil companies" having shills. That's a pants-on-head conspiracy theory. Energy companies will make MORE money, over a longer time, if draconian carbon taxes are implemented. They are NOT fighting this. Not that they are interested in saving people money... It is just that their lobbyists have written the proposed legislation, which now gives them a guaranteed profit. Energy companies have quit resisting this, just as insurance companies quit resisting Obamacare, once their lobbyists had written the bill. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Current "skepticism" is not even that -- currently, the science has falsified AGW, and resistance to the warmer alarmists is simply science resisting political influence. There is no science backing alarmist predictions of massive temperature change. Here's what science shows:

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)



There's a lot of stuff wrong with your posts, but let's focus on this one since it's the most straightforward - if you can't deal with your mistake here in an honest way, there's little hope you'll be able to handle anything more complicated.

The paper and the value you quote isn't climate sensitivity (ECS - equilibrium climate sensitivity) but instead transient climate response (TCR), and not sensitivity (ECS). The values given are on the low end of what the IPCC considered, but within the range they mentioned.

There's no room for subjectivity here - you are simply wrong on this point. Let's see if you can respond to this really basic mistake of yours in a rational, adult way instead of trying to change the subject and ignoring it.
 
2012-11-12 02:56:23 PM  

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.

That's the point. When you have multiple possible interpretations, the proper response is not an ideological he-said/she-said argument. It is to formulate a research question that can resolve the issue with more data. If you can't find such a question, then the issue remains unresolved at that time until new methods or ideas make possible a distinction. "I don't know" is a better answer from a scientific perspective than an answer derived from partisan popularity or unpopularity. That's a fairly decent shorthand for the process of science in general, actually, because all new data leads to new possible interpretations, which leads to the need for new data, and so on.

Regardless of what a lay person would think, the popularity of an scientific assertion is never, ever a valid reason to accept or discount that scientific assertion. Popularity is certainly a reason that does motivate people to attack or defend an idea, but that's because we're all human and we do things for the wrong reasons routinely.

Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobby ...


The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.
 
2012-11-12 03:19:25 PM  

RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.


Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.


Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.
 
2012-11-12 03:32:37 PM  

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.


Thank you for proving that you are a yes man for a political agenda.
 
2012-11-12 03:34:27 PM  

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.


There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.
 
2012-11-12 04:11:29 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

So, who is it that is comparing temperatures from two billion years ago? What is important is the last roughly 500 million miles, as once the planet became heavily inhabited by flora and fauna, (whose important contributions to the atmosphere regulate it) THEN historical data becomes VERY significant. And, over this essentially congruent atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels have had little to do with temperature, other than that, at a micro level, small changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes, proving that carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature.
 
2012-11-12 04:35:49 PM  

RedVentrue: Thank you for proving that you are a yes man for a political agenda.


static.ddmcdn.com

I'm not the one arguing that the FUD peddled by fossil fuel industry lobbyists and their paid shills is just as valid as the considered conclusions of the vast majority of all climate scientists. That would be you, oh drinker of the kool-aid.

RedVentrue: There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.


scientific uncertainty =/= both sides are equally valid. This is just another trite talking point. Did you swipe that one from the creationists?

To expand, the uncertainty in the scientific consensus of climate change is in the nuances and details. Exactly how much will the climate change? Exactly how much do we need to reduce carbon output to curtail things? What will be the detailed results of the rise in temperature on the world and on human society? There is indeed uncertainty there. And of course there is uncertainty in the philosophical sense that nothing in science is ever proven to an absolute standard of proof. But as in fact nothing at all that humans are aware of is ever proven to an absolute sense given the limitations on our senses and cognition, that is yet another red herring argument.

But do go on grasping at straws. I am enjoying pointing and laughing at your stupid.

GeneralJim: So, who is it that is comparing temperatures from two billion years ago? What is important is the last roughly 500 million miles, as once the planet became heavily inhabited by flora and fauna, (whose important contributions to the atmosphere regulate it) THEN historical data becomes VERY significant. And, over this essentially congruent atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels have had little to do with temperature, other than that, at a micro level, small changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes, proving that carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature.


It's almost as if you'd never heard of positive feedback cycles whereby small changes in temperature created changes in carbon dioxide levels which then precipitated even further increases in temperature. But that can't be the case, because I have personally witnessed people explaining that to you before.

I can only conclude you're either suffering from some form of amnesia or dementia, or that you're a dishonest partisan shill deliberately ignoring the refutations to your talking points.

I wonder which it is. Really. I wonder
 
2012-11-12 04:36:58 PM  

RedVentrue: KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.

There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.


Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.
 
2012-11-12 04:38:08 PM  
Do you know*
 
2012-11-12 04:53:04 PM  
KiltedBastich:
CujoQuarrel: Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.

That's the East Anglia code. Hopefully there are other models being used now that are better written.

There are about 5 or 6 major data sets used for analysis, all collected independently, and they all agree with each other to a very high degree.

The point -- you missed it. He is discussing CODE, not DATA.

"Oh, ballz. Did you see all the potholes in that road?"
"What do you mean? A dozen cars use this road, and every one of them runs great."

And, by the way, the big problem with the temperature data sets is that jackasses keep modifying the historical data. Observe how just ONE data set has changed over time....


icecap.us

 
2012-11-12 04:56:30 PM  

KiltedBastich: In short


lulz
 
2012-11-12 05:12:03 PM  

GeneralJim: The point -- you missed it. He is discussing CODE, not DATA.

"Oh, ballz. Did you see all the potholes in that road?"
"What do you mean? A dozen cars use this road, and every one of them runs great."


For the benefit of those who are apparently unable to add 2+2 and get 4, the point is that the other major data sets are not calculated using the same underlying code, because it's not the same team and they don't use exactly the same methods. So whatever problems you might have with the code used for calculating one data set, it remains that there are multiple data sets that were analyzed using multiple methods independently of each other that all got very similar results. In science that's called "replication", and it's one of the big ways the validity and reliability of a finding is proved.

But again, you know that alreayd, and are simply too dishonest to ever admit it.

GeneralJim: And, by the way, the big problem with the temperature data sets is that jackasses keep modifying the historical data. Observe how just ONE data set has changed over time....


Gee, so you've proven you can create a false conspiracy by monkeying around with the scaling of a graph. I'm unimpressed. Try it again when all the horizontal and vertical scales are identical on all three graphs, dipshiat. You might also want to check the original sources of those graphs, as opposed to your denialist blog source. Someone drawing an inaccurate graph from a data set is not the same thing as saying the data set is inaccurate or has been changed. But again, I don't really expect you to be willing to grasp that point. It might require you to rethink some of your preconceptions, and you'd never let that happen.
 
2012-11-12 05:40:11 PM  

threadjackistan, you write:

Because if one thing screams "can be instantly turned off," it's a giant structure that's hundreds of thousands of miles from the nearest anything.

Well, yes, actually. A large mirror in space, as was under discussion, needs to be adjusted from time to time, and is either controlled by radio from the ground, or uses a computer on-board to make adjustments. In either case, input from the ground should be available. That means that the mirror could be either turned, or located elsewhere in orbit with ease. Pulling megatons of crap out of the air or water, not so much.

Worst case, the mirror could be moved with a single space mission, or even blown up with missiles. That last one is not a great idea, because if we build a space mirror, we will need it later to try to warm the planet out of an ice age, or at least postpone it as much as possible.
 
2012-11-12 06:04:35 PM  
KiltedBastich:
You don't believe the scientists? Then go read their research directly. Again, I direct you to that Google thing you seem so unaware of. Most of the information is easily found if you take the time. Oh, but that's right, you don't understand the information - and so therefor they must all be lying and involved in a conspiracy. Uh huh. Just like every other scientific discipline you don't understand is a conspiracy.

You are not being at all fair to him... Yeah, yeah, I know, welcome to Fark.

The problem with cheating in science is that the data are released. Other people can keep copies of the old data, and compare it. Global temperature data sets have been systematically altered, "adjusted," and the result of this tampering is to make the past colder, the present warmer, and the temperature curve more closely match carbon dioxide.

Scientists in the field ARE doing good science. But, once the data get from these scientists to the VERY few scientists who are the "gatekeepers" for the global data sets, they are mercilessly tortured to fit the political agenda.

A large number of comparisons of the original data with the "massaged" data are available HERE. A sample:


www.appinsys.com
Older temperatures adjusted down,
recent temperatures adjusted up.

(why are readings more than a hundred years old being adjusted?)


www.appinsys.com
Warming Created by Adjustments to USHCN Data

 
2012-11-12 06:13:13 PM  
KiltedBastich:
Who gives a shiat? Who the spokesperson is has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information. This argument is tantamount to saying "I don't like you so you're wrong". That argument is always invalid, regardless of whether the actual position being challenged is true or not! You have just admitted that you're a partisan who cares more about the politics than the truth of the science.

If you believe that, your fellow warmer alarmists are just jackasses. Probably hundreds of times I've been told that information I present doesn't count because the reference I make to it is via a blog. Even if the blog references the original peer-reviewed paper, the fact that a blog references that paper somehow sullies the data -- at least in the minds of the warmer alarmists. Either that, or they are just so desperate to discredit all the evidence falsifying their position, they grasp at anything to be able to ignore it. "Ha, I won't deal with THAT data, as they appear in a blog. And I won't answer THAT logical challenge, because your text is in green." It's all rather pathetic.

And, allow me to give you some sort of cognitive crisis -- I agree with your point here; information is information. It is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the medium by which it arrives.
 
2012-11-12 06:21:07 PM  
KiltedBastich:
Please get this straight. There is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Grant money is a pittance compared to oil profits, and its disbursement is under very strict oversight to be used only for more research.

No, YOU get this straight: funding for climate science has increased TWENTY-FOLD since the dousing of drawers over the phony crisis began. If the public realization of the fraud being perpetrated on them ONLY results in a return to previous funding, 95% of all climate research funding will disappear.

But, you are correct that only very few scientists are corrupted by the money; only Phil Jones has been caught with too much money in his research account, and only James Hansen and Michael Mann have clearly violated their "outside income" guidelines. I would also point out that for every dollar contributed to research by "evil oil companies," environmental groups contribute TEN. Also, for every environmental group's dollar, government contributes TEN. Are you trying to imply that the less than one percent of the money that comes from "evil oil companies" corrupts scientists, while ten or a hundred times more money does NOT? Please explain your logic.
 
2012-11-12 06:31:03 PM  
KiltedBastich:
Newflash: Science is not decided by popular vote, sorry. And to repeat what should be blatantly obvious, there is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Otherwise the fossil fuel lobbyists and their private partisan think tanks would not be able to successfully thwart the collective consensus of 97% of the world's climate scientists and the decades of painstaking research they base their conclusions on.

You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you should take it off-line.

You are correct that science (the factual part) is NOT decided by popular vote. As you then go on to prove, however, scientific argumentation OFTEN uses the "popular vote" as evidence. But, as you say, there is NO validity to arguments from authority, even when that "authority" is an alleged majority.

At this point, allow me to add that, using the criteria used by Oreskes in her study, *I* would be counted as part of that 97%. And I am rather more virulently opposed to the fraud of "Global Climate Apocalypse," or whatever this week's term is, than most. So, her study, to use a scientific phrase, sucks balls.
 
2012-11-12 06:51:04 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Past trends become less relevant when a new forcing mechanism takes over. For example, temperatures correlated quite well with solar output for decades...up until CO2 became a more important factor:

So, according to your graph, you are saying that you believe that carbon dioxide is having an effect upon temperature, but that it only started in 1980. That's very interesting.

It also is MUCH more likely to be true than the bullshiat being pushed by your warmer buddies, whom you are back-stabbing with this comment. They are asserting that carbon dioxide has been controlling temperature for over a century. Are you saying they're full of it? If not, what ARE you saying?

And, what you are saying falls right in line with Miskolczi's work. Carbon dioxide WOULD require a significant increase, generating a noticeable spike in temperature, which would then activate correction mechanisms, such as lowering upper tropospheric water vapor levels - that is, specific humidity. Let's see if that has happened.... Yep:
 

www.masterresource.org

 
2012-11-12 07:03:47 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.

In other words, climatologists are in agreement about the overall effects; only the magnitude and speed of the change are in question.

Well, yeah. But the magnitude and speed are absolutely crucial to decision-making. Let's say, as appears to be the case from empirical data, that, at our current rate of carbon dioxide release, we will increase the temperature of the planet by about 0.2 K by the year 2100. What kind of response does that justify?
 
2012-11-12 08:29:33 PM  

GeneralJim: You are not being at all fair to him... Yeah, yeah, I know, welcome to Fark.

The problem with cheating in science is that the data are released. Other people can keep copies of the old data, and compare it. Global temperature data sets have been systematically altered, "adjusted," and the result of this tampering is to make the past colder, the present warmer, and the temperature curve more closely match carbon dioxide.

Scientists in the field ARE doing good science. But, once the data get from these scientists to the VERY few scientists who are the "gatekeepers" for the global data sets, they are mercilessly tortured to fit the political agenda.

A large number of comparisons of the original data with the "massaged" data are available HERE. A sample:


Don't you ever get tired of recycling the same old busted talking points? The explanation for your supposed conspiracy is here. Short version is very simple. The graph you are trumpeting is the analysed results, not the raw data. But strangely enough, climatologists, like most scientists, are constantly revising their methods, including the math. And when you reanalyse old raw data with newer, more reliable methods, the results aren't the same as the old numbers, and so you have to adjust the published information. That is in fact exactly the point of using new methodology in the first place. This is not a conspiracy. This is just normal science. You're just butthurt that the revised methodology does not support your preconceptions.

This isn't unique to climatology you know. Every single scientific discipline does this. Reanalyzing existing raw data sets when applicable new methodologies are developed is routine. Only when it is politicized as you are now doing does anyone kick up a fuss.

GeneralJim: If you believe that, your fellow warmer alarmists are just jackasses. Probably hundreds of times I've been told that information I present doesn't count because the reference I make to it is via a blog. Even if the blog references the original peer-reviewed paper, the fact that a blog references that paper somehow sullies the data -- at least in the minds of the warmer alarmists. Either that, or they are just so desperate to discredit all the evidence falsifying their position, they grasp at anything to be able to ignore it. "Ha, I won't deal with THAT data, as they appear in a blog. And I won't answer THAT logical challenge, because your text is in green." It's all rather pathetic.

And, allow me to give you some sort of cognitive crisis -- I agree with your point here; information is information. It is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the medium by which it arrives.


Wow, you so do not get it. The sources you publish are not credible because they lie. They misrepresent data, and they do not adhere to rigorous standards of proof and disclosure. That's why we keep telling you to stick to original sources like scientific journals and research bodies - because they have the credibility to make believable claims that their data is being presented without distortion for evaluation on its merits, and they have something to lose in terms of professional standing if they are lying, and their are mechanisms in place for those agencies for data to be challenged if it isn't correct. All of those things are in place specifically in order to minimize the possibility of partisan obfuscation or lying.

Blogs which are obviously and blatantly partisan that deliberately misrepresent data are the exact opposite. They are not trustworthy because there is actual evidence that they are screwing with the numbers, for example all your cherry-picked charts that purport to show no warming for a 12 or 14 year period by starting on the effing 1998 temperature outlier to skew the distribution.

Evidence can only speak for itself when there is valid grounds to assert that the data is reliable. That's why professional reputation is all-important in the sciences, and why there is a competitive peer-review system in the first place - to offer as much of a guarantee as possible that the data will be sound. That's also why replication is so vital in science, because it is possible to get aberrant results due to chance from time to time even when using otherwise sound methodologies. Incidentally, you obviously know this, which is why you spend so much energy trying to trump up conspiracy stories to make it seem like someone is out to change the numbers to make all the mountains of data on GCC out to be false - because that's the only way your denialist fantasizing could be legitimate, no matter how ridiculously far-fetched the narratives you have to construct are.

GeneralJim: No, YOU get this straight: funding for climate science has increased TWENTY-FOLD since the dousing of drawers over the phony crisis began. If the public realization of the fraud being perpetrated on them ONLY results in a return to previous funding, 95% of all climate research funding will disappear.


FIrst, citition needed. Second, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the money the oil industry has to play with. Third, that still doesn't mean that climate scientists are getting rich, because, to repeat, again, what you already know, grant money for research CANNOT be used for personal purposes. It can only be used for research purposes; the disbursement is under strict oversight as anyone who has ever worked in any research lab anywhere knows intimately. So even if there has been a twenty-fold increase in funding, all that means is a twenty fold increase in research. That is a very different thing than fossil fuel PROFITS, which go into enriching folks like the Koch brothers.

GeneralJim: But, you are correct that only very few scientists are corrupted by the money; only Phil Jones has been caught with too much money in his research account, and only James Hansen and Michael Mann have clearly violated their "outside income" guidelines. I would also point out that for every dollar contributed to research by "evil oil companies," environmental groups contribute TEN. Also, for every environmental group's dollar, government contributes TEN. Are you trying to imply that the less than one percent of the money that comes from "evil oil companies" corrupts scientists, while ten or a hundred times more money does NOT? Please explain your logic.


Again, citation needed. I have never seen any substantiated proof of the money you speak of. All I have seen are slanderous rumors spread on various partisan blogs who I have already caught lying about the numbers in climate science. Why should I trust them to be any more honest about financial numbers?

And of course environmental groups and government contribute much more money to research than oil companies. The oil companies do spend some of their money on some poorly done shill research, but they also contribute to "think tanks" like the Cato group who put out their own false and misleading publications, to lobby groups, and to SuperPACs and directly to political campaigns instead - because at the end of the day they know damn well that the science is not on their side, so they find other means to confuse the issue. Spending all that money on research would not help them, because unlike politics and PR, the science won't change just because they throw money at it.

GeneralJim: You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you should take it off-line.

You are correct that science (the factual part) is NOT decided by popular vote. As you then go on to prove, however, scientific argumentation OFTEN uses the "popular vote" as evidence. But, as you say, there is NO validity to arguments from authority, even when that "authority" is an alleged majority.


Not so. What you are doing is a popular misrepresentation of science. It is certainly true that experts will assert that one position or the other is correct, but they do so based on the research and data performed, and there is always an implicit invitation to examine the data and do the work necessary to show it is not so, because that is how science progresses, by overturning or revising previous science in the light of new data. Scientific consensus is not based on popularity, but on weight of evidence and replication. Not how many people believe something is true, but on how much data from multiple experiments support the conclusion. Those two things are very, very different, and you seem to be unable to grasp that critical nuance.

GeneralJim: At this point, allow me to add that, using the criteria used by Oreskes in her study, *I* would be counted as part of that 97%. And I am rather more virulently opposed to the fraud of "Global Climate Apocalypse," or whatever this week's term is, than most. So, her study, to use a scientific phrase, sucks balls.


You part of that 97%? Hardly. If your generally poor grasp of scientific methodology and practice weren't evidence enough, your following statement betrays the falsity of that statement, as only a denialist would use "apocalypse" in such a disparaging and sensationalist sense. Again, it's not like the term Global Climate Change is new to you. You're just not honest enough to admit it. Your self-inclusion in that group smacks of egotism, not to mention a means to construct a flimsy excuse to discount it.

No matter how much you try, the science is what the science is. The only way to disprove it is to find a better explanation using the same methods and practices, all of which exist for a reason. That means no reliance on partisan blogs, no cherry-picked graphs, no relying on single studies and ignoring the majority of results, and no bloviating about conspiracies. Do the work, and if reality at large continues to insist on disagreeing with your preconceptions, too farking bad for you.

The methods and practices of science on a social level exist for a very, very good reason, and neither you nor any of your denialist reactionary friends get to ignore them, no matter how much you might want to.
 
2012-11-13 01:20:11 AM  

GeneralJim: [being GeneralJim]



Things I take for granted:

1. The sun will rise in the east.

2. Nate Silver's predictions will be accurate.

3. You will post the same old (and oft-discredited) links and graphs in Fark climate threads while hurling the same old insults and continuing to choose willful ignorance over rational discourse.
 
2012-11-13 01:58:18 AM  
Also...

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded.



WTF??? Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?

And actually, he did imply something of the sort, although not entirely seriously. Furthermore, his response was a nuanced clarification of his opinion. Your understanding of logical fallacies seems to match your understanding of Godwining, or of nuance.
 
2012-11-13 09:21:42 PM  

guyinjeep16: RedVentrue: KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.

There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.

Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.


I'm told it would be cold, but I really don't "KNOW", for myself.

Do you? Really? You could very well be right, and probably you are. It irks me that you guys treat it like a religion. Standard Dem Pillar of Wisdom #5. Humans are bad and the cause of everything bad on the planet.
 
2012-11-13 09:40:40 PM  

RedVentrue: guyinjeep16: Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.

I'm told it would be cold, but I really don't "KNOW", for myself.

Do you? Really? You could very well be right, and probably you are. It irks me that you guys treat it like a religion. Standard Dem Pillar of Wisdom #5. Humans are bad and the cause of everything bad on the planet.



Actually, we do know. The sun's energy output is known, as are Earth's size, orbital distance, and albedo. We therefore know how much energy Earth is receiving, and the equilibrium temperature can be calculated. It's around -18 C or zero F.

No religion taught us this. Human brainpower figured it out just from looking at things and taking careful notes.

Human brainpower also came up with religion, so maybe your "pillar" has some foundation in truth after all.
 
2012-11-14 12:49:07 AM  

RedVentrue: Do you? Really? You could very well be right, and probably you are. It irks me that you guys treat it like a religion. Standard Dem Pillar of Wisdom #5. Humans are bad and the cause of everything bad on the planet.


Stop projecting your failings on to the rest of us. We trust the science, based on the evidence. We specifically do *not* take it faith, and we treat it like any other well-supported scientific theory. You're making the same kinds of ridiculous arguments as the anti-vaxxers and the creationists. Do you doubt biology or physics or astronomy the way you doubt climatology? Do you accuse people of treating those disciplines "like a religion"? Somehow I think not. Yet they use the same basic philsophical and methodological premises. The exact same premises.

So why do you cherry-pick? Because you've been told to by people who appeal to your knee-jerk partisan ideologies. Red team vs. Blue team! If'n those dadburned dimmycrats are fer it, then yerrrrrr AGIN it! No reasoning allowed.

It's absolutely shameful to watch.

And did you ever stop to think that it's not just the Dems saying this is bad? Did you ever stop to think that there are conservative climatologists who are Republicans who support this? They are out there you know. It's just that they happen to have the facts on their side.

As for global climate change being bad more generally, please get something straight. It's bad for US. For our society, our economy, our way of life. For the planet at large it's not going to be that big a deal. Weather patterns will change, some species will go extinct, others will change their distribution, others will evolve to fill the new niches created by all the changes. The planet has undergone much bigger changes in the past.
 
Displayed 151 of 151 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report