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  
•       •       •

2866 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Nov 2012 at 7:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report