Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Very_Bad_Man]

Scientist were once certain the earth was flat.

Just sayin.

 

[patrick1]

I know I know there are oxymorons and oxymorons but I'm trying to be nice here.

Patrick

Did he really say "trained at Oxford in science"? LMAO.

 

[trysail]

Did he really say "trained at Oxford in science"? LMAO.

That is precisely the kind of wiseass crack that doesn't deserve the dignity of a response.


Patrick, I am well aware of Northern Rock. You are correct that ad hominem attack doesn't address the issue. Intelligent readers recognize it for what it is.


Conflation of issues doesn't address the question. Invocation of tobacco or finance is a clear indication of ignorance or desperation.

 

[phrodeau]

Scientist were once certain the earth was flat.

Just sayin.

Which one?

 

[mercury14]

Scientist were once certain the earth was flat.

Just sayin.

Not really. They basically just took the Church's position because they had to. No science was involved.

 

[mercury14]

756 scientists from 453 research institutions have worked on the Medieval Warming Period. Virtually all data supports the notion that that period was significantly warmer than it is today. It's a contradiction of all that Mann and the followers of his new age religion cannot explain. So, rather than explain that phenomena, they have contrived to make it 'go away.' By selectively erasing the MWP from his data sets Mann was able to come up with his infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph.

The records show something entirely different, or at least brings the issue of climate change into better perspective. The ramp up of the temperature at the beginning of the MWP was as sudden, if not more so, than the ramp up we observed up until 2002. And the ramp down leading into the Little Ice Age was just as precipitous. And all of this occurred pre-industrial age. This effectively eliminates CO2 as a consideration as the major forcing factor in climate change. (And the various ice cores support this observation as well.) When the MWP is overlain in true perspective on Mann's 'Hockey Stick' today's rise in temperatures (which effectively ended in 2002) start to appear as nothing more than part of a cycle which we do not fully understand yet.

Please reconcile your numerous un-sourced points with this data. Because it sure looks like everything you just said is completely false.



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/box64.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png

 

[Ishmael]

Still inventing data from thin air and spreading lies, Ish?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32



Where's that data, Ish? Four months isn't long enough?

Put up or shut up.

Argos wasn't enough? Knock one leg out from under the stool and it's not going to stand.

However, as MWP has come up, follow the below link. There's a nifty global map there that you can click on and then mouse over the various papers documenting the geologic records showing that particular period in the earths history. Almost all of the mouse overs cite the principal investigator along with the year of publication. Yes, there are a few that don't contain that information, given the amount of research required to come up with the citations I suspect that that is merely an oversight. I suppose one could come to a more sinister conclusion, but the number are few compared to the overall citations. The article itself is worthy of reading as well, it even contains the temperature graph that was in most of the early IPCC reports that has subsequently been dropped.

MWP

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

Well of course, I see this is evidence. But of what? Its implications are disputed. It is rather obviously designed to promote one point of view, not to seek the truth among differing points of view. But then of course I've seen maps and tables similarly slanted by the opposing point of view: I try to understand what's underlying slanted data.

I see this specific slanted data-map might promote a sceptical view of the temperature changes in the medieval period. I've read enough about the medieval warm period to accept: (a) it existed; (b) it was regionally highly differentiated rather than global;; (c) but then such events are often highly regionally-differentiated, even the ones we think of as 'global' at present ; so (d) the question now is what does it mean for the present-day theory of global warming?

I'd welcome interpretations of this from people who agree or disagree with me But please, please, don't be rude. I don't understand why people are accompanying scientific or quasi-scientific appraisals with rudeness. I just don't get it.

Patrick

(I apologise for poor proof-reading at the mo, I'm having an eyesight problem)

Argos wasn't enough? Knock one leg out from under the stool and it's not going to stand.

However, as MWP has come up, follow the below link. There's a nifty global map there that you can click on and then mouse over the various papers documenting the geologic records showing that particular period in the earths history. Almost all of the mouse overs cite the principal investigator along with the year of publication. Yes, there are a few that don't contain that information, given the amount of research required to come up with the citations I suspect that that is merely an oversight. I suppose one could come to a more sinister conclusion, but the number are few compared to the overall citations. The article itself is worthy of reading as well, it even contains the temperature graph that was in most of the early IPCC reports that has subsequently been dropped.

MWP

Ishmael

See above regarding the map on Watts' site. The MWP is just another point that's been studied to death by everybody and it isn't the silver bullet you ideologues wish it were.

As far as your utter nonsense before that, this is what you posted:

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.

You have never since then posted "data captured from many scientists who were out to support the whole AGW theory."

You have not refuted a single point that I posted in that thread. Anyone who wants to see this for himself can follow this link and read the thread for himself.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=37990855#post37990855

I recommend that people who are bothered to read the thread be sure to note that you started it by citing an article which states the following unequivocal point:

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

So not only was the title of your thread a lie, in that the article you based it on states that human-caused global warming IS occurring, but you also acknowledge by citing the paper that human activities ARE causing warming and shielding it at the same time, giving rise to this statement from the same article:

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

So, one more time, where is the data you said you'd post that refuted "every single point" I posted in that thread?

Put up or shut up. *chuckle*

 

[IrezumiKiss]

See above regarding the map on Watts' site. The MWP is just another point that's been studied to death by everybody and it isn't the silver bullet you ideologues wish it were.

As far as your utter nonsense before that, this is what you posted:



You have never since then posted "data captured from many scientists who were out to support the whole AGW theory."

You have not refuted a single point that I posted in that thread. Anyone who wants to see this for himself can follow this link and read the thread for himself.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=37990855#post37990855

I recommend that people who are bothered to read the thread be sure to note that you started it by citing an article which states the following unequivocal point:



So not only was the title of your thread a lie, in that the article you based it on states that human-caused global warming IS occurring, but you also acknowledge by citing the paper that human activities ARE causing warming and shielding it at the same time, giving rise to this statement from the same article:



So, one more time, where is the data you said you'd post that refuted "every single point" I posted in that thread?

Put up or shut up. *chuckle*

Don't hurt the poor bastich or nothin', Perg.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2011/09/637032c9f49e0a2215580e74294bd1bf/original.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

Don't hurt the poor bastich or nothin', Perg.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2011/09/637032c9f49e0a2215580e74294bd1bf/original.jpg

He *chuckled* at me.

 

[Ishmael]

See above regarding the map on Watts' site. The MWP is just another point that's been studied to death by everybody and it isn't the silver bullet you ideologues wish it were.

As far as your utter nonsense before that, this is what you posted:



You have never since then posted "data captured from many scientists who were out to support the whole AGW theory."

You have not refuted a single point that I posted in that thread. Anyone who wants to see this for himself can follow this link and read the thread for himself.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=37990855#post37990855

I recommend that people who are bothered to read the thread be sure to note that you started it by citing an article which states the following unequivocal point:



So not only was the title of your thread a lie, in that the article you based it on states that human-caused global warming IS occurring, but you also acknowledge by citing the paper that human activities ARE causing warming and shielding it at the same time, giving rise to this statement from the same article:



So, one more time, where is the data you said you'd post that refuted "every single point" I posted in that thread?

Put up or shut up. *chuckle*

I most certainly have Perg., you can choose to accept that the whole issue is in question or not. If you choose not to then nothing I can ever post or say will change your mind. Even Tycho Brae took his theory as a matter of science, and faith, to his grave.

You seem to take my posts as a matter of fact that I am firmly entrenched in the camp of the non-believers. I'm not, I'm a skeptic. I've seen NO conclusive evidence. I haven't even seen a preponderance of evidence based on the historical record modeled today.

Let me jump to your side of the fence for a moment and agree that AGW is real. The difference being that I'm not going to jump on the CO2 bandwagon. There's far too much contradictory evidence to support that notion. But the fact remains that the waste product of the expenditure of energy is heat. It really doesn't matter how that energy was produced, transmitted, or used. Ergs are ergs, it's just that simple. That begs the question as to whether we want to have the rest of the world enjoy our level of comfort. If so, there's going to be a LOT more ergs expended. If not, then fuck'em, let them wallow in the hovels they have, scrape for the food they manage to coax from the soil. We'll take the resources, prevent them from agricultural expansion, ie, clearing forests, while we continue to live like the privileged.

Congress passes a law dictating the light bulbs we should use, all in the interest of 'saving the planet.' All the while knowing that light bulbs are the single least expenditure of power in most households. The energy gobblers are the refrigerators, hot water heaters, air conditioners, furnaces, dishwashers, washing machines and dryers. Are you going to be the one to tell your wife that, "We're moving to the woods honey, no more of those appliances for us. I'll hunt and chop wood, you take care of the rest of that stuff."

Or are you going to be the one advocate that those people in the undeveloped world are to be banned from TV and Radio, too much energy being expended ya know?

By notion of some researchers the average American and European (with the Indians and Chinese catching up) consume the energy that the average Roman that owned 200 slaves consumed. And live in the same comparative comfort.

It takes just as much energy to propel a Prius down the road as it does a Honda Accord at the same speed. The heat signature will be the same, because the laws of physics dictate that.

The pale-climate record clearly shows that the earth survived CO2 concentrations at least 500% (and according to some researchers even higher) and still managed to have ice ages. How can that be? According to Mann et al it can't be. Given the paleo record I'm forced to discount Mann et al's hysteria concerning CO2.

However, I cannot discount the possibility that man is generating more heat than the planet can shed. If that is true, what is the solution? The most obvious is to get rid of excess humans. As machines reduce the labor required to produce any particular product it's obvious to even the most casual observer that those not intimately involved with some productive activity are part of the problem of heat being generated beyond the capacity of the planet to shed that heat. They are 'over budget' so to speak.

Now, given the paleo record of temperature vs CO2 concentrations my theory regarding AGW is as valid as Mann's and mine has the added attribute of at least fitting the record.

Political Science

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

1)I most certainly have Perg., you can choose to accept that the whole issue is in question or not. If you choose not to then nothing I can ever post or say will change your mind. Even Tycho Brae took his theory as a matter of science, and faith, to his grave.

2)You seem to take my posts as a matter of fact that I am firmly entrenched in the camp of the non-believers. I'm not, I'm a skeptic. I've seen NO conclusive evidence. I haven't even seen a preponderance of evidence based on the historical record modeled today.

Let me jump to your side of the fence for a moment and agree that AGW is real. The difference being that I'm not going to jump on the CO2 bandwagon. 3)There's far too much contradictory evidence to support that notion. But the fact remains that the waste product of the expenditure of energy is heat. It really doesn't matter how that energy was produced, transmitted, or used. Ergs are ergs, it's just that simple. That begs the question as to whether we want to have the rest of the world enjoy our level of comfort. If so, there's going to be a LOT more ergs expended. If not, then fuck'em, let them wallow in the hovels they have, scrape for the food they manage to coax from the soil. We'll take the resources, prevent them from agricultural expansion, ie, clearing forests, while we continue to live like the privileged.

4)Congress passes a law dictating the light bulbs we should use, all in the interest of 'saving the planet.' All the while knowing that light bulbs are the single least expenditure of power in most households. The energy gobblers are the refrigerators, hot water heaters, air conditioners, furnaces, dishwashers, washing machines and dryers. Are you going to be the one to tell your wife that, "We're moving to the woods honey, no more of those appliances for us. I'll hunt and chop wood, you take care of the rest of that stuff."

5)Or are you going to be the one advocate that those people in the undeveloped world are to be banned from TV and Radio, too much energy being expended ya know?

5)By notion of some researchers the average American and European (with the Indians and Chinese catching up) consume the energy that the average Roman that owned 200 slaves consumed. And live in the same comparative comfort.

6)It takes just as much energy to propel a Prius down the road as it does a Honda Accord at the same speed. The heat signature will be the same, because the laws of physics dictate that.

7)The pale-climate record clearly shows that the earth survived CO2 concentrations at least 500% (and according to some researchers even higher) and still managed to have ice ages. How can that be? According to Mann et al it can't be. Given the paleo record I'm forced to discount Mann et al's hysteria concerning CO2.

8)However, I cannot discount the possibility that man is generating more heat than the planet can shed. If that is true, what is the solution? The most obvious is to get rid of excess humans. As machines reduce the labor required to produce any particular product it's obvious to even the most casual observer that those not intimately involved with some productive activity are part of the problem of heat being generated beyond the capacity of the planet to shed that heat. They are 'over budget' so to speak.

9)Now, given the paleo record of temperature vs CO2 concentrations my theory regarding AGW is as valid as Mann's and mine has the added attribute of at least fitting the record.

Political Science

Ishmael

Jesus fucking Christ.

1) No, you have not. I will, once again, direct readers to the thread I linked in which you said you'd post data from specific sources that refuted specific points I made. You did not do that, and still have not. You never will, because no such data from the sources you promised exists. Youre selling snake oil and hoping people buy it.

2) I don't care what position you take overall, and why should I? You post absolute nonsense on a regular basis, as evidenced by the thread I linked, in which you claimed one thing and linked an article that said the exact opposite.

3) No there isn't, unless you have some sort of partisan need to believe in unsupported propaganda. The evidence is huge, and growing daily as more and more papers are published.

4) Congress is full of shit and always has been. So what? The rest of your paragraph is appeal to emotion.

5) Appeal to emotion.

6) True. But irrelevant. The question is where does the energy come from and at what cost.

7) This is a lie. Post data or stfu.

8) This is also appeal to emotion, though cleverly couched. Still, you would have us think the only choices are "people or the planet." Complete crap.

9) No, it does not have the same validity as Mann's. It never will, because your entire argument is from an ideologic view that AGW is somehow in conflict with your belief that personal liberty is the primary value in all human life. Mann has been vetted by many scientists and scientific organizations. Who vetted your nonsense?

 

[mercury14]

7) Post data or stfu.

What's the ratio of times you've asked Ishmael this question to the number of times he's provided data?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What's the ratio of times you've asked Ishmael this question to the number of times he's provided data?

Ish thought dropping "Tycho Brae" in the mix like it meant something significantly profound was gonna faze him.

 

[patrick1]

Trysail, some of this badinage (quoted at the end) is only about attempting to be jocular, honestly, I meant to be friendly.

But I look into the background of 'commentators' to decide whether I would trust them. I feel uncomfortable with Matt Ridley's associations with finance, and with David Rose's past pronouncements, including those about tobacco. In my experience, looking into people's general backgrouds is informative, but that's because I'm a character-judger I suppose. It's part of what made me want to be a writer.

That's all I mean in remarking on 'tobacco and finance'. Ridley ran a company that fucked up. Rose has supported appalling causes i(as I would see, though I love David Hockney who disagrees) n the past. It's a context in which to look at their work.

I am however genuinely grateful for the reference to Ridley's speech. I see in what he's saying a much clearer explanation of the relationship between claims about scientific modelling and claims about economics.

Personally I think his talk is awful. But do follow trysail's link at the foot and see for yourself.

To me there's so much dodgy rhetoric and too little information. He hates futurology yet constantly implies a future he believes in and insinuates that he knows. There are so many cheap writers' tricks. All that.

But the world seems full of these people, secretly with their own pr consultants, paid a thousand or two for an evening's work to play the victim, to go on about how rich Greenpeace are, compared to them and their billionaire friends. Have you been to any of these events? I have, quite recently, to an rsa talk about something else actually, and god, the free champagne - or maybe it's just cava - these bastards think they rule the world. Perhaps they do.

They aren't seekers after truth though.

If you care to drill down into any of his paragraphs I find more questions than answers. I know you're an advocate of Montford's book, which I feel has too manyholes in it, but look, here is Ridley about the hockey stick:

'Yet it [the hockey-stick graph] has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montford’s careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion. Here is not the place to go into detail, but briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily on some flawed data – strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines -- and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample. When I say heavily – I mean 390 times.'

To my mind, an objective speaker would say: this hockey-stick graph fas been criticised in some quarters, and I urge you to read the critics' work.

I don't get this pseudo-passionate over-emphasis, it's not truthful. Utterly debunked? There are critiques and counter-critques of this research. Why exaggerate so much if you believe in the truth of what you're saying? Why not honour those who disagree with you? (I hope I am here by continuing this debate) '390 times' - I have used this trick in a speech, alas more than once, mea culpa, but it's not truthful, instead it pretends, by its seeming accuracy, to a truth you don't possess. Clever-sounding numbers, or insider anecdotes (Yes yes look carefully there are examples in this post, how can I kick the habits of a lifetime?)

Again, as I've said in previous posts: the scientists involved who propose agw are just middling members of the middle-classes, and their entire reputation is at stake whenever they form a sentence. 'Government funding...corruption...' gets deliberately associated with their work, but that's also a surreptitious lie: most science is government-funded, and the critics rarely reveal their own funding.

Ridley himself could just about get by if nobody paid him a thing.

Again: I'm an agnostic about the issues behind this. Why are the advocates of 'no it's not happening' so implausible?

It's just a set of models. I get that. They've been worked hard on, they've got flaws. And therefore...

?

Ridley is more explicit about political choices he would personally make - but which have no clear relation at all to the debate we're having here - why does a wind farm on my doorstep depend on this? (I have an attic view of a chemical factory, and over that, hills: I accept the factory, it's part of the economics of where I live, and support the wind farms) so I'm grateful to see that. Reading the article has the opposite effect to the one I think intended. I see Ridley's politics and personal riches are strangely entwined with his statements about what he calls science but which I would categorize as rather poor scientific journalism.

Patrick

Dammit, can't decide about z or s in -ise -ize Must get this straight before I die.

Later edit, to add in a link which in my first post I accidentally omitted: it's not actually trysail's, its to andrew montfords blog which in turn links to the pdf of the talk and the talk itself. http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4262-matt-ridley-scientific-heresy.html

That is precisely the kind of wiseass crack that doesn't deserve the dignity of a response.


Patrick, I am well aware of Northern Rock. You are correct that ad hominem attack doesn't address the issue. Intelligent readers recognize it for what it is.


Conflation of issues doesn't address the question. Invocation of tobacco or finance is a clear indication of ignorance or desperation.

 

[Bob Waters]

Don't bother trying to convince them, it's irrelevant anyway. Even IF you could convince everyone there is no way we (meaning the world) could reduce emissions low enough to make a difference. There are simply too many people. The world's population requires industrial scale agriculture just to feed everyone. The tipping point is long past.

 

[phrodeau]

Don't bother trying to convince them, it's irrelevant anyway. Even IF you could convince everyone there is no way we (meaning the world) could reduce emissions low enough to make a difference. There are simply too many people. The world's population requires industrial scale agriculture just to feed everyone. The tipping point is long past.

Industrial scale agriculture doesn't require as much fossil fuel as it currently uses. With further development of fertilizers and pesticides and more efficient farming and distribution, it wouldn't require any fossil fuels at all.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

To summarize the thread so far: Some people who aren't scientists have expressed scientific certainty that their opinion is correct and that scientists are generally hysterical reactionaries. A couple of people who are scientists have responded with measured consideration and then vamoosed. There has been quite a lot of cutting and pasting. A British person seemed hurt that an American person was rude. There have been two (2) massive tits displayed, and at least four (4) unintentional displays of comedic personal irony. And the thread starter has made one (1)--actually, now let's make that two (2)--sincere apologies for starting this hot mess.

Sorry, "possibly warming but you never know what's really happening" mess.

 

[JohnnySavage]

To summarize the thread so far: Some people who aren't scientists have expressed scientific certainty that their opinion is correct and that scientists are generally hysterical reactionaries. A couple of people who are scientists have responded with measured consideration and then vamoosed. There has been quite a lot of cutting and pasting. A British person seemed hurt that an American person was rude. There have been two (2) massive tits displayed, and at least four (4) unintentional displays of comedic personal irony. And the thread starter has made one (1)--actually, now let's make that two (2)--sincere apologies for starting this hot mess.

Sorry, "possibly warming but you never know what's really happening" mess.

And some of us have put you on ignore.

 

[thør]

To summarize the thread so far: Some people who aren't scientists have expressed scientific certainty that their opinion is correct and that scientists are generally hysterical reactionaries. A couple of people who are scientists have responded with measured consideration and then vamoosed. There has been quite a lot of cutting and pasting. A British person seemed hurt that an American person was rude. There have been two (2) massive tits displayed, and at least four (4) unintentional displays of comedic personal irony. And the thread starter has made one (1)--actually, now let's make that two (2)--sincere apologies for starting this hot mess.

Sorry, "possibly warming but you never know what's really happening" mess.

As I see it, this thread has been pretty predictable, with the exception of the massive mammaries. I vote for more tits!

 

[patrick1]

A British person seemed hurt that an American person was rude.

Heck, I think that's me. Just to be clear: I'm a Brit married to an American person. There was nothing Atlanticist intended in my allegation that someone was rude to me. I hear there are even rude people in -----(name of country deleted)

Patrick

 

[patrick1]

<singing> O Canada....

PS This post is fake and an outrageous slur yours Patrick

 

[Peregrinator]

Conflation of issues doesn't address the question. Invocation of tobacco or finance is a clear indication of ignorance or desperation.

This is complete crap, of course, a classic example of poisoning the well and nothing more.

Fred Singer was a paid liar for years, working for tobacco companies using his scientific credentials to create confusion in the minds of legislators and the public about the dangers of smoking. He was a lobbyist for oil companies. He was cited as an expert claiming the ozone hole didn't exist. Etc, etc, etc.

That is significant information when he's used as an authority on anything.

Would you believe Bill Clinton talking about his sex life?

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling

 

[thør]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll58u4BbTX1qdfru5o1_500.jpg