Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

global warming

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:26 PM

Yes I realize that political crusaders banking heavily on the climate change scare, are necessarily immune to new information. I still think it's a good idea to point out the many ways this hoax continues to unravel. As my linked article shows, most gaps and inconsistencies in the global warming theory have been carefully glossed over by the more creative minded alarmists out there.(remember those predictions for the end of SNOW) But I wonder if there's a point where even the most devoted acolytes of the religious left, will at least start asking questions?

Quote

(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Quote

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Well kudos to Professor Tol for what looks like the slow reappearance of rational thought. I wonder how many climate experts who rely on the warming hoax for funding, will allow those seeds of doubt to creep into their on-the-record statements?

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#2 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:56 PM

View Postscherzo, on 16 April 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Yes I realize that political crusaders banking heavily on the climate change scare, are necessarily immune to new information. I still think it's a good idea to point out the many ways this hoax continues to unravel. As my linked article shows, most gaps and inconsistencies in the global warming theory have been carefully glossed over by the more creative minded alarmists out there.(remember those predictions for the end of SNOW) But I wonder if there's a point where even the most devoted acolytes of the religious left, will at least start asking questions?

And I wonder if there is a point where, to use your words, the religious right (whoever that is) will at least start asking questions, and consider that there is a problem? And I will add: I wonder when will all people at least accept that it is our responsibility to no longer to treat this planet as our own personal garbage dump. What is wrong with keeping our air, our water, our land, our entire planet, clean and healthy for future generations?

I have to admit, I don't recall anyone suggesting the end of snow. I would have to guess that they would be those who didn't understand what climate change meant.

Quote

Quote

(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Quote

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Well kudos to Professor Tol for what looks like the slow reappearance of rational thought. I wonder how many climate experts who rely on the warming hoax for funding, will allow those seeds of doubt to creep into their on-the-record statements?

-scherzo

Well, I'm not seeing them say it doesn't exit, nor are they saying that it is a hoax, but I am seeing scientists saying what they have always said, there is no way to be 100% certain and this is something to keep an eye on.

Edited by Elara, 16 April 2013 - 01:57 PM.

El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#3 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,767 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:11 PM

I actually predicted this would happen some years ago, here on EI, knowing that the solar cycle was slated to peak, and reported the "struggling" that began within 6-9 months of our passing the peak (the speedy notice almost makes me wonder if some climate scientists saw it coming, too.)

I am not a climate change skeptic. Before I was born, we had good reason to expect a geological cycle change (or swings) in the reasonably near future (based on the cycle of short term interglaciations, and the destabilization evident near the "transition between states". It was established science. I am somewhat more skeptical about anthropogenic global climate change, because I feel the sample size is provably too short to draw that conclusion statistically when climate trends run so much longer than human scale, and I'm horrified that so many climate scientists ignore that.

But that's just one of my lover's spats with Contemporary Science. I expect a lot of her, because I know her potential. Politically, I support *many* (but not all) measures that have been advocated. I generally believe it is best to "live lightly on the land". However I *strongly* disagree with the premise that we can reverse climate change (or should even try -- that would be deliberately committing *exactly* the hubris the AGW claim we accidentally committed). The truly "Inconvenient Truth" is that the climate is far larger than modern man can control. We have to move our frail cities when nature dictates. A lot of people saw that about New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but how many are willing to admit that Hurricane Sandy proved exactly the same point about New York City?

Even if global climate change were 100% anthropogenic, and If mankind vanished tomorrow --zero emissions-- the existing climate change would take 150-250 years to play out, due to well-proven factors like the roughly 300 year rate of oceanic turnover (it's a CO2 reservoir that is many times larger than the atmosphere; at standard temperature and pressure one volume of water can hold 300 volumes of CO2, vs the atmosphere which is very low mass to begin with and thins dramatically with altitude). The warming that has already taken place will cause the ocean to release more CO2 as it churns to the surface, which will cause more warming, and so on. It won't necessarily be a runaway effect, but the equilibrium will change. On top of that are less well understood but potentially much larger and more rapid effects of *existing* global warming, like methane clathrate release -- methane is a FAR more potent short term greenhouse gas than CO2 -- most of CO2's effect comes from its persistence -- it doesn't easily break down/recombine in the atmosphere.

So, yeah, let's cut down on emissions, but let's make the IMPORTANT IMMEDIATE changes too, even if they are "hard" (moving a city over a decade isn't "hard" unless someone tries to *make* you do it; just look at the voluntary urban flight of the 1970s). Humans often pursue "impossible" solutions over the merely annoying. There's a LOT of psychology literature on this, on both the societal and personal scales

#4 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

Quote

I have to admit, I don't recall anyone suggesting the end of snow. I would have to guess that they would be those who didn't understand what climate change meant.
I suppose it's possible the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don't know what climate change means. Or perhaps in 2001 they were still calling it "Global Warming", when it was still remotely logical to do so.

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.

But wait, there's more from 2000...

-"Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes,’ said scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”

-"The very mild winters of the last decades can be attributed mainly to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. As a consequence, we are for example seeing a reduction in snowfall. When every 50-year-old was able to go skating as a kid almost every winter, kids today often have to wait many years for larger amounts of snow.”


Once these predictions were contradicted by big 'ol snowy winters later on, these clever boys went on to BLAME Global Warming for the heavy white stuff!  Sure...why not...

Quote

And I wonder if there is a point where, to use your words, the religious right (whoever that is) will at least start asking questions, and consider that there is a problem?
"Religious right" generally refers to conservative practicing Christians in The United States.

The biggest problem climate change poses is the oppressive regulations Statist politicians are seeking to implement with the warming hoax as leverage. Seems to me if governmental bodies are plotting ways to decrease our access to abundant energy resources, take money out of our pockets, and generally place limits on our freedom...we should demand the science AT LEAST be consistent.

Quote

And I will add: I wonder when will all people at least accept that it is our responsibility to no longer to treat this planet as our own personal garbage dump. What is wrong with keeping our air, our water, our land, our entire planet, clean and healthy for future generations?
Carbon Dioxide is NOT pollution. The End.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#5 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:16 PM

View Postscherzo, on 16 April 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I suppose it's possible the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don't know what climate change means. Or perhaps in 2001 they were still calling it "Global Warming", when it was still remotely logical to do so.

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.

But wait, there's more from 2000...

-"Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes,’ said scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”

-"The very mild winters of the last decades can be attributed mainly to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. As a consequence, we are for example seeing a reduction in snowfall. When every 50-year-old was able to go skating as a kid almost every winter, kids today often have to wait many years for larger amounts of snow.”


Once these predictions were contradicted by big 'ol snowy winters later on, these clever boys went on to BLAME Global Warming for the heavy white stuff!  Sure...why not...

First, I'd like to point out that you state:

Quote

(remember those predictions for the end of SNOW)

Bold done by me. Those reports mention possibly less snow. You also might want to read the original German article, as the one in the link that you posted, takes a little liberty with their translation. The other just shows that they are willing to admit that they cannot be 100% when they are still learning what is going on. Again though, neither says end of snow.

Quote

"Religious right" generally refers to conservative practicing Christians in The United States.

The biggest problem climate change poses is the oppressive regulations Statist politicians are seeking to implement with the warming hoax as leverage. Seems to me if governmental bodies are plotting ways to decrease our access to abundant energy resources, take money out of our pockets, and generally place limits on our freedom...we should demand the science AT LEAST be consistent.

Sorry, I do know what the term "Religious right" means, I just find these descriptions to be disruptive to an actual discussion. I should have been a bit more clear.
Science is ever changing, demanding consistency is to stifle advancement. Governments try to keep up with changes, they have to, to make sure that they do right for their people, and the world.
Example: In my state, they have to look at predictions to be prepared for snowfall. Sure, they are never 100%, but most years they are prepared for the amount of snowfall because they have paid attention to those that watch/know weather.

I would like to know, what do you mean by abundant energy sources?

Quote

Carbon Dioxide is NOT pollution. The End.

I did not mention carbon dioxide, but okay, let's go with that. I completely agree with you, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, I challenge you to breathe high levels and see how you fare. Many things are not bad or pollutants, this does not mean that high concentrations are good. Dessert is good, but a lot of dessert is bad.

I will ask you one last thing, why is it bad to do what we can to keep this world clean? I want your opinion, not someone else's and not links.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#6 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM

Quote

Those reports mention possibly less snow. You also might want to read the original German article, as the one in the link that you posted, takes a little liberty with their translation. The other just shows that they are willing to admit that they cannot be 100% when they are still learning what is going on. Again though, neither says end of snow.
"Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will CEASE TO EXIST at our latitudes..."

OK so snow should at the very least be decreasing year to year, and exactly the opposite is what happened. They then go on to attribute the INCREASED snowfall, to the same threat they previously said would eventually stop it altogether. Are we fools? Why in the world should anyone be giving these people the benefit of the doubt?

Quote

Science is ever changing, demanding consistency is to stifle advancement. Governments try to keep up with changes, they have to, to make sure that they do right for their people, and the world.
What is government doing to keep up with changes in the data? Al Gore's notorious hockey stick graph nonsense was exposed more than a decade ago. The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's hacked emails from 2009, revealed efforts to hide declining temperatures. These are things governments around the world know full well, but their efforts to tax carbon emissions etc. are full steam ahead.  This isn't doing right by the people by any measure. It's just an ongoing effort to expand their own power.

I was always taught that solid scientific results must be repeatable. You may not believe a consistent standard of evidence should be required of climate scientists. But shouldn't common sense tell us complete 180° reversals of earlier theory undermines the entire premise?

Quote

I would like to know, what do you mean by abundant energy sources?
Fossil fuels.

Quote

I will ask you one last thing, why is it bad to do what we can to keep this world clean?
I'll say it again. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Ridding the world of carbon dioxide, has nothing to do with cleanliness. So...saying I'm opposed to government restrictions on carbon emissions, isn't telling evil corporations it's cool to dump raw sewage in fishing lakes or whatever. Click the link in my sig and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It features a former member of Greenpeace who acknowledges that everything that organization originally stood for regarding pollution, was adopted decades ago by Western democracies.  The current crusade to save planet Earth from "Warming" is the kind of crackpot lunacy that caused him to leave their ranks.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#7 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:10 PM

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

"Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will CEASE TO EXIST at our latitudes..."

OK so snow should at the very least be decreasing year to year, and exactly the opposite is what happened. They then go on to attribute the INCREASED snowfall, to the same threat they previously said would eventually stop it altogether. Are we fools? Why in the world should anyone be giving these people the benefit of the doubt?.

Again, I suggest that you read the original article. The article that you link to says: "will cease to exist" the original article says: "no longer exist", present tense, not future tense. Not being familiar with snow levels at their altitude in Germany, I will take them at their word that the levels are currently lower.

Quote

What is government doing to keep up with changes in the data? Al Gore's notorious hockey stick graph nonsense was exposed more than a decade ago. The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's hacked emails from 2009, revealed efforts to hide declining temperatures. These are things governments around the world know full well, but their efforts to tax carbon emissions etc. are full steam ahead.  This isn't doing right by the people by any measure. It's just an ongoing effort to expand their own power.

I was always taught that solid scientific results must be repeatable. You may not believe a consistent standard of evidence should be required of climate scientists. But shouldn't common sense tell us complete 180° reversals of earlier theory undermines the entire premise?

I'm not defending all governments, much less our own. I simply stated an example of how government uses weather predictions.

Yes, solid, sure results must be repeatable, but science that is still learning, working toward a 100% result, is still a work in progress.

Quote

Fossil fuels.

Okay, fossil fuels do seem to be abundant, however, they are not limitless. Is it not better to be free of dependance on something that will eventually run out?

Quote

I'll say it again. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Ridding the world of carbon dioxide, has nothing to do with cleanliness. So...saying I'm opposed to government restrictions on carbon emissions, isn't telling evil corporations it's cool to dump raw sewage in fishing lakes or whatever. Click the link in my sig and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It features a former member of Greenpeace who acknowledges that everything that organization originally stood for regarding pollution, was adopted decades ago by Western democracies.  The current crusade to save planet Earth from "Warming" is the kind of crackpot lunacy that caused him to leave their ranks.

And I will say again, I did not mention carbon dioxide, nor did I call it pollution, I said:

Quote

I did not mention carbon dioxide, but okay, let's go with that. I completely agree with you, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, I challenge you to breathe high levels and see how you fare. Many things are not bad or pollutants, this does not mean that high concentrations are good. Dessert is good, but a lot of dessert is bad.
So, can we let this go, now?

Now, since you ignored my question, and it is one that I always ask those who resist taking efforts to clean up the mess we make, but never get an answer to:

Quote

I will ask you one last thing, why is it bad to do what we can to keep this world clean?
And I will add: Do you make an effort? Do you recycle? Do you pick up a piece of garbage that you find on your way? Do you cut down on your water usage? etc... I do all of the above (depending on where a person lives, picking up garbage is probably not what they would want to do). I do this because I want to leave this planet better for my son and his future children. I expect no less of any business or government (and yes, governments need to do more in this matter).

Honestly, climate change is going to happen, regardless. However, I see no reason for us to dirty the quality of our air, our land, our waters. Nor do I see a need for us to possibly speed up climate change if we can help it, and we can.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#8 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:15 PM

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's hacked emails from 2009, revealed efforts to hide declining temperatures.
Well, that's just not true. Eight separate investigations showed otherwise.

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Al Gore's notorious hockey stick graph nonsense was exposed more than a decade ago.
Also not true.

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

But shouldn't common sense tell us complete 180° reversals of earlier theory undermines the entire premise?
No, that's not the way science works. You evaluate models based on how well they predict things, and if a model is wrong you modify it or stop using it. But to reject every projection of the model, and every model that says anything remotely similar, just because some projections of one model were wrong? That's not science. That's manipulating science to support your pre-existing beliefs.

Edited by Omega, 17 April 2013 - 01:17 PM.


#9 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostElara, on 17 April 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Okay, fossil fuels do seem to be abundant, however, they are not limitless. Is it not better to be free of dependance on something that will eventually run out?

Bingo. A large man once said, dependency is weakness, and weakness is death. :)

#10 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:38 PM

View PostOmega, on 17 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's hacked emails from 2009, revealed efforts to hide declining temperatures.
Well, that's just not true. Eight separate investigations showed otherwise.

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Al Gore's notorious hockey stick graph nonsense was exposed more than a decade ago.
Also not true.
2 links to Wikipedia? I'd expect such a smug dismissal to be backed up with concise evidence of factual inaccuracy, or at least directly address my observation. Paragraph after paragraph of CYA agenda driven sorcery from the best online repository of same...doesn't jive with the swaggering tone of your post. I don't say anything I can't back up with information, but it does sometimes require people to exercise comprehension and draw logical conclusions. It doesn't mean I'm always right. It does mean something resembling effort should be used, if liberals like yourself want to get their debunk on.

First of all the "Hockey Stick" graph has been nuked in so many places and so many ways, the "not true" routine reads like you're focus testing a new SNL skit. It was first officially mowed down by statistician Stephen McIntyre, then subsequently by a US Senate committee inquiry. A few tidbits from the Wegman report:

Quote

The key finding in the Wegman Report was that “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]”
They weren't finished:

Quote

Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.

Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.

Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.
So there's that...

As for the University of East Anglia "untruth"...one of the things the hacked email revealed was an effort by some IPCC scientists to not include Micheal Mann's ludicrous hockey stick in it's 2001 assessment.(a brief outbreak of integrity, that was quickly squashed)  But the effort to hide declining temperatures is clearly implied to anyone capable of reading English. Here is what the UK's Independent Climate Change Review investigation concluded in 2010:

Quote

On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
There are plenty  of way to argue an alternative pov to the facts I present on this forum Omega. But you sure as hell ain't doing your liberalism a favor  with a grandstanding dismissal of easily supported arguments. Particularly when it requires you to completely ignore the subject of the thread.  Just sayin'
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#11 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:44 PM

Quote

And I will say again, I did not mention carbon dioxide, nor did I call it pollution,
Climate change aka: Global Warming is the subject. IE: carbon dioxide is the whole ballgame.

I think you can safely assume that NO ONE thinks pollution is OK...until they come out and specifically say "pollution is OK".
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#12 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:53 PM

Quote

Okay, fossil fuels do seem to be abundant, however, they are not limitless. Is it not better to be free of dependance on something that will eventually run out?
If we're dependent on something, I think it's a good idea to make it as easy as possible to get it. If something better comes along that's great, but forcing technological advancement through oppression is immoral and illogical.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#13 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:15 PM

If you're inclined to ignore the mountains of corroborating evidence and dozens of independent studies I linked to, saying anything else would really not be worth my time. Whatever you think of the evidence, it's at odds with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. If your interpretation of the evidence is so much better than that of almost literally everyone qualified to discuss it, why do those same people find your arguments unconvincing?

Really, I'm asking. Mass conspiracy? Mass delusion? Mass blackmail? Researchers love to upend the communal status quo. It's what they live for. So why aren't they doing it, if the evidence supports your position? Are you really that much smarter than several thousand people who have spent their lives studying the subject? Not only so much smarter that you understand it better, but so much that your explanations are above their comprehension?

And as a more general matter, beyond interpreting evidence for this one subject, what do you sugest as a basis for public policy? I mean, scientific consensus can be wrong, nobody disputes that. But do you suggest something better to go on? I mean, do we always act on the scientific consensus except in this one case? Do we always do the opposite? Do we just ask scherzo? How are you suggesting society determine scientific fact for the purposes of immediate action, since consensus of the scientific community is clearly not your preference?

Edited by Omega, 17 April 2013 - 08:29 PM.


#14 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:19 AM

Quote

If you're inclined to ignore the mountains of corroborating evidence and dozens of independent studies I linked to, saying anything else would really not be worth my time.
The fact that you think a Wikipedia entry(that reads like an editorial)represents "mountains of evidence" of ANYTHING, makes me wonder what you DO consider worth your time. Clearly the Reuters news story that began this thread holds no interest for you.

Quote

If your interpretation of the evidence is so much better than that of almost literally everyone qualified to discuss it...
First of all I'm far from alone on this. There's literally no way I could know as much as I do about the subject if "qualified" people weren't regularly passing along information. There are thousands of experts in varying fields of science who haven't jumped on the man made climate change bandwagon. Second...liberal's criteria for having an opinion on AGW is simply buying into it completely without question. You don't even have to know what greenhouse gases are, and you're cleared to dismiss skeptical opinions from noted PhDs.  

Quote

Really, I'm asking. Mass conspiracy? Mass delusion? Mass blackmail? Researchers love to upend the communal status quo. It's what they live for. So why aren't they doing it, if the evidence supports your position?
Well you typed the word "really" so I'm going to respond as if you sincerely want an answer to this question. Watch this movie: http://www.moviesfou...ing_swindle.php

Quote

Are you really that much smarter than several thousand people who have spent their lives studying the subject? Not only so much smarter that you understand it better, but so much that your explanations are above their comprehension?
All the question marks only amplify the absurdity of this rant. :rolleyes: Y'know, being mocked for resisting my indoctrination, makes me pause for a moment to thank GOD I'm endowed with the ability to think for myself. I imagine an alternate universe where I'm sitting down at a keyboard, haranguing some stranger for not demanding increased regulation of carbon dioxide so we can control the weather. While I'd get considerably less grief if pretended to believe the most REPEATED theory, I prefer to actually understand the situation.

Quote

And as a more general matter, beyond interpreting evidence for this one subject, what do you sugest as a basis for public policy?
I'd start with The Constitution, then apply the lessons of history, PROVEN science, morality, and your basic common sense.  None of these things jive with Cap and Trade legislation or deliberately restricting access to domestic energy resources. Your other questions are built around the faulty premise of absolute consensus(when did "consensus" become a scientific benchmark anyway)on mad-made climate change, so I'm blowin' 'em off.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#15 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:18 AM

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Quote

And I will say again, I did not mention carbon dioxide, nor did I call it pollution,
Climate change aka: Global Warming is the subject. IE: carbon dioxide is the whole ballgame.

I think you can safely assume that NO ONE thinks pollution is OK...until they come out and specifically say "pollution is OK".
Okay, but once again, I never mentioned carbon dioxide, nor did I call it pollution. I simply discussed the article that you linked to. So, it was never necessary of you to tell me that carbon dioxide is not pollution. Are we good? :)

I will take your second sentence as an answer to my question. So, as a way to prevent pollution, wouldn't you make sure that you recycled, kept your area clean, kept your vehicle in good running condition, used as little gas as possible, etc... Shouldn't you expect companies to do the same? Yes, I do believe that there are individuals and companies that are dirtying up our world and not caring about the damage, but that original comment really had nothing to do with climate change (nor carbon dioxide).

Now then, on to other stuff. :)

View Postscherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

If we're dependent on something, I think it's a good idea to make it as easy as possible to get it. If something better comes along that's great, but forcing technological advancement through oppression is immoral and illogical.

Okay, but do we wait until we suddenly realize that, "oh, sh**! We are hitting bottom! What do we do now?!" or do we simply start changing now, long before that "oh sh**!" moment arrives? Isn't it more immoral and more illogical to wait until that moment?

Just look at the Dust bowl. That was a hard lesson, and it came at great cost. The planet told us something then, and it will again if we don't pay attention.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#16 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:42 AM

Quote

Okay, but do we wait until we suddenly realize that, "oh, sh**! We are hitting bottom! What do we do now?!" or do we simply start changing now, long before that "oh sh**!" moment arrives? Isn't it more immoral and more illogical to wait until that moment?
Researching alternative forms of energy in no way necessitates cutting us off from what we're currently using. Discovery of a plentiful and efficient form of energy has enough monetary incentive to potentially occur without any government intervention at all. I agree it would be very illogical to wait for fuel to run out, to begin looking for other options. But we already know that's not happening.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#17 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:48 AM

Just to clarify(it's late...even for me)...when I say "that's not happening" I mean researchers waiting for fuel to run out to begin studying alternative fuel sources.


I don't think it's impossible to run out of fossil fuels.  :smile2:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#18 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:54 AM

View Postscherzo, on 18 April 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

Just to clarify(it's late...even for me)...when I say "that's not happening" I mean researchers waiting for fuel to run out to begin studying alternative fuel sources.


I don't think it's impossible to run out of fossil fuels.  :smile2:

You had me really worried for a moment. I was about to pull out the thermometer to check your temperature. ;)
(and after correcting 6 typos in that one sentence, it's off to bed for me.) :lol:
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#19 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:27 AM

View Postscherzo, on 18 April 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Researching alternative forms of energy in no way necessitates cutting us off from what we're currently using. .

Cutting off?  There's no such thing as using less?  Only cutting off?  No weaning?  No finding alternatives and using less?     :rolleyes:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#20 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:32 AM

View Postscherzo, on 18 April 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

Just to clarify(it's late...even for me)...when I say "that's not happening" I mean researchers waiting for fuel to run out to begin studying alternative fuel sources.

Clarify, please.  Are we supposed to drain the unrenewables to the point that some future generation will have to begin studying alternatives while in a state of murderous panic?   :unsure:

Quote

I don't think it's impossible to run out of fossil fuels.  :smile2:

The English didn't think they'd run out of trees for tall-masted ships.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: global warming

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users