• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
3bodyproblem said:
...
I see you're well versed at misrepresentation yourself. Where did I reject the scientists? I rejected the sites like Real Climate because they just fear monger and purvey propaganda. Luckily their are sites like Watt Up With That That present an objective non politicized view of the science and the scientists. ...
Click to expand...
Okay, you got us, it was a good joke, you had us going there...
 
Climate Change

Does anyone remember that?

(This is not an attempt to say 'All a lot of fuss over nothing wasn't it?' but more 'Isn't it worrying that such an important thing has been forgotten?')
 
CapelDodger said:
It will have to strain towards credibility given these points (a co-chair is Richard Muller, and the project manager is Elizabeth Muller, his daughter) but the work itself will be carried out by statisticians, computing experts, and climate scientists. BEST is quite a large umbrella from what I can see.

We can expect results from the project to be misrepresented, of course. I can state that with confidence because one product (Gilbert Compo's, IIRC) already has been, by the WSJ. You'll no doubt remember the thread about it.

Exxon gave, I think, $100m to Stanford and BP $500 million to Berkeley (don't quote me on the exact figures, though) for climate research, so the Koch involvement doesn't surprise me. These are mere (deductible) drops in the bucket and can be presented as proving an even-handed approach. For a mere few million they can have the research attacked very loudly later.

So best we wait and see :).
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't condemn any research sight unseen. As stated, "I will be interested in seeing their assessment, but I no longer have any hopes that it will even approach a rigorous and unbiased scientific analysis of the issue." I am more concerned that the statisticians will be tasked with a carefully designed manner that they should assess and evaluate the data, than that they will produce a blatant falsehood, especially since the only climatologist on the team is Curry. Lies, damn lies and statistics and such. We've already seen what statisticians can produce when they have an agenda,...re: Wegman. But, this is premature, and I will await the chance to review their product.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Let me guess, you don't know what biases, you just know there will be some bias. Worthy of the MDC.

How can there possibly be any bias? It's science. You aren't suggesting it's possible to manipulate data to a preferred outcome are you? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually it's a statistical analysis, that is mathematics, not science. If it was a scientific assessment they would have assembled climatologists, physicists, and geologists.

I suspect a lot of warming believers will be in full denial mode when it's discovered the warming over the last few years is barely discernible from the background noise and that CO2 emissions continue to force the temperature up about half a degree every 100 years.
Click to expand...

I see, unlike me, you don't fear the potential for bias, you anticipate and hope for it. Further demonstration that you have no clue concerning the basic premises and principles of science and its methodologies, I'd feign surprise but I fear it would appear contrived.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Actually it's a statistical analysis, that is mathematics, not science. If it was a scientific assessment they would have assembled climatologists, physicists, and geologists.
Click to expand...

It's elitist ramblings exactly like that that got the CRU in to trouble. Isn't the head of NOAA a mathematician? I know there are quite a few "climate scientists" with math degrees that would beg to differ with your faulty assessment. A few theoretical physicists as well.

TShaitanaku said:
I see, unlike me, you don't fear the potential for bias, you anticipate and hope for it. Further demonstration that you have no clue concerning the basic premises and principles of science and its methodologies, I'd feign surprise but I fear it would appear contrived.
Click to expand...

Another incorrect summary. The bias has already been shown, whether it's thermometers in the middle of parking lots or making hockey sticks out of tree rings we all know where the true bias lies. You do as well or you wouldn't be worried about who handles the data. :rolleyes:
 
That's okay as soon as someone figures out how to tie the uprising with Climate Change (heat makes people angry and rebellious, maybe?) then all will be well
 
CapelDodger said:
Who are these alarmists of whom you speak so often?
Click to expand...

I've provided a list of recent quotes in this thread. Prior to 2000 it's very hard to track down who was fear mongering and who wasn't.

This is just obfuscation. I can do the same thing and claim there was no hul-hoop craze. "Who was crazy for cabbage patches kids?" Just because you can't specifically identify who started the craze doesn't mean it never existed.

CapelDodger said:
Scientists (including climate scientists) in the 70's were extremely sceptical of any appreciable human influence on climate, short of a general nuclear exchange. It went against the scientific culture which has prevailed since the early 19thCE. However, numbers don't lie, and the laws of physics are well-known in scientific circles.
Click to expand...

And yet thermometers haven't changed nor has our understanding of CO2. Other than politicians championing a pet cause what change in the science of global warming led to the law of physics finally being understood? ($$$ ;))

CapelDodger said:
Politicians depend on experts for advice.
Click to expand...

Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable.

Complete rubbish, even when they focus their attention and champion a cause they don't listen to the scientists.

CapelDodger said:
Most people live where the food's produced and has been produced for thousands of years. The valleys of the Indus, the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Mekong, Yangtze, Yellow. Nile, Euphrates, Tigris. Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Loire, Thames, Humber. Taff. Amazon.
Most people live there because most people lived there before them. They lived there because population and agriculture go hand-in-hand. Agriculture prospers where conditions are favourable, and that includes climate. Change the climate and suddenly most people are living in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The population is changing much faster than the climate. That's the real issue.

CapelDodger said:
There's always been more than enough land to feed everybody, and there have always been hungry and starving people.
Click to expand...

Yep. And now the only thing standing in the way of feeding them is the cost of transportation. What was once tragic has now become criminal.

CapelDodger said:
Back in the 70's it never occurred to me that I would watch climate change and its ramifications in real-time.
Click to expand...

You really haven't, you've just become more sensitive to the weather. Could be the arthritis ;)
 
I don't get why people were so so so anti-Climate Change. I didn't see a lot of wrong with aiming towards a more Climate-friendly society, whether AGW is real or not.

What's wrong with trying to create a renewable energy, get people to be healthier, cleaner air etc? Some of you might work/life in cities and won't even realise just how poor the air quality is. Living in Shetland (http://www.grimshaworigin.org/images/NorthAmerica/Shetland_Islands_Map_1.jpg) then you're kinda exposed to the best air quality around and you fairly notice it in cities.

I don't like the government forcing people into changes which are not necessarily proven to be beneficial, but things like trying to get people to use less cars and more bikes is always good. Yes, a car is more convenient, but so is sitting at home playing xbox all day collecting benefits.
 
Last edited:
How about we have two prices for everything, Petrol can be £1 a gallon for those who don't give a monkeys about what the climate change doomers say and for those that do, they can pay £8 a gallon. The very idea that the whole planet must do what climate doomers want is so communist.
 
BobHaulk said:
How about we have two prices for everything, Petrol can be £1 a gallon for those who don't give a monkeys about what the climate change doomers say and for those that do, they can pay £8 a gallon. The very idea that the whole planet must do what climate doomers want is so communist.
Click to expand...

Dying in a starving world is so capitalist.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Does anyone remember that?

(This is not an attempt to say 'All a lot of fuss over nothing wasn't it?' but more 'Isn't it worrying that such an important thing has been forgotten?')
Click to expand...
Yup, still heading towards our doom.

11ghq50.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom