 |
|
 |
|
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:36:46 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
That's fair comment. Although I am reminded that most of the world's
glaciers had already disappeared by the time my O' Level Geography teacher
told us about how the Lake District, Scottish Highlands and Norwegian Fiords
had been carved and shaped by them as they flowed and melted, and the land
to between us and the rest of Europe had flooded to form the North Sea. All
without the help of mankind.
Maybe our real problem is that have lost the ability to imagine anything
changing. Or perhaps mankind's arrogance has simply exploded in the
information technology age to the point at which we think we can shape the
world in our image.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:13:28 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
The issue here isn't just change - it's the unprecendented rate of change.
That's the whole point, the whole reason why this time it's different.
We can change every single thing, whether it's with an axe or a power
station - again you are wildly missing the point, humans change things, they
always have, but now they are doing it very, very quickly and what they do
is being felt everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:24:44 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
If you look closely at what's being said, it's the unprecedented rate at
which things are *predicted* to change that's the problem, and those
predictions are based on rising CO2 levels causing a runaway positive
feedback loop etc. etc. Yet, when we look around for any real sign of
change, we find that things aren't quite as bad as they seem. And we're
still awaiting evidence of the level of feedback predicted by the IPCC.
I know, we hear a lot about unprecedented rates of change. It's pretty scary
stuff. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6189
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:20:08 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
Predictions can always be wrong, but what cannot be disputed is what has
happened already and the rate that it has occurred, the predictions are
*not* the problem.
Yet, when we look around for any real sign of
'Things aren't quite as bad as they seem'? They seem to be bad, but
actually aren't?
McIntyre has a vested and obsessive interest in trying to prove others
wrong, can't imagine why, but you'd think he'd be good at it by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:43:41 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
You're quite right to correct me. I meant, as we've been led to believe.
Oh, he's very good at it.
It's just that there's just far too much money in Global Warming.
Roll on Copenhagen.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:53:40 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
To repeat a question (or two) that I asked a while back, what percentage of
climatologists would you say think man made global warming is a reality? If
it's a fairly high percentage, why do you think that is? (They're getting
millions from the GW gravy train? They're not very bright? It's a
conspiracy? Or something else?). Feel free to answer this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:43:35 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
"I don't have an exact number or an opinion. I do know that a simple
majorityone way or the other isn't science; good science isn't about a show
of hands of all those in favour, and it's not the basis on which we should
be spending billions and billions trying to prevent something that really
doesn't look as though it's happening."
That was on the 24th April, before we learned that the Australian and
British Antarctic Survey teams had contradicted claims by climate scientists
that the overall amount of ice on the southern continent was dramatically
disappearing, and before the NSIDC had revised arctic ice predictions
following revelations that the satellite data on which it was based was
flawed. (You'll be relieved to hear that the May 2009 the figure is only a
little short of the 1970/2000, 30 year average for the time of year).
We mustn't forget that some organisations' funding (like the NSIDC for
example) is dependant on how bad the climate crisis is. Maybe that's why
they tended to ignore the errors (pointed out in those pesky climate blogs
for the last view months) for so long. Who knows?
But I remain optimistic. I am hopeful that we're getting a little closer,
perhaps, to having some scare stories about things like both polar icecaps
melting, either dramatically modified by the industry, or quietly forgotten.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Jun 2009 09:50:36 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
And that was before the data from the Polar 5 aircraft radiosonde
measurements found polar ice was markedly thicker than expected, but
they've already begun the spin machine to explain that particular
inconvenient truth away.
<quoteAnother focal point of the campaign were large-scale measurements of ice
thickness in the inner Arctic, which were conducted in close
collaboration of the Alfred Wegener Institute together with the
University of Alberta. An ice-thickness sensor, the so-called EM-Bird,
was put into operation under a plane for the first time ever. To conduct
the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a
steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the
ice cover. Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an
ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North
Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in
all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same
regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers
temporarily. The researchers found the thickest ice with a thickness of
15 metres along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island.
</quote
Of course, they won't release the data because "20 researchers and
engineers from six different research institutes from Germany, Italy
(CNR-ISAC Bologna), Canada (Environment Canada, University of Alberta,
York City) and the USA (NOAA-ESRL Boulder) were participating, and they
will evaluate the data in the coming months."
From: http://tinyurl.com/nax9vp
It will be interesting to see how much thinner the ice becomes during the
evaluation process.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 01:31:57 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
I believe that last is a projection, not a measurement, and remains to be
seen as the summer progresses. And guess what? I'd already read it and
didn't need to click on the link. As for the question, the initial
report from Radio Bremen actually said that the ice was twice as thick as
expected. That appears to have already been downgraded to 'somewhat
thicker',which was my point. The implication from the early reports was
that there might be a calibration or sampling error in prior data sets.
In fact, there had already been a recalibration of satellite data.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:05:50 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
That's not really an answer to the question asked. It's not just a show of
hands as if it was a matter of opinion, it's an enormous body of research
and a quite extraordinary consensus. 'Why do you think that is' is what he
asked, and you dodged, twice now.
It's getting more than a little feeble to trot out the alarmists as having
their snouts in the trough while the heroic skeptics do it for their love of
truth justice and the American way - especially considering that there isn't
one that isn't being funded by energy firms. In fact it's incredible the
amount of criticism scientists have received simply by virtue of being in
receipt of research grants, while professional skeptics have been paid
enormous amounts simply to lie.
I don't think anyone claimed that there was drastic disappearnces of ice in
the antarctic. Nor is there any change in the artic ice conditions - that is
disappearing quite nicely. I thought we had sorted that one out where your
posting on arctic ice was shown to be bollocks because you hadn't read to
the end of page?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:41:52 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
You haven't sorted anything out. You just said it was bollocks.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:58:25 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
You made an assertion, that arctic ice was in fine fettle with nothing to
worry about, posted a link about it, that actually refuted your claim at the
end of the page. Sorry, but that looked like bollocks to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Jun 2009 10:02:14 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
My God, man, they were practically hyperventillating, when the ice shelf
collapsed a couple of years back, over the loss of antarctic ice and the
possible effect on sea level and blaming it all on global warming. Now
they try to have it both ways and claim that thickening of the antarctic
ice is also due to global warming. Are you certain you're paying any
attention at all?
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:00:47 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Things change - some people choose to stay playing with hockey sticks and
waving 70s copies of Popular Mechanics, but we learn things, things move on,
and like evolution, nothing has come along to refute climate change yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 01:44:58 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Yes, and the number of quality scientists who oppose extraordinary
measures to reduce greenhouse gases growns all the time.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:18:03 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Never mind the quality, feel the width?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:05:40 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
No you don't. That's what YOU are asking US to do. Go with 'the concensus'.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 19:49:48 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
I'm about to leave the field. He has been reduced to ad homenim attacks
on the opposition and has made no attempt to refute any of the science
involved.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:14:13 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
You did write that, but that's not actually an answer. Let's be serious
here, it's pretty much consensus amongst climatologists that man made GW is
real (if you want, this is the bit where you could put in the name of the
odd maverick). Why, exactly, do you believe they are all wrong? Are they
stupid? In a huge conspiracy? Just plain mistaken? Why do you think you, as
an amateur in the field, have picked up on something they've missed?
In short, what I would like to know, from a GW sceptic, is what you think
motivates hundreds of scientists to lie, and what's more, tell pretty much
the same lies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:36:19 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
That's a stupid question. I don't think I've picked up anything. I've just
taken the time to read and understand what others have written - and I've
tried to give references to everything I've quoted. What confuses me is why
you appeal to the authority of 'the consensus' instead of dealing with the
claims made by sceptics.
I don't know whether they are lying, or their judgement is simply clouded by
the money sloshing about Global Climate Hysteria and the renewables
industry.
I don't know why, for example, Stieg et al. (2009) inverts the temperature
data for 5 of the 34 Antarctic ice stations used in order reconstruct older,
pre-satellite continental temperature averages. Inverting the data means
that a fall in temperature at these stations results in an increase in the
continental average. But he does it. It's in the data set. It said he did it
on one of those evil oil-funded lying sceptic websites and I checked it, and
they were right. Maybe you can explain it.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:48:31 -0700 (PDT), "Mannix O'Coonassa" <...@gmail.com
On Jun 12, 8:36 am, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
Ok, let me try a different tack. I have a colleague who has been
working on climate modelling for 30 years. He has worked in the Irish
met. office and is now a professor in a university. He has worked a a
professional computer/weather predictor and how does research on
climate modelling. He believes that the climate is changing and that
it is being driven by CO2 emissions. Do you think he is lying or
stupid? Why should I believe you rather than him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:52:31 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
You shouldn't believe either of us. You should shake off the SCI /Usenet
mentality that demands that either you (or he) or I "prove" the case for or
against - and take a deep critical look at one of the most important and
potentially expensive issues of the age.
You'll find that when you do look at it seriously, climate change sceptics
(the serious ones, not the AGW Denial Nutcases) are NOT saying that our
climate isn't changing, nor are they saying that Co2 is not a contributory
factor. What they are sceptical about is the accuracy of reports of
catastrophic changes which are alleged to have already happened, the
scientific basis on which predictions of catastrophic climate change is
based, the degree to which Co2 is assumed to be a factor in both, and the
feasibility of mindbuggeringly expensive measures the world seems to be
intent on taking in an attempt to avert, what is assumed to be, a disaster.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:39:44 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
How so? It's one thing to question predictions, but the changes are there
for all to see.
the
These are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, yet none of them
differ. Why do you think that is?
Has somebody shown something else to be reponsible for the changes,
something else to which the changes can be attributed?
and the
On balance it may not be too dear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:43:21 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
Such as those shown in CRUTEM3?
Fine, show me in detail how the Met Office arrive at their datasets and I'll
go away quietly.
But they do differ, you just refuse to accept it.
I see you're not immune to the odd logical fallacy or two.
Really? I suppose there is a scientific consensus about that too.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2543-2007.21 .pdf
"Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review
Report on the Economics of Climate Change". [Pielke 2007]
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 01:58:53 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Sunspot incidence, Malkovich cycles. There is at least as much evidence
for that as a forcing element as for increased CO2 levels. Here is the
kind of idiot statement that gets made by the alarmists. 'The Malkovich
cycles ensure that something will happen again in terms of an ice age,
but those factors aren't influencing the planet at the moment.' Those
cycles are always influencing the amount of solar irradiance which
reaches the earth, always have, always will, at least as long as there is
a sun.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 02:11:48 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sim mac Liam" <...@74.209.136.100:
Dunno where the hell that came from, that is of course, Milankovitch.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:28:22 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.100...
I'll ask again - has somebody *shown* something else to be responsible for
the changes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 19:46:50 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
As I stated, there is every bit as much evidence for variations in
sunspot activity and the Malinkovitch cycles being responsible for the
warming of the last 150 years as there is for anthropogenic forcing,
maybe more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
If you modify these sunspot activity graphs with Malinkovitch cycle
graphs you get a very close approximation of the temperature trends of
the last 400 years, much closer than any of the models have been able to
provide with any consistancy. Then if you take the fact that,
historically, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased in response to
warming rather than warming being driven by increased carbon dioxide, I
think the more compelling case falls on the side of increased solar
irradiance being the cuplrit with regard to our current warming, soon to
be cooling.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:36:08 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.81...
Here's where your conviction falls down. The records of the last 400 years,
4,000 years, whatever are indeed natural cycles. Your Malinkovitch cycles
can cover hundreds of thousands of years.
Fair enough.
Carbon dioxide historically can be shown to vary with temperature, and it
can be shown that one can lag behind the other, but here is the problem with
your conviction - the increased carbon dioxide is not your natural carbon
dioxide associated with your normal natural cycles, it's carbon dioxide
specifically produced by human activity and marked as such by the change in
the carbon13/12 ratio. Temperature changes from solar increases lag by
about 10 years, but solar activity has remained constant since around 1975,
yet temperature has continued to rise. There is no corresponding change in
solar activity to account for the increases since then, increases which have
instead been shown to have direct correlations to rising CO2 levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Jun 2009 03:00:58 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Fair enough, but your carbon 12/13 ratio scenario has been challenged.
http://tinyurl.com/lto4qa
Care to call this guy an energy indusrty hack?
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist
at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior
Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center,
where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific
Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with
satellites. Dr. Spencers work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science
Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on
NASAs Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several
times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company
to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:27:04 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Spencer - the creationist?
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much
better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model
was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity
in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and
advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the
need for a creator and designer."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Jun 2009 12:04:01 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Ad homenim but no refutation.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:03:49 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.82...
Just checking if I have the right bloke - quoting his own words is not an ad
hominem. I was in a hurry out the door at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:47:40 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Sim mac Liam" <...@74.209.136.82:
No, it's not an ad hominem. It's a quote. They're very different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Jun 2009 12:04:24 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
No refutation.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:24:39 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.82...
It refutes your assertion of being non-aligned. Actually, the more I look at
this bloke, the more I wonder do you really want to go with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Jun 2009 09:44:19 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Define non-aligned and show me where I said that.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:57:54 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.91...
Tell me what you meant to imply when you said "Care to call this guy an
energy indusrty [sic] hack?" or indeed "He has never been asked
by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."
Like the bloke who isn't gay, he just goes out with them that are - Spencer
isn't funded by oil companies, he just does work for them that are. Is that
what you meant there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Jun 2009 10:41:33 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Given that the C13/C12 ratio has been falling steadily for the last 35
million years, how do we know if the current rate of decrease is more or
less and what propotion of it actually can be attributed to fossil fuel
consumption?
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:14:52 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.98...
What do you think?
I'm still baffled - why if you are so convinced of your sunspot hypothesis,
that you would put forward someone who doesn't even mention it?
I'm sure nothing in this article will be news to you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/15/starwatch-sunspots
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:19:15 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
Because there will always, always be sceptics in a scientific field, no
matter how much of a consensus there is. It's possible that the consensus
is wrong, and that at least one sceptic is an unsung genius. When you get
a consensus like that which exists with GW, and given our species
genius/fool ratio, personally I'd think that unlikely.
The problem is, the sceptics like to pick out the study by Dr Contrarian
Phd, and ignore the hundreds of studies by Dr Consensus Phd, or highlight
the mistake by Dr Consensus and ignore the mistakes by Dr Contrarian.
Inconvenient paper? Just ignore it and pick the one amongst the hundreds
that supports your claim. That's not just in the GW field - look at the
WTC bombings, the ID crowd, homeopaths, etc. The problem with that is
that there will always, always be anomalous results from studies
(statistically, there has to be) - it's why meta-analysis was invented.
Anomalous studies don't often make the consensus wrong (they may, but
it's unlikely. I can work out the odds if you give me the stats). That's
why I'd go with the expert consensus - they may be wrong, but far, far
less often than the expert sceptics, and many hundreds of times less
often than "www.climatechangeisabigfatlie.com".
If the consensus is wrong, and we go with the consensus, then oops, red
faces all round, lots of wasted money, lots of politicians looking daft,
lots of ugly electric cars rusting outside houses. If the sceptics are
wrong and we go with them, it's a bit more serious.
OK, fair enough. That's an answer of sorts - they're lying or they're
just making too much money. Out of interest, what do you think the pay
for a post grad researcher is nowadays?
Pick and choose. Ignore the rest. See above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Jun 2009 10:04:37 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
Ilas <...@this.address.com195.188.240.200:
They are all supposed to be skeptics. It's how science is supposed to be
done.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:42:49 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Sim mac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97:
Indeed, and as I said, one lone genius can change the existing paradigm. It
doesn't happen very often though. As humans we tend to remember the few
cases when it did, just like we remember the times we thought of somebody
we'd not seen for years, and who then calls us up, but forget the millions
of times we think of people but don't get that phone call.
"...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown". (Carl Sagan).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:15:18 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Not entirely - I'm sure we can all recall the round earth skeptics, the
vaccination skeptics, the 30 mph skeptics, the heavier-than-air skeptics
just as much as the ones who successfully went against the scientific
consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
That's an impressive set of meaningless analogies. Here's the real problem.
Requests for information about climate change (like that to provide the data
and method used by the Hadley Centre to produce CRUTEM3) illicit responses
like this: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to
try and find something wrong with it". Great scientific method, isn't it?
Aren't you in the least bit concerned about Phil Jones' refusal to agree to
the request for information? Or was your scientific concern about global
warming satisfied by Mann's refusal to supply information to the House
Energy and Commerce Committee about the code he used to arrive at his
conclusions?
Let me put it a different way: would you agree that after research and
publication, the next step in the true scientific process is replication? or
do you think that it's fine to rely on intellectual property rights (i.e.
"my results are correct, but how I got them is my secret") as a reason for
stonewalling?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:23:57 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
Only to you, I can only make a point, not help you get it.
Here's the real problem.
I've no idea what's going on here, what the motives are, nor prepared to
second guess what the actual situation may be. McIntyre is a messer and a
time waster, it wouldn't surprise me that anyone wouldn't want to co-operate
with him, but you're right that it does nobody any credit to be childish
about it by witholding the data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 01:41:40 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Yes, there will be skeptics who are wrong, but there are also cases where
concensus is wrong. If everyone is a skeptic, the valid scientific data
carries the day. Labeling skeptics as fringe or deniers because one
disagrees with them does nothing to further scientific understanding. If
you think they're wrong, refute their findings with other findings which
you can show are more valid. Silencing or denigrating your opponent does
not win your case.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:19:54 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Show me something that proves your case that hasn't been refuted. I've yet
to see one, I've seen lists and lists of links posted here by and others,
looked at everyone of them, there hasn't been one yet hasn't turned out to
be bollocks. Not one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 19:22:15 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Nothing *proves* either case. I can show you evidence and logical
postulation, but that is all either side has to offer.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:26:12 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
Not in my experience. In my experience sceptics tend to analyse the papers
written by Dr Consensus PhD and highlight the mistakes, assumptions and
inconsistencies in them. On the other hand the believers point to the work
of Dr Consensus PhD and then concentrate on ridiculing the sceptics.
References to WTC conspiracy nuts et al. is inappropriate and misleading.
And I'll say it again, what fuels sceptical views about catastrophic climate
change predictions is not papers by sceptics, it's papers by AGW advocates.
[..]
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:43:25 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
Which is why the references to WTC conspiracy nuts et al. is appropriate.
Find the inconsistancy in one paper and bang on about it ad nauseam, but
ignore the huge body of evidence that damages your case. One climatologist
makes a possibly or defnitely incorrect assumption? It's all lies, lies I
tells you!! Twenty papers are honest and accurate? Look over there! It's a
pink bird!! It's what the kooks and conspiracy theorists always do. By the
way, did you find out how much your average post grad researcher earns?
Enough to lie for the cause do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:25:18 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
The general characterisation is false and misleading, but typical of the
kind of view put forward by those who regularly ridicule sceptics. As for
post graduate researchers, I don't know and don't care. I suppose they get
paid the same as those who work with the likes of Christy, Douglass,
Pearson, Singer, Norris, Braswell, Parker, Brown, Lindzen and others - and
it's worth pointing out that when Christy lectures on his sceptical opinion
of IPCC forecasts, the first thing he's asked is the very same question: who
is paying you and are you being paid enough to lie?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:24:07 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Jun 2009 01:47:15 GMT, "Sim mac Liam" <...@comcast.nospam.net
"Sophistry Made Simple" <...@news.indigo.ie:
Because for some folks the mere question is enough to stop them from even
considering the science of what is being said. It obviates the need for
actual thought about the subject.
--
Saint Sim mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:26:05 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Sac Liam" <...@74.209.136.97...
Nothing to so with the vast amounts of cash poured into attempts to play
down and denigrate the whole thing? Nothing to do with the fact that you
can't find a professional skeptic who isn't financed by energy firms or
rightwing 'think tanks'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:01:28 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
You mean profession scientist who is also a sceptic, surely? Nevertheless,
that's the problem I was talking about. We don't like the message, so we'll
undermine the messenger. Now where do we see that happen over and over
again?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:21:32 +0100, "Sophistry Made Simple" <...@yourrplace.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net...
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:54:22 GMT, Ilas <...@this.address.com
"Falcon" <...@mid.individual.net:
<..
Anyway, getting back to the original question. Climatologists - liars, paid
off or just plain stupid? Over to you.
(Insert name of maverick scentist here: Insert mistake by
respected scientist here: And for Seimi, insert name of lunatic
creationist here: )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:57:01 +0100, "Falcon" <...@invalid.net
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis and then seeking to
refute it. If all attempts to discredit the hypothesis fails, we start to
accept the proposed theory as being an accurate description of how the real
world works. In climate science the process seems to have evolved into the
publication of untested, and often untestable, hypotheses. Test Your
Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment is bypassed. And if anyone else wants to
test it, well hey, they just can't get hold of the original data.
Let me know when the penny drops, won't you?
You just can't help resorting to ridicule, can you?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|