while you guys are freezing...


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

 

So you are saying that there have been no examples of scientific doctoring of climate change reports?

it would be astonishing if there had not been misdoings on both sides but it really does seem like there is a near-overwhelming (and yes, we may have different definitions of over-whelming) consensus behind the scientists who are convinced of man's involvement, to whatever degree. 

still, perhaps those plucky oil companies have it right. and after all, if it came down to believing clive palmer and his ilk or a few bearded nobel prize winning scientists closeted away from reality, who wouldn't go with clive! 

(for those offshore not familiar with clive, bow down and give thanks). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

so pretty much every reputable scientist on the planet has it wrong and self-serving politicians have a better understanding than they do.  when the last human finally expires, at least they will

Let's see who argues in an intelligent way and who gets an early Easter break.  I am happy for you to discuss the issues and supply supporting data (either way).  Debate not the man, not the poli

1 minute ago, Ken Gargett said:

it would be astonishing if there had not been misdoings on both sides but it really does seem like there is a near-overwhelming (and yes, we may have different definitions of over-whelming) consensus behind the scientists who are convinced of man's involvement, to whatever degree. 

 

Don't me wrong, I agree with you. 

My point was going to be that the conduct of the debate at all levels has been appalling. 

Pro and con scientists go at it as if it were UFC for nerds.

For every big oil twat pumping millions into pseudo science, there is a left wing vegan society wanting to make eating meat a crime because it's now all about the methane and the planet.

 

Not sure you got my email. 

Dress casual for dinner. Pick you up at 4:40. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Presidente said:

Don't me wrong, I agree with you. 

My point was going to be that the conduct of the debate at all levels has been appalling. 

Pro and con scientists go at it as if it were UFC for nerds.

For every big oil twat pumping millions into pseudo science, there is a left wing vegan society wanting to make eating meat a crime because it's now all about the methane and the planet.

 

Not sure you got my email. 

Dress casual for dinner. Pick you up at 4:40. 

i did not get the email. thanks. 

agree re the level of debate and standards. there was a time when it was not so strictly along party lines all around the planet. 

of course, it is not restricted to debate on climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I will add nothing more after this because it's futile and everyone is surely well-intentioned but entirely too dependent  on selective sourcing.  

Appeal to Authority is a venerable logical fallacy and unavoidably pervasive in discussions occurring on a blog thread like this.  The problem is that everyone is dependent  on their choice of "authority," mostly derived from politicos and favored news outlets.  The proof is in the motives ascribed to opposing viewpoints by either side of a controversial topic like this.   

I have considerable professional experience on the subject, none of which could be dumped on this blog in a manner that would be either persuasive or enlightening to anyone with their mind made up.  Suffice it to say, however, that I would be what some would call a "denier" or "skeptic."  And I am supported by a humongous body of scientific research by real eggheads and statisticians who challenge widely accepted conclusions.  If anyone is truly inclined, it's not that that hard to locate.  The easy stuff to locate is easy to locate for a reason.  Perceived consensus will always dominate headlines, provided it excites passion -- the antithesis of the scientific method which demands skepticism. 

Whether there is in fact "warming," if so, is it caused or accelerated by human co2 output, what are the long-term effects, is there anything can be done and at what cost in dollars and and humanity, etc. are ridiculously complex questions that doom these type of discussions, in a forum like this, to crude platitudes and shouting matches.  

We're better off talking about cigars and remaining friends here. . . well that and religion and politics.  :P         

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

Okay, I will add nothing more after this because it's futile and everyone is surely well-intentioned but entirely too dependent  on selective sourcing.  

Appeal to Authority is a venerable logical fallacy and unavoidably pervasive in discussions occurring on a blog threads like this.  The problem is that everyone is dependent  on their choice of "authority," mostly derived from politicos and favored news outlets.  The proof is in the motives ascribed to opposing viewpoints by either side of a controversial topic like this.   

I have considerable professional experience on the subject, none of which could be dumped on this blog in a manner that would be either persuasive or enlightening to anyone with their mind made up.  Suffice it to say, however, that I would be what some would call a "denier" or "skeptic."  And I am supported by a humongous body of scientific research by real eggheads and statisticians who challenge widely accepted conclusions.  If anyone is truly inclined, it's not that that hard to locate.  The easy stuff to locate is easy to locate for a reason.  Perceived consensus will always dominate headlines, provided it excites passion -- the antithesis of the scientific method which demands skepticism. 

Whether there is in fact "warming," if so, is it caused or accelerated by human co2 output, what are the long-term effects, is there anything can be done and at what cost in dollars and and humanity, etc. are ridiculously complex questions that doom these type of discussions, in a forum like this, to crude platitudes and shouting matches.  

We're better off talking about cigars and remaining friends here. . . well that and religion and politics.  :P         

   

with respect, there are plenty of sites here quoted where one can seek information.

to say you are supported by a 'humungous body of scientific research' but you won't dump it on the forum is a cop out. you use the excuse that everyone has made up their minds so no point. again, the easy way.

personally, when the debate on all this started in any depth, i was not just skeptical but thought it the greatest load of nonsense i'd ever heard. i tried to read as much on it all as i could (and i still do) - happy to confess that some of the scientific stuff is beyond me (although you might be surprised with the wide variety of talented people on this forum how many would have no trouble understanding it, whether or not they agreed). my conclusions on everything i could ascertain completely turned around my thoughts. 100%. at some stage, you do have to make a decision. that hardly means that if someone - scientists or whomsoever - provided compelling evidence to the contrary that i would not change my views. at the moment, i struggle to see that happening. i think we have truly condemned this planet in so many ways. loved to be proved wrong but so far, seen nothing that is likely to do that. 

but i think you do a lot of people on this forum a disservice by dismissing them in this fashion, without providing any evidence, other than saying that you could if you wanted to. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

 

We're better off talking about cigars and remaining friends here. . . well that and religion and politics.  :P         

   

Some of us manage  the ménage à trois quite well :D

I have a ton of mates who are climate change (man made) sceptics.  Few of them are global warming sceptics. 

 

Over the years I have changed my mind on a host of once infallible positions.

I am always looking for enlightenment and another point of view. :thumbsup:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

happy to check out any and all sources. unfortunately they'll have to wait till tomorrow. heading off. 

With all due respect, when I said humongous, I wasn't being hyperbolic. The quantity of scholarly material on damn near any aspect,and reanalysis of conclusions from raw data, is breathtaking.  

For example, the very question of the quality of pre industrial temperature measurement represents entire body of study in itself.  We could probably all agree that anecdotal observations during anyone's lifetime is of no meaningful value when isolating anthropogenic causation versus natural climactic cycles -- the ultimate question.  Contemporaneously recorded weather data spans a relative nanosecond of the earth's history, yet it is trending over thousands of years that drives models. They are dependent on assumptions,many of which are entirely subjective or subject to mathematical error/manipulation.  The debunked "hockey stick graph" (the centerpiece of so-called statistical roof) would be a prime and recent example. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Your hemisphere has been particularly vexing on temperature measurement and modeling anomaly.  https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0588.1 http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/04/there-has-been-no-man-made-global-warming-in-the-southern-hemisphere-equatorial-regions/

Same with oceanic co2 absorbtion rates. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/;https://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2019 at 1:51 PM, El Presidente said:

......we haven't seen him lately :lookaround:

 

I just got out of Ians dungeon. I'm fine!

On 2/1/2019 at 1:29 PM, IanMcLean68 said:

Hey @El Presidente, you ain't seen nothin' ? Just ask @Luca. I wasn't kidding about the "mad scientist" thing in my avatar!!!

Honestly....what @IanMcLean68 has at home is amazing. @JohnS - you need to see! He is a mad scientist... probably the only mad scientist in Lithgow....or Australia! He has the right gear to open a worm hole to time travel back to Cuba so we can stock up on SLR Serie A and all of the other great discontinued cigars that we all wish we had!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Luca said:

I just got out of Ians dungeon. I'm fine!

Honestly....what @IanMcLean68 has at home is amazing. @JohnS - you need to see! He is a mad scientist... probably the only mad scientist in Lithgow....or Australia! He has the right gear to open a worm hole to time travel back to Cuba so we can stock up on SLR Serie A and all of the other great discontinued cigars that we all wish we had!

44854-7887.jpg.cfadc4c558ddc6397ec767a0ea2fbabb.jpg

Maybe a bit obscure... well worth a watch...

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2019 at 6:10 PM, IanMcLean68 said:

I highly recommend watching the original Cosmos series presented by Carl Sagan. It is now freely available on the Internet. Most of what was presented by him then is just as relevant today.

And yes, that is a Tesla coil in my Avatar ?

 

That was so sick !!!   
You may have seen this youtube already, but it is pretty awesome.  They shoot the coil going off in ultra slow mo. 
 


 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, rcarlson said:

For example, the very question of the quality of pre industrial temperature measurement represents entire body of study in itself.  We could probably all agree that anecdotal observations during anyone's lifetime is of no meaningful value when isolating anthropogenic causation versus natural climactic cycles -- the ultimate question. 

Perhaps. 

Without question is that in Oz,  the three hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years.  

That is enough for me to rule out "changing nothing" as an option. 

Here is a direct result. Started occurring in january this year.  It has continued.  While mass fish deaths due to weather have occured in Oz before,  it has never occured on this scale. The estimate is over a million fish dead in this river system alone. 

January 2019 was the hottest month in Australia on record. 

 

 

 

 

Image result for fish kill australia

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rcarlson said:

Okay, here's two more. I don't know which prospotion you are convinced of or your sources, but I assume you've visited:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

had a look at these couple of sites. as yet, have not looked at any of the others and to be honest, not anticipating circumstances that will encourage me to do that, unless i can be convinced that they are completely different. as i said earlier, happy to review my opinion if presented with scientific evidence that requires me to do so. with that in mind, i clicked on your wattsup site. to be honest, i'm not sure whether i came away more shocked or horrified. in fairness to both sites i looked at, there is far too much material to get through in anything less than several days so i tried to be as selective, and as fair, as i could. 

but this site is little more than a flagwaving exercise in bile and humiliation. it mocks any opposing view. i completely agree with you, as i suspect most who take this seriously on any side would, as to your thoughts on entrenched 'politcos' and their views and 'motives'. but surely these sites are the very thing against which you speak? 

anyway, i thought i should try and look behind the serial abuse this site offers. i started to look at some of the experts that they claim support their anti-CC view. there are certainly some scientists who would appear to have decent credentials. but then i look closer. the first one, and i could discover this with a minimal of investigation, is the "founder and scientific director of the XXX Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies". so he works for oil and gas companies and yet is put forward as the independent authority on this subject. where is the independence here? how can one possibly believe a word he says? he is paid to say it. i'm sure that there are plenty who qualify along similar lines for the opposing view and their opinions should be treated with the same contempt. 

there was a reference to australia so i checked it out. it was a report on a suggestion that was proffered to reduce our output by around 1 1/2% from memory. as the site pointed out, we are only around 2% of the global output in the first place. so it is a minor contribution, but there is no magic wand that can fix this in one go. the site belittled anyone involved with this, sent tirades of abuse, because it was such an insignificant thing. there was no argument put forward against it. just derision. where is the science in that? please tell me, if a member of your family, if i may use that analogy, was suffering a potentially life-threatening illness, would you not want everything possible done? even if it was a 1%er or a 1/100th of that? if it were your neighbour, would you humiliate and belittle them for trying? because that is the essence of this site. i am truly stunned that anyone could genuinely put this site forward as an example of scientific research, as you have done. 

so i went to your climate depot site. largely more of the same but i thought it only fair to try and examine it further. again, some seemingly reputable scientists. i check out one who the site says dismisses climate change. he is extremely well regarded and seemingly highly reputable. but it becomes clear in researching him, that he is anything but a CC denier. i check further. what he has said was that while he is 100% of the view that CC is very real, any research should be conducted thoroughly and not simply accepted at face value - something i think we could all agree on. so the site has turned that into the claim that he dismisses CC. it is nothing short of utterly deceitful. 

anyway, to be fair, i thought i should look at more on the site. not the ranting at any opposing view but where they claim to quote experts. one particular 'authority' appeared a number of times and, if one believed the site, this guy was the equivalent of horatio on the bridge guarding the world from the barbarians, or whatever horatio did. now, it is possible that this is mentioned on the site, but if so i could not find it, minimal research reveals this 'authority' to be the founder/owner of the site. the site that keeps quoting him as a world expert on CC. so, a little bit dodgy but perhaps he does have expertise. he certainly is put forward as a world expert.

no. he has not a shred. not the slightest hint of a scientific background at all. a political lobbyist. nothing but a self-proclaimed so-called expert. no truth to his claims whatsoever. and yet the site trumpets his expertise. where is the science here?

a little further research. the gentleman in question apparently first came to fame, or notoriety, whichever one prefers, when he ran the campaign for a political party against a presidential candidate by utterly and disgracefully misrepresenting his war record and his actions in vietnam. he is nothing less than a proven liar. and this is your expert?

you'll understand why i won't be bothering with any more of your sites.

you claim to be "supported by a humongous body of scientific research by real eggheads and statisticians". you are not. you claim in support of this humongous amount of scientific evidence that "quantity of scholarly material on damn near any aspect,and reanalysis of conclusions from raw data, is breathtaking". it is not. certainly not on these sites. 

there is no science here. no independent research. no rigorous analysis of data. certainly no peer-reviewed material, unless you want to define that as the sycophantic gloatings of those with rigidly entrenched views that they will cling to as the ship sinks and who seem to mistake abuse for debate.

i remain happy to amend my thoughts on this if presented with genuine evidence but there was no attempt to provide that on these sites.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That is enough for me to rule out "changing nothing" as an option."

It shouldn't.  A 10 year sample is statistically speaking irrelevant.  Weather extremes have and will always exist.  The issue is causation.  And in order to even begin to make a pass at it, you need a trend of sufficient duration.  If you reliably establish a trend, the next step is determine the cause.  Doing "something" is always an option, and in fact may be the best depending on what your "something" is.  

What is your "something and why is it better than "nothing?"  Restricting carbon emission, and by extension use of fossil fuels has a tremendous cost.  Relying on "renewable" energy?  I'm sure you're aware of the South Australian power grid failure and the duck curve.  Imagine if that happened in our Midwest during the polar vortex.  How many dead?   I've heard India used as an example of profound poverty, hunger, famine and death and short life spans that have risen almost entirely from the use of fossil fuel.  Ask any third world country trying to become a first world country about fossil fuels. 

We're also often presented with massive global wealth redistribution motivated by nationalistic economic concerns rather than any real climate change objective.  U.S. carbon emissions have gone down since withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.    

My point is only that if you're going to do "something," you better damn well sure that you're aware of the cost of that "something."  Let me know your "something" and I'll see if I can't address it.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken, that is cop out.  The sites are fully searchable, and as I said, the quantity of data is humongous.  I talked about the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."  You make the point. 

Break it down in bites, and maybe I can retrieve an expert that you will accept for whatever reason. I haven't a clue what you've looked at, why you've accepted it, or what caused your epiphany.  I also haven't a clue who your attacking and what their article said.  Almost anyone can contribute to the site, no different than here. 

 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

"That is enough for me to rule out "changing nothing" as an option."

It shouldn't.  A 10 year sample is statistically speaking irrelevant.  Weather extremes have and will always exist.  The issue is causation.  And in order to even begin to make a pass at it, you need a trend of sufficient duration.  If you reliably establish a trend, the next step is determine the cause.  Doing "something" is always an option, and in fact may be the best depending on what your "something" is.  

What is your "something and why is it better than "nothing?"  Restricting carbon emission, and by extension use of fossil fuels has a tremendous cost.  Relying on "renewable" energy?  I'm sure you're aware of the South Australian power grid failure and the duck curve.  Imagine if that happened in our Midwest during the polar vortex.  How many dead?   I've heard India used as an example of profound poverty, hunger, famine and death and short life spans that have risen almost entirely from the use of fossil fuel.  Ask any third world country trying to become a first world country about fossil fuels. 

We're also often presented with massive global wealth redistribution motivated by nationalistic economic concerns rather than any real climate change objective.  U.S. carbon emissions have gone down since withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.    

My point is only that if you're going to do "something," you better damn well sure that you're aware of the cost of that "something."  Let me know your "something" and I'll see if I can't address it.     

I certainly understand your point. 

 

Option A  If the deniers  are proved right then the financial cost will be astronomical to governments and individuals. 

Option B     If the climate change evangelists are proved right then it will be "end of days". 

The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.....but it would appear madness not to rule out the second option. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, El Presidente said:

I certainly understand your point. 

 

Option A  If the deniers  are proved right then the financial cost will be astronomical to governments and individuals. 

Option B     If the climate change evangelists are proved right then it will be "end of days". 

The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.....but it would appear madness not to rule out the second option. 

 

 

Perhaps.  I really am curious what your "something is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.