Grabthaw the Hammerslayer

Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

749 posts in this topic

I missed this one.

But no worry. The sea level is supposed to rise 20 meters in... what is it again? 5 years? 7.3452 years? The lack of fulfillment of predictions, so far, is why some of the clever ones are suggesting a change of name from global warming to climate change. The point apparently is to blame it on human activity no matter what. Cool. Let's hope it means humanity will clean house, true or not,... even though I so much doubt this has anything to do with anything more than a few creeps making a buck of you.

Is Mr. Ozone Layer right? I haven't seen him lately.

First time I heard about CO2 and warming they used to talk about greenhouse effect. Then I read that this effect was unlikely as warming wasn't steady and uniform on earth. Suddenly I never heard about greenhouse effect again and it was swapped with global warming. Now it's climate change what we have to deal with no matter it is warming or cooling. Give the politicians something to hypnotize voters and they'll give you millions. Specially the left wing parties.

You know, a similar situation happened with the Y2K bug scare. The consensus was that "no one" knew if computers were going to blow up come the new century (of course, those in the field knew better). But it was "good" because it forced many companies to update their software/hardware even though the "threat" was imaginary.

Some companies I know paid people (consultants) to certify their printers, keyboards, mice, monitors... were Y2K bug free. laugh.gif

Edited by AleHop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oli, you are not really that brazen as to provide responses from the scientists implicated in ClimateGate as a PROOF that "there is nothing to see" there, are you? You do realize that Real Climate has been created and run by Gavin Schmidt who is a member of the "Hockey Stick Team," right? In fact, one of the e-mails is from him to Mann and Jones presenting RealClimate to their disposal and offering the blog as "their" forum. No wonder, as any dissenting opinions, difficult questions, or opposing posts are heavily censored by Schmidt and the Team. If you want to learn, get on www.ClimateAudit.org where any and all opinions are welcomed (although may be moved to different threads) except any political statements, polemic, or ad hominem attacks. In fact, any member of the Hockey Team is welcomed to post there (and they did - I read their posts).

It may be educational for you to read a great post showing that if you put the e-mails IN CONTEXT they are actually MORE damning - as in discussion regarding altering the graphs was conducted in the context of the meeting of authors of the 3rd IPCC report, which implicated UN in altering data to "make the message more clear. I read the e-mails too, BTW.

Finally, the latest on Climate Audit shows how another "trick" (not Jones this time but Mann and Briffa) violated every scientific principle by truncating Briffa's own data in 1960 and substituting the actual temperature readings to "hide the decline." Such substitution is fine, if you are out of data, not because your own model does not agree with reality. That fact points to the big question- if dendrochronology does not agree with todays conditions, how do we know it is accurate telling us about the temps 1000 years ago??? Anfd do NOT start on "other studies" - most studies referenced on RealClimate were performed either by the TEam members, or were based on their (altered) data.

Finally, the issue with FOIA is not (or rather, it's a different issue) if the CRU was required to realease the data based on FOIA (I deal with FOIA every day and I KNOW that it is REQUIRED that any govrnmt agency provide you with ALL requested data), the issue is that Jones was urging people to delete the requested materials, which a FELONY in the US. It is also illegal in UK. So, instead of falling for the Hockey Team misdirection (and they learned that art very well in the last 10 years), PLEASE, find out the other side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed this one.

Is Mr. Ozone Layer right? I haven't seen him lately.

First time I heard about CO2 and warming they used to talk about greenhouse effect. Then I read that this effect was unlikely as warming wasn't steady and uniform on earth. Suddenly I never heard about greenhouse effect again and it was swapped with global warming. Now it's climate change what we have to deal with no matter it is warming or cooling. Give the politicians something to hypnotize voters and they'll give you millions. Specially the left wing parties.

Some companies I know paid people (consultants) to certify their printers, keyboards, mice, monitors... were Y2K bug free. laugh.gif

The company I still work for spent MILLIONS on a Y2K "Task Force." Of course, that pales in view of estimated $15,000,000,000 spent on Climate Change (aka Global Studies) in the last decade. Wonder, who get these money... (a hint - it's a game popular in Canada).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that Real Climate has been created and run by Gavin Schmidt who is a member of the "Hockey Stick Team," right? In fact, one of the e-mails is from him to Mann and Jones presenting RealClimate to their disposal and offering the blog as "their" forum.

I seem to remember a time when Real Climate (in the 'about' or whatever) claimed to be neutral to the debate, that all they cared about was to provide unbiased information. I just checked and could not find any mention of it anywhere.

Then, again, perhaps Real Climate never claimed such a thing because being unbiased was never their intent.

It may be educational for you to read a great post showing that if you put the e-mails IN CONTEXT they are actually MORE damning - as in discussion regarding altering the graphs was conducted in the context of the meeting of authors of the 3rd IPCC report, which implicated UN in altering data to "make the message more clear. I read the e-mails too, BTW.

True. It was very interesting to read the emails contextualized by the events taking place at the time they were written.

Just as an aside, you rarely have genuine balance in the media, or anywhere else for that matter. Balance is a question of opinion and judgement.

No, it isn't. Balance is a condition of equal share according to an agreed upon characteristic or attribute. There isn't any frigging moral magic of opinion of judgment involved whatsoever.

The BBC has all kinds of policies on its coverage of all kinds of issues. Usually it's politically correct rather than honest for example - in the case of the BBC I can see some justification for doing this, even if would be patronising to its viewers if they figured it out. Or sometimes they give coverage to every side of an argument no matter how daft or factually incorrect, and other times they pick winners for political reasons. I'd imagine the Beeb's mandate includes such aims as 'not offending anyone' and 'educating the public', which is taken as license to guide and shape the public's opinions on controversial issues by promoting one point of view that experts have deemed correct.

Didn't you barf out whenever that the BBC was the best media in the world?

Jesus fck! What's happening to you man...

I'm not really big into GW. People's thinking is much more interesting to me. It seems to me that this is really where we disagree. I think this way of thinking is very dangerous. It's unrealistic to expect scientists to understand absolutely everything before warning us of risks. There are many cases when it would be folly to not act just because our understanding of something was incomplete.

Absurd from "I'm not" to "was incomplete". It's perfect absurdity, completeness of absurdity, saturation of absurdity,...

Listen, funky hag, I don't recall any of the GW sect preceding their visions of future events with a percentage of "incomplete understanding". Hell, I don't even remember them claiming the understanding is anything but perfect and absolute. Not long ago, a big wig claimed that the debate has been settled, that it is over, finished, that it is time for action (while pointing to his pocket). Where the fck is the "incomplete understanding" you are now holding your lone shaggy testicle from?

Come on now, make me smile, you freaking savage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this moment I am paralysingly drunk due to it being Friday. Tomorrow is my company Xmas Party as well so you''re going to have to indulge me until next week I'm afraid. I hope you'll understand. Scientific analysis is way beyond me right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing human beings need to know is the correct answer if they're playing a Trivial Pursuit game and the question reads: Who's producing Global Warming?

My answers:

a. Al Gore et al. (Qaeda)

b. The Power of Minorities (the book)

c. CO2

d. Humans

e. All of the above (posters I mean)

f. Climate change

g. Only God knows

h. Formula One

i. All of the above

j. Cattle farting

k. Greenhouse effect

l. The Sun [EDIT](newspaper of course)[/EDIT]

m. Mr. Zapatero et al. (of the above)

n. Humans must die (all)

ñ. Ña, ñe, ñi, ño, ñu (ñu is a cattle, sort of)

o. It's boring now and I want a to z

p. People?

q. Quadrupeds?

r. Rainbow? (funny vid. that one maure, ha, ha...)

s. Sabotage? (sorry)

t. Tits? (couldn't help it)

u. w. x. y. z. Clueless (all of the above? eusa_think.gif)

Edited by AleHop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is a question of opinion and judgement. The BBC has all kinds of policies on its coverage of all kinds of issues.

Wrong!!! BBC is actually legally obliged to be neutral - it is publicly-funded and the BBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it isn't. Balance is a condition of equal share according to an agreed upon characteristic or attribute. There isn't any frigging moral magic of opinion of judgment involved whatsoever.

I see. And how do we define and measure an 'equal share'? What machine or formula objectively tells us when both sides of an argument have been presented fairly? What SI units do we measure each side's 'share' in?

Didn't you barf out whenever that the BBC was the best media in the world?

Jesus fck! What's happening to you man...

Absurd from "I'm not" to "was incomplete". It's perfect absurdity, completeness of absurdity, saturation of absurdity,...

Listen, funky hag, I don't recall any of the GW sect preceding their visions of future events with a percentage of "incomplete understanding". Hell, I don't even remember them claiming the understanding is anything but perfect and absolute. Not long ago, a big wig claimed that the debate has been settled, that it is over, finished, that it is time for action (while pointing to his pocket). Where the fck is the "incomplete understanding" you are now holding your lone shaggy testicle from?

Come on now, make me smile, you freaking savage...

:lol:

At this moment I am paralysingly drunk due to it being Friday. Tomorrow is my company Xmas Party as well so you''re going to have to indulge me until next week I'm afraid. I hope you'll understand. Scientific analysis is way beyond me right now...

Thing is, I don't think anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to think seriously about any science you present anyway.

Wrong!!! BBC is actually legally obliged to be neutral - it is publicly-funded and the BBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r. Rainbow? (funny vid. that one maure, ha, ha...)

I remember that video, yes...

It is a fact that humanity is a failure as a species.

And there is no small irony in the "mea culpa" syndrome behind the GW movement's necessity to find us all at fault no matter what... and, by us, I mean the "corporations" or the "rich" or the...

Ahhhh, well, if only they were more graceful about it, you know, replacing their violence with panache and soign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this moment I am paralysingly drunk due to it being Friday. Tomorrow is my company Xmas Party as well so you''re going to have to indulge me until next week I'm afraid. I hope you'll understand. Scientific analysis is way beyond me right now...

I dunno, I always understand science MUCH better when I'm drunk... I can even explain string theory after a scotch or three... naughty.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's defined and measured based on the given characteristic or attribute. Start with the simple characteristics, volume, pitch, etc, etc. You'll get there, eventually. However, skip those steps and, yes, you will never walk out of your confusion.

And, btw, interestingly enough and regardless of how esoteric the given characteristic might be, most people can tell when an argumentation is severely out of balance and when it's not. Of course, another matter is if they would admit to it...

I see. So the BBC no doubt pays particular attention to making sure all its interviewees have 'equal share' of the 'pitch' and 'volume'. How simple it must be to ensure balance. If a woman comes on, the editors just tune her voice down an octave and hey presto she sounds like a man so that everyone takes her seriously.

But I do agree that your second paragraph is at least vaguely interesting, even if equally daft. Your problem is that most people who listen to the BBC agree with it on GW. Whether they are scientists or laymen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So the BBC no doubt pays particular attention to making sure all its interviewees have 'equal share' of the 'pitch' and 'volume'. How simple it must be to ensure balance. If a woman comes on, the editors just tune her voice down an octave and hey presto she sounds like a man so that everyone takes her seriously.

The BBC has a charter and fails to follow it. Most brazenly so on GW. They should give equal coverage. Period.

But I do agree that your second paragraph is at least vaguely interesting, even if equally daft. Your problem is that most people who listen to the BBC agree with it on GW. Whether they are scientists or laymen.

Bollocks!

Totally subjective viewpoint. How do you know that? So now not only do all scientists agree, the public do too? lol Well I suppose that would be the case if they they are being fed is pro GW material......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC has a charter and fails to follow it. Most brazenly so on GW. They should give equal coverage. Period.

It still comes down to judgement though. Should the BBC give equal coverage to holocaust deniers? What about the average British man who (seriously) thinks women are often responsible for being raped? Or the suicide bombers who blow us up because we commit terrible sins against Muslim countries? This last group of nutters even have a point, after all.

Totally subjective viewpoint. How do you know that? So now not only do all scientists agree, the public do too? lol

There are opinion polls that show it. Most people in Britain want the government to do more, not less, to tackle GW. A recent one for your perusal is here.

Well I suppose that would be the case if they they are being fed is pro GW material......

I tend to agree that people are easily fooled. But Maure doesn't. He thinks people can tell when reporting is biased... it's just that people 'don't admit' that they aren't fooled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily, most people in the USA and Australia is smarter than an ordinaryBrit, at least with respect to GW. I believe close to 60% does not believe in AGW (although most admit the Ewarth is warming due to natural causes) and Most also do not want cap and trade or anything binding in Copenhagen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So the BBC no doubt pays particular attention to making sure all its interviewees have 'equal share' of the 'pitch' and 'volume'. How simple it must be to ensure balance. If a woman comes on, the editors just tune her voice down an octave and hey presto she sounds like a man so that everyone takes her seriously.

I expressly said that working with those simple attributes was necessary for _you_ to begin to comprehend how to work with more complex attributes.

Unsurprisingly, you ignored what was actually written thereby continuing to ignore the elemental in order to be able to jump ahead of your present capacity. Thus, you write things like this:

...most people who listen to the BBC agree with it on GW. Whether they are scientists or laymen.

Balanced? Not an issue any longer for you. You are just running, again, to the "majority" belief, to the warmth of "herd consensus".

Which only goes to show that _you_ indeed require work with simple attributes before ever understanding what balance is for, my dear-as-a-child friend, you just wrote yet another contradiction precisely exemplifying what I was warning you not to do.

But, hey, agreement before understanding is your curse as, you claim, is that of "most people who listen to the BBC".

Interesting, nonetheless, your sheep mentality is proven again by your idiosyncratic necessity to assert that your opinion/views/whatever are always those of some "majority". Curiously amused me, is it that you think what you think because you believe that "most" think it, or is it that you believe "most" think what you do simply because you think it? Yours is, undoubtedly, a state of permanent self-deceit.

I tend to agree that people are easily fooled. But Maure doesn't. He thinks people can tell when reporting is biased... it's just that people 'don't admit' that they aren't fooled!

You misconstruing of what I wrote is, of course, brutish and naive. Anyone can scroll up and read what I actually said.

But for someone (such as you) for whose very existence depends on "consensus" (appeals to this "majority" are everywhere on this thread), that first phrase you wrote is like chewing your own ankle to free yourself from a trap that, guess what, you set yourself.

Do follow my friendly advise and start working with simple attributes first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it.......... I wanted to post this 'cos the subject of individuals paying a high price has been questioned, and for something that still hasn't been quantified, i.e. man's contribution to global warming/cooling/changing (pls choose according to generation of scientist), compared to the Earth's natural cyclical changes.

Full article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

Snippet......

The real gain to Corus from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes me _smile_.

Interesting, though I found it as useful as

....I guess most of those experts are in Copenhagen right now :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me weep.

Truly pathetic. Trying to diss climate sceptics. Shows how low they will stoop.

:lol:

Yes. But isn't it funny how associating one point of view with men (rather than women) is enough to discredit it. I only posted the link to wind up the PC lefty bunch as much as the right wing pollute the planet brigade.

Interesting, though I found it as useful as

....I guess most of those experts are in Copenhagen right now :lol:

Very funny. And Maure will go on telling us how people can tell when they're only being given one side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes me _smile_.

How could you not be taken by a rant that starts with:

Why are virtually all climate "sceptics" men?

Aside from the evident lie and the desperate sexist tactic of ignoring women's opinion as well as their very existence, the rant is made to fit the mentality of those, that like you, need absolutes "all men", "all women", "all Muslim", "all lefties", etc, etc, and, of course, imaginary "majorities" and "consensuses" to deal with reality, that is, a very complex sbject.

I wish you are smiling, my friend, but unfortunately you are just _gritting_your_teeth_.

:lol:

Yes. But isn't it funny how associating one point of view with men (rather than women) is enough to discredit it. I only posted the link to wind up the PC lefty bunch as much as the right wing pollute the planet brigade.

Discredit always lie underneath any argumentation that depends on non-volitional stereotypes. In terms of gender, this is so regardless. Were you not sexist, you would see this.

Very funny. And Maure will go on telling us how people can tell when they're only being given one side of the story.

As I said, "what one knows" and "what one admits to know" are to completely different things. This applies fully to bias as it does to most aspects of life.

Even you should be able to understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Monbiot and Ian Plimer were invited to a debate on Lateline on ABC here (Ian Plimer for those who don't know is an Australian Geologist, and someone cited by the Australian opposition leader as 'a highly credible scientist and he's writtenwhat seems like a very wel...l-argued book refuting most of the claims of the climate catastrophists.')

What is striking is the sheer absence of any attempt to do science, to talk science, to have a logical discussion. It's like someone put maure on TV.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

Edited by cavallino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now