Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[maure 1]

Chair of the IPCC has been on the "wacky baccy" again - now he is saying we should stop eating meat....

(but again badly thought through as all the beans people eat instead will surely create more greenhouse gases??? )

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7600005.stm

It's a necessity for these clowns to keep media attention on them and it is amusing for us to see them do so. Next on the IPCC agenda, everyone must wear a paper hats to bounce off the cosmic rays.

Unfortunately, guess who is going to be eating less meat. As always, the most vulnerable will pay for all the nonsense.

Like Murray said, fill Africa with mirrors... and fck the locals.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah 'cos buying the world's energy from them will really screw them over.

[maure 1]

It's too easy, Maure. Can't you at least make it a challenge for us? *sigh* So now you're saying we should trust the experts, as judged by their papers etc? Well, that's progress, now you just need to understand that the experts in GW are climate scientists, not pulp and paper technicians.

Your manipulations are always so infantile. That's kind of sad and I want you to amuse me. Focus, man, focus.

I wanted you to lynch the guy and, as a devoted fanatic, you did. Mission accomplished. I smiled.

I wanted you to say that an academic has no right to an opinion but you do and, as a devoted fanatic, you performed as expected. Mission accomplished. I smiled.

But there is a freebee. You confess now that you cannot tell an academic and a technician apart. That's new ignorance you bring to the table and that's what we need from you. See, no jejune manipulation there, just pure brutally ignorant naive Murray. THAT makes me laugh.

I gave you one of the very few skeptics I have reason to respect - there simply are very few of them - so I wouldn't discredit him. My view is that GW is too complicated for non-experts like us to understand, and therefore we must make use of expert opinion. Lindzen has one view; the vast majority of his colleagues disagree. Society has to listen to the vast majority of experts in this situation where we can't get to grips with the science. This is actually what happens very often in science and any other area of human life. Some people don't like it, but they do it just the same, just without understanding that they don't understand it.

Don't beat around the bush, my friend. How does this one guy spared from the pyre question your religion? How do you hold on to your blind faith on account of your respect for things you naively admit you cannot understand but are nonetheless the absolute truth?

This is where I want you, Murray, telling us how _you_ see the world with that prodigious brain of yours... so, don't give me "one" skeptic, give them _all_ up. Why hide them? Are you afraid for your consensus or are you simply lying? We cannot have that, come on, don't fall apart on me now...

[maure 1]

Yeah 'cos buying the world's energy from them will really screw them over.

You mean your plan includes giving all the mirrors away for free?

So, which poor country do you have in mind to force to make the mirrors for free (to then force the mirrors on the Africans)?

Getting you to explain yourself is brilliant stuff...

[Max Mosley 2]

This is where I want you, Murray, telling us how _you_ see the world with that prodigious brain of yours... so, don't give me "one" skeptic, give them _all_ up. Why hide them? Are you afraid for your consensus or are you simply lying? We cannot have that, come on, don't fall apart on me now...

Maure, it's pathetic really! The same humourless sarcasm is deployed yet again to evade the issues. I've been more than generous making your own arguments for you here and you still cannot offer anything worth responding to? I've explained how I see the world, you simply choose to ignore inconvenient truths.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Maure, it's pathetic really! The same humourless sarcasm is deployed yet again to evade the issues. I've been more than generous making your own arguments for you here and you still cannot offer anything worth responding to? I've explained how I see the world, you simply choose to ignore inconvenient truths.

The problem is Muzza, every time we do provide any evidence, you and Oli go either:

1) This scientist is a load of crap (without actually reading and assessing) and/or they are not a scientist/are not an expert

2) This work is a load of crap and some ancient study disproves it

3) Person writing is a load of crap

Plus you ignore all the difficult questions or points where there seem to be no answers.

e.g. the list of outcomes I gave based upon IPCC projections, which overall don't seem that extreme - a moderate sea rise (possibly) (certainly a far cry from the 20ft which many pro GW supporters proclaim), more food, less deaths, more economic benefits....

Is this the apocalypse we are striving to prevent? Bring it on.

And bl**dy typical - another paper comes out recently, stating that sea rises will be 2 meters in 100 years (a lot less than mentioned before). BBC reports it in usual shock-horror fashion, until you read further down and the text states that for a 2m rise, glaciers in Greenland will have to accelerate to double the fastest-ever recorded speed (which was for a short time) and triple the current average for a sustained period of time (most of that 100 years).... So why, tell me is this 2m figure even being mentioned when it is *NEVER* going to happen?

Anti GW - Bad science??? PAH!

Sorry Muzza, Oli whilst the debate was entertaining and some useful things came out, I'm bored of it now and its all pointless as you are not listening.

When some of you guys eventually wake up and see the emperor's new clothes Maure and I will be drinking from our Pina Coladas with pineapples flown in specially (causing lots of CO2 emissions) and eating our lovely CO2-unfriendly meat kebabs off our charcoal barbeque....

[Max Mosley 2]

1) This scientist is a load of crap (without actually reading and assessing) and/or they are not a scientist/are not an expert

2) This work is a load of crap and some ancient study disproves it

3) Person writing is a load of crap

I don't think that's true.

1) We have attacked some people's credentials, but that was usually when you presented them as experts. In other words when you were making an 'argument from authority'. For example, when you gave us a petition with supposedly 31,000 'scientists', you're relying on their credentials as scientists. If they aren't good scientists, that petition in itself is useless. So we pointed out that they weren't worthy of the name.

2) We are surely free to argue that some research is crap? I don't see a problem there. Also many of the studies we linked are extremely recent, some from earlier this year.

3) See (1)

I really think it's you and Maure who are ignoring the responses given! You haven't responded to the evidence that the vast majority of scientists genuinely accept GW.

Plus you ignore all the difficult questions or points where there seem to be no answers.

e.g. the list of outcomes I gave based upon IPCC projections, which overall don't seem that extreme - a moderate sea rise (possibly) (certainly a far cry from the 20ft which many pro GW supporters proclaim), more food, less deaths, more economic benefits....

I've been quite clear that GW isn't as serious as some people make out. Scientists are not experts in public policy, and I think anyone who focuses more on GW than poverty is a twit. But that's no reason to suggest the whole theory of GW is a conspiracy and that every single scientific organisation in the world has been bribed and that NASA is lying about its research etc.

[maure 1]

Maure, it's pathetic really! The same humourless sarcasm is deployed yet again to evade the issues.

Don't be so desperate. Calm down, man. You take yourself too seriously and make more of a fool of yourself than it is necessary.

So you lied when you said that you know of non-GW sicentist able to do "good science". So what? You lie all the time. No biggy.

This is all as expected, of course. If you were able to understand that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is _not_ a winner-take-all contest based on TV ratings, you would not be the truly fun ignoramous you are.

I've been more than generous making your own arguments for you here...

This is true. You demonstrate once and again what I've been saying all along, that is, you are a fanatic.

you still cannot offer anything worth responding to?

Feel free to respond to those posts when I generously tried to teach _you_ something about the scientific process, be that academic publishing or the complexity of inquiry.

If still too frighten to pursue that avenue, explain how is it that _you_ are entitled to "argue" a topic you yourself claim to have no clue about about while simultaneoulsy claiming that academics with long careers (technicians, to you) have no right to an opinion.

I've explained how I see the world, you simply choose to ignore inconvenient truths.

Now you have me cracking up. "Inconvenient truths"? Are you 12 yo? Honestly, you are so gullible.

Anyway, stop running Murray. Come back and tell us about your plan to fill Africa with free mirrors...

[maure 1]

The problem is Muzza, every time we do provide any evidence, you and Oli go either:

1) This scientist is a load of crap (without actually reading and assessing) and/or they are not a scientist/are not an expert

2) This work is a load of crap and some ancient study disproves it

3) Person writing is a load of crap

Plus you ignore all the difficult questions or points where there seem to be no answers.

e.g. the list of outcomes I gave based upon IPCC projections, which overall don't seem that extreme - a moderate sea rise (possibly) (certainly a far cry from the 20ft which many pro GW supporters proclaim), more food, less deaths, more economic benefits....

Is this the apocalypse we are striving to prevent? Bring it on.

And bl**dy typical - another paper comes out recently, stating that sea rises will be 2 meters in 100 years (a lot less than mentioned before). BBC reports it in usual shock-horror fashion, until you read further down and the text states that for a 2m rise, glaciers in Greenland will have to accelerate to double the fastest-ever recorded speed (which was for a short time) and triple the current average for a sustained period of time (most of that 100 years).... So why, tell me is this 2m figure even being mentioned when it is *NEVER* going to happen?

Anti GW - Bad science??? PAH!

Sorry Muzza, Oli whilst the debate was entertaining and some useful things came out, I'm bored of it now and its all pointless as you are not listening.

When some of you guys eventually wake up and see the emperor's new clothes Maure and I will be drinking from our Pina Coladas with pineapples flown in specially (causing lots of CO2 emissions) and eating our lovely CO2-unfriendly meat kebabs off our charcoal barbeque....

I already am.

[maure 1]

1) We have attacked some people's credentials, but that was usually when you presented them as experts.

You have attacked the credentials of every single non-GW scientist. Proof of it is in this very post that I'm laughing at right now and that you _still_ are unable to produce a list of non-GW scientist able to do "good science".

2) We are surely free to argue that some research is crap? I don't see a problem there. Also many of the studies we linked are extremely recent, some from earlier this year.

You are not "free to argue" by admission of your own ignorance on the subject.

And the fact that at the center of your "arguing" is the alledged alliances of the scientists is what makes it brutally hilarious. Continue, please.

I really think it's you and Maure who are ignoring the responses given! You haven't responded to the evidence that the vast majority of scientists genuinely accept GW.

A necessary lie for you.

From what I stand, you have been trying to "discuss" a subject that you are unqualified to even contemplate at a distance while dismissing the essential _first_ observations regarding the scientific process of inquiry and the mechanisms of academic publishing. Refussing to acknowledge the essentials renders you funny and utterly uninformative.

An example? Even if such a "vast majority" were to exist (it doesn't), you do _not_ have the skill to identify it.

I've been quite clear that GW isn't as serious as some people make out. Scientists are not experts in public policy, and I think anyone who focuses more on GW than poverty is a twit. But that's no reason to suggest the whole theory of GW is a conspiracy and that every single scientific organisation in the world has been bribed and that NASA is lying about its research etc.

You are delusional but always amusing.

Tell us exactly how "GW isn't as serious as some people make out". What has the GW lied about? Go on, be a good boy...

[cavallino 2]

Again, bring up a list of GW scientist that do "bad science" and a list of non-GW scientist that do "good science".

That's such a strange request, I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps Murray can fill me in, since he has been jostling with you for a while (rather entertainingly, I might add).

It's always entertaining arguing with Maure. He's like a verbal punchbag: he doesn't mind how often you beat him. Now Maure, you want us to give you some research that supports your argument in this thread? Well, I've already made clear there is a small minority of scientists who disagree with the majority view. Richard Lindzen is one of the more famous and credible. I assume you need us to tell you that because the best you can come up with is Geoff Duffy, the world famous expert in................ 'pulp and paper technology'. And his science is wrong too, as Cav already said.

This is boring. We've been agreeing far too much recently. Let's find something to argue about. Do you like Harry Potter? Do you think Angeline Jolie is hot?

1. Does a scientist unfailingly produce "good science" by virtue of his/her pushing the GW agenda? Yes, this is as certain as any other GW claim.

2. Does a scientist unfailingly produce "bad science" by virtue of his/her questioning the GW agenda? Yes, this is as certain as any other GW claim.

There is no good science or bad science. There is science, and there is, as one of my professors puts it 'waving your arms about and making noise'.

3. If a professor with +200 papers does not have a right to an opinion,

Who questioned his right to have an opinion. Hey, we even let you have an opinion (sometimes that makes me wonder whether we take this whole free speech business way tooooo far ).

Unfortunately, guess who is going to be eating less meat. As always, the most vulnerable will pay for all the nonsense.

The vulnerable are the ones being eaten I think.

I wanted you to say that an academic has no right to an opinion but you do and, as a devoted fanatic, you performed as expected.

Did Murray say that? Did I? Did anyone?

[cavallino 2]

And bl**dy typical - another paper comes out recently, stating that sea rises will be 2 meters in 100 years (a lot less than mentioned before). BBC reports it in usual shock-horror fashion, until you read further down and the text states that for a 2m rise, glaciers in Greenland will have to accelerate to double the fastest-ever recorded speed (which was for a short time) and triple the current average for a sustained period of time (most of that 100 years).... So why, tell me is this 2m figure even being mentioned when it is *NEVER* going to happen?

Anti GW - Bad science??? PAH!

First of all, you are criticizing the BBC report. Fair point, but that's the BBC's fault for misreporting. I dug up the paper itself (which you didn't bother to).

The writers clearly say that 2m is the maximum figure, but not an impossible one. Here's the problem with the BBC report:

But writing in the journal Science, a US team concludes that a rise of 2m would need glaciers to reach speeds that are "physically untenable".

Which is wrong, here's what the journal says:

We consider glaciological

conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess

of 2 meters are physically untenable.

i.e. A rise in excess of 2m is physically untenable.

A rise of 2m however,

We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100

could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly

accelerated to extremely high limits.

So the BBC writer obviously misinterpreted the article. Which happens routinely, it's quite pointless going on about it, and to pretend that you are taking an issue with the science behind it with your post. You're not. You have not even made a token attempt to understand the science, merely taken issue with a journalist's interpretation. You're doing no better than Chris, who posts youtube links as evidence.

Again, none of the research says that there will not be a significant, potentially disastrous increase in sea levels, and:

"Even a sea level rise of 20cm (8in) in a century will have quite dramatic implications," said Shad O'Neel from the US Geological Survey (USGS).

[cavallino 2]

Hey the real story may be becoming clearer. From the telegraph - of course I'm sure this is just a rag but still...

There is no 'but still' there sir. You read some stuff in a paper that you yourself consider a rag and posted it here. Did you follow up on any of the claims made in that article?

Take one of the main claims for instance. the ones made by McIntyre and McKitrick. You can start here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8.

You can even dig up links that argue to the contrary - links to articles that cite references to peer reviewed works, and to let you verify every claim they make or fact they cite. I would be happy, indeed very interested to read them.

[Max Mosley 2]

From what I stand, you have been trying to "discuss" a subject that you are unqualified to even contemplate at a distance [...] An example? Even if such a "vast majority" were to exist (it doesn't), you do _not_ have the skill to identify it.

The evidence of a vast majority is totally clear. I've posted some of it several times and each time you ignored it. Oreske is perfectly qualified to identify it, and she sure enough did, whereas you believe that every scientist in the world is a 'prostitute'.

On a happier note, you seem to finally have understood that most people (including yourself) aren't qualified to understand the details of GW. This is precisely what we have experts for, and when non-experts should listen to the consensus.

This is boring. We've been agreeing far too much recently. Let's find something to argue about. Do you like Harry Potter? Do you think Angeline Jolie is hot?

Yeah. Well, let's see. I think they're both over-rated if that helps? Philip Pulman's children's books are probably much better, though I haven't read them either, even if his film isn't, though I haven't seen that either.

[maure 1]

There is no good science or bad science. There is science, and there is, as one of my professors puts it 'waving your arms about and making noise'.

Wow, that someone as dumb as you understands this puts you ahead of the GW "vast consensus" and directly at war with Murray. He throughly believes that only GW scientist can produce good science and every one else "bad science".

Who questioned his right to have an opinion. Hey, we even let you have an opinion (sometimes that makes me wonder whether we take this whole free speech business way tooooo far ).

A few posts back, you claimed an academic does not have a right to an opinion... that's why you are a joke and that's why I'm laughing.

Did Murray say that? Did I? Did anyone?

Desperation does funny things to people. Not yet 24 hours ago you posted here that an academic with +200 publications had no right to an opinion.

[maure 1]

The evidence of a vast majority is totally clear. I've posted some of it several times and each time you ignored it. Oreske is perfectly qualified to identify it, and she sure enough did, whereas you believe that every scientist in the world is a 'prostitute'.

So now you claim to have the expertise to judge these matters.

On a happier note, you seem to finally have understood that most people (including yourself) aren't qualified to understand the details of GW. This is precisely what we have experts for, and when non-experts should listen to the consensus.

So now you claim NOT to have the expertise to judge these matters.

Honestly, do you suffer from schizophrenia?

How about your plans to resolve the world's problems by filling up Africa with mirrors? And how about that list of non-GW scientists that do "good science"? How is that coming along?

[cavallino 2]

Wow, that someone as dumb as you understands this puts you ahead of the GW "vast consensus" and directly at war with Murray. He throughly believes that only GW scientist can produce good science and every one else "bad science".

A few posts back, you claimed an academic does not have a right to an opinion... that's why you are a joke and that's why I'm laughing.

I did? Where? How?

And who's this Mr. G.W., scientist. Some relation of our M.W. I presume. Typical of him to sully good science with nepotism

[Max Mosley 2]

So now you claim to have the expertise to judge these matters.

So now you claim NOT to have the expertise to judge these matters.

Honestly, do you suffer from schizophrenia?

Well I sure don't want a diagnosis from yourself. Anyway, your confusion is easily resolved. The first 'these matters' refers to counting up the vast majority of scientists who accept GW. This is quite possible for a non-expert to do, especially when aided by surveys conducted by experts in the field. However the second 'these matters' refers to expertise on the science of climate change, which neither you nor I possess, and therefore should listen to the experts.

[maure 1]

I did? Where? How?

And who's this Mr. G.W., scientist. Some relation of our M.W. I presume. Typical of him to sully good science with nepotism

It is easy to see why you are lost...

Well I sure don't want a diagnosis from yourself. Anyway, your confusion is easily resolved. The first 'these matters' refers to counting up the vast majority of scientists who accept GW. This is quite possible for a non-expert to do, especially when aided by surveys conducted by experts in the field. However the second 'these matters' refers to expertise on the science of climate change, which neither you nor I possess, and therefore should listen to the experts.

Still no word on your plans for Africa or your list of non-GW scientists able to do "good science". We await smiling.

Regarding your multiple personality problems, you cannot "count up" anything if you don't have the skill to identify it first.

And since you don't have the skill to identify who is an expert and who is not, who is an academic and who a techinician, it is clear why you quote the likes of Al Gore...

What can be said about your expert non-expertise is that it is a constant source of fun. More please.

[cavallino 2]

It is easy to see why you are lost...

I am. Please enlighten me oh great maure. Where did I say an academic has no right to have an opinion.

PS: Murray, do you think he is for real, or someone playing a joke? I think he's real. That's posibly the most scary thing I have ever discovered.

[Max Mosley 2]

Regarding your multiple personality problems, you cannot "count up" anything if you don't have the skill to identify it first.

Sure. But it's not so hard in this case. I'll help you out. Here is a joint statement from the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

climate change is happening and [...] anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems. [All nations should take] appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.

PS: Murray, do you think he is for real, or someone playing a joke? I think he's real. That's posibly the most scary thing I have ever discovered.

I tend to think he's someone playing a joke. At least, you would hope so!

[Quiet One 15]

There is no good science or bad science. There is science, and there is, as one of my professors puts it 'waving your arms about and making noise'.

That's my definition of good sex.

[AleHop 0]

That's my definition of good sex.

That's the definition someone told you about good sex.

I suspect it was Pablo.

[pabloh20 1]

That's the definition someone told you about good sex.

I suspect it was Pablo.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah probably, AleHop. He also told me he does it in a yellow track suit, and if anyone gets too excited he shouts 'caaaaaaalm down, caaaaaaaaalm down' and waves his arms around.