Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8341173 - 04/29/08 08:27 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

> if he posts peer reviewed studies like I am doing

The problem is this is political discussion, not science debate. Peer reviewed studies have little to no relevance in politics.

> The IPCC IS a scientific creature. It has a political advisory component, but it is not politicians behind the wheel, it is scientists.

It isn't hard for governments to pick scientists that pull the party line... happens all the time in the US with the FDA, EPA, etc. The IPCC is as political of an organization as you can get; even the name: "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" screams politics.

Ignoring the "is it real or not" we are left with:

Quote:

Why is it a good thing for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in 1938 or in 1978? Why isn't it better for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in AD 1108? What benefits to humans accrue from having a lower global temperature?




--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8341651 - 04/29/08 11:25 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The IPCC IS a scientific creature. It has a political advisory component, but it is not politicians behind the wheel, it is scientists.




Completely false. It is the IPCC's spinmeisters, the administrators, who decide what makes it into the summary report (which is what policy makers see and base their actions on), not the scientists. There have been many, MANY scientists whose work comprises part of the IPCC baseline who have complained of the cherrypicking done by those responsible for producing the final report.

Quote:

Furthermore, ALL of their conclusions are supported by a vast body of peer reviewed research, similar to the body of peer reviewed research I have submitted to you.




Come on, guy, I understand you want to persuade others that you are correct, but blatant exaggeration is not the way to go about it, particularly when it's so easy to show the exaggeration as just that.

No, ALL of their conclusions are most certainly not supported by a "vast body" of peer reviewed science. Some of their conclusions are, yes. But all? Nope. And some of their conclusions have just as much peer reviewed science opposing them as supporting them.

Besides, just what worth does "peer-reviewed" science have as a predictor, anyway? As just one example, compare the IPCC reports' conclusions regarding sea level change over the years. With each succeeding report the amount is revised downwards. Yet at the time each report is issued, everyone swore that their conclusion was supported by gobs of peer reviewed science. It's just that the peer reviewed science of the last report was wrong, but the peer reviewed science of the current report is right. Until it isn't anymore.

Quote:

You say that there is no way of knowing whether the methods to correct the bias are worth a pinch of coonshit, but you provide no evidence that they are not good ways to correct the bias.




That's because there are no good ways to correct it. The scientifically correct thing to do is to stop using data from compromised instrumentation, not try to dream up a separate mishmash of fudge factors for each one of thousands of compromised recording sites (all of which have varying degrees of compromise) that will hopefully precisely offset the compromising factors. Come on, dude, this is BASIC scientific method we're talking about here. Furthermore, for most of the compromised sites, there has been no fudge factor applied at all, or at best not applied until very recently, because NOAA didn't even know they have been compromised.

Quote:

How many meteorology stations are located 3 yards from a hot air exhaust vent?




Far too many. And as you are well aware (or perhaps you aren't) there are many more factors than proximity to hot air vents that can compromise the accuracy of data from such badly-located instruments.

Look, I have stressed repeatedly that this forum is not the place for arguing the science. The vast majority of the posts in this thread (even the majority of my own posts, I will shamefacedly admit) rightfully belong in the Science and Technology forum, not here. It is so obvious to any objective observer that the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been hopelessly hijacked by people with an agenda that there is no point thrashing it out over and over and over again here. That is why I have said -- repeatedly -- that for the sake of argument I will pretend the science is settled, and that the very slight increase of global surface temperature over the last century has been accurately measured by completely uncompromised and 100% accurate instrumentation and that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this increase is due strictly to humans burning stuff. What more do you want from me?

But just so others reading this thread don't get sucked in by your bullshit, no, the question of compromised instrumentation is not just a question of "correcting" (read "guessing" for "correcting", if you want to be honest about it) for the UHI effect. People who have an interest in discovering actual fact rather than verbose sputtering which dances all around the actual relevant point should spend an hour or two here -- http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ scrolling back through the last several dozen posts. Then they'll see for themselves just how flimsy the case for recent warmening really is.

However, I will say again that for the rest of this thread I will pretend that:

a) those numbers are 100% accurate, and

b) the warming of the last century is 100% due to human's burning stuff.

From a political point of view, it doesn't matter whether either a or b (or even both a and b) are true. Why not, you ask? Well, let's go back to trendal's key post. Here it is again --

Quote:

I think that it is irrelevant whether we are causing Global Warming to occur...because it is occurring.

The Earth is heating up, that much is not in question.

So why not do something about it?




That's an excellent question. He cuts through all the crap and put his finger directly on the key point. To him, it is irrelevant WHY the temperature is increasing. If it is increasing should we try to stop it from increasing?

I say no, for at least the following reasons (I again invite others to add to this list) --

1 -- Because if the Earth is heating at all, it is just barely heating (one degree Celsius in a century is peanuts). The Earth has been warmer than this in the past and humans have survived just fine.

2 -- Who is to say the ideal temperature is what it was a century ago as opposed to today or three centuries ago or a millenium ago?

As a matter of fact, all factors considered, warmer is better than colder. Food crops do better in warmer climes than colder ones. And as supernovasky has pointed out, AGW theory says the greatest warming is in the higher latitudes (where it is needed most) and has the effect more of ameliorating coldest winter temperatures than of increasing highest summer temperatures.

3 -- The proposed "solutions" are of much greater potential harm to humanity than the supposed "problem". Money wasted on unnecessary "just in case it really is our fault the Earth is getting warmer" programs is money that is better spent addressing real environmental and developmental problems.

4) -- We can't stop it anyway.

This is the crusher. Even the Warmenists -- when pinned in a corner -- admit that if this warming is in fact due to humans burning stuff, there is no realistic action we can take to lower the CO2 concentration back to where it was in 1880 absent a qualitative paradigm shift in energy production on this planet. And even then, it would take decades and decades for the "excess" currently in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

This is just one (of many) reason why so many developed countries chose not to sign the Kyoto Accords, by the way -- because it wouldn't have made any difference worth speaking of. Even if all the potential signatories to the Kyoto Accords had signed it, then been able to meet their targets, what would be the estimated difference in the global temperature increase half a century from now? Why, a whopping 0.07 degree Celsius. That's according to proponents of Kyoto, remember, not according to its opponents.

For a lot more detail on this, see this post http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/8337920#Post8337920

Here's the thing: life is an unending series of tradeoffs. In the last century, the lifespan of the average American has gone from 47 years to 79. Workweeks have gone from six and a half days to five. From twelve hour workdays to eight. Instead of spending 50% of their income on food, Americans now spend 13%. I could go on for pages and pages and pages showing just how vast are the improvements in the human condition over the last century -- not just for Americans or even for Westerners, but for humanity as a whole. If the tradeoff for these unprecedented and truly staggering improvements in the human condition is that the northern latitudes now have shorter and warmer winters (and remember that I am still pretending for the sake of argument that this increase is due to human's burning stuff), I'd say only a fool would not recognize it as a bargain.

Quote:

Gridded temperature readings can be extrapolated over cities to make sure that ... (snip)




I'm through discussing the science in this thread. Your science is wrong, too, but that doesn't even matter. This is a political discussion forum. As moderator of a political discussion forum, I am ashamed I myself veered so far off track for so long. I henceforth leave it to others to show your science faulty, while I stick to the political aspects of this latest "the sky is falling" scam.

Quote:

This whole paragraph is useless, because the physics and wattage forcing behind CO2 is already proven, and the source of excess, unbalanced CO2 is unequivocally, us.




Again, pretending you are correct (you aren't, but I am still pretending you are for the sake of advancing the discussion) you are completely missing the point.

Either the increase of temperature on balance harms humans or it doesn't. Trendal put his finger smack on the relevant point (he's actually pretty good at doing that, I have observed over the years). If increasing temperature is harmful to humanity, it's harmful no matter what the cause. Let's say you are correct about the increasing temperature being due to higher concentrations of CO2 (you aren't, but let's pretend). Well, what if the CO2 levels were increasing due to a spate of increased vulcanism rather than humans burning stuff? Say the key breakthrough in fusion power comes this year and a decade from now we can stop burning stuff to meet our energy needs. But the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising, because three or four big volcanoes erupt in 2020 and start seeping mass quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Would you then be in favor of spending trillions of tax dollars to plug the volcanoes or spread dust into the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation and cool the planet down or lay out a whole whap of tin foil over the ice fields to stop them from melting or whatever?

If not, why not?




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8341833 - 04/29/08 12:12 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The problem is this is political discussion, not science debate. Peer reviewed studies have little to no relevance in politics.




They have a very large relevance in politics. Politicians make decisions based off of scientific knowledge of the effects of their decisions. Politicians frequently hear from scientists, and the difference between a casual theory thrown off the bat and a peer reviewed research paper is humongous. Therefore, the science behind the global warming issue is essential to the politics.

Quote:

It isn't hard for governments to pick scientists that pull the party line... happens all the time in the US with the FDA, EPA, etc. The IPCC is as political of an organization as you can get; even the name: "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" screams politics.




No. While it may be easy for governments to pick SCIENTISTS that pull the party line, it is much more difficult to pick peer reviewed research papers that pull the party line. The peer review process ensures that the facts are replicatable and observable, not made up or fudged. The peer review process is not perfect; however, it carries magnitudes more weight than a sole scientists opinion. For instance, a government can pick a scientist that says the earth is 10,000 years old. It CANNOT pick peer-reviewed research paper that says that, though, because none exist.

Similarly, a government can pick a scientist that is skeptical of global warming. However, it cannot pick a peer-reviewed research paper from a major journal that has disproved global warming. Its very easy to pick MANY that provide copious evidence FOR global warming, though.

So you're wrong on this, Seuss. Especially as someone who has, in my ratings, COMPLIMENTED me for backing up all of what I say with copious sources.

Quote:

Ignoring the "is it real or not" we are left with:

Quote:
Why is it a good thing for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in 1938 or in 1978? Why isn't it better for the Earth to have the identical temperature in AD 2008 that it had in AD 1108? What benefits to humans accrue from having a lower global temperature?




And even in what we are left with, according to you, there is a major scientific error: That the temperature in 1108 is the same as it is in 2008. I've disproved this (well, actually, the peer review process has disproved this) many times. Just look up.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8341952 - 04/29/08 12:45 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

And even in what we are left with, according to you, there is a major scientific error: That the temperature in 1108 is the same as it is in 2008.




It doesn't matter what year you plug in. That's why I chose three, all of which happened to end in 8. They were "for instance" numbers. I apologize for not making it more clear.

The fact of the matter is that temperature changes all the time. No two consecutive years have the same temperature. So, why must we expend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money in an almost certainly futile attempt to manipulate the Earth's temperature back to what it was in 1888? Or 1898? or 1908? or 1918? Or 888 BC? If you don't like any of those years, pick one of your own. But then I would like you to explain to us what benefits would be realized by expending the gigantic sums of money required to get the Earth's temperature back to that number -- assuming it can be done at all, which it can't.





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* [Re: Phred]
    #8342095 - 04/29/08 01:27 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8342689 - 04/29/08 04:43 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

And again, you are arguing science, not politics. Not only that, you are misrepresenting even the biased science you cherry-pick. You know as well as I do there are copious peer-reviewed scientific papers proposing mechanisms other than CO2 as the main driver of climate change.

You also show you have no understanding whatsoever of the factors involved in compromised surface station data. Same with your bullshit and laughably ridiculous claim that the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age varied just 0.1 degree C from "nominal". Not even the IPCC clowns are trying to sell that load of bull puckey. Their 1995 report showed a lot more variation than that. Fa cryin' out loud, just go to your beloved GISS graph and check the delta T from 1899 to 1909 More than 0.2 degree in ten years. What are we gonna call that decade? The Jazz Age Teeny Tiny Ice Age?

Dude, just read what you write, then THINK about it for a minute or two. A precision of 0.1 degree is difficult to establish even with the most modern instrumentation we have today. Trying to infer a difference that precise from thousand year old proxy data is impossible. That level of resolution simply cannot be done, and you KNOW it.

This is what makes me so angry (and leads me to use such emphatic language) -- your intentional dishonesty about the subject. Look, even a certifiable moron knows the Thames doesn't freeze over for an entire winter due to a 0.1 degree drop in temperature.

I could go on for pages more about your latest crop of distortions, exaggerations, and intellectual dishonesty, but as I said before, for the sake of advancing the argument to where it should have been from the beginning -- politics -- I will pretend that everything you present is correct. It isn't, of course, but for purposes of political discussion it doesn't matter that you are wrong about the causes of what little Global Warmening there is.

So stop posting pages and pages of (suspect) scientific crap and graphs. If that's your bag, go do it in the Science and Technology forum. I will stipulate your point if that's what it takes to get you to do what I've been asking you to do for almost ten pages now -- address the politics of the issue.

Quote:

1 degree in a century is not peanuts. Its the fastest global warming cycle in the last 400,000 years,




No it isn't the fastest. That is just sheer unsupportable bullshit. But even if it was the fastest such rise (and it wasn't, but let's pretend it was) that doesn't alter the fact that the effects of such a tiny rise are virtually indetectable.

Quote:

3) The earth has never been as warm as the average temperature now in the past 2000 years, according to the body of peer reviewed evidence and climate records. The roman and medieval warming periods were anomolies of .1 degrees C. We are at .7 degrees C.




More unsupportable bullshit. But even if it were true (and it isn't, but let's pretend it is) so what? Warmer is better.

Quote:

Read the above consequences of global warming. There are several reasons why our intense heating of the earth is destroying ecosystems...




No ecosystems are being destroyed by "intense heating". None. Zip. Zero.

Quote:

...and over the next 100 years, will remove coastal population zones that are home to millions of people.




Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. A rise in sea level of (at the most) 14 inches in a hundred years is trivial. No "coastal population zones" will be "removed".

Quote:

Currently non-agricultural lands will become tillable, this is true, but this will happen in places of permafrost and regions surrounding permafrost.




Permafrost has nothing to do with it. It's more a question of lengthened growing season and higher daily temperatures (hence more rapid growth) coupled with reduced risk from unseasonal frosts.

Quote:

The proposed new solutions will take us into centuries of cleaner air, cleaner fuel, and more powerful energy sources. These ARE real environmental and developmental problems.




All that stuff will happen no matter what, through normal market forces. No need to beggar us through totally unnecessary and ultimately futile legislation.

Quote:

Yes, we can. We can replace fossil fuels in the next 50 years...




No we can't. Augment, sure. Replace? Not without fusion. I realize you are too young to fully grasp this, but when I was in school four decades ago, the consensus was we'd have viable fusion plants within the next 50 years. In other words, by 2018. But we won't, because not a single one of the challenges they were investigating in 1968 has since been resolved. Not one. Breakthroughs like that don't happen on a predictable schedule. Sometimes they don't happen at all.

Quote:

I fully believe we have the technology to do such give this amount of time and strong scientific research.




Since you fully believe lots of things that aren't so, forgive me for not doing a little dance of celebration with you on this. Your beliefs mean squat. Your beliefs are certainly not a valid base for changing public policy.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDaishi
Prime Mover
Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 89
Last seen: 15 years, 15 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8342714 - 04/29/08 04:49 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Global Warming vs. Science

Global Warming Campaign Subordinates Science to Politics

In December the world's diplomats will meet in Japan to sign a treaty constricting the lifeblood of industrial civilization: fossil fuels. Like other national leaders, President Clinton is promoting the premise that the carbon dioxide released by such fuels is causing a dangerous global warming. This is no longer a hypothesis, we are repeatedly told by our politicians and journalists, but a fact accepted by an international consensus of scientists.

This contention, however, is the product not of scientific judgment but of political considerations. The chilling reality is that the scientific evidence does not support the global warming case--and there is no scientific consensus maintaining that it does.

Patrick Michaels, for example, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, points to the data from the worldwide network of weather stations. They show a 0.9 degree Fahrenheit rise in average global temperature since 1880--but all of it before 1940. That is, while industrial activity has exploded and CO2 emissions have almost tripled since 1940, no warming has occurred during that time.

Fred Singer, another climatologist from the University of Virginia and the former head of the National Weather Satellite Service, confirms that satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature reveal no increase over the past 18 years--the entire period for which such data have been collected.

Even if there is some warming, adds Hugh Ellsaesser, a meteorologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, there is no evidence that it is man-made. There was a well-documented warm period 900 years ago--long before the Industrial Revolution--when the global temperature was one to two degrees higher than today (incidentally, without any apocalyptic consequences).

The renowned computer models on which much of the fear-mongering is based are fallacious, says MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen. He notes that they cannot account for cooling factors like cloud cover and, had the models been applied to the past century, would have overstated the rate of warming by more than 100 percent.

At least 80 climate scientists have now signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, stating that "we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions."

Why is the content--indeed, the very existence--of such viewpoints largely ignored? The answer is that while genuine scientific debate does not require the suppression of dissenting voices, a politically motivated crusade does. Environmentalists have created a bogus consensus, in order to further the movement's ideological goal of expanding government and constraining industry. The process of an honest, objective search for scientific truth is being abandoned for political ends.

This approach was starkly illustrated by the recent summoning of television weathermen to the White House. Is there any doubt that science was being subordinated to politics when President Clinton--treating the weathermen like servile propagandists of some totalitarian regime--exhorted them to mouth the party line on global warming during their broadcasts?

There is a persistent effort by environmentalists to get the public to believe that global warming is a scientifically accepted fact. The 2,000 scientists who contributed to a 1996 report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often cited as the core of this supposed consensus. But many of those names were included, not as recognized climate scientists, but merely as official representatives of their governments. A number of actual climatologists are on the list only because their data were cited or they were asked to review parts of the report--not because they endorsed its conclusions. In fact, the list includes outspoken critics of the global warming claims, such as Michaels, Lindzen and Robert Balling.

This "consensus" was manufactured primarily by a small number of policy-makers and politically ambitious scientists. They were the ones who wrote the report's summary, which declares that global warming is an uncontested truth. According to Robert Reinstein, the State Department's chief negotiator at the 1990 Earth Summit, the wording of the summary was hammered out by diplomats and "must be considered purely a political document, not a scientific one."

Just as the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT despite the conclusion of its own scientific panel that the pesticide was safe--just as Congress, in response to the acid-rain campaign, enacted massive restrictions on industry in defiance of the major scientific study Congress itself had commissioned--so do today's environmentalists pursue a political agenda in militant indifference to the objective evidence.

As December's summit nears, there is indeed a catastrophe that our leaders must act to avert. But the catastrophe is not global warming; it is environmentalism's growing success at politicizing science.




Aynand.org


--------------------
Man has to be man--by choice; he has to hold his life as a value--by choice; he has to learn to sustain it--by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—-by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8342942 - 04/29/08 05:53 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
No ecosystems are being destroyed by "intense heating". None. Zip. Zero.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/science/earth/08polar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8342945 - 04/29/08 05:55 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Also you are clearly trying to argue the science debate further while at the same time claim there should be no more discussion.  To be frank, you are a hard man to trust when you just make claims that have no sources :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: TheCow]
    #8343214 - 04/29/08 07:03 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

> Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050

And for every species that dies out, room opens up for many new species to evolve into. The last time we came out of an ice age, the wooly mammoth became extinct. Not all species can adapt to changes in their environment.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 23 minutes
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8343339 - 04/29/08 07:33 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

We obviously need some GM polar bears.

I'm all for genetically modifying endangered species to help them adapt to their changing environment.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion *DELETED* [Re: TheCow]
    #8343385 - 04/29/08 07:49 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8343532 - 04/29/08 08:29 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)



--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8343898 - 04/29/08 09:34 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Your tricks aren't working.

I am perfectly content to let the readers of the thread decide for themselves who is making more sense on the science, and who is trying to steal the pot (poker term) through sheer quantity of verbiage and bluff.

My mistake was to let myself get sucked into this "peer-reviewed" report vs "peer-reviewed" report game in the first place, and for that I accept full responsibility. It's just that I cannot let junk science go unchallenged, even if it has nothing to do with politics. So instead of patiently and consistently redirecting everyone into the political arena when they started doing "dueling papers", I piped up with my own knowledge on the subject and exposed some common fallacies. While it is true I was not alone in this effort, it doesn't matter -- my position as moderator should have taken precedence over my personal inclination to debunk garbage "science". I should have let it all slide without comment. My bad.

So, while it is too late to undo five hundred posts of science and pseudo-science, I can put an end to its continuation. If you choose to interpret that as an indication that I cannot support my position, knock yourself out. As it turns out, I can support my position, but I won't do so in this forum. This isn't the venue for it.

This thread is in the Political Discussion forum. Therefore, the ramifications of policy decisions made by legislators in regard to AGW are fair game for discussion. Pitched battles over the fractions of degrees higher some scientists think the Roman Warm Period was is not fair game for discussion. If you want to continue your proselytizing, do so in the Science and Technology forum.

Just do this, though -- if you start a thread there, try to show some actual honesty. Give your readers credit for having eyeballs which actually work, and understanding how to read a graph. That way you'll avoid having rhem think you're insane when you make statements like this --

Quote:

You see, with 11 different proxy records, NONE of them ever recorded a temperature of above .1degrees anomaly




-- directly below a chart showing quite clearly a red line oscillating around -0.2 (more or less) from around AD 1000 to AD 1100, with that same red line oscillating around -0.7 from AD 1500 to 1600.

Just a helpful hint, brother. Follow it or don't follow it as you see fit.

As for your latest crop of crap in this last post of yours, as always, most of it is speculation at best, bullshit at worst. But I'm going to let it lie because I won't be sucked into your game. This is the POLITICAL DISCUSSION forum. If you choose to interpret my refusal to continue as some sort of "victory" on your part, feel free.

Moving on to the political part of it, you still haven't addressed my points.

When I said the effects of such a tiny rise in temperature over a century are barely detectable, I meant just that. They are barely detectable. They certainly have done no significant harm to humans. And even what tiny amount of harm it may have done to some humans is vastly outweighed by the far more tangible benefits it has given to humanity as a whole. The thing is, you don't get something for nothing. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Quote:

Global warming DEFINITELY reduces food output.




No, it does not. If you are going to keep emphasizing Global Warming, you have to then look at global food production, not just cherry-pick marginal areas of the Earth's barely arable soil.

Quote:

Uh.. there already IS a fusion plant being developed in france. The technology is currently taking off.




Uh huh. It's been "taking off" for the last four decades. Look, bro... this is something I've been fascinated with since I first grasped the concept as a freshman high school student in the late Sixties. Forty years later they still can't do better than 65% return on energy investment for a whopping half second. No one is a bigger rooter for fusion power than yours truly. Sincerely. But I am also a realist.

Could the breakthrough advance occur tomorrow? Yep. But could we forty years from now be looking at nothing better than an 85% energy ROI sustained for three quarters of a second? Yep. These kind of paradigm shifts can't be scheduled. They can't be hurried. Throwing more money at them doesn't make them jump into existence any faster.

Any politician who deliberately cripples his nation's economy because he believes fusion power will bail him out before things get too bad is a fool. And a damn dangerous fool at that.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8343995 - 04/29/08 09:51 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

directly below a chart showing quite clearly a red line oscillating around -0.2 (more or less) from around AD 1000 to AD 1100, with that same red line oscillating around -0.7 from AD 1500 to 1600.




Yup. Do you see it go up to more than +.1 degrees C anomaly?
Oh, and dont cherry pick the red line. Look at them all together.
So anyways, I was correct on this issue.

I understand that you want to keep this based on politics, so I'm actually going to ask you to work a deal with the admin to move this to the science forum. I feel that I will get a more appreciative crowd there, and I feel that the focus of this entire argument has been on the science, not the politics.

The problem with approaching this as a purely political issue is that the politics CANNOT be divorced from the science here. If global warming is anthropogenic, dangerous, and caused by CO2, then the problem is much easier to take care of than if it were natural, it simply means that we need to transition to alternative energy sources (which we have been doing. As of now, magnitudes more of our energy is sourced, percentage wise, by alternative energy sources than in the 1940s). If it is not caused by us, then stopping it may be a lost cause.

But the fact of the matter is, we need to agree on a cause, we need to find the root of the problem, before we make a policy to fix that problem. Virtually all peer reviewed sources show that the root of that problem is anthropogenic CO2.

So I am not going to claim a victory over you, Phred, because you're not what I am fighting. Like you, I feel the responsibility to come out against junk science, and I have done such over the last 16 pages. I will gladly accept your offer to let the readers of this forum decide what is junk science and what is real science, and I will leave the scientific issue at rest here in this forum ONLY until someone comes in and badly mis-characterizes the science again. I will be lurking and watching.


So here is my proposal to readers of this thread. Phred and I have gone at it for a while in this thread. If you have taken the time (thank you, if you have, you are a true soldier) to follow along the entire argument, I would like you to give Phred and I shroom ratings from 1-5 depending on how well you think we represented our positions on this issue.


Should the readers decide to en masse low-rate me, I will accept that and move on, but I really do believe I've given this thread the best I've had and worked hard on sourcing and proving all of my claims.

Thanks,

SupernovaSky


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/29/08 09:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8344384 - 04/29/08 11:08 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

And again, you are arguing science, not politics.




As are you.

Off and on.

Forgive me but I have noticed that when it is convenient you shift the debate to the politics side and when you lose (which is often) you threaten to move this thread to Science and Technology in spite of the obvious political implications of the subject matter.

You wobble back and forth.

Your powers as moderator of this forum make such a move unseemly at best considering you are losing badly as I see it.

I have also noticed that you have been uncivil in this debate when it was totally uncalled for, Phred. Your opponent took the high ground and you took it to an emotional place when you could not win.

So my advice is show some class and allow the debate to continue but show some civility and respect for your opponent who has completely owned you every step of the way thus far in my estimation.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: zorbman]
    #8344474 - 04/29/08 11:26 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


So here is my proposal to readers of this thread. Phred and I have gone at it for a while in this thread. If you have taken the time (thank you, if you have, you are a true soldier) to follow along the entire argument, I would like you to give Phred and I shroom ratings from 1-5 depending on how well you think we represented our positions on this issue.



Many of us have taken you up on this already and the results speak for themselves.

If this thread is moved consider it as a formal admission of defeat by Phred.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8344934 - 04/30/08 03:31 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

> If this thread is moved consider it as a formal admission of defeat by Phred.

The only defeat is the inability to stay on the topic of politics rather than science. Making such a claim sounds childish at best: "Give me candy or I am going to pout" is no different than "Move this thread, and you are a loser."

And with respect to the science side of things, Phred stated:

"My mistake ... while it is too late to undo five hundred posts of science and pseudo-science, I can put an end to its continuation."


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8345202 - 04/30/08 07:24 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

It seems a shame to end the scientific discussion that has defined this thread over the last 27 pages. Furthermore, there are plenty of pages on this forum that talk about solely the politics of global warming (however flawed such a discussion might be). Global warming is a scientific issue in and of itself. So, if the option is between ending the science discussion (which would COMPLETELY change the thread), and moving the debate to science and technology, I will definitely ask to have the thread moved. The wealth of information in this thread is a gold mine.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8345225 - 04/30/08 07:33 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Personally, I think it would make more sense to move the thread to S&T and start a political thread here, if warranted - as you said, there is a lot of information in this thread and it is oriented towards science rather than politics. I leave it up to the moderators to decide what to do.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.