View Full Version : Just a few hours after....
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 13:18
... a High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Work of Fiction was too obviously biased, too obviously political, contained substantial errors of fact, misrepresented many others, and was too lacking in any respectable scientific debate to be distributed to the nation's schoolchildren, the cycle is complete.......
Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm).
Dear God. The loonies have arrived, bust down the doors, trashed the offices and are now running the place.
And before anyone starts about judges being ill-equipped to judge the worth of Gore's contribution, they don't. They hear evidence from informed sources.
... a High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Work of Fiction was too obviously biased, too obviously political, contained substantial errors of fact, misrepresented many others, and was too lacking in any respectable scientific debate to be distributed to the nation's schoolchildren, the cycle is complete.......
Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm).
Dear God. The loonies have arrived, bust down the doors, trashed the offices and are now running the place.
And before anyone starts about judges being ill-equipped to judge the worth of Gore's contribution, they don't. They hear evidence from informed sources.
I don't see what your problem is.
Al Gore is a politician not a teacher as everyone knows. He made a political film not an educational film, hardly surprising.
The broad consensus of scientific opinion still says that global warming is real and that man's activities are playing a significant part. The judge and his informed sources agreed on that.
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 15:47
Al Gore is a politician not a teacher as everyone knows. He made a political film not an educational film
Rubbish. That film was passed off as truth from Day 1. Right down to the discredited hockey stick and discredited forecasts of 600ft increases in sea level. And what's more it was gratefully accepted as truth by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and assorted other single-agenda neo-political organisations.
The broad consensus of scientific opinion still says that global warming is real and that man's activities are playing a significant part. The judge and his informed sources agreed on that.That's a comment I can agree with. As to many of the informed sources, a quote I rather like, from "Yes, Minister":
"The surprising things about academics is not that they have their price, but how low that price is."
:lol::lol:
.. too obviously political.
How was it political?:confused I have a copy of the film, I agree some of the facts were skimmed over but it doesn't contain any errors worth making a fuss over......unless you want to discredit it because you disagree with it.
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 17:50
How was it political?.............unless you want to discredit it because you disagree with it.
Uh, I think you're slipping, Rheggers. That was what His Honour was described as thinking. It wasn't my opinion of the foetid heap of dung which comprises the bulk of Mr Gore's film. Oh, and fred seemed to agree at least by implication that it was political, so it's incontrovertible.
<ding>
Next!
Quoting from Alfred Nobel: the Peace Prize is awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Hmm.. Not sure how Gore wangled that!
www.bbc.co.uk/news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news) click 'Have your say' 3,000 comments on Gore and his 'Peace Prize'..
Was wondering what Gore's inaccuracies actually were:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.So there you are, I know what I think.
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 20:15
Hmm.. Not sure how Gore wangled that!
In the event, it was clearly very easy indeed. The Nobel Committee ruled that by raising awareness of possible global competition for land and water as sea levels and temperatures rise, forcing migration, and by demonstrating that "mankind must do something to stop it happening", Gore has potentially prevented wars from breaking out.
All together now, 1, 2, 3............ rubbish! (thought that might be more acceptable to the mods than one or two other terms which flew, unbidden, to my lips)
Uh, I think you're slipping, Rheggers. That was what His Honour was described as thinking. It wasn't my opinion of the foetid heap of dung which comprises the bulk of Mr Gore's film. Oh, and fred seemed to agree at least by implication that it was political, so it's incontrovertible.
<ding>
Next!
I beg to differ. I have actually just watched the film. Never once did he say Democrat or Republican throughout the film. Never in the film is it bipartisan or political, it is a film about a scientific truth how it is shaking politics (irrespective if you are a communist or capitalis)to the core. He mentions how politics is part of the problem but also how it can be part of the answer.
He does make a couple of political jokes, but that is about all.
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 20:21
INever once did he say Democrat or Republican throughout the film. Never in the film is it bipartisan or political, it is a film about a scientific truth is shaking politics (irrespective if you are a communist or capitalis)to the core.
What was that about enjoying the garden and NOT having to believe in fairies?
Which scientific truth are we referring to here? Politics is not, has not been, and will not be shaken to the core by Gore's ramblings. Politics and politicians love it all because it makes them more powerful, more influential, gives them more means of acquiring control over the proles (that's you and me) and offers scope for presenting themselves as saviours of the planet. End. Fini.
What was that about enjoying the garden and NOT having to believe in fairies?
Which scientific truth are we referring to here? Politics is not, has not been, and will not be shaken to the core by Gore's ramblings. Politics and politicians love it all because it makes them more powerful, more influential, gives them more means of acquiring control over the proles (that's you and me) and offers scope for presenting themselves as saviours of the planet. End. Fini.
The scientific truth that most of the warming of the Earth's climate is due to mankind's activities and that there is an overiding certainty attached to it.
Politics has been shaken to the core now that environment issues are higher up the political agenda, we now have the Conservative Party claiming to champion climate change issues whilst there are still Republicans claiming that climate change is a left-wing plot, how shaken up is that?
The scientific truth that most of the warming of the Earth's climate is due to mankind's activities and that there is an overiding certainty attached to it.
we now have the Conservative Party claiming to champion climate change issues whilst there are still Republicans claiming that climate change is a left-wing plot, how shaken up is that?
Hear Hear Rheghead, it is mankind that is to blame regardless of who is trying to score political points on the issue...personally I blame the Scot Nats and all the hot air they generate [lol]
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 20:59
The scientific truth that most of the warming of the Earth's climate is due to mankind's activities and that there is an overiding certainty attached to it.
Yep, indeed. And let's not forget that a few years ago it was a new ice age we were all heading towards. Have you not read, Rheghead, that the statistics on which the bulk of the global warming hypothesis stands have been shown to be doubtful, because of coding errors in computer programs, and faulty measurement?
I refer you here (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/216695/Global_Warming_Debate_Reignited_After_NASA_Quietly _Corrects_Temperature_Data) - I haven't taken you to Steve McIntyre's site directly because he's a bit more than a blogger - he's a statistician with the qualifications to back it up and he's made a right monkey out of Hansen and the IPCC / Gore evangelists. His site is more mathematical and statistical than my poor brain cell can handle, but the site linked to will give you the idea..
So, given that the hottest year on record was now (corrected) 1934, not 2002, and the other hottest years all occurred years ago, let's hear it again for scientific truth, shall we? Like I said before, 300 years ago, scientific truth was phlogiston.....
Politics has been shaken to the core now that environment issues are higher up the political agenda, we now have the Conservative Party claiming to champion climate change issues whilst there are still Republicans claiming that climate change is a left-wing plot, how shaken up is that?As shaken as it needs to be to demonstrate that politicians will always jump on the nearest bandwagon and shout loudest. Surprised you've never noticed it before.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
This may go some way to explain that phenomenenenen.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Yep, indeed. And let's not forget that a few years ago it was a new ice age we were all heading towards. Have you not read, Rheghead, that the statistics on which the bulk of the global warming hypothesis stands have been shown to be doubtful, because of coding errors in computer programs, and faulty measurement?
Like I said before, 300 years ago, scientific truth was phlogiston.....
.
Ha ha. You amuse me. It sounds like you are looking for an absolute truth, one based in Faith, one that supports the phlogiston effect perhaps?[lol] Science doesn't offer it. Can you tell me what is unscientific about attaching uncertainties to data?
I think you will find that it was science and reason that displaced the phlogiston 'theory'. So there is your logic, blown out of zee water.
orkneylass
12-Oct-07, 22:18
Surely the very simple point about the connection between politics and dubious scientific theories and projections being presented as facts is that politicians scare the living daylights out of everyone whilst using them as an excuse to raise taxes, stifle economic development in the 3rd world, try to make the west less dependent on arab oil etc etc Several prominent politicians changed tack after finding out how much they could exploit global warming. I am of the view that man is terrible arrogant in thinking that his activities are more significant that the natural, unstoppable variations in climate over millions of years that have seen the planet warming and cooling over and again.
j4bberw0ck
12-Oct-07, 22:23
Ha ha. You amuse me.
Awwww. How sweet :lol:.
It sounds like you are looking for an absolute truth, one based in Faith, one that supports the phlogiston effect perhaps?[lol] Science doesn't offer it. Can you tell me what is unscientific about attaching uncertainties to data?Er, excuse me, oh Real Scientist (we have it on high authority that that is what you is, innit), I think you'll find it's me criticising the slavish adoption of Gore's speculation. I'm arguing that science may not be as exact as some of the bought-and-paid for academics would have us all believe. I'm the sceptic here, not looking for absolute truth, looking for SOME truth. And all the current day phlogiston believers with their herd view of anthropogenic warming (and by implication the idea that by switching the TV off at night we can reverse the changes) are guilty of wilful blindness.
I think you will find that it was science and reason that displaced the phlogiston 'theory'. So there is your logic, blown out of zee water.Geez Rheggers, you really have slipped badly. Sorry and all that. That's not making any sense at all.
I'm arguing that science may not be as exact as some of the bought-and-paid for academics would have us all believe.
Science isn't exact because the nature of matter isn't exact. On the subject of Global Warming, if you read my post before, the current science says that most of the Earth's climate is down to Man's activities and that there is high likelihood of certainty of that being so.
Can you give me any limits of accuracy for that?[lol]
Go back and reassess that, read what it says, NO scientist is claiming absolutely accuracy, how can we?:confused
On the subject of phlogiston, once science has proved that something isn't so, then there is no going back to flat earths etc.
Like I said before, 300 years ago, scientific truth was phlogiston.....
300 years ago, scientific truth was probably faeries. I'm afraid you've got your critical thinking back to front.
I am of the view that man is terrible arrogant in thinking that his activities are more significant that the natural, unstoppable variations in climate over millions of years that have seen the planet warming and cooling over and again.
So you are ignoring the scientific evidence that is internationally peer reviewed by thousands of eminent scientists? Surely, someone would have spilled the beans by now?:roll:
I think you are falling into the trap of listening to political spin on the scientific evidence. There is a lot of science journalists twisting the science to either make the evidence weaker and stronger depending on their ignorance or political affiliation or sponsorship, but the science still stands, it is fairly bullet proof.
orkneylass
13-Oct-07, 10:26
So you are ignoring the scientific evidence that is internationally peer reviewed by thousands of eminent scientists? Surely, someone would have spilled the beans by now?:roll:
I think you are falling into the trap of listening to political spin on the scientific evidence. There is a lot of science journalists twisting the science to either make the evidence weaker and stronger depending on their ignorance or political affiliation or sponsorship, but the science still stands, it is fairly bullet proof.
And are you ignoring the scientists that disagree? When politicians are putting huge sums into research to support the "man is in control of global warming" theory, and scientists that don't agree are treated like middle ages heretics, which research proposal would you take looking for funding????
j4bberw0ck
13-Oct-07, 10:55
Originally Posted by Rheghead
Science isn't exact because the nature of matter isn't exact.So you mean that because, say, the hypothetical (or possibly even theoretical by now, I dunno) explanations of physical particles in terms of strings vibrational modes haven't been completely understood and proven to be so, then we don't have a chance of understanding global warming? Lawdy, lawdy. Someone better tell Nobel Laureate Al quick.
On the subject of Global Warming, if you read my post before, the current science says that most of the Earth's climate is down to Man's activities and that there is high likelihood of certainty of that being so. Well, I'll admit I thought that most of the Earth's climate was down to thermodynamics and solar radiation, rather than man, but we'll allow that difference to pass. What I suspect you meant is that "most of the recent changes in the Earth's climate are attributed to Man's actiivities".
Sorry to sound pedantic, but we can't have statements about the inexactitude of science made sloppily, now, can we?
If we accept for a moment that man's activities are responsible for "most of the change noted in our climate" then we have to speculate on why the climate varied before man came along to have an influence. That's the way scientific investigation is supposed to work, isn't it, at least in part? Looking for common denominators?
In this case there are none. The climate has varied in the past by far more than we see now, and man wasn't even around to make it happen. Unless you can show a different but related causality, such as dinosaurs numbering about 7,000 million who enjoyed high standards of living courtesy of an advanced chemically-based economy. Then we have a related causality that accounts for no involvement from man.
OK, OK, I'm not being serious about the dinosaurs. We all know it couldn't have been so. It was the white mice, really.
Go back and reassess that, read what it says, NO scientist is claiming absolutely accuracy, how can we?:confused That's undoubtedly right. But the figures are claimed taken as a whole to show one thing alone, and when An Inconvenient Canadian Statistician comes along and shows that the IPCC's figures are wrong (not inaccurate in the fourth place of decimals, but just plain WRONG because of an error in a computer program and because of methodology errors in data collection), what happens? Is there a cool, scientific reappraisal amongst the IPCC establishment?
Nahhh. Just a huge arse-covering exercise about how the wrong figures change nothing.
On the subject of phlogiston, once science has proved that something isn't so, then there is no going back to flat earths etc. 300 years ago, scientific truth was probably faeries. I'm afraid you've got your critical thinking back to front. There was a time when the phlogiston theory made perfect sense. It almost perfectly explained the process of burning, of energy release, and of the residue left and its loss of mass. It could be replicated at will, like any theory MUST be - regardless of those who don't know the difference between speculation and theory. It withstood repeated peer review as an explanation.
And do you know what, Rheggers? That puts it head and shoulders above the present theory of climate change, which cannot be replicated at will, cannot explain its own modelled results, cannot explain historical data, and cannot forecast future results. The peer review side is dodgy, too inasmuch as all the reviewers who agree with it are in the pay of government, and all those who disagree are viewed as lunatic pariahs and so their views are rejected.
And on this basis, the world in investing trillions in chasing something that might not need to be chased at all. The one hypothesis, so far, that can explain the past and present results to a limited degree of accuracy, forecasts that we'll have another 1960's / 1970's style cooling starting around 2015. Won't that be fun! And watch the politicians and the Hansens and the IPCCs and probably the Gores as well jump on the bandwagon about how they were so incredibly wonderful, powerful, inspired and enthused that they managed to stop warming dead in its tracks in just a few years in the face of their own published expectations that it might take generations!
Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy. __________________
And are you ignoring the scientists that disagree? When politicians are putting huge sums into research to support the "man is in control of global warming" theory, and scientists that don't agree are treated like middle ages heretics, which research proposal would you take looking for funding????
And which scientists are they and what are they saying? They are few in number, they have said very little and they have retracted a most if not all of their papers, much to the annoyance of their large oil corporation sponsors.
I am sure that the oil industry could provide the most money for psuedo science so that arguement falls flat on its face immediately. Again, the science speaks for itself.
Why would you cling on to a notion that man has a negligible affect on the climate when the evidence says otherwise and the certainty is overwhelmingly against your beliefs? Faeries perhaps?:confused
How lucky do you feel? Would you bank against the odds, don't forget the Earth is at stake!
Well, I'll admit I thought that most of the Earth's climate was down to thermodynamics and solar radiation, rather than man, but we'll allow that difference to pass.............................................. ..Sorry to sound pedantic, but we can't have statements about the inexactitude of science made sloppily, now, can we?_
Very sloppy.
All (excluding comic rays etc)of the incident energy originates from the sun, even the energy that is emitted from the carbon dioxide in the form of infra red radiation.
This is the fundamental issue of the 'theory' of Climate change.
Come back when you have a better understanding, then you will realise how misinformed you look.
j4bberw0ck
13-Oct-07, 11:13
All (excluding comic rays etc)of the incident energy originates from the sun, even the energy that is emitted from the carbon dioxide in the form of infra red radiation.
This is the fundamental issue of the 'theory' of Climate change.
Come back when you have a better understanding, then you will realise how misinformed you look.
:lol::lol: He's bottled it! No answer for any other points so like Gordon Brown, he's bottled it. Good one, Rheghead - the sight of your tail scuttling off into the distance is one I shal; relish for a while. If you decide to come back at some point, please do tell how thermodynamics isn't involved in climate change, since atmospheric changes, cloud formation and so on are an essential feature of the various arguments?
On the topic of being misinformed, you might also want to let me know how it's you with the copy of the discredited Gore film, who's resistant to any argument to the contrary, and it's me with the open mind?
In this case there are none. The climate has varied in the past by far more than we see now, and man wasn't even around to make it happen. Unless you can show a different but related causality, such as dinosaurs numbering about 7,000 million who enjoyed high standards of living courtesy of an advanced chemically-based economy. Then we have a related causality that accounts for no involvement from man.
In the past, ice age/interstadial periods were initiated by changes in the Earth's wobble etc and then CO2 kicked in to exacerbate the warming out of the ice age, in other words, a tipping point was crossed.
On this occasion, CO2 is the driver of climate change and it may cross that same tipping point where the Earth's CO2 sinks will emit CO2, if we haven't already crossed it mind.
So it doesn't matter how many times we have seen climate change in the past, the fact that CO2 and other GHGs is driving this change in climate suggests the rate of change could be too rapid for fauna and flora to react to this climate change. In fact we already see this. It is even more worrying because politics restrict the movement of some species across borders so the said species will fail to react naturally.
On the topic of being misinformed, you might also want to let me know how it's you with the copy of the discredited Gore film, who's resistant to any argument to the contrary, and it's me with the open mind?
You wish, there are no points to answer. Show me any evidence that supports your theory that Mankind isn't affecting the atmosphere's thermodynamics.[lol] Lets not have any faerie stories mind.
And are you ignoring the scientists that disagree? When politicians are putting huge sums into research to support the "man is in control of global warming" theory, and scientists that don't agree are treated like middle ages heretics, which research proposal would you take looking for funding????
I would ignore those scientist's whose research doesn't stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. So far the skeptics fall into that category. Even the most qualified hard nosed skeptics agree on more than the most misinformed hard nosed skeptics on the Org do.[lol]
j4bberw0ck
13-Oct-07, 15:39
No need for fairy stories. I'm happy to accept, and always have been, that there's some sort of global warming going on. I'm less happy to - and to this point, don't - accept that it's primarily due to Man's activities. Or, paraphrased, it isn't sufficiently due to Man's activities to warrant the kind of knee-jerk emotional, rabble-rousing reaction of governments who want to use it as an excuse to control more and tax more. And all for our own good, of course.
You see, if it's down to Man's activities I have to ask you again why, before Man had any impact on anything other than the odd antelope here and there, there was climate change? Because there was, repeatedly. Up and down like a fiddler's elbow.
Something else, too - you said "on this occasion" CO2 is the driver of change. Then why wasn't it the driver of change in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than now and the climate didn't warm at all?
Wobble and precession, I hear you cry? Precession of the Pole is a 26,000 year process (yes, I had to look up the period) and therefore in geological terms it's about like a metronome, clicking away regularly) so previous warmings and coolings of the planet have extended over periods greater than one complete "rotation".
Oh yes, I forgot. Tipping points. What a wonderfully useful catch-all / get-out that one is. It allows all those clever greenies and politicians to completely ignore previous data, and make this a new and worrying paradigm that They Have To Save Us From. At our own expense, naturally. So we get to stop taking the holidays, while they get to fly around the world to conferences whose contribution to global warming is something that should be investigated - both for the fuel burned for delegates to travel and for the hot air pouring out of them, as well as the tax money spent.
Speaking of travel, Stern (For Whom All Praise Be) calculated a tonne of CO2 emitted causes damage worth $85 but emissions can be cut at a cost of $25 a tonne, so you'd think that green taxes should be set at something like the $85 level to make those doing damage face the reality of their actions and maybe spend $25 dollars doing something else. OK so far?
Petrol releases 2.3kg CO2 per litre burned, so do the arithmetic: 435 litres petrol will produce a tonne, which should by rights (and the Holy Stern's Report) attract a tax of $85. So tax per litre = 20 cents (say 10p at current exchange rates). But we already pay 55p a litre in duty, plus the VAT on top, and the politicians want to extent their "green taxes" even further at the cost of damage to the economy - which is the thing that allows us the luxury of whinging about climate change in the first place.
But politicians will have their way, and so we all end up paying more tax which because, conveniently, governments don't believe in hypothecation of taxes. So it just goes in the pot for general expenditure....
The jury's very much out on the causes of climate change until such time as someone comes up with a model of how it works, that works. A model that can forecast something that's vaguely accurate about will happen in the future, based on contemporary data. One that can explain historical effects and what's happening now.
Until then, the climate change academics are swimming around in more money than they ever believed existed. They're loved and taken seriously. They're invited onto TV to give their views. They get to meet government leaders. Never before have academics been treated like royalty and so courted by industry - and you know what? They must love it!
Limitless funds, careers and knighthoods in the bag.... you really think they have any incentive to bite the hand that feeds them? There's time enough to rock the boat when there's no other shot left in the locker.
I'm less happy to - and to this point, don't - accept that it's primarily due to Man's activities.
The information that the real climate scientists are producing suggests otherwise. The concentration of GHGs are known and it is known how much energy is attenuated into infra red by these molecules. There is little room for miscalculation. The scientists have also studied the variations in the sun's output and found some warming but it isn't enough to be classified as the 'greater portion'.
You see, if it's down to Man's activities I have to ask you again why, before Man had any impact on anything other than the odd antelope here and there, there was climate change? Because there was, repeatedly. Up and down like a fiddler's elbow.
Something else, too - you said "on this occasion" CO2 is the driver of change. Then why wasn't it the driver of change in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than now and the climate didn't warm at all?
Wobble and precession, I hear you cry? Precession of the Pole is a 26,000 year process (yes, I had to look up the period) and therefore in geological terms it's about like a metronome, clicking away regularly) so previous warmings and coolings of the planet have extended over periods greater than one complete "rotation".
.
CO2 was the driver of warming once the tipping point was crossed.
By the way, the present CO2 is at its highest levels for the length of time that the ice core data stretches, unless you were referring to epoch timescales?
The jury's very much out on the causes of climate change until such time as someone comes up with a model of how it works, that works. A model that can forecast something that's vaguely accurate about will happen in the future, based on contemporary data. One that can explain historical effects and what's happening now.
Have you not read up on Global warming yet like I asked you? It predicts allsorts of extreme weather patterns and continued temperature increases. Have you not looked out of the window recently?
It really pains me to rubbish your view but it really does beg me to do it.
j4bberw0ck
13-Oct-07, 19:43
First off, you have already erred. There hasn't always been Global warming, when the Earth went into ice ages there was Global cooling.
Er, yes. Sorry you had difficulty discerning that I meant this time round but I promise I'll try to be easier on your grasp of things in future.
The scientists have also studied the variations in the sun's output and found some warming but it isn't enough to be classified as the 'greater portion'. Excellent! How then, do they account for global warming on Mars, satellites of Jupiter, Saturn and on Neptune? God DAMN that concrete manufacture!
CO2 was the driver of warming once the tipping point was crossed.
By the way, the present CO2 is at its highest levels for the length of time that the ice core data stretches, unless you were referring to epoch timescales?Well, I don't know......... my information was that CO2 levels have been higher in the past (ice samples an' all) but personally? I don't know.
Have you not read up on Global warming yet like I asked you? It predicts allsorts of extreme weather patterns and continued temperature increases. Have you not looked out of the window recently?There is nothing in the weather that is extreme. It's pretty poor, yes, if you like warmth and sunshine, but it's supposed to be unprecedentedly wild, wild storms, isn't it??
:lol::lol: Oh yes, I've read some stuff about global warming and it hasn't convinced me any more than the last lot did. Your gorbal worming pals said after Hurricane Katrina that this was the new paradigm. Wrong! There were no hurricanes in the following hurricane season, and nothing even remotely resembling Katrina since. In other words, it was an unusual event. Maybe because the date were wrong?
I really pains me to rubbish your view but it really begs me to do it.Then I wish you better luck in the future! Gee. You need it. Im feeling distinctly un-rubbished, I'm afraid.
Phlogiston, Rheggers, phlogiston.
Excellent! How then, do they account for global warming on Mars, satellites of Jupiter, Saturn and on Neptune? God DAMN that concrete manufacture!
The mix of GHGs are totally different on other planets, each gas has different photo-chemical effects.
Well, I don't know......... my information was that CO2 levels have been higher in the past (ice samples an' all) but personally? I don't know.
Then I suggest you read up on it, the info is out there, it was on the inconvenient truth.
There is nothing in the weather that is extreme. It's pretty poor, yes, if you like warmth and sunshine, but it's supposed to be unprecedentedly wild, wild storms, isn't it??
Well every year we get some record broken.
Oh yes, I've read some stuff about global warming and it hasn't convinced me any more than the last lot did.
Phlogiston, Rheggers, phlogiston.
It is not phlogiston because phlogiston doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Go on, write a paper, please rubbish the current consensus, I will just lie back and wait to see how you get on.:roll:
... a High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Work of Fiction was too obviously biased, too obviously political, contained substantial errors of fact, misrepresented many others, and was too lacking in any respectable scientific debate to be distributed to the nation's schoolchildren, the cycle is complete.......
Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm).
Dear God. The loonies have arrived, bust down the doors, trashed the offices and are now running the place.
And before anyone starts about judges being ill-equipped to judge the worth of Gore's contribution, they don't. They hear evidence from informed sources.
I wouldn't put it past the Supreme Court to rule that Gore didn't really win the Nobel Prize and award it to Bush instead.
Welcomefamily
14-Oct-07, 18:11
Having read this thread, I am just curious that Rheghad states I would ignore those scientist's whose research doesn't stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.
You talk about the role of the cycle of precession and its hypothetical time scale, I am just wondering what scientific scrutiny you have applied to it?
I am also curious as to what influence the cycle of obliquity has in the equation which should effect perchelion over its hypothetical period of 41K years.
Surely in order for your assumption to be near correct, we would have to assume that no external influence such as perhaps a meteor has had a contact during that time which could affect obliquity and precession.
It also assumes an that a radio dating method has been used, surely recent work in America and certainly work done on rocks from Mount St Helens has brought many aspects of radio dating into question, possible with the exception of C14.
I am do think the role of humans have influenced the climate but interested in your response to above first.
It is obvious that scientific theories that don't stand up to scrutiny should be dumped, I don't think global warming can be dumped yet as no one has come up with an alternative theory that explains the magnitude of energy that could cause the observed warming. There would be nothing more welcome than to prove the GW theory as alarmist.
j4bberw0ck
14-Oct-07, 22:54
Well every year we get some record broken.
That is possibly the most pathetic response I've ever ......... oh, never mind. Are you familiar with concepts such as "mean" and "median" and "modal"? Can you understand that taken across an entire planet, there will always be a range of weather conditions, some of which will be exceptional?
Can you remember Hurricane Katrina? How the global warming experts all said it was a tipping point and how we'd see half a dozen Katrinas a year from now on? And how the next year there were NO hurricanes? And this year, just a few; and none of them holding a candle to Katrina?
These boys need to get on their hind legs and admit that they're intent on stirring up the story to keep the money flowing.
It is not phlogiston because phlogiston doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. My point is (as you well know but chose to duck it) that phlogiston, once upon a time, was a mature scientific theory which showed a 100% fit to observed data. Compared with anthropomorphic climate change theory, as a theory it's head and shoulders better for explaining observations it's supposed to relate to.
Once oxygen and carbon dioxide were discovered, phlogiston wasn't needed any more as an explanation. C'mon Rheggers, you're the scientist; do try to keep up. That's what happens to theories as more information becomes available; they're validated, or they die.
It is obvious that scientific theories that don't stand up to scrutiny should be dumped, I don't think global warming can be dumped yet as no one has come up with an alternative theory that explains the magnitude of energy that could cause the observed warming. There would be nothing more welcome than to prove the GW theory as alarmist.
Now we're getting somewhere. The re-emergence of a modicum of something logical. What would you do with a theory that fails almost completely to explain past observation, fails almost completely to explain current observation, and fails completely to predict future events with any degree, even, of approximation? And which was supposed to explain global warming; but when the errors in models and modelled data were pointed out to NASA they were able to do a quick fix by saying that well, actually, the global warming only applies to the lower 48 States of the USA. I mean..... either this is a theory or it's a complete skip full of skitter and we need a proper explanation.
The irony is, of course, if someone came up with a better one (that's more predictive, not perfect), it'd be howled down as heretical rubbish. How to we know this? It already happened.
If it wasn't a bought-and-paid-for theory of global warming that politicians have adopted as The Truth, and which has been seized on by the science community as a meal ticket for life, it'd be dumped immediately. Too much vested interest, not enough independent thought.
That is possibly the most pathetic response I've ever ......... oh, never mind. Are you familiar with concepts such as "mean" and "median" and "modal"? Can you understand that taken across an entire planet, there will always be a range of weather conditions, some of which will be exceptional?
Can you remember Hurricane Katrina? How the global warming experts all said it was a tipping point and how we'd see half a dozen Katrinas a year from now on? And how the next year there were NO hurricanes? And this year, just a few; and none of them holding a candle to Katrina?
These boys need to get on their hind legs and admit that they're intent on stirring up the story to keep the money flowing.
My point is (as you well know but chose to duck it) that phlogiston, once upon a time, was a mature scientific theory which showed a 100% fit to observed data. Compared with anthropomorphic climate change theory, as a theory it's head and shoulders better for explaining observations it's supposed to relate to.
Once oxygen and carbon dioxide were discovered, phlogiston wasn't needed any more as an explanation. C'mon Rheggers, you're the scientist; do try to keep up. That's what happens to theories as more information becomes available; they're validated, or they die.
Now we're getting somewhere. The re-emergence of a modicum of something logical. What would you do with a theory that fails almost completely to explain past observation, fails almost completely to explain current observation, and fails completely to predict future events with any degree, even, of approximation? And which was supposed to explain global warming; but when the errors in models and modelled data were pointed out to NASA they were able to do a quick fix by saying that well, actually, the global warming only applies to the lower 48 States of the USA. I mean..... either this is a theory or it's a complete skip full of skitter and we need a proper explanation.
The irony is, of course, if someone came up with a better one (that's more predictive, not perfect), it'd be howled down as heretical rubbish. How to we know this? It already happened.
If it wasn't a bought-and-paid-for theory of global warming that politicians have adopted as The Truth, and which has been seized on by the science community as a meal ticket for life, it'd be dumped immediately. Too much vested interest, not enough independent thought.
J4bberw0ck, please, your persistence is admirable, but really!:D, I have a limited shelf life on this if you keep persisting with phlogiston, heresy, means, modes and meridians etc. The fact remains that you are attacking the concept of scientific debate and consensus, you really aren't talking about global warming at all. Take phlogiston for example, it really wasn't a proper scientific theory born out of scientific thought process at all. It was a theory to make sense of the Bible in a pseudo-scientific context, it would have been heresy to do otherwise.
Now can we move on from past theories, lets move on to global warming. I think the only issue here worth debating is the anthropological part of global warming. Have you anything to offer that suggests that most of the warming is not anthropological? All else is just window dressing because regardless of whether the warming is natural or anthropological, future Katrinas will occur with increased frequency, the experts knew that before CO2 and other man made GHGs rose their ugly head for concern.
No
Petrol releases 2.3kg CO2 per litre burned, so do the arithmetic: 435 litres petrol will produce a tonne, which should by rights (and the Holy Stern's Report) attract a tax of $85. So tax per litre = 20 cents (say 10p at current exchange rates). But we already pay 55p a litre in duty, plus the VAT on top, and the politicians want to extent their "green taxes" even further at the cost of damage to the economy - which is the thing that allows us the luxury of whinging about climate change in the first place.
.
Petrol weighs 0.737kg per litre. How does burning it make the by-products heavier?
Not a dig, slur or addition to this debate, just a genuine question.
If E=MC squared and C is constant, how can burning (reducing E) make M bigger?
Petrol weighs 0.737kg per litre. How does burning it make the by-products heavier?
Not a dig, slur or addition to this debate, just a genuine question.
If E=MC squared and C is constant, how can burning (reducing E) make M bigger?
Petrol is basically chains of units of CH2. When combined with oxygen, carbon dioxide is produced which has a mass ~3.66 times greater than carbon. This causes a lot of confusion when windfarm developers are claiming that x thousand tonnes of CO2 are mitigated by a windfarm. Anti windies assume that it is exagerated and it is something to do with maximum output of a windfarm and inefficiencies when it isn't, it is just that people are unaware of chemistry.
Petrol is basically chains of units of CH2. When combined with oxygen, carbon dioxide is produced which has a mass ~3.66 times greater than carbon. This causes a lot of confusion when windfarm developers are claiming that x thousand tonnes of CO2 are mitigated by a windfarm. Anti windies assume that it is exagerated and it is something to do with maximum output of a windfarm and inefficiencies when it isn't, it is just that people are unaware of chemistry.
Get you. Because the oxygen wann't originally part of the fuel it doesn't count. Cheers for that.
Welcomefamily
15-Oct-07, 08:43
Get you. Because the oxygen wann't originally part of the fuel it doesn't count. Cheers for that.
And once again the weight paradox gets solved, you would have just made Antoine - Laurent Lavoisier happy.
However any theory must take surely take in the obliquity cycle as the move fo 22.5 to 24.5 in important, it would become more important if the proposed period changed from 41K to less than 4,000 years.
Then if you added in Precession at 2,000, a different picture evolves.
There is an article in today's Independent that seems relevant to this thread.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3061190.ece#2007-10-15T00:00:01-00:00
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Do they fit together?:confused
j4bberw0ck
15-Oct-07, 14:46
Firstly, thank you for answering the question on CO2 release from burning petrol.
And now to business:
The fact remains that you are attacking the concept of scientific debate and consensus, you really aren't talking about global warming at all.
Not a "fact" at all. My whole point, demonstrated again and again, is that scientific debate has largely gone out of the window as far as global warming is concerned, because not agreeing is not socially acceptable. Consensus has largely been bought by the flow of tax dollars to researchers who've concluded it's their birthdays. Grants and funds available for arguing against anthropogenic warming? None.
Take phlogiston for example, it really wasn't a proper scientific theory born out of scientific thought process at all. It was a theory to make sense of the Bible in a pseudo-scientific context, it would have been heresy to do otherwise.Nope, the Bible didn't come into it. Phlogiston theory was adopted by a number of the world's greatest chemists around the 18th century. Yes, it was a piece of rationalisation - but it worked as a theory. Information here (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm).
Now can we move on from past theoriesgracious of you!
lets move on to global warming. I think the only issue here worth debating is the anthropological part of global warming. Have you anything to offer that suggests that most of the warming is not anthropological?No, of course I, personally, don't. What am I? A climate scientist? I don't know how many times I have to explain my view on this before it gets through, but lets try again in the most simple terms - and please, before you pick on a single issue, do me the courtesy of reading carefully what I'm saying? I know, I know, even by my usual standards this is a long post but do please give it a chance. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think (IMHO :lol: ):
1. Speculation and hypothesis coming out of the IPCC fail to provide a route to a climate model that can explain the past weather and climate temperature variations.
2. Speculation and hypothesis coming out of the IPCC fail to provide a route to a climate model that can explain the present weather and climate temperature variations.
3. Speculation and hypothesis coming out of the IPCC fail to provide a route to a climate model that can predict weather and climate temperature variations.
4. An alternative explanation involving solar activity and solar aerosols, which is also speculative and hypothetical, provides a better match in many respects that for past and present weather and climate variations.
5. But the first set of speculation attracts all the funding, and has been taken up as (almost) Gospel truth by politicians, who've thrown money and political favours at it to buy acceptance.
6. Politicians cannot resist an opportunity to fiddle and control and change to feed their lust for power and glory. So they do. For instance:
The UK commits to £32,000,000,000 (thirty two billion pounds) a year subsidy by 2020 (which you and I will pay in higher electricity bills) to make wind turbines economically worth developing and installing - and they'll save the CO2 equivalent of one Chinese coal fired power station. I remind you the Chinese are building one of those every few days. That's just lunacy - talk about a poor return on investment.
The USA pays huge subsidies to corn farmers to produce bio-ethanol (to keep their Republican vote onside) in the name of climate change. Farmers change from grains production to corn to benefit from the subsidy. There's no grains surplus for export. Wheat and grain prices rise dramatically. Beef farmers go out of business, the poor both in the US and internationally suffer because of increased food prices. Bio-ethanol production from corn is inefficient and produces lots and lots of CO2 (it's fermentation, d'ohhhhhh - all those nice little bubbles......).
The EU passes stupid laws requiring so-many-percent of biofuels to be in use by 2020. Same scenario. Farmers switch to oilseed rape and biofuel crops. Same things happen....... food prices rise, beef farmers can't finish cattle on barley because it's too dear, the economy of places like Orkney take a massive hit....AND meantime, it's well known that ploughing up land (and up to 30% of the UK's arable area will need to produce biofuels) increases greenhouse gas emissions by breaking down the sequestration of carbon in humus and other organic matter. And then of course, there's the question of how the politicians phrase things; did you know, Rheghead, that the EU has now agreed that any EU country that's short on production of biofuels can buy it in from abroad? Marvellous! Rather than have the inconvenience of growing the stuff here we can buy it from Brazil and Indonesia, with their long growing seasons and low labour costs!
They in turn can charge what they like for it because we're committed to buying it, remember? So they turn to massive production - and massive deforestation, releasing billions of tons more GHGs to the air and reducing the sequestration potential for the future.
Why do politicians do such stupid, stupid things?
Because scientists have leapt on the bandwagon and not said to them: "Hold on. We haven't actually thought about all this well enough yet". And because they've created a social environment where people who don't toe the line are pariahs. What a shame the rules on this board don't allow the use of some good old Anglo-Saxon adjectives; they're needed to convey the sheer swyving stupidity of what's happening.
All else is just window dressing because regardless of whether the warming is natural or anthropological, future Katrinas will occur with increased frequency, the experts knew that before CO2 and other man made GHGs rose their ugly head for concern.Absolutely right, and if GHGs are indeed to blame how ironic is it that it may be in large part because of the very ill-thought-out steps put in place by worthless, vain and stupid politicians backed up by a spineless, self-seeking climate-change lobby.
j4bberw0ck
15-Oct-07, 16:15
There is an article in today's Independent that seems relevant to this thread.
Interesting, thanks. Johnn Hari is an interesting bloke - a socialist libertarian of sorts, which is quite some combination, given socialism's usual reaction to libertarians. Which is to shoot them :lol: .
I don't see why it's relevant to very much whether the plaintiff in the court case about Gore's film was funded by the oil industry, or not. Neither are his political affiliations very important, as far as I can see.
For years I was a paying member of Greenpeace despite disagreeing with a good many of the things they did and said. The Brent Spar fiasco, for instance, was a prime example of stupid, blinkered, swivel-eyed lunacy from which they eventually had to back down.
So why was I a subscription-paying member? Because I believed then, and still believe now, that someone has to be shouting for the opposing view. Doesn't much matter who it is, but if they don't, the big dog wins outright.
So I'm glad this went to court, regardless of who paid or why. Someone's shouting against the Friends of the Big Dog-ma :lol:, the anthropogenic warmers. For reasons given in the long post above, I still think the jury's out and so I'm delighted to find someone else willing to shout up as well.
j4bberw0ck
15-Oct-07, 20:44
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Do they fit together?
I was thinking about your graph while driving home, and yes, Rheggers, of course they do. Sort of. But some thoughts occurred to me and it may not be all you say it is. I don't doubt that you accept it for exactly what you think it means so I'm not suggesting intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Let's do a little fisking. Are you sitting comfortably?
At the resolution of my monitor (a laptop, at 1680x1050) the x axis of your graph is 96mm long. So each millimetre equates to 4427 years; just to put that into perspective, Scara Brae was built 1.13mm ago, and the Pyramids, just 0.75mm ago.
So what we can't of course, see from your graph is the degree of correlation between the lines when we look to see "do they fit together?" There's a gross correlation in that all the lines are roughly the same shape. But remember the 800 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature? Where temperature rises result 800 years later in a rise in CO2?
800 years on your graph is 0.18mm, or about the thickness of a half-decent human hair and waaaay smaller than even a 1680x1050 monitor can get anywhere near. There is no way the graph proves anything about whether CO2 levels drive temperature, or whether temperature drives CO2. And since that's fairly fundamental to acceptance of the anthropomorphic warming concept, your graph is totally, completely meaningless - it shows the wrong thing because of the time scale is too small when represented on the x-axis you provided. Are you by chance a politician? :lol:
And there's one other thing that occurred to me: in one of your earlier posts you talked about tipping points and how CO2 is driving temperature now, but didn't in the past. So if it didn't, what the hell use is your graph except to trap you in a contradiction?
It's contradictions like this that make one wonder about how good the explanation is.
J4bberw0ck, please leave out all the speculation, all the old theories, all the politics etc etc, you are dancing around the key issue. You said that you doubted the science so lets keep it to that.
For the umpteenth time, if you doubt the science then where is your alternative theory? It is absolutely nothing about funding, the oil industry is giving money out like toffee papers for anyone that can debunk the science, if it was hogwash then it will be debunkable hogwash.[lol]
There is no way the warming in the last 40 years can be explained without the introduction of anthropological GHGs. For now all you are going on about is purely peripheral and it in no way debunks the science.
I was thinking about your graph while driving home, and yes, Rheggers, of course they do. Sort of. But some thoughts occurred to me and it may not be all you say it is. I don't doubt that you accept it for exactly what you think it means so I'm not suggesting intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Let's do a little fisking. Are you sitting comfortably?
At the resolution of my monitor (a laptop, at 1680x1050) the x axis of your graph is 96mm long. So each millimetre equates to 4427 years; just to put that into perspective, Scara Brae was built 1.13mm ago, and the Pyramids, just 0.75mm ago.
So what we can't of course, see from your graph is the degree of correlation between the lines when we look to see "do they fit together?" There's a gross correlation in that all the lines are roughly the same shape. But remember the 800 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature? Where temperature rises result 800 years later in a rise in CO2?
800 years on your graph is 0.18mm, or about the thickness of a half-decent human hair and waaaay smaller than even a 1680x1050 monitor can get anywhere near. There is no way the graph proves anything about whether CO2 levels drive temperature, or whether temperature drives CO2. And since that's fairly fundamental to acceptance of the anthropomorphic warming concept, your graph is totally, completely meaningless - it shows the wrong thing because of the time scale is too small when represented on the x-axis you provided. Are you by chance a politician? :lol:
And there's one other thing that occurred to me: in one of your earlier posts you talked about tipping points and how CO2 is driving temperature now, but didn't in the past. So if it didn't, what the hell use is your graph except to trap you in a contradiction?
It's contradictions like this that make one wonder about how good the explanation is.
You are obviously thinking about it too much. I see no traps for contradiction.
I can't see any point you are making? The lag has a variance, I don't think 800 years is an absolute time. And anyway, some data could have been corrupted by natural processes, science has these variations, the power in the graph is in the macro footprint rather than focussing upon widths of human hairs and resolutions of VDU monitors. We are talking about proxy data here, quite rightly there are concerns about it, it wasn't measured by a calibrated instrument.[lol]
The fundamental issue here is causality, does the CO2 drive the data or does the wobbles of the Earth's ie the temperature?
Since the overall peaks and troughs roughly follow wobbles in the Earth's (as far as I know, I am not a geologist) then it is obvious that it is temperature that drives the CO2 and it is CO2 and other GHGs that drives global temperature increase. If that is the case then we are certain to see the CO2 crossing a tipping point and driving climate change with increase in temperature whether that increase is anthropological or not.
I am sure you aren't suggesting that variations in CO2 drives the wobble in the Earth's axis?
Not a "fact" at all. My whole point, demonstrated again and again, is that scientific debate has largely gone out of the window as far as global warming is concerned, because not agreeing is not socially acceptable. Consensus has largely been bought by the flow of tax dollars to researchers who've concluded it's their birthdays. Grants and funds available for arguing against anthropogenic warming? None.
What about the $10,000 each the The American Enterprise Institute offered to scientists that would challenge global warming?
j4bberw0ck
15-Oct-07, 22:10
You are obviously thinking about it too much.
Rheghead, I've been patronised by some of the very best barstewards in the business world and that one doesn't even get close, but I do resent it. It's a bloody good job someone's thinking round here because the extent of what I see around me is a crowd of people who'd be prepared to accept any old pile of rubbish if the government and a few scientists told them it was true. I may well be wrong in what I'm suggesting about global warming, and I'm very much alive to the possibility, but you've got nowhere near demonstrating that I am.
On the other hand, you seem to have taken the view that you're the possessor of The Truth and that I'm just some ignorant sod who has the colossal effrontery to challenge, in my stupid, I-know-no-better-way, this wonderful knowledge of which you're the custodian. I suspect, though, that given your responses to the stuff I've spent a long time explaining, that actually, your ignorance is at least as profound as mine because you limit yourself to churning out stuff you've been spoon-fed. There's precious little evidence you've applied anything remotely resembling an intellect to it, which is a shame because although I don't know you, I know you to be an intelligent man.
I can't see any point you are making? The lag has a variance, I don't think 800 years is an absolute time. And anyway, some data could have been corrupted by natural processes, science has these variations, the power in the graph is in the macro footprint rather than focussing upon widths of human hairs and resolutions of VDU monitors. We are talking about proxy data here, quite rightly there are concerns about it, it wasn't measured by a calibrated instrument.[lol]You may have a science background but it sure as hell doesn't extend to statistical analysis or interpretation of management information. Mine does, and I'm telling you that you can't say that an entire hypothesis is demonstrated unerringly by the shape of a graph and then disregard the minutiae of data which make up the graph.
Since the overall peaks and troughs roughly follow wobbles in the Earth's (as far as I know, I am not a geologist) then it is obvious that it is temperature that drives the CO2 and it is CO2 and other GHGs that drives global temperature increase. If that is the case then we are certain to see the CO2 crossing a tipping point and driving climate change with increase in temperature whether that increase is anthropological or not.Thank you. That may be the most coherent thing you've taken the trouble to say in all this.
I am sure you aren't suggesting that variations in CO2 drives the wobble in the Earth's axis?Ha. Ha. Ha. Laugh? I nearly died did......
Logically, I don't see why your assertion of one mechanism you don't understand causing global warming should be any more or less valid than asserting another, but that's getting silly and I'm determined not to follow you there.
What about the $10,000 each the The American Enterprise Institute offered to scientists that would challenge global warming?
Aww, come off it, fred. There you are, a thrusting young scientist at the start of your amazing, Nobel prize-winning career, and someone offers you 6 to 8 weeks pay or thereabouts to go trash the rest of your life and become a social pariah. The sort of person Rheggers wouldn't want to talk to at a convention for fear of being tarred with the same brush :lol: . I don't think $10k would do it, do you?
You may have a science background but it sure as hell doesn't extend to statistical analysis or interpretation of management information. Mine does, and I'm telling you that you can't say that an entire hypothesis is demonstrated unerringly by the shape of a graph and then disregard the minutiae of data which make up the graph.
Where on the graph does it need a degree in statistics to read it properly? I'm not quoting statistics, there are no means, modes or medians on the graph. There will be a degree of statistical analysis in in the data but that about it. If I can't read a graph then the whole of the IPCC can't, lol.
The peaks and troughs give a pattern that can be read quite easily, they fit together quite easily, I'm glad you now accept that. The minutiiae of any graph means absolutely nothing as one off analysis results can be wrong, it is the overall pattern that you should be focussing upon. You really are getting into a guddle over it, no?
Margaret M.
16-Oct-07, 00:00
Lordy, this global warming stuff is giving me a headache. There are so many contradictions and conflicting opinions that I do not pay as much attention anymore.
I will conserve/recycle all I possibly can since that is the right thing to do, global warming or not. I do know that many states here are in dire need of rain, water levels are so very low. :::::off to do mah rain dance::::::
Welcomefamily
16-Oct-07, 00:06
I agree with Rheghead that the graph does show some correlation, I might not, in fact I totally disagree with his time period (for which he has no scientific evidence) how ever at the same time if you superimposed both the obliquity and the precession which will show natural variation in temperature, then for your theory to hold water you can look at the movement away from the predicted. (I will try to get a ref for it)
Moving on to funding issues, they has been lots of money available in the states for research against Global warming, a number of major corporations including oil companies have backed University projects to discredit Global Warming issues.
Change of subject, Professor Lu Wing (did his PhD at Aberdeen in Cell Biochemistry) before going to the states, one of the major contributor for the Geno Project along with a number of other Geno Project Professors made a definative statement eariler this year on the maximum age of Humanity based upon observed Human DNA mitochondrial mutation rates. They said the mamimum age which was just over three Hundred generation. Up to now many other people on the Geno project are also coming up with the same figures and results.
Hence why across America, radio dating is getting hammered.
Not seen the film. I have read Gore's first book Earth in the Balance, and found it to be pretty good.
I don't really care if j4bberw0ck disputes man's role in rising atmospheric carbon emissions, the Flat Earth Society is always in need of members.
j4bberw0ck
16-Oct-07, 13:40
I don't really care if j4bberw0ck disputes man's role in rising atmospheric carbon emissions, the Flat Earth Society is always in need of members.
You know, scotsboy, I've usually been quite impressed with your contributions here, but I guess a regrettable inability to read properly and understand is more common than I'd thought. Pin your ears back a moment, take a deep breath, and repeat after me: Categorically, I do not dispute man's role in atmospheric CO2 levels increasing. It would be fatuous to do so.
What I dispute is the validity of a climate modelling process that can't produce results in line with reality, and the Gore / IPCC conclusions, which have been adopted by politicians without proper consideration - because it cannot be demonstrated that what they're doing will have the slightest effect on climate change.
So £32 billion a year of your money and mine - woops! No, not yours, but ours here - to subsidise the least effective method of power generation? No problem! Encourage the destruction of rain forest to encourage bio-fuels? Sure! Why not? So long as we're all smiling and happily chanting the CO2 mantra.
j4bberw0ck
16-Oct-07, 15:26
Moving on to funding issues, they has been lots of money available in the states for research against Global warming, a number of major corporations including oil companies have backed University projects to discredit Global Warming issues.
You know, when you really get down to it, that would be incredibly short-sighted of some of the smartest business people around. BP and other oil companies are putting large amounts of money into non-oil technologies because they're not the only people able to figure out that either:
oil (and gas) will get much more expensive and so start to allow other energy technologies to price their way in; or
oil will eventually run out; or
the supply chain will be disrupted forcing a switch to other energy sources; or
the legislative or taxation environment will change and force a change away from oil energy.Why would an oil company want to invest money to discredit global warming issues? They stand to win if it's wrong, and win if it's right. I suspect a certain amount of hysterical conspiracy theory reporting.
You know, scotsboy, I've usually been quite impressed with your contributions here, but I guess a regrettable inability to read properly and understand is more common than I'd thought. Pin your ears back a moment, take a deep breath, and repeat after me: Categorically, I do not dispute man's role in atmospheric CO2 levels increasing. It would be fatuous to do so.
What I dispute is the validity of a climate modelling process that can't produce results in line with reality, and the Gore / IPCC conclusions, which have been adopted by politicians without proper consideration - because it cannot be demonstrated that what they're doing will have the slightest effect on climate change.
So £32 billion a year of your money and mine - woops! No, not yours, but ours here - to subsidise the least effective method of power generation? No problem! Encourage the destruction of rain forest to encourage bio-fuels? Sure! Why not? So long as we're all smiling and happily chanting the CO2 mantra.
Sorry j4bberw0ck, I obviously did not read your posts correctly. I do admit to just skimming - can also blame jet-lag, but if truth be told it was just pure laziness!!
I actually agree with you on the climate modelling, I am not convinced that albedo would play a much larger contribution. And of course the great unknown is what will happen to oceanic currents - probably means a UK that is a lot colder as the Gulf Stream will be diverted.
Apologies once again - caught the wrong end of the stick.
Why would an oil company want to invest money to discredit global warming issues? They stand to win if it's wrong, and win if it's right. I suspect a certain amount of hysterical conspiracy theory reporting.
It's fact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
j4bberw0ck
16-Oct-07, 16:49
Fair enough, I stand corrected. So Exxon can only come up with $10000 a pop for ideas to combat global warming theory? Wow.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. So Exxon can only come up with $10000 a pop for ideas to combat global warming theory? Wow.
I didn't say that, it only took the one case to prove you wrong there are plenty more. Exxon Mobil have been funding several groups, like the Marshal Institute, to argue against global warming.
j4bberw0ck
16-Oct-07, 19:45
And I suppose, on reflection, one might legitimately ask why Exxon and other oil companies exploring an anti-global warming research initiative wouldn't be exactly what might be expected of them? In the same way that people who don't want wind turbines might look at anti-global warming or anti-windmill initiatives? Or are they "climate change deniers" - the 21st century version of "Holocaust deniers"?
After all, if you ran a business as (say) a seller of goat's milk and the local Council suggested publicly that goat's milk was substandard and harmful, you might launch a campaign to demonstrate the opposite.
Categorically, I do not dispute man's role in atmospheric CO2 levels increasing. It would be fatuous to do so.
because it cannot be demonstrated that what they're doing will have the slightest effect on climate change.
What effect do you think the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (~270ppm) had on the climate?:confused
And I suppose, on reflection, one might legitimately ask why Exxon and other oil companies exploring an anti-global warming research initiative wouldn't be exactly what might be expected of them? In the same way that people who don't want wind turbines might look at anti-global warming or anti-windmill initiatives? Or are they "climate change deniers" - the 21st century version of "Holocaust deniers"?
After all, if you ran a business as (say) a seller of goat's milk and the local Council suggested publicly that goat's milk was substandard and harmful, you might launch a campaign to demonstrate the opposite.
I just tell it how it is. I don't have any campaigns, no agendas, I just tell the truth. Your statement "Grants and funds available for arguing against anthropogenic warming? None." was not true. In fact for many years in parts of the world the opposite was the case, it was far easier to get funding to disprove global warming than to prove it. Evidence of global warming was deliberately suppressed.
... a High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Work of Fiction was too obviously biased, too obviously political, contained substantial errors of fact, misrepresented many others, and was too lacking in any respectable scientific debate to be distributed to the nation's schoolchildren, the cycle is complete.......
Have you got a link to substantiate your claim? cheers.
Welcomefamily
16-Oct-07, 22:19
No doubt some one has a hidden agenda or there was a major taxation issue however
my wife often calls me a lasy b when I take the car 100 m up the road to the shop to get a paper or a pint of milk (it correlates quite well by what ever stat test I use)
Now logically I believe that carbon level do have a adverse effect, however I now have a number of other theories to consider so my belief has been diluted. I have been told that this warming is part of an ongoing process of natural occuring changes or the warming is not happening.
Hence my actions were to take the car which has used more fuel, the oil company sold that little bit more fuel. The oil companies appears to be giving the message yes there warming but not due to CO2?
I am possible not explaining myself too well so I will give an example: I believe in the scientific concept of a young earth, however some one comes along and takes my work and adds a creation concept to it because it blends well with their theory, a number of people instantly do not like my work because of its creation concept connection.
A parent has failed in his legal action to prevent Al Gore's climate change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, being shown in schools in England.But today's High Court ruling stated the film must be distributed with new guidance notes for students and teachers to prevent "promoting partisan political views".
The judge said that Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor with two children and a member of a political group called the New Party, had "substantially" won his case because without new guidance to schools from the government, it would have been in breach of the law.
But Kevin Brennan, the children's minister, said the film could continue being shown in schools and that its central arguments were backed by the "vast weight of scientific opinion".
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html
Chairman Mao would be rubbing his hands with glee.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2188015,00.html
Chairman Mao would be rubbing his hands with glee.
So the the judge actually thought the film had substantial merit and deemed that it was suitable for distribution within schools. I got the impression from j4bberw0ck's opener that the judge took a dim view of it and stopped the distribution. thanks:Razz
j4bberw0ck
17-Oct-07, 09:14
A small "Woops!" from me. My original comment about the film being withdrawn from distribution to schools came from what I heard on the radio on the morning of the 12th. Since I'm not about to claim that the BBC misreported it, I'm quite up to accepting that perhaps I heard it as I wanted to hear it. I get to make everyone's breakfast round here, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that I misheard.
Fortunately, that's not been relevant to anything other than the opening post. The only link I can offer you is this one to the actual Judgement.
(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html)
The nine errors are detailed from clause 23 on, and Rhegger's graph may have come in for a bit of a beating too at clause 28: doesn't show what it purports to show. At least I got that bit right :lol: .
but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.
The judge agreed with me on that one. It is strange that the judge recommended that there should be supplimentary guidance to go with the film in that case if he agreed it wasn't party political. It is strange because there are lots of other sources of uncensored material in schools that are political in nature, eg humanities study etc
Having said that, on the science, the judge erred on each of the 9 points as well. Though An Inconvenient Truth was a film about the interaction of science and politics, it wasn't just about science, so for it to be 100% accurate before the the release of the IPCC 4th report was a tad unrealistic and in any event, Mr Gore isn't a climatologist, just an educated American politician of which on recent years performance there must be very few.
The recommendations of the judge were based on the findings of the very scientists who are raising the alarm about global warming. So it is not exactly a victory for people who deny global warming!
I used to be agnostic about the role of human activity causing global warming but I now believe - with most of the rest of the world - that we should start making alterations in the way we live.
An American friend who is a baseball fan reminded me recently that "MOTHER NATURE BATS LAST'
I get the feeling she is coming up to the plate...
Here's a thought - if we had a limitless supply of fossil fuels available to us do you think anthropogenic warming of the planet would've been discovered?
Recently read an article in the Independant stating that the IPCC think it's already too late. Apparently we're only a decade away from the 'tipping point' now.
10 years to go and our arsenal of weapons to fight and reverse climate change consists of -
wind turbines
not leaving the telly and computer on standby
slagging off China for building too many coal fired power stations
growing fuel instead of food
offsetting carbon emissions (still haven't figured out quite how that one works)
green taxes
Did I miss anything?
If anthropogenic climate change is fact - we're stuffed.
Hopefully there's a still a chance to engage in a little more tweaking of the model.
Here's a thought - if we had a limitless supply of fossil fuels available to us do you think anthropogenic warming of the planet would've been discovered?
The question is hypothetical which requires a hypothetical answer which would be 'Yes'.
Margaret M.
18-Oct-07, 16:37
I just tell it how it is. I don't have any campaigns, no agendas, I just tell the truth.
Fred, you have no way of knowing what the truth is about terrorism, global warming or many of the topics dicsussed on here. You can do an abundance of research and form an opinion but it doesn't make it "the truth".
Fred, you have no way of knowing what the truth is about terrorism, global warming or many of the topics dicsussed on here. You can do an abundance of research and form an opinion but it doesn't make it "the truth".
Why? Has America re-defined the word "truth" as well so nobody can accuse them of lying? I wouldn't put it past them.
There has been more than ample funding for any scientist who would throw enough confusion into the Global Warming debate for the oil companies and the American government to deny it and there has been suppression of scientific data which would back Global Warming theory as was testified to before Congress by NASA scientists last January.
Those are the facts whether the corporate media chooses to print it or not and whether you want to believe it or not.
wotchooterapolis
06-Dec-07, 18:55
Is it a licence for the government to print money by inventing all these new and increased taxes? I'd say so. Is the planet not just on a natural cycle? Evidence may suggest it is, such as the ice caps melting and freezing over again due to the ice age. Are we heading for a repeat senario?
It depends what you mean by a 'Con'.
If you think all taxation is a con then you will think that green taxation is a con.
If you think that Global Warming is seriously scientifically flawed and on balance there is nothing to worry about greenhouse gases, then you will think green taxation is a con.
But if you agree with the science and you agree that the Government should be doing something to make us cut down our GHG emissions then clearly it isn't a con. Afterall, taxes are our money, and it will be spent on something.
The Government took long enough to mention green taxes before implementing them, (after considerable evidence has came in to support the GW theory), they needed to be socially acceptable (remember the poll tax?).
I think the rise in global warming is due to the amount of "hot air" and frenzied typing in these here forums!!!!!
There are a few people on here that i can imagine frequently scouring the web to back up their opinions, if they cut back a bit then maybe we can all save the environment :)
Job done!
I think the rise in global warming is due to the amount of "hot air" and frenzied typing in these here forums!!!!!
There are a few people on here that i can imagine frequently scouring the web to back up their opinions, if they cut back a bit then maybe we can all save the environment :)
Job done!
Indeed, I read this week that emissions due to computers have exceeded those due to global aircraft emissions.[lol]
I think the rise in global warming is due to the amount of "hot air" and frenzied typing in these here forums!!!!!
There are a few people on here that i can imagine frequently scouring the web to back up their opinions, if they cut back a bit then maybe we can all save the environment :)
Job done!Maybe you should type less.;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.