Climategate - Page 32

Originally Posted by Frank777

Just once, I would like to see you debate an actual fact in your posts, and not some silly observation that means absolutely nothing to anyone interested in the topic we're currently talking about.

Just once, I would like to see you debate an actual fact in your posts,

Originally Posted by trumptman

What a nice strawman this happens to be. Claiming the origin of an idea is not the same thing as saying support is exclusive to a group. The boomers were the generation that originated the idea that humankind is altering the planet and making it uninhabitable. The belief is not exclusive to them as they have indoctrinated many other parties.



The error is your own with regard to reasoning.




Clearly you haven't done any reading on the hockey stick. The turn up in temp doesn't occur unless everything is static before that. Thus many warm-mongers are stuck arguing that the temp in the past couldn't have been warmer or colder than now.

I didn't claim that it is impossible for recent climate change to have been caused by human activity. What you are failing to understand is that when presented with a need to prove the assertion, other warmmongers declare no need to provide proof. They declare this is because the previous climate condition was static and now it has changed. The proof is the change. Declaring change the default state is heresy to them.

So understand we are in agreement when declaring that there have been ice ages. There have also been warming periods. Climate variation is the default state of the planet. Stasis is not the default state and thus someone declaring stasis is the default state and any variation from it is proof of something, must prove their contention. The variation isn't proof.

What a nice strawman this happens to be. Claiming the origin of an idea is not the same thing as saying support is exclusive to a group. The boomers were the generation that originated the idea that humankind is altering the planet and making it uninhabitable. The belief is not exclusive to them as they have indoctrinated many other parties.

People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Climategate: Actual "Global" Warming Only Affects 10 to 20% of World, Sometimes

We now see this same technique in the global warming debate where advocates insist on a single point of view of the science (the "Gore-Only" global warming education) and attempt to stop any other knowledge, empirical evidence, data, and etc. to be shared or disseminated (if you think this isn't happening, just visit a public school and talk to students taking a science course). This attempt by one-viewpoint only advocates on global warming was the primary reason for this web site to be created. View it as a source of opposing knowledge and debate - forbidden fruits, so to speak (for some, climate religion heresies) that less enlightened and less rational people try to keep you from consuming. We do promise, though, if you read this web site, you won't get pregnant; you'll just become more knowledgeable and more tolerant of others, and diverse in your intellectual approach.

It turns out you can outrun global warming - if you move your ecosystem about a half-mile closer to one of the poles every year. A new study suggests you scoot your farm slightly north or south next spring

Originally Posted by dmz

Look up Cook's and Vancouver's maps. Visit Alaska and hike the moraines, take pictures of the little signs with years marked on them -- going back to the 18th century -- that the forest service places along the path of the receding glaciers. Read Muir. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Something was melting those glaciers, and it wasn't Al Gore's motorcade.

The dated organics are located in 4 sites near Scoresby Sund (70 45N 22W) on the east coast of Greenland. The reported dates are from a site near Istorvet, Liverpool Land. The majority are from 1040-1190 BP; a couple earlier 1380, 1590 BP. The dates are somewhat early relative to usual MWP concepts and Lowell is mulling over explanations and possibilities. The presentation states clearly that the organics are “within 280 vertical meters of ice cap summit” and located “where comparable modern assemblages do not exist”

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

"A new type of solar panel using human hair could provide the world with cheap, green electricity, believes its teenage inventor.

The hair replaces silicon, a pricey component typically used in solar panels, and means the panels can be produced at a low cost for those with no access to power, he explained. In Nepal, one of the poorest countries in the world, many rural areas lack access to electricity and even in areas connected to power lines, users face shortages of up to 16 hours a day.

Half a kilo of hair can be bought for only 16p in Nepal and lasts a few months, whereas a pack of batteries would cost 50p and last a few nights. People can replace the hair easily themselves, says Milan, meaning his solar panels need little servicing."
~ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...uman-hair.html



Is the above article a hoax? I'm not sure but it did come from the Daily Mail, which isn't a good sign.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Climategate makes at least one thing quite clear. Scientists Suck at public relations and communications with non-scientists.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

They're up against, at least in the US, Glen Beck et al. who appeal to people on the basis that they are offering a world without the trouble of global warming. They focus on the trouble that new global laws will bring to countries sovereignty, the tearing away of their freedoms and the indoctrination of their children. But what really happens is that the earth is warming and as the needed action isn't taken the problems down the road are amplified and everything that they're trying to prevent will only be that much more severe later. Ironic really.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Which does not change in the slightest the assertion that Scientists are not great communicators...

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I agree, but the Glenn Beck crowd are just going to make matters worse for themselves, so how effective are they? The scientists are still being taken seriously by the vast majority of the worlds politicians, except the more extreme elements of course. John McCain understood it is real but unfortunately his party is awash in conspiracy theorist Denialist's who'd never trust a word from a climatologist unless they were backed by the fossil fuel industry and espousing the virtues of CO2.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Things are very black and white to some people. I know, I used to be one of those people back in the days when I blindly supported Bush and the Republicans.

It makes it much easier to continue to support your own ideas of what is right/correct if you can attribute the ideas you consider to be wrong/incorrect to anyone who disagrees with you. Establish certain categories and sub-categories of people in your mind. For example, have 2 main categories like Republican and Democrat - everyone depending on their views can easily be considered a Republican or Democrat even if they don't openly admit they are either, right? (Wrong.) Sub-categories could be "Conservative Republican", "Moderate Republican", etc. Then, devise "rock solid" arguments to deal with each of your categories.

When you encounter someone who disagrees with you, just put them in one of the categories in your mind and start spouting your "rock-solid" arguments at them. Piece of cake, right?

Unfortunately, this way of thinking lends itself to prejudice and stereotypes.

I would argue that many, if not most of the people questioning/doubting the decreasingly popular AGW theory (and that's all it is, a THEORY) are not necessarily supportive of big corporations, fossil fuels, pollution, mass extinction of the human race, etc.

But if you can lump someone into that carefully constructed category you've created in your mind, it's much easier to deal with them, isn't it? Oh, they can deny they support those things, but YOU know their kind, don't you? You know deep down they believe what you think they believe.

When you start looking at what people actually say and addressing that instead of addressing what YOU think they really believe or what you think their intent is, that is where constructive discussion begins.

And you will find those carefully constructed categories in your mind will begin to crumble.

people questioning/doubting the decreasingly popular AGW theory

But if you can lump someone into that carefully constructed category you've created in your mind, it's much easier to deal with them, isn't it? Oh, they can deny they support those things, but YOU know their kind, don't you? You know deep down they believe what you think they believe.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Great NYT Op-Ed: Its Always the End of the World as We Know It

Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the twinkling of an eye that a calamity might prove to be the longed-for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You have numbers to back that up?



But you're not like that right?

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Do you actually read the posts before you reply? The first paragraph negates and answers your Razz before you even wrote it.

Things are very black and white to some people. I know, I used to be one of those people back in the days when I blindly supported Bush and the Republicans

Originally Posted by dmz

Look up Cook's and Vancouver's maps. Visit Alaska and hike the moraines, take pictures of the little signs with years marked on them -- going back to the 18th century -- that the forest service places along the path of the receding glaciers. Read Muir. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Something was melting those glaciers, and it wasn't Al Gore's motorcade.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I repeat:

When you start looking at what people actually say and addressing that instead of addressing what YOU think they really believe or what you think their intent is, that is where constructive discussion begins.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I don't know for sure, but I did read this story from another source about a month ago I believe.

Found the link:

http://gizmodo.com/5355137/forget-si...as-a-conductor

Dated a few days before the Dailymail article according to Google. (It is soooo good to be back home and on my Mac!)

A few more links:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/w...om_human_hair/

http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets...hair-20090910/

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/0...%28Slashdot%29 (The comments are interesting anyhow.)

http://sites.google.com/site/edwardc...olarpanelnepal (This guy claims to put the assertions to the test.)

Originally Posted by dmz

Hear, hear!





Just remember, the warming is ALL our fault, NONE of it is due to solar activity, NONE of it is due to natural variation -- and if we just enact the right legislation it will go away. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Things are very black and white to some people. I know, I used to be one of those people back in the days when I blindly supported Bush and the Republicans.

It makes it much easier to continue to support your own ideas of what is right/correct if you can attribute the ideas you consider to be wrong/incorrect to anyone who disagrees with you. Establish certain categories and sub-categories of people in your mind. For example, have 2 main categories like Republican and Democrat - everyone depending on their views can easily be considered a Republican or Democrat even if they don't openly admit they are either, right? (Wrong.) Sub-categories could be "Conservative Republican", "Moderate Republican", etc. Then, devise "rock solid" arguments to deal with each of your categories.

When you encounter someone who disagrees with you, just put them in one of the categories in your mind and start spouting your "rock-solid" arguments at them. Piece of cake, right?

Unfortunately, this way of thinking lends itself to prejudice and stereotypes.

I would argue that many, if not most of the people questioning/doubting the decreasingly popular AGW theory (and that's all it is, a THEORY) are not necessarily supportive of big corporations, fossil fuels, pollution, mass extinction of the human race, etc.

But if you can lump someone into that carefully constructed category you've created in your mind, it's much easier to deal with them, isn't it? Oh, they can deny they support those things, but YOU know their kind, don't you? You know deep down they believe what you think they believe.

When you start looking at what people actually say and addressing that instead of addressing what YOU think they really believe or what you think their intent is, that is where constructive discussion begins.

And you will find those carefully constructed categories in your mind will begin to crumble.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I think you need to check "the facts" again.

Really, statements like that make you lose all credibility.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Calling me "a mass murderer with the intention of killing billions and causing widespread destruction to mother earth" has no basis in reality or fact.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Thanks Noahj for the links.


I was able to do some looking into this and many think it's a hoax. It seems the only even remotely feasible way of this working would have to involve the "hidden hair" or pubic hair. It's much thicker and less oily so it doesn't dissipate it's charge even though it's still only a semi-conductor. Given that, I see little chance of there being the kilos available to light more than a few rooms in say a small village. That said, there may be some other process that this guys thought up that'll make it work and all credit to him/them if they have.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Yes it does. You're a Denialist or whatever word best fits your opposition to the scientific facts that show the CO2 we put into the atmosphere causes GW. Therefore you're in all likelihood going to vote against policies that restrict CO2 emissions. At some point you may realize how wrong you were and try and make up for the harm you've caused. That'll be up to you.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Read that last link all the way through, the kid is not correct in his hypothesis and did not fully test his assertions. It was a hopeful idea, but one that apparently holds no water. The guy who wrote the site was very clear in his methodology and why the kid was wrong. He spelled it out very clearly and even offered some suggestions for how they can proceed if they still want to. He is one of the few scientific types that seems to be able to communicate well.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Over the top rhetoric. Sweet... Great start to a new year... \

Even if you were correct (And that is a big IF) and if the CO2 was causing what you think it is, your assertion would be incorrect as to intent. But you cannot see that either, can you?

Happy New Year Hands.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds