or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 69

post #2721 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.

No, I do not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2722 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Environmentalists 'exaggerated' threat to tropical rainforests from global warming

Quote:
he threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study.

Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.

They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.

The findings, published in the respected journal Science, come from a study of pollen trapped in rocks during a natural period of global warming 56.3million years ago.

A dissenting opinion at the end of the article claims that if the temperature increases lead to droughts, it could could do more harm than good. But read carefully. There are a lot of "if"s.

My conclusion: we do not know for certain what effect increased temperatures will have on rain forests in the future.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2723 of 3039
Thread Starter 
IPCC Climate Science Is Fundamentally Wrong: Carbon Footprint is All Wet

Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science deliberately kept public focus on warmer temperatures and blamed it all on radiative forcing due to CO2. They virtually ignore water in all its forms, partly because terms of reference directed them to only human causes and because any consideration of the role of water destroys the CO2 hypothesis.

Water explains many elements of weather as reflected in the response of plants and animals, but they even perverted that evidence.

Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ deliberately rewrote history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted the false claim the world was the warmest ever. It was corruption of science to support a political agenda. Lost in the furor was the false assumption that tree growth was only about temperature. In reality, the most important growth factor is precipitation and available moisture. If Mann and others involved with the climate science debacle knew anything about climate, or were doing honest science, they would know this.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2724 of 3039

Global temperature to rise 3.5 degrees C. by 2035: International Energy Agency
By Stephen Kurczy,*Staff writer / November 11, 2010

Quote:
Unless governments cut subsidies for fossil fuels and adopt new policies to support renewable energy sources, the Copenhagen Accord to hold global warming to less than a 2-degree increase will not be reached.

Global temperatures are projected rise 3.5 degrees C. over the next 25 years, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday, meaning that governments worldwide will have failed in their pledge to hold global temperature at a 2-degree increase.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2725 of 3039
EPA rules that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health

Quote:
The EPA's announcement Monday advances two goals: It gives the US more clout at the Copenhagen UN global warming summit, and it nudges Congress to pass new greenhouse gas regulations.....

The EPA move is likely to give the US negotiating clout at the summit overseas. But it is also seen as the stick part of a carrot-and-stick approach that many observers say the Obama administration is using to nudge Congress toward new climate-energy legislation. If the Senate where the bill is bogged down wont act, then its clear the EPA now stands ready to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, analysts say.

This administration will not ignore the science or the law any longer, Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator said at a press conference in Washington this afternoon. Nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and grandchildren........

The EPA move follows a 2007 US Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases may indeed be regulated under the Clear Air Acts definition of a pollutant. The Bush Administration refused to issue a finding that greenhouse gases were such a pollutant even though its EPA scientists had reached that conclusion. Those findings were released in April......
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2726 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.

As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links he/she post when it questioned.

No you don't, we're all adults here. If you can't support your arguments, that's ok, you don't have to believe anything you post here in Climategate.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2727 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

No you don't, we're all adults here. If you can't support your arguments, that's ok, you don't have to believe anything you post here in Climategate.

You can believe whatever you want, of course.

You can believe that because I don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" that I can't defend my positions.

You can believe that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

You can believe that every time we fart, a tree dies. (I'm not saying you do, I'm saying you can.)

I don't care, as long as you afford me the same courtesy to believe what I will.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2728 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You can believe whatever you want, of course.

You can believe that because I don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" that I can't defend my positions.

You can believe that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

You can believe that every time we fart, a tree dies. (I'm not saying you do, I'm saying you can.)

I don't care, as long as you afford me the same courtesy to believe what I will.

Never asked you how high. Never smoked mj (not Mumbo Jumbo) so I didn't need to deny never having inhaled. It would be nice if you support your position though some dialogue. I noticed that you do make comments in other threads---why not this one---you started it.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2729 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Never asked you how high. Never smoked mj (not Mumbo Jumbo) so I didn't need to deny never having inhaled. It would be nice if you support your position though some dialogue. I noticed that you do make comments in other threads---why not this one---you started it.

I invite you to read through the previous pages in the thread. All of them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2730 of 3039
Jazz falls into Heinlein's Democratic Fallacy. He believes his opinion is as good as anyone else's.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2731 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

You haven't been reading what's here, have you? Besides your mischaracterization what's happen, you failed to mentioned that I have asked jg to discuss the issues. jg refuses to respond and support what he/she has posted. I thought this was a discussion. No where in this thread have I declared that I'm right, jg's wrong and thus the discussion is over---nice try tm......point fingers and obfuscate the issues.

I stand by that statement, however you mischaracterize my usage of the word.

dis·in·gen·u·ous*
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating....http://www.answers.com/topic/disingenuous

adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does....(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous_
adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity

as opposed to lie
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

jg did not lie since jg was not the one who made the statements in the links. jg is not being sincere, not being candid, or not being ingenuous by continuing to refuse to discuss or support his/her position.

You have no way of measuring JG's sincerity, candidness or any other attribute. You're relatively new here FT and as I'm sure you've noticed, some of us have quite a long history with each other. You are engaging in what I have mentally shorthanded as the intent game. It is another another form of using conformity instead of reasoning to justify a position.

You do realize that a person could read every link, know everything you know and still come to a different conclusion right? It doesn't have to be a question of ignorance or disingeniousness. You assume these points.

Quote:
Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said
and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?

I still stand by those points. They are the point that present better reasoning. However JG is dealing with several parties in the thread that really don't address the discussion. If you are spending your time questioning the intent, the sources, etc of someone then that isn't about the discussion. There are specific logical fallacies assigned to them called ad-homs and poisoning the well among others. I'm sure the others know why they are obscuring the true discussion, but with you I'm not so sure.

Quote:
So it's alright not to insist that jg defend his/her position or point of view even when several members have asked for an explanation? If what you expect is post links fine with me, but lets be fair about your criticisms.

I am willing to support what I've posted, just ask that jg do the same.

JG has supported it. If he doesn't support it your satisfaction that is not within your power to control nor is it your right to harass him about it.

Do you think that you have supported your position to the satisfaction of climate skeptics? Of course not. However that doesn't give them the right to mistreat you does it? Can they begin questioning your intentions, or declare your actions to be non-action simply because they haven't reached the same outcome as you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

That's the main issue that I have raised with jg. jg just post links and does not comment on them, nor does jg defend or support the articles he/she posts. I gather that jg, when he/she post links, that it supports what jg believes to be true and it supports his/her position. When I have challenged jg's post, jg's only response is to post another link to an article that has nothing to do with the issue I have raised.

I guess you agree with this premise that you need only to post links without comments:

but as I see below, you now agree that you should at least have a paragraph summary. This is fine, and I have made an effort to shorten the length of quotes from the articles I present, I only ask that jg do likewise and support what he/she has posted when it is questioned/challenged.

Whether I agree with it or not, I'm simply noting what tends to persuade versus what doesn't. I have no power to control such things and merely suggest. If you took all those links and posted the full text from each of them, I couldn't change that. If you posted nothing but the link, I can't change that. I can complain for a short time and request but after that I should leave it alone. Three or four verbal jabs with a short stick is a request or recommendation. Beyond that it is harassment. A long time ago some liberal poster on declared they didn't want to read my posts, but claimed my misleading thread titles FORCED them to go in and read the thread.

I mean beyond the absurdity of that claim, think about that for a second. Their interest drove them to read the thread and they claimed I basically forced their hand. They claimed they were basically reading it against their will due to their piqued interest. To honor that request about 95% of the time, I name the thread the title of the article that prompts me to start the thread. If they have a complaint now they can take it up with the editor of the respective newspaper, or magazine but I've honored the request the best I can. If they can't tolerate it beyond that then the forum software has an ignore feature.

Quote:
I think that the characterization of global climate prediction is an over simplification of Global Warming.
def protoscience: a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science.

Global Warming is occurring. There is more evidence to support this and only the impacts of AGW are not fully accessed or understood. Modeling is getting betternot perfect as you know there are many variables, however the fact is as my previously posted links support Global Warming is a fact.

A future event can never be a fact until it becomes the present. The question about warming isn't just if it is occuring. Radical climate variation IS THE NORM. I go and visit Arizona and large sections of it were once an ocean floor. There are dormant volcanos all over the state. Clearly that is not the case now. We can find tropical fossils in northern land areas. We can find where ice and glaciers extended down much further than they do now and all of these things took place regardless of man.

The point is that man must be proven as the source and the change must not be assumed to be bad. Those things are not at all facts. In this area it is pure protoscience. Even many of the assumptions are logical leaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I had to review what you referred to as my quote. I have included what is actually two quotes. The first does list previous post where I have refuted jg's linked articles and ask that jg respond to defend or support the linked articles.

Your court analogy is a good one. Since jg is the originator of this thread, lets call him/her the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the case has merit and is sustainable to a favorable disposition to plaintiff. The plaintiff must convince the jury that he's right and should prevail. jg's case is either that AGW is wrong, or that the evidence/science supporting it is flawed. Most of the evidence that jg presented to support his/her case has been refuted. It is up to jg to either support his/her evidenceto convince the judge the facts/evidence is not refutablethat jg has more to support the evidence. You challenge defendants case by showing that what they have presented either as an argument against your evidence and facts are sh!t and/or what they present as fact and as evidence is sh!t.

However if you are a defendant and you think the prosecution's evidence is shit that doesn't mean you can harass the prosecution. You present your case and let the judge decide. The judge in this case is your fellow posters and readers. If you harass the prosecution, the judge will find you in contempt of court. Several parties around here have been found in contempt aka banned either temporarily or perm because they couldn't understand this.

Also I'd have to point out that since man altering the climate of the earth is considered a new state different from the default state of the climate altering on it's own, that within the confines of logical arguments the assertion and related proof is always on those declaring climate change. The default position of the skeptic is to believe the earth is undergoing the same massive and varied changes it has undergone for millions of years. The new assertion is the one that must be proven.

Quote:
As I pointed to jg, the sites that he/she keeps going to are blogger denier sites. If the articles that they continually post are refutable by being misinterpretation of or misquoting the author's conclusions then the site itself as a source becomes questionable. Move on and find a better site.

There is a a couple logical fallacies. One is poisoning the well and another is ad-hom circumstancial. The source has no bearing on the validity of the information. The information is either valid or it isn't. Your claim of refuation obviously is not shared by JG or else he wouldn't keep using it in an attempt to persuade. You've got no authority on these matters (nor do I by the way.) You say it refuted it. He says it didn't. It still amounts to the playground version of BECAUSE I SAID SO.

The only one who truly decides is the public.

Quote:
Rather than argue against what the defendant has presented and argued, jg goes and links to more articles which have nothing to do with the issues that have raised. You have to convince the jury of your case. You have to convince the judge that your facts are sound.

Yes and if someone isn't making their cause though that doesn't mean you get to harass them.

Quote:
jg has presented a poor case and based upon the facts, evidence and science presented by the defendant, defendant should prevail----oh....sorry...got carried away.

You still have to leave it up to those parties. You can't harass him because of what you think about the presentation of his case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.

As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.

I'm sure he will feel compelled if a discussion is occurring. However logical fallacies aren't discussions. Someone's links aren't wrong because of the source. They aren't wrong because of consensus. They aren't wrong because another link attempts to refute it. They are just objectively right or wrong. Since everyone is speculating on future events, no one really knows for sure and even on the side with which you agree the models are being revised early and often and the cause of some of those revisions is information found by skeptics. If a case becomes strong enough to win over a skeptic, then it really is a good case. Badgering isn't convincing though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2732 of 3039
Quote:
Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said
and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I still stand by those points. They are the point that present better reasoning. However JG is dealing with several parties in the thread that really don't address the discussion. If you are spending your time questioning the intent, the sources, etc of someone then that isn't about the discussion. There are specific logical fallacies assigned to them called ad-homs and poisoning the well among others. I'm sure the others know why they are obscuring the true discussion, but with you I'm not so sure.

I have, in other threads just posted links and taken quotes from them without making comments. I have contributed to Misc. News thread, so posting a link with a quote or summary is OK. I have done this in sego's Islamic thread and the New York Mosque, and the Genitals threads, however, when questions arose, I made the effort to address the question and dialogued. I think that I had some exchanges with you in the Freedom of Speech thread.

However here, in the last five pages 65-69, jg has not answered any of the questions I have asked. In these pages, about 80-90% of the postings are mine or jg's. BR, Worm, MJ1970 and e### do get into solar panels on pages 65-66, but jg does not engageneither do I since this was off topic.

The time where jg and I get into dialogue is page 63, and it continues to page 64. Things got heated between MJ and jg on page 63.

So bottom line here is that jg should have the time to answer the questions. For the last five pages, jg had only me to dialoge with, but rather than dialogue, jg posted more links that did not address the pending questions or issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

JG has supported it. If he doesn't support it your satisfaction that is not within your power to control nor is it your right to harass him about it.
Do you think that you have supported your position to the satisfaction of climate skeptics? Of course not. However that doesn't give them the right to mistreat you does it? Can they begin questioning your intentions, or declare your actions to be non-action simply because they haven't reached the same outcome as you?

jg has not supported or answered the questions or issues. That's the issue. Not harassing, just asking that jg to comment to defend what he/she has posted and answer the question. You and I have dialogued more since yesterday that jg has dialogued with me since 10/25.

Whether I have supported my position to jg's satisfaction is an unknown since jg has refused to comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

However if you are a defendant and you think the prosecution's evidence is shit that doesn't mean you can harass the prosecution. You present your case and let the judge decide. The judge in this case is your fellow posters and readers. If you harass the prosecution, the judge will find you in contempt of court. Several parties around here have been found in contempt aka banned either temporarily or perm because they couldn't understand this.
Also I'd have to point out that since man altering the climate of the earth is considered a new state different from the default state of the climate altering on it's own, that within the confines of logical arguments the assertion and related proof is always on those declaring climate change. The default position of the skeptic is to believe the earth is undergoing the same massive and varied changes it has undergone for millions of years. The new assertion is the one that must be proven.

I should have mentioned that this is a civil case. Criminal cases are too messy to deal with and the burden of proof the people must achieve is beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials are less burdensome. The burden is by the preponderance of the evidence.--you need to only convince a majority of the jurors not all of them as in Crim. Ct.

To carry your court analogy a little further, there are procedures where both parties to the suit may enquire about and demand production of documents or evidence. You can demand that the other party admit or deny certain facts. There is communication between the parties' attorneys and if necessary there are motions---where one party ask to other party show me what you got or the case is blown away. So when asked, as in Summary Judgment, you put your case forward before trial. If defendant prevails, the issues resolved in Summary Judgment go away and can't be used at trial. If this leaves the plaintiff without a case, the case is summarily dismissed.

Case in point, I have asked jg to support his/her position. jg post a link stating that 1970 was the coolest year since you know when and you should infer from that AGW is flawed and a myth. I post several links showing that the temperatures over the last two or three decades have been steadily raising and I can't remember the exact years but lets say 2005 and 2009 were the warmest years globally over the last 100 or so years. I have no control over what jg chooses to do. If jg does not want to answer or refuses to support his/her case I'm done with it and do not want to burn more of my time. This thread was dying until I started to challenge some of jg's postings. Maybe it's time that I leave it to jg and let jg post to his/her hearts content and let this thread go off into the abyss of beyond page 3.

I will leave the rest of your question unanswered since I have burnt more time on this thread that it is worth, especially when the originator doesn't have the cojones to defend his/her beliefs. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff has failed to put on a case.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2733 of 3039
Thread Starter 


You disagree with me, FT. I get that. You know what? It's okay to disagree without making it personal.

Saying that I don't have the "cojones" to defend my beliefs is childish, rude, and condescending.

You feel I have not addressed your questions, or not addressed them to your satisfaction. I'm sorry you feel that way. But asking the questions over and over and over just because you don't like my answers or feel you didn't get answers is obviously not working. Attacking me personally when you don't get what you want makes me even more inclined to ignore you.

I'll state again (as I have stated many, many times before):

I believe climate change is real. I have never said that the earth's climate does not change.

I believe the true extent of the impact of human activity on climate change has yet to be determined, and that we certainly cannot accurately predict future climate or weather based on what we currently know.

I believe in doing all we can within our means to conserve resources and protect the environment.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2734 of 3039

COULDN'T RESIST ONE LAST COMMENT

Less of the above and more science
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says



THE HOTTEST YEAR

Quote:
I like to think the worst is over, but its coming up to the first anniversary and its some- thing Ill always remember at this time of year, when the nights close in. This is the time it happened......

Can Jones offer any advice to research scientists who wake up one morning to find themselves the centre of a worldwide scientific scandal? "I don't know that I can. The thing to point out is that whatever you try to do, the goalposts keep moving." As soon as he responded to one criticism, another popped up.

Jones has steadily begun to piece together his professional as well as his personal life. The discovery of the sudden Atlantic cooling was recently published in Nature3 and he has started to attend conferences again. He agrees to pose for photographs outside the CRU building, gazing at the blue sky. Then he shuffles back into the relative calm of his unit: one scientist who now realizes his castle walls cannot completely shield him from the outside world.

'Climategate' scientist speaks out
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2735 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'll state again (as I have stated many, many times before):

I believe climate change is real. I have never said that the earth's climate does not change.

I believe the true extent of the impact of human activity on climate change has yet to be determined, and that we certainly cannot accurately predict future climate or weather based on what we currently know.

I believe in doing all we can within our means to conserve resources and protect the environment.

And again, your actions in this thread run counter to your goals. Promoting deniers with clear profit-motivated agendas does NOTHING but further harm the environment. Put your fucking time and effort into making the world a better place--not promoting ignorance.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2736 of 3039
Thread Starter 
BR, we are all ignorant. We're just ignorant about different things.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2737 of 3039
That doesn't make it somehow noble. Recognize your brand and stop promoting it. Make the world a better place. Put all your effort into posting us home improvement tips to cut down our own individual impact on the environment. I'll applaud you every day if you actually focused on something like that. I'd have enormous respect for you then.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2738 of 3039
Thread Starter 
You haven't set a very good example of what you are demanding from me, BR.

“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance” - Robert Quillen

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2739 of 3039
"This thread is all sorts of retarded." -BR

I can make dumb quotes, too . But anyway, that's all behind us now. I'm glad you've put this thread behind you so we can set aside this difference between us as well. Congratulations on your new helpful thread.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2740 of 3039
Thread Starter 
You created that thread as a means of harassing me, BR.

If you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you practice what you preach.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2741 of 3039
I did nothing of the sort. You agreed you were going to drop this nonsense and help make the world a better place. Dude, why are you going back on your word now?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2742 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Nonsense is what you are engaging in.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2743 of 3039
I'm engaging in helping the environment. I hope you will, too.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2744 of 3039
Thread Starter 
You know exactly what I meant.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2745 of 3039
What does bacon have to do with anything? Anyway, point is, I really like the way your new thread is going. Kudos to you, fellow Earth-Lover.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2746 of 3039
Thread Starter 
The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice?

Quote:
Next Friday is the first anniversary of the leaking of the "Climategate" emails – the correspondence of a small group of scientists at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). By exposing their manipulation of data and suppression of dissent, these called their reputation as disinterested scientists seriously into question. But that was only the first in a series of events that, in the past year, saw the climate scare going off the rails.

Do what you can to conserve and preserve.

Don't let people scare you into letting the government steal more of your money to "save the planet".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2747 of 3039
It's too bad we can't report people on this board for reposting discredited misinformation .

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2748 of 3039
Thread Starter 
A New Consensus

Quote:
Not every reader of Scientific American magazine is a scientist. But the responses of the 7,000 readers (6,767 as of Friday morning) who've taken the magazine's online poll strongly suggest that claims of a consensus are, at best, an exaggeration.

More than three-fourths (77.7%) say natural processes are causing climate change and almost a third (31.9%) blame solar variation. Only 26.6% believe man is the cause. (The percentages exceed 100 because respondents were allowed to choose more than one cause on this question.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2749 of 3039
Seriously?

An ONLINE poll?

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #2750 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2751 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's too bad we can't report people on this board for reposting discredited misinformation .

It's too bad we can't report people on this board who define discredited as "I don't like your source", "I found another source that says different" or "I'm an authority for God knows what reason and I simply repeat you are wrong."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2752 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's too bad we can't report people on this board for reposting discredited misinformation .

Yes. Too bad indeed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2753 of 3039
Thread Starter 
The year climate science was redefined

Quote:
...there has been a re-framing of climate change. The simple linear frame of "here's the consensus science, now let's make climate policy" has lost out to the more ambiguous frame: "What combination of contested political values, diverse human ideals and emergent scientific evidence can drive climate policy?" The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.

The meta-framing of climate change has therefore moved from being bi-polar – that either the scientific evidence is strong enough for action or else it is too weak for action – to being multi-polar – that narratives of climate change mobilise widely differing values which can't be homogenised through appeals to science. Those actors who have long favoured a linear connection between climate science and climate policy – spanning environmentalists, contrarians and some scientists and politicians – have been forced to rethink. It is clearer today that the battle lines around climate change have to be drawn using the language of politics, values and ethics rather than the one-dimensional language of scientific consensus or lack thereof.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2754 of 3039
I've been absent from this thread for a good reason, but rather than get into the reasons I thought that I should post the following articles. As the first anniversary of Climategate nears, I sure one will post to his/her hearts content how Climategate proves that AGW is wrong. The first was written almost a year ago, shortly after Climategate happened:

Climategate and the Life-Cycle of Nontroversy

Quote:
Quote:
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. -- Macbeth

Nontroversy feeds on empty, twisted brains. In this case, a general unfamiliarity with the language of scientific banter allows the "climategate" nontroversy to overwhelm the consensus on global warming. That consensus is built on literally hundreds of thousands of studies at this point; and indeed, the stolen emails contain a wealth of proof that temperatures are rising. Yet the media stovepipe magnifies, even invents, discrepancies and minimizes evidence, even as the ice "Consensus" is the key word here. Nontroversy always aims to distort or destroy consensus. Birther sites and ACORN fantasies exist for the sole purpose of undermining the democratic consensus of last November's election; and insofar as they have convinced a majority of Republicans, they have succeeded.

So don't tell me that nontroversy doesn't matter. It really, really matters. We need to understand its biological processes......

The second article:
Getting past "Climategate Syndrome"

Quote:
This week* marks exactly one year since "Climategate" broke into the headlines, revealing, if nothing else, that at least some mainstream climate scientists were pretty fed up with what they saw as political attacks on the legitimate science they were trying to do....

What followed was a series of investigations by, among others, a , Penn State University and at the U.N.'s request, a group called the InterAgency Council. The general consensus: the scientists have said intemperate things sometimes, and their procedures have occasionally been sloppybut the science itself is sound.

Even so, the attacks have taken a toll on the scientists themselves (astory just out in Nature shows what it did to prime Climategate target Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia; the story also suggests that the email release was in fact the result of hacking, not of some sort of whistleblowing as climate skeptics have said).....

So after a year of taking hits on the scientific case for human-caused climate change, and anticipating even more as Congress is becoming more conservative, the scientists are beginning to fight back in the form of a "climate rapid response team," kind of an A-Team of working scientists ready to go on TV, radio, blogs and Op-Ed ages to counter false claims and explain the facts climate science....
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2755 of 3039
The first anniversary of 'Climategate', Part 1: The media blows the story of the century

Quote:
The last year or so has seen more scientific papers and presentations that raise the genuine prospect of catastrophe (if we stay on our current emissions path) that I can recall seeing in any other year.

1.Nature: Global warming blamed for 40% decline in the oceans phytoplankton:* Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic.

2.Science: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting:* NSF issues world a wake-up call: Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

3.Must-read NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts even on moderate emissions path.

4.Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred and Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of century Co-author: Unless we curb carbon emissions we risk mass extinctions, degrading coastal waters and encouraging outbreaks of toxic jellyfish and algae.

5.Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100

6.Royal Society: There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.

7.Science: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth

8.Nature review of 20 years of field studies finds soils emitting more CO2 as planet warms

9.Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find.

10.UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.

CONCLUSION:* Unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases threaten multiple catastrophes, any one of which justifies action.* Together, they represent the gravest threat to humanity imaginable.* The fact that the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media ignored the overwhelming majority of these studies and devoted a large fraction of its climate ink in the last 12 months to what was essentially a non-story is arguably the single greatest failing of the science media this year.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as settled facts that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities
Quote:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2756 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I've been absent from this thread for a good reason, but rather than get into the reasons I thought that I should post the following articles. As the first anniversary of Climategate nears, I sure one will post to his/her hearts content how Climategate proves that AGW is wrong. The first was written almost a year ago, shortly after Climategate happened:

Climategate and the Life-Cycle of Nontroversy

The second article:
Getting past "Climategate Syndrome"

It's sort of silly to counter claims with some narrative and a slang word personifying the narrative.

I hereby refudiate your nontroversy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2757 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's sort of silly to counter claims with some narrative and a slang word personifying the narrative.

I hereby refudiate your nontroversy.

Maines Climate Future: Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise

Quote:
Modern-day measurements at a tide gauge in Portland show that sea level has risen at a rate of about two millimeters per year (mm/yr or 0.07 inches/year or 0.6 feet over a century). Although this doesnt seem like much, it is the highest rate in the last 5,000 years.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2758 of 3039
The real holes in climate science

Quote:
Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.

The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were several controversial comments that taken out of context seemingly indicate that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty laundry from the public.....

Even with ongoing questions about the proxy data, the IPCC's key statement that most of the warming since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" to be due to human-caused increases in greenhouse-gas concentration remains solid because it rests on multiple lines of evidence from different teams examining many aspects of the climate system, says Susan Solomon, the former co-chair of the IPCC team that produced the 2007 physical science report and a climate researcher with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado.

Quote:
"The IPCC's team of scientists," she says, "would not have said that warming is unequivocal based on a single line of evidence even if came from Moses himself."

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2759 of 3039
Thread Starter 
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen's 48-page Congressional Testimony: 'Increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming' -- 'Data is being analyzed with aim of supporting, rather than testing models'

Quote:
Incontrovertibility' belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma...Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide...We should stop accepting term, 'skeptic.' Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2760 of 3039
Thread Starter 
German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated

Quote:
It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate