|  |
| The DEBATE & TECHNICAL DISCUSSION AREA The place to "for & against" Rules & Regs - why the Building Inspector is a "Tool" - why can't I wire my house - all those usual rule debates. |
 | | 
8th Mar 2010, 09:30 PM
|  | Golden Member | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Aust
Posts: 789
| |
The whole Eastern seaboard must be hopin for a little less rain and some hail this year.. 
Europe is probably wishing for a bit less snow too.. |
8th Mar 2010, 09:51 PM
|  | INTP | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 899
| | 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe  Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information. | woodbe,
I have long been convinced that the - and this - debate isn't anything to do with the science of global warming. The science is quite clear for all, and any, to read. There is very, very little doubt that: the earth is warming; that CO2 is a major contributor; and that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
However, the debate is political but is being masqueraded as a scientific debate when it isn't a scientific debate at all.
It also seems to me to be a 'numbers' game. It seems to me that the anti-AGW brigade is trying to use 'numbers' in a vain attempt to somehow overcome the science. I suppose it is a false form of cause-and-effect by claiming that there are: (number) papers against the AGW theory, regardless of scientific worth; (number) people/posts against the AGW theory.
For example, in this very thread we seem to get a barrage of anti-AGW one after the other that aren't in response to any post seemly just to make up the 'numbers'. It seems to me that it might be some simplistic reasoning or argument that if there are a 100 posts for and a 100 posts against, then the truth must be in the middle - never mind the science!
This is an interesting thread in the sense that it is a great illustration to human behaviour in the face of difficult to understand and difficult to accept facts. Denial emotion runs very strongly. I wonder how long it will be until wide 'acceptance' happens and the present day deniers themselves wonder what all the doubt and uncertainty was about.
It is very unfortunate that such a important and widely recognised issue has been turned in the a political, vote scoring, issue in Australia.  |
9th Mar 2010, 04:47 AM
|  | Golden Member | | Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth
Posts: 763
| | A causal relationship discovered by Woodbe.
Alas no, there won't be Nobel peace? prizes issued today. Always wondered why the IPCC didn't get one in the scientific categories, like physics? But that for another day. Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe We missed this in January, but no matter, there has been plenty to talk about. Climate Science Update - UCSUSA (PDF)
A couple of the diagrams from the report might whet your appetite to read the paper:  
Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information.
woodbe. | We didn't miss anything champ. This window dressing is based on information already well represented in this thread, which includes our "adjusted" data, similar to that of our good friends Dr Phil Jones and Dr Michael Mann. What they show is a bivariate correlation of about +.7. Next time you time you chat to a mathematician, ask them what this means in a multivariate environment. Don't tell them it is chaotic or they will laugh at you, let them assume you mean it is controlled.
As for the "cherry picking" claims in laugh 2, oops, graph 2, 50 years of data huh? How old is the planet again? Unless you are like the Joho's who I talk to occasionally who try to convince me the planet in 6000 years old, are you claiming this is a representative sample of climate history? 50 is sooooo much better than 10, out of 4.5 billion.  I freely admitted Watts "cherry picked" data after your outraged outbursts, as do many people, so perhaps you will level these same criticisms at this window dressing you have posted? A quick recap may help those who came in late: Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Freud Hi Rod,
By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic. I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world. But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)
We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy )
Here it is:
Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C
Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23 – 12
Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23 – 20
Carboniferous-------320------------------------------------1,000 - 200--------------20 – 12
Permian---------------270------------------------------------200 – 1,900--------------12 - 23
Triassic----------------230------------------------------------1,500-----------------------23 – 22
Jurassic----------------170------------------------------------2,000----------------------22 – 16
Cretaceous------------110------------------------------------1,500----------------------16 – 22
Tertiary------------------40---------------------------------------500------------------------22 – 12
Present Time-----------0---------------------------------------385-------------------------14 - 16 The planet (Earth) has naturally cycled between 200 and 6000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). The average planetary temperature has naturally ranged between 12 and 23 degrees celsius over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). We, the humans, now intend to maintain carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million and average global temperatures at 16 degrees celsius, FOREVER. Just like nature intended? Kevin Rudd thinks getting governments to agree will be challenging. I think getting the planet Earth to agree will be "challenging".
As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.
Just to help you sleep at night, you are stuck on a ball of molten lava that has cooled on the outside due to being stuck in the sub-zero vacuum of space. This ball is hurtling through space at over 100,000 kilometres per hour and no one is driving. Luckily, we are stuck in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion that is slowly expanding, which should disappear in about 1.5 billion years. Gee wiz people, that 2 - 3 degree temperature rise is pretty scary 
Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock. | Or in pics if you prefer:  But hey, if you've got your heart set on this evidence, please email the Ruddster, cos looks like he's lost that loving feeling. Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Freud KEVIN Rudd and Nicola Roxon have swung the election year decisively to Labor's terrain of health and hospitals with a reform blueprint that is risky, complex and a huge change in power within Australia's system of government.
It is Rudd's big political play to compensate for the reversal in climate change politics.
Gentlemen, you have served your cause with valour, but your leadership has abandoned you in the trenches. 
It’s over. 
| Now it's gone, gone, gone...whaoo, whaoo, whao. |
9th Mar 2010, 05:20 AM
| | Golden Member | | Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth
Posts: 763
| | We'll never get a senate inquiry at this rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Freud Hey, I think I figured out why we in Australia have not had an investigation into the dodgy science behind the whole AGW Theory debacle. It may be that the Auditor General, the Senate Committees and the Federal Law Enforcement agencies are just suffering sheer exhaustion after all the investigations into Rudd's policy failures and mismanagement. Here's just a sample:
| Even after all this, there's more investigations to be made. We'll never get the duly required full investigations into this ETS fiasco at this rate.
(Nice work if you can get it  ).
I’ve been emailing senators to ask them to put these other frivolous investigations of Rudd’s mismanagement on hold, and to focus on the $114 billion looming ETS disaster. Maybe they could retain the safety issue ones though? |
9th Mar 2010, 05:47 AM
| | Golden Member | | Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth
Posts: 763
| | Close minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe Ha HA Ha LOL
I was reading the cartoons here today, and one of the links at the bottom of the page caught my attention. 
When I clicked on it, it took me to the famous Watts blog and this little entry: 
This is better than any cartoon
Seems like our Rod actually had some time after all.
BTW, I can give you an opinion if you like Rod: Watts should HTFU and answer Tamino.
woodbe. | Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp | What is that about religious ideologies that closes peoples minds to learning?
I will let our good friend Rod speak for himself, but whether it was him or someone else seeking more information on this subject, that should be encouraged, not made light of.
I have even referred people on this thread to the Realclimate website for more information  . This is so that they start learning more about this subject from anywhere, rather than blindly following this faith, based on authority figures.
But I am slowly realising that trying to explain that science is an open minded, mistake filled, continual learning journey into the unknown that is fun, creative and beneficial to humans is being lost on faith based dogmatism driven by fear mongering and personal attacks.
 |
9th Mar 2010, 06:14 AM
| | Golden Member | | Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth
Posts: 763
| | Deniers, heretics, blasphemers, disbelievers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp woodbe,
I have long been convinced that the - and this - debate isn't anything to do with the science of global warming. The science is quite clear for all, and any, to read. There is very, very little doubt that: the earth is warming; that CO2 is a major contributor; and that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
However, the debate is political but is being masqueraded as a scientific debate when it isn't a scientific debate at all.
It also seems to me to be a 'numbers' game. It seems to me that the anti-AGW brigade is trying to use 'numbers' in a vain attempt to somehow overcome the science. I suppose it is a false form of cause-and-effect by claiming that there are: (number) papers against the AGW theory, regardless of scientific worth; (number) people/posts against the AGW theory.
For example, in this very thread we seem to get a barrage of anti-AGW one after the other that aren't in response to any post seemly just to make up the 'numbers'. It seems to me that it might be some simplistic reasoning or argument that if there are a 100 posts for and a 100 posts against, then the truth must be in the middle - never mind the science!
This is an interesting thread in the sense that it is a great illustration to human behaviour in the face of difficult to understand and difficult to accept facts. Denial emotion runs very strongly. I wonder how long it will be until wide 'acceptance' happens and the present day deniers themselves wonder what all the doubt and uncertainty was about.
It is very unfortunate that such a important and widely recognised issue has been turned in the a political, vote scoring, issue in Australia. | In accordance with my last post, what does or does not constitute a fact has been clearly discussed previously and duly ignored as it is discordant with the faith. Similarly, the "numbers" that you refer to are facts, as opposed to the "theory" that you suggest we all just believe in. But to answer your query as to how long until acceptance happens, this took a few thousand years:  As to deniers being converted, history also gives us some clues:
 |
9th Mar 2010, 07:13 AM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: retired
Posts: 1,273
| |
That's the spirit, Doc............never say die................ |
9th Mar 2010, 10:10 AM
| | Gone Feral | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Adelaide
Posts: 808
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Freud
I will let our good friend Rod speak for himself, but whether it was him or someone else seeking more information on this subject, that should be encouraged, not made light of.
| I have no problem with people wishing to expand their knowledge, why would I? but I wouldn't advise asking a drunk about how to secure the drinks cabinet. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dr Freud As for the "cherry picking" claims in laugh 2, oops, graph 2, 50 years of data huh? How old is the planet again? | Sure, the planet is older than 50 years. I would expect to see correlation of some sort, as the data is from the same series. +.7 merely says they are on the same page. I note you made no mention of statistical significance of the shorter set, but then that would be asking too much I guess.
Figure 2 clearly shows the misinformation of the cooling since 1998 brigade. I thought even you would see that, but apparently I was mistaken. Note that the 50 year line is a trend line, whilst the other is a simple line drawn between the highest and the lowest points in the shorter series.
And finally, when the sceptics seem to be on the back foot, even after the helping hand of the email theft and their bogus science, their next game is to claim that the data is wrong, it's been manipulated and tinkered with so that the sad broken data we are left with only shows warming. That takes us back to Tamino and others who have clearly shown otherwise even using the raw data.
Mud throwing. The only benefit of the mud throwing is that it motivates people to independantly replicate the temperature trends in question using the methods described with or without the actual programs, and with the same or different data sets as has been done by Tamino, clearclimatecode, The Blackboard, The Whiteboard and others.
woodbe.
__________________ Stand-out admission of the ETS Thread: Sceptics do not need any science.
Sceptics think A list of 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a result of pure chance and nothing should be read into it.
I once met a man who was a fool, sadly he still is. This is not to say that all men are fools, but only that fools usually stay fools. |
9th Mar 2010, 10:24 AM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gold Coast, Queensland Age: 53
Posts: 432
| |
. . Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe I wouldn't advise asking a drunk about how to secure the drinks cabinet. | Though you wouldn't mind at all if a drunk defended your arguments all through a thread by trolling, mumbling idiotic remarks, and in general, being a clown. I guess when you are desperate, anything goes. . . . Quote: |
when the sceptics seem to be on the back foot, even after the helping hand of the email theft
| Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up". . . |
9th Mar 2010, 10:34 AM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: retired
Posts: 1,273
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen James .
.
Though you wouldn't mind at all if a drunk defended your arguments all through a thread by trolling, mumbling idiotic remarks, and in general, being a clown.
Now, now, Mr James, your being a bit harsh on Mr Watson. I can personally vouch for his drinking habits.
.
Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up".
Yes. I remember this, they were holding a raffle down at the club
.. | Al, any chance you can knock me up another pic real soon |
9th Mar 2010, 11:36 AM
| | INTP | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 899
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Freud As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh. | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dr Freud What is that about religious ideologies that closes peoples minds to learning? | Doc,
Maybe you should heed some of your own comments. You seem to be repeating the same old misinformation again.  |
9th Mar 2010, 12:42 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gold Coast, Queensland Age: 53
Posts: 432
| |
. . Allen James: Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up". . Quote:
Originally Posted by Headpin Yes. I remember this, they were holding a raffle down at the club | .  . . . |
9th Mar 2010, 12:59 PM
| | INTP | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 899
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen James . . | Allen,
If you keep up your work on editing pictures, who knows, maybe you'll be able to work as a graphics designer? |
9th Mar 2010, 02:29 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: retired
Posts: 1,273
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen James . . Allen James: Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up". . . . | Yoo Hoo, Mr James, just like to make mention that it really wouldn't matter what we were debating/contesting..............I would always take the opposite side to you. That way I'm guaranteed to be on the winning side................... |
9th Mar 2010, 02:37 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: retired
Posts: 1,273
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp Allen,
If you keep up your work on editing pictures, who knows, maybe you'll be able to work as a graphics designer? | Don't forget the original, witty and funny comments, Chris. I mean, gee whizz it takes a real talent to think up something like that............
The kid has real potential.....................who knows, another few years of practice and the kid may get a start as a designer of graphics.......................real rocket science stuff.............. | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
