My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[litespeed]

TO ALL.

 

Whatever you believe is responsible for Warming and Cooling over tens of thousands of milenia, I believe the following statement summarizes it all: Warm is good, Cold is bad.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. ~Paul Erdos

waste of coffee if'n ya ask me:naughty:

[litespeed]

Warm v Cold,

 

The same people who seem hyperventilated by GW, apparently are the same people who, even still, warn us of catastrophic nuclear winter. Further, the Jurassic Period (?) seems to have endedd with mass extinction due to global cooling. In addition, just recently it is reported the Human Species was reduced to a few thousand individuals in Africa some time ago, by the mechanizim of a ROUTINE Ice Age.

 

Fianally, right here, in this forum, I see arguements the Little Ice Age is an independent variable from sunspots etc.Yet I do not hear these voices telling us the Little Ice Age, with famine, plague, and mass deathe was a good thing. Versus, for instance, The Early Warming Of The Roman Era when the British Isles exported wine.

 

Warm is Good. Cold is Bad.....

 

To this very day I have yet to see "UK Wine" listed in ANY of the large wine stores, such as Sams of Chicago. I believe the GW crowd are tea-totalers, and have missed the Cold Wine Boat To China.

[litespeed]

Final Callege to The GW Crowd.

 

Please list the eras of mass extinction attributed to Global Warming.

[Eclipse Now]

1. What does Co2 do REPEATEDLY, DEMONSTRABLY, and with the possibility of FALSIFICATION under a spectrometer? Please do tell how it interacts with various spectra of light and energy.

 

2. How much Co2 was there before the Industrial Revolution, and how do we know?

 

3. How much is there now?

 

4. What does this equate to in extra retained energy.

 

Thanks so much in advance for your objective answers with the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

 

( — not material written by quacks — yes, the types who really do paint themselves in glue and wrestle enormous bales of duck feathers).

[Flying Binghi]

the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

 

...and make sure they been properly audited too.

 

Amazing how when things get a proper audit, peer review is shown to be next to useless as a guide to scientific validity.

 

Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

 

Peer review gets a bad rap these days, and there is much talk that something should be done about it

Quality and value: How can we research peer review?

 

 

But peer review, especially its anonymous variant, might not improve the rigor of the review process and thus not adequately facilitate objectivity (van Rooyen et al. 1999). http://decodingliberation.blogspot.com/2008/02/problems-with-peer-review-part-one.html

 

 

...Journal editors may sometimes be tempted to violate this policy, in order to clear the manuscript table, but this will not influence the status of a reviewer. In essence, editors must punish wrongdoers, full stop.

 

As humans, we are highly sensitive to rewards and punishments, perhaps not as exquisitely as rats in the proverbial Skinner box, but close enough. Clearly, the review process is broken. It is time to consider a fix. We have proposed a solution based on the logic of economic incentives and the evolutionary origins of human nature.

PLoS Biology - An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem

 

 

Blah, Blah, Blah....... and on it goes.

[Eclipse Now]

Whatever you do, don't answer the 4 MAIN questions in this debate. (Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more! Please...)

 

Oh, and I'm REALLY going to go chasing all your diversionary tales about the horrors of the peer review process. They must be true because you "learned them on that there internet thang".

 

You know, when you quote that many things against, and only against, the peer review process, it makes you look like you don't value the entire scientific process and method. I'm not saying "peer review" IS the scientific method, but that the scientific debate amongst the review of a scientists' peers is a great place for laymen to start. Your bias against the overwhelming majority of climate science says more about your own prejudices than it does about the science.

 

So go ahead, throw around more glue and feathers... don't answer questions (how troll-like) and after the process, rinse and repeat. I know who's starting to look like a goose.

 

The 4 questions please. Then and only then do we have a chance at a remotely rational conversation. Oh, but I forgot... we already did that and you failed to demonstrate the slightest interest in being rational.

 

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago. 50 pages! No wonder I get nauseated when I come back to this thread now and then. I'm amazed that you haven't been moderated off this list.

[Flying Binghi]

Whatever you do, don't answer the 4 MAIN questions in this debate. (Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more! Please...)

 

Oh, and I'm REALLY going to go chasing all your diversionary tales about the horrors of the peer review process. They must be true because you "learned them on that there internet thang".

 

You know, when you quote that many things against, and only against, the peer review process, it makes you look like you don't value the entire scientific process and method. I'm not saying "peer review" IS the scientific method, but that the scientific debate amongst the review of a scientists' peers is a great place for laymen to start. Your bias against the overwhelming majority of climate science says more about your own prejudices than it does about the science.

 

So go ahead, throw around more glue and feathers... don't answer questions (how troll-like) and after the process, rinse and repeat. I know who's starting to look like a goose.

 

The 4 questions please. Then and only then do we have a chance at a remotely rational conversation. Oh, but I forgot... we already did that and you failed to demonstrate the slightest interest in being rational.

 

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago. 50 pages! No wonder I get nauseated when I come back to this thread now and then. I'm amazed that you haven't been moderated off this list.

 

Heres me thinking my post was entirely in keeping with this -

 

Thanks so much in advance for your objective answers with the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

 

( — not material written by quacks — yes, the types who really do paint themselves in glue and wrestle enormous bales of duck feathers).

 

But what do i know........... probably why, after i presented references, (google it, theres a million or so more) i went, Blah, blah, blah..........

[InfiniteNow]

But what do i know........... probably why, after i presented references, (google it, theres a million or so more) i went, Blah, blah, blah..........

 

I notice that you still have failed to address the questions, and instead persist with your off-topic hand waving. Interesting. :shrug:

[CraigD]

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago. 50 pages! No wonder I get nauseated when I come back to this thread now and then. I'm amazed that you haven't been moderated off this list.

Subjects such as global warming tend to be emotionally volatile, not only in the world at large, but unfortunately also at the smaller, friendlier internet community of hypography. As in the world at large, the most effective proof against social friction is courtesy, a quality that can only imperfectly be encouraged by rules and their enforcement. In other words, let’s all try to be friendly rather than confrontational, even in disagreement.

 

Several examples of confrontational writing can be seen in the following (italics mine)

I'm still wondering where the proof is to support the hysterical AGW claims :shrug:

 

...every time there is a proof presented (the latest was the Antartic warming claims) we discover what appears to be (to me) corrupt metholds used to obtain the 'proof'.

The term hysteria is of little scientific value, other than to note it’s use in ancient medical writing and psychiatric literature through roughtly the mid 20th century. It has been almost completely replaced as a scientific term and concept with more accurate and specific terms and concepts. In non-scientific writing, it is almost always used disparagingly, and IMHO should be used in forums such as hypography only in a very well-qualified way, never as if it is a well-accepted label to be applied to people and ideas.

 

Use of the qualifier “every time”, except when applying it to set of data in which a particular condition occurs in 100% of instances, is hyperbole, or “persuasion by exaggeration”, an artistic and rhetorical technique. The use of exaggeration is appropriate in creative prose and poetry, which is encouraged in forums such as the Watercooler and Artist’s weightroom, but not in science forums such as this one.

 

When combined with the term “corrupt”, which carries with it the implication of sanctionable wrongdoing, the “every time” qualifier constitutes an accusation that could meets the legal definition of liable were the person making the accusation judged sufficiently respected and influential to have impact on the people against which the accusation is made. Although Flying Binghi’s writing does not, IMHO, meet this standard, as a general rule it’s not good to make such accusations against large groups (every person who has ever presented proof in support of global warming) unless you have truly shown that everyone in that group is corrupt.

 

Even high-reputation members like Eclipse Now, I think, are sometimes confrontational, as shown in text such as (italics mine)

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago.

No matter how wrong or disingenuous you think a member’s posting is, it’s not productive to call it drivel.

 

We’re all human, and experience emotional reactions that can be appropriately expressed by lashing out at one another. However, rather than flaming in forum threads, I recommend using the tools built into these forums’ engine: “Add to Reputation” and “Report Post” features available by clicking the green or pink box appearing at the top of each post.

 

Adding reputation allows all members to show approval or disapproval of others posts, affecting the members reputation bar and allowing the passing of a short private comment. Members who receive much more disapproval to their posts than approval will have few green boxes, or even red boxes, displayed under their names in every post, warning readers that reading their posts may warrant greater than usual skepticism.

 

Reporting a post alerts hypography’s moderators and administrators that a member is being annoying or disruptive. If this shows, in our judgement, that a member is annoying our members so much that their enjoyment of hypography is reduced more than enhanced by that member, we’ll attempt to persuade that member to improve, or, if necessary, suspend their posting privileges.

[Eclipse Now]

The 4 questions please. Then and only then do we have a chance at a remotely rational conversation. Oh, but I forgot... we already did that and you failed to demonstrate the slightest interest in being rational.

 

With valid science, not ducks.

[Eclipse Now]

Hi Craig D,

 

We’re all human, and experience emotional reactions that can be appropriately expressed by lashing out at one another. However, rather than flaming in forum threads, I recommend using the tools built into these forums’ engine: “Add to Reputation” and “Report Post” features available by clicking the green or pink box appearing at the top of each post.

While I agree with the very worthy goals of your post, I've tried that. 50 or so pages ago I tried to be rational with FB... no make that probably 60 or so pages ago. I've stopped coming back to this thread for a few months because I realised FB was an "internet troll", someone posting material just to inflame and annoy, not actually interested in the claims of real scientists.

 

So I tend to reply in kind, just to help FB experience some of his own medicine... although part of me feels guilty for "feeding the troll". (Feeding their own self-evident need for attention. Remember the old adage that applies to disciplining kids? Remember that "negative attention is better than NO attention!" That's simply how it works with feeding the trolls. They're lonely individuals that seem to enjoy picking a subject and just being as annoying as they can about it. Science has nothing to do with FB's presence here.)

 

I mean, seriously, 50 pages of non-communication like this? I asked some VERY specific questions about Co2 and FB just goes on about how awful the peer review process is. Why? FB wants to quote the nutters, and doesn't like us reminding him that every source he quotes has been shown to be utterly laughable by the majority scientific community.

 

Who knows? Maybe FB owns a coal mine or something? I don't know what's motivating him, but when he is still dominating this discussion 50 pages later.... blargh!? What's the point? Nothing anyone says will make the slightest bit of difference, because the sheer facts do not matter. IF FB was in Australia, I'd suggest going to the CSIRO climate division and spending a few days with these people. I'd ask him to get climatologists to introduce him to a spectrometer, and get them to explain all the other wonderful scientific advances that instrument has assisted with. I'd get him to see the repeatable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable workings of a spectrometer in a lab. I'd get him to sit with the physics dudes that calculate energy refraction and quantify how much Co2 does how much "heat trapping", and then watch them use the radiative forcing equation comparing Co2 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and afterwards. I'd get him to meet these ordinary Australians, some of whom are church-going, some of whom are atheists, and realise he can't just tar-brush several thousand scientists like them with the one tired old accusation of "being in it for the money"... that they are just scientists honestly trying to do their job and concerned for the future of their kids.

 

FB, there is no conspiracy. I've met some of these people, and they're smart... but generally I'm allergic to conspiracy theories because human beings are mostly not smart enough to pull them off. If Global Warming is a conspiracy, it's the biggest one of it's kind, unless there really was a UFO at Roswell!

 

And you know what? I hope it IS a conspiracy, a means of trying to get us of the fossil fuels because it was just too frightening to let people know that we were RUNNING OUT OF OIL! If Global Warming proved to be a conspiracy organised by government agencies needing a distraction from the REAL problem, I'd be delighted that we had one less "civilisation crusher" to worry about. I always thought the reason that governments couldn't talk about peak oil was because the stock-market might crash. But hey? That happened, and they're still not talking about it.

 

 

So I don't know what's got FB in such a panic over Global Warming. If it's fake, humanity learns to adapt to a post-oil world before the fossil fuels run out, which can only be a good thing.

[Flying Binghi]

I notice that you still have failed to address the questions, and instead persist with your off-topic hand waving. Interesting.

 

InfiniteNow, from the start, i've been beaten over the head endlessly re peer review is basicly the only references that can be used here............ Hmmm

 

My comments re this need to provide peer reviewed references still stands - ...and make sure they been properly audited too. Amazing how when things get a proper audit, peer review is shown to be next to useless as a guide to scientific validity.

[Eclipse Now]

InfiniteNow is a different poster to me, I'm Eclipse Now... you know, "We need to eclipse ourselves or we will be eclipsed"... that's me.

 

and make sure they been properly audited too

Oh, I see, ALL the world's climatologists and all of the main climate organisations are "on the take"? ;):););)

 

Have you ever met any of these individuals? :shrug:

 

You don't have to deal with the 4 questions above when you can keep repeating your conspiracy theories ad infinitum. Please, do continue down this track, and just remember who all the duck feathers are sticking to. Quack quack!

[Flying Binghi]

because I realised FB was an "internet troll", someone posting material just to inflame and annoy, not actually interested in the claims of real scientists.

 

Who knows? Maybe FB owns a coal mine or something? I don't know what's motivating him, but when he is still dominating this discussion 50 pages later.... blargh!? What's the point? Nothing anyone says will make the slightest bit of difference, because the sheer facts do not matter. IF FB was in Australia, I'd suggest going to the CSIRO climate division and spending a few days with these people. I'd ask him to get climatologists to introduce him to a spectrometer, and get them to explain all the other wonderful scientific advances that instrument has assisted with. I'd get him to see the repeatable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable workings of a spectrometer in a lab. I'd get him to sit with the physics dudes that calculate energy refraction and quantify how much Co2 does how much "heat trapping", and then watch them use the radiative forcing equation comparing Co2 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and afterwards. I'd get him to meet these ordinary Australians, some of whom are church-going, some of whom are atheists, and realise he can't just tar-brush several thousand scientists like them with the one tired old accusation of "being in it for the money"... that they are just scientists honestly trying to do their job and concerned for the future of their kids.

 

FB, there is no conspiracy. I've met some of these people, and they're smart... but generally I'm allergic to conspiracy theories because human beings are mostly not smart enough to pull them off. If Global Warming is a conspiracy, it's the biggest one of it's kind, unless there really was a UFO at Roswell!

 

And you know what? I hope it IS a conspiracy, a means of trying to get us of the fossil fuels because it was just too frightening to let people know that we were RUNNING OUT OF OIL! If Global Warming proved to be a conspiracy organised by government agencies needing a distraction from the REAL problem, I'd be delighted that we had one less "civilisation crusher" to worry about. I always thought the reason that governments couldn't talk about peak oil was because the stock-market might crash. But hey? That happened, and they're still not talking about it.

 

Eclipse Now, methinks you should do a google of my callsign, as most others have - my views and background (unedumacated farmer) are fairly plain to see.... actualy i thought i put it fairly plain in my first post here.... damn sneaky fellow i am :lol:

 

Yeeeeerrrrp - peak fuel is near. did'nt i make a few comments re this before ?

[Flying Binghi]

Re: My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

 

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

 

InfiniteNow is a different poster to me, I'm Eclipse Now... you know, "We need to eclipse ourselves or we will be eclipsed"... that's me.

 

 

Quote:

and make sure they been properly audited too

 

Oh, I see, ALL the world's climatologists and all of the main climate organisations are "on the take"?

 

Have you ever met any of these individuals?

 

You don't have to deal with the 4 questions above when you can keep repeating your conspiracy theories ad infinitum. Please, do continue down this track, and just remember who all the duck feathers are sticking to. Quack quack!

 

I did note that InfiniteNow is a different poster to Eclipse Now - is there any particular reason for that comment ?

 

Best show me where i use the word (or suggest) "conspiracy"........... ? or is this something your trying to tie me to, like peak fuel for example.

 

I think the key reason why there's a hulabaloo here at the moment is my (and others out side this forum) suggestion of requireing an audit of the AGW claims.... Hmmm

[Eclipse Now]

Yep, that there global warmening thang is a conspiracy all-right, it's all them thar greedy climatologists ripping off the guvernment all-righty. No, don't ask me to read your fancy Co2 report because I'm busy rocking on my rocking chair and drinking moonshine!

 

4 questions FB, 4 questions....

 

Quack Quack