|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2009 20:36:25 GMT
Someone said that it seemed the deniers of reality weren't as frequent posters as in the past. Do you think it is because they are intelligent people and the current papers, emperical evidence, etc, is showing their denial to be grounded by such imperfect models, hypothosis etc, that they are seeing climate for what it really is? And how very little we understand the complex, chaotic system that it is?
And that to make predictions of the highest hurricane/typhon season on reacord, no ice in the Arctic in 2008.....then 2009.....and who knows when next; That the sea levels have not risen 20M as projected, that New York in the USA still has a harbor?......
With that said, I hope they are realizing that models are not evidence. Comments?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2009 22:05:14 GMT
There is another view - there is no reason to come here to argue. The EU and the MEPs are convinced, the US Senate, Congress and Admimistration are convinced. The AGW hypothesis has won politically regardless of the science for or against. So why bother coming here? Or it could be that you are just missing Steve - who is due back from Colorado soon.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2009 22:41:40 GMT
There is another view - there is no reason to come here to argue. The EU and the MEPs are convinced, the US Senate, Congress and Admimistration are convinced. The AGW hypothesis has won politically regardless of the science for or against. So why bother coming here? Or it could be that you are just missing Steve - who is due back from Colorado soon. Yes, I do miss Steve. I do not agree with you tho that the US Senate is convinced. The very nice thing about this board is that people keep the discussion pretty upbeat and level headed. I think nothing less of those who believe in AGW. I do feel sorry for them tho that they are hoodwinked by really rotten science. But then, I was once as well, so I guess we are in good company.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 5, 2009 1:49:35 GMT
There is another view - there is no reason to come here to argue. The EU and the MEPs are convinced, the US Senate, Congress and Admimistration are convinced. The AGW hypothesis has won politically regardless of the science for or against. So why bother coming here? Or it could be that you are just missing Steve - who is due back from Colorado soon. Very few in power are sincerely convinced. They are simply doing what politicians do all too easily- following the loudest, best paying voices. Anyone who closely examines the issue realizes that AGW is bogus. The AGW promoters have made it very unpopular to examine the claims closely.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 19:46:50 GMT
You nearly made the mistake of putting 'Politician' and 'Sincerely' in the same sentence
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Sept 7, 2009 10:40:08 GMT
You nearly made the mistake of putting 'Politician' and 'Sincerely' in the same sentence Now now... Politicians are sincerely Corrupt. There you go...
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 9, 2009 12:32:23 GMT
Someone said that it seemed the deniers of reality weren't as frequent posters as in the past. Do you think it is because they are intelligent people and the current papers, emperical evidence, etc, is showing their denial to be grounded by such imperfect models, hypothosis etc, that they are seeing climate for what it really is? And how very little we understand the complex, chaotic system that it is? ...... Comments? I think AGW is running out of true believers. Apocalypse by way of CO2 has been preached for 20 years......and nothing outside the margin of error has occurred. Temps? Nada. Storms? Normal. Rainfall? Normal. Sea levels? Normal. Icepack? Globally normal. Arctic ice? Seems to be cyclical. AGW hysteria? Approaching infinity. Hansen, and his court crier, Gore, promised us things that are simply not going to happen. But they, and the other opinion leaders in AGW, have become very wealthy and powerful.
|
|
|
Post by dabon8r on Sept 23, 2009 16:02:53 GMT
I guess I'm one of the deniers. Here's my basis for denial:
Try this simple exercise. Find, from all scientific data used to build a case for global warming, the OLDEST data available. Usually you'll get something involving ice core samples from the Arctic, which age around 100,000 years. Core samples are studied to get a sense of how thick the ice pack was from year-to-year, and from that science can draw some anecdotal conclusions about what the global temperatures (or at least temps in the Arctic) were for the past 100,000 years or so. It's not the same as having reliable, recorded data for that time frame, but it's reasonable.
Next, write down the age of the earth, as best established by science so far. That number, by consensus, is around 4.3 billion years.
Now, take the quotient of the two numbers: # of years of global warming data divided by age of earth (100,000 / 4,300,000,000) = 0.00002326
That figure represents the available data as a percentage of TOTAL DATA. 0.00002326, or 0.002326 percent. In other words, that is science's sample size of statistical data available.
Just for fun, apply that number to your life. In other words, examine the past 0.002326% of your life and, based solely on that observation, predict what you'll be doing in a year, or in 10 years, or even in 10 minutes. Think you have a reliable predictor?
0.002325% of 40 years (relating this problem to a middle-aged human, and assuming earth is a middle-aged planet) equates to roughly 8 hours. So, based SOLELY on periodic observations of the past 8 hours of your life, what will you be doing next year? What will you be doing in 10 years? Can you even establish a reliable trend that would project for a month? Remember, this is observation of ONLY the PAST 8 hours of the current day, no farther back than that! You cannot apply observations of any part of your life more than 8 hours old, regardless of what you remember or know about the past 40 years.
Imagine how much shakier the global warming argument gets based on RELIABLE, RECORDED observations over the past 150 years or so! Instead of a 0.002326% sample size, we're now talking about a 0.00000348% sample size! That's equivalent to a ONE HOUR observation in 40 years!
I'm no meteorologist. I'm no physicist. I'm a mechanical engineer by degree. However, I am studied enough to know that NO RELIABLE conclusions can be drawn from analyzing only 0.002326% of available data of ANY problem.
I will concede that there is evidence of a LOCALIZED trend upward of global temperatures, but by no means does that mean it was human-influenced. Certainly you can't jump to the conclusion that humans are causing that localized trend based on observation of 0.002326% of available data.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 23, 2009 22:41:35 GMT
Come on, what are you thinking. You can't use real numbers in this game. It has to be abstract. I's worse than we thought! No-one could have imagined that it could ever be this bad etc. etc.
No-one could ever have predicted that it would get this cold this quickly with the massively increasing CO2 levels warming the planet.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Sept 24, 2009 3:31:57 GMT
Agreed. I often can be heard telling my colleagues that they simply have to stop making sense. Climate is chaos theory incarnate, albeit with recognizable, rythmic cyclicity (not so chaotic, depending on your scale, but I should stop making sense). Reason is a relatively new concept in human evolution, and as fast as H. sapiens has evolved, a few centuries, just so many generations afterall, simply cannot reasonably (think cultures, nations, religions distance etc.) accomplish saturation of the species with a recently evolving "reasoning" dynamic (gene?).
So you really do have to stop making sense. You are in peril of being outed as a critically thinking hominid.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 24, 2009 7:47:04 GMT
Well, I'm safely back from Colorado (and Utah). The brake failure of my rental car (naming no rental company names till my compensation is sorted out) didn't plunge me into the chasms of Canyonlands, and I didn't die from a surfeit of corn syrup (that American food producers seem to add to every food in vast diabetes-inducing amounts). I debate these things because they encourage me to learn by reading up on the subject, not because I have an ideological position, a strong desire to proselytise or a wish to shut down the world economy. Given my recent holiday that would have made me a hypocrite would it not. So my level of posting depends on the amount of interesting *new* things other people have to say. There is also one poster whose posting frequency seems to have increased recently who causes to happen to me so much that my head starts hurting if I spend too long here even if I have rarely if ever responded to what they say. A lack of understanding of ones opponents arguments, a lack of willingness to understand, and use of dismally banal rhetoric about AGW "ideology" is not a good mix.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 8:01:51 GMT
Come on, what are you thinking. You can't use real numbers in this game. It has to be abstract. I's worse than we thought! No-one could have imagined that it could ever be this bad etc. etc.
No-one could ever have predicted that it would get this cold this quickly with the massively increasing CO2 levels warming the planet.
This must be an an example of what Steve in an earlier post was referring to when he wrote "A lack of understanding of ones opponents arguments, a lack of willingness to understand, and use of dismally banal rhetoric about AGW "ideology" is not a good mix."
Though, in certain cases, I feel he's being far too generous.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 24, 2009 23:47:59 GMT
Speaking of the kings of de nile, How are our AGW believer friends going to rationalize away the Arctic ice after this year? The new vs. old ice will get old after this year, and goal posts with ice volume did not really strike a chord. Obviously the AGW community cannot keep talking about storms, sea levels or acidification, and the people in the US SE do not really want to hear about drought threats right now. OHC has not worked out. Ice seemed pretty good: the Arctic is far away. But now people are paying attention. So how will the deniers of reality claim the world is ending this time next year?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 25, 2009 3:34:11 GMT
Speaking of the kings of de nile, How are our AGW believer friends going to rationalize away the Arctic ice after this year? The new vs. old ice will get old after this year, and goal posts with ice volume did not really strike a chord. Obviously the AGW community cannot keep talking about storms, sea levels or acidification, and the people in the US SE do not really want to hear about drought threats right now. OHC has not worked out. Ice seemed pretty good: the Arctic is far away. But now people are paying attention. So how will the deniers of reality claim the world is ending this time next year? We don't need to wait until next year. This year has seen enough factual observations of cooling that are being countered with "what you see just isn't true" to give us a glimpse of future arguments. I assume we will get continued obsfuscation and rhetorical agruments in hopes that AGW activists can stall long enough to get their political agenda enacted.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 25, 2009 7:41:04 GMT
ouch!
|
|