|
|
Post by socold on Jan 14, 2009 21:59:13 GMT
Can you defend his argument though?
Just because the annual rank for temperature on the surface differs from that in the lower troposphere by 4 places? Even if it differed by as much as 8 it would not be odd or strange.
This is obvious to me, I know this is correct. So is Joseph D’Aleo less knowledgable than me on this subject?
Or perhaps was he scraping the barrel for a plausible sounding argument to use in a media article that he bet would convince many people reading who didn't know any better?
It's one of those two surely. I can't see any alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Jan 14, 2009 22:35:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 15, 2009 6:14:11 GMT
Dopeydog wrote:
Here come the thugs:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009....socialist-ties/ Now there's a scary woman. A socialist leader from one of the "one world government" societies (the Commission for a Sustainable World Society) is going to be our "czar" for climate change. I see she was also: Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. I guess we shall see some intersting times indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Jan 15, 2009 7:00:04 GMT
We here in Finland have heard news that Obama has announced that US will not be with in any climatic agreements unless China, India and Brazil, at least, are with. Is that still the stand?
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 15, 2009 15:46:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 15, 2009 18:10:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 15, 2009 19:40:15 GMT
ooooh! Diddum RC lose one of their tame mouthpieces? Poor RC. Strange how it's instantly not Science when it disagrees with their religion isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2009 20:37:31 GMT
what avery says has never been science. Fraud maybe, science no.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 16, 2009 3:47:41 GMT
Hold the presses.
RC is implying that the solar minimum has something to do with the recent cold snaps.
But I thought the claim was that TSI is basically constant, and therefore the sun doesn't influence climate.
What will they come up with next?
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 16, 2009 20:33:55 GMT
From the thread: solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=24&page=5reply #60 Yesterday at 8:16pm, socold wrote: Yesterday at 5:33am, Acolyte wrote: One interesting thing about people in life & in debates is the way they behave. when someone abandons the course of reason, turns from the path of rational expression & begins to label, they give themselves away. "Alarmist" James Hansen is the "New Lysensko" not labels? Quote: So when someone drops from reasoned discourse into labels, pay close attention - they are telling you the things that they themselves do, indulge in & use for their actions. hmm ********************************************* My response: I know of no person who disagrees with agw that has called for Nuremburg trials for agw proponents or convicting agw proponents for crimes against humanity or taking away there AMS certification or for civil disobedience or vandalism against agw offices and structures. All we would like to see is an OPEN and FREE debate on this issue. As for comparing Hansen to Lysenko, I think the comparison is more than justified. I have no doubt that if he could James Hansen would try not only oil company executives (which he has already called for) for crimes against humanity but most of us on this web site for any crime he could could invent. Lysenko stifled free and open scientific with guns and thugs. So would (will??) James Hansen. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jan 16, 2009 20:44:12 GMT
I seem to recall people calling for Al Gore's head and to be prosecuted for damages, but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 16, 2009 22:36:40 GMT
As always in dealing with human nature, as in body language for example, you need to be careful to distinguish between the label or act as a pointer to clues & the fact that maybe, the label or act is accurate.
If someone crosses their legs to the left when sitting to the right of their spouse, it could likely mean they are having issues - or it might mean they are a writer who has a habit of resting their notebook on that leg or it may even mean they have a bad hip & that posture eases the pain.
If someone sets out to single-mindedly perform a series of actions to get a specific result & has, by any obvious actions, apparently abandoned the sane way of trying to see all sides, angles & gradations of meaning in the situation, is may be perfectly valid to label them with a specific description.
It behooves the labeller haowever, to be aware, & if labelling in public, make sure, that it is clear the label is being applied in very specific circumstances. Where there are implications to the label, such as calling someone who disagrees with one's own PoV a criminal, thus leading to implications of legal ramifications, one should be extremely specific in how one applies the label.
When the label is being cast about in the public arena, with little explanation & every expectation that the public will take the label as it is normally used, such labelling should (& in other fields IS) legally liable under libel & defamation laws.
And yes, there has been labelling from those who think there are other explanations to the patterns of climate; being human it is very hard to have one's view of things constantly belittled, ignored, categorised & negated when one can see there are plain truths being ignored to make a political case.
Pointing out that agw has the aspects & hallmarks of religion rather than sceince is not 'labelling' as I have been using it. I have yet to see anyone from the agw camp on these forums called (for example) a conspiracy nut, although there have been a couple of occasions I recall of questions being raised about the possibility of conspiracy.
But the labelling here was begun & continued, in public, with malice aforethought, by the agw camp; for example, people who do not disclose what money they make & from whom seem free to cast aspersions about the income & motivation of those who disagree with them, & they are doing it in public, in the professional sense, & in ways designed to harm people who are performing their Science as they were taught it should be.
The mainstay of the agw case comes from Government organisations & such are very definitely NOT to be trusted to be unbiased nor honest - they respond very much to political will & to perceived self-interest - it is the nature of the beast & the organisations accumulate people who prefer to operate that way.
There's fault on both sides in this debate, but some on the agw side have actively tried to engender harm of various kinds to those more sceptical of government panels & the agendas they push. The agw side, in general daily practice has shown that quite a few of the main protagonists are not only willing to defend a particular PoV, they are quite eager to attack the persons of those who disagree. They question the integrity, the ethics & the ability of those who want to ensure good science is being done, & they are doing it out in public where people's lives & livelihoods can & are being affected.
'By their works shall you know them' is the saying & when people show these traits, we need to wonder why they attack instead of convince.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 16, 2009 23:41:26 GMT
Very well put, Acolyte. Add to the mix those in Government (at various levels - not necessarily the politicals at the top) who believe they have the God/Gore given right to engineer social change. Everything (including the truth) is subverted to the cause. The sickest stuff I see is adults dragging children into protests, or going gaga over indoctrinated kids spouting some propaganda over whales, polar bears, or the need to reduce ones carbon footprint. Try choking on this: (Millennium Development Goals) www.csvgc-ny.org/content/view/16/30/1/4/These people should be locked up. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 17, 2009 0:34:27 GMT
I seem to recall people calling for Al Gore's head and to be prosecuted for damages, but I could be wrong. Eww. Who would want Al Gore's head? Imagine where it's been. |
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 17, 2009 2:37:50 GMT
That's horrible! It's the same betrayal executed by the Church through the ages - preach love & forgiveness while they hounded anyone who dared express an opinion different to their dogma, burned, raped pillaged anyone unfortunate enough to be non-European & thus one of God's Chosen, destroyed cultures, exploited whole nations until their peoples were reduced to begging for food & generally rampaged across the face of the planet in the name of Love. Does anyone seriously think of the UN as a source of morals, ethics & spitituality - or that any committee will be able to have an effect on such things? these people use noble words to conceal yet more ways to increase the stranglehold over the population & to side track all & sundry from any path to higher Consciousness they might have found. I mean seriously - the opening speaker was from the World Bank. perhaps he could start the battle against poverty by forgiving all the debts the WB has forced on poor nations in the name of their development? Maybe he could talk his buddies into handing back the ownership of such resources as water & minerals to the peoples who are dying right now due to no money while their countries pump billions in resources for the benefits of either puppet regimes or corporations? Perhaps the UN could actually try sanctioning regimes like Mugabe's, look to actively participate in finding better ways for people to run their countries & their lives rather than actively support oppression, torture & starvation as public control mechanisms by handing get out of jail cards to the oppressors. Maybe they might want to make a list of the corporate billionaires who have made their money on the backs of the peasants in the countries unlucky enough to have rich natural resources & no vote? Perhaps the UN & the World Bank could bring pressure to bear on the corporations who happily pay a pittance to children who make the garments they sell in the richer West for hundreds of times the price they paid? Could we maybe see the large businesses reduce their profits to a reasonable figure - say less than 100% - rather than playing the markup game until it reaches a level where people can't afford their products? Maybe Banks could provide a service to help us make money on our earnings instead of making billions of dollars profit from our money while charging us fees at every step so we can let them make money? Perhaps they could find a sense of shame at the way they make record profits, year after year, while crying poor when it's time for fees to rise, then happily taking government handouts when their shabby ediface gets manipulated a step too far & their naked greed is exposed to the world? These are the people who dupe otherwise good folk into a conference on ETHICS? Who dare to think they could teach us the path to SPIRITUALITY? Arrrgh! You're right Kiwi, I'm choking on this. No wonder Howard took our guns. |
|
