|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 3, 2009 22:18:30 GMT
Let me repeat the quote from Cunningham:
“it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.”
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 4, 2009 3:04:06 GMT
Many meteorologists doubt AGW because they are ignorant of climate. Unlike Climatologists - meteorological forecasters are validated daily if not more often and receive kudos or diatribes for their mistakes usually within hours of committing them. Climatologists (from current experience) NEVER admit to there being a mistake but merely move their forecasts outside everyone's life-span and disparagingly call anything in between 'mere weather'. Meteorologists doubt AGW because they have a better and more innate grasp of the atmosphere and the way it works. Sit alongside one for a few hours - you will soon realize that they know how the atmosphere will behave and will correct the output of their forecasting models accordingly. Climatologists however, just write unfalsifiable hypotheses which they then 'prove' by writing a computer model of their hypothesis' assumptions which unsurprisingly gives the same outputs expected by their hypothesis. Go back to 1998 or so and read the climatology outputs - none of them have proved correct - but you won't find a single climatologist apology, not one. Finally, quite a lot of forecasters know that their output will be used literally in life or death decisions in the next few hours. Climatologists do not have any sense of responsibility - they see climatology as an academic game even although some of their output is being used by politicians right now in ways that will lead to life or death political decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 4, 2009 8:31:04 GMT
Climatologists do not have any sense of responsibility - they see climatology as an academic game even although some of their output is being used by politicians right now in ways that will lead to life or death political decisions. Perhaps it is because they have no skin in the game. Big bureaucracy is insulated by "civil service" and funded by their prospective victims (citizens; we-the-people). They are free to denigrate "big oil", while "big government" pays them multiples of "big oil" profits. Perhaps we should change their game. How about this modest proposal: If the agw "scientists" are proven wrong by a Dalton Minimum: 1) they are fired and may not be re-hired, 2) they lose their pensions, 3) they may be charged for breach of government regulations on political activity and / or concealing data and processing logic from inspection and starving millions of people, (and, if found guilty, jailed with rations not exceeding 1000 calories per day of meatless diet), 4) they may be sued for fraud in civil courts up to 5 x their total assets, 5) they may be hired by the Socialist International (apply through Carol Browner), Except for #5, this proposal is no more harsh than the wreckage they are inflicting upon citizens of this and other countries. In addition, if proven wrong, the UN / IPCC cabal loses all funding. P.S.: their recreation is restricted to billiards, "on a cloth untrue, with a twisted cue and eliptical billiard balls". ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 10:08:43 GMT
Sounds about right, fairly good analogy for Climate science that. Nothing happens as expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 12:58:22 GMT
Bill,
That is brilliant. I concurr 100%.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 13:04:12 GMT
What we have here is cutting edge science from the agw camp. media.www.therip.com/media/storage/paper443/news/2008/12/03/BattleoftheSexes/Fact-Extinction.Is.Forever-3566052.shtmlHaven't I said before that the real agenda of these people isn't co2 but getting rid of humans. Ms Bursztn delights at the thought. Paul Ehrlich would be proud. Do not let these people teach science to your children. Here is a telling quote: "A three-degree Celsius rise would have the most detrimental effect simply by melting sea ice and raising sea level." You have to wonder how she made it through a PhD program in a hard science. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 4, 2009 21:43:53 GMT
Many meteorologists doubt AGW because they are ignorant of climate. Unlike Climatologists - meteorological forecasters are validated daily if not more often and receive kudos or diatribes for their mistakes usually within hours of committing them. Their methods and forecasts are not dependant on the existance of climate change, they would operate fine as-is even if the Earth held a constant average temperature over millions of years without any climate change. They don't need to understand decadal influences of climate and so they are not automatic authorities on it. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 23:54:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 5, 2009 19:55:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 6, 2009 13:32:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 6, 2009 14:19:37 GMT
Good document. I can now refer to it as an example of how Bill Gray has comprehensive discredited himself. In particular: A quote indicating either utter cluelessness or a preparedness to tell breath-taking whoppers. Hansen's model prediction has done very well indeed. In 1988 the sceptics and deniers were saying exactly the same things as now. Since then we've had about 0.3C of warming. Hansen 1 (or maybe 0.7 to be more than fair) - sceptics nil (or probably minus several zillion). |
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Feb 6, 2009 20:06:06 GMT
Good document. I can now refer to it as an example of how Bill Gray has comprehensive discredited himself. In particular: A quote indicating either utter cluelessness or a preparedness to tell breath-taking whoppers. Hansen's model prediction has done very well indeed. In 1988 the sceptics and deniers were saying exactly the same things as now. Since then we've had about 0.3C of warming. Hansen 1 (or maybe 0.7 to be more than fair) - sceptics nil (or probably minus several zillion). Well, it's been warming for the past 400 years so I'm not sure we should give him credit for that guess. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 7, 2009 11:41:18 GMT
From the above: "Fairness? Equity? Justice? Surely, these are words more suited to chic anti-establishment "back-to-nature" 60's leftovers than modern climate experts." I'm not surprised: The modern climate experts were all taught by the anti-establishment "back-to-nature" 60's leftovers ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Feb 9, 2009 6:13:39 GMT
No wonder our parents/grandparents were so concerned about the 60's generation.
They knew that one day, these people would be establishing policy!
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 11, 2009 13:19:31 GMT
|
|
