|
|
Post by byz on May 12, 2009 7:56:15 GMT
As you will have all have noticed the pushers of AGW are no longer talking about "Global Warming" as it would be proved wrong if the earth cools.
So what does "Man made" Climate change look like (or would that be ACC)?
After all if something is a "scientific" hypothesis it will have results that can be shown by experimentation or results will clearly disprove the hypothesis.
If the Hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved the it is not measurable and therefore not "scientific" (just like Freud's Oedipus complex which cannot be disproved and thus is not "scientific").
So all you AGW supporters please can you give some clear predictions of what man made climate change will do that is different to natural climate change?
How would we know the difference and how can it be definitively measured?
If the earth cools how would this be shown to be down to "Man made" climate change rather than the Sun or natural variation?
Or is this a just way of keeping the gravy train running?
The ball is in your court so go on tell us definitively what will show it is is definitively "Man Made" and definitely not natural (if it can't be nailed down then it is not "scientific").
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by byz on May 12, 2009 13:24:34 GMT
Wow looks like none of our resident AGW proponents can justify the press calling it "Climate Change" rather than AGW either (seen they've posted on other threads).
Wonder if we'll get anything ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 12, 2009 15:54:19 GMT
Something like this?King Canute
|
"... 'Will the advancing waves obey me, Bishop, if I make the sign?'
Said the Bishop, bowing lowly, 'Land and sea, my lord, are thine.'
Canute turned towards the ocean—'Back!' he said, 'thou foaming brine.'
"'From the sacred shore I stand on, I command thee to retreat;
Venture not, thou stormy rebel, to approach thy master's seat:
Ocean, be thou still! I bid thee come not nearer to my feet!'
"But the sullen ocean answered with a louder, deeper roar,
And the rapid waves drew nearer, falling sounding on the shore;
Back the Keeper and the Bishop, back the king and courtiers bore.
"And he sternly bade them never more to kneel to human clay,
But alone to praise and worship That which earth and seas obey:
And his golden crown of empire never wore he from that day.
King Canute is dead and gone: Parasites exist alway. "
--- William Makepeace Thackeray 1811-1863 | ""How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?"
| "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln
|
Canute knew better. So did Lincoln. Obama's minions may not. But as "change" agents, they do know that if you can get people to use a word or phrase, their thinking will follow. oldpoetry.com/opoem/51329-William-Makepeace-Thackeray-King-Canutewww.answers.com/topic/quote-4?author=Lincoln,%20Abraham&s2=Abraham%20Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Post by msphar on May 12, 2009 16:03:11 GMT
Perhaps it will look like a fully liquid arctic in five years, but I shan't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 12, 2009 18:59:39 GMT
As you will have all have noticed the pushers of AGW are no longer talking about "Global Warming" as it would be proved wrong if the earth cools. So what does "Man made" Climate change look like (or would that be ACC)? Look at the IPCC projections (recently renamed from the IPGW of course..) |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 12, 2009 19:24:49 GMT
The entire subject is based on probabilities (some very weak). Much in the IPCC report was the result of Bayesian methods, which are legit, but are certainly not the same thing as common frequentist methodology using known distributions and stable processes. As a cautionary note, which I'm sure many of the folks here are aware of, "Probabilities do not exist" (Bruno DeFinetti ). Else they would be called Realities.
Basing life changing decisions on probabilities is a very dangerous endeavor. Which, I suspect, is one of the major objections people have with proposed "Climate Control" measures.
|
|
|
|
Post by byz on May 12, 2009 19:28:22 GMT
As you will have all have noticed the pushers of AGW are no longer talking about "Global Warming" as it would be proved wrong if the earth cools. So what does "Man made" Climate change look like (or would that be ACC)? Look at the IPCC projections (recently renamed from the IPGW of course..) Err...Why should I do the foot work?  If you believe in "man made" climate change the you should be able to give at least a couple of cast iron measurement that can prove or disprove the Hypothesis. Don't get me wrong AGW is a "scientific" hypothesis because it can be proved wrong, but "man made" climate change wants to have its cake and eat it, which is not scientific as it cannot be disproved. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 12, 2009 19:34:28 GMT
Look at the IPCC projections (recently renamed from the IPGW of course..) Err...Why should I do the foot work? Why should I do your homework? AGW is manmade climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 12, 2009 19:35:21 GMT
The entire subject is based on probabilities (some very weak). Much in the IPCC report was the result of Baysian methods, which are legit, but are certainly not the same thing as common frequentist methodology using known distributions and stable processes. As a cautionary note, which I'm sure many of the folks here are aware of, "Probabilities do not exist" (Bruno DeFinetti ). Else they would be called Realities. Basing life changing decisions on probabilities is a very dangerous endeavor. Which, I suspect, is one of the major objections people have with proposed "Climate Control" measures. Hence why I didn't bother getting property insurance covering risk of fire. Basing life changing decisions on probabilities is a very dangerous endeavor. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 12, 2009 19:57:29 GMT
The entire subject is based on probabilities (some very weak). Much in the IPCC report was the result of Baysian methods, which are legit, but are certainly not the same thing as common frequentist methodology using known distributions and stable processes. As a cautionary note, which I'm sure many of the folks here are aware of, "Probabilities do not exist" (Bruno DeFinetti ). Else they would be called Realities. Basing life changing decisions on probabilities is a very dangerous endeavor. Which, I suspect, is one of the major objections people have with proposed "Climate Control" measures. Hence why I didn't bother getting property insurance covering risk of fire. Basing life changing decisions on probabilities is a very dangerous endeavor. So if your insurance was 10 times or 100 times whatever you paid, would you have still bought it? The question is one of risk/benefit, which everyone will have a different answer to. I'd have thought that was obvious. Is your position, then, that the likelihood ( Probability ) of catastrophe (or benefit ) to humanity is great enough to warrant any expense (dollars and/or life style )? You see that is what is being questioned. The probabilities of catastrophe (or benefit) in the view of many, have not been sufficient to support the AGW hypothesis. In addition, there are unknown risks attendant to adopting massive climate control measures themselves. Hence the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 12, 2009 20:15:39 GMT
I am all for doing nothing as I suspect it won't affect me anyway. I don't rely on glaciers for water supply. I probably won't live long enough to see any economic impact either. I think I can live with millions dying in Otherland under the assumption they would have made the same choice as me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 13, 2009 0:19:27 GMT
... I think I can live with millions dying in Otherland under the assumption they would have made the same choice as me. I hope you were kidding! ;D " Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make." - Farquaad (Shrek) www.imsdb.com/scripts/Shrek.html |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 13, 2009 1:00:05 GMT
So now millions are going to die from climate change if we do nothing? Not even socold could believe that. What's going to happen, people are going stand at the ocean's edge watching the water rise and drown after a couple of decades? Their glacier is going to melt away and they're going to sit home and die of thirst? Crops in the US will fail and we'll all starve, ignoring Canadian land that will then be able to support agriculture? IF the earth gets warmer there will be some shifts in how we live, but no one can say if it will be a net negative or positive for mankind.
It was not just the science that led me to believe that AGW was a crock, but also the idiotic statements made by its believers(especially Lard Gore).
|
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 13, 2009 1:50:27 GMT
Here it is!  The man-made climate change is the red curve. |
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on May 13, 2009 3:32:09 GMT
ACC looks exactly like Al Gore
|
|
