Org Mobile Site
Thread: Did you help ruin the world?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
... why should my country reduce its competitive advantage and hence its future wealth by instituting expensive measures that create no good?
Well, you already did that by electing New Labour. ... why should my country reduce its competitive advantage and hence its future wealth by instituting expensive measures that create no good?
lol, very true. 
Re: the forecasting article, i found this excerpt that perfectly describes the problem i have with kyoto/son-of-kyoto, which few people seem to grasp:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
Re: the forecasting article, i found this excerpt that perfectly describes the problem i have with kyoto/son-of-kyoto, which few people seem to grasp:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
Originally Posted by :
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.
If I did ruined the world......
Oh Well, We all going to die anyhow
!!
Oh Well, We all going to die anyhow
!!In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green
Well if an economist doesn't believe in global warming it can't be true!
Could you tell me what relevant scientific qualifications mr armstrong holds... all too often global warming skeptics seem to have a doctorate in completely the wrong area of science to make such statements...
ohh never mind, i have come across the information myself...
J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26, 1937), Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
So we have an economist and a professor of marketing, admittedly with experience in the field of weather but very much the wrong scientific qualifications
Are you going to post an article about how an oil company CEO or a coal company CEO are also skeptics ?
so who does that leave.. dr theon i belive... lets have a look shall we...
Seems im having trouble finding his relevant qualifications, if anyone can get hold of them ?
Well he has experience in the area at least... albeit he's retired and there's another who worked with him who isn't a skeptic... this leaves me back at my original position... which is trust the scientists with the relevent qualifications over alot of people who seem to have a personal interest in the matter but no scientific (or the wrong scientific) education...
Well if an economist doesn't believe in global warming it can't be true!
Could you tell me what relevant scientific qualifications mr armstrong holds... all too often global warming skeptics seem to have a doctorate in completely the wrong area of science to make such statements...
ohh never mind, i have come across the information myself...
J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26, 1937), Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
So we have an economist and a professor of marketing, admittedly with experience in the field of weather but very much the wrong scientific qualifications
Are you going to post an article about how an oil company CEO or a coal company CEO are also skeptics ?
so who does that leave.. dr theon i belive... lets have a look shall we...
Seems im having trouble finding his relevant qualifications, if anyone can get hold of them ?
Well he has experience in the area at least... albeit he's retired and there's another who worked with him who isn't a skeptic... this leaves me back at my original position... which is trust the scientists with the relevent qualifications over alot of people who seem to have a personal interest in the matter but no scientific (or the wrong scientific) education...
well lets see.....................................
Armstrong is da-bomb at forecasting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. the “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”.
but lets not forget Dr Theon:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
again, why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. "the the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,”
not to mention the myriad of other links included in the first article.
and these articles are not exactly published by a crank, given that they are from the best science blog of 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/1...ers-announced/
in short: whither. is. your. consensus?
Armstrong is da-bomb at forecasting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
Originally Posted by :
Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
which lets face it, is where the doom-sayers spring their 'forecasts' from.Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. the “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”.
but lets not forget Dr Theon:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
Originally Posted by :
John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
who was Hansens boss, who also attacks climate models.John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
again, why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. "the the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,”
not to mention the myriad of other links included in the first article.
and these articles are not exactly published by a crank, given that they are from the best science blog of 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/1...ers-announced/
in short: whither. is. your. consensus?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
You are quoting a weatherman as a source for climatology?http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.
this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.
and he is reporting on science, not inventing it himself, specifically hansens supervisor repudiating his employee, and the big-cheese or forecasting saying that climate models used by the IPCC are unsuitable.
i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.
it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.
this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.
and he is reporting on science, not inventing it himself, specifically hansens supervisor repudiating his employee, and the big-cheese or forecasting saying that climate models used by the IPCC are unsuitable.
i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.
it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
You are quoting a weatherman as a source for climatology?
You are quoting a weatherman as a source for climatology?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.
That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.
Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.
Allow me to quote something that seems relevant to me.i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.
Play the... ahh, bugger it.what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.
The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.
Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?
Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.
Play the... ahh, bugger it.
The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?
Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming.
still blithely ignoring anything to do with the articles on hand..................That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?
Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.
Play the... ahh, bugger it.
The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?
Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming.
does Gore or does Gore not see it as his job to radicalise the masses about AGW?
because more and more of the scientific establishment is peeling away from the IPCC consensus.
and there are very good local explanations before you need to look at CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...-of-viewpoint/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...in-antarctica/
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...-of-viewpoint/
Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...-of-viewpoint/
When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...in-antarctica/
Problems with that article:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...in-antarctica/
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend in the warming of the station he was talking about.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.
When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.
Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend in the warming of the station he was talking about.
the point was that no effort was made in steigs paper to rule out volcanism as a source of warming, which is important because although the total heat output may be crazily small when spread out over a huge continent, you are refering to a dataset composed of less than half a dozen surface stations to cover a whole continent that have at least 50 years of data, most of which lie on the western peninsula which is where the volcanism is.Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.
When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.
Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend in the warming of the station he was talking about.
Meanwhile: climate forecasting as practiced by the IPCC is still dodgy - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/
and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
Hansen is such a drama queen. and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/
How are YOU going to educate your parents about global warming?
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pm...big-hollywood/
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pm...big-hollywood/
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.
So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?
Last time I checked, nobody can foresee the %&#@-ups that a person they voted for will commit, I believe we should take the war on terror to where ever we darn-well please in the Mid-East (I know 9/11 wasn't an overriding issue with the whole WMD argument, but hey, the Mid-East is the mid-East), and the last I checked, I doubt that the cavemen were driving around SUVs when the last ice age ended 10,000++ years ago (humans definitely do have a major impact on global climates, but the Earth is going to heat and cool regardless of whether we off-road in diesel-spewing behemoths or sit around a field beating each other with clubs while waiting for a mammoth to come by).Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.
So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?
80% of the IPCC have absolutely no dealings with climate and less than that are actual climate scientists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/1...-with-climate/
whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/1...-with-climate/
whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?
owwwwwwwwwwww expertologues, a shame it won't change anybody's mind the decision has been made. There. is. con.sen.sus. you sir can't handle the truth.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
80% of the IPCC have absolutely no dealings with climate and less than that are actual climate scientists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/1...-with-climate/
whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?
And the majority of actual climate scientists think what exactly...? Also, please link to real sources.80% of the IPCC have absolutely no dealings with climate and less than that are actual climate scientists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/1...-with-climate/
whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?
Originally Posted by CountArach:
And the majority of actual climate scientists think what exactly...?
Why would any serious scientist want to try to explain a 0.6% increase of world-temperature in a hundreds years? Especially since these figures were taken with equipment that isn't really that accurate compared to what we have now hanging in our living room. And the majority of actual climate scientists think what exactly...?
But I think you said this; That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
lol. :D
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Why would any serious scientist want to try to explain a 0.6% increase of world-temperature in a hundreds years? Especially since these figures were taken with equipment that isn't really that accurate compared to what we have now hanging in our living room.
But I think you said this; That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
I... don't get it...? Am I being mocked? I just... don't know...?Why would any serious scientist want to try to explain a 0.6% increase of world-temperature in a hundreds years? Especially since these figures were taken with equipment that isn't really that accurate compared to what we have now hanging in our living room.
But I think you said this; That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I... don't get it...? Am I being mocked? I just... don't know...?
Well yesI... don't get it...? Am I being mocked? I just... don't know...?
Originally Posted by CountArach:
What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?
Since when is a guy with a username with lenin in it and a fervent supporter of communism a right wing person?What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Since when is a guy with a username with lenin in it and a fervent supporter of communism a right wing person?
CR
You obviously aren't familiar with this user. For example, I've disagreed with him almost constantly here.Since when is a guy with a username with lenin in it and a fervent supporter of communism a right wing person?
CR
And on this particular issue he is right-wing due to being a severe Authoritarian.
no consensus huh
nb. being authoritarian does not equate to being right wing, or left wing for that matter.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
no consensus huh
None of us are climatologists so I don't see what you are saying...no consensus huh
Originally Posted by CountArach:
None of us are climatologists so I don't see what you are saying...
Don't worry, neither are the people who have consensus we are in great company.None of us are climatologists so I don't see what you are saying...
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Don't worry, neither are the people who have consensus we are in great company.
Wow, I see what you did there. I almost got caught up in that clever web of words.Don't worry, neither are the people who have consensus we are in great company.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Wow, I see what you did there. I almost got caught up in that clever web of words.
You didn't almost got caught by a clever web of words since you actually believe there is consensus over the earth warming up.Wow, I see what you did there. I almost got caught up in that clever web of words.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO