No more global warming?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hey, don't rain on my parade.

Hmph, perhaps you are correct. I will let you dance for now, but the bitter realisation in the back of your brain will take a satisfactory toll that will surely dampen your momentarily-high spirits.

[Furunculus]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.

i hope he comes back, for all that we disagree he is always sharp enough to immediately pick holes in faulty reasoning that i didn't spend enough time making watertight.

i like that challenge.

[Fragony]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.

That is kinda on me, hope he comes back, odd as it may sound I actually like the guy and can deal with the insults. I also think he only occasionally hates my guts.

[CountArach]

an another note, here a glorious write up of some of the more revealing emails hacked from HadCRU:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

You'll have to try harder than that...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
...
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

[Furunculus]

try harder than what?

did i make any claims about the link...................?

[Fragony]

Should be obvious, should have been obvious in the first place. The lolspaghettimontser-crowd turned out to be truly pious when another thing to pray to is introduced, CO22222222222222, fear it.

those leftist lemmings, and the power they have over us

[Beskar]

I like how the right blame the left yet it is the right which is the most vocal. Also they link to sources as left when they are centre and they aren't even left.

Also, on many issues, what is left and what is right?

In the enviroment, is the welfare of the people left, while oil oligarchs who just want profit, the right?

[Furunculus]

I like how the right blame the left yet it is the right which is the most vocal. Also they link to sources as left when they are centre and they aren't even left.

oddly enough, i find it is mainly the left whingeing about how skepticism is funded by big-oil and the like, as a right-wing conspiracy or some such rubbish.

[Fragony]

Also, on many issues, what is left and what is right?

What does it matter when scaring the crap out of people is your tactic?

Must be my birthday by the way, two of my theories proven to be true in just one month. bye economic considerations for mass immigration, bye global warming.

anything left?

[Beskar]

oddly enough, i find it is mainly the left whingeing about how skepticism is funded by big-oil and the like, as a right-wing conspiracy or some such rubbish.

I agree, if the 'right' were smart enough, they would appear to be on the 'left' and fund "alternative projects" which pander to public opinion and con the public and politicians alike for a huge profit.

But there is another big point "skepticism" is funded by oil companies and the biggest polluters in the industry, that is a fact.

So you have to question the motives behind people. There are those who would simply exploit the situation for their own pockets.

[Furunculus]

I agree, if the 'right' were smart enough, they would appear to be on the 'left' and fund "alternative projects" which pander to public opinion and con the public and politicians alike for a huge profit.

But there is another big point "skepticism" is funded by oil companies and the biggest polluters in the industry, that is a fact.

So you have to question the motives behind people. There are those who would simply exploit the situation for their own pockets.

speaking as an >individual< on the right; maybe i am just too principled to erect a cow-manure smokescreen to disguise my dastardly plot to help big-oil to make a few more dollars?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Is it just me, or has Fragony grown even more far-right after Tribesman left? That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

[Vuk]

Is it just me, or has Fragony grown even more far-right after Tribesman left? That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

lol, good for him.
Have a balloon Frag!

[Aemilius Paulus]

lol, good for him.
Have a balloon Frag!

Huh? Since when was far- anything good? I hope you are joking...

First evolution, now this. Is there anything else I should know about you, Vuk?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What does it matter when scaring the crap out of people is your tactic?

Must be my birthday by the way, two of my theories proven to be true in just one month. bye economic considerations for mass immigration, bye global warming.

anything left?

That's far-right? No, Fragony is something like the Tribesman of the right. He isn't an extremist, he just calls it exactly how he sees it, whether he is right or wrong or both or neither. The other side tends not to like that very much. I personally prefer Fragony though, partially because he posts links more often.

[Beskar]

speaking as an >individual< on the right; maybe i am just too principled to erect a cow-manure smokescreen to disguise my dastardly plot to help big-oil to make a few more dollars?

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?

Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?


When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:

[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)

[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)



Is left and right even being applied correctly? This is a tricky issues, as many people have tried to make it a left and right issue, and as the victims (aka, billionaires) usually fall in the right-stereotype category of the mad profiteering and usually vote for Republican/Conservative policies (as it allows them more money at expense of those below them) and how those concerned for the environment are generally on the left (aka hippies), you can see that there might be a slight left-right bias for certain sides.

Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?

By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.

So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.


So where are the issues?

Clarification on definitions. Who are the 'Right' and 'Left'.

Definitions in regards to positions. Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?

Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"


Could go on and on....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Allow me to throw a hurdle in your path, Beskar.

[Vuk]

Huh? Since when was far- anything good? I hope you are joking...

First evolution, now this. Is there anything else I should know about you, Vuk?

lol, I don't believe that life was created by chance in the form of a one celled organism that then evolved into everything today, darn I must be stupid.
Nah, I was joking. Thing is, some times people call regular conservative Americans the 'far-right', other times that is used to refer to dangerous extremists or lunatics. No one seems to be able to agree on exactly what that is. I consider being 'to the right' to be conservative, which is a good thing. I don't think there is any such things as degrees, you are or you aren't. Thus far right means the same to me as right. It is just a smart position to have. What do you mean by far-right? I don't know.

EDIT: don't forget AP, Americans and Europeans mean different things by far-right, as do liberals and conservatives. It could be a good thing (which is how I classify it), or a bad thing, depending on what you classify as far-right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?

Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?

The left cares about baby seals more.

[Vuk]

The left cares about baby seals more.

Yeah, they care, they are just mud dumb and arrogant , which is why they paint them bright colours so that polar bears will eat them!

[Aemilius Paulus]

lol, I don't believe that life was created by chance in the form of a one celled organism that then evolved into everything today, darn I must be stupid.

If you keep on simplifying, then you are . But of course, you said that out of convenience, you simplified it intentionally.

That said, life does not start as a single cell. Life began much simpler - a single cell is in itself was a momentous achievement. We have no idea how life came to Earth, but it is not unlikely either that it came from space.

Countless microbes can withstand extreme temperatures (thrive at +310C and survive as low as -190C - boiling point of liquid nitrogen - or thrive at -50C, as in the case of Colwellia 34H) obscene radiation (Micrococcus radiodurans can tolerate 6,500,000 roentgens - 10,000 times the fatal dose for a Homo Sapiens), space vacuum as well as millions of of years of dormancy (250 million years for Bacillus permians - in salt; 40 million years for Bacillus sphaericus - in amber). Or this for an all-round record holder Deinococcus-radiodurans.

What all that suggests, evolutionary speaking, is that our life could have came from space. Evolution keeps only the most necessary, discarding the rest, the "luxuries". Evolution is not prescient. Evolution is a process of adaptation, albeit indirect - as the weak die, only the strongest survive, thus creating a new breed of hardier lifeforms. But enough of the obvious. It makes no sense for life to be tough enough to survive such preposterous conditions, almost all of them never found on this planet (except for most notably, the high temperatures, which are found on Earth). Such traits could have likely been acquired as a result of past adaptation.

[Vuk]

If you keep on simplifying, then you are . But of course, you said that out of convenience, you simplified it intentionally.

That said, life does not start as a single cell. Life began much simpler - a single cell is in itself was a momentous achievement. We have no idea how life came to Earth, but it is not unlikely either that it came from space.

Countless microbes can withstand extreme temperatures (thrive at +310C and survive as low as -190C - boiling point of liquid nitrogen - or thrive at -50C, as in the case of Colwellia 34H) obscene radiation (Micrococcus radiodurans can tolerate 6,500,000 roentgens - 10,000 times the fatal dose for a Homo Sapiens), space vacuum as well as millions of of years of dormancy (250 million years for Bacillus permians - in salt; 40 million years for Bacillus sphaericus - in amber). Or this for an all-round record holder Deinococcus-radiodurans.

What all that suggests, evolutionary speaking, is that our life could have came from space. Evolution keeps only the most necessary, discarding the rest, the "luxuries". Evolution is not prescient. Evolution is a process of adaptation, albeit indirect - as the weak die, only the strongest survive, thus creating a new breed of hardier lifeforms. But enough of the obvious. It makes no sense for life to be tough enough to survive such preposterous conditions, almost all of them never found on this planet (except for most notably, the high temperatures, which are found on Earth). Such traits could have likely been acquired as a result of past adaptation.

You see though AP, what we can observe, test, and/or replicate is science. I do not argue the way that things work on earth, because I can see them myself and verify them. Anything else though goes beyond science and has to be taken on faith. We have to look at the physical world around us, and use what we know to think up a likely explanation, based on what we know for how it could have began. Unfortunately though, there is no way to prove it, or to test it, so it must be take on faith, even if there is supporting evidence from stuff we can observe.
As such, I do not claim to be 100% sure that I know the answer, or that I can prove it. I do know though that based on science (and I mean real science, not speculation about life's beginnings passed off as science) and my understanding thereof, the theory of life's beginnings that you put forth and that is commonly taught in schools does not, and cannot make sense or be true. Yeah, I cannot prove it, but from what I know (or think I know), God creating the universe and the life on it is the most reasonable explanation. Sure, you may think it is hocus pocus, but I have yet to see a 'scientific' (ei. atheistic) theory that real science does not contradict. I think that historical, literary, and scientific evidence supports the creation story from the Bible. That does not mean that I am denying science (heck, Christians invented science for heaven's sakes. They took the base work of Greek Natural Philosophy, and carried it forth into modern science), as science has nothing to do with the creation of life 1000s-1,000,000s of years ago which cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Science has to do with what we can observe now, and I think that that supports the creation story more than the evolution story.
I say this because you have in past threads (and I think alluded to it in this thread) accused creationists of denying science. That is not through. It is why I said that the round earth and evolution example could not work. The earth being round can be observed and measured, and is science, musing over how we may have got here is not. (which doesn't make it bad, just means that it does not belong to that field)
Please don't use not believing in evolution against me, as if it makes me stupid or blind. I simply disagree with you. (and keep in mind AP, that just I do not know just what scientific evidence and discussion you have seen and heard that has led you to your belief, you do not know what has led me to mine, and if you did, you just may be convinced) I am not going to explain why I believe what I do, as this thread is not for it, I just wanted you to know that I (and others) have reasons that are logical, and are not ignorance, blind faith, escapism, laziness, etc. You cut people down for not believing in evolution, why? No one is cutting you down for believing in it. I don't think any the less of you to believe in it, I think it is a very swaying argument that smart people can easily be made to believe. Why do you have to assume that anyone who does not believe in it is stupid or primitive?

[Fragony]

lol, good for him.
Have a balloon Frag!

Gracias!

That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

Good luck, Tosa doesn't care about opinions only about behaviour

Why can't people be more like Horetore and CountArach by the way, we can violently disagree and still have a ball when it's not about politics. Only a psychopath wants to inflict harm on another person. We just see things differently on what why and how.

[Furunculus]

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?
Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?

When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:
[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)
[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)

Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?
By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.
So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.

I'm not sure i'm overly concerned by the question, if people choose to interpret issues that way then that is their right, for all that it lacks any intellectual rigour.

I am right wing, and yes i happen to be a skeptic*, if you choose to conflate the two positions then that is your business, i will make no compromises on my personal beliefs that result from long consideration and testing, in order to stroke the expectations of other people. You may note that I have zero friends listed in my profile, not that i don't like and respect a lot of you, but this is a debating club to me, not friends re-united.



* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"

I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.

I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.

I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.

I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.

And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.

My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.

Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.

[Fragony]

lolololol nice try

that'sashame

Do I really need to explain that there are no polar bears on Antartica christallmighty on a mother plane

awwwwww they woke up, link removed

[Fragony]

The plot thickens, speculation about a serious scientist who could no longer live the life of a liar blowing the wistle.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Esse...-files-and-why

//grabs nuts

[Louis VI the Fat]

You'll have to try harder than that...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Yes, I too am still waiting for shocking revelations to emerge from those hacked/leaked correspondence.

The most shocking thing to emerge is that those who belive in a vast conspiracy managed to get their hands on 161 MB of internal memo's and not find any smoking guns.

'Polarization', and not conspiracy is at the root of politicised science in Climate Studies. Scientists and pressure groups will want to prove 'their side' right, instead of calmly exploring the facts and expanding our understanding.

Most falsification, funding and politicised science is to be found on the side arguing that there is no climate implications of human behaviour.
Hardly any economic activity goes without some suspiciously funded scienctific report that conclusively proves that the activity will have no lasting impact on the environment.

Former communist East Europe meanwhile showed what happens to the environment if short-term economic gain is the sole overriding consideration.
In the West too, usually, for decades detrimental activities go unchecked. Claims abound that they are 'scientifically proven to have little to no impact'. Then a few simple measures adopted at long last finally makes fish return to the Seine, solves the smog in London, reduces acid rain, solves health problems. It is very frustrating how the financial gain of a few manage to override the financial gain of the many for decades, every single time, usually when a few simple measures at no great cost at all could've prevented the problem in the first place.

The sub-discussion:


Fragony is very moderate nowadays. He hasn't been far right for ages.

Tribesy is sorely missed, but from what I gather he was asked to stop the personal crusade against Frags, which he couldn't let go so Tribesy left.


Bah, the Backroom has been boring ever since.

[Furunculus]

Former communist East Europe meanwhile showed what happens to the environment if short-term economic gain is the sole overriding consideration.

Tribesy is sorely missed, but from what I gather he was asked to stop the personal crusade against Frags, which he couldn't let go so Tribesy left.

Bah, the Backroom has been boring ever since.

No, the environmental disasters of former eastern europe show what happens when there is no representative government that is forced to acquiesce to the demands of the demos.

His treatment of Frag was down-right rude.

Agreed, backroom does have a little less zest without Tribeman.

[Fragony]

I can deal with insult I hope he comes back no problem in getting nasty to me, comes with the position can't always be easy-going when presented with a very unsympathatic view I can understand that so I do not take offense. If I would be what he believes me to be he would be right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The most shocking thing to emerge is that those who belive in a vast conspiracy managed to get their hands on 161 MB of internal memo's and not find any smoking guns.

'Polarization', and not conspiracy is at the root of politicised science in Climate Studies. Scientists and pressure groups will want to prove 'their side' right, instead of calmly exploring the facts and expanding our understanding.

Well, I don't think it's shocking that there was no smoking gun, but it's worthwhile to prove that scientists are not free from being politicized.