Climate change

[hrothgar]

Its very nice to know that BBO's own little staff of dictators value protecting the trolls more than they do real members of the community

[dwar0123]

I didn't assume. I asked a question. However I suspect the answer would be in the negative. A suspicion and an assumption are entirely different things.

Fair enough, my mistake in word choice.

 

It still evades my point that it is very base to ask him to prove a negative without any evidence.

 

Prove that you didn't rob a bank. You can't, so I am just going to be suspicious that you have.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth I can point to a number of examples in which I criticized people who agree with me for poor reasoning.

[hrothgar]

The following post is a representative example:

 

Posted 2012-March-02, 16:36

neilkaz, on 2012-March-02, 15:35, said:

 

Coincidence..I dunno, but I've never seen a winter this warm. .. neilkaz ..

 

And last year was brutally cold and snowy across much of the US...

 

Individual data points really aren't good for anything more than anecdotes.

Real analysis is based on long term trend

[hrothgar]

I readily admit that this post didn't exhibit the same level of vitriol.

[hrothgar]

I like to think that my posting style proportionate to other's behavior.

[hrothgar]

I treat people who act like assholes as asshole.

[hrothgar]

I call idiots idiots

[hrothgar]

I think that its a shame that BBO treats the trolls with kid gloves while censoring actual members of the community who have been posting bridge related content for years.

[hrothgar]

But, if BBO decides that it business model requires supporting random internet trolls, so be it.

[Cascade]

Fair enough, my mistake in word choice.

 

It still evades my point that it is very base to ask him to prove a negative without any evidence.

 

Prove that you didn't rob a bank. You can't, so I am just going to be suspicious that you have.

 

I think you will find there is lots of evidence if you examine Richard's posts in this forum and others.

 

Not that I typically mind his approach. Last night I was showing a friend some of his posts on another topic which were less than flattering but nevertheless amusing. However I think that the post that I commented on was going too far.

 

I doubt that Richard thinks I was asking him to prove anything. I was simply asking if his reaction was similar if the person engaging in the dishonest behaviour was someone whose opinion he agreed with. Proof was not required. In fact if he wanted he could treat the question as rhetorical. In fact he hasn't answered so maybe he has so treated it and you might notice that I am not demanding proof or even asking for it.

 

Sorry if you still think this is evading your question but i simply don't see your point.

[hrothgar]

I doubt that Richard thinks I was asking him to prove anything. I was simply asking if his reaction was similar if the person engaging in the dishonest behaviour was someone whose opinion he agreed with. Proof was not required. In fact if he wanted he could treat the question as rhetorical. In fact he hasn't answered so maybe he has so treated it and you might notice that I am not demanding proof or even asking for it.

 

 

Or it could be that all my outgoing posts are getting review prior to being posted

 

Who knows if/when this will ever see the light of day

[dwar0123]

Perhaps its a matter of perspective. To me, the question you ask is offensive, accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, and as I would never concede the point(absent family biases) it never occurred to me that merely saying 'of course I would flame them just as bad', would suffice as an answer. Thus any answer would require evidence, hence the relevance of that evidence.

 

If your perspective is that it is entirely reasonable and honorable for someone to level such vitriol only at someone from the opposite camp. Then I can understand you missing my point, however that leaves me confused as to why you would ask the question to begin with.

[Cascade]

Perhaps its a matter of perspective. To me, the question you ask is offensive, accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, and as I would never concede the point(absent family biases) it never occurred to me that merely saying 'of course I would flame them just as bad', would suffice as an answer. Thus any answer would require evidence, hence the relevance of that evidence.

 

If your perspective is that it is entirely reasonable and honorable for someone to level such vitriol only at someone from the opposite camp. Then I can understand you missing my point, however that leaves me confused as to why you would ask the question to begin with.

 

I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was challenging him to examine his own motives. I am not so presumptuous as to know what goes on in his mind - hence I asked a question.

 

And yes an answer that he would and does respond likewise to those who have deliberately put distorted and misleading data into the public domain supporting AGW would suffice and even be impressive.

[PassedOut]

It's been my observation that Richard posts honestly and directly, with an abrasiveness roughly proportional to the situation. When shown to be wrong, he acknowledges that at once without evasion.

 

Regarding the scientific consensus on climate change, it is simply a fact that the arguments of the deniers do resemble the arguments of those who denied the facts about the twin powers collapse and the pentagon damage on 9/11. Nothing wrong with pointing out that the same poster has taken both of those off-the-wall positions.

[Cascade]

It's been my observation that Richard posts honestly and directly, with an abrasiveness roughly proportional to the situation. When shown to be wrong, he acknowledges that at once without evasion.

 

Indeed for the most part I like Richard's style.

[Al_U_Card]

60 years is about the range of the greatest increase in man-made CO2 additions to the atmosphere...

 

Hmmmnn, I wonder...

 

Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years9, 10.

 

Or, you could just eyeball it...

 

Scroll down to see the Palmer drought index for the US since 1900

[mike777]

60 years is about the range of the greatest increase in man-made CO2 additions to the atmosphere...

 

Hmmmnn, I wonder...

 

Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years9, 10.

 

Or, you could just eyeball it...

 

Scroll down to see the Palmer drought index for the US since 1900

 

 

Al I am not sure what is your point or theory?

 

I mean is your point there is no such thing as man made climate warming/ co2 problem or other?

 

If not what measure do you think would show there is some sort of problem..urgent or less urgent?

 

Please note my only point is what measurement do you think should be used?

 

OTOH I would agree if we cant measure/agree how to measure global warming we got a problem Houston...

 

 

I assume at this point there is a general agreement on what the heck we are measuring....just debate on how to measure it?

 

we can debate what the heck the measure means once we agree wht we measure and how we measure...

 

In any case I back up ...what do you want to measure and how do we agree to measure whatever it is?

[mike777]

Let me put it his way....

 

 

The matrix is a really really cool movie

 

Yes I am watching it now

 

really cool movie is defined as x

I measure x and the matrix is measured very high on the cool index.....

 

--

 

 

global warming is defined x

 

global warming measured as between low urgent and high urgent....we measure again....

 

 

we discuss the meaning of low urgent compared to high urgent....

 

we discuss options if:

1) it exists

2) low urgent

3) high urgent

 

If it does not measure..no problem

 

 

If high urgent we got big problems..global... we are going to die problems...

[Al_U_Card]

The problem, as it stands, is that climate "science" (IPCC politicized and "Team" agendized) has turned atmospheric [CO2] into a global threat that it cannot credibly (through actual data and measurement) define or explain. Because of this lack of credence, the alarmists have had to launch all manner of invective and inveiglement to suppress questioning of the orthodoxy and to promote the continued obedience to the "we can save the world" meme.

 

Once you look past the rhetoric and the agenda, all you see is rent-seekers in academia (well-meaning perhaps) and free-loaders in Doha (the latest junket for the UN COP party goers) and the bankers behind the carbon trading schemes all expecting their slice of the tax-payer's ever-diminishing asset pie.

 

Every proposed "solution" to the carbon "problem" has been shown to be totally without merit or effect. Every real analysis of the effects of our contribution to atmospheric CO2 has proven to be miniscule and either beneficial (in terms of biomass) or negligible (in terms of real global temperature increase being within the bounds of measurement error or systemic variation).

 

I find it indicative of the success of the indoctrination that so many have given over their skepticism (of those that say they need your money to tell you what to do) and so willingly remain in such a sinking ship. The skeptics have few resources and small numbers, but they are armed with the facts and reality is gradually overcoming the wads of (our) cash that those calumnious leeches are throwing at the attempt to hide the decline and augment the invective.

 

In short, every penny wasted on reducing our carbon footprint is a penny that was not spent on improving the lives of every inhabitant of this planet, whereupon a [CO2] of 1000 ppm would nary a difference make to our everyday lives. In another 30 years or so, it should be abundantly clear that (Catastrophic) Anthropogenic Global Warming is to be classified with Lysenkoism, Eugenics and frauds such as the Piltdown Man.

[Daniel1960]

Al I am not sure what is your point or theory?

 

I mean is your point there is no such thing as man made climate warming/ co2 problem or other?

 

If not what measure do you think would show there is some sort of problem..urgent or less urgent?

 

Please note my only point is what measurement do you think should be used?

 

OTOH I would agree if we cant measure/agree how to measure global warming we got a problem Houston...

 

 

I assume at this point there is a general agreement on what the heck we are measuring....just debate on how to measure it?

 

we can debate what the heck the measure means once we agree wht we measure and how we measure...

 

In any case I back up ...what do you want to measure and how do we agree to measure whatever it is?

 

I think this is unrelated to te occurrance of drought. I have been arguing (rather unsuccessfully) with the folks at real climate that global warming will not lead to increased drought. This is supported theoretically by the Claussius-Clapeyron Equation and by historical data. Warmer temperatures lead to greater water evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation. Regionally, droughts lead to temperature increases, as cooling effects such as cloud formation and precipitation are reduced. In an effort to expand the range of climate change effects, some people have tried to include droughts and hurricanes, even though the evidence points in the opposite direction. These types of errors lead other to throw out the entire theory based on these misstatements (throw in the Himialayan melting, and it gets worse). To combat climate change, we first need to stick to the basics, and not try to over- expand its reach.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps congress is not totally inert. Should prove interesting.

 

Innocent until proven guilty

 

A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.

The science committee has asked Ms. Jackson to turn over all information related to an email account under the name of “Richard Windsor,” which is one of the aliases identified by a researcher looking into the EPA.

The committee has also asked the White House’s lawyer and EPA’s inspector general to look into the matter and report back by the end of this month, saying that the secret email accounts could have been used to keep key information from official watchdogs as well as the public.

[Cascade]

Perhaps congress is not totally inert. Should prove interesting.

 

Innocent until proven guilty

 

A House committee has launched an investigation into whether EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used an email alias to try to hide correspondence from open-government requests and her agency’s own internal watchdog — something that Republican lawmakers said could run afoul of the law.

The science committee has asked Ms. Jackson to turn over all information related to an email account under the name of “Richard Windsor,” which is one of the aliases identified by a researcher looking into the EPA.

The committee has also asked the White House’s lawyer and EPA’s inspector general to look into the matter and report back by the end of this month, saying that the secret email accounts could have been used to keep key information from official watchdogs as well as the public.

 

Potentially here we have some AGW protagonists engaging in the sort of dishonest behaviour that Richard was finding so vile. Lets see what reaction we get to this dishonest behaviour.

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, most of climate "science" is rife with such behavior. It may be human nature to be tribal, but when they want my money to spend on their fantasies, it becomes my business to resist.

 

In a similar vein, we can see just how ridiculous and extreme a statement such a position can lead to.

 

From Nature? Unnatural...

 

I have yet to meet a climate scientist who does not believe that global warming is a worse problem than they thought a few years ago...

James Hansen of NASA has screamed warnings for 30 years. Although at first he was dismissed as a madman, almost all his early predictions, disturbingly, have proved conservative in relation to what has actually happened....

Overstatement may generally be dangerous in science (it certainly is for careers) but for climate change, uniquely, understatement is even riskier and therefore, arguably, unethical.

 

Since Manhattan is not, as yet, underwater (despite Sandy and its 100 year fetch) and global "warming" has not even exceeded Hansen's best case scenario of no more CO2, he is an exemplar of activist agendized alarmism.

[Zelandakh]

The problem, as it stands, is that climate "science" (IPCC politicized and "Team" agendized) has turned atmospheric [CO2] into a global threat that it cannot credibly (through actual data and measurement) define or explain.

Science is often unable to completely explain things. For example, the beginning of the universe is still a subject with many open questions. Would you suggest that it therefore never happened?

 

 

Once you look past the rhetoric and the agenda, all you see is rent-seekers in academia

By "rent-seekers", I assume you mean scientists? Who do you think would be better suited to looking into the issue?

 

and the bankers behind the carbon trading schemes

The bankers are responsible? This is a new one. Would you care to provide some evidence?

 

 

Every proposed "solution" to the carbon "problem" has been shown to be totally without merit or effect.

By whom? provide references.

 

 

Every real analysis of the effects of our contribution to atmospheric CO2 has proven to be miniscule and either beneficial (in terms of biomass) or negligible (in terms of real global temperature increase being within the bounds of measurement error or systemic variation).

How are you defining "real" here? There are many papers with a different interpretation of the analysis than you are presenting here. Is an alaysis only "real" if it comes to the "correct" result?

 

 

I find it indicative of the success of the indoctrination that so many have given over their skepticism (of those that say they need your money to tell you what to do) and so willingly remain in such a sinking ship. The skeptics have few resources and small numbers, but they are armed with the facts and reality is gradually overcoming the wads of (our) cash that those calumnious leeches are throwing at the attempt to hide the decline and augment the invective.

I am a skeptic. Skepticism involves looking at all the data neutrally. It is not the same as having a viewpoint and throwing out any data that suggests that that might not be correct. In thie respect you do a great disservice to the skeptical community by trying to position yourself within it. Indeed, it is precisely such one-sided crap that skeptics seek out to discredit.

 

 

In short, every penny wasted on reducing our carbon footprint is a penny that was not spent on improving the lives of every inhabitant of this planet, whereupon a [CO2] of 1000 ppm would nary a difference make to our everyday lives.

If you believe that every penny spent on improving technology and efficiency would have been spent on inhabitants in distant lands then you must live in a very different world from the one I inhabit. The truth is that much of the money spent in this area is generally beneficial. The rest may or may not prove to be a good investment. Neither you nor I can answer that now and suggesting that this is certain is more than misleading (for both sides).

 

 

Finally, to Richard: straight speaking is fine, wishing death on someone is not. As Wayne said, you crossed the line here. More than that, I think you misunderstand the damage people like AI do to the cause of those who genuinely question the extent of AGW and what the best responce might be. For the vast majority of readers, being confronted by someone who is obviously delusional as the primary voice against it only pushes them towards accepting that it is real and needs to be addressed urgently. Put 10 AIs on TV in debate against sensible scientists and I think the results will be more positive for those proposing such measures as the carbon tax than 10 years of IPCC data and models.