Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Elihu » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:43 pm

perhaps that stopping the pollution might be a good thing?
how? what's the program? seriously, spell it out please.
And if we have to subsidize this because getting corporations to pay for their own mess isn't a new phenomena?
subsidies? please describe the desired changes that will generate the desired outcome and then in what manner the required force will be brought to bear to implement said changes. i think it's high time the believers start thinking forward about the responsibility they are assuming and for goodness sake share it with the rest of us...
Stupid Evil vs Regular Evil....
Don't know who to root for in that war.
vince :
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:54 pm

Honestly, Ben, it's extremely disappointing and a bit frustrating that you continue refusing to answer my questions and instead resort to cutting & pasting articles that you try to use to substantiate your viewpoint. Posting excerpts from an article published by the Daily Mail is no substitute for an answer to a question put directly to you. You're avoiding a polite reply.

It's quite difficult to have an intelligent conversation with one when they refuse to answer or choose to ignore your questions, wouldn't you agree?

Neither has Sounder chosen to answer my questions put to her/him, though many pre-crash posts of theirs have been deleted. I did my very best to answer Sounders question put to me, about the dangers posed by Fukushima's fallout, but received no recognition for my honest effort.

Though you say "from the horses mouth," you chose not to set into bold type his actual words as quoted in the article, but rather those of it's author.
note Ben's emphasis:
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

Please point out anywhere he has been quoted as saying this in its original context. I could not find any such statement from Jones in the Mail article, but did find twice those two words taken together out of context in the authors self-constructed sentences.

Why didn't you set into bold type the really pertinent part of that author's sentence, "...although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend"

Let's see what else you chose not to include from that article...

"But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."

Perhaps your omissions were to mislead readers not inclined to read your source material in its entirety? Pretty foolish of you, considering the title of this blog, don't you think?

Although you included this from the Mail "article," I'll now add appropriate emphasis where it should be emphasized:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

And, there's this too:
Ben's emphasis
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. ‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Jones admitted no such thing!

He stated that the science was scant for these regions and "For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere." He could not and certainly would not either admit or deny the possibility without scientific proof.

Lastly regarding the Mail "article":
"He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled."

Would you please provide us with proof that Jones had ever claimed anywhere that the science of climate change was settled. That would be startling for any scientist to admit, regardless of their field of study.

Let's move on to the WSJ post, but just for a moment, you know, the one you claimed provided "solid evidence hat AGW accelerated global warming is not happening."

A bit odd isn't it, not to have included this bit, the main point of the WSJ piece, don't you think, for someone claiming others are hiding or obfuscating evidence?
(please note for future reference that these little thingies: "?" appearing at the end of my sentences indicate that I am asking you a direct question)
"Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically."

Or this, that immediately follows the above:

"A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment.

This is the last sentence to the above paragraph and I've separated it purposely to draw attention to it:

"And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."

Playing with emphasis is meant to either draw one away from a point or to emphasize it.

"And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."

Bolding or enlarging text can distract from the intended meaning, as I've just demonstrated. The scientists who signed that WSJ piece are conveying the message that regulations will hamper profits. The benefit they speak of would be to stockholders and survivors of increased pollution in third world countries as their unimpeded by regulation industries develop.

If that's not adequate enough a demonstration of an intention to mislead by adding emphasis, perhaps this will suffice "...more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."

The WSJ article is an economic dissertation.

First you foolishly put forth a biased opinion piece from the WSJ and call it "proof" and again you resort to the Daily Mail as though it was a credible source. (btw, did you see that demon behind the couch?)
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6337
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:24 pm

Elihu wrote:
perhaps that stopping the pollution might be a good thing?
how? what's the program? seriously, spell it out please



duh, I don know. Maybe if we stopped making useless consumerist tat, bombs/guns and david ike dvd sets. maybe then we wouldn't be wasting our limited resources to make pollution and CO2 emissions.

Elihu wrote:
And if we have to subsidize this because getting corporations to pay for their own mess isn't a new phenomena?
subsidies? please describe the desired changes that will generate the desired outcome and then in what manner the required force will be brought to bear to implement said changes. i think it's high time the believers start thinking forward about the responsibility they are assuming and for goodness sake share it with the rest of us...


You there - don't buy any more shit you don't need. Stop with your computer, cell phone, and Ipad and get rid of your tv and every other bit of replaceable by design, consumer tat you own.
Convince your friends and family to do the same and then start lobbying your elected officials that the threat is real and present - that we need to act now and collectively.

Alternatively, continue as before and sneer at those egotist environmentalists and lap up your libertarian sociopath slop that you tell everyone is so tasty. .
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:46 pm

Apparently everything I provide for you is over your head Iamwhomiam,.....but you can believe anything you like, so let's leave it at that and don't waste any more of my time...

Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:08 pm

Ben D wrote:Apparently everything I provide for you is over your head Iamwhomiam


Yes. It's over my head too - why anyone who stated they were on the side of rational or logical argument (oh...) would cite articles from the Uks DailyHate/HateMail, WSJ, Torygraph. Not that they would be be on the side of big oil/corporations, big government, Koch style libertarian sociopaths. Oh..

Are you in Mel Gibson's Dad's conspiracult by the way?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:39 pm

Rory wrote:
Ben D wrote:Apparently everything I provide for you is over your head Iamwhomiam


Yes. It's over my head too..

Are you in Mel Gibson's Dad's conspiracult by the way?

I'll take that into consideration from now on Rory,...and btw,..you're just so funny,..you silly old sausage,.. you... :jumping:

However I'm sort of busy Rory, so you will understand that I don't have any more time to waste on you....
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:52 pm

Beginning with P.10, to catch-up...

Wise words, professorpan:

"I can't event tolerate these discussions anymore. Seriously. The fact that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and the Heritage Foundation have convinced otherwise intelligent, reality-based people that climate change is a "myth" they should be "skeptical" about makes me want to blast off in a homemade rocket and live the last of my days in Gingrich's 51st state Moon colony.

Really, it is just overwhelmingly depressing."


Sounder: "7 I still don't understand how folk can consider that the scale of effects from AGW could be on par with Fukushima or DU or GMO's or glyphosphates"

I tried to engage you by answering your questions, but you chose not to further the discussion. I suggest you begin another thread and I'll be glad to discuss environmental threats other than that posed by our changing climate. I'd love to learn what you are doing to eliminate those that we can.

Ben,

Honestly, I have no other choice... I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces of of me and sticks to you. I feel exactly as you do... about deniers. You looking in a mirror, while typing, talking to yourself?

DrEvil, replying to Sounder:
2 the hubris involved about fixing it with a tax is beyond absurd.
Agreed. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it though.

Exactly! We know our pollutants contribute to warming, regardless of our viewpoints and so we should do all within our power to reduce our contributing sources. A carbon tax will only help to induce polluters to reduce their pollution and will help to fund truly clean and sustainable energy alternatives. A carbon tax isn't about fixing anything. It's about reducing pollution. :blinky: :blinky: :blinky:

Sounder to Ben: (Ben's first)

"they can't think outside the confines of material reality and therefore are mentally blind to the larger reality that we know exists. Iow, they are materialists"

"Possibly, and somewhat connected to this though, is a sense of reticence when confronted by thinking that has room for no more than slander (not referring to you) toward the person that is willing to challenge the consensus. For me they do not inspire confidence in that coercion seems only distantly related to thinking."

Good thing you deleted those early snarky comments of your, Sounder. Those of us who remember them know your hands are not clean of that you accuse others of.

professorpan

Very Good! 'cept 5 ~ no head bashin' and getting drunk only gives you a headache. There are a few deniers down under, you know.

slim, I think about exotics all the time!

Page 11
[ur=http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=446411#p446411l]Saurian Tail[/url] ~ Wise words to be heeded. Thank you.

Rory wrote:

"We need to evolve ideas about how to think (collectively) in such a way as to prevent Corporate waste, Military excess and individual apathy. It is the cowards way out to simply sigh and resign yourself to the concept of a society that might have a clean - tech fix to all the current problems. The problems are a manifestation of our failings as a race, but massively exacerbated by a sociopathic predator class who are the acme of this - perhaps they are the suicide/effective limiter gene of the species - programed into us to reign in overpopulation and destructive resource over consumption."

Well said! :clapping:

Simulist wrote:

"What kind of evidence?" How about starting with some evidence. Any would be nice."

Into the Ri quote book with that! Well done!

Wintler2 The graph uses few words to put the issue into a nutshell. :clapping:
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6337
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Ben D wrote: However I'm sort of busy Rory, so you will understand that I don't have any more time to waste on you

I suspect you're busy trying and failing to be some kind of science denying horse whisperer. Takes a lot of energy for sure and indeed appears to be wasted. You have my sympathy - maybe that's why you are reading the daily mail in the first place - you're effectively retarded due to over exertion.

and ikes DVDs.wont buy themselves I guess. Happy reptilian bloodline conspiracy's!!

This might seem inappropriate but your bum looks big in those jeans
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:32 am

.

I must thank Iamwhoiam for that recap, since, after all the other threads just like this one, I skipped to the current page. And Iamwhoiam not only tells it like it is (as do Rory and some others) but linked back to this amazing chart, which has had me laughing for 10 minutes.




Thanks to skepticalscience.com and wintler2.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15330
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:09 am

I have to admit I laughed my ass off too when I saw this chart too. The first thing I thought when I saw it was..."well, if I take this tiny 40 year segment of a chart, and I put it into a 1000 year chart, this little piddly 40 year chart will look exactly like one of these little horizontal lines on a 1000 year chart."

In the big scheme of things, this little 40 year chart is not even equal to 1 of those little horizontal lines in this chart. Its nothing but a little jagged line you could barely see. Nothing but a blip on the radar screen.

You guys are letting me down. You can do better than this.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:38 am

eyeno wrote:I have to admit I laughed my ass off too when I saw this chart too. The first thing I thought when I saw it was..."well, if I take this tiny 40 year segment of a chart, and I put it into a 1000 year chart, this little piddly 40 year chart will look exactly like one of these little horizontal lines on a 1000 year chart."

In the big scheme of things, this little 40 year chart is not even equal to 1 of those little horizontal lines in this chart. Its nothing but a little jagged line you could barely see. Nothing but a blip on the radar screen.

You guys are letting me down. You can do better than this.


How very dare you rain on their multi billion dollar scam parade ? :mrgreen: Theres research grants that depend on this. Theres a whole world to centralise ! Theres a whole message of fear and guilt, and its "your fault Mr stupid little man woman and child" that needs to get out there. This "little blip on the radar " as you call it, might seem like that you , but Im telling you man......

Isnt that right , Rory ? :shrug:
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:39 am

eyeno wrote:In the big scheme of things, this little 40 year chart is not even equal to 1 of those little horizontal lines in this chart. Its nothing but a little jagged line you could barely see. Nothing but a blip on the radar screen.


You know, you're right: if you fo exactly that, and measure it against burning of industrial quantities of hydrocarbons...oh.

And if you compared the rise and fall of global temperatures, against the modern, last 40 years of exponential and without historical precedent - population growth, density and resource consumption, and the corresponding rise in carbon burning...oh.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:06 am

So how goes the noble struggle of slimmouse & BenDs rebel heroes against the evil and all-powerful global warming elites?

Not too bad.. they just bought the rest of Australia's newspapers (Rupert Murdoch already being onside with the plucky rebels).

Heres Lord Monkton, leader of the rebel alliance, advising Australia's mining industry to do as multibillionaire Gina Rinehart just did.

For some background on Rinehart, Mike Carlton in the Sydeny Morning Herald is entertaining, i think his job has just been readvertised..
Gina Rinehart's descent upon Fairfax will be welcomed by all right-thinking Australians. As everyone knows, great wealth automatically confers great wisdom, a clarity of vision light years beyond the feeble witterings of the rest of us. ..


Every radical cause needs a fruity Lord and several helpful billionaires.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:20 am

wintler2 wrote:So how goes the noble struggle of slimmouse & BenDs rebel heroes against the evil and all-powerful global warming elites?


AFAIC, this whole debate is rather like two bald men fighting over a comb. You do of course know thats my position, but dont let that get in your way.

:dueling:

:popcorn:
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:25 am

Every radical cause needs a fruity Lord and several helpful billionaires.


Technical foul. Al Gore. 20 yard penalty. Go straight to jail and do not collect 200 dollars. :evilgrin

Come on guys. Still letting me down. I need action. :mrgreen:

(if i piss ya off to bad tell me and i'll stop, i'm bored tonight) :clown


:popcorn:
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests