The DnD Sanctuary

It’s official — Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan) has frozen over…
Yahoo! UK & Ireland News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/official-hell-frozen-over-162307501.html) and BBC Newcastle

Niagara Falls (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/falls) have frozen over!..
The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/visual-arts/niagara-falls-freezes-over-as-mercury-hits-37c-1-3263561), BBC

Anthropomorphic Global Warming

Global warming shaped like a human? Bollocks!

Sorry, mended.

Global warming shaped like a human? Bollocks!

Nah... Shaped like bollocks!;)
:D

Worst linguist ever.

Anthropogenic Global Warming  ---  Man-Made Climate Change --- Man-Made Global Warming ......

Pick a name......Any name......

The Man-Made Global Warming Propaganda BS stinks of   [glow=brown,2,300] HOAX & SCAM [/glow]   (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/pileOshit01.gif)   no matter how high you pile it, nor what name you call it.

It has for years.....

......It's nothing but an elephant trap, devised by hardcore environmentalists, shyster politicians, rent-seeking businesses and grant-troughing activist scientists to get everyone bogged down in trivial "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments about global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree......

........What should concern every one of us far more, surely, is the way that in the name of saving the planet so much corruption has been embedded, so much money wasted, and so much public trust abused - all of it at our expense......

It's Settled Science, a term often used to cut off debate, by those who can't win the debate without voodoo science, like using the race card &  screaming at the top of their lungs you're a RACIST!!!

Well, do you think it's 'settled science', or do you think it's just a 'SCAM' defined by a Voodoo Science Religious Sect?

Nah... Shaped like bollocks!;)

You beat me to it? :irked:

you're a RACIST!!!

That's actually no stupider than trying to disprove decades of research based on a local climate event, or rightests claiming "Polar Vortex" was invented for the cold snap in the eastern half of the US (despite the fact the term first appeared in 1853...) , while we in some of the western states actually have above normal temps (which  doesn't prove climate any more then the former.)

The question of why science has become politicized is begged. Could it possibly be the religious component of  GOP lobbying against evolution, while trying to deny more than century of fossil evidence and lobbying by petroleum industry against decades of data?

......The question of why science has become politicized is begged. Could it possibly be the religious component of  GOP lobbying against evolution, while trying to deny more than century of fossil evidence and lobbying by petroleum industry against decades of data?

I'd say that could possibly account for between 15 & 20% of the politicization, but most probably the bulk of the reasons this issue has been so politicized lies elsewhere, for various other grounds, & on more than one side of any political spectrum. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)

Anybody here been following the "Spirit of Mawson" ship of fools story? This was a classic, a bunch of warmist "scientists" chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to, amongst other things, see how much sea-ice has been melting down there. The problem is that the sea-ice refused to cooperate, it trapped their ship and they had to be rescued by helicopter. Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations. Interesting story, makes for good reading, I've been following it on the "discredited" WUWT blog.

........Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations........

That's why, & it has been well documented, why they needed to change the name of their midway side-show from ''Global Warming" to a more general, all encompassing, can't go wrong moniker of "Climate Change".

Hell, even I believe in Climate Change, to the extent that Climate Change is a naturally occurring cycle.....a cycle that can take many years to go from one point to another.

Now, when the radically extremest left saw that too many people like myself were aboard with Climate Change ----  but we didn't subscribe to man-made Climate Change like they Gregorian-ly chanted too ---- so, they demanded it's name had to be changed again

to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change this time, with it's 
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hippies3.gif)   
more radical sphincter groups adopting the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis.......dude. 

             (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgSn4sVO.jpg&hash=acf547184989f8b7702757b40dea8d04" rel="cached" data-hash="acf547184989f8b7702757b40dea8d04" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/gSn4sVO.jpg)

That's actually no stupider than trying to disprove decades of research based on a local climate event, or rightests claiming "Polar Vortex" was invented for the cold snap in the eastern half of the US (despite the fact the term first appeared in 1853...) , while we in some of the western states actually have above normal temps (which  doesn't prove climate any more then the former.)

And so did most of Europe for example.

Anybody here been following the "Spirit of Mawson" ship of fools story? This was a classic, a bunch of warmist "scientists" chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to, amongst other things, see how much sea-ice has been melting down there. The problem is that the sea-ice refused to cooperate, it trapped their ship and they had to be rescued by helicopter. Then the ship they got taken to had a job and a half navigating out of the heavy sea-ice, then had to stand by while the Chinese ship that provided the helicopter indicated that it, too, had become trapped and might need assistance. Fortunately, the wind shifted and the ice-bound ships were able to work themselves free of the sea ice that shouldn't have been there (it was supposed to be melting) and now the ships are on their way to their various destinations. Interesting story, makes for good reading, I've been following it on the "discredited" WUWT blog.

Holy shit that's Glenn Beck level of spinning the story :faint:
The sea ice didn't 'refuse to cooperate', instead it cooperated with the wind blowing it into the bay, where it compacted and trapped everything in the way.

Global warming is the wrong (and exlusively English) term for a real and measurable process. In the 70's and 80's it was called the greenhouse effect. Any denialists of that here? The greenhouse effect does not lead up to uniform soothing warming, but to chaotic turmoil, like a boiling kettle. Somehow everybody forgot this in the end of the 90's, when the issue became politicised.

The greenhouse effect is what keeps us from freezing to death. You'd still have to add a qualifier, like accelerated greenhouse effect.

As for the term being exclusively English—I know a few other terms to describe the process, like planetary warming and climatic warming, but global warming is definitely used in many other languages as well.

The greenhouse effect is what keeps us from freezing to death. You'd still have to add a qualifier, like accelerated greenhouse effect.

Well, of course, the "man-made" aspect there is the effect of freons, CO2, and other industrial or artificial additives. Ozone depletion was real, and "global warming" to me is the exact same discussion. Just the decade is different. Nobody denied ozone depletion or accused it of bad science, did they?

Yup. No.

Not exactly on topic, but here's an actual 4th science test from a Christian school in South Carolina.

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/creationist-science-test.jpg (wasn't sure how to insert an image from another site [img=xxxx} didn't work )

If this what they're teaching children now, it goes a long way to explain the ignorance.

[img]http://etc[/img]

It's that way on pretty much any forum except My Opera. I could add compatibility for the My Opera style, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort.

..wasn't sure how to..

See https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=6.0

We also have a help page (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=help), which after following a couple of links will land you here (http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Basic_Bulletin_Board_Codes).

Yup, and it's definitely anthropogenic! ;)

Someone calls somebody "climate deniers" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM&list=PLrFGHFaixQlUagHrYAzHxVRAfoYkoTLrY), I'm not sure what they think when doing that...

There used to be global warming deniers. Now that they changed the term to "climate change", there are climate deniers. Neither of the terms makes sense to me, but in either case deniers live on the principle "I deny, therefore I think."

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fcold.png&hash=f7d610e56db3394fac7ebf90b692fad7" rel="cached" data-hash="f7d610e56db3394fac7ebf90b692fad7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png) (http://xkcd.com/1321/)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climateandfuel.com%2Fpics%2Fmapukxy.JPG&hash=6668251c3453081d3b25cf7bf4b6c3b7" rel="cached" data-hash="6668251c3453081d3b25cf7bf4b6c3b7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.climateandfuel.com/pics/mapukxy.JPG)www.climateandfuel.com
:o

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Flrg%2F27%2F2758%2FJI6TD00Z.jpg&hash=beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" rel="cached" data-hash="beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/27/2758/JI6TD00Z.jpg)

No Great Loss (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg9442#msg9442) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Flrg%2F27%2F2758%2FJI6TD00Z.jpg&hash=beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" rel="cached" data-hash="beb45305c27bf6596d2d42c2d4a7f9fc" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/27/2758/JI6TD00Z.jpg)

Quite right. An often overlooked problem of rising sea levels is having your hair chewed by swans. Although funny at first, I can see how that can get annoying quickly.

Ah, yes, this old-whored-out thread......

Anyway, if you all care to take a gander at Josh's FB page, you'll find that DANBOZO/DANBUZO has survived the apocalypse.

He sends his regards via his blog, apparently......

Brace yourselves.....



















(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/564699_10200720757501397_419468896_n.jpg?dl=1)

Hey, maybe Josh can find Bantay v1.0 thru v29.0 in his FB ....... wouldn't that be sweet! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)

                               (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS2RyuYd.jpg&hash=39df96132451e71b807e4a90b89eb898" rel="cached" data-hash="39df96132451e71b807e4a90b89eb898" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/S2RyuYd.jpg)

Do you think that our Josh is related to the son of a nun?

1 After Moses, the servant of the LORD, had died, the LORD said to Moses’ aide Joshua, son of Nun:
2 Moses my servant is dead. So now, you and the whole people with you, prepare to cross the Jordan to the land that I will give the Israelites.

Saharan sand pours onto England. The radio presenter's said it was reported by DEFRA and connected to the Climate Change (sic, with capitals;).

"It was from 2thousand blabla pages report"!
Great! How many pages did the General Relativity thing consist of?

MPs criticise BBC for 'false balance' in climate change coverage (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage)

Editors of the Radio 4 Today programme and other BBC news teams have been criticised by MPs for giving political opinions about climate change and scientific fact the same weight of coverage.

Retrieved via http://www.mediauk.com/radio/news

For what it's worth: Chicago has recorded its coldest winter since recordings began here. The four Winter months (December, January, February and March) averaged 22F. In that time, we had several days of zero or below F days, enough snow to build an impressive snow fort and a desire to speed things up on global-- or at least local-- warming.

I just yesterday watched a film which set's background is as the following: OF COURSE it was Global Warming (who doubts!), and some smart arse invented a cooling machine, which eventually reverted the "Warming" to its opposite -- everybody died (except for those characters, of course).
They seem to play with it as if it's a done deal, eh?

For what it's worth: Chicago has recorded its coldest winter since recordings began here. The four Winter months (December, January, February and March) averaged 22F. In that time, we had several days of zero or below F days, enough snow to build an impressive snow fort and a desire to speed things up on global-- or at least local-- warming.

At the same time Europe had one of the mildest winters on record.

Global warming is the wrong (and exlusively English) term for a real and measurable process. In the 70's and 80's it was called the greenhouse effect. Any denialists of that here? The greenhouse effect does not lead up to uniform soothing warming, but to chaotic turmoil, like a boiling kettle. Somehow everybody forgot this in the end of the 90's, when the issue became politicised.

Quite. "Climate Change" is older than "Global Warming" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm). More importantly Global Warming doesn't scan well in Norwegian. "Global Oppvarming" just sounds silly, with the two 'O's competing. "Klimaendringer" on the other is easy to pronounce and sounds swell.

I wonder, with all the carbon taxing, & carbon trading schemes around the world, except for redistributing a lot of wealth, how has it in any way affected the global temperature?

Ah, yes it has they will say, & all the models say that due to our swift actions to lower our collective carbon footy prints, in about 90-160 years we should be reaping the preliminary benefits of all our tomfoolery decisive accomplishments --- The planet should cool by - .003C (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bs010.gif)

I figure at just about that time the King will be sporting a new 3 piece suit.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOX7QvJ8.jpg&hash=1df452a8d7fb7761a12113dae3dcf834" rel="cached" data-hash="1df452a8d7fb7761a12113dae3dcf834" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/OX7QvJ8.jpg)

BTW you fools on the hill (& just about everywhere else) -- [glow=black,2,300]The Long Debate is Long Over, (http://theconsensusproject.com/)[/glow] or didn't you already know it??!?

Mankind's next challenges -- after taming Mother Nature, these should be a walk in the park for us almighty humans -- [glow=green,2,300]We will[/glow] make Hurricanes & Cyclones change course, make Twisters twist in reverse effectively stopping them in their tracks, stopping Earthquakes from quaking, stopping Rip currents from ripping, stop Mudslides from sliding .................................................................

You think, SmileyFaze , that climate changing is some leftist, european, (maybe even socialist) attack against the American way of life.
You're wrong, it isn't, it's just a fact.

No.

I'm not making up my mind until rjh sums it up in his usual incisive manner.

I'm not making up my mind until rjh sums it up in his usual incisive manner.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.42;msg=15597)

Smart move...

For the record, I don't doubt for one minute that the climate is changing. It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet. It will continue to do that long after we're a historic footnote-- provided there's anybody to note the history then.

What I DO doubt is the effect we have on the global climate, or indeed can have on the climate. I really think we give ourselves too much credit for being able to make changes for good or for evil, and further I have an idea that the jury is still out on what, exactly, is driving climate change. We're like an ant on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, trying to say we understand it and that we have power to change it. I think just maybe we're actually a long way from being able to understand it or make meaningful changes.

For the record, I don't doubt for one minute that the climate is changing. It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet.........

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-hash="75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)
                                                                                (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bullseye 75x56.gif)

.....It will continue to do that long after we're a historic footnote-- provided there's anybody to note the history then.......

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-hash="75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)

The last Ice Age (see below) lasted 80+ Thousand Years or so in our method of time keeping.

Hell, we don't have any bona fide documentation on where the Egyptians found the architectural knowledge used to devise the Pyramids, & that's only a few thousand years back. The only thing we have is a plethora of theories.

I doubt any remains of our existence will last anything near as long as an Ice Age.

Nor will any method devised to recount our blip on the lines of time, by this most recent incarnation of mankind (ours), survive a similar journey thru time.

Those living prior to the last Ice Age event left nothing enduring for us to know anything about them, so I'd gather the same outcome would most probably repeat.

....The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.....

What I DO doubt is the effect we have on the global climate, or indeed can have on the climate. I really think we give ourselves too much credit for being able to make changes for good or for evil, and further I have an idea that the jury is still out on what, exactly, is driving climate change. We're like an ant on the shore of the Pacific Ocean, trying to say we understand it and that we have power to change it. I think just maybe we're actually a long way from being able to understand it or make meaningful changes.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-hash="75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)

All through society there are so called leaders afield,  that need to devise methods to prolong & legitimatize their own worth, importance, & existence ........ especially politicians, & those that see the opportunity to create wealth from those less educated, & easily convinced that toadstools taste like decadent fudge.

Mankind's naive belief that it can overcome anything in it's habitat (even it's own mortality), though impressively ambitious at times, is in this case simply nothing more than over-ambitious naivety ---- at our $$ expense $$.

It's been doing that for a long time-- like, before Man ever set foot on the planet.

Yes and what's interesting is that you believe that because scientist tells you so but when the same scientists tells you that your car (consider it as a metaphor for human activity, if you prefer) is doing it, it seems that the same scientists turned suddenly into idiots...

.....it seems that the same scientists turned suddenly into idiots.....

Far from being idiots, no....they're quite adept, but unfortunately, they're just more wrong than right on this political issue, but just like the politicians they serve, spot-on with how to strum up the funding.

Consensus = General Agreement

If a consensus means they will get the grants & funding, come hell or high water, a consensus the world  will get -----  And, as in politics, the majority of their fellow scientists in this case is a proof positive victory over strong disagreement.

Those that disagree don't & won't concede though, & they will never go away, much to the chagrin of their victorious opposition ----- an opposition, who unfortunately for them, have yet to prove positive that their theories are anywhere near correct.

If a consensus means they will get the grants & funding,

That's the problem when science is done with private funds... scientists will "discover" whatever those who pay wants or needs. Same goes with lawyers and jurisconsults. But that's the joy of capitalism, isn't it? :)

Nella fantasia ( in My imagination )

if Techs can create an Artificial Mini Sun , then orbits that in outer space .

to Make the World always Day ( There is no Night )

Plants will always Produces O2 .

and grow faster .

to cool down the Heat in Earth .

if Techs can create an Artificial Mini Sun , then orbits that in outer space .

to Make the World always Day ( There is no Night )

No need for that, just blast the moon. :bomb:

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

Bel, now we have a "non-profit" global 'official' monopoly - not private funding.

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-04-06, 20:02:10

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:

Quote from: Macallan on 2014-04-06, 23:22:29

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-04-06, 20:02:10

Pity the same scientists got it wrong years ago when we were going to get snowed in. Could have really tested by new hiking boots and outdoor jacket.

You keep making that claim yet never back it up with anything :sherlock:

You expected William Howie Wallace to actually back up his claims?   :eyes:     :faint:

Absolutely not, I'm just setting him up for another round of point & laugh :right:
Don't tell him though :sst:

Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget. Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

I get my view from "Duck Dynasty."

Call me in 200 years for early results.

Do experts ever disagree?

Scientists years ago were telling us that we were heading for a new Ice Age or is that something the science lovers here choose to suitably forget.

You don't seem to know what 'backing up your claims' means.

Indeed they were just as strong on that as they are now on us sweltering now. The one who is laughing is I  What an about face that is as another mirth did clever clogs not know this?

Evidence? Who needs evidence if you can just bloviate the same crap again.
Even if your claim was true, how does that invalidate anything?

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

In other words, holy crap we know more now than we did in the 1970s. Well, except the Howies of this world.

RJH isn't entirely out in the woods on this. There was some chatter in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how Man was causing it and how things we might be able to do could stop another ice age. One idea was---I am not making this up-- painting the ice at the Poles black so it would begin to absorb solar heat, thereby reducing the amount of white surface that was reflecting sunlight back into space. I doubt anybody took that idea seriously-- at least I never heard of anybody actually trying this-- but the idea was out there. Below, a Google search. There's enough links there to satisfy idle curiosity I reckon.

https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling)

Yea. And in the 60's before that there was talk of detonating nukes over the poles to melt ice and warm the planet. Of course then that was seen as a good thing.

Do experts ever disagree?

I'll answer your question with 2 other questions.

If you were a scientist, & knew that disagreeing with the so called 'consensus' would subject you to scorn, famine, & economic grief if you disagreed ...... would you disagree? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)

If you were a scientist, & knew that agreeing with the so called 'consensus' would place you in the harmonious  mainstream flow of grants & various other forms of funding to further investigate you life's work & pet theories, & added to that be given the ability to have your journals favorably fast-tracked thru peer-review as long as you join in their so called 'consensus' ....... would you agree?(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)

Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P

Your haughty self-importance Macallan has not diminished here as in Opera. Scientists were pro active in stating we would end up in a global freezer and with just as much gusto as they do now with warming. However you instead fall back on being ignorant as is your norm. With your sneering and automatic rubbishing says much about you more than you realise. And that you are a Mod here is head shaking. Would never have happened on Opera.   :P

Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Even if that claim had any credibility ( it was a prediction from a short term trend, which was dubious even at the time,  and there was no consent on it either ) - how on earth does the fact that some scientists were wrong 40 years ago have any bearing on what' happening now?
Do you finally understand the question or do I need to dumb it down even more?

In other words, holy crap we know more now than we did in the 1970s. Well, except the Howies of this world.

On top of which, thanks to better filters and such on coal plants I believe we've mostly actually dealt with aerosols.

But more important: they did in fact know better (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43).

This graphic summarizes data that refutes a related myth that publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming due to increased carbon dioxide were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.

What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?

What's wrong with this picture?
Who can undertake a syntactical dissection of that pearl?

Grammatically, perhaps somewhat surprisingly given the monstrous size, nothing. I went into enough detail to show that everything lines up, but no further.

http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/

[S [NP This graphic][VP [V summarizes][NP [N data][that-clause [Subord that] [VP [V refutes] [NP a related myth[that-clause [Subord that] [NP publications now supporting the scientific consensus [that-clause [Subord that] [NP the world][VP is warming due to increased carbon dioxide]]] [VP were predicting in the 1970s [that-clause that the world would cool.]]]]]]]]]

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fpolymathicmonkey.smugmug.com%2Fphotos%2Fi-TFL2xcM%2F0%2FO%2Fi-TFL2xcM.png&hash=cec4aef876e4973bf34fbceb15e7b2c1" rel="cached" data-hash="cec4aef876e4973bf34fbceb15e7b2c1" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://polymathicmonkey.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFL2xcM/0/O/i-TFL2xcM.png) (http://polymathicmonkey.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFL2xcM/0/O/i-TFL2xcM.png)

Well, I guessed on that. (Dude, the dissection looks even more unbearable!:lol:)
Anyway, people who use such constructions should be shot on sight.:D

Nah, they should hire editors (and pay them properly). Even something as simple as splitting it up in two works wonders:

This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.

And punctuation - perhaps surprisingly for many Brits - can help a lot.

This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting in the 1970s that the world would cool.

Maybe the thought behind that monster phrase was to shift the actual semantic accent grammatically off the "cooling" - as being deemed of a false idea.
Noteworthy, Russian rules for much more commas in order to separate clauses and stuff, which makes it easier to read.

That's my fault. I inadvertently added some duplication. I was just trying to show how much you can potentially achieve without rewriting. I actually meant to write something more like this:

This graphic summarizes data that refute a related myth that the world would cool. According to this myth, publications now supporting the scientific consensus that the world is warming, were predicting the opposite in the 1970s.

You forgot "due to increased carbon dioxide":P

I left it out on purpose.

What purpose was that?

For one thing, it should probably be something like increased carbon dioxide concentrations or levels. But mostly I think it just makes the sentence inelegant without adding much of value. You can always toss it elsewhere in the text if you think it's vital.

It makes it pertaining to this thread, dude!:cheers:

I will acknowledge validity (if only in part) on a single (1) aspect of[glow=black,2,300] Anthropogenic Global Warming [/glow] claims. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/secretrc9.gif)

[glow=green,2,300]Deforestation.  [/glow]

When forests are cut, burnt, & bulldozed under their ability to sequester CO₂ is effectively eliminated, & that combined with the complete loss of Oxygen production could cause a natural imbalance. Remaining plantlife will grow larger & thrive due to a temporary increase of CO₂, & as a result eventually produce higher levels of Oxygen ...... [glow=black,2,300]Mother Natures[/glow] [glow=black,2,300]4.5 Billion Year[/glow] [glow=black,2,300]Balancing Act.[/glow] (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)

Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?

I doubt it, but the [glow=black,2,300]Chicken Littles[/glow] of this world will probably think so. 

(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance001.gif)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance002.gif)   (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAPoTk5y.jpg&hash=e5a88e6f1027af4243f05c43a96969e8" rel="cached" data-hash="e5a88e6f1027af4243f05c43a96969e8" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/APoTk5y.jpg)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance001.gif)  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chicdance002.gif)

There are many ways to increase CO₂ and to reduce O₂ at the same time. :left:

Nuke Scotland?

Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?

Deforestation is a major issue of the human impact.
irRegardless of "temperatures".

Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival. However one needs to warn you that if many of the survivors are from Glasgow you better start packing. Anyway I would probably be out in the countryside or hills on my swanky new outdoor boots.

Heard on BBC Three counties, then found some news elsewhere:

A member of the House of Lords raised eyebrows in the chamber on Wednesday, when he said there could be a link between global warming and the large amount of baked beans consumed in the UK, causing people to produce so-called “smelly emissions”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-smelly-emissions-from-baked-beans-contribute-to-global-warming-viscount-simon-asks-energy-minister-9249179.html

Oakdale quotes here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1185.msg41586#msg41586) a statistician with crap logic deployed to further some hazy agenda. How does the statistician's argument go?

...draw for yourself a standard x-y plot, with x the time and y the measure of interest, say temperature. At some early time point, place a dot for the first “temperature”. And at some later point, place a second dot higher than the first.

Now I ask you: was there a trend in the data?

What point is this supposed to make? Quite likely, it's supposed to confound us with the paradox of the heap. We speak of statistical trends, but two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, are they? Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.

Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends? Clearly, the argument has made no point whatsoever thus far. The statistician's reasoning continues,

This is why hypothesis testing is so toxic. Once a wee p-value is spotted, “randomness” or “chance” are rejected as causes and whatever other idea the researcher had in mind is said to be the cause. This is wrong in every possible way. Randomness and chance are never causes, and to assume a cause is not a proof this was the sole correct cause.

So, building up from the prior non-argument, the statistician seems to conclude that hypotheses cannot be tested and causes cannot be attributed. The statistician even goes so far as to state,

...there is no way to tell because there is no definition of trend.

False. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation)

The statistician's reasoning presupposes a sterile world view where statistics - which admittedly only verifies correlations at best, never causality - is everything there is. By citing the fact that statistics cannot give you causality, it's possible to reject causal forces and trends only when one doesn't want to know anything about the world outside statistics, such as the empirical world of common-sense experience, where causes are a normal feature alongside with (and distinct from) correlations.

The larger context of this discussion is the Global Warming debate. Given only the information thus far, can anyone guess on which side of the debate the statistician is? I cannot. If I had the kind of world view as the statistician here has, believing that statistics is utterly pointless and proves nothing (or can be used to prove anything), I would give up being a statistician, because I care about meaningful argumentation and proofs.

Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend. Its empirical causes are distinct from the measurements of the temperature. And policies to deal with the causes are distinct from the science of it. But in the minds of reductionists and oversimplifiers, nothing is proven and everything is politics.

Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.
Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends?

The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful… No? :)
Causes necessitate correlations. But correlations may (and often do) escape causes, because the mere correlation (and any statistical shenanigans proffered) are merely co-incident.
You're too given to accept opinion polls as statistics, ersi. While they may be a valuable tool for marketing they're a pox upon science!

Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?

The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful… No? :)

And causal models cannot be had? Like, we don't know that rain comes from clouds and clouds are made of steam and are pushed around by wind that is atmospheric pressure that differs from location to location?

Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?

Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so. (This in order for me to determine for sure if anything you say here has any meaning. Often it doesn't, and it seems so right now too.)

Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend.

It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray…
We're recovering from the last Ice Age! Of course, the earth's climate is warming.
Scientists should want to know why! The AGW groups have focused upon CO₂, and hence fossil fuels… But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

What to do?
Stick to the "trend" we think we saw, and bet the farm on it? It's not really there anymore; but we're committed!
As far as I can tell, the only statistical use of the term "trend" is to get people to spend money they'd otherwise spend sensibly. (Bluejeans with holes and rips in them selling for more than whole, durable denim is the example that comes to my mind first.)

The one reasonable use of "trend analysis" I can think of -that isn't predicated upon propaganda and political manipulation- is that of providing scientists with data-driven insights from which to develop hypotheses.
Hypotheses should lead to causal theories which make predictions… Which is how they're tested: Posit a cause, explain it by a theory; predict on that basis future events. See if the predictions fail… If they do, the theory is wrong.
The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does…) nothing will be learned…
While you might be happy with that, I would not.

Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so.

Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four… Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters — mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them… The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A — as a result. (Sometimes not…) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)

It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray…

I can grant this - you are led astray by trendy language. It's perfectly evident from the other thread that you think statistics is fundamentally flawed - except for the single statistician that happens to be to your liking. Meanwhile, it never crosses your mind that statistics might be taught in the correct perspective in the rest of the world.

As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.

Scientists should want to know why!

But they found out why. It's just that you are in denial of what they found out.

Just to make it clear, tell what you think the scientists are saying about the causes of Global Warming. From what I have seen, the denialists are oversimplifying (as if warming were the one and only problem, instead of wider ecological concerns, and as if CO₂ were the one and only greenhouse gas) and bogged down in the politics rather than the science.

The AGW groups have focused upon CO₂, and hence fossil fuels… But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.

The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does…) nothing will be learned…

The statistician that I berate notes a lot a things with zero specifics as to what he is going on about. The specifics in his talk are so scant that from what you quoted it was impossible to tell his topic (Global Warming) and whether he was pro or contra. Whichever way it may be, he makes no point that would hint at the reason why he's pro or contra. If you can indicate such a point, please do.

Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four… Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters — mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them… The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A — as a result. (Sometimes not…) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)

And how is this missing in the Global Warming debate in general? From what I can see, it's your quoted statistician alone who recognises no causality whatsoever.

Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.

The "scientists" who are committed to AGW are leaders -or merely part of- the groups… :)
If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong… Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?
—————————————————————————————————————————————————

As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.

What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end… We don't know. Our theories about such are -shall we say- merely statistical? :)
The idea that the greenhouse effect predicts, on the basis of human activity, a cataclysmic "cusp" event for the earth's climate is based upon — what?
And when you mention that what, remember that science requires more than opinion polls!

If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong… Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

As long as you have not cited a specific case or paper, you have not made a point.

As for me, I see the global warming debate as a continuation of the ozone depletion debate. Nobody questioned the science there, and even the politics (targeting CFCs, HCFCs, freons, and halons) worked.

I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Indeed, I know better. And what do you know about it? What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?

Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?

This is relevant to what? Are you trying to say that you don't know and this somehow counts as a point against everyone who knows better?

What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Would you say ozone depletion was unreal?

We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end… We don't know.

Oh, you are indeed saying this...

P.S. I promised to tell you about statistical significance when you answer about causes. Statistical significance begins at the threshold of statistical error. Things within the error margin are statistically insignificant. Things outside the error margin are significant, the bigger the more significant.

Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival.

We found you before.

The Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, was the principal means for providing U.S. military aid to foreign nations during World War II. The act authorized the president to transfer arms or any other defense materials for which Congress appropriated money to “the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.” Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Brazil, and many other countries received weapons under this law.

By allowing the president to transfer war matériel to a beleaguered Britain–and without payment as required by the Neutrality Act of 1939–the act enabled the British to keep fighting until events led America into the conflict. It also skirted the thorny problems of war debts that had followed World War I.

Don't you think it's time to pay us back.

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"? And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?

What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?

I see… Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!
I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC… I've tried to keep up. (Yes, I occasionally read journal papers, as well as certain blogs — of which I have my favorites; you likely have yours, if you're really interested. :) ) Here's John Christy relating his experience with the TAR:

My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 “Observed Climate Variability and Change”, allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections.
First, note these key points about the IPCC process: the L.A. is allowed (a) to have essentially complete control over the text, (b) sit in judgment of his/her own work as well as that of his/her critics and (c) to have the option of arbitrarily dismissing reviewer comments since he/she is granted the position of “authority” (unlike peer-review.) Add to this situation the rather unusual fact that the L.A. of this particular section had been awarded a PhD only a few months before his selection by the IPCC. Such a process can lead to a biased assessment of any science. But, problems are made more likely in climate science, because, as noted, ours is a murky field of research – we still can’t explain much of what happens in weather and climate.
The Hockey Stick curve depicts a slightly meandering Northern Hemisphere cooling trend from 1000 A.D. through 1900, which then suddenly swings upward in the last 80 years to temperatures warmer than any of the millennium when smoothed. To many, this appeared to be a “smoking gun” of temperature change proving that the 20th century warming was unprecedented and therefore likely to be the result of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
I will not debate the quality of the Hockey Stick – that has been effectively done elsewhere (and indeed there is voluminous discussion on this issue), so, whatever one might think of the Hockey Stick, one can readily understand that its promotion by the IPCC was problematic given the process outlined above. Indeed, with the evidence contained in the Climategate emails, we have a fairly clear picture of how this part of the IPCC TAR went awry. For a more detailed account of this incident with documentation, see http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/ (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/).
We were appointed L.A.s in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. I can assure the committee that those not familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type (and even many who should have been) were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature and sincerely wanted to believe it was truth. Skepticism was virtually non-existent. Indeed it was described as a “clear favourite” for the overall Policy Makers Summary (Folland, 0938031546.txt). In our Sept. 1999 meeting (Arusha, Tanzania) we were shown a plot containing more temperature curves than just the Hockey Stick including one from K. Briffa that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the past. In other words, absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate really was relatively cooler.
The Briffa curve created disappointment for those who wanted “a nice tidy story” (Briffa 0938031546.txt). The L.A. remarked in emails that he did not want to cast “doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates” and thus, “undermine faith in paleoestimates” which would provide “fodder” to “skeptics” (Mann 0938018124.txt). One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section. Between this email (22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” for the preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 0942777075.txt, “trick” is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the L.A. in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa’s curve had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation.)
In retrospect, this disagreement in temperature curves was simply an indication that such reconstructions using tree ring records contain significant uncertainties and may be unreliable in ways we do not currently understand or acknowledge. This should have been explained to the readers of the IPCC TAR and specifically our chapter. Highlighting that uncertainty would have been the proper scientific response to the evidence before us, but the emails show that some L.A.’s worried it would have diminished a sense of urgency about climate change (i.e. “dilutes the message rather significantly”, Folland, 0938031546.txt.)
When we met in February 2000 in Auckland NZ, the one disagreeable curve, as noted, was not the same anymore because it had been modified and truncated around 1960. Not being aware of the goings-on behind the scenes, I had apparently assumed a new published time series had appeared and the offensive one had been superceded (I can’t be certain of my actual thoughts in Feb. 2000). Now we know, however, that the offensive part of Briffa’s curve had simply been amputated after a new realization was created three months before. (It appears also that this same curve was apparently a double amputee, having its first 145 years chopped off too, see http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/ (http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/).) So, at this point, data which contradicted the Hockey Stick, whose creator was the L.A., had been eliminated. No one seemed to be alarmed (or in my case aware) that this had been done.
Procedures to guard against such manipulation of evidence are supposed to be in place whenever biases and conflicts of interest interfere with duties to report the whole truth, especially in assessments that have such potentially drastic policy implications. That the IPCC allowed this episode to happen shows, in my view, that the procedures were structurally deficient.
Even though the new temperature chart appeared to agree with the Hockey Stick, I still expressed my skepticism in this reconstruction as being evidence of actual temperature variations. Basically, this result relied considerably on a type of western U.S. tree-ring not known for its fidelity in reproducing large-scale temperatures (NRC 2006, pg. 52).
At the L.A. meetings, I indicated that there was virtually no inter-century precision in these measurements, i.e. they were not good enough to tell us which century might be warmer than another in the pre-calibration period (1000 to 1850.)
In one Climategate email, a Convening L.A., who wanted to feature the Hockey Stick at the time (though later was less enthusiastic), mentions “The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance” and was “probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2” (Folland, 0938031546.txt). This, in all likelihood, was a reference to (a) my expressed concern (see my 2001 comments to NRC below) as well as to (b) the prominence to which the Hockey Stick was pre destined.
To compound this sad and deceptive situation, I had been quite impressed with some recent results by Dahl-Jensen et al., (Science 1998), in which Greenland ice-borehole temperatures had been deconvolved into a time series covering the past 20,000 years. This measurement indeed presented inter-century variations. Their result indicated a clear 500-year period of temperatures, warmer than the present, centered about 900 A.D. – commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, a feature noticeably absent in the Hockey Stick. What is important about this is that whenever any mid to high-latitude location shows centuries of a particularly large temperature anomaly, the spatial scale that such a departure represents is also large. In other words, long time periods of warmth or coolness are equivalent to large spatial domains of warmth or coolness, such as Greenland can represent for the Northern Hemisphere (the domain of the Hockey Stick.)
I discussed this with the paleo-L.A. at each meeting, asking that he include this exceptional result in the document as evidence for temperature fluctuations different from his own. To me Dahl-Jensen et al.’s reconstruction was a more robust estimate of past temperatures than one produced from a certain set of western U.S. tree-ring proxies. But as the process stood, the L.A. was not required to acknowledge my suggestions, and I was not able to convince him otherwise. It is perhaps a failure of mine that I did not press the issue even harder or sought agreement from others who might have been likewise aware of the evidence against the Hockey Stick realization.
As it turned out, this exceptional paper by Dahl-Jensen et al. was not even mentioned in the appropriate section (TAR 2.3.2). There was a brief mention of similar evidence indicating warmer temperatures 1000 years ago from the Sargasso Sea sediments (TAR 2.3.3), but the text then quickly asserts, without citation, that this type of anomaly is not important to the hemisphere as a whole.
Thus, we see a situation where a contradictory data set from Greenland, which in terms of paleoclimate in my view was quite important, was not offered to the readers (the policymakers) for their consideration. In the end, the Hockey Stick appeared in Figure 1 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, without any other comparisons, a position of prominence that speaks for itself.
So, to summarize, an L.A. was given final say over a section which included as its (and the IPCC’s) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence. This led to problems that have only recently been exposed. This process, in my opinion, illustrates that the IPCC did not provide policymakers with an unbiased evaluation of the science, whatever one thinks about the Hockey Stick as a temperature reconstruction.
(source (http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/#more-15402))

If you are unfamiliar with this story, from what do you argue? :)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-14, 23:41:47

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"?

You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.

And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?

Man-made industrial pollutants are man-made industrial pollutants. I gave a list too in #91.

I see… Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!

I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC… I've tried to keep up.

Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.

And, as your long quote shows this time, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.

Seriously, politics is a distinct matter. In the ozone depletion agenda, the politics worked just fine - not only because the science was right, but because the politics was right. They both have to be right. In this Global Warming/Climate Change thing, the politics is slow, narrow, ridden with "interests" and ineffective. Pretty much everybody except Americans know that the United States is torpedoing the process to gain an edge over China and EU - this is politics. But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.

Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.
And, as I suspected, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.

I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol… The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of … stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected… :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't… Hm!)
But the effects of banning CFCs and such was minor. (Both the environmental effects and the economic costs.)
You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO₂ is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.
Not to worry, though: The measurement of the earth's temperature is so poorly handled by incompetent (…or worse!) statisticians that their "trendiness" is soon to come crashing down. (At least the satellite record uses statistics correctly.) How else would you explain the "adjustment" of buoy measurements -designed for the purpose- being changed, to accommodate canvas and wooden bucket sea surface temperatures that are (ahem!) hotter, and hence to be preferred?

Indeed, the politics interests me — in much the way that cancer might interest a pathologist. (I see some few prominent scientists attempting to be general physicians… You'd probably call them witches.)
The science fascinates me. The various fields and their interaction are rich lodes of information and inspiration — and challenge. I'd like to see climatology become a real science — if it's possible.
I would not like to see it continue to be a fantasy-game of supercomputer models whose predictions are never checked… Simulations are an important tool in such a field; but -if the field is to progress- it needs to hypothesize causes. By all means, model those. But the models must make predictions that can be falsified… Else, they'll just be computer games.

Is there even one climate scientist's paper you'd mention (so that I can read it, or comment if I already have…) to me?
Jim Hanson, Michael Mann, Phil Jones; Hans von Storch, James Annan, Ken Briffa; any of their co-authors… Indeed, anyone who's published in the last 20 years or so — I can find their papers.
So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field…)
—————————————————————

But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.

You have a very odd definition of science…
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".
The governments of the world don't abide by the prescriptions of those who believe in the models; these are evil people!

Is there anything else to your argument? :)

BTW:

You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.

I don't want an "idea" about the evidence… I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )
—————————————————————————————————
Put another way, I see no way you can support your trope of trends, unless you develop causal theories. (Everything Christy said about the HockeyStick graph applies…) But look at the pretty straight line! Ooh! It must mean something…!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fimages%2Fhiatus.png&hash=eddfb4fa2c75f9076cbf36ffc5d978bd" rel="cached" data-hash="eddfb4fa2c75f9076cbf36ffc5d978bd" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.realclimate.org/images/hiatus.png)

P.S.,
Read some of Judith Curry's papers…

I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol… The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of … stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected… :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't… Hm!)

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.

You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO₂ is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.

So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO₂ and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.

You have astonishingly little faith in the capabilities of modern technology whereas in ancient times Roman empire managed to deforestate all Mediterranean coasts. Modern industry surely can achieve feats greater than this. But we've already seen that for example nuclear explosions only fill you with delight.

You have a very odd definition of science…
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".

You keep saying this, but you never cite an actual paper that predicted something and no paper that disproved the predictions. You can keep saying this as long as you like.

So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field…)

No paper convinced me. And no paper will be able to convince you either, because your attitude is like that of the statistician with crap logic, decidedly missing the point.

Industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me. You, on the other hand, believe there's no such thing as industrial impact because, according to you, statistics can be used to prove anything. This is missing the point, because this never was to do with statistics per se. It's to do with climatology and ecology. If you are not denying the greenhouse effect, then you know what I am talking about and you are knowingly evading it.

I am not quitting the field. We never were in the same field to begin with.

I don't want an "idea" about the evidence… I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )

Evidence about ozone depletion. Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.

The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe… Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquition. :) ) Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects…
A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated. (But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)
What do the models say, now? (What has concerned measurement said, recently?)
But I read more of your post:

So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO₂ and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.

Have you an anti-industrial agenda you'd like to discuss? :) (I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land…)

industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me.

I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.
But trying to destroy the economies of the West and preclude the assumption of industrial civilization in Africa, e.g., will not make you better off.
Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?
———————————————————————————————
Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support — well, whatever. And consider becoming conversant with science, since 30 years ago…which seems to be when you stopped learning.

Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.

Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion… Please.
Not the "projected" effects but those actually observed.
(As you and I both know, there were none… So, cite the paper(s) that predicted such.)
BTW: Wiki says that 98% of such pollutants have been eliminated — but there's still more to be done! :)
Nature really is a Bitch!

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frugal-cafe.com%2Fpublic_html%2Ffrugal-blog%2Ffrugal-cafe-blogzone%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fglobal-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoon.jpg&hash=6255ca887af6c771ef8d14de160f163b" rel="cached" data-hash="6255ca887af6c771ef8d14de160f163b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/global-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoon.jpg)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-15, 23:17:19

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.

The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe… Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquation. :) )

Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects…

No, not proven as in proven according to Briggs's definition. Same as anywhere else, Briggsian logic does not apply here.

The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action. You don't reject safety itself (which is what the precautionary principle is - it's a formulation of the principle of safety and caution; it's not a policy/action that could be considered either safe or unsafe).

If you reject safety as a matter of principle, you are not just failing the logic of the precautionary principle formulated whichever way. You are being plain stupid in the pragmatic sense.

A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated.
(But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Not because of harms predicted, but because of pervasive environmental impact consistently demonstrated:

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is readily adsorbed to soils and sediments, which can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure contributing to terrestrial organisms. [...] DDT is toxic to a wide range of living organisms, [etc.]

Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)

The debate concerning the ban was, back then, about its use as a pesticide in agriculture, not in air-conditioning. In Northern Europe we hardly need air-conditioning. This is how much you know and remember.

(I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land…)

I in fact do. I was raised this way and I'm doing my best to maintain this way of life, despite the odds.

I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.

The current government cares even less about ecology. They don't care about demographics and economy either. They only care about tactical alignment with EU/US, regardless of the content of the policies. They have done things against overwhelming popular opinion, so evidently they are not looking at the people for guidance.

Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?

Yes, you are wrong. Because this is not about making oneself to feel better at all. It's about reducing obvious harm and wrongness. When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life. Whereas you evidently think that the solution is to go to the supermarket and there's no problem at all. This is worlds apart. We are not talking about the same thing, dude.

Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion… Please.

Too hard to read Wikipedia?

Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth’s surface.

The relevant reference on the Wikipedia page: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/

The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action.

So, swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking are too dangerous — since they are not certainly safe! :) Your rubber room awaits you…

Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support — well, whatever.

Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a publisher of academic papers! :) Even so, I meant actual measured effects, not speculative statistics. More importantly, I was specifically looking for papers about climatology… (You know, the topic here?)
And, as I expected, you cited none.

When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life.

The folks here in the Central Valley of California didn't a hundred years ago, nor did the Israelis much more recently… Perhaps it's the attitude of the people that matters most.
Subsistence farming seems not much better than hunting and gathering. Just how primitive would you like to see the world's societies become? :)

And I reiterate the challenge: Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects…

So, swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking are too dangerous — since they are not certainly safe! :) Your rubber room awaits you…

Are you still talking about the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC? Evidently not. I'll answer to you as soon as you come back to your senses.

Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a publisher of academic papers! :)

Wikipedia links to them though, and I gave such a link. You have not given even this much. So we are even, as soon as you stop lowering yourself.

Are you still talking about the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC? Evidently not.

I'm talking about the Precautionary Principle… Your acceptance of which apparently explains your fear of learning and thinking… How could you be certain such were "certainly safe"? :)

The IPCC is up to its 5th Assessment Report; and I've read most of it… You?

I'm talking about the Precautionary Principle…
[...]
The IPCC is up to its 5th Assessment Report; and I've read most of it… You?

No, I haven't. What does it say about "swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking"? The earlier reports said nothing.

You may have read the thing, but your reading comprehension is zero. You have attached principles to random events previously too. Thus far you have not even touched ecological concerns.

Random? :) Shall we then agree to apply the Precautionary Principle only to technology?
Start with crop rotation and irrigation… Obviously, the "certainty" required is a mutable term. And just as obviously you fail to acknowledge such.
Else, no technology is certainly safe — and, as such, should be proscribed!

Do you see the problem with a doctrinaire application of the Precautionary Principle yet?

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html)

Because there's nothing more to be said about.
I specially endorse His Holiness words:  "it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor."

Learn with the wise words.

I read excerpts the day before it was released publicly; and re-checked today… Pope Francis is badly advised on and incompetent to judge the climate change debate.

You may disagree, Belfrager. (In which case, you have a gross misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Infallibility… An inexcusable lapse, for an intelligent Catholic; you might as well be a pagan or a Communist! :) )

You might want to read this (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/mixing-up-the-sciences-of-heaven-and-earth)…

Random? :) Shall we then agree to apply the Precautionary Principle only to technology?

Sorry, dude. Why is it impossible for you to keep to the topic? Why do you spill everything over in all directions when the reports are specific and very moderate? The reports are not focused on technology. They are focused on climatology first, on technology only in relation to the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Start with crop rotation and irrigation… Obviously, the "certainty" required is a mutable term. And just as obviously you fail to acknowledge such.
Else, no technology is certainly safe — and, as such, should be proscribed!

Are you really saying this? "Certainty" is a mutable term? Do you prefer "presumption of innocence" or perhaps even "absolute freedom"? Like, nuke first, ask questions later? And you see no problem with your position?

Do you see the problem with a doctrinaire application of the Precautionary Principle yet?

I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.

The principle means "be cautious". For example, don't go out into public with new technology without testing it properly first. The principle is not about technology, but about the effects. At this stage, environmental policies are still mostly concerned with restricting the very well known effects of coal power plants and such. Only a lunatic who doesn't care about facts can argue against this. They also recommend alternative energy sources, but nothing is known beyond solar and wind energy. Research is encouraged in the area of technology that would enable reduction of industry that emits greenhouse gases. Simple.

So, to summarise, we are not in substantial disagreement. You simply do not have a position that would merit agreement or disagreement.

Simple.

Yes, I'd have to agree: You are.

Coal and natural gas (along with nuclear…) will have to provide the majority of our -the world's- energy for about a century or so, unless a breakthrough occurs. The poorest countries will certainly have to be "allowed" to use such; to keep them from doing so would be to consign them to poverty…
But not to worry too much: They will learn to clean up after themselves, much as we did.
Wealth has a way of making one conscientious. (Communist systems have perverse incentives… You've yourself seen their results! So, you might want to study what actually happened in western democracies.)

I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.

Many have suggested that it should be! Most recently, Pope Francis…

You won't convince me that the Precautionary Principle isn't self-refuting, ersi. If you just want to urge caution, do so. But requiring the certainty of safety is beyond human means. Risks need to be assessed — granted. There will always be trade-offs: What might we get for what we risk, is the perennial question.

Some people think that burning fossil fuels, thus adding a shit-load of atmospheric (or oceanic) carbon to our hydrosphere, will "tip" our climate over the cusp, into an unstable state — something that we've not seen before.
These people don't have anything more than failed models to support this contention (if that). Yet you seem to take it for granted that a scientific consensus backs them!
Do any of these models actually model the climate, in a scientific sense?

Of course, you don't care. You can't be bothered to learn enough about it. You just insult those who disagree with you from your ignorant perch… Piously preach the virtues of returning to the Stone Age, eh? :) (At least for the Africans…)

Give me at least a few papers from the last 20 years that predict global warming (or cataclysmic climate change) that I can argue against! (Surely, you came to your opinions rationally!) I've likely read them, and can show where you went wrong… :)
But -of course- you won't do that: You can't be wrong! Your ego couldn't stand the strain.

BTW: I'm not a "dude": I can ride a horse…

Coal and natural gas (along with nuclear…) will have to provide the majority of our -the world's- energy for about a century or so, unless a breakthrough occurs. The poorest countries will certainly have to be "allowed" to use such; to keep them from doing so would be to consign them to poverty…
But not to worry too much: They will learn to clean up after themselves, much as we did.
Wealth has a way of making one conscientious. (Communist systems have perverse incentives… You've yourself seen their results! So, you might want to study what actually happened in western democracies.)

Coal and natural gas and nuclear power have to provide the energy if you have to keep up the industries that feed on it. I'm not going to ask you which one you pick when the choice becomes between the survival of an industry and the survival of people. The answer seems quite clear. Right now the choice is between preservation of ecology and industry, and you already show your inclinations.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-18, 21:26:36

I see that you don't even know what the principle is about and how it works. It doesn't mean "prevent technology". And even if it did (which it doesn't), IPCC is not a judge, jury, and police.

Many have suggested that it should be! Most recently, Pope Francis…

And this permits you to ignore the fact that IPCC is not a judge and police? This permits you to behave as if your hypotheticals were in effect?

You won't convince me that the Precautionary Principle isn't self-refuting, ersi.

This never was about convincing you. When you are evidently doing your best to ignore both the facts and the basic logic, the problem is not what you are thinking about these issues. The problem is that you are obviously not thinking about these issues, just spewing nonsense. Despite your readingness, you do not have an opinion worth the name here, certainly not an informed opinion.

Some people think that burning fossil fuels, thus adding a shit-load of atmospheric (or oceanic) carbon to our hydrosphere, will "tip" our climate over the cusp, into an unstable state — something that we've not seen before.
These people don't have anything more than failed models to support this contention (if that). Yet you seem to take it for granted that a scientific consensus backs them!
Do any of these models actually model the climate, in a scientific sense?

The reports say what they say. What else have you got for facts? Thus far you have cited nothing besides Riggsian crap logic (just his easily refuted logic, no facts).

Give me at least a few papers from the last 20 years that predict global warming (or cataclysmic climate change) that I can argue against! (Surely, you came to your opinions rationally!) I've likely read them, and can show where you went wrong… :)
But -of course- you won't do that: You can't be wrong! Your ego couldn't stand the strain.

They are there referenced in the reports. You said you read them, dude. Now refute them with the kind of science you think is correct. Not holding my breath.

They are there referenced in the reports. You said you read them, dude. Now refute them with the kind of science you think is correct. Not holding my breath.

No! By all means, hold your breath!
You cite nothing, and expect me to refute everything?! (I mentioned, I'm not a dude: I can ride a horse, and rope a steer! — northern valley Californian! Just because I grew up in New England doesn't mean I never learned more! What have you learned, ersi?) What do you claim makes your view of AGW something that others should accept?
(Heck: What is your view of AGW…?)

Please hold your breath long enough to achieve your natural level of intelligence… Coma.

No! By all means, hold your breath!
You cite nothing, and expect me to refute everything?!

For a start, refute any specific fact that's been mentioned in this discussion thus far. But you have shown utmost disrespect for facts, so they probably passed you by totally, therefore I'm not holding my breath.

For a start, refute any specific fact that's been mentioned in this discussion thus far

Have you mentioned that the earth's temperature is increasing — as a result of increased (admittedly - by anthropogenic means) CO₂…?
Support that.
Then, make your case for a "World Government" solution for alleviating or mitigating those "horrendous" effects — that have been projected. :)

You and Paul Ehrlich are two of a kind.

This is coming just after the warming subsides.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailygalaxy.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341bf7f753ef0133f5689a25970b-320wi&hash=e6484d9df1f22883c5ef0a5ef79c1c7e" rel="cached" data-hash="e6484d9df1f22883c5ef0a5ef79c1c7e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0133f5689a25970b-320wi)
The earth is trying to kill us.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fguns003.gif&hash=0966e778e8de4d1d1b29796d435814e4" rel="cached" data-hash="0966e778e8de4d1d1b29796d435814e4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns003.gif)

About Anthropogenic Global Warming & other anthropogenic things:

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full)

The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify. Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations—notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain, and climate change (31–33). All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

Guess that whole Evolution thingie didn't work out? :)
Stuff happens, ecosystems change, organisms adapt…or not. Isn't that how it's supposed to happen? :)
Seriously, this is akin to logic chopping… Either there is credible evidence of human-caused warming (…or disruption?) of the climate or there isn't. Either there is a credible theory -which makes verifiable predictions- about such or there isn't.
There. Isn't that simple enough?

If that's still too complicated for those who "believe in" CAGW (or inimical climate "change" caused by human activity), how about a simple bet — much like that Paul Ehrlich made lo! these many years ago?

I bet each "scenario" based catastrophe fails to occur. And that CAGW "true believers" still insist that they're right, dammit! 10, 20, and 30 years hence.

Seriously, this is akin to logic chopping… Either there is credible evidence of human-caused warming (…or disruption?) of the climate or there isn't. Either there is a credible theory -which makes verifiable predictions- about such or there isn't.
There. Isn't that simple enough?

The problem with you, besides being a logic-twisting oversimplifier, is that you are an absolute zero when it comes to specifics.

You accused climate models of failing -  consistently failing. I cannot respond to this accusation as long as you are not telling what models you are talking about, what the models predicted, and what actually happened, according to you. You fail consistently in specifics.

Also, you said something about CO₂ causing global warming. Something that the reports do not say (CO₂ is at most among several causes of warming). Meaning, you are not reading properly. The reports say there's been consistent warming and there's been an increase of greenhouse gases. And they mention carbon cycle processes where the input of CO₂ is crucial - this is probably the model you had in mind, but since you never mentioned it, really not my job to say anything about it either.

And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion. Looks like you didn't see that coming at all.

You are yet to demonstrate competence to discuss the actual issue. The issue is ecological, not political.

And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion.

That actually makes sense, in a weird sort of way: The Montreal Protocol eliminated 98% if the CFCs (and other culprits…); but -you'll note- the "problem" hasn't gone away!
The science seemed simple and straightforward… It was; it was also simplistic.
As your favorite source states:

Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the sun, ozone layer depletion increases surface UVB levels (all else equal), which could lead to damage, including increase in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol. Although decreases in stratospheric ozone are well-tied to CFCs and to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer and eye damage in human beings. This is partly because UVA, which has also been implicated in some forms of skin cancer, is not absorbed by ozone, and because it is nearly impossible to control statistics for lifestyle changes in the populace. [emphasis added; science is tricky, that way… :)]
[And]
Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth’s surface. UV-driven phenolic formation in tree rings has dated the start of ozone depletion in northern latitudes to the late 1700s. [emphasis added!]
(source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Consequences_of_ozone_layer_depletion))

So: We don't know how much (if any) deleterious effects can be mitigated, because we don't know if there are any. And the problem began about 200 years before the culprit was invented!

Science by séance seems to be your preferred "method," ersi.

(If you won't even read the IPCC's assessment reports, what gives you a basis for your opinions about AGW/Climate Change…? Inquiring minds want to know! :) )

The issue is ecological, not political.

There you touch the point. The issue is ecological but the absence of a shared vision and strategy to fight it until now is, apparently, political.

The economical interests of a few are causing the biggest catastrophe imaginable. The problem is, in the first place, moral.

Therefore the Pope's Encyclical importance that now on defines the social teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject for a more than billion souls in the entire world. That's His contribute, by far bigger than anything else.

Therefore the Pope's Encyclical importance that now on defines the social teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject for a more than billion souls in the entire world. That's His contribute, by far bigger than anything else.

You grossly overstate the importance of papal suasion in the modern world. There are seven billion people in the world, about six million of whom could care less about papal proclamations. My guess is that millions of Catholics don't know what the Pope is proclaiming and don't care. Most of my family members are habit Catholics, that is Catholics who were born into a Catholic family and who practice some form of Catholicism but don't pay any attention to papal proclamations. When my parents were alive I doubt that they could have named the Pope, but they went to mass every week, took communion, and that was it. My wife is a "Catholic" who never attends mass, could care less about the Pope but who prays for people she loves, including me.

Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air, but his presence in the world will not make it a better place to live.

Viva il Papa.

Most of my family members are habit Catholics, that is Catholics who were born into a Catholic family and who practice some form of Catholicism but don't pay any attention to papal proclamations.

That is going to change, believe me. That's why Francis is there and that's what he's doing extraordinarily successfully.
Many of us fear for his life because of that.

My wife is a "Catholic" who never attends mass, could care less about the Pope but who prays for people she loves, including me.

She's a perfect normal Catholic, perhaps a little bit "European Style". :)

That Encyclical is worth reading by everybody. It's not a scientific paper nor it was ever intended to be but an holistic approach to Man's common heritage in these earthly matters.
Come'on, you can jump some parts, just read the more interesting ones... it will be enough. :)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-20, 19:51:46

And you have refuted absolutely nothing concerning my own area of interest - ozone depletion.

That actually makes sense, in a weird sort of way: The Montreal Protocol eliminated 98% if the CFCs (and other culprits…); but -you'll note- the "problem" hasn't gone away!

If the problem hasn't gone away, there are several reasons.

• Montreal Protocol doesn't cover all known man-made ozone-depleting substances, notably N₂O.


• The protocol could in principle only cover man-made ozone-depleting substances. If the ozone layer has a natural tendency to wear itself out, we are only mildly postponing the doom.


• Even if man-made ozone-depleting activity is the major or only cause, it's still reasonable to expect no immediate reversal of the effect after the cessation of the cause. It's called inertia.


• Despite everything I listed, the worst problem is your reading skills. From the same page: "A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized." Meaning, the immediate urgency of the problem has been averted. Policy can indeed work, when you don't sabotage it.

The science seemed simple and straightforward… It was; it was also simplistic.

It's your reading of the situation which is tendentious, to put it mildly.

As your favorite source states:

Quote

Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the sun, ozone layer depletion increases surface UVB levels (all else equal), which could lead to damage, including increase in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol.

I don't know anyone who doubts the link between UVB and skin cancer. It's a bit surprising you should even bring it up. For example solariums and skin cancer, heard of it?

So: We don't know how much (if any) deleterious effects can be mitigated, because we don't know if there are any.

We know the deleterious effects. You don't, by virtue of denial, but everybody else knows.

And the problem began about 200 years before the culprit was invented!

Similarly, the global warming thing has been related to paleoclimate studies, so that human causes could reasonably be told apart from natural causes. It's an interesting question to what extent this is a man-made suicide and to what extent it's mother nature euthanising us off because we have become a cancer.

Science by séance seems to be your preferred "method," ersi.

Modern science has always been like this, inductively guesstimating. The alternative you are providing is "We don't know and can't know. It's true science to not know and not give a damn."

(If you won't even read the IPCC's assessment reports, what gives you a basis for your opinions about AGW/Climate Change…? Inquiring minds want to know! :) )

It's been firmly established that you have no inquiring mind whatsoever. Your method is deliberate misreading and denial of facts.

My inference is straightforward - pollution pollutes. We should clean up after ourselves. We are obviously not doing it. It's natural to expect punishment for this.

relax sir ...
ozone can recycle naturally  .

but sometimes , certain materials such as Freon , etc .
can interupt   Ozone Recycle mechanism .

so to make sure ozone in safe level , just reduce that culprits .


in case the culprits is unavoidable , then make a Huge Ozone Generator to make sure Ozone supply is fulfilled .

It's an interesting question to what extent this is a man-made suicide and to what extent it's mother nature euthanising us off because we have become a cancer.

It's that attitude that permeates the so-called environmentalist "wacko" movement. (As Rush Limbaugh called them, long ago…) that lead me to question AGW and ask for source material…
You see, I know how to read academic scientific papers. (I'd mentioned before, my specialty when I was young was called Philosophy of Science!) You think yourself clever, by never citing actual scientific work; you are, indeed! You're playing the old shell-game! But you're not very good at it.

If you feel humanity is a bane, do your part: Set an example!

But if you think you know something about climate change/AGW, say what it is… Or take an opinion poll! (That will help… :) )
Maybe you should sell lottery tickets…?
—————————————————
@Sparta:
It's been noted; it's been done. It's been contemplated… :) (But not by Luddites like ersi.)

You think yourself clever, by never citing actual scientific work; you are, indeed! You're playing the old shell-game!

Actually, you are the one playing the game and thinking yourself clever for this. Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side. You have cited nothing on your part.

Not holding my breath, dude. So long.

Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side.

Yes. But I've read many of the papers cited by the EPA and the IPPC… So: I have opinions about them.
You only have the opinions of "others" to rely on.

I'm not a credentialed climatologist. (Briggs is…) So, I may not have the expertise to understand erey paper I've read. But I am not about to be cowed by the "97% consensus" papers — which only naive (or stupid!) people accept! I know enough about statistics, and science in general, to know that an appeal to Authority is non-scientific…
Apparently, you don't.

I'm not surprised: You think Logic Theory stopped at the Syllogism!

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-22, 00:09:16

Thus far EPA and IPCC have been cited, and they are on my side.

Yes. But I've read many of the papers cited by the EPA and the IPPC… So: I have opinions about them.
You only have the opinions of "others" to rely on.

Nothing special about that we have opinions. The question is whether they are soundly formed. Your reading skills and ability to form opinions have been suspect all along and you have done nothing to sway the suspicions.

By now, you have had about a hundred chances to prove you actually read anything relevant and understood what you read. But as it is, I'd say evidence is amounting to the contrary.

You got here (this topic…) late. And your most compelling argument is: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence…"

How about something reallysimple: Show me how a "global temperature" can be determined, to a tenth of a degree…

(Little, tiny baby steps — for the retarded students!)

You got here (this topic…) late.

My first post in this thread is #13. Your first is only after my invitation. So, not only are your reading skills lacking. You cannot count either.

And your most compelling argument is: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence…"

As opposed to no argument from you. And now it's certain that none will be forthcoming ever.

You think Logic Theory stopped at the Syllogism!

The day I see Americans understanding the most simple syllogism, that day will be declared Holiday worldwide. Alleluia.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-eGdzmt46kYs%2FUMpIoi-AGvI%2FAAAAAAAAFcM%2FcBHBX1JOsG8%2Fs1600%2FLeonard-Nimoy.jpg&hash=6a4010ef6e6550633cd23adfb1241be7" rel="cached" data-hash="6a4010ef6e6550633cd23adfb1241be7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eGdzmt46kYs/UMpIoi-AGvI/AAAAAAAAFcM/cBHBX1JOsG8/s1600/Leonard-Nimoy.jpg)

The day I see Americans understanding the most simple syllogism […]

Two recent generations included W.V.O. Quine and George Boolos… But you could go back at least as far a Peirce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce).
Have you too succumbed to prejudice, Belfrager? Is that all that's left of European intellectualism, biddies and gossips? :)

I freely confess to having to look the word up just now. Having done so, however.... Bel, you should be ashamed of yourself. Imagine thinking that Americans are so hopelessly stupid. That's not fact, it's just European snootery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)

Europeans have always been snobs, mjm! That's why Geo. Washington warned us to keep clear of their territorial disputes…
But you should remember, they didn't invent the transistor. They only invented Total War!

Europeans have always been snobs, mjm! That's why Geo. Washington warned us to keep clear of their territorial disputes…
But you should remember, they didn't invent the transistor. They only invented Total War!

Errr---- ahhhhhh------nope. Got a Bible? I think if you leaf through the Old Testament, you'll find examples of total war that predate Europe. Annihilation of entire city-states even including putting animals to the sword-- leaving nothing alive-- men, women, children all slain. It might take a bit longer with swords and spears than it does with guns and bombs, but the demolition of Jericho looks pretty total-- only one family left alive out of that entire city. One example.

Looks to me, leafing through a bit of reading, that Ghengis Khan and his hordes were no slouches about waging total war either.

The Europeans didn't invent it. They just got very good at it.

And the Yanks made a permanent feature of it!  :lol:

And the Yanks made a permanent feature of it!  :lol:

Oh, really? I note that we do at least try to cut down civilian casualties. That's what "smart-bomb" technology was supposed to be about. You hit the military target and leave civilian targets alone. Well, that's the theory anyway.

Now, of course I have to say that as long as nuclear-tipped ICBMs exist the idea of total war unlike anything seen before now is always on the table. I could wish it were not, but the damn things have been invented and I doubt that the evil genie can be put back in the bottle.

Funny thing about that, RJH. Life would be a lot simpler for us if we did wage total war. ISIS wants to cause trouble? Just turn the Middle East into a nuclear wasteland--- that fixes ISIS' clock. But--- we really can't do that. So you might be a bit off in trying to pin every evil on Yankees.

So you might be a bit off in trying to pin every evil on Yankees.

Yeah........share a bit with the Mets why doncha??!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)

The problem is mjsmsprt40 decade after decade who has been invading countries, attacking them, destabilising and so on. Spends half the world's armaments bill and the military and corporate military suppliers are so into each other's pockets. So one does not have to make it up as I am afraid your land is tops.  I know you like be 1st in most things but ignoring the unfortunate firsts isn't balanced! Stop trying to be the world policeman and sighing when use the word "policing." Just think what you could save, reduce the trillions and help your own people who suffer by the tens of millions. That would do you oodles of credit and acknowledgement.

ps. And in hock to the Commies!  :devil:

We'll eventually have our UK moment and then pass into international indolence........

Would that it were so, Jimbro… But until and unless our economy really collapses we will keep our fingers in many pies.

Maybe when the U.N. (or some similarly fetid world body) assumes "responsibility" for the climate we will have an enemy worth fighting! :)

I anxiously await a new Snowball Earth episode.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNgpQci6iWx0%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=78cc71b2451a416e6676fa12486e1283" rel="cached" data-hash="78cc71b2451a416e6676fa12486e1283" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NgpQci6iWx0/hqdefault.jpg)

International indolence by your corner jimbro would save you trillions and maybe for a change help your own. Learn.

But until and unless our economy really collapses we will keep our fingers in many pies.

Do they put drugs in the water there? in the air? in the wisky? nice, that way you don't even need going in pilgrimage to Kathmandu, you can say bullshit right from California.

Fluster and bluster — a fine pair! :)

Has there actually been warming in the last 10 years to any significant point?

If you set your thermostat to 22º and your thermometer registers 16º regardless, your thermostat is broken… (Or your warming/cooling system is! But that's too complicated, for here.) The various models used by the IPCC predicted temperature increase that has not come, sea level rise that didn't, and "extreme" weather that no records show. But, since CO₂ is the greenhouse gas most hated by the environmentalists, the fiction of AGW must be maintained by animus against fossil fuels…
Of course, you could, I suppose, assume that your thermometer is broken… (That's sort-of what the scramble to find the missing heat in the deep ocean was all about: The models have to be saved! :) Else, it's back to old-fashioned science. Dull; not so lucrative.) But, then, you'd have to be leery of your previous temperature readings, no? :)
(That's why the "hide the decline" scandal was so egregious…)

Long-story-short: The theory of Catastrophic Climate Change (nee Global Warming) is weak, because of its scientific shortcomings and the sometimes silly politicking some of its major proponents have been caught at.
Myself, I'd like to see Climatology progress. It's a fascinating and important topic. But the politics of AGW/Climate Change is an impediment, I think.

The various models used by the IPCC predicted temperature increase that has not come, sea level rise that didn't,

Having read the reports, you could naturally provide quotes to this effect, right? Yes, you naturally could, except that you don't. Perhaps they are not there? Or any better reason why it's taking you so long?

...and "extreme" weather that no records show.

Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?

Long-story-short: The theory of Catastrophic Climate Change (nee Global Warming) is weak,...

So, we are not talking about the same thing. The thing I am talking about was not nee Global Warming. I am talking about what was there long before. The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.

Perhaps they are not there? Or any better reason why it's taking you so long?

Oh, I wasn't "there" when you posted… Forgive me, for sensibly not taking you seriously! But you've spent a lot of time and typing convincing me that this was the best course.
I won't bother to cite papers that noone will read, and few will understand. (Your politics don't interest me…) The "science" is corrupt; there are few who care anymore: The political "officers" are fighting for their survival, and we both know how hard they can fight!

Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?

Exactly so! The sensationalizing of "weather" without the background information and appropriate historical context leads profiteers to highlight individual events… Was Hurricane Katrina caused by AGW? The Sandy "Super Storm"? The tsunami that caused the devastation 'round the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
Doesn't science need to take a longer view than the "news cycle"? (Well, not for opinion pollsters and their masters…) Science is a "long game" — it seems to have often gotten "it" right, eventually. But the various groups that see crises looming don't have the patience to wait "that long". And they always have a coercive governmental "solution"…
But — have they ever delivered? :)

Your one example is the Montreal Protocol. How does that -since 98% of all CFCs are gone, no longer produced- the ozone hole "problem" look, now?
You know, because you have to… Oh! No, you don't. You don't "do" science. You do logic, and dialectics… :)
I'm sorry my country didn't take on the Soviet Union at it's onset. (If we were going to be the World's Cop, we should have taken on the biggest, baddest bully on the block! — But, wait! That was Great Britain, back then… Oops!) But Bolshies were an obvious problem.

But we're talking about AGW (it's the title of the thread…): You want me to convince you that your news media don't give you the means to understand a new and shaky science? :)
That's just silly: You don't have the education, the experience, or the intelligence — even if I had the inclination.
And you have an animus that would keep you from using your "native" talents.

Give me just one paper published in a reputable journal that you think supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change… I'll read it, and then give you my take…
I'll give you a link to a paper by Judith Curry that -well, it should make you think! (But it won't. You don't like to do that… :) )

BTW: Create a general ocean/atmosphere circulation model of the earth's climate — using syllogisms… :)

The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.

Ah! I see your moral imperative! "Should!"
Not does…

The real world is not your province. You prefer your high-school prejudices…

I won't bother to cite papers that noone will read, and few will understand. (Your politics don't interest me…) The "science" is corrupt; there are few who care anymore: The political "officers" are fighting for their survival, and we both know how hard they can fight!

So, you cannot be bothered to quote the unjustified extrapolations from corrupt science that have allegedly led IPCC reports to contain failed predictions. I generously still allow you the time and opportunity to find them though. They might be there, after all. I'd be interested.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-29, 22:18:18

Are the record temperatures and hurricanes that the press keeps sensationalising not records?

Exactly so! The sensationalizing of "weather" without the background information and appropriate historical context leads profiteers to highlight individual events… Was Hurricane Katrina caused by AGW? The Sandy "Super Storm"? The tsunami that caused the devastation 'round the Fukushima nuclear power plant?

And are all these not examples of extreme weather? And the record temperatures, are they not genuine records?

Your one example is the Montreal Protocol. How does that -since 98% of all CFCs are gone, no longer produced- the ozone hole "problem" look, now?
You know, because you have to… Oh! No, you don't. You don't "do" science. You do logic, and dialectics… :)

Try again in English. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could be saying something important here.

Give me just one paper published in a reputable journal that you think supports Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change… I'll read it, and then give you my take…

No. You have said you already read things like that. And you said you cannot be bothered to quote them. I'm simply doing you justice by not burdening you more than you can bear.

I'll give you a link to a paper by Judith Curry that -well, it should make you think! (But it won't. You don't like to do that… :) )

And again, another missed opportunity to actually quote something.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-29, 22:18:18

The greenhouse model dates from 1824 (!!!) and, according to it, expanding industry most obviously should have an impact on world climate. Ozone depletion is an example of this.

Ah! I see your moral imperative! "Should!"
Not does…

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Go back to your desk and find a relevant quote. Your own knowledge base is too thin for this discussion.

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Let's jump to the chase:
Read this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf), please.

(If you can understand this, I'll link to more "academic" papers… "Wicked Problems" are -mostly- important, ya know?
Do you care?)

"first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion" reminds me of something… Oh! Once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence! Three times is a Law of Nature… Superstition still reigns! :)

And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

And when it fails, you don't care; you are committed!. That's your version of science.

I am not committed. What happens is what happens.

The "model" has failed to work, for a great many years… Except in former Soviet Zone country pseudo-intelligentsia — they would like to regain power. But they won't.

Your "model" hasn't held up.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-29, 23:43:43

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Let's jump to the chase:
Read this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf), please.

(If you can understand this, I'll link to more "academic" papers… "Wicked Problems" are -mostly- important, ya know?
Do you care?)

So, I scanned the paper for the word "model". Some quotes:

The Kyoto Protocol was doomed from the beginning because it was modelled on plausible but inappropriate precedents.

[...]

iii) Misguided Models

[...]

The model for most of the post-war period was the Yalta and Potsdam summits, which shaped the post-World-War II world.

[...]

The classic model of summitry therefore developed with concentric circles of experts who supplied the decision-makers at the centre with the formulae and positions to negotiate.

Long story short, we are not talking about the same thing, dude. But this was already known. Try again. Give something new.

You and Google are on the same page: Un-intelligent search yields little of use -except accidentally- and intelligent search requires a knowledgeable and focused mind…
Google has a business model that makes it a lot of money. You have a fossilized viewpoint that makes you more and more alienated, both from those who'd teach you or learn from you and the advances made in the various sciences (including logic!).

Try reading this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf)… (Not "searching for key-words or "gotcha quotes" — just to see what other intelligent people have discerned. It's not that long, and it's -at least- grammatically written… You can't spare a half-hour?) Then -if you'd like- we can get to the "science"…
(Although I can't imagine you being interested in such. :) )
—————————————————————————————————————
Yeah, I know it's the same paper -an essay, actually- linked to previously. But you are maddeningly Pavlovian in your reactions — I'll keep ringing the bell as long as it takes! :)

We already established within two weeks that we are not talking about the same thing. I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science. We have already found out that you have absolutely nothing on the science of climatology, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Anything else? Any plans to address the actual topic at hand, i.e. the science, not the politics?

I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.

Not quite: That paper accepts the "science" you do (…I presume? :) You never seem to commit yourself to a position — and yet you won't say you're undecided…). Before I get into matters of strictly scientific interest I'd like to know where we stand on policy issues and efficient strategies…
But I won't likely get my wish! :)

So: Shall we start here (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/)? (Or would you like to go as far back as MBH98?)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-01, 01:02:31

I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.

Not quite: That paper accepts the "science" you do (…I presume? :) You never seem to commit yourself to a position — and yet you won't say you're undecided…). Before I get into matters of strictly scientific interest I'd like to know where we stand on policy issues and efficient strategies…
But I won't likely get my wish! :)

I noticed the paper mentions science only in passing, and insofar as it mentions it, it is not on your side, from which I determined that your point with the paper is only politics. And politics is the wish I will not grant you.

So: Shall we start here (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/)? (Or would you like to go as far back as MBH98?)

Sound criticism and I agree with it, even though it's a conveniently low blow that offers no alternative or correction. Everybody knows (or should know, at least since Edward Lorenz) that linear models don't (and can't) work in climatology. I have precisely the same criticism against conventional economics, so I completely agree with this criticism. However, notice the following.

- The point of the article is, "So, why are so much resources being invested in climate models? A very provocative paper by Shackley et al. addresses this question..." i.e. the point is political, not scientific.
- We (you and I) mean different things when we say "models" in climatology. When I say it, I mean e.g. greenhouse effect. When you say it, you mean trivial linear projections, as in the article. For self-evident reasons, such projections are necessarily as flawed in climatology as they are in economics.
- Models defined your way are not the basis of "global warming" concerns. Greenhouse effect is. The article does nothing to challenge this. IPCC reports are not reducible to predictions of rising mean temperature.
- Even assuming that the criticism is completely justified (which it isn't), it doesn't mean that sound climatology, including concerning "global warming", doesn't exist. It only means that most scientists have difficult time wrapping their minds around non-linear models. This is even more true in economics and with consistently far more catastrophic consequences. This doesn't mean that sound economists, comfortable with non-linear models and capable of predicting events like the 2008 global financial crisis, don't exist. They do.

By the way, where is your story of photons?
   

Models defined your way are not the basis of "global warming" concerns. Greenhouse effect is.

Your view of the "science" of the greenhouse effect is religious or ideological… I admit that politics has greatly skewed climate science, and hence must often be taken into account. That doesn't mean that it's only politics:
Peruse this page (http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/06/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-transfer/#more-19219) (I recommend the third paper dealt with…). You have your dogma and the rites that have grown up around it! But I'm more concerned with the effects of the greenhouse gasses upon the climate.
And upon the policy prescriptions that, misunderstanding those, are advocated by true believer "environmentalists".

As someone once said, make things as simple as possible; but not simpler! :)

As someone once said, make things as simple as possible; but not simpler! :)

The article you gave was too simple though. Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Yes. We want photons! We want photons! We want photons! We want photons!

Sorry, I'm inspired by the Greeks.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-10, 21:01:03

Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Yes. We want photons! We want photons! We want photons! We want photons!

Sorry, I'm inspired by the Greeks.

Are you sure? Well-- OK. Have a free sample.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mountainproject.com%2Fimages%2F72%2F12%2F105907212_medium_ffa9aa.jpg&hash=1e504ac8618ed83bbaaa41561fbdf179" rel="cached" data-hash="1e504ac8618ed83bbaaa41561fbdf179" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mountainproject.com/images/72/12/105907212_medium_ffa9aa.jpg)

The article you gave was too simple though.

Oh? In what way was it too simple?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-10, 13:01:03

The article you gave was too simple though.

Oh? In what way was it too simple?

Low blow at linear models, while providing no suggestion to improve the field of study. Concentrating on the projections of the "rising mean temperature" while avoiding the main topic, i.e. environmental concerns, that which forms the bulk of IPCC reports.

Btw, where is your story of photons?

Low blow at linear models, while providing no suggestion to improve the field of study. Concentrating on the projections of the "rising mean temperature" while avoiding the main topic, i.e. environmental concerns, that which forms the bulk of IPCC reports.

Which paper did you read, ersi?

Quite some while ago, in another thread, I asked you a simple question: Does a photon have free will? (You didn't answer… I'd only wanted to see how much of an animist you were.)

Quite some while ago, in another thread, I asked you a simple question: Does a photon have free will? (You didn't answer… I'd only wanted to see how much of an animist you were.)

I did. Now it's your turn. Write your story of photons and I will help you find the answer that I gave back then.

It doesn't matter to me… Likewise, your petty rhetorical points.

I ask you again: Which paper did you read? (The one I recommended was a PHD dissertation (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf)…) The main point of which I took to be that the effects of the so-called greenhouse effect are, well, dependent upon many other factors — sometimes even resulting in a "negative greenhouse effect". And important, at that.
So, calculations predicated upon a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ based upon laboratory experiments (…and computer models, i.e. current GCMs) using elementary physical properties are -at least- suspect.
Not for the cargo-cult set, of course. But as for myself -as someone who cares about science, among other things- I'd need something like, you know?, actual science? :)

What -ignoring my qualms about consensus science- would you want to see, to combat carbon pollution?

It doesn't matter to me… Likewise, your petty rhetorical points.

Which is a petty rhetorical point that doesn't matter to me.

I ask you again: Which paper did you read?

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education. Later, I have followed up the debates on the news and noticed the essential similarity of the substance of climatology with economics. I know economics better.

So, I know the math of climatology, but I don't know much about the specific concepts. For example "cP air" and "mP air" in your latest recommendation were news. 

As to the phenomenon itself, it was taught in primary school as common sense and I have seen nobody question it later. This is scientific consensus.

(The one I recommended was a PHD dissertation (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf)…)

Mkay. Giving it a read.

The main point of which I took to be that the effects of the so-called greenhouse effect are, well, dependent upon many other factors — sometimes even resulting in a "negative greenhouse effect". And important, at that.

No, this is not the main point of the paper. Its main point is "...to provide an interpretation of the mechanisms involved in the formation of cP air, rather than to simulate the the observed characteristics of a particular case study. [...] Although the model results compare well with the observations of Gotaas and Benson, comparisons with other observations are needed to validate the model."

The "interpretation" mentioned in the previous quote consists in this, "The principal effect of subsidence on the temperature profiles is not caused by warming due to adiabatic compression, but by its effect on the moisture supply, thus influencing the radiative cooling."

How does any of this make greenhouse effect "so-called" or even "negative", I have no idea. What do you take greenhouse effect to be? Either give your brief description/definition of the greenhouse effect now or this discussion is suspended.*

What -ignoring my qualms about consensus science- would you want to see, to combat carbon pollution?

I.e. what would my politics be? You can keep dreaming.

* Better still, tell your tale of photons in the appropriate thread.

I think that someone here believes that human activity is influencing our climate and that someone else here believes that human activity is not influencing our climate, but I am not sure.

This discussion is absurd.

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

Secondly, even analyzing the issue under an absurd approach and admitting they were right, even so, the general principle of precaution, due to the unsurmountable consequences of such disaster, would advice for prudence and reducing the human caused impact in the earth's climate balance, never to adopt behaviors that will inevitably rise such interference.

Thirdly, because sticking to limited and finite forms of fuels instead adopting and substituting for limitless ways of using energy without ecological footprint it's a crime against humanity and represents giving future generations no future.

And the last but not the least, because we should have a deep respect for all forms of live beings of the Creation and allow them for the needed habitat so they can prosper, not to exterminate species at the diabolic rhythm human race has been doing it.

I think that someone here believes that human activity is influencing our climate and that someone else here believes that human activity is not influencing our climate, but I am not sure.

:jester: I believe in both, but I'm not sure, either.  :jester:
==========

And the last but not the least, because we should have a deep respect for all forms of live beings of the Creation

Hmmmmm...Adam and Eve? The talking serpent? Why don't they talk anymore?

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.

That explains a lot… :)

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

(I assume you mean "opposition to the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" — but that's just the most likely sense… :) ) Then, you prefer your conspiracy theory —or, propaganda, if you will!— to actual science. Your welcome to it.

Secondly, even analyzing the issue under an absurd approach and admitting they were right, even so, the general principle of precaution, due to the unsurmountable consequences of such disaster, would advice for prudence and reducing the human caused impact in the earth's climate balance, never to adopt behaviors that will inevitably rise such interference.

By that maxim, you'd have to hop over every crack in the sidewalk — to spare your mother's back… :)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-11, 00:55:26

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.

That explains a lot… :)

Such as?

By the way, where's your story of photons? Looks like I will have to create a signature about it.

By that maxim, you'd have to hop over every crack in the sidewalk — to spare your mother's back…  :)

The truth can be heard from the children's mouth - you finally said the truth, that for you the consequences of climate change are no different from cracks on the sidewalk that ruins your nice Italian imported shoes. American egocentrism above everything else no matter if it destroys the world.

Selfishness, immaturity and lack of responsibility, the way of the "Braves". :)
No need to keep on discussing this.

This discussion is absurd.

Agreed-- but maybe not for the reason you think.

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

OK. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt--- let alone a reasonable one--- that the above statement is in error.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

I also have doubts that reasonable doubt about CAGW is restricted in any way to the US-- but that's another issue.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Based on your anti-CAGW performance on this site, you have no reason to expect any slice of the cake, not even a cookie. Shape up!

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with. Which is why I don't discuss the politics with him. It's much comfier to bash the politics of the science of economics, and stick to the actual science of climatology. Weather forecasts miss the mark often enough, but I am yet to see any conspiracy theories about it.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-12, 12:09:01

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Based on your anti-CAGW performance on this site, you have no reason to expect any slice of the cake, not even a cookie. Shape up!

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with. Which is why I don't discuss the politics with him. It's much comfier to bash the politics of the science of economics.

I don't get into stuff here much-- true. I'm a semi-regular commenter on WUWT though-- and Anthony Watts is as anti-CAGW as they come.

And-- for the record, no, I don't believe for one minute in the catastrophe-of-the-week stuff we hear about from the "We're all DOOOMMMMEEDDD" CAGW community. So--- where's my money???

OK. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt--- let alone a reasonable one--- that the above statement is in error.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man.

Ok, I'll open a second league for those that helps the few I refer to get rich without ever seeing a centime. Feeling better? :)

As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

That my friend should be a motif of proud to you.
Do you know why there will be always slaves? because such people do whatever it's told to them to get that loan.

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

You mean climate change being a political (anti American obviously) form of attack to their economics?

I also have doubts that reasonable doubt about CAGW is restricted in any way to the US-- but that's another issue.

Certainly it's not restricted to the US, (just wait and see what China is doing...) but is up to the US the bigger responsibility on constantly boycotting efforts to diminish environmental and climate disaster produced by human activity.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 12:55:40

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

You mean climate change being a political (anti American obviously) form of attack to their economics?

He hasn't said anything too specific about it, so I don't know if his objections to the IPCC (which are, as far as can be determined, indeed purely political) only concern the funding of IPCC or go further into suspicions that IPCC is some devilish plow to attack the interests of American businesses. But yeah, very likely the latter too. 

Such is of course bs, because IPCC is funded by governments and governments are in bed with industries. So all the political corruption you see there reflects and stems from the same bedlife, and is not to do with "bad science". The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.

He hasn't said anything too specific about it,

He never says... :)
He prefers to let his mind fly away to some obscure place.

The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.

Yes it happens together with incompetency and intellectual fraud. The problem is they have to live under a private financing fund model so the pressure for "discovering" what the donors wants them to "discover" it's huge.

Somehow related with all this, you all know BP - British Petroleum. In a rather intelligent move their advertising started using BP - Beyond Petroleum some time ago.
That's the biggest demonstration they have no arguments against the environmental and climatic impact of using fossil fuels (besides a smart strategy for trying to keep riding the wave).

Just one more thing, I have no illusions that also pro environment organizations suffers from the same problems regarding being used to political objectives. Shakespeare said something alike "in times of adversity one finds strange bed company". I have no patience for Greenpeace for example.

He hasn't said anything too specific about it, so I don't know if his objections to the IPCC (which are, as far as can be determined, indeed purely political) only concern the funding of IPCC or go further into suspicions that IPCC is some devilish plo[t] to attack the interests of American businesses.

My objections to the IPCC are straightforward: Tasked with estimating the best understanding of "climate science", they quickly became an arm of anti-capitalist "environmentalism" evangelism! (That may sound a little harsh — but each new Policy Summary made it plainer… But —Jeez! You know, it might be important…?!)
[Like I said, a while back, ersi: You're late to this discussion. I've been involved with it since the late '90s. What you "learned" in grade school needs up-dating! Start with AR3.
(Thinking that the Montreal Protocol was a repeatable big-government, multi-government "agreement" is — well, it ain't gonna happen again: "Fool me once, shame on you!"…]
What about Global Warming/Climate Change convinces you?!

I'll mention a few things that don't convince me:
Their "evidence" is primarily GCM model predictions,
their predictions have been falsified,
noone seems to think we need better models…

Has it occurred to you that science requires a little bit more… More than politics? More than a consensus?

The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.Yes it happens together with incompetency and intellectual fraud. The problem is they have to live under a private financing fund model so the pressure for "discovering" what the donors wants them to "discover" it's huge.

Because regal largesse is such, and has been proven to be!, so, so much better at seeking "reality"… :)
The Government is God! God is the Government! (Trotski, I think… :) (Or maybe only a Sycamore scion!""You Can't Take It With You") who played the xylophone, badly!)

You know: I'm beginning to think that liberals in my country (and almost everyone in European countries)  just like bad xylophone playing… That's too bad.
You never heard of Lionel Hampton? :)

My objections to the IPCC are straightforward: Tasked with estimating the best understanding of "climate science", they quickly became an arm of anti-capitalist "environmentalism" evangelism! (That may sound a little harsh — but each new Policy Summary made it plainer… But —Jeez! You know, it might be important…?!)

I.e. a conspiracy theory. I only accept conspiracy facts. You have to state who is gaining and what, so that it could be reasonably inferred that the conspiracy is real. Until then, dismissed.

I'll mention a few things that don't convince me:
Their "evidence" is primarily GCM model predictions,
their predictions have been falsified,
noone seems to think we need better models…

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

This has been the issue with you all the time. We have already established that we are not talking about the same thing. You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

As long as you don't say what you take greenhouse effect to be, dismissed.

Has it occurred to you that science requires a little bit more… More than politics? More than a consensus?

Science is other than politics. It's the politics that does things, whether justified by science or not. They need cooperation, but if you had power, you would be one of the main obstructionists. Anyway, there are enough people like you at power, so you can stay retired.

By the way, where is your story of photons?

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

That seems to have been the problem between us for a very long time: You think your "primary" education is sufficient… :)

You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

Then, obviously, we should de-populate the oceans of fish… who both pee and defecate in the oceans! (You have proven yourself to be an idiot.)  Of course, it "doesn't take a scientist"… You wouldn't know one, if he was peeing on you! :)

BTW:

I.e. a conspiracy theory. I only accept conspiracy facts. You have to state who is gaining and what, so that it could be reasonably inferred that the conspiracy is real. Until then, dismissed.

Until you respond to reasonable questions, I'll banter; but your macho a macho frame is too stupid to take seriously…
I know that you didn't like the Soviets; but you're not smart enough to escape their indoctrination. (That makes me very sad.) Propaganda requires a willing mind.

Be well, ersi. (I will certainly not harm you…)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 22:37:00

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

That seems to have been the problem between us for a very long time: You think your "primary" education is sufficient… :)

Of course primary education is not sufficient (for everything - and I said I have been following up matters), but it's naturally sufficient to beat your deficient vague nonsense.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 22:37:00

You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

Then, obviously, we should de-populate the oceans of fish… who both pee and defecate in the oceans! (You have proven yourself to be an idiot.)  Of course, it "doesn't take a scientist"… You wouldn't know one, if he was peeing on you! :)

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon, like fish in the sea. Why didn't you say so? This debate could have ended pages ago.

Until you respond to reasonable questions, I'll banter...

Why don't you stop bantering and ask a reasonable question for once? By reasonable, I mean a complete sentence. Your sentences always miss a crucial part. E.g. "There's no evidence. Their models have been falsified." It's really quite important to know what evidence and models you have in mind. As long as you mean evidence for warming and predictive models of that- as you must -, I will simply laugh you away, because they are not the main part of the IPCC reports.

Linear warming is the main part only for the denialist simpletons, because they like to ignore environmental issues and pick on something obvious. As I said, weather cannot be predicted even a week ahead, so it's a no-brainer to disregard "predictive models" trying to predict ahead more than that. This is why I don't take you seriously as long as that's what you mean by "models".

By the way, where's your story of photons?

Perhaps a little global warming will be useful very soon.

"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 – just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Guardian."  Go here for more.  (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030)  :knight:   :cheers:

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing… But it remains to be seen how good it is.
——————————————————————————————

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon — and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing… But it remains to be seen how good it is.
——————————————————————————————

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 23:36:47

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon — and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

If one considers CO2 and sulfur dioxide as pollutants then volcanic eruptions (major and minor), contribute the same pollutants as our factories and motor vehicles.  It's just that all of the volcanic activity around the globe accounts for less then 1% of the total amount of CO2 emissions caused by human activity (29 gigatons annually now).  The volcanic mega-eruption about 201 million years ago (brought on by tectonic forces ripping Pangaea apart), doubled the atmospheric CO2, raised global temperatures and acidified the oceans very quickly and caused 50% of living species to go extinct, but these are indeed rare (more rare than asteroid impacts). 

There is a distinction made between the natural land & sea CO2 emissions and human CO2 emissions--this is certainly more for clarification reasons than it is to be saying that human activity is not part of earth's natural phenomena.  In fact there has long been a distinction between what is caused by nature and that which recently has been brought on by humans.  The land & sea CO2 cycle of emission and absorption has been going on since life began and it has been very much in balance for a couple billion years.  Humans started adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere (only 40% is reabsorbed), a mere 120 years ago and so it is considered by many to not be a part of the long-standing "natural" cycle.  It is natural in my opinion, just very recent is all--not to mention the fact that humans have no free will to be anything but natural.   :knight:  :cheers:

Markets will regulate climate as they do with politics.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA5rwM4L.jpg&hash=2b37b2d5dcfcf7eb736538f4e09c3f6b" rel="cached" data-hash="2b37b2d5dcfcf7eb736538f4e09c3f6b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/A5rwM4L.jpg)

Markets will regulate climate as they do with politics.

Markets? or Merkels?

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

After the South will manage to bankrupt us I'll seek for economic asylum.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-15, 22:39:03

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

After the South will manage to bankrupt us I'll seek for economic asylum.

:lol: you can sit on the lap of your nazi wheel chair financial minister while you wait...
By the way, don't you want to sell more four of your submarine to Greece? more two to us? how many more millions of Mercedes, BMW's and the sort? How many more millions of pharmaceutical industry? Industry machines?
Do you really have something to say?

Was not for us and you'll be broken. Even the lousy dollar values the same as the Euro thanks to you.
Don't bother me while I concentrate upon the Anglo Saxons. After, I'll deal with the Germanics. One enemy at the time.

By the way, don't you want to sell more four of your submarine to Greece? more two to us? how many more millions of Mercedes, BMW's and the sort? How many more millions of pharmaceutical industry? Industry machines?
Do you really have something to say?

To be honest, I wouldn't sell you even a rusty nail anymore.
You didn't even pay for the goods you have received. It was paid from our tax money.
Up now it would be time to buy your goodies from our US friends.
Only exception would be some pharmaceutical products. I would give them for free (I mean paid with our tax money because the industry has nothing to give away).  Epidemics is the last thing Europe needs.

Only exception would be some pharmaceutical products. I would give them for free (I mean paid with our tax money because the industry has nothing to give away).  Epidemics is the last thing Europe needs.

Except for vaccinations, overuse of pharmaceutical products in e.g. France is what will cause an epidemic. What's important is things like proper sanitation infrastructure and access to it.

Up now it would be time to buy your goodies from our US friends.

I buy nothing to anthropogenic global warmers while they don't convert into ecological fundamentalists, all them living in the woods.
Then, they will have nothing to sell.

Either Mankind finish with commerce or commerce will finish with Mankind. International Trade Treaties are the instrument of the alien take over and consequent destruction on Earth. They Live.

Either Mankind finish with commerce or commerce will finish with Mankind.

Put it on a t-shirt. ;)

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing… But it remains to be seen how good it is.

You have "heard of" the greenhouse effect, your opinion of it is "it remains to be seen", and you think you have something meaningful to say on this topic?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 23:36:47

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon — and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

Of course I disagree, because we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural. Whereas my definition of "natural" acquires its meaning in contrast with "unnatural", same as order is defined in contrast with disorder, right in contrast with wrong, etc.

When industrial pollution is natural to you, there's nothing unnatural and "natural" has no meaning to you. For me it has a meaning. So we are not talking about the same thing.

By the way, where is your story of photons?

By the way, where is your story of photons?

Say that again.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fjennylincoln.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2FSorry-I-cant-Hear-You.jpg&hash=0f6a944a18439f9a721b828c83430768" rel="cached" data-hash="0f6a944a18439f9a721b828c83430768" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://jennylincoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Sorry-I-cant-Hear-You.jpg)

So he wants a story of photons.

"Helm, bring us about. New heading 222.4 . Arm photon torpedoes."

"Captain, target is in range."

"Good, get the shooting solution. Put on some speed."

"Target lock, we have a shooting solution."

"Fire torpedoes."

"Target destroyed, captain."

When industrial pollution is natural to you, there's nothing unnatural and "natural" has no meaning to you. For me it has a meaning. So we are not talking about the same thing.

America is drifting away from Europe. It happens with continents as well as with cultural concepts.

Strangely however, while cultural concepts approaches total emptiness the geographical land mass remains the same. Obviously it can't be that way, so the Country is actually shrinking but such fact is being hidden by Google Earth.

You have "heard of" the greenhouse effect, your opinion of it is "it remains to be seen", and you think you have something meaningful to say on this topic?

Please try to pay attention, ersi… Or use a modern browser or much bigger screen; or a better memory… :) This is what I referred to:

"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 – just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Guardian."  Go here for more.  (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/we-could-be-heading-mini-ice-age-2030)

Solar physics is not a specialty of mine… But models that make good (or bad) predictions are.
For instance, Arrhenius' toy model of the greenhouse effect is good basic physics — and all but worthless as the basis of a predictive climate model. (Note: I don't say weather…) It is suitable for teaching grade-school children some basic physics; it is not suitable for a programme of intergovernmental curbs on fossil fuel energy — or industry in general. :)

Sometimes important things are more complicated than what an elementary education can encompass.

[…] we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural.

No. My definition includes reality! Man —as does every other organism on Earth— affects its environment; you have some "moral" scruple that requires Man to be beyond such… (Perhaps, in time, you -we- may have the knowledge and power to be so.) Industrial pollution is something industrialized countries have been dealing with better and better! Poorer countries new to industrialization will learn. It takes time… Relative wealth is a requirement.
Or you take Man (at least, most of the poor nations…) to be dispensable. (I politely disagree!)

Whereas my definition of "natural" acquires its meaning in contrast with "unnatural", same as order is defined in contrast with disorder, right in contrast with wrong, etc.

Left in contrast with right? Dorsal… You do love your dichotomies, don't you? :) Your definitional school-boy games are -it seems- all you have.
Too bad! You've a mind that could have profited from an education.
——————————————————————————————————————————
"Whereas my definition of natural acquires its meaning in contrast with unnatural," you said, ersi… The obverse is not the only possibility. (Except in your anemic logic… :) ) I'd like to consider the likely-hood that your "definition" is predicated upon a predetermined outcome: Man, bad; "nature", good!
So. Argue that! :)
———————————————————————————————————————————
"order is defined in contrast with disorder" you said! Only by hide-bound adherents to the "dichotomy" heresy… (Your language is the limit only of your world; you needn't be so parochial!)

Order is a statistical concept. (If you don't know that…) How can disorder be defined? :) Should it be defined as the differences noted between what was expected and what happened? :)
Naw! Then, you'd have to mention -and maybe deal with- theories that the mainstream doesn't want to notice…
You think you can understand the world by parsing the dictionary? :)
—————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————
I just watched the latest episode of the TV show "Hannibal"… A character said: — well, I forget who it was and what was said. Suffice it to say, evil will out!
(Or the opposite.)

Of course, that's not right… Did anyone else watch it? Might someone else know what I'd thought I'd gleaned?
Probably not. There's only a few billion people who might have watched the show; likely, tens of millions. And how many would see my query?
Few, to none.

Does anyone actually have anything to say? (And how could this have anything to do with a "theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming [climate change]"?

Give me data and theories that lead me to conclusions!
Don't give me corrupted data, models that don't accurately predict anything…and "scientists" who play politics, for a living!

Or agree with ersi, at least insofar as -as a rule- disagreeing with me. His "agenda" is his own. If you've adopted it, please explain it to us others…

Please try to pay attention, ersi… Or use a modern browser or much bigger screen; or a better memory… :) This is what I referred to:

You didn't quote to whom you were responding to, so I couldn't know if you were responding to JS or to me which is your long-neglected duty.

For instance, Arrhenius' toy model of the greenhouse effect is good basic physics — and all but worthless as the basis of a predictive climate model. (Note: I don't say weather…) It is suitable for teaching grade-school children some basic physics; it is not suitable for a programme of intergovernmental curbs on fossil fuel energy — or industry in general. :)

If you mean Arrhenius' equation, then you are absolutely hopeless. Arrhenius didn't suggest a greenhouse model, but a single characteristic to the model.

Sometimes important things are more complicated than what an elementary education can encompass.

So, since you are discussing climatology far below elementary education level, I can conclude that it's simply not important to you.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-18, 02:12:48

[…] we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural.

No. My definition includes reality! Man —as does every other organism on Earth— affects its environment; you have some "moral" scruple that requires Man to be beyond such… (Perhaps, in time, you -we- may have the knowledge and power to be so.) Industrial pollution is something industrialized countries have been dealing with better and better! Poorer countries new to industrialization will learn. It takes time… Relative wealth is a requirement.

So, man does things, sleeps, yawns, eats, kills, pollutes. Rules and policies are unnecessary because rich nations with more wealth are automatically better nations. You have no moral scruples - and that's reality. Got it.

Or you take Man (at least, most of the poor nations…) to be dispensable. (I politely disagree!)

Men without moral scruples don't have that thing with which they could legitimately agree or disagree with others. And you are increasingly unable to put together coherent sentences that would merit any agreement or disagreement.

Let's have the story of photons instead.

There was the double-slit experiment. Then there was the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. You -of course- fall back upon the physics of your elders, and you don't understand them!
I'd ask you again: Does the photon have "free will"?
What I wanted to find out was what you thought to be "free will"…
(I was not really trying to trap you: I don't care, if you are like James, and I don't care if you are uninformed.

I could respond to ersi… But what would my response mean, when everyone knew it was directed at a juvenile…? (Surely, most of you do? [No, you don't: You are weird juvenile people…
I'd let you grow.
I can do!

Ask me… (The most fearsome request on the Internet!)
——————————————————————————————————
Sure, some people don't know what I mean. (I might be drunk…)

But I mean well! :)

Sober up and reread my story of photons https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=425.msg29551#msg29551

Then serve up yours. Until then, you are not worthy of further attention.

So, man does things, sleeps, yawns, eats, kills, pollutes. Rules and policies are unnecessary because rich nations with more wealth are automatically better nations. You have no moral scruples - and that's reality. Got it.

Richer and better being synonymous it's typical of materialism. When a society is built upon the cult of success and money it's not expected to find moral values. Praxis it's all that exists, not Ethos.
Things are measured by it's quantity not by it's quality.

Anyway I believe that moral values are innate at all human beings and outside the forum-warriors people are different.
Internet turns pacific people into blood thirsty vampires. It's a mind control therapy so they don't turn against the rulers. Like football in Europe.

In such scenario, discussions between different cultural backgrounds are often not possible.
And the climate is changing.

I noted a small news item the other day that confirmed that the Arctic due to cooling has more ice.....

Sober up and reread my story of photons […suitable for highschoolers! If you don't mind the physical mis-interpretation…].

Then serve up yours. Until then, you are not worthy of further attention.

Your attention, ersi, is neither a goal nor a requirement, for me: You don't seem to have either the interest or the education required to focus upon the effects -which is the point, isn't it?- of the IPCC's "Save the Planet by Limiting Global Warming to +2ºC Pre-Industrial Temperature!"
First, there's the problem of understanding the true (and quite complicated) effects of the various greenhouse gasses - in situ: Water vapor, CO₂, methane, ozone, etc. (Note the Ph.D. thesis that provided a compelling explanation for the anomalous temps in the Antarctic…) The basic physics isn't that hard; but the basic physics isn't a substitute for understanding — but for a few zealots.
A pound of feathers and a pound of lead both weigh a pound. But, other things being equal, throwing each will not yield similar results… Of course, other things are seldom equal. That doesn't change Newton's derivative for gravity on the Earth, a simple equation. It does, however, engender some caution among those who "play" in the real world.
Second, the focus upon a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ seems -to me- to skirt the first criticism: We've pre-judged the likely culprit; now, we just want to convict him and hang him! (Does the actual science provide even a "preponderance of the evidence" verdict that won't be overturned on appeal? :)
Third, the policy issues and the risk management issues are hopelessly confused by the presumption of global -rather than regional- effect. That is, they have become ideological rather than rational, hence not really amenable to scientific expertise.

That is what I think we're dealing with, like it or no. But the science of climatology remains interesting to me!
(I won't give you links to published papers — you don't read them; or you don't understand them. But you can re-publish your highschool essays! I'll probably read them: This site has become pretty dull… :) )

I noted a small news item the other day that confirmed that the Arctic due to cooling has more ice.....

I also believe that a 24-hour cycle of light and dark periods has been detected in much of the world.
It warrants further study.

 :) You wouldn't give an old Scot the "benefit" of his vernacular… ?

In a similar vein, warming is expected to be more noticeable in colder climes! (It's true…) And what's up with the troposphere (https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)? (This is Cook's site…) The comments are fun! :)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-19, 01:37:21

Sober up and reread my story of photons […suitable for highschoolers! If you don't mind the physical mis-interpretation…].

It's all the more sad that high school level is too hard for you. Our discussions should reasonably be at least on high school level.

Your attention, ersi, is neither a goal nor a requirement, for me: You don't seem to have either the interest or the education required to focus upon the effects -which is the point, isn't it?- of the IPCC's "Save the Planet by Limiting Global Warming to +2ºC Pre-Industrial Temperature!"

I have been talking about the effects all along. You haven't.

First, there's the problem of understanding the true (and quite complicated) effects of the various greenhouse gasses - in situ: Water vapor, CO₂, methane, ozone, etc. (Note the Ph.D. thesis that provided a compelling explanation for the anomalous temps in the Antarctic…) The basic physics isn't that hard; but the basic physics isn't a substitute for understanding — but for a few zealots.

See your own level of discussion here? You say that the understanding of greenhouse effect does not consist in "physics" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but, for a thousandth time, you are not saying what the understanding consists in. This is a persistent logical impediment with you that at the same time counts as a deficiency in social skills.

A pound of feathers and a pound of lead both weigh a pound. But, other things being equal, throwing each will not yield similar results… Of course, other things are seldom equal. That doesn't change Newton's derivative for gravity on the Earth, a simple equation. It does, however, engender some caution among those who "play" in the real world.

And who is throwing stuff up in the air? The pipes of heavy industry are not doing it? Or is it so that they are doing it but somehow we can rest assured it has no effect?

Second, the focus upon a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ seems -to me- to skirt the first criticism: We've pre-judged the likely culprit; now, we just want to convict him and hang him! (Does the actual science provide even a "preponderance of the evidence" verdict that won't be overturned on appeal? :)

And the actual science is to be had how? The detractors are to be taken far more seriously than consensus? Is this how science works? You haven't even proven that any "models made consistently wrong predictions". In economics, the "models" are so fundamentally flawed that they don't call it predictions. They call it "forecast" like in weather. And we all know how lousy weather forecasts are. So, seriously, "predictions" is not what (global) climatology is even about! It's about how the atmospheric structure works.

And I repeat that the issue is about ecology. It's a self-evident moral imperative (provided that we are talking human to human) that industry should clean up after itself. Moreover, it would be rational from the point of view of the self-same industry. For example, everybody knows that fossil fuels are limited and will end up soon enough. Why waste them faster rather than be more sparing?

Third, the policy issues and the risk management issues are hopelessly confused by the presumption of global -rather than regional- effect. That is, they have become ideological rather than rational, hence not really amenable to scientific expertise.

False. Ozone depletion was global. Acid rains from United States affect the entire continent and the Pacific. Call that "regional".

(I won't give you links to published papers — you don't read them; or you don't understand them. But you can re-publish your highschool essays! I'll probably read them: This site has become pretty dull… :) )

You are dull because you cannot even put together a simple story of photons.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
If the North Pole ice cap melts, it will raise up Sarah Palin and a great deal of the Alaskan shores.
============

Coastal towns and villages report rapidly eroding coastlines, resulting in loss of homes, streets, businesses, and even graveyards.

Storm surges cause short-term flooding that damages homes and community facilities, and can push small boats some distance inland from the sea.

Increased seasonal flooding accelerates shoreline erosion, and in a few cases entire villages are being forced to begin moving to higher ground.

Rapid erosion has threatened homes and forced emergency evacuations.

Six Alaska communities are planning partial or total relocation, and 160 have been identified as threatened by climate-related erosion by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps estimates relocation costs at $30 to $50 million per village.

For example, everybody knows that fossil fuels are limited and will end up soon enough. Why waste them faster rather than be more sparing?

I see you're a fan of Ehrlich-type Malthusianism… What "everybody knows" is often simply wrong.
You are free to be a hunter/gatherer, ersi. But you over-step when you insist others become or remain so…

BTW: There is no "Global Ecology"… Even short of the Cult of Gaia.

What "everybody knows" is often simply wrong.

May very well be, but how do you know that? More emphatically, how do you know that? Thus far you have not managed to support anything you say, so, insofar as track record matters, you know nothing. And it's good that you are not the majority.

In science you have to have to provide evidence. In philosophy you have to face the conclusions of your own thinking. You have neither evidence or relevant conclusions. You have only denialism, "Everybody is wrong except me. Nobody knows anything except me."

Have a scientific article: NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

I tried to interest people in discussing that paper when it first came out; ditto its follow-up… (That is but one example of what I meant when I said you got here late… But you're so literal-minded you thought I meant this thread on this site!) If you've read it, you know that it is a piece of ad hominem polemic masquerading as a scientific paper; worse, it is statistically inept. (Lewandowsky has moved on, to a different institution — not to actual science. :) He remains an incompetent.)

How do I know that "what everybody knows" is often wrong? Experience, ersi, experience! Remember the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth? Or Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? Futurists like Gregory Bateson?
(Remember Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa? :) )
Most Scientologists went much beyond Dianetics  (which really wasn't much sillier than Psychoanalysis…) to embrace a loony cult. I've watched Environmentalism become just another loony cult…

BTW: I hear the catch-phrase is again Global Warming… (It seems Climate Change wasn't rhetorically effective.) The target remains the same: Fossil fuels, because of atmospheric CO₂, must be dispensed with, soonest!
What's with that Peak Oil theory?

How do I know that "what everybody knows" is often wrong? Experience, ersi, experience! Remember the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth? Or Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? Futurists like Gregory Bateson?
(Remember Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa? :) )
Most Scientologists went much beyond Dianetics  (which really wasn't much sillier than Psychoanalysis…) to embrace a loony cult. I've watched Environmentalism become just another loony cult…

So, you know from experience that IPCC is a loony cult of Environmentalists like Scientology? Thanks for being clear for once.

Now I can say I know from experience that you are clearly a loon.

i think this thread is degraded into goobledygook

It has, Sparta!

So, you know from experience that IPCC is a loony cult of Environmentalists like Scientology?

How is this a fair interpretation of what I said? :)
The IPCC is a political body designed to craft and promote international governmental solutions — to whatever problems they can find… The scientists involved are selected by their governments; the "science" they review is -usually- their own.
Saying this of course takes the conversation beyond "the science". By the same token, focusing upon actual science -good or bad- is taken to be immoral, since "pollution" is bad! And everyone knows that pollution is bad! So, if your focus isn't upon evil polluters, you're abetting the crime!

Two simple questions:
One, do we understand the Earth's climate system (if there even is such a thing, beyond statistical games…) well enough to forecast and assign agency to catastrophic "tipping points"?
Two, is the warming resulting from the doubling of atmospheric CO₂ correctly understood and accurately quantified?

Note who won't consider such questions…

Nothing like a bit of gobblygook to remind us all we aren't perfect!  :lol:

I fancy an argument could be made that a good bit of global warming is being caused by this thread. Think of all the hot air that is being unleashed by both sides! Merciful God, no wonder they say it's getting hotter.

Think of all the hot air that is being unleashed by both sides!

It stinks really. :left:

How is this a fair interpretation of what I said? :)

It's based on exactly what you said. Here's more.

The IPCC is a political body designed to craft and promote international governmental solutions — to whatever problems they can find…

No. They were put together in order to address a problem that was already known. There's not a single UN body that has been put together just in case, "whatever problems they can find".

So, you woke up with the wrong foot, to put it nicely.

By the same token, focusing upon actual science -good or bad- is taken to be [snip]

Define "actual science". (Not holding my breath. You are known to never define anything.)

[...]immoral, since "pollution" is bad! And everyone knows that pollution is bad! So, if your focus isn't upon evil polluters, you're abetting the crime!

Why scare quotes? And on what moral system is pollution good or at least indifferent? (Not holding my breath on this point either.)

Two simple questions:
One, do we understand the Earth's climate system (if there even is such a thing, beyond statistical games…) well enough to forecast and assign agency to catastrophic "tipping points"?

Yes, we do. Except for denialists like you. The denialists have several strategies. They say that (1) they don't understand agency and causality in this case, or (1a) there's no way to attribute agency and causality in this case, (2) that the whole issue is a statistical game for political purposes, not science employed to assess environmental concerns and industrial pollution or (2a) pollution doesn't exist, at most only "pollution" does, and (3) there's something called "actual science" that never gets a fair review.

You have used all these strategies.

Two, is the warming resulting from the doubling of atmospheric CO₂ correctly understood and accurately quantified?

It's about warming only in the sense similar like the ECB policy is about inflation. Inflation is what it is, the purpose of the ECB is to maintain "inflation rates of below, but close to, 2% over the medium term". Similarly, the panel has decided on a politically feasible tagline citing an easy measure of the complex thing (climatology) they are dealing with. This does not change the nature of climatology nor the science about climatology. The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe. 

IPCC says, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen." Now, let's have your "actual science" about this statement.

Note who won't consider such questions…

...

It's based on exactly what you said.

Cut-and-paste of consecutive words from the sentences from two paragraphs, deleting inconvenient quantifications and qualifications, and conflating (at least…) two topics — this is not "based" on exactly what I said, except in the Hollywood movie sense: "Based upon a true story."

They [the IPCC] were put together in order to address a problem that was already known.

No, sir! The problem was hypothesized… And once the "culprit" was identified -to the satisfaction of the political actors- they never looked back.
About understanding "the climate system and probable tipping points" I maintain that we don't understand much - yet.

Yes, we do. Except for denialists like you.

The only evidence that we have such understanding is the suite of GCMs whose skill (ability to correctly predict the future…) is poor, at best.
Calling atmospheric CO₂ a pollutant is a gross mis-identification; as is calling those who are unconvinced of your [the IPCC's] position "deniers". (You know the rhetorical genesis of the term… :( ] But it serves the purpose: Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is clear about this:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Similarly, the panel has decided on a politically feasible tagline citing an easy measure of the complex thing (climatology) they are dealing with.

Is "politically feasible tagline" the same thing as BS science? (I'd say Yes! For many reasons…) But let's not forget Alinsky's RULE 2:

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

This does not change the nature of climatology nor the science about climatology.

Indeed, it does! When professional (i.e., academic…) climatologists are required to agree with a politically pre-determined outcome of research, science becomes "science"… (Examples include Ptolemaic epicycles and Lysenko-ism.)

The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe.

The IPCC only cites what a select group of scientists report… (Remember "Hide the Decline"? Even true believers can be censored, if their science doesn't fully support "the science," eh? :) ) And as anyone who's read the third, fourth and fifth assessments knows: Environmentalist (wack-o) groups often pose (…the IPCC's reviewers accept Groucho-glasses as a sufficient disguise!) as scientists. (How are the Arctic polar bears doing, eh? :) Have the Himalayan ice caps melted yet? :) Has New York's Manhattan Island been inundated? :) Or Florida's Electoral College prowess diminished, because its coastal areas are submerged now? :) What's up, with Arctic sea ice? With the Antarctic's inland ice cover? With it's extent into the surrounding ocean? :) )

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."

The Earth's atmosphere (and, likely, oceans) have been warming since the last ice age ended; but only persistently, that is, they warm, they cool, they warm, they cool… Is the overall trend warming? Of course. Until the near approach of the next ice age…
(I especially like their "since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia"… One of those observed changes is the credulity of ideological "environmentalists"! :) But they are not anomalous, when compared to other religions…)
The amounts of snow and ice are equivocal, so far. (You'd use ideology to determine this… :) I'd use -you know, like- measurement. ) Sea levels have been steadily increasing since long before the Industrial Revolution, at a fairly steady rate — a rate that actual measurements support. But, since the GCMs "predict" more (under certain scenarios), more it is! (My advice to you: Grow gills! You'll be as safe under that regime as under your preferred international governmental pollution police state…

Now, let's have your "actual science" about this statement.

You mean that predicted but unrealized increases/decreases need more than measurements…? Hm. Let me think. Uh, no!
What happens happens.
Of course, one can offer legitimate or ad hoc emendations to the theories, in such cases. But that means -necessarily!- starting from scratch, in terms of predictions. Unless I miss my guess, the IPCC (and you) would prefer to play the game of moving the goalpost…

By all means, let every locality deal with pollution as best they can. (The richer they become, the more able they'll be…) As I'm sure you know, Oxygen is a potent corrosive! It's in the same sense that Carbon-dioxide is a "pollutant": Context matters!
Not, of course, for ideological issues; one of which the environmentalists have claimed as their own: The evil of fossil fuels — which have created the most pervasive and extensive wealth and well-being this little planet has ever known. (Well, for us humans. I'm not sure how the dinosaurs would -or would have- felt! But feel free to "advocate" boy-o!)

I suppose we'll not converse again — you have nowhere to go with your ideological position; and you have nothing more than such.

Welcome to the real world! (Oh! You won't accept that? Oops! For you!) Wouldn't you just love to be under the yolk of the Soviets again… :(
Dear heart, you can't have your cake and eat it, too!

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-24, 07:30:22

It's based on exactly what you said.

Cut-and-paste of consecutive words from the sentences from two paragraphs, deleting inconvenient quantifications and qualifications, and conflating (at least…) two topics — this is not "based" on exactly what I said, except in the Hollywood movie sense: "Based upon a true story."

Re-read what you said back then. What are the "inconvenient quantifications and qualifications" there? You provided references to Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth, Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa, Dianetics and loony cults. That was the whole story! And this post of yours continues in the same vein, ridiculing as per Alinsky's rule 12 that you quote.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-24, 07:30:22

They [the IPCC] were put together in order to address a problem that was already known.

No, sir! The problem was hypothesized…

So, e.g. acid rains were imagined? Ozone depletion was imagined?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-24, 07:30:22

The IPCC only cites what the scientists observe.

The IPCC only cites what a select group of scientists report…

And the right way would be....?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-24, 07:30:22

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."

The Earth's atmosphere (and, likely, oceans) have been warming since the last ice age ended; ...

Yeah, never respond to what was actually said. When they say "1950s", you say "ice age". Brilliant.

See, you are only on the politics of the thing. You have nothing on the science. Nothing. The scientists report whatever they report. If you want to counter them, you will have to be somewhat scientific, not loony cult religious ideological as you are - because you just called them that, and this is a sign of belonging to a loony cult yourself. And here you are doing it again,

One of those observed changes is the credulity of ideological "environmentalists"! :) [...] You'd use ideology to determine this… [...]  international governmental pollution police state… [etc.]

You are absolutely intent on not addressing the science. You cannot make it any clearer, it's perfectly clear already. Even photons are far beyond your powers.

I'm waiting for jax to post a map with the distribution all over the world of pró and contra Climate Changing positions.

An image it's better than a thousand words...
Where's jax when we need him? :)

So, e.g. acid rains were imagined? Ozone depletion was imagined?

Would either problem have been "solved" by a world-wide ecological treaty?
But what -other than rhetoric- makes CO₂ similar? Oh, I know: You wish everyone would revert to hunter/gatherer modes of existence! They're not real people, else; because you can't do much else… :)
Cain slew Abel. What follows, on your logic…?
@Belfrager: The problem with "pretty" pictures is that they often lie! If you're too stupid (or too smart) to read the science, keep your opinions to — the interwebs! :)

keep your opinions to — the interwebs!  :)

What is the "interwebs"?
You know me, I don't use google, wikipedia and all those Anglo Saxon methods of censorship information. I prefer to rely on you, a real person. :)

Regarding my earlier note on the Arctic it seems that freezing increased in 2013 by 43%. Must be annoying for all the heat fanatic minds.

This is one time I have to side with RJHowie (will wonders never cease).

These last few years, if the computer models had held true, there should have been no ice cover-- or very little-- on the Great Lakes.

Well--- about that: The 2013/2014 Winter season saw nearly 95 percent ice coverage on the lakes as a whole. Superior froze over completely, Michigan and Huron (which function for all practical purposes as one lake) saw coverage in the 97 percent range, and no Great Lake was without significant coverage. Lake levels rose because there wasn't much evaporation that winter.

Then, in the 2014/2015 Winter season--- let's try for a repeat. Almost complete ice coverage. Lake levels rise because of slowed evaporation during the winter.

Those computer models need to be tweaked. They didn't match what really happened.

Such global processes don't necessarily happen with the click of one's fingers.
From 2012.....

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Earlier...

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

It's very hot on my patio this afternoon, 95º F. Global cooling is not responsible. Tennessee's icebergs are almost gone.
================================
You might find these interesting.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm (https://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2F%2Fpics%2F2015Toon30.jpg&hash=f27acb60bbf95f4ca53dac9e547f7b81" rel="cached" data-hash="f27acb60bbf95f4ca53dac9e547f7b81" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2015Toon30.jpg)

the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe

The odds? :) The odds of this happening (since nothing ever happens by simple chance…) is -if indeed it did happen- 1. That is, 100%.
Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Oreskes is a historian/activist… Read her analysis of the role prediction-mode for GCMs (http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/oreskes-naomi/PhilIssuesModelAssessOreskes.pdf) to get a better idea of her credentials, please. (If you're pressed for time, section 3.2.1 will suffice…) Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances! :)
————————————————————————————————
From the paragraph ending on pg. 30:

Although this was a model of a physical system, human activity was decisive in undermining its predictive capacity.

Unless I mis-read her description of the study, it was a trends only type of "economics" — which is just plain silly.
How does one justify trends-only models as "physical"? :) Voodoo, maybe!

Try this.
https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science (https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science)

And my Illinois associate doesn't even drink Irn Bru to have something in common! Anyway more seriously we can of course all remember that years ago the "experts" were giving desperate warnings that the planet was going downhill into a drastic cold time and towards a new for of ice age. Must have been a quick one as I don't remember it happening.

Try this.

I listened to it again… It was as silly as I remembered: She should stick to history, and leave philosophy of science alone. And dispense with her pretensions to credentialed activism.
But some people really go for that postmodern schtick! :)

If all the great names of the past that build all of mankind's common knowledge were born today the human race would be dumber than monkeys.
We live the times of obscurantism, everything being itself and it's contrary when no right voices can emerge from oceans of cacophony and apathy.

As I said:

Or you can "enjoy" her TED performances!  :)

I'm quite familiar with her work — published and podcast… She is a major instigator of bad science. Presumably, she doesn't know any better.

Try this.
The usual drivel… (https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science)

This sort of thing may impress some people. (If you're new to it -and you last much longer- you'll tire of it soon enough; if philosophy of science was an interest of yours from your early teens you'd not have been impressed… Oreskes is not all that unusual in her field, where logic is much too restricting a discipline.)

Consider: She calls the hypothetical/deductive method the Standard (Model of the) Scientific Method.
The problems she finds with this are

   
• Affirming the consequent — confirmation of predictions

   
• Auxiliary hypotheses — unknown factors

   
• Inductive reasoning is also used…

About the first, note that confirmation is necessary but not sufficient… So, her little problem with the Standard Theory of the Scientific Method is childish, given her age and education. If she doesn't know better, she should be spanked; if she does, she should be slapped.
If she knew a little bit of elementary logic, she'd have not been so silly. How could she not have read Popper? (Not to mention Reichenbach and Nagel?)

The second point is one of the reasons Science succeeds! Determining the scope of a model -after its failure- in terms of unexamined factors is how we make models better. Of course, models can still be deficient yet not fail. (Call it a problem of under-determination…) Such is why causal models are so prized: when the mechanism that supports a prediction is seen, agreement between prediction and observation are required to be very close!

The third "failure" she sees in the Standard Model is usually discussed in introductory philosophy courses, those meant for students who will likely never open a book of philosophy again even if they become academics… It's usually used in propositional logic texts: The Context of Discovery vs. the Context of Justification.

Oreskes seems continually confused about these simple things… Is that what Harvard has come to? Probably.

Her arguments for Consensus are — all one's she herself has shot down before… :)

She mentions some examples…? Cars. Well, I'll mention one: CFD.
Modern aircraft design does make use of Computational Fluid Dynamics. I've heard the argument that General (Air/Ocean) Circulation Models of the Earth's climate are much the same…
We trust CFD results, so why shouldn't we trust GCM results? I've flown on jets likely designed by CFD many times, and felt not a twinge of "philosophical" unease!

Am I, then, irrational? :)

No, I don't think so! No jet I flew on went into production — before wind-tunnel testing and prototyping… And what is quaintly called "flight testing".

Test pilots are crazy! But they're not irrational.
Oreskes is irrational — but she may not be crazy: She's got a good gig that pays well, and finds appreciative audiences — much like Barnum showed people the awesome Egress! :)

Innumeracy doesn't prove AGW.

Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what. Also, a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false.

You are quick to denounce and deny things, but I don't remember you ever defending a thesis by presenting a complete argument.

In Oakdale's world, everybody sucks and Oakdale himself is indefensible.

I will put photons at rest. You are unforgivable, but they are innocent.

Are you saying it proves the opposite? Ah, I get it. You are saying AGW cannot be proven, no matter what.

Play with your syllogisms some more; you apparently have yet to master them!
You don't get what I'm saying, because it contradicts what you believe — and your arguments for what you believe are insufficient…
(Of course, in your favor is the likelyhood that you've never committed yourself to an actual opinion on the topic —AGW, remember? :)— and so can contradict yourself at will, for your odd purposes…)

You are quick to denounce and deny things […]

"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.
Stick to marketing and opinion polls, ersi. You've no head for science.

a TED talkswoman's logic is not to your taste, therefore AGW is false

Her logic (re philosophy of science) is deficient. And she purports to overcome its deficiencies for her "cause" — fighting AGW. But her efforts defeat themselves.
(BTW: She's also a professor of the history of science at Harvard… So, yes, it pains me to see and hear her inanely justified advocacy.)
Go ahead and symbolize her argument for believing consensus science in syllogisms and see what you get! Is it too complicated for your medieval logic? :)
(Or don't, and continue your ad hominem tack — it does seem to suit you!)

"Things" (as you call them) that I'm familiar with through careful study, that I've found to be wrong or false. To you, such matters seem beside the point.

I am all for careful study and for findings in the process. The issue with you is that you are absolutely unable to share what your careful study consisted in. You have not demonstrated how you found AGW to be wrong or false. You simply assert it, without evidence. The only evidence you have is one (1) opinionated statistician. The one (1) scientist you cited did not disprove AGW, only doubted the appropriateness of predictions. You thought I wouldn't spot the difference? But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics (a la "IPCC is a loony environmentalist cult, they are killing our progress"), not the science.

So there. Still nothing. You will never get to proving your case. I have long since stopped waiting. I'm happy enough to have clarified that you have nothing on offer.

But really your gripe with AGW concerns the politics […], not the science.

Perhaps your appreciation of the science is too rudimentary for you to "notice" any references… Sobeit!

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!

Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!

What a piece of crap, American pseudo philosophical/scientific/whatever writing for American readers. It deserves no more commentaries.

As I've frequently mentioned, my primary focus is the philosophy of science. Try this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/?print=1)!

The first sentence behind the link says politics. Your primary focus was always politics, not the science, and also not the philosophy of science. You have nothing new, nothing relevant.

You have nothing new, nothing relevant.

:) I'm just accommodating your prejudice, ersi!

@Belfrager: You don't think Lindzen worth listening to? :) Who would you suggest? Pope Francis? :)

For both of you two: Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)… Is it more to your liking? :)

Who would you suggest? Pope Francis?  :)

For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.

Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)… Is it more to your liking? :)

It's difficult to disagree with, can you do it properly substantiated?
Uncertainty and how we deal with it it's a fascinating subject by the way. That's much closer to the philosophy of science that you say to love so much than the previous bs you linked to.

Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated and are not "a Chinese/European/Rest of the World invention to finish with American economic capacity" as you do. At this discussion your position has been totally obscurantist and at the border of schizophrenia.

For 99,9% of world population Pope Francis and his last Encyclical are more than enough.

Of course, you pulled that statistic out of your ass! :) Specially considering that less than a third of the world's population is Christian, let alone Catholic. (Or do you mean to say that stupidity is so prevalent… :) )

Anyway, I think that human driven climatic alterations are already perfectly demonstrated […]

To what extent? (Or is that question too complicated for you? If "human driven climatic alterations" is within 2% of any measurable metric, why should we care? Perhaps a 2% change makes a huge difference — shouldn't that relative difference be reasonably quantified by actual predictions and compared with actual measurements? Now, realize that the usual "climatologists" meme has to be contrasted with a 0.02% change… And, even so, the models upon which they rely fail; at least for almost the last 20 years.
I appreciate that GCMs generally start at 30-year runs. (Their funding doesn't… :) ) What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data. Talk about schizophrenia!

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-07-29, 22:55:36 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=109.msg43781#msg43781)Try this (http://necsi.edu/research/social/pp/climate%20letter.pdf)… Is it more to your liking?  :) 
It's difficult to disagree with […]

Sure it is! (Unless you're a sheep…) Baa!
For humans, that means a little more than you do… Consider this (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)!

What I don't understand is how model runs can be considered evidence; specially when our best efforts at observation disagree with the model-derived data.

Best efforts of observation you say? you must have been observing with your eyes closed Oakdale.
Basically you say nothing but since models aren't clear predicting what it's observable, reality is wrong.

You jump from materialism to solipsism with the regularity of a clock's pendulum.

No, sir! You are being silly!
The average temperature of the earth has been going up — for two hundred years or more. The measurements of atmospheric CO₂ have also been increasing. The GCMs that attempt to take that correlation for a causal connection have failed… (That is, they've made predictions that haven't been verified.) Which is your bugaboo?
Correlation? Or causality?

We're in an interglacial epoch. An epoch that may not last much longer… :) If Pope Francis knows anything, he's been keeping it close to his alb! Or chasuble. :) Does he know the difference?

The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)…
Unless God's been talking to you. (In which case, He needs to start talking to everyone!) It's hard to argue with the voices in your head! :)

The one-page paper you found so convincing is easily refuted (https://stream.org/attack-black-swans-outer-space/)…

By your one-page piece of shit? no. You can stop link to such bs.
I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.
I have no more patience for feeding your ego. Stay well.

I defend what more than 90% of published materials, at the most credible science magazines, based at peer review, all over the world, says.

But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said… And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong — because they disagree!
Very little in science can be considered dogma. You seem to reject that little, in order to be one of the "cool kids"… You like pseudo-scientists like Cook and Lewandowsky, because they support your view. And you dislike Lindzen (and perhaps others…whose work you know nothing of) because he doesn't entirely agree with your prejudices!
Why do you bother to post in a thread like this? Its topic doesn't interest you. (At your age, you should know so very much more about it — if it did.) Are you trying to out-Howie Howie? :)
You've recently succeeded, without the drivel you've written here!

But you're entitled to do without gasoline, cooking and heating gas, air conditioning and all the goods your village doesn't produce for itself… (That would include the Internet!) Bye bye, birdie.

But you seem not to have the expertise to understand what is being said… And you don't defend it, you say plainly that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong — because they disagree!

Strange commentary you're doing when you seem to master the art of making a hell of a confusion in your head from everything you read.

You mention a steady rising of average temperature for the last 200 years as the evidence of a natural phenomena when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.

From such starting point, that just by itself wold ridicule anyone until the end of times, you accelerate into more and more and more nonsense, always with the help of laughable quoting, aimed to impress... who? your fellow citizens? not even them seems to me too much impressed.

Your attempt to get an intellectual refuge into the Methods of Proof, in order to deny climate alterations, only  shows the weakness of your logic, scientific and philosophical foundations. Every word you say, the worst for your position.

You're very lucky I don't ask you for photons, Oakdale... :)

Are you trying to out-Howie Howie?  :)

No one can out-Howie Howie, he's like Chuck Norris.


I forgot to say that I agree with the necessity of turning actions to fight anthropogenic global disturbance (not just warming and it's consequences but also the infamous daily extermination of life species due to other causes as deflorestation) into a mankind's common cause. That's the important thing, that's what Pope Francis is telling you.
He also speaks about economics, specifically wild capitalism, as a main part and origin of that disturbance, so think about it.

[…]when even a child knows that it's exactly the last 200 years that differences from all the previous millennium by explosive industrial production and nothing else.

So, you're ready to ignore the Medieval Warm Period (and the Roman Warm Period) and the research done on them?
Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much upon "what even a child knows"… Or upon scientists that act like children.

(About the rest of what you just said: Don't be too hard on the childish Pope; he had a rough upbringing in a Third World country… :) )

I reckon we will always have cycles and I am also well aware to emphasise the pint that when younger the would-be brilliant minds were telling us to expect one heck of a freezing cold future and so on. Now this mindset is pontificating on the alternative. Why they especially think on the heat alternative more than the damn freezing one is something else.  We also got a load of mince on the vanishing polar bear population which in practice is cobblers.

As always, Howie: "Eloquent-sy" and completely unsupported! Carry on…

(About the rest of what you just said: Don't be too hard on the childish Pope; he had a rough upbringing in a Third World country…  :)  )

As I said the Pope's words are enough for 99,9% of people. Do you consider yourself at the remaining 0,1%? really? :)

So, you're ready to ignore the Medieval Warm Period (and the Roman Warm Period) and the research done on them?
Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much upon "what even a child knows"… Or upon scientists that act like children.

Like "So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All" (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064)?

Do you live inside some bubble?

Like "So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All" (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064)?

No, I wouldn't say I live in a bubble — down-playing the Medieval Warm Period became a "cause" unto itself during the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
From the article you linked to:

One possible criticism of the study is that it’s based on just one location. Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason than the rest of the world. For that reason D’Andrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes — in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic.

Those results haven’t been published yet, but, D’Andrea said, “the more work we do, the more this finding seems to hold up.”

Have you any links to those further results? :) (The paper was published in 2012!) I'd be wary of a single study using a single proxie at a single location (Kongressvatnet).… That being said, I've no criticism of the paper itself (which I've probably not read…); but the criticism mentioned as "possible" in the article is of the speculative use of the sparsest of evidence to infer a global temperature! Surely, that's reasonable? :)

The article continues:

The research is important, not just because it reinforces the conclusion that humans are now putting their own imprint on the climate, but also, D’Andrea said, because it can help scientists predict where the climate is going from here.

“If we can understand how the climate system reacted to natural forces in the past,” he said, “we’ll have a better understanding of how it will respond to the changes we’re imposing on it.”

This sounds very optimistic and very pessimistic, at the same time:
Plainly put, we don't have a very good understanding either of the climate "system" itself or of the various natural forces acting upon it… Such of course would be nice to have! :)

As I said the Pope's words are enough for 99,9% of people. Do you consider yourself at the remaining 0,1%? really?

Perhaps you mean 99.9% of people in you village? :) Or just Portugal? :) Really: What credibility does Pope Francis have on the subject of AGW?
(You surely know enough about Catholic dogma to reject his position as leader of the faith, as any authority on this subject?!)

I've tried all the possibilities that you're not an idiot, Oakdale, but with no success.
You really are.
I'll move to the next poster, if any.

I've tried all the possibilities that you're not an idiot, Oakdale, but with no success.

If you yourself are an idiot (on this topic), you're chances of finding out anything to confirm you preconceived notions seem pretty slim… Unless you reject rationalism entirely. Which you seem quite inclined to do!
The one possibility you didn't consider (because you don't have the expertise) is that my "take" on the science is valid.
As the article said: "Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason [other] than the rest of the world. For that reason D’Andrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes — in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic."
So: What have they found? (Enough, apparently, to be very quiet about… :) Or you'll provide links? Bosh! You don't know and you don't care.)
Of course, when the UN or some subset of some of the worst nations extant decides to "go to war" over climate change, we'll have a much better understanding of what the motives are…
Will Portugal (or the Vatican) "protect" their interests?
How? :)

What further studies confirm D'Andrea's speculations? (We can go back to the book of Genesis, if you want: But that isn't going to further a scientific discussion!) How does an idiot determine that others are idiots? :)

The one possibility you didn't consider (because you don't have the expertise) is that my "take" on the science is valid.

I'm in good company...
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences 
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia 
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters  
Society of Biology (UK)  
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America 
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeK5aBhT.gif&hash=2fed21d55db13d6d7a6172da3ca02445" rel="cached" data-hash="2fed21d55db13d6d7a6172da3ca02445" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/eK5aBhT.gif)

The "fact" so-called that I am unsupported means sod all Oakdale pontificator. Years ago as I pointed out this group mind lot were warning of a very dangerous freeze-up which would be devastating so do not take advantage of others who did not know these earlier warnings. So they go from one extreme to the other and that is okay. Plus the added nonsense of the polar bears vanishing when they are not. You don't get out often enough and pick the books......

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

My! But that's an impressive list… So, we're agreed that most bureaucracies and most bureaucrats support an AGW-averse agenda? Good.
We disagree, however, that the science does… :) Likewise, that most scientists do.

For fairly good reasons, most people are amenable to an Appeal to Authority on topics like AGW. For fairly good reasons, I am not. (One of my reasons for accepting an authority is straightforward: The relevant expertise is evident and no supplanting agenda has been demonstrated… These may appear to be too esoteric criteria to you.)

BTW: What happened to the plan for exploring those other Arctic lakes for confirming the Kongressvatnet reconstruction of its paleoclimate by proxie? (I've done some searching, and I haven't found out — yet…)

@Howie: I well-remember the '70s. But I'm not stuck in them, like some I could mention… (Paul Ehrlich, most prominently.) If you're familiar with how a prediction of the immanent melting of the Himalayan glaciers found its way into an IPCC Assessment Report, you know why the "story" of the Polar Bears was so appealing: The largest and most influential environmentalist groups are largely wedded to an apocalyptic/utopian dichotomy.
So, rather than Chicken Little running about saying "The sky is falling!" there are chickens all over the place doing so! Of course, they're still just chickens running about squawking… :) 

We disagree, however, that the science does…  :)  Likewise, that most scientists do.

Abstract

Nearly all climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is occurring, yet half of Americans do not know or do not believe that a scientific consensus has been reached. That such a large proportion of Americans do not understand that there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus about the basic facts of climate change matters, a lot. This essay briefly explains why, and what climate science societies and individual climate scientists can do to set the record straight.When asked to estimate the proportion of climate scientists who are convinced that human-caused climate change is happening (in quintiles), only 22% of American adults correctly selected 81%–100% (Leiserowitz et al., 2014).
[...]
This misperception among Americans is not only pervasive but also highly consequential (Ding et al., 2011; McCright et al., 2013). Those who do not understand the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change are, in turn, less likely to believe that climate change is happening, human-caused, will have serious consequences, and is solvable (i.e., can be mitigated through concerted action). In addition, not understanding this scientific consensus undermines Americans' support for a broad societal response to the threat. As a result, knowledge of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change can be considered a “gateway” cognition; as members of the general public come to understand the consensus, they more likely come to the conclusion that human-caused climate change is happening and harmful.

The pervasiveness of this misperception is not an accident. Rather, it is the result of a disinformation campaign by individuals and organizations in the United States—and increasingly in other nations around the world (Norgaard, 2006; Dunlap and McCright, 2011)—who oppose government action to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The claim that climate scientists are still arguing over the reality of human-caused climate change was designed to resonate with the sensibilities of political conservatives who are inherently suspicious of government intervention in markets and societies. This targeted disinformation campaign has been highly effective in the United States: far more political conservatives (49%) than liberals (18%) currently believe that there is “a lot of disagreement among the experts about global warming” (Leiserowitz et al., 2013). While originally launched in the United States, this disinformation campaign is now being pursued in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand as well (Dunlap and McCright, 2011).

This disinformation campaign has impeded the implementation of strategies to reduce the risks of climate change (McCright and Dunlap, 2003; Pooley, 2010). Moreover, as an intentional effort to obscure and dispute the conclusions of climate science, the campaign should be seen as an attack on climate science itself.
[...]

If not enough ashamed you can read the rest here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full) Oakdale.

Belfrager--- I really can't jump onto your bandwagon.

"Everybody says it's so"---- uh huh. Actually, that 97% of scientists has a way of evaporating when you start to really get into it.

The "Catastrophe of the Week" stories don't help much either. You are aware, are you not, that if computer models had been accurate people in New York City shoulda been swimming by now. Hasn't happened yet. There should be no ice in the Arctic by now--- seems that didn't exactly hold together either. Last year, the "Ship of Fools" went down to Antarctica to measure the melting of ice down there--- and promptly got stuck in an ice-field and had to be rescued. A couple of the rescue ships got stuck as well. They had to use a helicopter to effect the rescue because the ice was just too thick even for the Russian icebreaker to get through.

I've already mentioned here that the last couple of winters have seen very high ice coverage on the Great Lakes, more than has been usual in years past.

"But the Pope says"----- The Pope can say whatever he likes. When what he says about climate catastrophe doesn't happen--- then what do you do?

I've already mentioned here that the last couple of winters have seen very high ice coverage on the Great Lakes, more than has been usual in years past.

Can God give me patience...

Look, global warning is not that the entire world is going to reach such temperatures that you can cook without an owe everywhere, north pole included. Global warming is all about climate pattern disruption caused just by a couple degrees raise. It has catastrophic consequences at some parts of the globe like all coastal areas as well an immense growth of desert areas. Life species eco system will have dramatic changes and unpredictable species extinction.

Even located deep inside a continent with your lakes, you must have heard about the Gulf Stream.it happens because the Humbolt stream. One it's surface hot water, the other cold deep water that goes anti clock around Europe and America. Massive ice melting at the north pole waters and that gigantic warming/cooling earth refrigeration system will disrupt by the salinity water alteration. No one can predict exactly when and with what consequences, when you have the proof that it already happened I assure you you can't correct it anymore.

Keep playing the American egotism and thoughtlessness. Remember that you have no excuses at all.

"But the Pope says"----- The Pope can say whatever he likes. When what he says about climate catastrophe doesn't happen--- then what do you do?

I'll say Our Lady made a miracle that saved us all. Even you. :)

You are aware, are you not, that if computer models had been accurate people in New York City shoulda been swimming by now. Hasn't happened yet. There should be no ice in the Arctic by now--- seems that didn't exactly hold together either.

Setting aside the fact that affluent regions like New NetherlandYork or the Netherlands won't be swimming anytime soon regardless how many millimeters the sea level may rise within the next decades — that dubious honor would fall to Bangladesh — which computer models would those be? Certainly not the ones I remember from the mid-'90s.

If not enough ashamed you can read the rest here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full) Oakdale. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.260;msg=44059)

I've read much of the "original" work cited in this essay… I've tried to discuss -specifically- the works of Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky here; but no one was interested.
It seems that bogus (poorly designed, poorly implemented, statistically inept…) sociological studies are still in vogue. You can follow that fad, if you want. But -except as a curiosity, and a trend showing how little the most vocal climatologists care for their science- I'm not that interested.
There is still actual science being done in the field of climatology!
Polemics won't convince me to reject the science, or to accept what the science doesn't support.

And you can guess what you can do with the meme that a vast conspiracy exists to discredit the honest labors of the world's climatologists!
——————————————————————————————————————
Note well, Belfrager: All three authors of the essay you cite work at institutions formed to advocate the theory of CAGW. Their focus is on "communication" not climatology… Put less genteelly, they're concerned with effective propaganda.
No wonder they keep repeating easily discredited conspiracy theories!

It seems that bogus (poorly designed, poorly implemented, statistically inept…) sociological studies are still in vogue. You can follow that fad, if you want. But -except as a curiosity, and a trend showing how little the most vocal climatologists care for their science- I'm not that interested.
There is still actual science being done in the field of climatology!

I know that your party has a donkey for symbol  - or is the other one? You don't need to bray at every single post you post.

Bel--- you need to prove that there actually is a catastrophe waiting around every corner.

The reason I don't sign on to the hoopla is precisely because CAGW has been sold with a "catastrophe of the month" propaganda. That, and it just doesn't jibe with what I actually experience.

There's an astounding element of pride in the thing too. I don't doubt for a minute that climate change happens. I DO doubt that humans can influence it much for good or for evil. We're just not that powerful.

Right now, personally, I think another little ice age is more likely. The reason for this is that the sun seems to be going into a solar minimum, and for an unknown period it won't produce as much energy as we have been used to. This will take a bit of time to be noticed, and maybe it won't be as sharp as last time. I don't look for ice sheets in Chicago in July, but stunted growing seasons are not outside the realm of possibilities. Note that I didn't say that the actions of men have anything to do with this--- I don't possess near the level of pride it would take to think that man can influence the sun. Maybe you do. In that case--- have fun.

Unlike most Europeans, I had the idea that Americans, as any other species, could be educated if proper explanation, aimed to their intelligence and educational levels, was gave to them.
I give up, what a silly idea of mine.

Unlike most Europeans, I had the idea that Americans, as any other species, could be educated if proper explanation, aimed to their intelligence and educational levels, was gave to them.
I give up, what a silly idea of mine.

If, by "educated" you mean get us to march in lockstep behind your favorite Pied Piper,-- you're probably right. We have this rather silly idea of actually thinking for ourselves. What a concept.

I know that your party has a donkey for symbol  - or is the other one? You don't need to bray at every single post you post.

You mean one is not supposed to read the actual papers? Just the editorials? :) If you knew how shoddy a lot of this sociology of science and "communication" is, you'd stand a better chance of understanding the actual science of climatology… As it is, you'll hold to the old group-think — reality be damned!
(It's a wonder Europeans ever stopped burning witches…)

Note: Others have not stopped posting because they realize their arguments are futile! They've stopped because they have no arguments, other than brute force: Politics.
So, I won't accept the canard that mentioning politics disqualifies me from discussing the science…
So far, the "science" mentioned by others consists of essays and editorials (…oh, and what an Estonian educated by the Russians remembers from his High School classes), and of course the new Pope's egregious usurpation…
The UN is a quintessential political body. Look at the various nations involved and ask yourself: Would you trust their judgement, if your life were at stake?
It's a simple question.

The UN is a quintessential political body. Look at the various nations involved and ask yourself: Would you trust their judgement, if your life were at stake?
It's a simple question.

And in your logic, life is at stake this way: If the industries are forced to consider ecology, we are all gonna die!!!

And in your logic, life is at stake this way: If the industries are forced to consider ecology, we are all gonna die!!!

Many lives are at stake, if energy production is constrained to mediocre and intermittent sources… (For you and me, not so much!) You've already decided who should die, for your religious scruples; but you've not shown the science that supports such a radical view. (You think you've shown that a great many "scientists" agree with you — although you have yet to say what you yourself think, other than what you learned in elementary school! If those scientists are wrong, or you've misunderstood them, what? Don't tell me how many people -with whatever credentials they might have- agree with you! Tell me why you're right.)

If "ecology" was a science — No. Never mind. Ohm! That's all you have, and I beat you to saying it!
Seriously, ersi, do you really believe that the Earth's climate has -as a result of industrialization- broached a catastrophic "tipping point"? If so, give me facts, theories.
Support them with published papers (…not editorials!). Surely, the science is there… Or not.

Your move. (I am competent to deal with most of such… Beware.)

and of course the new Pope's egregious usurpation…

You have a list to read I gave you. Waiting for you reading it and you're going to read it line by line.
Don't worry, take your time, the amount of scientific organizations that ridicules your ideas is endless. :)

Befrager is heavily into bandwagon thinking. "Everybody's doing it."

So-- in light of that, repeat after me: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Repeat that, oh, about 100 times or so. Or at least until you believe that it's so.

See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/a-simple-tale-about-switching-to-renewable-power-requirements-consequences/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/a-simple-tale-about-switching-to-renewable-power-requirements-consequences/)

Befrager is heavily into bandwagon thinking.

"Befrager" is heavily into what Belfrager wants to be heavily at.
And you, you are heavily into ignorance and ridiculous. Another one that (I hope) will never cross the Atlantic, as none of the others like you have ever did.

Why Americans at this forum are the only ones that never ever leaved that piece of sh*t it's a mystery. There's Americans all over he place but none of these.
It explains everything, we have to deal with the most deep American soul... not a bit of evolution, nothing... basically Sioux crossed with Dutch and English servants and waiters - just emptiness, total  emptiness.

Sorry, I forgot that Smileyfaze is a world travelled man. This post is not for him. He still represents Americans, either for the the best and the least best.
And the other one, Coronel.

I could sincerely hope that you, Bel-- and RJHowie-- stay in your respective homelands. Such bigotry against anybody not like yourselves---- even the KKK hardly matches it, and they're known for it.

Aside from that, though--- I have some sources that tell me that the science on CAGW is hardly a "settled science".

Really, when you stop to think of it, it might be an impossibility to have "settled science" on the Earth's climate. We've only started studying it in the past handful of decades, and there's much that honest scientists would tell you is still not understood or at best poorly understood. If this were not so, computer models that forecast what will happen to earth's climate would have a much better record than they do. As it is, they can't even reliably forecast rain over the next 24 hours. (I have empirical evidence for this: Both Accuweather and the Weather Channel were forecasting downpours here over the last couple of days. We got------- a few drops. If you weren't standing outside and felt it, you wouldn't know.)

So--- if they can't reliably forecast rain over a 24 hour period, why should I believe they can forecast terrible calamity over a 30 year period? Their record to date looks a little shaky.

Both Accuweather and the Weather Channel were forecasting downpours here over the last couple of days. We got------- a few drops. If you weren't standing outside and felt it, you wouldn't know.)

So--- if they can't reliably forecast rain over a 24 hour period, why should I believe they can forecast terrible calamity over a 30 year period? Their record to date looks a little shaky.

Ok. It only reinforces what I said.

Aside from that, though--- I have some sources that tell me that the science on CAGW is hardly a "settled science".

Yeah, I know... like Oakdale, you two are no different, just expresses it in different styles .The I wanna be an erudite and the I'm proud to be a peasant. Two faces of the same coin. The dollar.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Bel. Actually, you've been producing a pretty good argument against your side of the story. What have you got? "Hate America Bigotry". Yep, that makes a strong argument. Well, not exactly. Because while you're spending your time calling the American posters here ignorant buffoons, you give us all the material we need to dismiss you out of hand. There's no reason to listen to someone whose hatred--- yes, hatred-- of us overshadows everything he writes.

Because while you're spending your time calling the American posters here ignorant buffoons, you give us all the material we need to dismiss you out of hand. There's no reason to listen to someone whose hatred--- yes, hatred-- of us overshadows everything he writes.

Now, you just imagine that I'm right. Imagine, just imagine it, it will not hurt you.
See the result? and if that's the reality? :)

My words helps you.

But there's a vestige,a remnant of truth on what you say. Anti Americanism is a trend all over the place that I'm starting to get tired.
Now on I'll be anti Vanuatu. No one is against them.
Unfortunately, Vanuatu posters are hard to find. Like the Portuguese. :)
You're luckier than me...

I imagine that you're a "Hate America Bigot". You've been producing an abundance of evidence that this is so. After that, anything else you've got to say gets dismissed out of hand.

While I'm on this: Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing. Well, at least where I notice it. I tell you here and now that you waste perfectly good arguments when you open with hatred of the nationality of other posters here. All you do is to show yourself to be a xenophobic bigot, and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?

I would like to think that, if I ever did visit your countries (admittedly the chance of this happening is remote, I'm just not wealthy enough to be a globe-trotter) I might expect a decent welcome. Instead, I get the feeling here that if I did visit the first response-- possibly even before I got off the plane--- would be that I should take my ignorant American #%% back home where it belongs. Soooo--- reckon I won't be visiting even if I could afford it. No reason to visit a place where you're not welcome, eh?

[…] and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?

Because 2+2=2*2, which is not 5! That's the problem I have: No argument I've seen has convinced me that 2+2=5. (Cummings' slim volume didn't come close…!) Nor that 2*2=5. If someone is -for whatever reasons- committed to 5 being the answer, I can only laugh at them — and perhaps pity them.
In this topic, I expect either informed scientific argument or sensible political/economical argument. I get neither.
Either my "opponents" are not being honest or they have not the capacity to understand the topic.

Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing.

Three? three is already a conspiracy... :)

Stop complaining mjm, do you want a thread about AGW without mentioning the role your country, your industry, your government and your mentality have on it? not possible no matter how much you accuse us of xenophobic behaviour.

and after that--- why should anybody pay any attention to anything else you have to say?

Why should I be worried with that? I find my humble contributions very good. Specially, they are short, that's nice. :)

If it pleases you, I don't think that any of the Three has any special aversion to your Country. Well, maybe one but one out of three ain't bad. It's a fact of life these days that your country and your governments have an huge responsibility on AGW. Course you try to simply deny AGW as a way of sorting out of the problem. It will not work, you can't just run away.

I don't know the exact numbers but maybe more than fifty percent of Americans, one hundred fifty millions of people, can tell you exactly what I say. Are you also go to answer them as you do with me? :)

I imagine that you're a "Hate America Bigot".

While I'm on this: Bel is the example THIS TIME. We have 3 posters here who are guilty of this sort of thing. Well, at least where I notice it.

3 posters out of how many posting people from Europe? It might give an interesting percentage.
And since you are at it - what else have those 3 posters in common except "Hate America Bigot"?
Have they the same political views? Are they sharing the same cultural heritage or language at least?

A more in depth analysis of your findings might be interesting - not only for the 3. :)

I would like to think that, if I ever did visit your countries (admittedly the chance of this happening is remote, I'm just not wealthy enough to be a globe-trotter) I might expect a decent welcome.

A decent welcome you say? How decent would you expect it to be? :)
An even more decent welcome than many Europeans encounter on US airports at arrival?
Some of them are denied the entry after a long Stasi like interrogation at the airport, without any explanation.
Last example, a 19 years old high-school graduate. She just wanted to visit some friends in Cleveland.
She is cured for now. Just wonder if she will become another "Hate America Bigot"? I hope not but it was a tough experience for a 19 years old teen who had to do some savings for her US journey. 1000€ = 4 hours lasting US airport visit.

She is cured for now. Just wonder if she will become another "Hate America Bigot"? I hope not but it was a tough experience for a 19 years old teen who had to do some savings for her US journey. 1000€ = 4 hours lasting US airport visit.

America is actually way down on my list of locations to spend my touristy money because American customs is just about the worst way to come out of an 8-hour flight. But I do wonder what you mean by Stasi-like interrogation. :P I had to go for further questioning one time at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport and it was just a counter where you had to go to answer yet more annoying questions. Perhaps the Stasi would ask similar questions, considering the proper answer to most of them would be "none of your freaking business" under different circumstances, but I think their technique might've been a tad worse.

What do the two of you think is going on? Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

I have no idea how bad it is and how many people coming in are affected. Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.

But I do wonder what you mean by Stasi-like interrogation. :P

Hours of interrogation without an interpreter and without letting you make even a phone call (your cell phone gets confiscated, you get it back together with your baggage short before taking your flight home).
OK, the StaSi comparison was a bit of a stretch. They don't beat you during interrogation, neither do you get waterboarded.
So far it's only a 'friendly' conversation which can take only hours.

Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.

How can it be Eurohate? Aren't we among your closest allies?

As I mentioned above - some but not all.
There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick. I don't think that a 19 years old girl (even one coming from Germany) can pose a serious threat to the USA.

How can it be Eurohate? Aren't we among your closest allies?

As I mentioned above - some but not all.
There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick. I don't think that a 19 years old girl (even one coming from Germany) can pose a serious threat to the USA.

Such notions are silly. It meant something during WWII and postwar fear of Russia, I suppose, but not today. It's a game politicians play. Today there's a touch of that with regard to China and the Spratlys.

On the girl, I have no idea what was going on. I'm sure that you don't either, but I could be wrong. I do that a lot.

It's a shame that so much of what goes on here is so negative. Sadly, I'm a guilty party.

There must be a pattern and some with less luck get stick.

Less luck you say? By Christ, the USA invented tourist harassment.

I don't go there because international seven hours flights should be forbidden such is the impact in climate changing. When Zeppelins will be back again, maybe I'll go. I have diplomatic immunity, I'm a member of an International Sanctuary and have nothing to answer to customs, I speak no English.

I have to agree with you on US Customs Frenzie.

On my first visit over there the man was not only bad mannered but ignorant, glaring and not a very welcoming person at all. Two years later when I had a second trip i could not believe it as I got the same uniformed oaf as previously. Their attitudes to visitors is far from normal or decent and would put people off. In fact the entry to other countries was far more acceptable but being a strong person I made a point of not letting the Gestapo trainees at New York put me off.

the USA invented tourist harassment

I have no idea who invented tourism harassment or tourism for that matter.

Obviously, it can't be everybody

I've stumbled by coincidence over some numbers for 2013. Over 700 Germans (a minority of course) have been denied entrance on US airports despite of a valid visa. It would be interesting to know about more actual numbers.

At least mjmsprt40 wouldn't need to worry  for such an experience on German airports.
Whereas I doubt that customs officials will roll out the red carpet for him, at least he can be assured that he will be treated with respect.
No dumb questions, no interrogations lasting for ours. He wouldn't even have to hand out his new cell-phone camera (which does motion) for being sifted through :)
As a bonus, he could whenever prolong his visa and even work here for as long as he wants.

As a bonus, he could whenever prolong his visa and even work here for as long as he wants.

Deutschland needs hotel room cleaners?

I've stumbled by coincidence over some numbers for 2013. Over 700 Germans (a minority of course) have been denied entrance on US airports despite of a valid visa. It would be interesting to know about more actual numbers.

700 German terrorists of course.
You do well Americans, don't let them enter. Probably the Baader-Meinhof kind, they reproduce like rabbits.

The U.S oh, heck, anything to do with TSA is something of a crying shame.

It's possible to be on a no-fly list just because your name is similar to somebody already on it--- and neither you or the other person being guilty of anything. Once on a list, it's near impossible to get off of it, or even to find out why you're on the list in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans who were denied entry were denied on some spurious reason which, if an intelligent person actually looked at it, wouldn't stand up and the person would be granted entry-- and maybe an apology to boot.

What do the two of you think is going on? Is it Eurohate or something else? How bad is it?

If anything I'd think it's more ignorance or a type of anti-discrimination. Just like how being together with my American spouse in Europe is not a simple formality because in essence I think "we" want to keep out Moroccan immigrants. But obviously you couldn't just put immigration restrictions on Morocco — no, that'd be bad and discriminatory. It needs to be the whole world to be fair! (Note that the number of Moroccan immigrants has always paled compared to, say, German immigrants like my grandmother…)

I have no idea how bad it is and how many people coming in are affected. Obviously, it can't be everybody or it would take hours to deplane one flight.

This one time when I came through O'Hare the customs guy was shocked when I told him I came from a flight that landed nearly 2 hours ago. Me, I was shocked this one time when it took only about 45 minutes to get through. As an American you may not notice. They have separate waiting lines for Americans.

Hours of interrogation without an interpreter and without letting you make even a phone call (your cell phone gets confiscated, you get it back together with your baggage short before taking your flight home).

Do you have a link to a news story? I found this (http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/2414096/2015/08/06/19-jarige-vrouw-mag-VS-niet-binnen-omwille-van-onschuldige-Facebookchats.dhtml), but it's HLN… but yes, those weirdos were already suspicious when I wanted to stay for three weeks. Ooh, how suspicious, I'll be spending more money in your economy than if I stayed the median amount of time. Couldn't have that, could we… :P

Try this link (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=us+einreise+verweigert&num=100&safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=720&as_qdr=all&gbv=1&sei=6xLLVZCjPIT5UNjqjfgO) for a Google search.

Try this link (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=us+einreise+verweigert&num=100&safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=720&as_qdr=all&gbv=1&sei=6xLLVZCjPIT5UNjqjfgO) for a Google search.

I meant specifically the one you were talking about because that has the interrogation aspect.

Leider ändert das nichts daran, dass die US-Behörden uns verdächtig finden – denn heute gilt zunächst einmal jeder als verdächtig, der in die USA einreisen will, und es ist Aufgabe umfangreicher Sicherheitschecks, diesen millionenfachen Generalverdacht zu widerlegen.

Heh, that does sound accurate. :P

I meant specifically the one you were talking about because that has the interrogation aspect.

You can find it among the search results resulting from the link I gave.

For instance:
- USA verweigern 19-Jähriger Einreise wegen ... - Tagesspiegel (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/deutsche-bei-passkontrolle-abgewiesen-usa-verweigern-19-jaehriger-einreise-wegen-facebook-chat/12146874.html)
- Im Land der begrenzten Freundlichkeit (http://www.fr-online.de/politik/usa--im-land-der-begrenzten-freundlichkeit,1472596,31367494.html)
- Ich kam mir vor wie eine Schwerverbrecherin (http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/leben/usa-einreise-abgelehnt-20-jaehrige-wegen-facebook-chat-abgewiesen-a-1046792.html)

BTW: Since even almost every US citizen is perceived as a potential criminal,  why should people from abroad make any difference?
So far there is nothing our US posters should be ashamed or feel guilty for.

Thanks, the Frankfurter Rundschau article is the kind of thing I was looking for.

It is unfortunate that the first contact with another country will be immigration officers. They can be a pain most places, though for European citizen the US may be the worst. Just harassing enough that when you have choice where to go, you might go somewhere else instead.

I might actually go to the US this year, if New York counts. That might be just in time for Arlanda US pre-clearance (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/us-immigration-pre-clearance-controversial-in-more-ways-than-one-239504), so I can enjoy the pleasures of being harassed on my home turf instead.

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change, but it is pretty clear we've stopped discussing this years ago. The travails of travel may be a tolerable substitute.

Jax-- it works for me. I have to admit that TSA doesn't exactly shine when you come here from somewhere else-- I haven't experienced it much personally because I NEVER fly, but you can't help hearing from others. Especially when I meet a courier at Terminal 5 at O'Hare (Terminal 5 is the International terminal) and I sometimes have to wait HOURS for the courier to clear customs. It varies--- I've met the courier within 15 minutes of the plane's arrival, one time I was there several hours waiting. What does the courier bring? A couple of boxes going to the John Deere plant in Iowa. I'm sure lawn-tractor parts are a high-security issue, eh?

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

You're good at finding things in DND. Can you find one topic where the focus is maintained? All topics drift.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-13, 09:22:13

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change

You're good at finding things in DND. Can you find one topic where the focus is maintained? All topics drift.

It would help if folk actually pay attention when they quote other people. Example: In the quote above, Jimbro attributes something to me that I didn't say. Jax said it.....

You're right again. My bad.

I think it is naughty to pick on mjsmsprt40. After all he lives in Illinois you know.

Except for adding to my/our carbon footprint none of this has anything to do with climate change, but it is pretty clear we've stopped discussing this years ago.

Yes. Except for those who are interested in the science or the politics…
Are you yourself interested in why few are interested in either?

Ecological Debt Day, also known as Earth Overshoot Day, is the (claimed) approximate calendar date on which humanity’s resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year.

(World Biocapacity/World Ecological Footpring)x365=Ecological Debt Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day)

This year it was yesterday, say sources like WWF. But they are a loony cult like Scientology, those greenie bastards...

This year it was yesterday, say sources like WWF. But they are a loony cult like Scientology, those greenie bastards...

New political parties, that defends the principles of New Economics, needs to appear. A new economy, a new environment, a new society.

New political parties, that defends the principles of New Economics, needs to appear. A new economy, a new environment, a new society.

Seems to be a toss-up, for the "environmentalists": Brave New World or 1984…

That's what happens when a majority of people get their "science" from literary sources.

Yes, ersi, the World Wildlife Fund is an NGO dedicated to "loony" pseudo-science…
——————————————————————————————————————————
Doing real science is hard! And it is quite instructive to see which groups opt for the easier tasks of opinion polling and fanciful computer modelling. (Things haven't changed much since the Club of Rome's early efforts.) And what type of mind prefers "scenarios" to predictions… :)

That's what happens when a majority of people get their "science" from literary sources.

Read the list I gave you and shut up.

I read the list — it might have been culled from the phone book! You're a boob, Belfrager, if you are so easily gulled… And a nincompoop if you thought I'd be.
I can (and do) read technical papers. While I will occasionally read editorials, essays and even screeds, I don't give them much credence. Have you any sources beyond what you've indicated?

(Forgive my diction: I'm re-reading Rex Stout's oeuvre! Nero Wolfe is one of my favorite fictional characters; and his manner and tone are infectious. :) )

Doing real science is hard!

This explains why you shy away from it.

And it is quite instructive to see which groups opt for the easier tasks of opinion polling and fanciful computer modelling.

And also instructive to see what effect agendas can have. When you think industries are good - because they say so and they cannot lie -, you easily assert that there's no pollution. Instructive.

When you think industries are good - because they say so and they cannot lie -, you easily assert that there's no pollution.

Surely, even a bright middle-school pupil knows what a straw man is? :)
Your problem is not pollution of the environment… It's pollution of the mind: Fanaticism or fatuousness! I have no cure for either, ersi.
But you have an ally in Belfrager — perhaps you could ask those who make and deploy devices that break the laws of physics to help your cause? Or ask Bel to ask them for you? :)

If you actually maintain that man's pollution is about to (or even can) catastrophically disrupt the earth's climate "system" — please provide evidence!
Not hints, hand-wringing and horrific scenarios. Evidence. (The IPCC has failed to do so, in 25 years… You may disagree; but I read their assessments a little more closely than you do, I think.) Also, if you would (though I doubt you will… :) ), say what -then- should be done, by whom, and to what purpose.
Easy-peasy, eh? :)

Surely, even a bright middle-school pupil knows what a straw man is? :)

Yes. And a bright pupil notices when someone else throws the term around without any clue what it is. Seriously, you stand quotable on everything I have said.

Your problem is not pollution of the environment… It's pollution of the mind: Fanaticism or fatuousness!

..says the guy who only dabbles in politics, illogic, pseudoscience.

If you actually maintain that man's pollution is about to (or even can) catastrophically disrupt the earth's climate "system" — please provide evidence!

It's done pages ago. It's your turn for several weeks already.

Can you even cite a derivation of the IPCC's recent value for the transient climate sensitivity…? Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do. Not for me. (If they will for you, that's your problem.) Or would you recognize recent works yielding a value slightly more than half…? Of course, that would remove the "catastrophic" from CAGW; but you can't have everything, if you want verifiable science!
Is that what you want? Verifiable science? :)

Please explain your position via a one-word answer. Then back it up, either by agreeing to discuss recent (or even ancient!) published work or by bloviating about ideologies and conspiracies. (Ask Belfrager for help on the latter… :) You can, I'm sure, handle the former yourself.) If all you can muster are the "works" of Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky and their like, admit it!
What have you got to lose? (I mean, besides your credibility… They can't take your high school diploma away, can they?! :) ) Seriously: If climatology doesn't interest you, just say so!

Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do. Not for me.

But they do - for you. In economics you are just fine with them. I never was in any science.

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect. For you it's predictions of warming. Different topics.

Please explain your position via a one-word answer.

Done.

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect. For you it's predictions of warming. Different topics.

And while people discusses climatology's core model... National Geographic remade their Arctic Atlas (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-nation-science/).
Because nothing it's happening, of course...
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhAnbsw5.gif&hash=79e70a1efe5189e3f77db5f03dc3765a" rel="cached" data-hash="79e70a1efe5189e3f77db5f03dc3765a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/hAnbsw5.gif)

In economics you are just fine with them.

That's a presumption of yours… :) (You do that quite a lot!)

I never was in any science.

That has often seemed obvious…

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.

Have you a reason for such a pronouncement?
But if such a model fails even the simplest of tests -verification- than why would you cling to it so desperately?
(Or do you have a super-secret pseudo-mathematical formula for waving away contrary evidence?)

For you it's predictions of warming.

As usual, with your either-or logic (Syllogistic and the oh-so venerable Venn diagrams…), you've reached a conclusion that you can't verify:
The models (based upon a simplistic understanding of the greenhouse effect) have predicted warming that has not occurred; and, since the models start from a misconception of that "effect", they hinder the science of climatology: They have predicated an outcome that both data and theory mostly don't support…
I take you at your word that you have no science in mind… Except the greenhouse effect itself, as understood by high schoolers! Or perhaps I took you wrong: Do you think it imperative that "the world" drastically reduces its dependence on fossil fuels, because of CO₂ "pollution"?
Or perhaps you simply believe some trace gasses in our atmosphere are "magical"… :)
—————————————————————————————————————————
@Belfrager: You did read the (skimpy) article, didn't you? :)

"Ultimately," noted [Walt] Meier [,a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Cryospheric Sciences Lab], "it is an editorial decision as to what to show and how."

Confirms [Rosemary] Wardley [National Geographic's senior GIS cartographer]: "We do not show the minimum extent simply because there is only so much information we can put on the map before it becomes confusing to the user."
(your source, Bel…)

Perhaps confusing the "user" was the point? :)

At any rate (so far demonstrable — pun intended!), 2012 was the end! Why bother with more data?
Oh, wait: That was the Mayan apocalypse… It's difficult to keep some of these doomsday scenarios separate!

But as they say: "Any storm out of port…" (That's not right, is it? :) ) But a "sailor" must have his sea stories to tell! Else how's 'e gonna cadge drinks?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 02:55:28

In economics you are just fine with them.

That's a presumption of yours… :) (You do that quite a lot!)

It's been clear, as soon as you chimed in in this thread, that you have no idea what presumption is. You are blind to your own presumptions while you think everybody else has them.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 02:55:28

We simply disagree what the core model of climatology is. For me it's the greenhouse effect.

If such a model fails even the simplest of tests -verification- than why would you cling to it so desperately?

You have no idea what verification is either. Have you verified that ecological concerns are unfounded? Of course you haven't. You only have the ideological presumption that people are under an ideological mass psychosis.

The models (based upon a simplistic understanding of the greenhouse effect) have predicted warming that has not occurred; ...

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.

Well… The "In" crowd changed that to "Catastrophic Climate Change" a while back — and has vacillated since. (It seems that "climate change" isn't scary enough!) They've repeatedly tried to tout "severe" weather — which fails to match observations; sea-level rise, which has remained at a steady rate for centuries; glacier melts, which don't; impending animal extinctions, which refuse to happen; Arctic and Antarctic ice cover and extant, which confound the modellers!
If you must cling to the greenhouse effect as the major driver of climactic change, at least admit that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor!
And we understand very little about it, as yet.
But you seem not to care how little we know: You just want — what? (You never do seem to say…)

Since you admit that the science either doesn't interest you or is beyond your ken, would you kindly state any point toward which your posts here lead?
(The obvious one can be elided… We all know! :) )

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-15, 22:48:39

And why do you keep confirming the silliest things I say about you, such as that for you it's only about predictions of warming? It's ridiculous.

Well… The "In" crowd changed that to "Catastrophic Climate Change" a while back — and has vacillated since.

No. It was changed to "global warming" in early 90's, maybe late 80's at the earliest. This change was (1) scientifically unjustified and (2) specific to Anglo-Americans. For the rest of the world it always was and remained the greenhouse effect. The rest of the world never vascillated in basic terminology. I have said this several times over, but you keep forgetting.

Edit: This does not mean there's no warming. There is. But the more important effect is turbulence. It's not linear warming. This has been the actual model for 200 years.

For the rest of the world it always was and remained the greenhouse effect. I have said this several times over, but you keep forgetting.

That might be largesse on my part: This "greenhouse effect" you think so important has been grossly misrepresented! And you seem quite fine with such.

But —in case I'm wrong and you know better— give me a paper or textbook that explains this effect, as a primary element of the earth's climate "system"… (Ask anyone, including Google! I only want some idea of what the heck you think you mean!)
——————————————————————————————————————

Edit: This does not mean there's no warming. There is. But the more important effect is turbulence. It's not linear warming. This has been the actual model for 200 years.

Holy shit! You're back to your quasi-Buddhist bullshit, again!

Turbulence!? When has the weather not been turbulent? When have not fools presumed their meager experience was the key to understanding all?
Science demands more. Or -at least- it used to.

Whose model was it (…just name one) 200 years ago? (Gee! I wonder!) Why not go back to Malthus… You'll get the same result.

It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.

OK. How about this? The Obama administration, not content with throwing money down the drain on studies of the entire Earth's climate, now wants to spend 8 million dollars studying the effect of climate change indoors. Hmmm... give me 8 million and I'll be happy to re-adjust your thermostats and make sure that your humidifiers and dehumidifiers work right.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/16/epa-8-million-to-study-indoor-climate-change/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/16/epa-8-million-to-study-indoor-climate-change/)

Now that I think of it a little-- here's a freebie. They'll find that mold tends to grow in the bathroom. Reasons: It's humid in there. You took a steamy shower (possibly in more ways than one but let's let your private life stay private) and that guarantees an abundance of humidity. Through the day, in most homes, the light tends to be "off" when you're not using that room, so it's dark much of the time-- or if there is light it's dim because you use some sort of frosted windows on your bathroom windows. Mold loves humid, dark places. The utility room--- usually in the basement in Upper Midwest American homes-- is another great place for mold. Same reasons-- it's dark much of the time, and after doing a laundry it's likely to be humid. Besides, basements have a tendency to be damp much of the time anyway.

So-- a couple of freebie ideas about indoor climate.

Yup, they don't do science education in the US.

I think mold got out of their basements and it's invading their brains.

Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Is that the best you can do? Really? If that's the best you can come up with, then-- your argument is pretty lame.

Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Is that the best you can do? Really? If that's the best you can come up with, then-- your argument is pretty lame.

The little issue with your otherwise pertinent observations is their apparent intent in the context: Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.

You see, I also don't like anything about my government (or yours), but I don't think that any misreading of science on their part obviates science. I don't even think that misreading of science on the part of scientists (such as Oakdale's statistician) obviates science.

 

Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.

Ersi, you're not an idiot, hence you're a genius! That's the logic you've been using… Your "therefore"'s usually go beyond any logic a sane person would accept.
I don't know what Obama's "indoor" climate change studies are. (Would you mention what you speak of?) But I do know that his anti-coal, anti-fracking silliness is — anti-human! (Mostly, black humans — so you may not mind so much! Belfrager may or may not agree. :) )
But you may be an idiot, and think such is legitimate. (I honestly can't tell…) When you say that science "almost" matters to you, you still hedge!

Obama has taken serious steps to curtail and -soon- stop the U.S.'s use of coal. Why would he? Why should he? Indeed, why should the supply of coal not be used for industrialization?
And does he seriously think that China (and parts of Africa) will follow our lead! :)
That they should?

[…] I don't think that any misreading of science on their part obviates science […]

Then please cite the science you rely upon for your opinions…

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-16, 20:28:20

Obama is throwing money at indoor climate change studies --> therefore climate change is all false.

Ersi, you're not an idiot, hence you're a genius! That's the logic you've been using… Your "therefore"'s usually go beyond any logic a sane person would accept.

Careful, if you don't want to insult the person I was quoting. Namely, he was precisely using that logic.

I don't know what Obama's "indoor" climate change studies are. (Would you mention what you speak of?)

I was quoting someone. Sober up.

Fascinating. I post a link and a couple of observations, you post crap--- sorry, gotta call the smelly stuff as I see it-- about how ignorant Americans are.

Well, look at your post. Implying that all climate change is crap because you don't understand what that study is for is, well, crap.

That said, I've been living here for a while now and it never ceases to amaze me how little actual science they teach in schools here. Maybe it's just TN, in fact I hope it is.

Maybe it's just TN, in fact I hope it is.

My high school science teacher refused to teach evolution. He said "We are skipping this chapter. God made everything and if you don't like that you can leave.". I promptly stood up and left. The administration didn't care at all and gave me the option of in school suspension (ISS) or go back to class... My experience in that class wasn't good from then on.

I correct or expand on things my son is taught all the time.

Is that the best you can do? Really?

Nope, I can do much better but you don't seem to me as a connoisseur of the great art of satire...
I need not even to take you seriously, others had already such boring trouble for me.

I was quoting someone. Sober up.

While it's true I missed the exchange you refer to (the topic, as it appeared in my browser, had split to a new page and I failed return to the previous one), one needn't be sober to note your obtuseness… Quoting someone usually involves naming them and using their words.
(And Macallan seems a little foggy on the meaning of "imply"…)
mjm might have said, somewhere, that climate change "is false", as in "catastrophic climate change as a result of human activity is a false conclusion". But your frequent puppetry is unbecoming, ersi.

It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.

Yes, ersi, everyone's basic texts us similar graphics to depict the greenhouse effect. But you surely know that such is a gross simplification: The devil's in the details!
Attempting to draw discrete conclusions from a closed dotted line (with arrows!) on a graphic is a pastime appropriate for children. For adults concerned with climatology, and science in general, finer detail is required.
And the details I'm familiar with don't add up to a catastrophic climate change…

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-16, 00:57:20

It's like the hydrologic cycle extended to space. Everybody knows it, only Oakdale's textbooks somehow don't have it.

Yes, ersi, everyone's basic texts us similar graphics to depict the greenhouse effect. But you surely know that such is a gross simplification: The devil's in the details!

But you are disagreeing precisely with the big picture. More correctly, you are completely  uninterested in the scientific topic. You are interested in the politics. You discredit the science based on the politics, all the time, incessantly, thus consistently talking past the real issue.

You have said nothing relevant about the science, except "warming, warming, warming", as if that were the (entire) science of climatology. It's not. Is ECB's stated goal of keeping inflation rates "below, but close to, 2%" relevant to economics? Is it economics? Is it the scientific definition of inflation rates? Is it a devil in the scientific details? No! It's sheer politics, absolutely nothing to do with science. Unfortunately this is the only thing you are interested in.

No! It's sheer politics, absolutely nothing to do with science. Unfortunately this is the only thing you are interested in.

I would say that, more than politics, Oakdale's defending a retrograde and doomed to failure economical policy.

The big game between developed countries it's not based in coal (or oil) but in technology. Technology for free, clean, endless energy. Only that will cause a shift of the energetic and environmental paradigm.
Only that can create sustainable development.

Oakdale's defending America's collapse. Obama and his advisers knows it perfectly.

Oakdale mentions the politics of the thing and you have a cow about that. Well--- I have bad news for you. Politics and science are in an incestuous relationship on climate change, and have been for quite awhile. The politics actually corrupts the science (why am I not surprised) so the end result is, at best, questionable.

It gets worse--- seems there's more than a little deception. On the part of the alarmists. In order to get everybody to make the changes that would be necessary to make us stop making so much CO2, they have to do stuff to data that makes it subject to glaring errors.

See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/how-we-broke-the-climate-change-debates-lessons-learned-for-the-future/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/17/how-we-broke-the-climate-change-debates-lessons-learned-for-the-future/)

But you are disagreeing precisely with the big picture.

You, ersi, may prefer picture books and graphics… (I'll admit that D'Arcy Thompson's most famous volume was a lot of fun! But it advanced no ideas in his field, biology.) But what you call the big picture is -without the details and caveats- a simplistic surmise. And from that you'd get — what? :)
Calling CO₂ a pollutant is jejune. Oxygen is a better candidate! But you must use your pejorative terminology, for your purpose… (Perhaps you yourself don't consider fossil fuels the cause of dangerous climate change — you've never actually said, that I recall. Would you care to go on record? :) ) At least, the political actors must; and that certainly includes the IPCC and most government agencies.

The big picture -as I see it- includes much that is out of focus and much that is obscured — even when seen correctly. Looking at it through political lenses distorts it beyond recognition. (Looking at the politics surrounding the "issues" is something else. It's another and an important topic.) Shouldn't scientists be working on sharpening the focus, cleansing the grime and removing the obstacles?
—————————————————————————————————————————
@mjm: In his farewell speech Eisenhower warned about government financed science

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm))

Every one remembers or has heard his warnings about the military-industrial complex… It's odd, how few know of his equally dire warnings only a few lines later!

You, ersi, may prefer picture books and graphics… (I'll admit that D'Arcy Thompson's most famous volume was a lot of fun! But it advanced no ideas in his field, biology.) But what you call the big picture is -without the details and caveats- a simplistic surmise. And from that you'd get — what? :)

But you don't even have this much. You have nothing. And with nothing you only get nothing - as you have. Why don't you get on topic?

Calling CO₂ a pollutant is jejune. Oxygen is a better candidate!

Because we have oxygen pollution in the air, oxygen waste in waters, and we have industrial technology that makes oxygen an ever more urgent concern that we should do something about?

A few pages ago, I wrote you off as totally insane and incapable of engaging this topic. You keep confirming your status and you even manage to make it worse. It's amazing really.

(Perhaps you yourself don't consider fossil fuels the cause of dangerous climate change — you've never actually said, that I recall. Would you care to go on record? :) )

I have said everything relevant in this thread - before you began participating. Simply read up, it's all there. Not only are you devoid of your own relevant opinion, you are unable to read up on those who have an opinion. You only babble about nothing as if it were something. But it's nothing.

Here's something of interest. It covers the tropics-- actually an area a bit larger than the tropics since it covers 40 North to 40 South-- winds and rainfall patterns. You might find it worth a look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/)

Here's something of interest. It covers the tropics-- actually an area a bit larger than the tropics since it covers 40 North to 40 South-- winds and rainfall patterns. You might find it worth a look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/18/cooling-and-warming-clouds-and-thunderstorms/)

What's interesting here? This?...

My hypothesis is that the earth has a thermoregulatory system keeping the global temperature within narrow bounds (e.g. ±0.3°C over the 20th century).

Why is it interesting?

I take it, ersi, that you disagree with Willis' "I think that the debate should not be about feedback at all, it should be a debate about the types and the effects of the various natural homeostatic mechanisms." (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/) Why? :)

We have discussed this point rather recently. You forget too fast.

Ah! Then you still maintain that magical words "industrial pollution" affect the earth's climate system… :)

Ah! Then you still maintain that magical words "industrial pollution" affect the earth's climate system… :)

And you think pollution magically adds up to zero.

Seriously, no, the point was something totally different, directly to do with how your article starts. I will not remind you. You are not worth it.

Sorry to interrupt your love affair, gentleman's duel, whatever.
This is turning ridicule.

What we should be discussing at this thread, it's how to implement change.

What we should be discussing at this thread, it's how to convince underdeveloped countries to do it. We showed them the delights of
consumerism, so they can buy from us, and they started doing what we've done (and some wants to keep on doing it)... how to change that? How to solve that?

What we should be discussing at this thread, is the intergenerational problem. Why the next ones have to suffer because what we've done. Should they pay for it instead us?

What we should be discussing at this thread, is, basically, what a fucking future we want for ours sons.

What we should be discussing at this thread, is the humility required for stating that we created a hell of a fucking problem.

Not a small problem. At least, be courageous to approach it. To solve it, it's completely different. It demands much more than posting at forums. I do my part.

Post Scriptum. Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...

Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...

I don't much mind the language… But —granted that you almost understand the problem— I'm amazed at your callousness: You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Go to confession!

Out habitat is in little danger from technology and industry, compared with what it faces from the political forces of Luddite-Environmentalists and silly World Government proponents.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-08-20, 14:52:38

Yes I know, for some, language bothers more than destroying our habitat...

I don't much mind the language… But —granted that you almost understand the problem— I'm amazed at your callousness: You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Go to confession!

Out habitat is in little danger from technology and industry, compared with what it faces from the political forces of Luddite-Environmentalists and silly World Government proponents.

See, Belfrager, your questions cannot be discussed. More properly, your questions have the worst kind of answer because the greatest powers in the Occident want to keep their level of comfort. The will to obstructionism rules all. Simple observations matter nothing. And Oakdale has already earlier called morality itself evil.

Delusion is bad, self-delusion is worse, but active propagation of delusion due to wilful self-delusion is... let's call it unique.

In other words, ersi would tell everyone else how to live — because he knows better than anyone else!
And, because some dare to question his omniscience, he uses his wits to berate them — rather than refute them.
Well, Belfrager, at least you have an ignorant pope to lead you! ersi has only his own ignorance and sour disposition!
(There seems to be an awful lot of that, over the pond… Why are so many Europeans so pessimistic? You are not likely going to be allowed to screw things up again. "Relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten!" (http://www.vintage.org/features/blinkenlights.html))

Are you upset, frustrated and bemused — that much of the world refuses to prostrate itself and subject itself to privation, because you have qualms?!

The so-called Third World will become prosperous, and thus deal with "pollution" as others have. Like I said above: Relax, and watch the blinking lights… :)

Are you upset, frustrated and bemused — that much of the world refuses to prostrate itself and subject itself to privation, because you have qualms?!

You see (of course you don't see, but I'm just typing English here), it's not a matter of qualms. It's a matter of facts that have happened over and over and over again in human history. Roman Empire deforestated the Mediterranean. Forests grew back during the so-called Dark Ages. People actually died of polluted environment during the industrial revolution in England and America (and everywhere else, for that matter). Etc.

It's a matter of facts like this, not of qualms. You have always talked past the topic. You are free to go on and on talking past the topic. Nobody is stopping you. Just be true to your own principle, namely, since you consistently express panicked paranoia over that someone might meddle with your comfy life, then do the world a favour and keep yourself out of other people's way too. Keep away.

You seem, ersi, to have kept yourself out of it! I'm not much involved: I'm just "regular people" — you're -by your own credence- a paragon! Be that, where you live; where others do, leave them alone — until you've shown the power of your -whatever it is!- to make things better!

Read this (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350) (and tell me it isn't what you'd like…).

You seem, ersi, to have kept yourself out of it! I'm not much involved: I'm just "regular people" — you're -by your own credence- a paragon! Be that, where you live; where others do, leave them alone — until you've shown the power of your -whatever it is!- to make things better!

You know the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the failure to live up to one's own principles. You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives. (Your views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.) This is hypocrisy.

I do not have this principle. I have different principles to live up to. Being as dim-visioned as you are, you have not yet identified my principles properly, but even so it should be clear to you that I have no obligations to your principles.

Of course, you will not learn anything from this. I'm saying this simply to show that you are not fooling anybody but yourself here. Stay fooled as you wish.

You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Where's the "poverty" and "privation" at desiring a sustainable development?
Sustainability it's your best investment. Learn that.

I would feel guilty only if I insisted in keeping the destructive model you're defending.
I don't think that the course the western world has taken since (and including) the industrial revolution to be the best one at many aspects.

People at the richer nations are getting an increasing awareness of these problems and organizing themselves into pressure and activist groups so we can say that at least we tried to change.
Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.

Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.

Nah. When his grandchildren approach him with this question, he will just play dumb and sip his whisky. It seems to have worked throughout his life thus far.

It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.

@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of more people than any other system or ism; and only a fool would fail to recognize that increasing prosperity is the only sure way to afford the clean-up of pollution and the development of non-polluting alternative energy sources.
Unless, of course, you're willing to condemn millions, perhaps billions to a life that is ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"… (If you sincerely believe that only their "salvation" matters, preach! But don't "preach" Earthly Salvation via one of the oldest catechisms — Utopianism. You're either too smart to have fallen for such yourself or not smart enough to convince anyone else.)

You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives.

Please read what I posted directly above…
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"? How do you yourself explain your own "spiritual" cupidity, ersi? Bah! Go flog yourself.

It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.

When you consider the number of prominent "scientists" who think the earth's "carrying capacity" of humans is two billion or less and who are willing to consider various means of "achieving" this "sustainable" number, I tend to agree with you.
But when you consider the actual science they've published to support this view, and how relatively few these scientists are — it doesn't look quite so bad.
There seem to always have been apocalyptic cults… And Man has survived.

Please read what I posted directly above…
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"?

But it is. Because you are preaching from your own comfortable situation, when even your immediate neighbours don't share the same comforts (wealth and income inequality), so the claim that industrial revolution and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of people than anything else is highly contentious, to say the least. And somehow you manage to mention non-polluting alternative energy sources now when thus far you denied that pollution even exists, so evidently this is a secondary or tertiary thing that you bring up as it suits your propaganda, while prosperity is primary. Further, you assume that anywhere else than under industrially revolutionary free-market capitalism, people's lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Do you hear what you're saying? Hardly.

If prosperity matters, there are far more prosperous countries than the United States. But the main point is ecological sustainability. The United States colonises the rest of the world in order to sustain itself. This is not sustainable. There's nothing free-market about economic and military colonisation.

I confess, I did expect you, ersi, to recognize the reference to David Hume… Sorry. I had no idea that your ignorance was so extensive.

thus far you denied that pollution even exists

I've maintained that CO₂ is no more a "pollutant" than Oxygen or Nitrogen or any other component of earth's atmosphere. Likewise, radioisotopes shall likely prove useful (…but I admit that nuclear weapons for use on this planet are a poor use).
Your moral sense warps how you see things. But I'm sure it's very systematic!

But the main point is ecological sustainability.

Then you're stuck between a rock (the nature of science and technology) and a hard place (human nature)! Not to mention the fairly established fact that the earth has never possessed what you call "ecological sustainability"…
But -by all means- save the world, by eating your vegetables! :)

Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=525.0). I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.

@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism [...]

I'm not discussing it per se but it's implications and consequences towards ecological systems. I keep defending a sustainable development and you keep not saying a word about it. Well, your silence about it says it all...

Besides, you're not even defending "free-market capitalism" but "amoral free-market capitalism" that puts a few industries profits above anyone's else right to a life with dignity and to pass to the next generations a better, not a worst world.

And I don't buy that you're defending the "American Way of Life". I'm certain many other Americans completely disagrees with
you.
This is not about defending countries or theories but about defending our common house as my ignorant Pope said...

Funny how Oakdale sees no connection between industrial pollution and ecology, while there's a straightforward causal link from industrial revolution to prosperity, non-polluting alternative energy sources, generosity, wisdom, and whatnot. Go figure.

Tying two threads together here: Belfrager is thinking of getting into farming.

Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

Animals produce CO2, as well as methane and maybe a couple of other greenhouse gasses. Plants use CO2 the same way animals use oxygen. Plants need CO2 to be able to breathe. So--- if you have a field devoted to growing corn, you NEED a lot of CO2 to make your plants thrive.

Just so's you know--- one man's pollutant is a plant's medicine.

You know that saying, "Follow the money"? Well, it seems that if you do that, the trail leads to some fascinating places--- and not necessarily the ones you'd expect.

Have a look at this trail.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/)

Go figure.

Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced? :) 

Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=525.0). I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.

When the water-boy thinks he should be quarterback or coach, most people laugh at him. When he laughs back, they just realize how goofy he is… :)
(Of course, you probably think football is a bunch of guys just running up and down a lawn…)
The "economy thread" never went anywhere — and that's where you'd prefer to stay! Sobeit. But what makes you competent to advise others that they should do the same?
More cogently: What secures your moral authority to implore (or to ask government to impel) them to?

I don't think you have what should be called a morality: You have tics and twitches, grievances and grudges, and a woefully grandiose (…nice term, no? :) ) estimation of your intellect!

Eat your vegetables! Save the world… (I'm afraid you'll become an agent of the Tiffids! But -still!- I think men will win. :) )
——————————————————————————————
@mjm: I seldom read WattsUp… But -for those interested in "politics" and environmentalism, my own state is considering this (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350)!

Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced? :) 

What living standard has any prophet of anything produced? Prophet means messenger. It's not a messenger's job to produce anything.

As soon as I mention someone who produced anything, such as the wind-up radio or ice energy storage system, you say they are not prophets, but inventors. And you'd be right, because it's the inventors who do stuff, not prophets. They are different functions. So, your question is malformed.

But we have already had a thread about someone who lives according to the extreme ecological ideals https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=452.0

That thread was still-born, ersi, and you know it!

The "wind-up" radio…? :) How about the 50-mpg carburetor that runs on water for fuel? :) (All the major American auto manufacturers bought it, and buried it… Surely, you know that!?) ersi, your intellect is what's malformed.

If you can't understand anyone else's language (…and I mean anyone's — a single other human being!) why do you keep posting? (Are you going to get a certificate for your English facility? I'd applaud it! You've done well; extremely well. But your comprehension will, I hope, not be a factor: You are like a 7-year old who can make almost all of the sounds but understands so little of the world that he knows next to nothing of what goes on there!) Take your rude and ignorant self back to school.
Your parents failed you. Would you likewise be a failure…?

If you can't understand anyone else's language...

Such as your queer use of the word "prophet" in your previous post? It's enough for me to understand that you don't understand the language you call your own.

Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html

This is what matters.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrWKx9UH.png&hash=36084ed322e3f78025e32f8569997dc2" rel="cached" data-hash="36084ed322e3f78025e32f8569997dc2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rWKx9UH.png)

@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.

@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.

He will not. The chart automatically reduces his margin for manoeuvre...
Let's see what his arguments are... that he only sees the pink circle in his monitor? :)

Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

That's correct for extensive, large scale industrial agricultural production.
Therefore the need for small, local and based at permaculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture)'s principles kind of farms. That's the only way of keeping the cycle balanced.

Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html (http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html)

I haven't read the article you linked to yet. But I have a question:

Which, solar or wind-up powers the broadcaster? :) (I'd bet, nuclear, coal or hydroelectric… You'd miss the point.)
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
@ersi and Belfrager: Don't give me Venn diagrams… Give me a readable proof of the Four Color Theorem!
Seriously, guys: You'd be happy with most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence? You both only offer "solutions" that require our planet's population to be considerably less than it is now… Who do you "nominate" for extinction?
Or are you just silly pseudo-intellectuals who've chosen their fad to follow, regardless? :)

Have you guys figured out what to do about the heat-death of the Universe yet?

BTW, Belfrager: The diagram is the skeleton of an argument. You have to "flesh it out" for it to mean much of anything…

...most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-24, 02:19:25

...most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.

Indeed...

If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (…correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live… Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

I have no problem with either gentlemen becoming drop-outs. (Intellectually, they've already succeeded.) Nor do I mind their preaching their catechism. What I do take exception to is their insistence that the world's governments coerce others to do likewise — which will, given certain realities, cause great harm.
Probably, not to ersi or Belfrager; and not likely to me, either. But they both claim some sort of moral stance for their views, which will -on the kindest realistic interpretation- result in catastrophe — while the menace they "battle" might, on scant evidence, eventually do so…
Typical Europeans, I'd say.
(They did, after all, give us Communism, Fascism and Nazi-ism… And Socialism! [Such a meek and mild way to crush individuals…])

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?
To Belfrager I'd ask: What keeps you from being what you were meant to be…?

If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (…correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live… Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live. Other people may live if they accept the crumbs from the dumps and wastebins of the prosperous. Such dumps and wastebins only contain good nutritious and natural stuff - it's coming from the prosperous after all, so don't even dare to think otherwise!

On the other hand, if the not-so-well-off get in their heads to become subsistence farmers, they are a crazy environmentalist cult like Scientology, or drop-outs from society, Commie Fascists, obviously not humble enough to deserve to live. If they somehow manage to make a living, their lives are to be brutish and short.

Edit:

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?

What is a non-feel-good project that any science has accomplished? You never define your terms, so answer is impossible.

To Belfrager I'd ask: What keeps you from being what you were meant to be…?

Don't know what you mean by that.

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live.

Nope. But the environmentalist cranks don't deserve the political power to decide what level of prosperity is appropriate for everyone… :)
Consider yourself corrected.
(How you manage to mangle even the simplest expressions into such grotesque caricatures is beyond me!
Have you always had this "talent"? :) )
Anyone (…who can afford it!) can be a subsistence farmer! Who's stopping them? But even you'll admit that the entire world's population can't be. So, what's your solution?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-25, 22:57:02

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live.

Nope. But the environmentalist cranks don't deserve the political power to decide what level of prosperity is appropriate for everyone… :)
Consider yourself corrected.

Similarly, consider yourself corrected on the simple point that industrial pollution is harmful to life on Earth in many ways. It's destructive of environment and even affects climate. And these are empirical scientific statements, not political, dude. But of course you never understand empirical science, you are always about politics, as if someone were about to take your money away.

Anyone (…who can afford it!) can be a subsistence farmer! Who's stopping them? But even you'll admit that the entire world's population can't be. So, what's your solution?

The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.

And nobody ever asked the entire world's population to become subsistence farmers. Only those who want it. Those who want it will do it when it's affordable. I in fact grew up this way and I always wanted to live like this, but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible.

I in fact grew up this way and I always wanted to live like this, but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible.

Of course it's impossible. It's a mater or resistance, not a way of living as it should be.

Countries are importing between 60 to 80% of what they consume. Produced, as you said it very well, at the other side of the planet, carried by airplane and cheaper than locally produced quality food. This system is poisoning the world with chemical hydroponic systems while conquering it by way of starvation if people don't buy it.
This is not about "capitalism" only. This is about war.

Idiots keeps on accepting it, the brave ones resists. The change it's happening and Europeans are everyday reacting more and more to such an attack.
How is it possible to make laws forbidding people having their seeds from their plants? that's what's happening, you'll have to buy the seeds to Monsanto company or any other. They're copyrighting food.

consider yourself corrected on the simple point that industrial pollution is harmful to life on Earth in many ways

I needed no such correction: Pollution is -by definition- harmful…

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.

For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets… :)

And these are empirical scientific statements

…made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged…
———————————————————————————————————————————————

The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.

You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you? :) Almost a third of the world has tried that… How'd it work out?

but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible

In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions! So sorry, dude… You must be the first child ever to be required to grow up!
But -truth be told- I don't believe you: I think you got lazy and your government wouldn't support your idleness.

@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis… Please see a doctor! :)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.

For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets… :)

This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27

And these are empirical scientific statements

…made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged…

Sure, science can be politicised. That's the way you want it, but I'm not going along with it.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27

The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.

You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you? :) Almost a third of the world has tried that… How'd it work out?

All areas of economy are regulated to some degree in every country. No exception. The only question is to what degree and in what relative proportions.

You can choose to destroy local integration by enabling global outsourcing or you can choose to enable local integration by having controls on global outsourcing. The principle is simple, but since there's more massive turnover in global corporate trade...

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27

but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible

In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions!

In other words, you are saying that the way I grew up was not reality. This is really the bottom line, isn't it: Reality is whatever you say it is, never how people actually live and experience.

@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis… Please see a doctor!  :) 
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=109.380;msg=45227)

Why? do we get syphilis by eating California's fruits? That's a novelty for me...
Anyway rest assured, I eat nothing from Central Valley. :)

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.

For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets…  :)
He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles. If he would forgo the egregious political machinations of the AGW crowd, I'd give him his quietude… Ohm!

Eat your vegetables, ersi! (And you and Belfrager can avoid California's Central Valley's largesse, easily! Can't you? :) )

Is this topic about AGW or something else? (Perhaps, marginalized European pseudo-intellectuals and/or mystics!? And how the world would be run, if they were "in charge"… :) )

He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles.

We covered this point rather well. You were not asking for scientific articles on the topic.

Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.

A specific prediction and the theoretical model as such are different things. If the model is dynamic (non-linear) - which it is in case of the greenhouse - your insistence on warming only demonstrates your ignorance. Your obsession with politics, worship of industry, and insane anti-environmentalism are not exactly helping either.

Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)… (But you no longer "like" him… :) )

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it? Where are the papers that document anomalous climate change? And -more importantly- where are the papers that attribute such to human activity?
If the problem is de-forestation, why do we need to stop burning coal? If the problem is burning coal, why do we need to dispense with natural gas? If the problem is "carbon" — why shouldn't we wipe the earth clean of life!?
(Your answer will likely be incoherent: Something akin to Prof. Ehrlich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich)'s screeds.)
Seriously: Pollution is a perennial problem. "Solving" it takes money — and the means to make more.
If you're not willing to sacrifice a large portion of your ("their"? :( ) population, you need an understanding of the real world. Which, I think, you not only lack but prefer to ignore…

I'm sure you abhor GMOs. And nuclear power generation. And everything since the invention of printing! (You'd have been against that too.) Your stance is not actually incoherent -except to you: You'd like the world to return to feudalism.
But you won't say so!
Ain't gonna happen, dude! (Do you know where the term "dude" comes from…? Let me know, either here or in private… I promise to expose your ignorance!)

Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world? Yikes! To my way of thinking, that makes you a monster!
But prosperity is the only good solution.
And you reject it!

Which, to my way of thinking, makes you a … (Well, you know.)

BTW: If you want to be a "subsistence" farmer, you need to know what that means! (You'll only grow enough to keep body and soul together, dude!) If you want more, you'll need to "relax" your penchant for "commanding" your fellows…)

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)… (But you no longer "like" him… :) )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...

Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)… (But you no longer "like" him… :) )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Anglo-centric? :) You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.

Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"? You'll have to eliminate all life on Earth. "Global Warming"? You'll certainly have to get rid of every modern device since the invention of--- hey, Og just discovered he can make fire! "Climate Change"? Uh---- I don't know how you stop the Earth from doing what it has been doing since the planet came together as one cohesive body. It's always been going from warm to cool to warm to cool and so on.

I would submit here that industrial farming, for all the bad rap it gets, may leave the human race in a better position to adapt to change than subsistence farming does. Of course, in order to do this industrial farming itself has to be able to adapt--- change is gonna happen and there's not a lot you and I can do to stop it.

Right now we have the ability-- poorly managed I'll admit but we have it-- to feed people all over the world. On your subsistence farm, depending only on your own abilities--- you're subject to floods, drought, bugs, vandals and I don't know what else that can decimate crops. Industrial farms are subject to the same thing of course--- but large-scale farming that covers an enormous area can absorb trouble a little better simply because of the "economy of scale".

Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world.

Negro is just Spanish for black, and from the perspective of a Germanic language I'd say it's Latinate words that obfuscate. :)

Anyway, politically correct would be something like Afro/African-American, not black.

Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

When you know/If you knew e.g. Russian, you would not want to be called Black. You would definitely prefer Negro. Trust me on this.

About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

Colloquially, yes. Scientifically, no.

You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"?

No.

ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments…^* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; I don't see how you've managed to accept anything as science since Aristotle! :) Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere?
And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO₂ comes to mind… :) )

I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms.

If you won't speak the language everyone else understands, shouldn't the noises you make be called babbling? :)
One simple example (I've asked you about) is "transient climate sensitivity". Can you give me a figure for this (in the appropriate units) and support its derivation? Or would you prefer to keep muttering "greenhouse effect"? :)
————————————————————————
* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology… :)

Right here, "negro" is the preferred word for calling the African race all around (forget bullshit like "Afro-Americans" or "afrodescendants"). It's offensive only if used harshly against someone.

The other word, "preto" (which equals to "black") is not widely used and must be applied with care. If you have very close relationships with somebody dark-skinned, you are allowed to call him/her this way.

They will never understand the difference between a Preto and a Negro, Barulheira. Too much subtle, both for them and for their blacks.

Speaking about African related things and back to thread, Chinese already bought all coal mines at the oriental part of Africa and are building an huge system of railroads to take the coal to the ports where Chinese freighters carries it directly for China. Last year, a new energy plant running with coal was built per day in China. 360 new ones only last year.
Probably they will double it this year.

Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.

Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.

What words are those, Bel?
Where coal is plentiful and cheap, it will be used...

BTW: What happened to Europe's forests?

ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments…^* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; ...

If (industrial) pollution (of air and water) exists, AGW is not a theory, but a simple common-sense fact along with acid rains and ozone depletion. The only thing wrong with it is the name. The name implies as if it were (only) about warming.

* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology… :)

"Toy model" is not terminology. It's a dyslogistic. It may become a term as soon as you define it so that it can be distinguished from a proper model, but there's never any hope that you ever define anything.

Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere? And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO₂ comes to mind… :) )

But you just said that it comes from the beginning of atmospheric science. Nobody ever refuted it, so if you know the topic, you know the literature. Or else, as usual, you have no clue what you are asking and even this response here is futile.

One simple example (I've asked you about) is "transient climate sensitivity". Can you give me a figure for this (in the appropriate units) and support its derivation? Or would you prefer to keep muttering "greenhouse effect"? :)

Indeed, you asked about it once, but there are two problems with it. The way you asked was, "Can you even cite a derivation of the IPCC's recent value for the transient climate sensitivity…? Half-baked ideas based upon and supported by computer models whose predictions have mostly failed won't do." Meaning, you were asking about *predictions* again. This is one problem with how you were asking.

The second problem is that I already replied. I replied with reference to economics, by which it is clear how your question is misguided and loaded. Ecology is like economy. The relevant models of both have the same nature - they are non-linear. Therefore in those sciences nobody ever predicts anything. The correct terms are project and forecast.

For example, on a static model, a bicycle cannot stand up, much less a monocycle. It simply cannot. If you put it up to stand, you can tell (edit: i.e. the model predicts) it will fall. However, on a dynamic model - on the move - it can stand up pretty well and you cannot tell when it falls, if ever. On a dynamic model, it's not the model's job to tell whether the bicycle runs or not. Rather, the model describes under which circumstances it runs and under which circumstances it falls. It's up to the model to identify the circumstances correctly, but it's purely up to the circumstances to materialise. So, it's not about prediction, but about structural analysis, projection and forecast. /edit

This has not yet reached you, as seen from how you cluelessly go on about predictions of warming.

Oakdale's paradise. Business as usual.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIeTDnOS.jpg&hash=a213ab23c38d9600b43e15161712e360" rel="cached" data-hash="a213ab23c38d9600b43e15161712e360" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IeTDnOS.jpg)

I have always thought that the stuff about being an African-American was doo-lah.  They are American and can be black American, white American or whatever in particular issues of definitive discussion. Isn't everyone meant to be equal yet this liberal daftness is emphasising something different.  What is more disgusting is when you get some negroe man waxing about how he is a nigger which is disgusting. It would be anathema for a non-black person to do that but okay for them? Such ignorance only detracts from the word 'dignity.'

Someone once said "If you need to assert your dignity you don't have any…" :) (My paraphrase.)

AGW is not a theory, but a simple common-sense fact along with acid rains and ozone depletion

…so, the common-sense you adhere to defies scientific explication.^* Interesting! But I'm not sure I can be convinced that "common-sense" is a faultless -not to say infallible!- substitute for what I'd call science…
Of course, you don't (and likely can't) try to convince me: It's against you "principles", such as they are.

A simple question (or two…): How do you go from the facts of local pollution to peril to the "climate"? Shouldn't there be some sort of science to support such a leap of logic? (And, given how much the AGW science has failed both confirmation and predictive tests, what keeps you keen to see its gross political aims successful?)

"Pollution" can be very bad! But -even had there never been humans- bad stuff could have and would have happened; Man did not kill the dinosaurs…

Similarly, the question arises:
What -besides your penchant for "definitions"- makes you think there is such a thing as the climate?
————————————————————————————————————
* Corns and gout prove that lower extremities are a severe danger to bipeds!

A simple question (or two…): How do you go from the facts of local pollution to peril to the "climate"? Shouldn't there be some sort of science to support such a leap of logic? (And, given how much the AGW science has failed both confirmation and predictive tests, what keeps you keen to see its gross political aims successful?)

Simply, we are not dealing with facts of local pollution. When acid rains generated in USA fall down in Japan, it's not a local fact. Ozone depletion is surely a global fact.

There's no leap of logic here. Only blind denialism makes you think there is.

Similarly, the question arises:
What -besides your penchant for "definitions"- makes you think there is such a thing as the climate?

So, there's no climate. Good to see you reaching your logical conclusion. Just one more little step to finalise it: Say that there's no economy either. There's just occasional manufacturing and sales of some stuff, a local thing with natural zero sum end result.

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin? Ever see the air in Beijing? I hear tell that it's remarkably easy to do--- and all that coal-fired smog just has to be producing healthy-- or unhealthy-- amounts of acid rain.

The US has done a remarkable job in cleaning up our air--- once upon a time, seeing the air in any major city in the US was almost as easy as Beijing's air is to see now-- so how come we're STILL the international bad-guy for acid rain--- able to produce acid rain that goes three-quarters around the Earth (given prevailing winds)? How come China, which is much closer and at the present time much dirtier, gets off the hook for the acid rain falling in Japan?

Note: When I say "see the air", I do NOT mean "see through the air". There are times when, at noonday, it is quite impossible to see more than a few feet in Beijing because the smog is that heavy. No--- you can SEE the particles floating in the air.

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?

Everything I've ever heard says the winds go the other way. From Japanese balloon bombs to weather. (http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true) It seems more likely our pollutants goto Canada. This (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/air-pollution-china-is-spreading-across-pacific-us-180949395/?no-ist) (2 year old) article suggests China's pollution is actually coming to the US. Caused in part by manufacturing products for the US.

As happens so often with this subject... Both sides are moving towards opinion based "facts".

The US isn't the international bad guy for acid rain — its Acid Rain Program is a poster child — on the other hand, EU SO2 emissions were reduced by 70% while US SO2 emissions were reduced by "only" 65%. :)

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-31, 09:44:28

Gotta ask: How do you know that the acid rain falling in Japan is US in origin?

Everything I've ever heard says the winds go the other way. From Japanese balloon bombs to weather. (http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/PacificSatellite.aspx?animate=true) It seems more likely our pollutants goto Canada. This (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/air-pollution-china-is-spreading-across-pacific-us-180949395/?no-ist) (2 year old) article suggests China's pollution is actually coming to the US. Caused in part by manufacturing products for the US.

As happens so often with this subject... Both sides are moving towards opinion based "facts".

Well, I was reading about it in the 1980's, so I cannot doublecheck everything simply by googling, and yes, I got the direction wrong. But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's? At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's, but for Oakdale it has meanwhile become a local problem.

But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

I was young so that would most probably be a list of things I was taught that turned out to be wrong scientifically.

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 14:50:36

But what do you remember from what you read in the 1980's?

I was young so that would most probably be a list of things I was taught that turned out to be wrong scientifically.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 14:50:36

At any rate, it was a known global problem in the 1980's,

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

Very clever. You can repeat the same every thirty years to see how current scientific knowledge ages. This teaches you to never have an opinion one way or another.

Edit: In the 80's the topic was not politicised and and it was not politically polarising. This is the main thing that has changed since then.

On a related side note; I have a set of encyclopedias printed around 1900-ish I keep. I like to look things up in them to see how knowledge has evolved, when i'm bored and they catch my eye. Can really be entertaining.

My favorite encyclopedia is my 6th edition Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Konversations-Lexikon). Note that you don't need a physical copy to access the work these days, for example see here (https://archive.org/details/meyersgrossesko04meyegoog).* I make good use of Archive.org, DBNL.org and Project Gutenberg on my ereader — in fact it's the primary reason I bought it.

* That being said, electronically it's a poor experience even finding the relevant parts, let alone actually looking something up.

My favorite encyclopedia is my 6th edition Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Konversations-Lexikon). Note that you don't need a physical copy to access the work these days, for example see here (https://archive.org/details/meyersgrossesko04meyegoog).* I make good use of Archive.org, DBNL.org and Project Gutenberg on my ereader — in fact it's the primary reason I bought it.

Oooh nice. I'll have to check out your link later. You've posted Archive.org in relation to retro games before and turned me onto that site. Project Gutenberg is well known, of course. DBNL.org will require some translation patients.

* That being said, electronically it's a poor experience even finding the relevant parts, let alone actually looking something up.

I love the smell of old books too. Has a way of pulling me in.

Very clever. You can repeat the same every thirty years to see how current scientific knowledge ages. This teaches you to never have an opinion one way or another.

Meh. Healthy skepticism isn't really so clever nor always so common...

politically polarising.

Not that I want to dance around nomenclature with you, but: "Polarizing" tends to mean drastic opposition across a table of opinion. You completely lose me with the political part. I'm just not an alarmist. Technologies to burn coal cleanly and reduce emissions across the board are coming online. Batteries in the last, hell, 3 years has improved dramatically. We are moving in the right direction we just need to keep pushing the development and implementation of technology (which is the opinion I've stated many times). Climate change has been a reality for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere and will change with or without us. Do we effect it? Of course. So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

Change is as much about circumstances as understanding. You can't always force it and there's no reason to destabilize economies yet.

I love the smell of old books too. Has a way of pulling me in.

Sure. But mostly you just don't read an encyclopedia like a novel. ;)

DBNL.org will require some translation patients.

Hehe, I doubt the few texts in other languages will be of much interest to the general public regardless.

Sure. But mostly you just don't read an encyclopedia like a novel.

Damn. I was afraid I was doing it wrong, lol.

Lots more page turning and swapping volumes but surrounded by reference books has always been more my thing.

Dad had a vast collection of novels and such. He used to suggest some for me but I never really got into them. Perhaps one day I will. They aren't going anywhere.

Dad had a vast collection of novels and such. He used to suggest some for me but I never really got into them. Perhaps one day I will. They aren't going anywhere.

Yes they are. There's a time for everything in life, maybe their time haven't arrived yet, maybe their time have already passed by.
Sagesse it's all about knowing the right time.

Sagesse it's all about knowing the right time.

A fair point for a farmer.  :P

Continued (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1451.msg45522#msg45522)

Climate change has been a reality for as long as this planet has had an atmosphere and will change with or without us. Do we effect it? Of course. So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

My apologies for this quibble, but sometimes the use of almost the right word creates an impression that was not intended… :)
I assume you meant "Do we affect it?" since effect would imply cause and control, which would say too much!

I assume you meant "Do we affect it?" since effect would imply cause and control, which would say too much!

Ah, my old nemesis - affect vs effect... We meet again. :P

While we're at it:

Batteries in the last, hell, 3 years has have improved dramatically.

You leave me alone, sir!  :mad:

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-31, 20:32:06

politically polarising.

Not that I want to dance around nomenclature with you, but: "Polarizing" tends to mean drastic opposition across a table of opinion. You completely lose me with the political part.

As does Oakdale me.

So, if we can damage it thru technology we can repair it the same way.

One way to do it is to go back the way we came. Do we really need more invasion and pervasion from technology that we didn't need a few decades ago?

Change is as much about circumstances as understanding. You can't always force it and there's no reason to destabilize economies yet.

You lost me totally on the economic point there. How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Evident but just tell me something for my curiosity, do you think that it's possible stable economies? I mean, stable and sustainable, economies? Just yes or no, no need for too much explanations,  I'll know what you mean.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-02, 23:54:39

How do you destabilise economies that have instability built in? They always go by boom and crash, don't they?

Evident but just tell me something for my curiosity, do you think that it's possible stable economies? I mean, stable and sustainable, economies? Just yes or no, no need for too much explanations,  I'll know what you mean.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

I agree but not entirely. There's no way of financing a "social economy" based only at goods, products and means of production. It doesn't produces the enough cash required to.

Of course, cash it's an illusion, thanks to Breton Woods, just funny numbers inside computers.

Let's go back to AGW, much more important, it destroys any possibility of correcting past errors. Economy is just a by product.

Yes, it's possible to have a stable and sustainable economy. The instability is due to emphasis on money (wealth recorded in currency and credit, and trade recorded by exchange of stocks and bonds, instead of goods and property).

Simply attribute less value to financial/bureaucratic instruments of debt and property, and accordingly attribute more value to actual goods, products, and means of production. There's a critical point there somewhere at which oscillation of the financial markets becomes negligible.

And if only someone "smart enough" were put in charge — all would be well!? :)
You're still a Soviet, ersi… You just want to be the Lenin or Stalin. (Belfrager has a similar "problem"… :) )

Let's go back to AGW, much more important, it destroys any possibility of correcting past errors. Economy is just a by product.

Are you, sir, Antediluvian? Or merely Quixotic?
You seem (much like ersi…) to know little of science, specially climatology. The "talking points" editorials and postmodern critiques of science are grist for the mill of ideologues of various stripes. But when the real world -and the science that pays attention to it- disparages your "stance" you revert to Papal Authority? (Or something as similarly silly.) Why?
Are you just too old to learn? :) (Perhaps Kuhn was onto something…? :) Of course, others had had the same insights, long before he was born!)

AGW is a political/economic theory desperately seeking to perpetuate itself! It's scientific underpinnings are not near secure enough to support it, to the extent that the "true believers" need… (The world will survive this latest apocalyptic cult.)