<< SYDNEY RIOT LATEST ~ MAIN ~ GO AWAY FROM THE BEACH >>
EARTH RETURNS TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL HEAT LEVEL
The Sydney Morning Herald reports:
This year is Australia’s hottest on record and may be the planet’s warmest for thousands of years.
So the earth was hotter thousands of years ago? I guess that lets us modern folk off the hook.
Sorry Tim, I read this to mean it mightn’t get this hot again for thousands of years to come—assuming all those Kyoto signers follow the U.S. lead in reducing emissions—not that it was this hot in recent past millenia.
In any case, having recently moved to “the South,” below the Mason-Dixon line in the U.S., I sure would like it warmer since we’ve already seen snow thrice. I was hoping it would be hot enough for a mint julep throughout the winter, but apparently at the moment that requires being souther still. Go, China, industrialize faster!
Which only goes to show how weak the correlation is between CO2 emissions and temperature.
This is visible in the 20th century too: between the 1940s and 1970s global temperature was falling while CO2 emissions were rising steeply.
Why should this surprise us when some 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity?
From the SMH article:
“The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago.”
That would date around 4000 BC. I blame the early human civilizations. Damn those Ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians! THEY HURT MOTHER GAIA!!! Where’s Earth First! when you really need them?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 16 at 01:00 PM • permalinkOh, dear.
There is increasing evidence that planet was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) than it is now. The MWP lasted from about 1000AD to 1300AD. (Greenland was named and settled during this time.) For instance, people are finding the remains of crops and other vegetation under melting glaciers.
Some academics have gotten themselves lots of grant money and lots of prestige by pushing the claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade on record. To do this, they had to make the MWP “disappear”, from public awareness if not from reality. Their main weapon in doing this was to analyse carefully selected tree ring records using an advanced statistical method called Principal Components Analysis which (1) they did not understand, (2) they did incorrectly and (3) produced results that were not statistically significant. They also had to assume that tree ring width was affected only by temperature, not by drought. For more details, read Steve McIntyre’s blog.
I predict that this will eventually develope into a major scientific scandal, despite the best efforts of politically correct academics to defend the status quo.
Posted by Chris Chittleborough on 2005 12 16 at 01:30 PM • permalinkI was hoping it would be hot enough for a mint julep throughout the winter
It’s so hot here in Virginia that I’ve been skiing every weekend at Wintergreen since Thanksgiving.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 12 16 at 02:24 PM • permalinkSo the earth was hotter thousands of years ago?
Yes Timmy, from the lingering effect of all those dinosaur farts.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 12 16 at 02:33 PM • permalinkOh, and Ender?
“Oh, humor! arr arr arr arr arr!”
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 16 at 02:34 PM • permalink#9, Quite right! One of the assumptions underlying Principal Component Analysis is that it is a “linear model”, which, roughly speaking, means that the independent variable (e.g., the width of tree rings) depends on a weighted sum of the factors (e.g, temperature, drought,etc.) associated with the independent variable. Such a “linear” model is rarely if ever, in physics and even more so in the biological arena, more than a rough approximation to reality. The applications of “linear models” generally are widespread and useful in many situations, but these, though sometimes complex, involve a thorough knowledge of the factors which “influence” the independent variable and are simpler, in this sense, than the “tree ring” analyses. Some linear models produce a measure of the affect of factors not taken into account in the analyses. The “tree ring” analyses produced no such measures. Aside from these matters, the fact that no statistical significance was obtained for the “temperature variable” is itself enough to dismiss their claims as fraudulent.
Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, and who has a clear conflict of interest in the matter, said,
“The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago.” and “The future is notoriously hard to predict, but climatically speaking we are probably in for a rather wild ride,” Professor Steffen said. Now there is a scientific statement for you! Future notoriously (that is, as everyone knows) hard to predict, yet I, Professor Foolsworthy, tell you that I am PROBABLY in for a rather wild ride if my grants are not renewed. And, by the way, I can’t predict the future but I can tell you what went on 5000, or was it 6000, or maybe 10,000 years ago in unrecorded history. One thing is for sure, the future may prove me to be an idiot, but my claims about the past will never expose me.
And finally there is Richard Whitaker, a CONSULTANT meteorologist, another weather entrepreneur. He makes the sub-moronic observation that Australia had become complacent about the risk of severe cyclones and storm surges, despite witnessing the devastation of the hurricane season in the US. He should add that Australians have become complacent about earthquakes despite witnessing the outbreak of devastation from such after those in Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, offshore Indonesia, etc. Finally, he adds, “Cities such as Townsville, Rockhampton, Cairns and possibly Brisbane could be struck by a severe cyclone similar to the one that severely damaged Townsville in 1971.” Another POSSIBLY! Doesn’t anyone check up later on such guys to hold them up to account after their POSSIBLYs become Stupitdies?
Finally, the SMH ends its story with another bit of deception: “In 1998 the average global surface temperature was 0.54 degrees above the 30-year annual average for the years 1961 to 1990. This year’s temperature has so far been 0.48 degrees above the average.” What about the years it omits, 1999 to 2004, 1991 to 1997. Of the 16 years, it quotes the temperature of two of them to make its pont. Statisticians call this “selective statistics”, stats chosen to support a preconceived conclusion.Born in Babylonia,
Made it hot as Arizona,
King Tut.Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2005 12 16 at 04:08 PM • permalinkFrom the SMH article: “The last time the Earth was this warm was about 5000 or 6000 years ago.”
(neocon preemptive attack)
Stoop Davy Dave, before you open your big mouth, I wish to point out that that ancient warm spell was years before Sargon I’s reign? At least 800 or more. So, you know, there’s NO connection.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 16 at 04:27 PM • permalinkUm, please take out the question mark ? in my comment above. I meant that as a firm solid unwavering assertion. Yes.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 16 at 04:31 PM • permalinkAh wellllll… there never USED TO BE a connection, anyway! In the previous ancient history of Sargon I’s time, sure fine yeah, I grudgingly concede the point, ( as limp, unsolid, and wavering as that assertion is). BUT! In the future ancient history of Sargon I’s time, Mr misappropriated- and- duplicated- keys- to- the time- machine martinet and borderline- mutineer, it’s ALL DIFFERENT now, isn’t it? Not “now” now, I mean, but “then” now, you know? Yes! It’s all going to have been much different indeed, unless I miss my guess.
Oh! Also. I left most of your power tools by RebeccaH’s house, near the garage door. Damn but her security system is something else! (... and she probably hasn’t got any beer anyway ...)
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 16 at 04:51 PM • permalinkIn fact, temperature varies considerably over time. In the 2nd Century AD, the Roman historian Tacitus recorded that the Rhine and Danube rivers would freeze solid every year. They don’t do that any more.
15,000 years ago, Egypt wasn’t a desert. There was regular rainfall, and it was green.
The Medieval Warm Period has already been noted, and someone is bound to bring up the Little Ice Age that followed it.
In short, the climate is always changing. That isn’t the problem. The problem is the solutions that “experts” come up with to resolve the problem. There’s always someone convinced by that if we gave them more money or control over our lives then everything would be okay.
These people are not to be trusted.
Oh, and wronwright and stoop, stop playing with the time machine!!!!!
That is to be used only for official purposes. His Imperial Karlness is aware of what you’re up to, and if you don’t knock it off, there’s going to be trouble.
If you think life is bad now, imagine what it would be like to be buried in 8 feet of dinosaur poop.
A word to the wise ...
The big problem with the anthropogenic global warming argument is what I like to call “the faulty burglar alarm”. Imagine a householder buys a new burglar alarm and installs it. As soon as he turns it on, it starts sounding. At this point, he can come two one of two conclusions:
a. the burglar alarm is faulty or not correctly installed; or,
b. there is currently a burglar breaking into his house.
In these circumstances, most reasonable would choose (a).
When the world acquired the alarm known as climate science, it started sounding immediately, too. At the time, the world’s temperature could have been trending either up or down, and anthropogenic explanations could have been developed for both scenarios.
I don’t play around with the Tardis. I use it in a very responsible manner in accordance with the orders of Karl Rove. For example, when certain rogue neocons here went to Tim Blair’s home uninvited and drank his secret stash of mead from Sargon I’s private reserve stock, he sent me back for more. Why he didn’t also instruct me to zap them with the space lasers is a mystery. (But I think he has something truly evil in store, or at least I’m hoping. I mean to say, they’re all smucks, who would care if they’re turned into pot stickers? I for one wouldn’t).
The Tardis does not cause global warming. I think it doesn’t. Actually I’m not very sure because I’m still truly to figure out that stupid control board and that guy with the ugly scarf is about as much help as SDD with a keg of bitter in him. I mean the guy is strange, you know? His assistant is a space cadet and no help either. Except she does have a nice rack, I will give her that.
So anyway, this ancient global warming is most likely attributable to sun spots or solar winds or possibly when the Romulans left the Vulcan home planet because they wanted to keep emotion and sex and stuff like that. And none of that involved me either. I’m just saying.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 16 at 05:38 PM • permalinkMr look-who’s-suddenly-in-charge
Oh, and wronwright and stoop, stop playing with the time machine!!!!!
THAT WASN’T ME, sir, just only him, sir! That one there, in Cincinnati, sir. Old itchy-trigger-finger space-laser-boy Wronwright, it was, and not me. At least, in our current version of history, it was. “Will be,” I mean. yeah. Also let me add, insouciently, Pthpthpthpthpthpthpthpthpth!!!!!!!
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 16 at 05:51 PM • permalinkMr looking-guiltier-all-the-time
Actually I’m not very sure because I’m still truly to figure out that stupid control board and that guy with the ugly scarf is about as much help as SDD with a keg of bitter in him.
See that? SEE THAT?? Right between the “truly” and the “to”???? That’s a Time Warp, if I’ve ever seen one! Mr Wronwright has clearly excised himself from our timeline during that brief interlude, and has now (or, well, has “then”) had time to get up to Karl Only Knows what mischief! I fear for our very time-line, minions and minionettes, and I know President Kerry shares my concern about ... about ... wait ... Oh crap, it’s started already, hasn’t it?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 16 at 05:59 PM • permalinkPersonally, I’m plugging for an ice age. I love the cold, and it’s been so damn long since Australia’s seen a white Christmas.
Apparently we’re on track for that, if claims that ‘global warming causes global cooling’ are to be believed, but I’m willing to help out by churning out industrial levels of sulfur into the atmosphere.
Finally, the SMH ends its story with another bit of deception: “In 1998 the average global surface temperature was 0.54 degrees above the 30-year annual average for the years 1961 to 1990. This year’s temperature has so far been 0.48 degrees above the average.” What about the years it omits, 1999 to 2004, 1991 to 1997. Of the 16 years, it quotes the temperature of two of them to make its pont. Statisticians call this “selective statistics”, stats chosen to support a preconceived conclusion.
Furthermore, since “the average” at the end of the quote presumably refers to the same 30-year period, this means that 2005 isn’t any hotter than 1998 was.
Damn, if I’d only looked here first, I wouldn’t have blogged on the same subject this morning and ending up looking decidedly unoriginal.
Never mind, it did lead me to discover these two interesting links about the faulty Mann “hockey stick” model which underpinned ‘90s global warming dogma.
Nature Magazine
Corrections to Mann—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 16 at 06:54 PM • permalinkMy theory is that the warming of 6,000 years ago was initiated by Mother Earth herself. She detected the Primordial Moonbats and tried to cook the little bastards off her skin. Sadly, she failed.
Yeah, go on - go ahead and laugh! Just wait until I’m rolling in grant money, passing my days in scientific reasearch beside the swimming pool. Gin and tonic in one hand, cute assistant in the other. HA! We’ll see who’s laughing then, won’t we?Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 12 16 at 07:05 PM • permalinkCan’t say that I’m in general disagreement with the substance of what’s said here on ‘global warming’. Have paid lots of attention to the science (and the PR/media) on the subject. Seems that the planet may have warmed by 1 degree F (about .5 degrees Celsius) over the last 100 years. That’s not much, nor particularly fast.
What bothers me is that several Trillion dollars are proposed to fix a problem that isn’t there, or if there is not fixable. This is because human action is likely to account for from 1 to 10% of such change. The main cause of climate change is a shift in our star’s energy output. That’s the main ‘if there is a problem’. If that earlier cited trend continues, we’ll run into big problems approaching plus 5 degrees
F, ie. we have 400 years to worry the problem. The real fix is to re-engineer the Sun. With enough accumulated hubris (like today’s) we could try that. Lotsa luck. Today, global warming is a non-problem, especially in light of proposed solutions.#21. Don’t bother to look for the power tools. Finders keepers, in my view.
And I do too have beer. Only you won’t find it.
Global warming is already becoming passé. In another five or ten years it’ll be the coming ice age. Or asteroids again. Any excuse for the Cassandra class to start screeching woe and doom.
RebeccaH, don’t forget overpopulation.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 16 at 08:23 PM • permalinki say bring on global cooling, it will definatly kill off many moonbats as they freeze (stiff shit: pun intended) as they huddle around their solar powered heater trying to conserve fosdil fuels.
I meanwhile will cook infront of my coal fueled fire place, drinking vintage crude oil (Galloway vintage 2000) and boiling my kettle with a left over nuclear fuel rod.
ohh and no to mention i will be coverd in furs made from several exotic and endangered/extinct animal.
Ahh i can see good times ahead global warming or cooling
BREAKING NEWS
global “Warming” strikes agian
Montreal paralysed by record snowfall
wait a second ... ok, now i’m really fucking confused
That puts us smack in the middle of a period known as the Climatic Optimum. Hmm. Wonder why they called it that?
So, what I want to know is…when is all the really bad stuff gonna start happening?
Like, when are people in the US Great Midwest™ going to start dying in large numbers from climate change?
In the next 20, maybe 30, years? If it’s not before then, I figure I’ll be checking out, so it all doesn’t matter to me!
I’ll send you all postcards from hell!!
(NO, not Detroit)
#26 Wronwroght,
You’ve got more of that Sumerian mead? I’ll be right over.Hey Stoop, now’s your chance to find out what that mead tastes like.
Only using the Tardis in a responsible manner for official business, Wronwright? Au contraire, we know where you actually go during those trips to 16th Century London to “get Queen Ellizabeth’s political advice for President Bush.” And those forays to Roman Baiae? Woo-hoo! What do yo put on your expense reports for those trips?
#36 Rebecca,
Global Cooling was the crisis du jour in the 1970s. We were headed inevitably for a new Ice Age. The climate models proved it, proved it I tell you, and only the neanderthal morons doubted it. Why one year the snow lay on the ground all summer in Northern Canada. What more evidence do you want? Tjeerd van Andel, a prominent sedimentologist and soft-rock geologist, in his book Science At Sea, suggested that the only thing that might save us from this soon-to-arrive ice age was anthropogenic global warming. Van Andel is now a big Global Warming alarmist.Strangely enough the things we needed to do to prepare for the ice age were the same things we are now urged to do to postpone the heat death of the Earth: socialism and the ruin of the world economy.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 12 16 at 09:31 PM • permalinkVolcanic activity and solar activity must be discounted as they may add to the climate change.
Posted by stackja1945 on 2005 12 16 at 09:36 PM • permalinkGlobal Cooling was the crisis du jour in the 1970s. We were headed inevitably for a new Ice Age.
True, true. Just ask Paul Newman. This flick was a genuine stinker, but it portrayed a dying humanity in an ice age. Talk about trying to capture the zeitgeist.
For a snicker, note that this movie was “...filmed on location in Montreal”, as per #40.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 16 at 11:36 PM • permalinkIf you get your information from FOX news you really should question it. Water vapour is not 99.9% of the greenhouse effect - more like:
“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”99% of CO2 is natural however it is a part of a global carbon cycle that includes the oceans and land plants and soil. What we are doing by land clearing and emitting CO2 is upsetting this balance which resulted in the observed rise in CO2 from 270ppm to 370ppm.
What can happen is that while 2005 is the hottest on record, if the Earth is warming there will be more hottest years on record in the future and they will be closer together. Also 1 in a 100 year storms could become 1 in 17 year storms with only 3 degrees average warming. BTW this figure was from an insurance company presentation. The world’s largest insurers are already paying the price of climate change.
Ah ender, i knew it was only a matter of time before someone like you would come along and make my day.
now most of the data you have provided i agree with and you will find that most people on this site would agree with you, at least to a cetain extent.
But the real question is what can be done to fix it?... what are your thoughts?...
If you get your information from FOX news you really should question it.
And when someone says, “If you get your information from FOX news you really should question it” or something similar, you should discount everything they say until they’re prepared to demonstrate that Fox is less credible than CBS, NBC, or any other network busted for false reporting, or can recommend to you an accurate source of news and demonstrate why it is accurate.
that while 2005 is the hottest on record
Oh, it is, is it? So that whole Medieval Warm Period never happened?
Take your nonsense somewhere else, you religious fanatic. You’ve been busted six ways to Sunday every time this subject comes up, and all you do is ignore it and repeat your liturgical cant. It’s tired. Give it up.
There was a Penn & Teller “Bullshit!” episode that dealt with global warming/cooling. Very funny stuff.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 12:45 AM • permalinkI predicted that if there was a post on global warming this week, Ender would post yet another sanctimonious and whiney comment.
Prediction accuracy:
ArtVandelay: 100%
Global climate models: 0%
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 12 17 at 12:55 AM • permalink#49 sorry dave S i should have been more specific. i agree in pricipal with these.
“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”
except that water vapour and clouds absorb around 64% but added to this imediatly reflect 20% of all energy hitting earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_energy_budget.
“99% of CO2 is natural however it is a part of a global carbon cycle that includes the oceans and land plants and soil.”but after reading his blog i want to find out what this moonbats solution is,.... i was kinda hoping he would say kyoto.
Hilatity would be sure to ensue then
Dave S - the only thing that I repeat is the actual scientific facts - I am sorry if they get in the way of your religious beliefs but then again science has a habit of upsetting religion.
When confronted by arguments you cannot refute skeptics usually resort to the religious bit to try and discredit them. There is nothing religious about the scientific case for AGW.
There is no credible evidence to say that the MWP was warmer than today. Most peer reviewed studies show that while there was a warm period then the last few years have shown a consistant rise in temperatures greater than the MWP.
Mospact - Kyoto as you rightly say did not go far enough. Cuts of 40% or 50% of human greenhouse emmisions are required to keep warming to less that 2 degrees and even then it may be not enough.
ender is a fool i’ve just been reading his blog,
that “credit where credit is due” article is a bit of bullshit. why doesn’t he write an article on who the real poluters are with out knee jerkingly saying the same old shit about big bad poluting america, or coal producing australia just because we didn’t sign a stupid agreement that really didn’t do anything anyway. has he ever glanced at asia’s developing economies (india, china, indonesia), or brzil for that matter. these are the guys who are doing the damage, i’m goig to go one step further then Dave S with a big go fuck your self ender.
i hope you freeze from global cooling. I’m sure your hate of fossil fuels will keep you warm in the blizzards. i know my coal stove will do it for me
wronwright — You know damned well the TARDIS causes global warming because it dumps the velocity differential caused by the intervening galactic movement as waste heat. It states so right clearly in the warning plaque that SOMEONE taped the Adrienne Barbeau poster they got from Dennis the Peasant over.
Fortunately, it’s programmed to dump the waste heat into isolated areas like the Antarctic and Greenland ice packs, so no one’s noticed yet…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 17 at 01:16 AM • permalinkEnder. How do we cut emmisions by 40-50% while still keeping the same health and cultural standards of today? Or better yet, how do we do this and IMPROVE them? I have yet to see a workable model for this. Kyoto has not been a success. You say it did not go far enough, yet countries are finding it impossible to meet even the “low” demands of Kyoto. The closest thing to a solution that I have ever heard is to keep researching alternative and advanced power sources. Unfortunatly, this will take some time and is not a quick solution. Quick solutions seldom work in the long run, though, so this is probably a good sign.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 01:17 AM • permalink#54 you can’t honestly belive that cuting human greenhouse emisions by that amount will actually help?...
alow me to reffer you to what you previously said “99% of CO2 is natural however it is a part of a global carbon cycle that includes the oceans and land plants and soil”
so say for matematical simplicity that we cut human emmisions by 50%... whay that would cut total carbon emissions by 0.5%. how will this dramatilcally halt the changing weather paterns?...
#57 the best solution i’ve heard yet has to do with spraying salt water into clouds this is a practical solution to limiting the suns energy
Ender face it there is no practical solution as far as trying to cut emisiions #57 has made an excelent point, how can we force the developing nations of the world to cut thier emmisions at their own expense?... your solutions (from reading your blog) have everything to do with the West footing the bill(sounds like the same bullshit perpetrated by all the other shoeless dope smokers bent on saving the planet).
do you by any chance have any practical ideas?...
Or are you just another mindless drone who would rather that everything got screwed up so that you can sit back and winge?...
Ender, the Earth warms and cools all the time. There is little proof to suggest that man has had the serious impact that is claimed.
Take a look at Nicky’s links at #33 and then get back to us.
Silly boy!
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 17 at 01:33 AM • permalinkWasn’t the name of the Viking settlement near Newfoundland, Canada “Vineland”? Wasn’t this because there was a huge number of grapes growing there? So… can we grow grapes up in Newfoundland yet?
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 01:38 AM • permalinkOh yeah, and they grew grapes up near the Baltic sea and in England then too.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 01:40 AM • permalink#61 hi nora, i posted a link to “the thin man returns” on “the attention brick”, that cocktail was actually quite nice :P
After reading ender’s site I doubt that the fact that his precious sources are all bullshit will mean much to him. As I mentioned above he suffers from the same delusional condition as the rest of the left where he accepts the words of grant grabbing scientists as gospel the moment the cry Alarm Alarm!!!!
I’m sorry, that should be “Vinland”, not “Vineland”, which sound like something Dracula vould say.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 01:42 AM • permalinkDang Vikings and their global climate wrecking habits! All those ships on fire. People from that region and era didn’t care about ecology either, from what I’ve read. Hunted down and killed the only two known members of an entire hominid species plus an extraordinarily rare type of lizard. Beowulf should pay!
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 01:45 AM • permalinkGlad you enjoyed the cocktail Mospact. :-)
I thought 2dogs burglar alarm analogy on the subject of global warming to be excellent.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 17 at 01:48 AM • permalinkOh, Gaia, do we have to go through this every time Ender raises his/her ugly head from the Primordal swamp of intellectual mediocrity?
“Global warming” (now conveniently morphed into “Global climate change”) is a trick!
It was orchestrated by Karl Rove and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1970’s, to destroy the militant coal-worker unions in the U.K., and to meld the sheeple’s thoughts towards clean, cheap, abundant and wholesome nuclear power.
Unfortunately, Karl and Margaret didn’t let too many people into the Joke, and any number of underutilised scientists took up the catch-cry as a wonderful means of ensuring their employment until well past retirement age, or well past any reasonable expectation of being “found out”. The public trough, in other words.
All in all, a disaster, and any of Karl’s minions (even wronwright) will tell you that it was his worst ever secret policy backfire.
I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to the Climatic Optimum where global temperatures, as far as can be assessed, were between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius higher than they are today. The Climatic Optimum was larger and longer-lasting than the Medieval Warmup Period and is not as controversial. This is the period when the Sahara was not a desert but arable land and when humans beings began to develop civilization. The way I see it, we still have a ways to go - temperature-wise - before we reach the true optimum for human life.
Stoop: you’re drunk. Stay out of my basement.
RebeccaH: I want my power tools back. They’re stolen property. Stolen I tell you.
Michael Lonie: For the umpteenth time, I had to go back to get more mead to replace the stash you found at Tim Blair’s place. Do you have any idea how hard it is to evade Sargon the Great’s crack Akkadian guard? Ok, I suppose you don’t. But take my word for it, it was hard. Do not drink Tim’s new stock of mead. No!
Richard McEnroe: How the hell am I suppose to know the safety rules were under that poster? I wasn’t going to move it. Anyway, the big time scientist says the global warming happened thousands of years ago, before I ever got to Sumeria. So, you know, I did no lasting harm. At least officially.
Everybody else: Would someone, just once, defend me! Who do you think waxes those damn helicopters you fly? Damn ingrates.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 17 at 02:17 AM • permalinkWell, if you guys are interested, I’ve got this plan to make global warming on Mars MUCH worse than on Earth, which will make the extreme environmentalists go even more nuts…. All it needs is a way to get there, 6 small nukes, 6400 gallons of liquid nitrogen, three ducks, and a cow.
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 03:43 AM • permalinkMy first grant has just landed in my bank account, Mike. I’ll go halvies on the ducks.
Season’s Greetings!Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 12 17 at 03:55 AM • permalinkSheeesh Wron! If I remember right, didn’t you rip a seam out of Karl’s Utnapishtim cloak during that mead run? Let me just tell you, he was so pissed off he cast three valuable moonbat moles into the Abyss over that.
As a fellow fascist minion in training I don’t mean to sound all preachy n’ shit but if you hadn’t been downing pints at Siduri’s Two Rivers Pub the whole time you might have avoided that run-in with Sargon’s cracker-ass Akkadian guard.
Next time that sweet sweet drink tempts you on a mission, just think…What would Lord Rove do?
If you get your information from FOX news you really should question it.
This is funny because the climate change documentary that aired on Fox News a month or so ago was incredibly biased towards global warming. They didn’t even have one dissenting point of view!
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 12 17 at 05:41 AM • permalinkMospact - from http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm
it would seem that 99% of CO2 is not natural at all. I just requoted this without checking. Having a look it would seem that changes in land use and fossil fuels contributes about 7 Gtons per year of carbon. Plant decay respiration etc is 60 Gtons/year. It would seem that human CO2 is closer to 8% of natural emmisions which is 8 times more that what is quoted in the article. Reducing this will bring us back into balance and stop the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.Kaboom - “Oh, Gaia, do we have to go through this every time Ender raises his/her ugly head from the Primordal swamp of intellectual mediocrity?”
His head from mediocrity and why not. If 56 comments can go by with no challenge to what I think is wrong why can’t I post a challenge to it? I will stop when Tim stops posting what it considered wrong by most if not all climate scientists.I do not get why you think AGW is a leftie conspiracy. We are emitting CO2 - that is not in dispute. It is building up in the atmosphere - that is not in dispute. This CO2 in combination with other gases is trapping more of the suns heat - that is not seriously disputed. What is in question is the result of this. It could be rapid and dramatic climate change or nothing at all. No-one on either side left or right knows that answer to this but it will affect both sides and the poor worst of all. Some people want to take some action in case the result of this warming is dramtic climate change. It is not an attack on anyone lifestyles. There is plenty of low hanging fruit to reduce CO2 emissions that can be implemented with minimal disruptions. The USA is singled out often because it is the single biggests emmiter of CO2. Changing our transport to ones that do not use oil will have multiple benefits when oil supplies become tight in the future as well as reducing CO2 emissions and reduce us funding terrorism by having to buy oil from unstable countries.
I will stop when Tim stops posting what it considered wrong by most if not all climate scientists.
So who are these guys?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 12 17 at 06:34 AM • permalinkJunk Science has a current and ongoing tracking of the Global Mean Temperature Variance From Average. It’s a site that’s good to stop into from time to time for a reality check.
So Ender… what is your solution? How do we make it work without destroying modern life? I’m quite serious about this. The US actually is moving towards hybrid cars. More and more people buy them each year. However, how do you plan to cut emmissions by 40-50% without destroying the fabric of civilization? What effect will the emmissions restrictions have on developing nations, many of whom can’t afford alternative energy sources? How is the system enforced on countries like China?
Posted by MikeTheLibrarian on 2005 12 17 at 07:58 AM • permalinkMaybe in the scheme for emission trading our Martians neighbours can join in since there polar caps are melting…..they need it bad.
Posted by The Big Fish on 2005 12 17 at 08:17 AM • permalinkMikeTheLibrarian - It is a bit beyond one person to have all the answers. Some of the solutions involve massive efficiency gains, as we waste a lot of electricity, funded by carbon taxes. There would have to be some contraction to live within lower EROI energy sources such as wind and solar and renewable gases. These changes may have to happen anyway if oil supplies do indeed get tight. China and India and Brazil etc will have to be forced somehow economically to reduce emissions eventually. This is why the USA is so important - they are really the only country with sufficient clout to influence countries like China however at the moment they are the leaders in halting action on global warming. BTW China is starting to build more and more wind turbines.
A lot of this can be done with minimum economic cost however there will be some.
drscroogemcduck wrote:
This is funny because the climate change documentary that aired on Fox News a month or so ago was incredibly biased towards global warming. They didn’t even have one dissenting point of view!
*gasp* You mean Ender just assumed Fox News would have reports against global warming.
I know, I know: flinging out “Fox News”, or the oh-so-cute “Faux News” is the simple way for people like Ender to refute people without actually refuting them. I guess assumptions are Ender’s favorite little game.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 12 17 at 08:42 AM • permalinkwill stop when Tim stops posting what it considered wrong by most if not all climate scientists.
That’s bullshit, Ender. There is no “consensus.” That’s the same claim that was made in the ‘70s, when your lot said with 100% certainty that we were going to freeze, and in the ‘90s, when your lot said with 100% certainty that we were going to roast, and today, when your lot says with 100% certainty that we’re going to either roast or freeze or be kind of roasty-freezy or something bad for sure. And you have never - NEVER - in all of your bullshit in all of these threads ever answered that simple question of why we should believe people like you who are always 100% certain and then subsequently utterly contradict themselves we equal 100% certainty.
Thankfully, there is no “consensus” on
global coolingglobal warmingclimate change, because there are lots of good scientists out there more motivated by science than politics. Your lot are like “creation scientists” who twist science to “prove” bullshit religious theories.(Just for shits and giggles, Ender, how about just for once addressing the issue of why we should listen to people who have offered three completely different theories with 100% certainty each time? No pseudo-scientific bullshit, either - just straight talk addressing only this specific question)
Dave S - the only thing that I repeat is the actual scientific facts - I am sorry if they get in the way of your religious beliefs but then again science has a habit of upsetting religion.
Cute, Ender. Just one problem - you’re the believer, I’m the sceptic.
There is no credible evidence to say that the MWP was warmer than today.
Um, yes, there is.
Most peer reviewed studies show that while there was a warm period then the last few years have shown a consistant rise in temperatures greater than the MWP.
I’m sure that sentence means something, but I can’t figure out what. Preview is your friend, Ender.
So Ender… what is your solution?
Hell, Ender doesn’t even know the problem. Too hot? Too cold? Who knows, it’s just, y’know, bad.
For the record, cooling is bad. Warming is good. If there is a new Ice Age imminent (and judging by the records, there is), and if man-made CO2 causes warming, we have to keep it up. Mild winters in Canada is good. Canada buried under thirty feet of ice is bad (well, maybe not…)
Ender, Fox News did not provide me with the following very, very brief summary of the numerous false alarms and scientific frauds concocted by junk science entrepreneurs of your ilk over the ages:
1. Malthus (1766- 1834): Well-known apostle of over population predicted widespread famine, wars, civilization melt-down etc. due to too much screwing. The fault with his crystal ball, as all all alarmists over the centuries, is a failure of scientific knowledge and prudence and facts and the inability to predict advances in technology, including food production.
2. Skip all the many chicken-littles up to 1968. The Club of Rome became the first (to my knowledge) to make the ALARM a profit making enterprise featuring Junk Science. In 1972 published a book which sold 30,000,000 copies (good bit of change that) and predicted the end of economic growth and the exhaustion of oil fields by 1990. Even with Sadass Hussein’s help, we are far from that stage.
3. Prof. Forrester of M.I.T. Developed something called “System Dynamics” which the Club of Rome and his assistant professors used to predict the end of energy supplies by 1990, and which helped this M.I.T. group to gather considerable financial support from many sources.. We no longer hear about System Dynamics, which was nothing more than a computer model based on hot air.
I need no go further as posts 36 on contain other examples, far from exhaustive. But here are just two other examples of fraud which have cost millions of dollars and considerable pain to individuals,1. The World Health Organization started a program in 1971 called “Health for All by the Year 2000”. The program was to eschew modern medical methodologies by training local members of a village to serve as medical practitioners, often using the methods of medicine men. This program was mean to copy China’s program of “village doctors”. We know how this communist method of extreme socialist medicine turned out. The WHO program was attempted all over Africa, the Phillippines, South and Central America at the cost of millions upon millions. We hear no more about it, since it flubbed completely. (As a side remark, in discussing this program with the WHO representative from Zimbabwe, he remarked that no more money should be spent by the west on medical research on things like cancer since it only benefitted the western rich, the money should be spent on the WHO programs such as “Health for All…” I noted that the Mugabes and the Saudi princes and the Arafats rush to the West for medical attention and asked where they would go if all western advances stopped. No answer.)
2. Numerous medical frauds, the latest just yesterday on a major fraud in stem cell research committed by a Dr. Huang. The researches garnered loads of grant money and honors (including from the UN). (See Wall Street Journal, Section B, front page, 12/16/05.) To show the sleazy nature of the grant grasping community, here is an example from that WSJ story on a major fraud in stem-cell rearch “Dr. Schatten [Professor U. of Pittsburgh,] is in an uncomfortable position. Though he was listed as a senior author of the [fraudulent] paper , he has said he did little more than provide advice and edit the manuscript.” Imagine, he lends his name to a paper he has had no scientific input and the veracity of which he has no idea. And why? Need money grasping answer the question? Here is evidence to the affirmative (in same story). In view of the fraud, one might demand a stricter accounting be made by these researcher as to their scientific findings. No, no, not so, according to these grubbers. The solution is U.S. funding. The WSJ reports: “In a statement, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a lobbying group backed by U.S. Universities and disease advocay organizations, said “this [the fraud] is just another reason that this field of research should be conducted in the U.S.” under government supervion.” With U.S. government money, no doubt, supervised by Dr. Schatten.Oy, Ender…..
MikeTheLibrarian - It is a bit beyond one person to have all the answers.
But you give it a
goodgo, don’t you?Some of the solutions involve massive efficiency gains, as we waste a lot of electricity, funded by carbon taxes.
Too bad you really don’t understand the physics behind current power technology. Or the economics.
Physics: The efficiency of power generation and use is about leveled off. I’m told that we need significant breakthroughs in order to gain on this. For example, power transmission lines have a lot of resistance loss. Reducing that loss requires normal temperature superconductors, which we lack the means for. Applicances can be made more efficient by several approaches (e.g., make different sizes to fit the size of a given household), but there’s a limit to this.
Economics: Well, here’s my point, said by these good folks:
While Japan’s environmental protection efforts have improved, it still faces a number of environmental challenges. In particular, increased energy consumption as a result of economic growth has led to increases in nuclear waste, road traffic, pollution and other energy-related environmental problems. These have offset some of Japan’s environmental progress.
{snip}
Despite these proposals and strong public support for the ideals set out in the Kyoto Protocol, Japanese energy-related carbon emissions increased every year between 1999 and 2001. Overall, between 1990 and 2001, carbon emissions grew 17%, from 269 million metric tons to 316 million metric tons. This means that to achieve the levels required under the Kyoto Protocol, Japan would have to reduce its carbon emissions by 20% from their 2001 level. Recent events suggest that Japan is growing even more carbon intensive. ... Much of this rise may be attributable to increased operation of thermal electricity plants to compensate for the closure of nuclear reactors.
Japan would have to scale back it’s economic growth to meet treaty obligations. Do you see that happening?
There would have to be some contraction to live within lower EROI energy sources such as wind and solar and renewable gases.
Japan doesn’t have the natural resources available to use wind, solar, and renewable gases. And even if they did, ultimately, there’s a key point missed by scientific ignoramuses like you: There is a limit to available natural energy, roughly equal to the solar constant. Japan would have to significantly scale back it’s economic growth to meet treaty obligations. Do you see that happening?
And Japan is an ardent supporter of the Kyoto Protocols. Economics aren’t the simple matter that you think they are.
These changes may have to happen anyway if oil supplies do indeed get tight. China and India and Brazil etc will have to be forced somehow economically to reduce emissions eventually.
Then why are China and India exempt from the treaty in the first place? Why don’t they develop all these new and wonderful technologies, and become the world’s leaders in science and environmental matters? Instead, they follow the same path as the rest of the world, the one that you consider wrong. Call me a cynic, but I do know that Chinese and Indian leaders ain’t stupid—just very short sighted.
This is why the USA is so important - they are really the only country with sufficient clout to influence countries like China however at the moment they are the leaders in halting action on global warming.
BTW China is starting to build more and more wind turbines.
The US of A isn’t exactly sitting on our collective hands, either.
A lot of this can be done with minimum economic cost however there will be some.
Simply put, Ender, you are full of shit. There will be significant economic impacts. I believe that we can—and have!!!—addressed environmental pollution in the USA, and will continue to do so. But I won’t cut my own economic throat to do so. If you want to live at the level people did in 1885, please, feel free to do so. I won’t stop you.
Ender, you have no idea as to what you are saying. At best, you are mouthing the talking points of the Gaia Worshipper’s crowd, of whom you are an ardent follower.
Not that I expect to change your mind on this, you are permanently stuck on stupid. I’m posting this just in case some high school kid hits this site while researching environmental matters for a paper. That way, he/she hopefully won’t blindly accept your “analysis”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 17 at 01:34 PM • permalinkThere are a couple of issues that I haven’t heard consistent answers for (as _Jeffs has pointed out, basically there are no consistent answers forthcoming from the environmental community on any issue).
For starters, there is no such thing as stasis in nature. There is no possibility that the earth will stop either cooling or warming. It has to do one or the other - always, ceaselessly, in order to maintain itself and keep life going. Which of these two is the more favored by the environmental community: Warming or cooling?
Economic impact: Does the environmental community truly understand what will happen should even one tenth of the forced changes in how developed countries work be put into place? Environmentalists talk all day long about how “interconnected” the climate systems are, but do they understand how closely-linked and connected the industrial and economic systems operating on this planet are? Do they realize that by forcing the U.S. and other developed nations to haul back on their emmissions by 40-50% they will deeply injure the developing nations? All the exemptions in the world won’t save the Third World when the First World ceases to provide the level of commercial activity it has been providing up until now. Without the level of industrial output the world has managed to achieve what does the environmenal community think will happen to those countries which are totally dependent upon First World output (which is to say, virtually all nations on earth excepting - perhaps rogues like North Korea and Burma which are in various stages of internal meltdown anyway)?
The answer is simple: collapse and chaos. Just cutting back by 10% would prove more disastrous than any purported - and so-far unproven - environmental “damage” caused by climate change has been or would be. The environment community thinks that by exempting the Third World countries it is helping even out the burden on them, but this is worthless as these Third World countries are totally dependent upon the First World’s economic health. It’s all nothing but feel-good, gestural politics, and harmful to boot, but that’s business as usual for the Left who are the main ideological apparatchiki for the world enviroslamists.
Stats - so of course just because there has been frauds and false starts in science then this must be a fraud to - really good thinking there. There has always been wrong things said based on incomplete understanding and AGW could well turn out to be one of those. However you do not know that it is wrong and cannot prove that raised greenhouse gases will NOT cause climate change therefore it is wise to proceed with whatever information we have.
The_Real_Jeffs - thanks I think that you are full of shit as well. Kepp repeating the right mantra that emissions reductions means economic chaos. How does incentives to get people to but a 6 star fridge instead of 1 or 2 stars cause collapse and ruin. How does incentives for companies to replace industrial refrigeration with higher efficiency units do it either. There is heaps of potential to save energy that no-one needs to be forced to do and the decreased energy cost can save businesses money. A lot of this can be funded with carbon taxes that do not mean economic ruin. Unless you are also of the opinion that oil reserves are infinite we will have to do some of these things anyway.
ekw - Yes the earth has always changed however the Earth has not ever had 6 billion human beings to feed before. Also there is no evidence or record of anyone or anything imposing warming on top of an interglacial warming period before. While the Earth and most animals and plants can cope with slow climate change, rapid climate change is very dangerous. You cannot prove that it will not happen however all the models and evidence from the past indicates rapid climate change is associated with greenhouse gas rises or falls.
You baulk at the economic cast however if there is climate change how will some areas grow food? Sure large unified countries like the US and Australia could well be OK as warming could make some areas infertile however could open up new previously infertile areas to agriculture. Smaller countries without the geographical diversity could well be left with no or greatly reduced fertile land. What sort of economic cost will that be.Again quite rightly you demand proof. It is hard to go through all the change for something that may not happen - it IS a bit of a stretch to say “just trust us” and I can see where you have healthy doubt. In this case however there are 2 coupled problems. Oil supplies and climate change both of which could really damage our society. One of them the only real proof that you will get is when/if it happens and by then it is too late if it not already.
Stats - so of course just because there has been frauds and false starts in science then this must be a fraud to - really good thinking there.
No, dickhead, it directly addresses a point that I have asked you to address about thirty times in ten different threads - and it’s right up there in post #87. Let me repeat it, and then stop being such a chickenshit and address it:
“That’s the same claim that was made in the ‘70s, when your lot said with 100% certainty that we were going to freeze, and in the ‘90s, when your lot said with 100% certainty that we were going to roast, and today, when your lot says with 100% certainty that we’re going to either roast or freeze or be kind of roasty-freezy or something bad for sure. And you have never - NEVER - in all of your bullshit in all of these threads ever answered that simple question of why we should believe people like you who are always 100% certain and then subsequently utterly contradict themselves we equal 100% certainty.”
So, Ender, the frauds and false starts are FROM PEOPLE MAKING THE SAME CLAIMS AS YOU ON THE VERY SAME SUBJECT. And you dare to sarcastically say, “Really good thinking there”? What, after three utterly contradictory theories from you people, we’re retards for not believing your latest one?
There has always been wrong things said based on incomplete understanding and AGW could well turn out to be one of those.
Considering you admit not knowing what is going to happen (yet still say WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!), I’d say you’re there.
However you do not know that it is wrong and cannot prove that raised greenhouse gases will NOT cause climate change
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OK, you’ve just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have NO understanding of science whatsoever. You cannot propose a theory and demand it be accepted until disproven. Doesn’t work that way.
therefore it is wise to proceed with whatever information we have.
No, it is not. Every action has unintended consequences. Your actions, based on crap, could lower temperatures and set the optimum conditions for an Ice Age, which would effectively mean the end of civilization. Or more likely, the economic shock could cause death and privation to millions. Doing “something” leads to disaster as often as it leads to success.
There is heaps of potential to save energy that no-one needs to be forced to do and the decreased energy cost can save businesses money.
Well, now, Ender, we all know that the last thing businesses want to do is save money.
A lot of this can be funded with carbon taxes that do not mean economic ruin.
Because taxes have no effect on the economy.
Also there is no evidence or record of anyone or anything imposing warming on top of an interglacial warming period before.
Oh, God, what an idiotic statement. Gee, Ender, do you think maybe it’s possible that mankind contributes so little extra warming-on-warming that it’s irrelevant? Or that it’s helpful (improved agriculture, etc)? Or that it’s even saving us from the scheduled Ice Age? Why do you assume (I know, dumb question already) that the effect is important, or dangerous?
You baulk at the economic cast however if there is climate change how will some areas grow food? Sure large unified countries like the US and Australia could well be OK as warming could make some areas infertile however could open up new previously infertile areas to agriculture. Smaller countries without the geographical diversity could well be left with no or greatly reduced fertile land.
Good God, are you capable of rational thought? What do size and diversity have to do with it? It’s global, doofus. It averages out. Canada grows more food. Mexico grows less. Iceland grows more food. Bolivia grows less. Coastal land disappears, arctic land opens up. “Change” does not always mean “disaster.”
it IS a bit of a stretch to say “just trust us” and I can see where you have healthy doubt.
Yeah, no shit. Fool me once (1970s), shame on you. Fool me twice (1990s), shame on me. Ain’t happening again.
Speaking of which, any chance of you addressing #87?
Thinking that we have the capacity - and the imprimatur - to actually change the climate system, and save the whole world in the process, is both arrogant and extremely dangerous. To say that you have the only way to “save” the earth has always been a perilous road to go down, and it frankly scares the patooties out of me. I am suspicious especially, of people who want to “save the world.” Just gets me all curly, it does.
The Earth is a system in and of itself and has enormous and very poorly understood mechanisms to deal with things like 6 billion people living on it. Environmentalist hubris, however, has become so inflated that it can ignore these mechanisms in favor of a cobbled-together set of anti-globalist proposals of its own, insisting that these will work in conjunction with the poorly-understood vast and complex systems and mechanisms of the earth to bring peace and prosperity to all. Just listening to the speechifying by the autocratic leadership of groups like Greenpeace and Earth First! sends chills down my back.
The idea that the environmental industry has been pushing so hard is that the entire world needs to completely change how it operates, just in case any one of these myriad theories could possibly be right. As stats has pointed out, we don’t act on unproven theories “in case” of something. Usual scientific theory is proven through experimentation whose results must be repeated in order to be accepted as fact. In the case of the climate change theories one cannot, of course, experiment on the whole world, and yet that is exactly what the powerful Green lobby, whose computer models are notoriously inaccurate and not even capable of predicting the present not to mention the future, is doing. The environmental industry is hell-bent upon setting into motion the largest and most radical attack on First World industrial nations since WWII.The haste with which the environmentalist lobby presses the nations into accepting their predictions and schemes is suspicious to begin with. The incessant alarums which have been raised in the past point to these predictions being wrong again and again, as stats points out, so why the need to push push push now now now? Isn’t the real way to proceed here is with prudence? Why should any nation – never mind the whole world of nations – be so frightened by unproven theories that they are willing to sell their patrimony to pay for massive shifts in their economies in order to satisfy another set of new world orders when they have neither the financial capabilities to follow through nor any real proof that what they are bankrupting themselves for is of any use in solving the problem – which may not actually be a problem - in the first place? Furthermore, the bland refusal to accept the possibility that the amount of warming projected could actually benefit the world rather than destroy it speaks to a totalitarian view which adamantly refuses any contradictory data into their findings.
Taking into account certain findings, for instance the well-known Holocene Period Climatic Optimum, would seem to be a good starting point. After all, we are still 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below the global temperatures that prevailed during this fruitful period in human history. Why is this bad?
I posit that the environmental industry is playing a shell game with the world, and when anyone doubts the current orthodoxy they are either shouted down, called ignorant, or treated like misbehaving pets. But contrary, heterodox notions won’t go away. Some scientists think that sunspot activity may be found to control the weather more than any other mechanism. There are sunspot data that coincide with warming and cooling periods in the past. But the prevailing orthodoxy needs to blame one thing only: human activity.
There is a danger in trying to alter the earth’s natural processes in order to fix them. What if the 6 billion people on this earth are here to provide a counter-balance to shift us away from another ice age? Will the Kyoto protocols interfere with a greater natural process that is acting as a safety valve meant to keep us warm enough to survive another ice age? This is too big a mishigahs to be demanding a fix right this minute. The Kyoto protocols are too ambitious too expensive too unwieldy and will not work. Better to get this straight, know what is really happening, and stop trying to scare the bejesus out of everyone in order to push through an overbearing, authoritarian, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist agenda.
Me? I think it’s the excessive use of #30 sunblock that’s causing it. But hell, I could be wrong.
From Ender#94: “However you do not know that it is wrong and cannot prove that raised greenhouse gases will NOT cause climate change”. Thus Ender exposes himself as an ignoramus of the scientific method and the history of science as well as the field of statistics, and who knows how many other areas relevant to the issue of “global warming”, and so makes him, like so many others like him, susceptible to Junk Science.
The burden of proving a theory (with facts)falls on those who propose the theory. (Read up on the Type I error in statisitics.) A theory is not accepted simply because it cannot be disproven. If such an approach were accepted in the law, we would need to throw out the principle that “a person is innocent until proven guilty” and replace it by the principle “a person accused of a crime by the prosecutor is automatically guilty unless the person proves his innocence.” This latter rule works in societies such as the Islamofascist world, but not where free men thrive, and not where science, an area of free thought, thrives. Please go back to school, assuming you have had some schooling, and take a course in elementary experimental science.Me? I think it’s the excessive use of #30 sunblock that’s causing it.
You go out into the wrath of Gaia and Phoebus’ rage with just #30? Brave man. Me, I slap on an all-over coat of semigloss latex housepaint, just to be safe…
stats — How can you not see the inarguable truth of Ender’s argument? “Well, you can’t prove I’m wrong, so let’s pull our entire society apart on the chance I might be right.”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 18 at 12:37 PM • permalinkstats — that last bit is the caveat of any theologue, what’s the big deal?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 18 at 06:37 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
This global warming thing is very confusing.
One thing for sure: the scientific community does have a conflict of interest. The more they can frighten the public (particularly the hysterical types in Hollywood etc), the more money, status etc they will get.
Is the global warming exploitation of this conflict of interest?