What the... Snow in June, then in August!

A forum for discussing world news, ideas, concepts and possibly controversial topics including religion and politics. WARNING: may contain strong opinions or strong language. This does not mean anything goes though!
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Sophia »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:this is my forum posting, please reframe from trying to control it. close this forum and i'll be pissed at you.
Admins and moderators have the right and responsibility to take action in any thread that violates the forum rules. Period.
(I'm not saying this thread does violate the rules, mind you. I'm saying that statements like that are pointless because it being "yours" means nothing in that context.)
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by beowuuf »

Gambit is an admin, I would say the premier admin, of this forum. He does consult all the other mods and admins before doing anything, but he does not need to. He has our backing 100% and does not need to ask anyone's permission for what he does. If he is worried about posting he is doing it to ensure new posters and others will not flood other threads, and be able to point to this thread and ask 'why does Chaos Shaman get to do it and I cannot'


Please take his comments in that context. And never try to play one admin against another again. Gambit deserves far, far more respect for all the work he does here than that.


Can we please conduct any further discussion elswhere, and now leave this thread for its intended purpose as a discussion thread.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Just for fun:

As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming “absurd” and “a costly and pointless crusade”.

“You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human…history to find [such a] mad obsession,” according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.

The mathematicians harshly criticized a “crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking," noting that "the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority.

"How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”

“There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. … Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”

Noting that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have “always” varied, the French mathematicians also said that after processing the raw data on hurricanes themselves, they verified that “they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.”

“We are being told that a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees C[elsius] by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences and absolutely has to be prevented.

"When they hear this, people worry. Has there not already been an increase of 1.9 degrees C?

“Actually, no. The figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1 degree C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, [which] contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention,” the white paper stated.The French mathematicians also said that the UN’s climate models have failed to take into account natural phenomena that affects climate far more than human activity.

Human impact on the climate is “tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes,” they point out. “Human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTHS MAGMA, or the composition of the atmosphere.”

Furthermore, the work done by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not meet the basic standards set by reputable scientific journals because its “conclusions go [contrary] to observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty); and the variability of natural phenomena is passed over without comment.”

Even if there were such a thing as global warming, “then we should celebrate,” the mathematicians said. “And if it does not exist, then we simply shall have to carry on switching on the central heating.”

“French policy [on] CO2 is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector,” the white paper pointed out, slamming “virtuous” policies that have resulted in a significant loss of industrial activity and the resultant loss of jobs that has left three million French unemployed even as global CO2 emissions continue to rise.

“If we were in France to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, [which] ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all traces of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, noticeable way,” they said.

AD FEEDBACK

The authors also lamented the abandonment of “the adversarial principle” that distinguishes democracies from dictatorships:

“People who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up. No public debate, no contradictory discourse. No articles in scientific journals. They simply have been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action… We are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted.”

“It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this white paper has been written.”

Who was the french scientist that built a wall that the people accused him of poisoning the air and was executed for it?
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming “absurd” and “a costly and pointless crusade”.
That's probably why the mathematicians are studying mathematics whereas climate is being studied by climatologists. Climatologists would possibly find a large part of the mathematicians' work "absurd" and "pointless" as well. :wink:

Mind you, I didn't have the nerves to read the whole thing. :wink:
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

lol, The point I found interesting was this statement:

“People who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up. No public debate, no contradictory discourse. No articles in scientific journals. They simply have been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action… We are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted.”

This is very true. Th problem is that some don't allow for other possibilities, they're so sure about it they have lost the ability to reason and rely upon the scientific community climatologists word, THAT IS A BAD IDEA to just assume. This goes against the way science normally operates. What is most disturbing is the fact that these people are hypocritical in nature. It does not stop them from burning stuff, nor does it stop them having pleasure at the cost of the environment. Anyone who jumps on a plane for a vacation and then comes back and marches to the tune of Mankind is killing the earth has no merit, it is these people that are making it difficult for everyone to want clean water and clean air which is at the heart of all of this. If we can care about that then there will be less CO2 produced, it's that easy. When I see people jump into their cars I think, did they bother to work out how much pollution was produced in manufacturing it, and you can bet they don't. Unfortunate that we all can't do the right thing. We can all do our part, but should not just rely on scientists who MAKE THE DEVICES THAT USE ENERGY, they need money, they are liars and cheaters (look at VW) and ignorant like every other human and are not more special than anyone else. I for one believe in self education and action. Everyone knows if there is money involved (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) then there will be liars, cheaters and crooks. Let's not be ignorant about that. In reality, Who wants a clean world and live a long life, just about everyone including those who don't accept that it's all mans fault, the Deniers as they say, but who is doing the real denying.

thanks for your input Jan :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

Chaos-Shaman wrote: Th problem is that some don't allow for other possibilities, they're so sure about it they have lost the ability to reason and rely upon the scientific community climatologists word,
Who? I mean who exactly? Can you give any concrete examples? I'm a geographer and I know a lot of people involved in the global climate change research both here and abroad, I've been to many conferences (including e.g. the Copenhagen summit in 2009 that lead to nothing), but I can't think of anyone like that right now. Surely there are some climatologists (as well as any other scientists) fitting your discription but the majority are good people, good and honest scientists, constantly reviewing their work, in constant doubts about their work and conclusions. I'm not saying they're right in everything and they might be wrong completely, but they're neither dumb nor ignorant nor arrogant.

You're right about people being hypocritical. But, you know, it's a double-edged sword. You can't change the World only with your own personal action - isn't it hypocritical too, just to wash your hands, walk away and say "count me out, I'm doing all I can, so that's it"? I mean we need both a personal AND a global action, we need both, not just one.
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Sophia »

It's important to remember that, as dogmatic as the current thinking on climate change seems at times, it was, at one point, the new and crazy idea. Essentially every scientific consensus was at one point a new and crazy idea. Evidence was put forth and argued, and a lot of scientists didn't believe it at first. It became the scientific consensus only after a long process where lots of arguments were made and countered and counter-countered. Generally speaking, people who don't believe in well-accepted and well-proven science are told to shut up when they keep rehashing old arguments that people who know more about the issue than them have already done to death. They're not being told to shut up because of some religious adherence to dogma or ideological conspiracy against them or their views; they're being told to shut up because everything they have to say has already been said and they're adding literally nothing to the discussion.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

The Who: sorry for the long post, there is so much to say.

I'll state I have not washed my hands from anything, my job is to make people aware of their own actions rather than rely on anyone who posts fear mongering articles. Believe everyone has it in them to make the right decisions, example, ride a bike to work, be kind to animals etc. NOTE: people will not give up their car for a bike, go ahead and try, lol.

Most people are generally wanting to save the world, but most people want objects and of course, the money, the power and control. One thing that I try not to do is rely on numbers alone, especially if it is new. We often find we say this but it turns out to be something else. There is no exactly to who, that is one of the problems which causes all the separation. Who cares, everyone is causing it. I have no idea why a billionaire does not send some money to the cause (I for one will never offer money but rather I will reduce my use of energy, recycle, all that jazz. On a personal note I have done more for the planet than the average person, no car, only been on a plane twice, fully committed to nature, but don't ask for money. Money is the problem, always has been. It is good and bad. It would be unwise to argue a point and then do the very thing the point was about, this is absolutely wrong in every sense. Scientists want money, they're subject to the same thing as anyone else. Even an environmentally conscious person has the tendency to toss their beliefs aside when money is involved because they want that new object they have been dreaming about. Don't be fooled by people who are in fear, usually these people want to live forever and often young. I too was like that when I was a teenager, it wasn't until I reached 40 before I saw the other side of what was going on. Saw the fear, saw the way media has used the fear, saw how they were scaring my kids. Had to educate my children on my own so they could learn to think on their own. Taught them to investigate everything before believing anyone who wields fear. Showed them how to do good for the planet and avoid the fear mongers at the same time, not an easy feat.
They have a lot of respect now, are strong thinkers and they tell me all the stories their friends talk about which supports everything said above and what they were taught. They tell me how they too can see the fear being used on their unsuspecting friends that their parents have not shown them how to be aware of. They appreciate what they learned, now they are teaching it to their children and that is how to investigate and think for yourself.

Question: Is it possible that the denial side is also conscious about the planet? That they also care for their children and the environment but just don't want to go along with groups that are asking for money.
I know this much, my hydro bill went up a lot on November 1st. When the people start to see the cost of things they will either make more money, or reduce energy consumption, or bitch that they were not able to pay their bills. In the future we'll see a lot more people on social assistance because they won't be able to afford the power they need, this is coming. In the end we'll all pay anyway, there is no way out. Scientists and engineers keep building devices that use energy and require manufacturing, shipping, storage, and these all affect the environment.

again, thanks for the reply Jan :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Sophia wrote:It's important to remember that, as dogmatic as the current thinking on climate change seems at times, it was, at one point, the new and crazy idea. Essentially every scientific consensus was at one point a new and crazy idea. Evidence was put forth and argued, and a lot of scientists didn't believe it at first. It became the scientific consensus only after a long process where lots of arguments were made and countered and counter-countered. Generally speaking, people who don't believe in well-accepted and well-proven science are told to shut up when they keep rehashing old arguments that people who know more about the issue than them have already done to death. They're not being told to shut up because of some religious adherence to dogma or ideological conspiracy against them or their views; they're being told to shut up because everything they have to say has already been said and they're adding literally nothing to the discussion.
Some of that is of course true, but the other end to that is that they refuse any new arguments and are quick to dismiss the new evidence because in their mind it has been settled. You'll read that all over the net. Don't forget I have been actively involved in discussion threads for years and years now and know the discussions and how people think and reply to them. What I see is very disturbing and often they end up insulting each other. In all my life I have not noticed a big change, it's gone up and down just as life is suppose to go, like a wave, good times, bad times, this is life. To your point Sophia I have a question. How long did they argue about the shape of earth? How many times were they told to shut up before they finally accepted the idea that it wasn't flat. We're talking centuries and centuries here.

2+2=4 and we know that, but maybe the equation for climate is 2+2=4-1x2 and then they come out with a new one to explain it, 2+2=4(3x4-1) and so on. Using math is only so good, What we need is ideology, if we all stop using energy wastefully we can help the planet, we don't need numbers to do that or money. People have no way to control their urges and wants, we're a long way off of that. Still see people dumping garbage out of their car window with the ideology that someone will pick it up for them and yet it is these people that cry AGW. It angers me to no end.

Thanks Sophia :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Wizard Zedd
Expert
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Wizard Zedd »

There are always positive and negative points to both sides. I do agree that the majority of people truly do want to do what is good for the planet and to have clean air and water for the generations to come. Money, as Chaos mentioned, skews things. I have learned over the years to ALWAYS take what people, and especially media, say with a grain of salt. People need to take the time to investigate on their own. I see so many things online being shared on Facebook etc. that are hoaxes and totally untrue stories, and they are passed on without thought to more and more people. This reminds me of an ad that they had on TV a number of years ago that was meant to educate children to question what they are watching on TV...I think is is fitting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLG2JP0P5JE
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Saumun »

I recently read extracts from a discussion on arctic ice (extent and volume) from which arguments on both sides were so cogent (at least to me as a layman), i found it difficult to come down on either side. With accurate data only 50-60 years old, it is hard to know how long such an argument could take to resolve as to whether it is natural or due to AGW.
It certainly seems the greater weight of evidence is on the side of climate change due to AGW, but i think CS makes the point of having a willingness to listen.
I remember watching Question Time a few years ago, where a sceptic on the panel made a point... and then was shouted down and described as 'disgusting' by an audience member. I was far more disgusted by the audience member who felt the need to insult someone who had the temerity to disagree.

Money always has and always will play a part in any sort of policy, but at least the big picture can be looked at.
You could look at it almost like a kind of Pascal's wager... where you weigh up the potentially single huge loss (a habitable planet) against many more minor losses (luxuries, taxes, etc...). The single huge loss so far outweighs the many smaller ones, that it makes sense to reduce CO2 anyway.

NB. When i mention taxes as a loss, i mean to the majority that will pay it... not the few that will inevitably profit from it.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Sophia »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:Some of that is of course true, but the other end to that is that they refuse any new arguments and are quick to dismiss the new evidence because in their mind it has been settled. You'll read that all over the net. Don't forget I have been actively involved in discussion threads for years and years now and know the discussions and how people think and reply to them. What I see is very disturbing and often they end up insulting each other. In all my life I have not noticed a big change, it's gone up and down just as life is suppose to go, like a wave, good times, bad times, this is life. To your point Sophia I have a question. How long did they argue about the shape of earth? How many times were they told to shut up before they finally accepted the idea that it wasn't flat. We're talking centuries and centuries here.
My point was that there is no "new evidence." It is being dismissed because it is not new-- it is old evidence that has already been discussed to death and discredited by reputable scientists using scientific methodology. You're quite right that the issue has been settled in the minds of most climatologists, and it has been settled precisely because the other side is unable to produce any new evidence.

Earth was known to be round by the ancient Greeks, determined using measurements and (proto-)scientific methodology. The idea that the earth was round was at one point a new and crazy idea, and people with more traditional beliefs based in dogma and non-scientific religious thinking argued against them. Eventually the scientific world view prevailed, though. This is akin to my earlier observation that at one point climate change was a new and crazy idea and was subject to the review process that every new and crazy idea in science must go through, but, eventually, the scientific method did what it does, and a workable and well-proven theory emerged. I'm not quite sure what you were hoping to accomplish with your analogy, but if your goal was to point out the similarity of climate change denialists to flat earthers, you succeeded.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Wizard Zed, I love the house hippo, especially the peanut butter foot prints, very cute.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

My point was that there is no "new evidence." It is being dismissed because it is not new-- it is old evidence that has already been discussed to death and discredited by reputable scientists using scientific methodology. You're quite right that the issue has been settled in the minds of most climatologists, and it has been settled precisely because the other side is unable to produce any new evidence.
How can you say that, you think we know everything at this point, I think not.

Some important numbers that will affect the global warming debate came out in the media this week and they are worth reviewing. First — and most incredibly — the New York Times revealed that the amount of coal China burns has been underreported by about 1 billion tons a year, and has been underreported for the last 15 years. The Times states, “Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense … [and] the increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.” Oops! This revelation obviously raises questions about the overall accuracy and dependability of the sea of numbers that drive the policy decisions advocated by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. If the climate change activists were off by 1 billion tons of emissions just from coal use from one country and that’s data they used to contrive the models that “prove” the “settled science” of man-made global warming, what else are they wrong about? And what makes us think these numbers are accurate now?

And oh, by the way, I find it curious how liberals always seem to do things in increments of 1 billion: a billion tons missed here and there, a billion dollars for this and that. It doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence that there is an actual equation supporting their numbers.

Anyway, a second piece this week, “The Next Climate Scandal” from Holman W. Jenkins Jr. in the Wall Street Journal, reminds us of how easy it is to manipulate the global temperature numbers. Jenkins writes, “By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880-2010 has been tinkered with sixteen times in the past three years.” This is politics at its worst: With 16 recounts, you can rig any outcome. Jenkins also highlights Rep/ Lamar Smith’s (R-Tex.) quest to determine how and why U.S. government employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) took a second look at global warming data and subsequently determined there had been no cessation in global warming for the last 15 years, “eliminat[ing] the ‘pause’ in global warming seen in most temperature studies.” Remarkable. And even more remarkably — although I suppose not that surprising, since it fits nicely with the Democrats’ governing style these days — is how government agencies are hiding from congressional oversight. Specifically, they’re refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas. NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton, a federal government employee, actually said they did not need to comply because, “We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue.” That sums up the Obama administration’s condescending view of legal compliance when it comes to its pet causes. Of course if you or I had that attitude about subpoenas, we would be in prison. Period.

And while we are at it and as the COP21 conference in Paris approaches, let’s keep in mind some other numbers. According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable.

The numbers associated with the global warming crusade aren’t settled, but the Democrats’ conclusions about global warming are settled. Bottom line: They want to dictate your lifestyle. They don’t really care what the numbers are or what inconvenient truths keep turning up.

This week’s news compels us to ask how, if the data is so suspect, the science can be so “settled.” The more we know, the more we realize how little we know. Republicans should not be shy about speaking up and keeping the liberals honest.

I don't care about politics, they're all the same to me

NOAA just put out a report that contradicts what the IPCC has been saying, Antarctica has gained more ice and that they do not fully understand the dynamics of why. They are constantly changing their minds and data. Is natures behavior settled, I think not. It is still wise to take care of the planet but unwise to believe that man is the cause of everything and we should hand over money to clear our conscience and wash our hands and continue to do the very things that AGW believers cry about. Sorry, we can do way better on our own without giving them money.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Saumun, you have it right. There is nothing wrong with conserving and doing the right thing, but there is a lot wrong to put fear in peoples minds and then drive hard for money at the same time more devices are built and the people still buy into it. Over and over I question the people who blame man for this and the they do the same thing, it's like they just like to call people a denier and it seems to make them feel better while all along they're hypocrites, it's disgusting.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Sophia
Concise and Honest
Posts: 4239
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Sophia »

I never said "we know everything at this point." I said that we had a workable scientific theory that hasn't had any credible new evidence against it produced in quite some time. I stand by that statement, and the article you pasted (from the Washington Post) backs that statement up. There is a lot here, but let's break it down.
The article wrote:If the climate change activists were off by 1 billion tons of emissions just from coal use from one country and that’s data they used to contrive the models that “prove” the “settled science” of man-made global warming, what else are they wrong about?
It isn't logical at all that underestimating the amount of emissions is somehow an argument against climate change. If anything, it would mean that the current models were overly optimistic, because they didn't take those emissions into account. The source article article even says as much: "The finding could complicate the already difficult efforts to limit global warming," but the quote-mined version leaves that out. Another thing mentioned by the source NYT article that is left out of your quoted version is that climate scientists get their estimates of the total amount of CO2 in the air from direct measurements, so models derived from those measurements are not affected by this revelation at all. So, while this may count as new evidence of something, it's pretty clear that it's new evidence that is either not that relevant to climate models or confirms the existing scientific consensus.

It's also important to note that 'They were wrong about this one thing, so what else are they wrong about? Probably everything!' isn't an actual scientific argument at all because it doesn't provide any of its own evidence. It is, however, the kind of thing you hear a lot of from creationists and other disreputable pseudoscience types.
The article wrote: By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880-2010 has been tinkered with sixteen times in the past three years.
Again, this is quote-mined. As the source noted, "Presumably the hunt will now be on among House Republicans for evidence that NOAA scientists selected only those rejiggerings that would make the pause disappear. Good luck with that. Not only are the adjustments, corrections and interpolations eye-glazing—ground temperatures must be tweaked to offset growing urbanization, polar temperatures for the fact that we don’t have measurement data for long periods of history, etc." The US government's published temperature data is far from the only set of data out there, too, so it's myopic to focus too closely on it. However, it is important, and it's probably fair to say the current science has got it wrong about some details, and it's also probably fair to say a certain amount of political motivation seeps in there, as the article also notes. Still, as before, none of this invalidates the entire theory-- and the article acknowledges that, too. Climate models are complicated and built on a lot of sources, so to act like this is some sort of a smoking gun and the entire scientific consensus is now shot to pieces is as alarmist (if not quite a bit more alarmist) as anything AGW proponents are accused of doing.
The article wrote:According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris.
This one is worse than the previous two because quoting tiny numbers out of context and saying they don't matter just because they seem tiny is too nonsensical to even rise to being called bad science. I mean, first of all, they meant to say 0.03% and not 0.0003%, but what's two orders of magnitude when the number still looks so tiny, right? I guess an atmospheric concentration of cyanide of 0.01% would be nothing to worry about because it's such a tiny number, too, right? No, actually, it'd probably kill you pretty quickly.

So, there you have it: a lot of media hype, but very little actual science, and none of it any new evidence. However, to go through it all did take me a decent amount of time. I feel it was important to do so in order to back up my assertion, but I'd ask you not waste your time formulating an elaborate counter-argument or digging up any further articles if you're expecting much of a response because I won't be doing that again, at least not for a long time. You can take this as me retreating back into the realm of dogma and closed-mindedness, but, I assure you, that's not the case. Rather, I am resting my case because it has been made; I put forth the assertion that there was no new evidence of value and you countered with your supposed evidence-- and it all crumbled. It was all rather easily refuted, often by quotes from the very same article that were ignored, a little digging around Wikipedia, or, in the most laughable case, with sixth grade mathematics. And that's just me, with no scientific training in climatology at all. Imagine how credible climate scientists must feel when seeing these old canards.

I will leave you with this list of many other popular arguments that have been thoroughly debunked but nonetheless keep appearing in the media, in hopes it may be useful.
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

I think Sophia covered all the important points extremely well.

I'll just add my own personal note: the Earth's atmosphere and climate are an extremely complex system - in fact it's so complex that in comparison the Theory of Relativity looks like a child's toy. Nobody claims we understand it fully (we're just at the beginning) and it's possible that we never will. In fact, I admit that there is a very small chance that we are completely wrong. But all the climatologists, ecologists and many other scientists are doing all they can to describe and understand it as much as they can and as the current knowledge enables them. The "(Theory of) Global Climate Change" or whatever you call it presents their most honest findings. There's no conspiracy behind this, there's no hidden truth, there's no main manipulation of facts here and the Free Masons don't actually pull the strings. Of course the politicians may distort it and use it in their own political agenda, but - again - I can't see any prove that this would be happenning on a significant scale. In fact, in most countries of the World, even the most developed ones, focusing on ecological agenda is a good way to a political suicide and it's rarely a massive vote-winner.
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Saumun »

Jan wrote:Nobody claims we understand it fully (we're just at the beginning) and it's possible that we never will. In fact, I admit that there is a very small chance that we are completely wrong.
Exactly why i was making a point about safeguarding, whatever the future findings... Redundancy!
There may indeed be a small chance that we are wrong... but if so, then little would have been lost by reducing CO2 output (relatively speaking) compared to the potential loss if we were right and did nothing.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

Yup, that's what we call the "precautionary principle".

Moreover, I can't see anything particularly harmful in a sensible and gradual transition towards the renewable sources, for instance - if it's not politically screwed up, of course (as it was in the Czech Republic :roll: ). Just look at that enormour technological and industrial progress - take a look at the "Energiewende" in Germany as an example. And it's just the beginning.
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

All statements were well thought out, but did anyone understand what the message that I was making?

The point is simple, people believe but do nothing and continue to do all the things that they believe cause it. Media picks it up and distorts it with fear due to their own selfish reasons. Young people who want to do good get a hold of this and go on crusades, I just read that it was the baby boomers fault for it all, so the media is programming young minds with fear, but the worst part about that is they are taught to hate themselves. What I have seen really does worry me. Then the money gets involved, trillions of dollars that business wants, people are all the same, they want money. Some people do very bad things to get it, this is where it gets messy. But what it comes down to is a simple action, the media and government panels, business and psychopaths have to use different methods to get EVERYONE on board. Right now there is a lot of name calling and a ridiculous amount of political interference that makes the situation worse. What needs to be said is, hey everyone, stop buying energy reliant devices, we don't need all of it. Of course business would freak out but this is a far better way to reduce emissions of all types. As stated earlier people do not realize the pollution involved in all manufacturing. It isn't just oil or coal, IT'S EVERYTHING. It was scientists, engineers and oil and coal that gave us today's world. The world is tied to it, we can't remove it any time soon, impossible. As the population increases and third world countries begin to come online, it will only get worse unless the world together stops producing devices that are responsible. Mining, smelting, forging, plastics, chemicals, batteries, shipping, and disposal. All those things have to be reduced but nobody is doing it. That is my case, they don't mind screaming AGW but nothing is getting done, people go back to what they WANT, it comes down to want. If they wanted a cleaner world they'd be at least reducing their foot print, but that is nowhere to be found. Hats off to places like Germany and a few others that have tried to do something, but then VW scandal happens (money) and that just shows that our problem lies with want and money. The mindset is disturbing. As long as their is a profit (even for good) there will always be scandals and political interference, can't trust anyone. Science is great, but it is also responsible for the mess right now. Science is great, but I'm afraid it gave us the nuclear bomb so we'll have to think a little harder about that.

Thanks for the great replies guys, don't be shy to say more, it's good to discuss it.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Saumun »

I cannot speak for every country, but i can say that legislation certainly exists in the UK that forces manufacturers to cut emissions in accordance with the most recent targets.
Around five years ago, the company i work for reconditioned an old plant. The legislation counts this as building a new one. They had to spend 7 million on the latest, most up-to-date pollution plant. No choice! It is either that or shut it down.
Would they have spent that kind of money if not forced into it? Probably not.... So i agree that greed is a factor, but this is where to use the carrot and the stick.

Also... I don't agree that science is responsible for this mess. It's people. All the elements required to build an atomic bomb have always existed. Science did not force anyone to build it... politics did! And let us not forget the other side of the coin. Electricity, vaccination, organ transplants, the devices we type these messages on.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:What needs to be said is, hey everyone, stop buying energy reliant devices, we don't need all of it.
And you call this "solution"? It's that simple, eh? And how exactly do you suggest it should work? Now of course this is being done, we have to educate people and especially children, I myself am in education and do all I can, but human behaviour is very hard to change, it takes decades, generations, there's no easy way around. Of course in a long term it's the only solution but we don't have the time - we cannot afford to wait two centuries and try to change the way humans behave (don't ask me how when you just educate without a motivation and punishment) and then see if we succeeded or not (probably not). We have to have a political solution that would offer financial and other supports and penalties to start things happenning.

Just take the ozone depletion as another example - if it was left for individuals to decide, half of the Antipodeans might have cancer now and half of their sheep might be blind. Now this is clearly open to some debate as well but to some extent (or to a large extent, more precisely) the improvement here was the result of a political action (e.g. the Montreal Protocol). The same applies to many environmental problems on both local and global levels from basic water polution to acid rains - saying "hey everyone" is just not enough.
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Saumun wrote:I cannot speak for every country, but i can say that legislation certainly exists in the UK that forces manufacturers to cut emissions in accordance with the most recent targets.
Around five years ago, the company i work for reconditioned an old plant. The legislation counts this as building a new one. They had to spend 7 million on the latest, most up-to-date pollution plant. No choice! It is either that or shut it down.
Would they have spent that kind of money if not forced into it? Probably not.... So i agree that greed is a factor, but this is where to use the carrot and the stick.

Also... I don't agree that science is responsible for this mess. It's people. All the elements required to build an atomic bomb have always existed. Science did not force anyone to build it... politics did! And let us not forget the other side of the coin. Electricity, vaccination, organ transplants, the devices we type these messages on.
Yes, they would not have done the upgrades if they were not forced to do it.

When you say science is not responsible for this mess, don't forget scientists are people, too. It was a scientist who came up with the idea (WAR DRIVEN, DEATH) FAME AND MONEY. They're guilty. Even Einstein knew that the bomb was BAD.

The last comment about what we get from science is very true, we have a lot of good things to thank for it. People living longer is fantastic, but the other side of that coin is population growth, do we really want people living longer. Again science is interfering with the life span. I hear so many people saying we need to reduce the earths pop to half of what it is from 8 billion to 4 billion, this science work is not doing that. Those who say that I always say to them, you jump off the bridge first, the rest will follow. Science claims we have an overpopulated planet and resources will run out but at the same time they keep people alive longer (if you can afford it, again money driven) where the poor get no care at all. Science again is responsible for this disparity. Scientists have been claiming for some time now that mankind is the greatest threat to the planet yet again they still invent and manufacture devices that pollute to no end. Today they build things to be thrown away since tech is rapidly advancing, cell phones are bought new every year now, again money driven. So science combined with want and ignorance is behind it all. If science was so pure, it would see itself as a threat, it can't control people's wants or desires, so it feeds them. Who rides a bike to the store for a coffee. I see cars lined up all the time for a coffee, that's where I get a angry. The same people who demonize oil are standing in line idling their cars waiting for a coffee. It is very disgusting. They don't care about the environment, they care that they can drive tot he store in comfort, buy a coffee and not think for one bit the actual cost of the coffee. That is why I'll never believe people, they're ignorant hypocrites. To have them tell me that I am a denier obviously upsets people like me. I don't blame them because they just have not given it any thought. Most of these people I may add know squat about the planet and its functions, never spent a second to learn a damn thing and yet they love to name call, go figure. These people who do this do not question themselves and from what I can psychologically see, if they believe in AGW that somehow their hands are clean. WOW is what I say about that. I have personally found that those who have done a great deal of research become more pessimistic in the science behind AGW, like myself, don't forget I was once a believer in mankind is destroying the world, at a time when I was barely a teenager I explained to my father I thought we were a cancer tot he planet, this is 40 years ago. Science is not innocent because of want, ignorance and the obvious, money, power and control. I think the Star Trek world of no currency is far fetched and can only happen if we live in a halo dream world. One good thing though, when we're gone the planet will bounce back as it always has, so no worries about that, the earth will go on without us, hope that does not scare people but we're here for a short time only.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Jan wrote:
Chaos-Shaman wrote:What needs to be said is, hey everyone, stop buying energy reliant devices, we don't need all of it.
And you call this "solution"? It's that simple, eh? And how exactly do you suggest it should work? Now of course this is being done, we have to educate people and especially children, I myself am in education and do all I can, but human behaviour is very hard to change, it takes decades, generations, there's no easy way around. Of course in a long term it's the only solution but we don't have the time - we cannot afford to wait two centuries and try to change the way humans behave (don't ask me how when you just educate without a motivation and punishment) and then see if we succeeded or not (probably not). We have to have a political solution that would offer financial and other supports and penalties to start things happenning.

Just take the ozone depletion as another example - if it was left for individuals to decide, half of the Antipodeans might have cancer now and half of their sheep might be blind. Now this is clearly open to some debate as well but to some extent (or to a large extent, more precisely) the improvement here was the result of a political action (e.g. the Montreal Protocol). The same applies to many environmental problems on both local and global levels from basic water polution to acid rains - saying "hey everyone" is just not enough.
Good points, the opposite can be said though, using 30 years of satellite data is hardly a great way to know how climate works. If people know they pollute and claim AGW, why are they not giving up the very things that they say cause it? Please refer to my previous message. Even teachers get it wrong. Nobody is innocent. More on this later.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Jan
Mighty Pirate
Posts: 2760
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Scumm Bar, Czech Republic

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Jan »

Dear old good Chaos-Shaman - first of, I don't want this discussion to become personal or over-heated somehow. You're my good friend, I admire you, I respect you, I understand you and I want to keep it that way. You're older, more experienced and certainly wiser than me. I want us to remain friends.

Now the problem of your posts is that they are quite long and not very clearly structured. You tend to chain various points and arguments in sort of a "hyper-text". I agree with some of your arguments, with other I don't, some are based on obviously wrong facts. But this is quite hard to keep the discussion sensible when there are so many things mixed together. So perhaps if you tried to make your statements somehow better organised, structured, lucid and clear. Otherwise we tend to run in circles, nitpick and argue unnnecessarily.

To a large extent we agree with each other - the problem is in human behaviour. We differ in the solution - you just state this fact and say that people should somehow change themselves, whereas I'm trying to find some ways to help (or make) them to change before it's too late, don't you think?

To start nitpicking again: :wink:

"using 30 years of satellite data is hardly a great way to know how climate works." - you don't mean that, do you? Our knowledge of past climate is based on so many sources, historical data, chronicles, naval diaries, dendrology, geology, glacier composition, ice records, you name it. There are dozens of sciences studying the climate and its changes using dozens different methos and approaches. This gives us a fairly accurate, complex and cross-checked picture.

"science is interfering with the life span" - not exactly, no. You cannot do much about the life span, it's mostly biologically determined. You probably mean life expectancy. The changes in mortality, life expectancy and natural increase of population are mostly caused by decreasing mortality of babies and children only a few months or years old (i.e. a much much higher percentage of children survive to have their own children). Of course old people can now life longer, but the fact that now the life expectancy is usually 50-80 years in most countries whereas one or two centuries ago it was 15-20 years even in the most developed countries is caused by the fact that much less children die on quite basic and simple disease. (mind you, I'm not considering the regional differences of fertility and timing of the demographic revolution)

"Science claims we have an overpopulated planet" - [citation needed]

I could go on. It's basically possible to argue with everything you say.
Finally playing and immensely enjoying the awesome Thimbleweed Park-a-reno!
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Saumun »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:When you say science is not responsible for this mess, don't forget scientists are people, too. It was a scientist who came up with the idea (WAR DRIVEN, DEATH) FAME AND MONEY. They're guilty. Even Einstein knew that the bomb was BAD.
Pretty much in agreement CS. People.... not science itself! To blame science as a whole seems nonsensical to me, as it is much, much more than weapons and pollution.

The part about overpopulation is an interesting one.
I cannot accept that "Science claims we have an overpopulated planet". Some scientists may indeed say this, but i can assure you that many do not (Again... people. Not science itself). I saw a recent study by a Swedish guy whose name i cannot remember. His projection was that the population would top out around 10-11 billion, then shrink and level out. Child mortality, life expectancy, medical advances, poverty levels, and more we're taken into account.

As i said... This is only one study (though there are more that project similar results), and there will no doubt be agreement and disagreement along the way, and of course... It may be wrong! But i can say with some confidence that not everyone is panicking about population explosion.

In fact between 2005 and 2010, the birth rate in Europe was 1.53 live births per woman. Given that a replacement rate of 2.1 is needed to maintain a steady population, Europe's population would actually be shrinking were it not for immigration. It could be pointed out that African and Asian populations are growing rather than shrinking, but these too will eventually reach a peak.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Thank you for the kind words Jan, don't intend to let things blow up, no worries mate.

If the explanations were clear there would be no debate and I wouldn't be Chaos :lol:

Population, nature will take care of that, and there will be nothing we can do when that time comes.

We just don't know enough to state we have nature figured out. Personal experiences tell me mankind knows a fraction of what is to come. When I was younger it was fascinating to see a satellite in the sky, My dad was a space nut. Now when I go fishing at night at the nuclear plant on Lake Ontario, I see dozens in an hour.

Life span, clean water is why we live longer, but what I meant was now we're dealing with DNA modeling, diseases that use to kill no longer do. There are places on the earth where people still only average 35 years of age, they don't have clean water. I'm not sure about everyone else but, I want to live as long as possible.

Ok, no citation, want to know why, I have read it in hundreds of articles and so there should be none needed. You'd never be able to read what I say if I had to citation everything, no proof necessary, science definitely keeps reassuring us that there is overpopulation and will be food shortages, energy shortages, etc.

There, a short version for ya Jan :wink:
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Hey Saumun

Those who have no clean water will benefit over time as they find ways to get it, those with clean water have already topped out with life expectancy and birth rates are falling. In Quebec they at one point had given money for families to have more children. Canada needs immigrants because we're not having enough of our own. I am fine with immigrants if they come and have the Canadian spirit and put country first. This is a different topic, Canada is making a mistake in my opinion with religion if we keep allowing Church's and Mosques and other religious buildings. I am concerned about it, the past has shown that it is the cause of most wars. It is better to be loyal to state then it is to religion. People can practice it on their own, keep it to themselves. This in my opinion will greatly improve life for all of us. God is real, those man made story books are not gods words. God is nature, no books, no words, it just is. God is real, in astrophysics God does not exist, yet scientists claim the universe comes from nothing, Stephen Hawking claims that in his articles, but the catch is, where does nothing come from? He does not believe in God yet here we are with the only answer available, only God knows :wink:
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Saumun
High Lord
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 am
Location: The Ether

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Saumun »

CS... The anti-theist in me would certainly agree with your points on religion. The atheist in me would disagree with the God part, but hey.... It wouldn't do for everyone to be the same! :)
As for the universe.... I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. Nothingness is such a hard concept to imagine, it's easy to get lost in an argument of infinite regression. Any theist or deist may argue that something cannot come from nothing, therefore it must be God. This however, invites the logical argument that God must also have come from something. You could go back forever. If a first cause could ever be proved, would we even have the capacity to recognise it? I'd like to think so, but who can say?

I did recently read about a team from the Wuhan Institute in China, who provide a mathematical proof (or at least claim to) that the universe could spontaneously generate from nothing through quantum fluctuations. It has to do with solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equations, married to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Way too complicated for me i'm afraid. Simply being aware of these two things is about as far as i get.
Is this proof? I'd have to say no... or everyone would have heard about it, right? Almost like Abiogenesis theory (life from non-life) concerning self-replicating molecules coming into existence through random chemical processes. Conclusive? Certainly not!

My point here though is that (in my own humble opinion), to attribute anything we don't understand automatically to God is too easy, and devalues the great work done throughout history to better understand the universe.

But again... That's just me!

PS. As for Prof. Hawking... A Brief History of Time is the only work of his i have read, and he does allude to God a number of time in it... but even he, over time, has become a confirmed atheist.
“Grynix Ernum Quey Ki Skebow Rednim U Os Dey Wefna Enocarn Aquantana” - Anon
User avatar
Paul Stevens
CSBwin Guru
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Paul Stevens »

Would the integers exist when there was 'nothing' ?

Would the cyclic group of 3 elements exist?

Good people will argue about these things. I won't
argue but I will state my opinion: "Yes". And, therefore,
'something' can come from 'nothing'. Something that
any sufficiently intelligent beings will be able to
discuss and agree that they have a 'structure'. Some such
'structures' might be complex enough to be self-conscious.
Wow!

My wife says I'm weird. Could be right.
Locked