Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:00pm PT
|
If this was the planet killing crisis that mouthpieces like Gore and Hansen ceaselessly cry out, then yes governments would be the only entity big enough to possibly address it. The fact that such a high proportion of limited funds goes into continued study of so called "settled science" and the only viable solution coming out of it involves limiting the mobility and individual freedoms of people reveals the purpose of "the science" as a tool for social engineering on an international scale. If we truly were facing the perils prophecized, the discussion would have ended and funding largely directed into technology to solve it.If this is not the case, then governments need to bow out, downsize, and let evolution of technology find it's own viable replacement for the eventual depletion of FF energy.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
|
My axe to grind is with dishonest little turds, like you.
Sketch is very big on calling other people liars. He's got nothing else.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
|
Ed i dont have a scale to weigh in grams.
This is really funny for reasons Ron won't get.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
|
Hey, watch your language Sketch. Besides not wanting to take the low road exhibited by Mentalcase, Mechrist etc., Ed is our friend. He is as honest as anyone posting here, within the limits of his core ideology, of course.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
|
i get it and then some bub.....
No, I don't think you do. Prove me wrong.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:35pm PT
|
No. My axe to grind is with dishonest little turds, like you.
What an idiot. When you can't have a discussion with Ed without talking like that it is clear that you really cant discuss with anyone.
I said nothing about tenure.
I know that you have forget it but the first time you mentioned Drapela where when you answered a very short post that I had written and where I used the word tenure. So I believe that it seemed to everyone else that you talked about drapela in connection with tenured professors that got fired. The discussion also started with the possibility to fire a full professor with tenure.
But I know that you would never understand that.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
|
you are saying the government should be in charge of formulating a response to a national challenge?
NO!
As a registered Republican I stand firmly against ANY government involvement.
This is best handled by the Free Market and Private Enterprise.
We all see the waste, fraud, and abuse that pops up when Big Government takes over.
Give this job to the for Maximum Profit Shareholders of yet to be created corporations!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:46pm PT
|
Pretty funny Norton.
Forgive me Bruce, but aren't we here to determine which side are the practicing witch doctors? I've heard many spectacular predictions coming from the CAGW quarter. The dates have come and passed just like Kahotek left the dead Raelians in San Diego yet the world still turns and the hysterical predictions keep getting shriller. I'll put my capitalist dollars on the sober man in the ring.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
|
thank you, Rick!
this is just too important to leave on the previous page as I feel so strongly about it
As a registered Republican I stand firmly against ANY government involvement.
This is best handled by the Free Market and Private Enterprise.
We all see the waste, fraud, and abuse that pops up when Big Government takes over.
Give this job to the for Maximum Profit Shareholders of yet to be created corporations!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 05:25pm PT
|
I'll tell you what Bruce, if i have any siding to install outside of Alaska in the near future i'll sub it out to you-do you do Drivet and Stucco also compadre? Anyway, like i said i'll put my money on the sober man in the ring. In case you haven't noticed Bruce, peer reviewed and published dissent is increasing, not decreasing. The focus of research is shifting to natural components of climate change as well as regional reconstructions of comparatively recent climate change bolstering the magnitude of events like the LIA and MWP, thus disproving the rate of change of the late 20th century is unprecedented.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:14pm PT
|
Don't laugh at Ron, Chiloe. Multiplication is a liberal concept.
Actually, liberals typically confuse division with multiplication. They do the former while claiming the latter.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 12:00am PT
|
On a more important note Richard, great seeing that all has come around for you and Mark getting some well deserved and long over due redemption after all these years.
Good deal... good deal indeed.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
Loved the bike and your "take" on it. LOL
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 04:00am PT
|
Cook et al used a very liberal definition of the consensus opinion to make their case. Essentially, that definition is " humans are causing global warming". There is no minimum for human's contribution. There is no other criteria. Only that humans are contributing to warming.
No, I don't think that that is their criteria. They seems to be using a 50% criteria. Do you really say that humans are causing global warming if you believe that for example 10% of the warming has been due to humans?
Their criteria 5, 6 and 7 clearly also suggest that they do not set the cut of at 0%
Their definition is far different than the IPCC's position or the position voiced by most renowned climate experts, which is that humans are responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last 50 years.
They are using the word most and you are also but it is hard to clearly know what the meaning of that word is. >50%? >90%?
Looking at the numbers reported, 3/4 of the "consensus" group implicitly endorsed the author's liberal definition of the consensus opinion. Less than two percent actually endorsed the position of the IPCC ( and most renowned climate experts). Yet, we're told 97% agree on the consensus.
I don't believe that the implicit criteria is supposed to be less strong than the explicit criteria. The problem with what you seems to be saying are that there are no information that suggest that there are only the 2% that endorse the IPCC position. That information is just not included in the abstracts.
I've already said most of this. And the response has been disingenuous, at best.
We start to get closer. You seems to at least have looked at the paper now and you are finally not completely misrepresented the paper.
I am not sure how strong conclusions is it possibly to draw from the paper. The problem is that the information that is sought is not explicitly included in many of the abstracts and when it is not included it might be unclear what the authors think. On the other hand, the paper clearly show that there is much more papers that say in any way that climate change is man made than papers that say the opposite.
Still, why don't some skeptics do their own study of the literature if this one are so flawed?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 05:08am PT
|
took 50 years to get to this point,
so the time required to find out if stopping all heat and gas emitted by the human race will reverse the effect will take another 50 years,
so first you have to stop all emissions, then wait 50 years,
is this even remotely feasible or realistic, we think not,
so we just watch the water rise, simple as that,
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 08:24am PT
|
It is inherently less strong. By definition.
No, it isn't. The difference is how certain the readers of the abstract can be about the authors opinion.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 08:30am PT
|
In my opinion, the Cook study is little more than propaganda.
....
Is any of this off the mark. If so, please explain how.
For a start, you have reality backwards. Cook et al. is an actual study, peer-reviewed and published. As far as I can tell they did what they set out to do, then described their work and analyzed the results with enough detail for others to check and replicate as they see fit. Contrary to what you read from propagandists, as research it has stood well to the criticism so far.
The findings are politically unpalatable to many so the study ran into a storm of criticism most of which really was just propaganda, like the "liar" claims Sketch has been shouting here -- without himself being able to read or understand the study.
Cook et al. never claimed or attempted to be a review of attribution research -- that is what AR5 does, at length. Instead they took a novel approach to quantify the views expressed in abstracts of a very large number of studies, mostly not on attribution. Independently, they also queried the authors themselves. Both datasets show very high agreement that humans are changing the climate. This finding agrees with several other studies using different methods; it agrees with official position statements of every major science organization; and it agrees with what just about anyone can see by looking at the journals or attending science meetings. They aren't secret, go ahead and take a look for yourself.
Or, go back to the propaganda you want to hear on blogs.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 08:46am PT
|
The difference is how certain the readers of the abstract can be about the authors opinion.
Raymond, unlike Sketch, has read and understood Cook et al. Their innovation -- inferring authors' views by reading the abstracts -- involves a tradeoff. You get a larger sample than anyone else, by far, but abstracts give just limited information and tend to focus on what the study actually does and finds. That's why the direct survey of authors provides an important part of the study too.
I could do a Richard Tol here, hopefully with less clownishness, and work out how my own papers would be treated. For example, I wrote several papers about the impacts of warming winters on New England's ski industry. But the Cook et al. abstract search would not even see these papers because they do not use the phrase "global warming" (they're about New England warming). If Cook et al. had somehow included the papers anyway, they would be coded as expressing no opinion on the causes of climate change -- I have an opinion, but that is not stated in the abstract or the body of the papers because they are about past and present impacts on ski areas, not causes of global change. Global change is there in the background, however; there are reasons why winters have been warming, and reasons to think they will do more in the future. Ski area operators know that too.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 09:48am PT
|
I liked the gratuitous jabs, too. ;)
This from the nice mouth that called Ed a "dishonest little turd" and told me "You zealous alarmists are a pigheaded dishonest lot. Seriously full of sh#t."
What have I said (specifically) that makes you think I should be on a moron list?
Just about every post. But you started out by calling "liar" against people telling the truth, while repeating other people's claims against a paper you could not read.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013 - 09:55am PT
|
Far from removing ignorance in the world you guys are actually breeding it by answering such people.
I'm not sure. Certainly the politicos here are not going to change their belief that "learning science" means finding sciencey talking points to support your prejudices. Not everyone is so closed-minded, though. I think there is value in keeping the real science in sight so this doesn't become a wasteland. Also, could be fun to discuss. I tried to start something about peer review some pages back but that went nowhere, trading insults and arguments seems to be more engaging.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!