Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:15 In article <45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs or >> >> >> global warming, but a few radicals can destroy western civilization. >> >> > >> >> >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible for >> >> >global warming. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not on >> >> the payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks." >> > >> > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem and >> > not water vapour or methane for example ? >> >> Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't read >> enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague >> recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than >> CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out one >> of many problems?" > >Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point regardless of >real scientific endeavour. > > >> When you identify there is a BADTHINGT� happening, but you can only affect a >> subset of the problems causing the BADTHINGT�, do you advocate total >> inaction? > >Not if the 'bad thing' can be shown to be genuinely responsible. In this case I >see an absence of proof. > Have you read any of the IPCC reports? And realclimate.org is a good place. > >> > I've never seen a rational explanation for this. As I see it 'science' can >> > show a correlation between increasing global temperatures and increasing >> > CO2 in the atmosphere but can't prove causation one jot. >> >> Then read more articles on the subject. If you have access to ATHENA there >> are tons of publications which explain the background to the theory and the >> science involved. >> >> Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are >> supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. > >I've yet to see anything other than a casual link as opposed to causal one. > > >> This strikes me >> as an egotistical way to view your own interpretation of the evidence. > >It reflects my healthy scepticism actually. > >Once upon a time ppl said we would all die in a horrible nuclear inferno. When >that failed they said we'd die because of poisonong from nuclear power. When >that failed... well here we are. > >Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 'wolf' ? > > >> Unless you are climate scientist keeping up to date with the research, I >> doubt you are aware of the whole array of information. I certainly am not, >> but I know climate scientists who are and are convinced of the human driven >> global warming problem. > >And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar ice sheets >and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't raise the sea >level even a millimetre. Melting of ice sheets on land (Greenland, Antarctica) will. Only melting of floating ice will not. Plus, when water warms, it expands. Half the predicted rise is due to this. > > >> As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. >> Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why >> this is happening. > >Very flawed theories. > > >> Science does not prove things in the manner you demand >> here, as the scientific method is one of falsification. Scientific theories >> which imply the human causation of global warming are sound and >> experimentally verified. As with everything in science, tomorrow we may find >> a flaw but until then the theory is sound. >> >> > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' >> > argument. >> >> No it isn't. > >Then prove it ! I'm simply not convinced it's not just normal variation in >global weather. We're quite powerless to stop it anyway so fretting about it and >taxing ppl more is totally pointless. > >Graham > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:34 In article <458526D1.378451F8(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem >> >> > and not water vapour or methane for example ? >> >> >> >> Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't >> >> read enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague >> >> recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than >> >> CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out >> >> one of many problems?" >> > >> > Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point >> > regardless of real scientific endeavour. >> >> Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >> what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline as >> anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. > >And they have been consistently wrong about the future. > >Why would anyone in their right mind believe them now ? It's not even possible >to forecast accurately 7 days ahead never mind 7 or 70 *years* ! > >Graham > You're confusing climate and weather. Climate is easier to forecast -- it will be colder in January than in June, for example.
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:38 In article <45852AAF.B763276F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are >> >> supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. >> > >> > I've yet to see anything other than a casual link as opposed to causal >> > one. >> >> Now there is a slight problem here. I dont for one second doubt that you do >> fail to see a causal relationship, however that does not mean it isnt there. > >So prove it is ! I don't believe the evidence is there. > > >> Now, I have no idea how many published papers on climate change you have >> reviewed, or how many conferences you have been to but my suspicion is that >> you are basing this opinion on publicly available material (news papers, TV >> programmes and the like). If I am wrong please forgive this assumption. >> >> Have you looked at the articles on >> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278 as a starting point? >> >> It has this a subhead reading: >> >> "International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of >> man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. " > >What good is consensus if they still can't explain what they mean ? > What part of the statement is unclear? >I've heard all manner of scary drivel about rising ocean levels because of >melting ice sheets and the like - right down to noting an entirely mischeivious >BBC news article that attributed coastal erosion in East Anglia to global >warming whereas it's well know and has been for centuries that the UK is >'sinking' on that side and supposed sea level rise has absolutely zilch to do >with it. > >And anyway, the sea level rise argument is mainly a lie as the ice sheets were >floating to begin with. Not the huge ones on Antarctica and Greenland. Not glaciers. >There nothing but a tissue of lies holding this >propaganda togther. OTOH I've actually heard of ice elsewhere growing *thicker* Sure, in places over Antarctica now -- why? The air is hotter and it holds more moisture; this falls as snow over Antarctica. But that's temporary -- the air will continue to heat up. >! > > >> And this is important. Establishing a scientific consensus is not an easy >> thing to do. There are a lot of peer reviewed papers which support the >> theory. >> >> Can you dismiss them all? > >If they're all wrong of course I can. > So you know more than all the hundreds of scientists publishing in journals, the hundreds in IPCC, the AGU, etc? > >> > Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 'wolf' ? >> >> Lots of times, even lots of times when it hasn't been an appropriate >> analogy. In this one it is very appropriate though. > >Why ? What different is it from every other supposed global disaster we're >supposed to fork out our money for ? > > >> Because you have heard the claims in the past, you dismiss the current >> claims. In the story, when the wolf arrives people dismiss the claims - are >> you doing this now? > >Why would 'they' be right now ? > > >> Also, it carries the implication you are dismissing these claims, not >> through reasoned study of the papers but mostly because "similar claims" >> were made in the past. > >Which were wrong too. > >I've heard too many claims of incipient disaster before and in any case reducing >CO2 emissions by say 10 or 20 % ( if we were that lucky ) would be far too late >anyway. > >Furthermore taxing ppl isn't the way to deal with it even if you're prepared to >accept ( as I do ) that reducing the CO2 load on the planet is on balance a >'good thing' anyway. > >Do you seriously think China is going to stop industrialising ? Hysteria isn't >going to change anything. > >Graham >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:40 In article <4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> > And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar ice >> > sheets and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't raise >> the >> > sea level even a millimetre. >> >> There is an interesting issue here. get a pint glass, half fill it with >> water and then put ice in until the water almost flows over the rim. >> >> When the ice melts, what happens to the water lever? > >It stays the same of course ! Have you actually tried it ? > Not all the ice is floating, damn it! > >> >> As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. >> >> Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why >> >> this is happening. >> > >> > Very flawed theories. >> >> Really? I am not a climatologist so I can not comment properly, but >> generally few "very flawed" theories survive the scientific process. > >Really ????? > >How about practical breeder reactors ? They were once the darling of the nuclear >industry and *everyone* 'scientific' believed in them. Not a single one has been >a success. > > >> >> > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' >> >> > argument. >> >> >> >> No it isn't. >> > >> > Then prove it ! I'm simply not convinced it's not just normal variation in >> > global weather. >> >> And you will be unconvinceable. Your belief it is a normal variation is >> based on nothing more than an assumption. > >As is the idea that CO2 alone is responsible. There is absolutely no proven >causal relationship ! > You cannot prove causality in science unless you can do controlled experiments. > >> There is less evidence to suggest >> it is "normal" than to say it is human driven. Coincidences do happen but >> they are normally detectable with statistical analysis of the information. >> This analysis does not imply that the increase in global mean temperatures >> is _not_ linked to human activity. > >Have you ever looked at a timetable of global temperatures ? Why did the River >Thames freeze over in the 1800s for example ? Maybe they weren't burning enough >fossil fuels ? Do you know what "global" means? The whole big globe! > > >> > We're quite powerless to stop it anyway so fretting about it and >> > taxing ppl more is totally pointless. >> >> I suspect this is the issue more than anything else. You object to the >> taxation issue. > >Taxation is a plain stupid 'remedy' anyway. The very best way to conserve energy >( which I wholeheartedly accept is a very good idea from first principles ) is >insulation and ppl who are overtaxed are less likely to have the spare cash to >pay for proper insulation goddammit ! Talk about stupid squared ! > > >> Saying we are powerless to stop it "anyway" is incorrect, if >> you are wrong (for example) humans are able to prevent it. > >There is quite simply no hope that economic activity will cease to the extent >that we can ever make more than a scratch on the surface and it's wholly >disingenuous to suggest otherwise. > > >> Even if you are mostly correct, and human activity is not the causal agent, >> but a contributory agent, then humans can still influence it. > >By a minute amount at best. A large volcanic eruption would totally dwarf human >efforts for example. Totally false. > >Graham > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 05:44
In article <8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... > >> Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >> what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline as >> anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. > >Climate science is barely off the ground flapping its wings as >hard as it can to get airborne, but still needing an occasional >hard placed kick to get as far as it has. Typical right-wing anti-science remark. > >Weather, its sister science, discovered and submitted the first >formalization of Chaos theory. Note especially the butterfly >effect. I suggest that climate is a long term serial study of >weather. I don't think we can combine enough data from >weather to see any reasonable long term forecast for climate. That's because you're stupid. > >Do a google search for (use the quotes) "mini ice age". > Go to realclimate.org and read about it. >I'll stick my neck out here again and state that politicians >and the rest of the great unwashed don't begin to contemplate >nonlinearity, let alone its place in causality. The problem >is that every time politicians get together to fix something >it invariably takes more money out of the public pocket one >way or another, and usually the goals are not achieved so >another even more expensive round of fixes is called for. > >In primitive societies, the strongest got to rule. In earlier >times leadership was arranged "by the grace of God" LOL. Today >it is supposed to have some relationship to the capacity of the >leaders to take us in the right direction, perhaps based on >mental prowess, however it seems to be the best liars who >usually get into office these days. > >These things being said, I don't have any faith in the so >called solutions will ever actually have anything to do >with global warming if the problem itself 1) really >exists and 2) is solvable by combined human action. > Like saying "if atoms exist..." >What we have is a pseudoscientific political argument about >a pseudoscientific issue. Business as usual, I say. > >What makes personal economic sense, regardless of worldwide >implications, is to reduce consumption. We've done that in >my lifetime. Compare the most commonly owned automobiles >today to those of 50 years ago both in materials used in >manufacture as well as fuel consumption and replacement >period. 50 years ago I don't recall many cars getting over >100,000 miles of use before they were recycled. Today folks >pay good money for cars exceeding 100K because we're heading >for 200K life. The above is generally true for most manufactured >durable goods. > >The main problem is, of course, too many humans/consumers. That >moves the discussion into another realm. |