+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 20 of 45 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 446

Thread: The ethical question no climate denier will answer

  1. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    The climate has changed before, it will again, why does the natural world doing wild and crazy things BOTHER people so much? Just wait until Yellowstone The Volcano goes off, the true believer set are going to have a field day with that one, OMG!! Hot spots in the earth's crust! Lions and tigers and bears, people must have caused it to happen because goodness knows the world only revolves around us!
    Ironically, this skates around something I even mentioned earlier, and was totally missed.

    More then any other really measurable factor, Vulcanism has more of an impact on global weather then anything else. It is the co-reason that the dinosaurs went extinct, and is responsible for almost wiping out the human race around 77 kya. And the Yellowstone Supervolcano is due for an eruption at any time now (geologically speaking). On average, there is a major one every 600,000 years, and a minor one every 125,000 years. And the last major one was 640,000 years ago and the last minor one was 175,000 years ago.

    And the last major eruption left ash deposits from California to Alabama. There were 1 foot deep fossilized deposits left in Nebraska, over 1,000 miles away.

    We really are in a major downtime when it comes to volcanism. The last major volcanic event was 77,000 years ago, and the biggest in recorded and barely recorded history were Krakatau in 1883 and Santorini in around 1600 BCE. SO we are overdue for a major volcanic event as well, and the major weather changes that happens when one of those happens as well.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
    John Stuart Mills


  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    So you claim that there is existing data I haven't considered, yet somehow, even after repeated questioning, you cannot cite that data. Not one citation to actual, honest-to-god, peer reviewed data from you.
    How do I know what you have considered? And if you require someone to lead you around by the nose with "peer reviewed data", might I suggest thinking for yourself is a fundamental right, and you should try it sometime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debator
    An objective person would suspect that the reason you're not citing any data is because there really isn't any such data, and you're just lying through your teeth. Of course, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong and cite some data. It's now three posts from you since your cherry-picking charge, and still no citation.
    Are you saying that temperature data provided by Spencer isn't really data, or are you just blind? As far as citations, oh gee, how difficult can that be? You want one more appropriate than your confusion about data? No problem. How about one from Byrnes?

    "In multivariate phenomena many variables do not exert independent influence. Observations made of multivariate phenomena are usually correct but present information about the phenomena from different perspectives, that is, they each test different hypotheses, make different assumptions, and hold different
    variables or boundary values constant. As with the three blind men describing an elephant, each is telling the truth but each provides a completely different view. It is common to construct models that are internally consistent within the boundaries of a defined problem but which are not required to be externally consistent, where the model results may not explain but are not in conflict with observations outside the model. Fully accurate models must be able to explain, or at minimum not conflict with, ALL data or there must be a valid reason for rejecting or ignoring data that are inconsistent with the model."

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    And now the answer is clear: you don't know a damn thing about science. Somehow, you seem to believe that ice melts all by itself, just because of something vague and undefined that you call "natural variation". Never mind the citation, Peak, you've got your religious, non-evidence-based belief in the miracle of "natural variation" to magically wave away all evidence, no matter now compelling.
    Science? My published article count in Natural Resources Research stands at 5, how is yours? If I had a dime for everyone who pretended that "science" was only on their side I would be rich swimming in the coin. Please. Science as an authority figure is brought up when people are required to round up an "official" rationalization to support a point they aren't capable of fighting on their own. Try thinking for yourself already, it will hold you in better stead in the long run than taking some academics word for everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    Do you guys have to go to school to learn how to prevaricate like that with a straight face? Because according to real Siple Ice Core data, CO2 didn't reach 300 ppmv until 1915.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013
    I was trying to read the interpolation across this graphic:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/img_LG28.htm

    Your data is better. So I should amend my prior statement to say that as CO2 was increasing and temperature was falling...oops....I already did because....my point is still valid because CO2 was still trending upwards. Gee....funny how that works out even if I can't guess across the interpolation. And the graphic I used, amazingly seems to show both warming and cooling with increasing CO2. Interesting....maybe that is part of this natural variability that you don't appear to understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    And in the fifth place, CO2 has a major effect. It's not the only player, but it's the big hitter.
    Tell it to the Stiple ice core and decreasing temperatures between 1750 and 1825. Such a big hitter that as CO2 was increasing, temperature was dropping. By more than temperature has varied across the Spencer data. This isn't hard Poor.
    Last edited by PeakProphet; Jun 12 2013 at 04:14 AM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    You bet it does. That's what science is all about. The fact that you don't give a damn about causes does not imply that those of us who do are wrong about causes.
    Science is about understanding, it doesn't care about you sleeping at night any more than I do. And one of Lee Gerhard's entire points in the climate debate is that more science needs to be done, because there are pieces not enough is known about to make the projections which, as demonstrated previously, aren't doing so well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    What the natural world does to climate is fine with me. But the current climate change isn't natural.
    You don't know that. Why? Because...wait for it...you don't know what the natural variability in the system is. See how this works? You can't know one without the other, and the same people building those bad temperature predictions, are the same ones who HAVEN'T built the natural variability of the system into their thinking. How do I know this? BECAUSE THEIR MODELS CAN'T PREDICT TEMPERATURE YET.

    See how easy that was, once you learn to think for yourself? Try it, you'll like it, and you won't have to pretend that those of us who publish in peer reviewed science rags are anything special compared to a read well internet denizen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    It's us. It's accelerating. It's permanent. And it's going to be very, very expensive. And that bothers me a great deal.
    Hey, hide from any boogeyman you'd like, just don't drag me into your delusions. Particularly don't tell me that I have to reduce my CO2 emissions because boy do I like living!

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    Simple. We need to tax fossil carbon out of the marketplace.
    I have news for you, the planet knows no difference between fossil carbon and you breathing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    And that's your whole problem, right there. You refuse to see that a problem exists, because your worldview prohibits the problem from existing in the first place.
    There is no current solution to the human species suddenly deciding to collectively stop breathing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    Unless the CO2 you exhale comes from eating coal, then your exhalations are not part of the problem, nor are mine, nor are any plant or animal byproduct. It's fossil carbon, and only fossil carbon, that is the problem.
    Incorrect. You are making CO2 distinctions without a difference, the planet does not care about your semantic game, and if you are incapable of calculating the amount of CO2 pumped into the air by humans breathing, I am sure there are some around here who can. In the meantime, for a thinking man's exercise (which means you probably will ignore it completely) try on Ruddiman:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146349

    and he will explain his theory on why humans and their irrigation started changing the climate 10,000 years ago, with nary a fossil fuel carbon in sight. Of course he the appropriate kind of scientist and all, but because you already know everything you WANT to know, you will probably ignore his theories, pedigree or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater
    If you've never read anything about a carbon tax, then clearly you are a low-information voter. But we knew that already.
    So now you want to tax people for breathing, great.

  4. Default

    not to side track but there is a lot of discussion on the accuracy of ice core CO2 data. Seems it appears that the ice core data represents a long-term, low-frequency moving average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration; while leaf stomata yields a high frequency component. GEOCARB data also suggests that ice core CO2 data are too low. Whatever proxy you use it is evident that temperature has always led CO2 by anywhere from 200 to years to over a thousand depending on the location of the core samples
    "America is more than just a place...it's an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. 'Our rights come from nature and God, not government.' We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes." - Paul Ryan

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackdog View Post
    You claim that one paper is false because it goes against your beliefs then quote a paper from 2 unknowns and it is gospel because it adheres to the party line.... funny stuff there
    Guess which paper's been peer-reviewed and which wasn't?
    And I've already shown and linked to a discrepancy in your paper.
    Let me do it again:

    I'll start off my showing the discrepancy between what CCC claims IEA states and what IEA actually states:
    2010 CCC IEA 2020 IEA
    Biomass 9.9% 1.5% 2.7%
    Wind 0.7% 1.6% 2.8%
    Solar PV 0.1% 0.15% 1.3%
    Hydro 2.3% 16% 16%
    Geothermal 0.1% 0.32% 0.56%
    Concentrat SP 0.0% 0.0% 0.37%
    13.1% 19.57% 26.73%
    IEA data from Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013

    (*)Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013 examines progress in the development and deployment of key clean energy technologies. Each technology and sector is tracked against interim 2020 targets in the IEA 2012 Energy Technology Perspectives 2C scenario, which lays out pathways to a sustainable energy system in 2050.
    Second and third columns compare what CCC alleges IEA states and what IEA actually states. So you can toss out the credibilty of Lonborg's testimony.
    Last column is Alternative energies necessary to meet the goal of limiting atmospheric temperature increase to 2C
    So how realistic are these 2C goals? Because the 2 primary energies are wind and solar and because that's what you're fixated on, I'll only address the feasibility of meeting these 2 goals.

    Care to point out any discrepancies in the paper I linked to or are you sticking with the ridicule comment?
    1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    How do I know what you have considered?
    You could start by reading my posts. Let's begin with sea ice, Kinnard et. al. 2011 (which was cited both in the posted graph itself, and explicitly in this post). What have I missed? Where's that allegedly high-variability data that I allegedly ignored in my alleged cherry-pick? Post #4 from you, and still no citation. And you wonder why I think you're just making stuff up.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    And if you require someone to lead you around by the nose with "peer reviewed data", might I suggest thinking for yourself is a fundamental right, and you should try it sometime?
    So you have no data. Therefore your charge of cherry picking was false. Please have the decency to admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Are you saying that temperature data provided by Spencer isn't really data, or are you just blind?
    It's data, but it doesn't support your position that the current warming is nothing more than natural variability. So apparently the blind one is you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    As far as citations, oh gee, how difficult can that be? You want one more appropriate than your confusion about data? No problem. How about one from Byrnes?

    "In multivariate phenomena many variables do not exert independent influence. Observations made of multivariate phenomena are usually correct but present information about the phenomena from different perspectives, that is, they each test different hypotheses, make different assumptions, and hold different variables or boundary values constant. As with the three blind men describing an elephant, each is telling the truth but each provides a completely different view. It is common to construct models that are internally consistent within the boundaries of a defined problem but which are not required to be externally consistent, where the model results may not explain but are not in conflict with observations outside the model. Fully accurate models must be able to explain, or at minimum not conflict with, ALL data or there must be a valid reason for rejecting or ignoring data that are inconsistent with the model."
    Nice quote. It comes from a personal letter and has never been peer reviewed, which means that nobody (except the single addressee) is able to check the context.

    I suspect that if you live long enough, Peak, you might run into an actual climatological journal someday. But I doubt that you'll actually read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Science? My published article count in Natural Resources Research stands at 5, how is yours?
    In all scholarly pulbications, seventeen, including a letter in Nature. I've never published in Natural Resources Research, but then I'm not a petroleum geologist, so my income doesn't depend on AGW being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    If I had a dime for everyone who pretended that "science" was only on their side I would be rich swimming in the coin. Please. Science as an authority figure is brought up when people are required to round up an "official" rationalization to support a point they aren't capable of fighting on their own. Try thinking for yourself already, it will hold you in better stead in the long run than taking some academics word for everything.
    I take it from this effort at distraction that you have decided that eliminating the science of radiative transfer from your brain is a good example of "thinking for yourself". Personally I consider it a good example of self-delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    I was trying to read the interpolation across this graphic:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/img_LG28.htm

    Your data is better. So I should amend my prior statement to say that as CO2 was increasing and temperature was falling...oops....I already did because....my point is still valid because CO2 was still trending upwards.
    No, your point is still invalid, because temperature was still trending upwards too. I've cited Andersen et. al. 2012 before (and may have gotten the year wrong: if so, mea culpa), but you have an amazing way of ignoring any data you don't like. Please let me know if there is anything in this graph that the editors of Natural Resources Research would find perplexing:



    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Gee....funny how that works out even if I can't guess across the interpolation. And the graphic I used, amazingly seems to show both warming and cooling with increasing CO2. Interesting....maybe that is part of this natural variability that you don't appear to understand?
    Gee, funny how you're missing the key point that every single graphic I've posted so far shows the very same natural variation you're so obsessed with ... and every single graphic also shows, very clearly, that natural variation does not, and cannot, explain the current warming trend. CO2 can and does.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Tell it to the Stiple ice core and decreasing temperatures between 1750 and 1825.
    Another false statement supported by zero evidence. You should be in the prevaricator's Hall of Shame.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Such a big hitter that as CO2 was increasing, temperature was dropping.
    And yet another false statement supported by zero evidence. I certainly hope you don't try to get away with this kind of crap in your peer-reviewed work. Because if you do, it speaks very poorly for the editors of Natural Resources Research.
    Last edited by Poor Debater; Jun 12 2013 at 08:16 AM.

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Science is about understanding, it doesn't care about you sleeping at night any more than I do. And one of Lee Gerhard's entire points in the climate debate is that more science needs to be done, because there are pieces not enough is known about to make the projections which, as demonstrated previously, aren't doing so well.
    Sure more science needs to be done. But that in no way implies that the science which has already been done (and which you are mostly ignorant of) is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    But the current climate change isn't natural.
    You don't know that. Why? Because...wait for it...you don't know what the natural variability in the system is.
    Wow! This is truly amazing! You can tell me, without even looking, what I don't know. Meanwhile, I can tell, without even looking, what you haven't read. Because in fact, we do know, quite well, what the natural variability of the system is. If you do a Google Scholar search of "climate variability" you'll only get 23,000 hits, and that's just in the last four years. But hey, you're a denier, so go ahead and keep on pretending that climate scientists have never heard of variability and have never addressed it; I'm sure you'll sleep better with your comforting self-delusions safely in place. That doesn't make them true, however.

    In fact, we can explain nearly all of that natural variability already, and this has already been done numerous times in the literature. Of course, you're a denier so you don't read the literature, and you certainly won't read any scientific literature that upsets your comforting self-delusions. But just for the sake of completeness, you might try looking at Lean & Rind 2008, or Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    See how this works? You can't know one without the other,
    Actually, you can. Of course that takes math, so deniers are immediately lost in the weeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    and the same people building those bad temperature predictions, are the same ones who HAVEN'T built the natural variability of the system into their thinking.
    How odd that anyone could look at this graph and NOT see natural variability built into climate models:


    But then you're a denier, so self-delusion is your stock in trade. Ignore, ignore, ignore all those wiggly gray lines! I say there's no natural variability in the models, so there just can't be any! So there! And if that's not enough, just IGNORE some more! We deniers just luuuuuvs our ignorance!

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    How do I know this? BECAUSE THEIR MODELS CAN'T PREDICT TEMPERATURE YET.
    Then how do you explain the graph above? (Predicted answer: you're going to ignore it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    See how easy that was, once you learn to think for yourself? Try it, you'll like it, and you won't have to pretend that those of us who publish in peer reviewed science rags are anything special compared to a read well internet denizen.
    An allegedly well-read internet denizen who actually hasn't read even the basics of climate science. Sorry, Peak, but reading WUWT doesn't even come close to making you well read.

    By the way, this is post #5 with no citation of any data showing that I've cherry picked. And still no acknowledgement or apology from you, for making that false charge. Shame on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    I have news for you, the planet knows no difference between fossil carbon and you breathing.
    And I have news for you: you're 100% wrong. The carbon you emit when you exhale came from the air in the first place, via the plants you eat. That means your exhalations are carbon-neutral: the only carbon going into the air is carbon that came out of the air. Net zero.

    The carbon your SUV emits hasn't been in the air for millions of years: net positive for the air. And that's the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    he will explain his theory on why humans and their irrigation started changing the climate 10,000 years ago, with nary a fossil fuel carbon in sight. Of course he the appropriate kind of scientist and all, but because you already know everything you WANT to know, you will probably ignore his theories, pedigree or not.
    On the contrary, I agree with that entirely. But when you actually get around to quantifying stuff (which is what scientists do, but deniers avoid) you will find that the pre-industrial changes humans made to the climate are teeny tiny compared to what we're doing now via CO2.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    So now you want to tax people for breathing, great.
    Say, here's an idea: if you can't refute the position I actually hold, you might try lying about the position I actually hold and refute that instead. Of course, such despicable tactics would make you a liar.

    The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
    1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
    Diethelm & Mckee 2009

    Honesty is not on the list.



  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    You could start by reading my posts.
    Why? It is obvious that to you there is a difference between CO2 and...CO2, that ridicule is the first line of defense immediately followed by a math error, a logic fault, or a typo because you are trying to quote others rather than THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

    I don't need a parrot to do my internet searches for me, I am quite capable of finding properly footnoted articles and going through them myself.

    So, when you decide to put your thinking cap on, fine, maybe we can have a more whimsical conversation on the topic, but in the meantime, calm down already. You don't have a solution, you don't even understand the concept of uncertainty inside of complex systems, which means you certainly can't even talk about the resolution of the "data" you keep trumpeting about as though the same sample analyzed in two different labs will deliver the same answer (it often doesn't), you can't even be distracted from your parroting long enough to THINK about the topic, of what value is it to talk to you?

    Stay comfortable in your belief system cuddled up with the "science" you like the most if that makes you happy. Some people cannot be happy until they convince themselves they have it all figured out and live in a world of only certainty, far be it for me to try and demonstrate otherwise, and there is no law requiring those types of people to face reality, and I am certainly not paid to be a missionary to do it in my whimsical spare time.
    Last edited by PeakProphet; Jun 12 2013 at 11:04 AM.

  9. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Debater View Post
    So you're saying that this is just "noise within a system"?

    Kinnard et. al. is just another tree ring study. That is your problem with peer review. You think that just because it made it into a journal it has to be true. News flash most published studies are false. Kinnard, lol at the name, is a very good example. They study started with a correct premiss, to use seatmate isotope ratios in the arctic ocean to model ice melt. When they couldn't get the result they wanted from the correct isotope proxy they for some unknown reason decided to add some tree rings and walla hockey stick.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/k...-chronologies/
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/05/k...ic-o18-series/

    Kinnard would have been a good study if they had stuck to solid arctic sediment proxies and not tried to stretch imagination by including tree rings and contaminated proxies. Arctic sediment in theory is actually a good proxy for ice melt but when they started to stretch imagination and included tree rings that ended up dominating the reconstruction it became a canard.
    Last edited by Windigo; Jun 12 2013 at 12:03 PM.
    Mens Sana in Corpore Sano

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MannieD View Post
    Guess which paper's been peer-reviewed and which wasn't?
    And I've already shown and linked to a discrepancy in your paper.
    and I have pointed out that the paper I quoted http://science.house.gov/sites/repub...g-20130425.pdf page 14 ref 4uses IEA's World Energy Outlook and what you are quoting is Tracking Clean Energy which tracks past achievements and what they want to see in the future. World Energy Outlook 2013 does not come out to November and lists projections not wish lists. Is that too complicated for you to grasp ?

    oh for everyone I use a 1920 x 1080 monitor and if your post can't fit on a single page it belongs in a blog , not a forum so I ignore it
    Last edited by jackdog; Jun 12 2013 at 12:07 PM.
    "America is more than just a place...it's an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. 'Our rights come from nature and God, not government.' We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes." - Paul Ryan

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 20 of 45 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The big question that needs to be answered
    By logical1 in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 12 2013, 09:37 PM
  2. The big question that needs to be answered
    By logical1 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 12 2013, 05:16 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jun 20 2012, 07:37 AM
  4. The Eliminator. (Ethical Question)
    By Jack Napier in forum Other Off-Topic Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jan 07 2012, 11:27 AM
  5. The BEST Question Ever:Who can answer it?
    By SiliconMagician in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: Oct 26 2011, 10:56 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks