|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2007 : 13:00:21 [Permalink]
|
I've lost patience with this crap. These people come in having done no research beyond cherry-picking, and expect to argue with those who actually read the literature and the updates.
Hand waving and red herrings ain't hittin' on shit. The Loose Change outfit found that out in a hurry.
They never study the history of any topic. They think that Gore is someone who just jumped on the bandwagon, not knowing that he has been involved for decades. They never knew that a certain senile, old laundry bag of a president killed some initiatives put in place by a previous administration, thereby exacerbating today's problem.
Ok, here's some history. Government: The View from Washington, DC
The money that paid for research on climate change came mostly from governments. Governments were also central to any practical actions that might address global warming. Following the Second World War, the United States Federal government funded many kinds of research, much of it connected to Cold War concerns, and some of this happened to relate to climate change. During the 1960s, the government created major agencies for space, atmospheric, and ocean science, and in the 1970s, as public concern for the environment mounted, the agencies increasingly supported research targeted directly at climate change. But climate scientists were too few and disorganized to push through a unified national research program. Their budgets, divided among different agencies, would rise for a few years and then stagnate. During the 1980s, the funding and the science itself came under attack. The technical question of whether climate change might be a threat got caught up in political battles between pro-regulation environmentalists and anti-government conservatives. Demands for policies to mitigate global warming found little support among American politicians, who thought the ideas were politically unfeasible if not downright pernicious. (This essay covers only the United States government — the most important by far, in terms of influence and domestic greenhouse gas production. The views from London, Tokyo, Moscow, etc. taken together were equally important, and I apologize that I haven't written an essay on this. For international developments, see the essay on International Cooperation ).
|
Now, open the link and read the rest of it (yeah, like that's gonna happen  ).
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2007 : 13:27:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hondo
Speaking for myself, I don't think there's any need for a "conspiracy" regarding this subject, nor is there necessarily a black-and-white "either/or" option. I have no doubt CO2 (and other) emissions have a negative impact on our environment but I don't buy into the Al Gore fear-mongering spiel as the sole reason for climate change ... what "cured" the Ice Age? Republicans, Democrats ... Sheryl Crowe?
CO2 emissions aren't doing us any favors but I don't think we should start rationing toilet-paper just yet. |
Hi, Hondo. I was actually trying to get to the bottom of the initial suggestions made by JdG. The central thesis as I understand it was that global warming (or at least the human contribution aspect of it) is a hoax put forward by a government or governments in order to raise taxes or otherwise reap some financial benefit (cf. his first post).
There are, of course, two claims being made here. The first is that the science behind the arguments for man-made global warming are incorrect. The second is that a government (or governments) is to some degree behind the whole thing. And while most of the ten (so far!) pages of subsequent discussion/yelling has been focused on the former, I'm more interested in the latter. (This is the "Conspiracy Theory" folder, after all!) After all, it's one thing to suggest that most of the world's climate scientists are wrong. It's quite another, however, to argue that they're all somehow in league with government sources all in a giant plan to dupe the rest of us into paying needless new taxes.
Thus far, JdG has offered little in defense of this idea and, unless I missed it, he hasn't even replied to my argument. He seems to have disappeared on us, but perhaps he'll return with more evidence for a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 15:29:42 [Permalink]
|
It only took nine pages to realize that gnome = troll? 
 |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:03:45 [Permalink]
|
Anyone who's played D&D or even just read some Tolkien knows that gnomes
are very different from trolls
That's why I was surprised that dictionary.com would equate the two. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Kil---Thanks for the reasoned response.
The problem is that they are making comparisons from two vastly diffrent data sets.
1961-1993 avg rate of increase 1.3 to 2.3 (42 year data set)
1993-2003 avg rate of increase 2.4 to 3.8 (10 year data set)
Surley you understand why it is mathmaticly invaild to compare two data sets which are diffrent in sample by a factor of 420%.
Example:
A base ball player has 400 at bats in the first four weeks of the season with 100 hits giving us a batting avg of .250.
Week number 5 the same player has 100 at bats with 30 hits for an avg of .300.
Week 1-4 400/ab 100 hits avg .250
Week 5 100/ab 30 hits avg .300
We see a dramatic diffrence : .250 and .300
When we look at the data as a whole 500 ab 130 hits the total avg is .260(not as dramatic).
It is not mathmaticly sound to compare data set that are 420% diffrent.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:37:03 [Permalink]
|
Filthy---Thanks for the infromation and links you posted.
I took copious notes.
Much of the infromation helps me support my claims.
Your first link; as an example, provides scientific data that co2 concentrations were at on point in earths history 3,000 ppm.
This proves the claim false that has been made many times on the forum that co2 levels are the highest they have ever been.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:48:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil---Thanks for the reasoned response.
The problem is that they are making comparisons from two vastly diffrent data sets.
1961-1993 avg rate of increase 1.3 to 2.3 (42 year data set)
1993-2003 avg rate of increase 2.4 to 3.8 (10 year data set)
Surley you understand why it is mathmaticly invaild to compare two data sets which are diffrent in sample by a factor of 420%.
Example:
A base ball player has 400 at bats in the first four weeks of the season with 100 hits giving us a batting avg of .250.
Week number 5 the same player has 100 at bats with 30 hits for an avg of .300.
Week 1-4 400/ab 100 hits avg .250
Week 5 100/ab 30 hits avg .300
We see a dramatic diffrence : .250 and .300
When we look at the data as a whole 500 ab 130 hits the total avg is .260(not as dramatic).
It is not mathmaticly sound to compare data set that are 420% diffrent. |
But it's not "invalid." "Sound" is different from "valid," in any logical setting (like math). As far as predictions of future trends go, like we're talking about, your example shows that while the scale of the prediction may be wrong, the direction is correct.
Of course, you're just making up numbers, while the IPCC relied on actual data. Did they take into account the concerns you have brought up?
Of course, you still refuse to show us the IPCC's explanation for what they're doing. I don't think you've even offered us a page number. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:51:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This proves the claim false that has been made many times on the forum that co2 levels are the highest they have ever been. |
Can you quote anyone saying that CO2 levels are as high as they've ever been? I can't remember anyone making such an unqualified statement.
Do you agree that CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now during all of human history?
Do you know why CO2 levels were much, much higher 400-600 million years ago? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 19:06:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave---1. You impied co2 levels where as high as they have ever been with this question:"Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?"
2.I agree that co2 levels are currently the highest they have been in recorded human history.
3.Yes, but that is not relevent to your implied question "Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?"
To answer your question Dave, co2 levels have been much higher than they are today.
Dave you have yet to say you are soory for accusing me of name calling.
I have reread all of my posts and could not find a single incedent.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 19:08:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave---"the direction is correct"
Thats not the point.
The point is that the data is presented in a manner to be more dramatic.
The data is not incorrect.
The presentation is decieving.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 19:18:16 [Permalink]
|
Kil already pointed out to you why the data in question is presented in the way it is. Perhaps you just missed it....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 19:21:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---1. You impied co2 levels where as high as they have ever been with this question:"Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?" |
I implied no such thing. Your ability to read whatever it is you wish to read is impressive. You could have just answered the question and we could have discussed what the answer means, but instead you've chosen to find implications that weren't there.| 2.I agree that co2 levels are currently the highest they have been in recorded human history. |
Great. What's that mean?| 3.Yes, but that is not relevent to your implied question "Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?" |
This point is itself irrelevant.| To answer your question Dave, co2 levels have been much higher than they are today. |
Wow. How many pages did it take for you to answer that question?Dave you have yet to say you are soory for accusing me of name calling.
I have reread all of my posts and could not find a single incedent. |
I presented some evidence (there is more), you have yet to challenge it. An apology will be forthcoming as soon as you've apologized to all the climate scientists whose reputations you've smeared. Smeared without evidence, that is.
You also wrote:Dave---"the direction is correct"
Thats not the point.
The point is that the data is presented in a manner to be more dramatic.
The data is not incorrect.
The presentation is decieving. |
Then why did you say that the method is "invalid?" The data aren't incorrect and the direction of the trend is correct. Whether it's been done that way to make it more "dramatic" or whether it's been done that way invalidly are two drastically different questions.
Your first question, regarding the method's validity, implies that the scientists are outright frauds.
Your new concern implies nothing at all until we know why the scientists decided to present it that way. Your assumption is that they did it so that the results look more dramatic, but you have yet to present the scientists' own explanation, or even a page number. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:03:22 [Permalink]
|
Dave-----I assurted "The long term data(which i pointed to) shows much change in co2 and temp over a 420,000 period of time."
Your response:"Have the CO2 levels ever been as high as they are today?"
Dave, lets not assume any longer.
Whats the point of your question?
My answer is yes.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:08:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude ---The fact that the data was collected in diffrent manners has no bering on how the data is presented.
(There are other minor problems with this but not important to the point)
The data is still comparing two data sets with a 420% diffrence in the sample size.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:30:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil---Thanks for the reasoned response.
The problem is that they are making comparisons from two vastly diffrent data sets.
1961-1993 avg rate of increase 1.3 to 2.3 (42 year data set)
1993-2003 avg rate of increase 2.4 to 3.8 (10 year data set)
|
Please re-examine your sources. You can't even get your math right.
"1961-1993 avg rate of increase 1.3 to 2.3 (42 year data set)"
1993-1961=32 not =42.
Wasn't it supposed to be -2003 and not -1993?
You were given an explanation why there are two different datasets for the time period 1993-2003. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
