|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2007 : 11:45:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Perrodetokio, did man cause the Sahara desert or was that natural; keep in mind that artifacts of mans fishing equipment has been found in that desert. |
I have heard nothing of this, and I try to keep track of such finds. When and where were these found, by whom, how old were the artifacts and how was that age determined?
References please.
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2007 : 20:58:16 [Permalink]
|
http://72.32.189.109/issues/oct-06/rd/sahara-desert-savanna-climate/
Filthy heres a good start
"For five millennia, says Kröpelin, humans thrived in the Sahara, fishing, herding cattle, and making pottery and art—hallmarks of the Neolithic lifestyle that supplanted hunting and gathering"
|
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 - 06/03/2007 : 09:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://tinyurl.com/39wyun
This is an Australian documentary from 1990, in it both of the scientists I refrenced in the prevoius post say on tape what I claimed they say.
Take 50 minutes and learn how scientist openly admit that funding is the goal; therefore the science must conform to the goals of the funders. Learn how scientist which present data that counters mmgw are defunded and marginalized.
Think to yourself: One set of science conclusions must be correct. Who has the incentive to present to data in a way that funding keeps coming in? Those that are funded or those that are not? |
Ugh. I'm not going to sit through an hour of some 16 year-old news cast to find your quote. Can you tell me whereabouts the scientist in question (who seems to be, from other searches, strongly in the MMWG camp) says that he has to keep saying that there's global warming to continue to receive funding?
|
21:10: Both man made global warming scientists say the data is not relevant to the conclusions.
24:50: Cant explain the data that shows co2 following warming not causing warming.
28:20: Very proud to have spent a billion dollars on models that say the winter is cold and the summer is hot.
32:30: Climate model scientist can not say if the models are accurate to predict climate change.
41:40: Tells an outright lie about his own writings.
43:40: Funding indirectly manipulates the research; 12 of the 13 PHDs in his organization are funded by "soft money", thus needing external support.
44:44: Funding removed from scientist whose science disagrees.
46:40: Another scientist has papers not published based on "higher standards of review" because of what the papers say.
48:40: only 23 seconds to give info; implication being it needs to be scary
In their own words. |
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 10:25:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://tinyurl.com/39wyun
This is an Australian documentary from 1990, in it both of the scientists I refrenced in the prevoius post say on tape what I claimed they say.
Take 50 minutes and learn how scientist openly admit that funding is the goal; therefore the science must conform to the goals of the funders. Learn how scientist which present data that counters mmgw are defunded and marginalized.
Think to yourself: One set of science conclusions must be correct. Who has the incentive to present to data in a way that funding keeps coming in? Those that are funded or those that are not? |
Ugh. I'm not going to sit through an hour of some 16 year-old news cast to find your quote. Can you tell me whereabouts the scientist in question (who seems to be, from other searches, strongly in the MMWG camp) says that he has to keep saying that there's global warming to continue to receive funding?
|
21:10: Both man made global warming scientists say the data is not relevant to the conclusions.
24:50: Cant explain the data that shows co2 following warming not causing warming.
28:20: Very proud to have spent a billion dollars on models that say the winter is cold and the summer is hot.
32:30: Climate model scientist can not say if the models are accurate to predict climate change.
41:40: Tells an outright lie about his own writings.
43:40: Funding indirectly manipulates the research; 12 of the 13 PHDs in his organization are funded by "soft money", thus needing external support.
44:44: Funding removed from scientist whose science disagrees.
46:40: Another scientist has papers not published based on "higher standards of review" because of what the papers say.
48:40: only 23 seconds to give info; implication being it needs to be scary
In their own words.
|
Great. I'll have a look and see what I think, though if I refute these as being misleading or taken out of context, or otherwise poor representations of what they really meant (or if, perhaps, the people quoted have some agenda to distort, etc.), then what? |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 11:55:10 [Permalink]
|
I look forward to your comments based on your review.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:03:54 [Permalink]
|
You should have told me that this was nothing but dishonest smear piece. Look, it's easy to splice together quotes from a long interview in an arrangement that makes one side look foolish and the other side rational and level-headed. For instance, you wrote:| 43:40: Funding indirectly manipulates the research; 12 of the 13 PHDs in his organization are funded by "soft money", thus needing external support. |
But that's a dishonest summary of that exchange. Of course, that's the point-- to give people a dishonest impression of the scientist in question.
The interviewer asks if money "influenced" his research, and he said "indirectly." What the viewer is supposed to get out of this is that results are influenced. The effect is increased when the scientists admits that his staff is supported through grants and the like. Again, the viewer (or at least, people like you, Jerome) is given the impression that these guys are hyping global warming just to be employed.
But nothing is further from the truth. The "influence" referred to in the section was "influence in what you study" as in, climate change versus some other aspect of climatology. But this is hardly surprising or interesting. All of academia works like this-- people tend to study what's in vogue. You'll find that many more history departments have faculty that study things like the history of women, race, slavery, and so on, and not, say, military history.
Moreover, the hiring of postdocs to do research on a topic doesn't mean that they slant evidence in favor of that topic. That's because if there weren't grants funding research in global warming, there would be grants funding research in some other topic, and jobless PhDs would apply for those postdocs and hope that they get it. It's how it works. The NSF, for instance, gives a certain amount of money to researchers each year. If it's not going to fund global warming research, it's going to fund some other topic. And qualified PhDs would apply and be hired and research that topic. There's no conspiracy. It's just dishonest reporting by some guy who works for a Rupert Murdoch (think Fox News) station and was out to do a hit on the public opinion of global warming.
Seriously-- if a legitimate scientist knew that he was deliberately hyping global warming so as to get funds to hire postdocs, don't you think he'd keep it a secret? It's like the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theorists who site the owner of WTC 7 as saying that they were going to "pull it" as proof of an inside job. Like he'd admit it on camera! Sheesh.
So, no, Jerome. If you want to take this hit piece as proof of a conspiracy, fine. But it's obviously an extremely biased bit of journalism that superbly does what the producer wanted. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 15:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Cune said: " If it's not going to fund global warming research, it's going to fund some other topic."
This is where you are wrong---governments do not wily nilly fund science, they need the backing of their constituents. If the "people" do not want research there will be little research. If the "people" choose, for whatever reason, to fund research, it will be funded.
Cune, this plays into my point, there needs to be a problem to fund. Funding comes from tax.
Cune, do you honesty believe that (according to the interview in 1990) government would fund a billion dollar climate model study if the people did not think there was something "scary" to prevent?
|
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 - 06/03/2007 : 15:42:33 [Permalink]
|
Cune, any other replies?
How about: "44:44: Funding removed from scientist whose science disagrees."
Or: "24:50: Cant explain the data that shows co2 following warming not causing warming."
Cune by the way this is an Australian documentary in 1990; mmgw had not yet taken hold of the public imagination. If you watch the whole documentary from 17 years ago, you find the question of mmgw is in doubt then and those in concurrence with this theory have trouble explaing their theory with current data.
In fact two mmgw theorists states at 21:10 in the movie that the data is not relevant to the conclusions.
The data is not relevant to the conclusions. Did you hear them says this or not?
The data is not relevent to the conclusions.
Looking back 17 years puts much perspective on things.
|
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 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 16:00:54 [Permalink]
|
An interesting article, but it proves nothing beyond what we've already said about weather cycles. Here's another along the same lines. Climate history
An oasis in the Ahaggar MountainsThe climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years. During the last ice age, the Sahara was bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[4] The end of the ice age brought wetter times to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[5]
The sun shines over Saharan dunes.Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern part of the Sahara dried out. However, not long after the end of the ice sheets, the monsoon which currently brings rain to the Sahara came further north and counteracted the drying trend in the southern Sahara. The monsoon in Africa (and elsewhere) is due to heating during the summer. Air over land becomes warmer and rises, pulling in cool wet air from the ocean. This causes rain. Paradoxically, the Sahara was wetter when it received more solar insolation in the summer. In turn, changes in solar insolation are caused by changes in the Earth's orbital parameters[6].
By around 2500 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[7] leading to the desertification of the Sahara. The Sahara is currently as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago. These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara Pump Theory.
|
And thus it has been, in one form or another, all over the world for some 3+ billion years.
Y'see, Jerome, all climates change. The only difference now is that a dominant, vertibrate species is, for the first time, involved in the process.
|
"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 - 06/03/2007 : 16:42:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune said: " If it's not going to fund global warming research, it's going to fund some other topic."
This is where you are wrong---governments do not wily nilly fund science, they need the backing of their constituents. If the "people" do not want research there will be little research. If the "people" choose, for whatever reason, to fund research, it will be funded.
Cune, this plays into my point, there needs to be a problem to fund. Funding comes from tax.
Cune, do you honesty believe that (according to the interview in 1990) government would fund a billion dollar climate model study if the people did not think there was something "scary" to prevent? |
No, Jerome. In the US, it's called the NSF. If you're a scientist, you can apply for funding to pursue your research. There is even a section for funding for environmental research.
Yes, it comes from taxes. But the NSF would exist with or without global warming, and government funding for climate and the environment would continue without the global warming "scare." |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 16:49:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, any other replies?
How about: "44:44: Funding removed from scientist whose science disagrees."
Or: "24:50: Cant explain the data that shows co2 following warming not causing warming."
Cune by the way this is an Australian documentary in 1990; mmgw had not yet taken hold of the public imagination. If you watch the whole documentary from 17 years ago, you find the question of mmgw is in doubt then and those in concurrence with this theory have trouble explaing their theory with current data.
In fact two mmgw theorists states at 21:10 in the movie that the data is not relevant to the conclusions.
The data is not relevant to the conclusions. Did you hear them says this or not?
The data is not relevent to the conclusions.
Looking back 17 years puts much perspective on things. |
I saw the comment at 21:10, but I don't think that's what they said at all. I also saw the bit about CO2 and warming, but I addressed that in a previous post. If you'll recall, you couldn't understand the arguments made in the article and moved on to another argument. That this smear piece used it back in 1991 doesn't somehow make it correct.
But I have no other comments. The "documentary" is a hack job meant to make climate scientists who support global warming look foolish. The sound bites are edited and worked to fit a specific narrative can hardly be considered impartial, or even fair.
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 18:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Cune, he said the data was not relevant to his conclusions, but you did not hear him says this?
Do you think that if you say "hack job" that means the mmgw scientist did not say in his own words, out of his own mouth that the data was not relent to his conclusions?
Please be more honest with yourself.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 19:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, he said the data was not relevant to his conclusions, but you did not hear him says this?
Do you think that if you say "hack job" that means the mmgw scientist did not say in his own words, out of his own mouth that the data was not relent to his conclusions?
Please be more honest with yourself. |
I don't doubt that it came out of the mouth of the person. I doubt context of the contexts and the integrity of the person who put together the documentary.
And before I launch into a screed that is not fitting for my role as moderator of this forum, I will go ahead and lock the thread due to length, as is custom at SFN after 15 pages. If you want to continue dissembling, feel free to open a new thread on this topic.
This thread is locked due to length |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
