[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

What Makes You Sad? - oldviolin - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:20pm
 
Things You Thought Today - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:40pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - katzendogs - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:36pm
 
Impeachment Time: - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:33pm
 
Puzzle it - Manbird - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:54pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - Manbird - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:51pm
 
RP starts randomly in Android - jarro - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:38pm
 
Bolivia - westslope - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:19pm
 
Breaking News - kcar - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:08pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - rhahl - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:42am
 
Books read recently - maryte - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:39am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:15am
 
Trump - westslope - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:51am
 
How's the weather? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:45am
 
News of the Weird - Red_Dragon - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:43am
 
Mystery Topic #21668 - jjtwister - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:35am
 
Party planning advice - Proclivities - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:02am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Nov 13, 2019 - 7:06am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 5:50am
 
Fires - haresfur - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:49am
 
MacOS app - gtufano - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:38pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:15pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:28pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:24pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:22pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:49pm
 
The Black Crowes - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:53am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:59am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:18am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - cc_rider - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Immigration - Isabeau - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Nov 12, 2019 - 6:33am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Browser history - lyteroptes - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:55am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - sirdroseph - Nov 12, 2019 - 1:33am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 9:29pm
 
Neil Young - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Talking Heads - R_P - Nov 11, 2019 - 4:50pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - cc_rider - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:16pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:12pm
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
Republican Party - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
TWO WORDS - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 10:37am
 
Song, artist & album cover on apple TV app - gtufano - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:16am
 
Economix - westslope - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Stuff you didn't know - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:37pm
 
Today in History - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 9:09am
 
Jriver album covers not displayed - olivierbo73 - Nov 10, 2019 - 3:46am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - bgbgbg - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:35am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 12:34am
 
RIP R.E.M. - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 10:25pm
 
New Music - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 8:10pm
 
Neoliberalism: what exactly is it? - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:24pm
 
Military Matters - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:20pm
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Nov 9, 2019 - 7:08am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:18am
 
Music Videos - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:15am
 
What Did You See Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:46am
 
Out the window - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:43am
 
What can you hear right now? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 7:58pm
 
Alternative URL for .ogg stream ? - sbarnum - Nov 8, 2019 - 6:03pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:36pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:32pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:06pm
 
Things I wish for ..... - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:57pm
 
Great guitar faces - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:23pm
 
Movie Quote - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 12:04pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 92, 93, 94  Next
Post to this Topic
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:38am

My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:34am

 oldviolin wrote:

Pretty cut and dried. I honor your opinion. You must be emersed in the know...


 

I honor the opinions of the scientists who make their lives' work the study of climate. The overwhelming majority of them agree on anthropogenic climate change. If you're going to disagree with this majority, you had better bring better arguments than those dealt with in the Scientific American article. Read the article!
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:29am

 dionysius wrote:


There is no lack of consensus, really, The denial game is to manufacture one. There is no equivalence between the two "sides" in this matter—one is right and the other simply wrong.

 
Pretty cut and dried. I honor your opinion. You must be emersed in the know...



dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:28am

 oldviolin wrote:

The extreme politics played with lack of consensus among dissenting opinions.

 

There is no lack of consensus, really, The denial game is to manufacture a seeming lack of consensus. There is no equivalence between the two "sides" in this matter—one is right and the other simply wrong.


oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:26am

 dionysius wrote:


What do you base your opinion on?

 
The extreme politics played with lack of consensus among dissenting opinions.


dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:22am

 oldviolin wrote:
Bogus
Pollution however- very much human and serious

IMO of course...

 

What do you base your opinion on?
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:21am

Bogus
Pollution however- very much human and serious

IMO of course...
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:20am

From Scientific American, November 30th, 2009

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense

Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate


musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 1:18pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

Flying post as I get through some domesic stuff.  Here are some reports from a couple of highly respected British newspapers at either end of the political spectrum.

From our newspaper or choice- The Guardian, which is left leaning, sandal wearing etc.

From the right wing Daily Telegraph (known as the "Torygraph" in our household).
 

MrsHobie,
Thanks for the links. The Guardian one was instructive: on the one hand, the emails were obtained illegally. Fair. But not a reasonable defense if the emails show a pattern of deception in order to massage data agreeable to preferred outcomes. Again, no defense in the scientific community can be offered if data is fudged or manipulated. On the other hand, The Guardian, or I should say the author of the article, points to the 3, perhaps 4, scientists caught up in a potentially explosive scam and ponders if that is the extent of this charade within the community that declares global warming an absolute. What is bothersome is that the lab where the deceit may have taken hold is one of the labs The UN leans on for guidance on the matter. From that guidance, come announcements of dread and doom: you have less than two hours before your skin's sloughing accelerates to an uncontrollable pace *I always snickered at the drop dead certainty of such tight time limits...40 days or 6 months or whatever time was set with such specificity* And then, no matter how or why the emails were obtained, we have a serious question on the 'hockey stick curve' the 'curve' Al Gore trumpets in his 'An Inconvenient Truth' as the last-brick-in-place that solidifies the certainty of global warming and by his endless and monotonous droning, ends the discussion and shoos away all skeptics or naysayers. Seems to me the emails now present an inconvenient moment.
mk


dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 1:15pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

Flying post as I get through some domesic stuff.  Here are some reports from a couple of highly respected British newspapers at either end of the political spectrum.

From our newspaper of choice- The Guardian, which is left leaning, sandal wearing etc. We actually pay for it unlike some RP posters!!

From the right wing Daily Telegraph (known as the "Torygraph" in our household).
 

From this here Torygraph: "The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the global warming is real and the result of human activity, but a vocal majority maintains that the science is not proven."

Two majorities? This...mistake...is FOXNoose-worthy. Almost missed it, because the brain reads the correct "minority" in passing. And, as we know, only minorities are vocal.

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 1:07pm

 musik_knut wrote:


This can only be seen as extremely damaging. It is from two British Labs that much of the certainty, a word used advisedly, on global warming, is drawn. Those two labs, as I understand it, are 2 of the 4 labs from which The UN makes an endless series of the  sky-is-falling declarations on the matter.

 
Flying post as I get through some domesic stuff.  Here are some reports from a couple of highly respected British newspapers at either end of the political spectrum.

From our newspaper of choice- The Guardian, which is left leaning, sandal wearing etc. We actually pay for it unlike some RP posters!!

From the right wing Daily Telegraph (known as the "Torygraph" in our household).

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:46pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:


I did read some of the info this morning.  I said one email EXPOSE (ie the University of East Anglia expose).  I know you are a scientist.  I studied some of the scientific papers on climate change 20 years ago (only it was identified solely as rising sea level at that point) when I was taking my degree in Geography.  There is some discussion of events over the last few days in one of the global warming threads.  I agree that the information is damaging and very poor behaviour on the part of the scientists involved and some information has been discredited but you can't just take out the whole shooting match on that basis.

In fairness HJ will be better placed to discuss this later when he is around as I don't keep as up to date as he does and I don't get time to read as much information as him these days so I haven't followed every blow in the saga.

 

This can only be seen as extremely damaging. It is from two British Labs that much of the certainty, a word used advisedly, on global warming, is drawn. Those two labs, as I understand it, are 2 of the 4 labs from which The UN makes an endless series of the  sky-is-falling declarations on the matter.
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:43pm

Manipulation of evidence:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

 ~~~~~~~~~~~
Two that really caught my attention: the attempt to disguise the MWP, a period of considerably greater global temperatures than exist today. Since that period was well before the Industrial Revolution and with considerably fewer humans inhabiting Earth, we can't have that getting in the way. No, that would raise too many questions, which of course, it does. And then, to discuss how to circumvent peer review. An absolute NO NO in the science community. That is a real NO NO, not ever, ever, ever.


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:39pm

 musik_knut wrote:


One email? Scores upon scores of emails. Some of them show concern that the climate is not acting as their fraudulent models and software predict. One email? Scores...
But don't take my word on this. I'm just making it up as I go along...not. That's not my way of reporting anything in the sciences...
If you read the emails (EMAILS as in scores), you find that the fraudulent attempts to phony up the data were well coordinated with political measures in mind.
As a scientist, I understand the severity of fudged data, or the manipulation of data to coax a predetermined outcome. Such activities are damned in the science community. As well they must be.

 

I did read some of the info this morning.  I said one email EXPOSE (ie the University of East Anglia expose).  I know you are a scientist.  I studied some of the scientific papers on climate change 20 years ago (only it was identified solely as rising sea level at that point) when I was taking my degree in Geography.  There is some discussion of events over the last few days in one of the global warming threads.  I agree that the information is damaging and very poor behaviour on the part of the scientists involved and some information has been discredited but you can't just take out the whole shooting match on that basis.

In fairness HJ will be better placed to discuss this later when he is around as I don't keep as up to date as he does and I don't get time to read as much information as him these days so I haven't followed every blow in the saga.


musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:33pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

Oh FFS.  One email expose does not "bust" over twenty years of scientific research.  You really need to see the politics and the science separately.
 

One email? Scores upon scores of emails. Some of them show concern that the climate is not acting as their fraudulent models and software predict. One email? Scores...
But don't take my word on this. I'm just making it up as I go along...not. That's not my way of reporting anything in the sciences...
If you read the emails (EMAILS as in scores), you find that the fraudulent attempts to phony up the data were well coordinated with political measures in mind.
As a scientist, I understand the severity of fudged data, or the manipulation of data to coax a predetermined outcome. Such activities are damned in the science community. As well they must be.
HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:29pm

Following Bills advice I will just,,,  {#Smile}climate change image
Growing populations and rising living standards helped drive emissions ever upwards during the second half of the 20th century. In the first years of the new century, China's emissions overtook those of the US.


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:27pm

 musik_knut wrote:
Busted! If you have not read the emails from one to another on climate change, where in many of the emails, there is a conspiracy to doctor the data, then you should. The whole climate change data base being used by, notably, The UN, in the various declarations of woe and doom, as from the ever babbling Al Gore, is a fraud of science. For Mr. Gore, user of the now infamous 'hockey stick curve' to demonstrate rapid warming, an independent researcher found that no matter what data was entered into the program that gave rise to the 'hockey stick curve' , the 'stick' acted the same. The program itself is a piece of fraudulent science. This scientific voodoo with plans to dump emails in order to avoid a paper trail in the conspiracy, with doctored data and programs designed to yield desired results/data, is being hailed as one of the greatest acts of science fraud in history.
Busted!

 
Oh FFS.  One email expose does not "bust" over twenty years of scientific research.  You really need to see the politics and the science separately.

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:23pm

Busted! If you have not read the emails from one to another on climate change, where in many of the emails, there is a conspiracy to doctor the data, then you should. The whole climate change data base being used by, notably, The UN, in the various declarations of woe and doom, as from the ever babbling Al Gore, is a fraud of science. For Mr. Gore, user of the now infamous 'hockey stick curve' to demonstrate rapid warming, an independent researcher found that no matter what data was entered into the program that gave rise to the 'hockey stick curve' , the 'stick' acted the same. The program itself is a piece of fraudulent science. This scientific voodoo with plans to dump emails in order to avoid a paper trail in the conspiracy, with doctored data and programs designed to yield desired results/data, is being hailed as one of the greatest acts of science fraud in history.
Busted!
HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 11:26am

Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion

CNN

Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 3:58pm

 Rod wrote:
Do you know anything about this one? It sounds very promising. Not temperature driven, but it uses slow water currents to create energy. I originally posetd this in the Solar/WindGeothermal...thread.
 
Vivace Energy Technology Harnesses Vortex Hydro-Energy
 
A lot of work is being done on currents, but there are significant technological hurdles to overcome.  The most significant is getting the energy back along the grid to land.  These sites typically need to be in deep water in order to avail themselves of a good current flow, and that gets farther away from shore. Still, it's very cool. 
 
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 92, 93, 94  Next