Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drunkle
Participant
Submitted by pmretep on February 28, 2007 – 3:11pm.
I hope everyone has seen his move, “Inconvenient Truth.”
that was my reaction too. as much as there is good information in the movie, the side trip along al gore lane was distracting and even self aggrandizing.
however, another way to look at it is that it covers his personal reasons for promoting the information, that questions of his personal interests would invariably come up. either way, it wasn’t necessary for me as i’ve long been educated on the matters at hand.
anyway, this “debate” is pointless. al gore is simply a messenger, a politician who believes in what he preaches. nitpicking the guy on his personal behaviour is stupid, particularly when there’s little to no actual information available. even if there was full disclosure and it turned out that he burns a mountain of coal just to make his coffee, it wouldn’t change the fact that it is wrong.
consider duke cunningham. busted for corruption and yet all you hear is how the democrats can’t pass strong anti corruption and lobbying legistlation. and yet, in the 10 years of republican control of congress, they didn’t do squat, didn’t raise a peep and in fact promoted wanton corruption. and now that the dems are “in power”, they simply whine and weep about how dems are hypocrits. yeah, that’s honesty for you, isn’t it.
back to al gore; what is the apples to apples comparison? how much energy he uses vs the energy use of an average rich politician? and the carbon credits he purchases vs the credits purchased by the average rich guy?
Participant$400/year in property tax? the owner can afford to sit on it. return to rental use. use it as a dog house, whatever.
modification to prop 13: only applies to primary residence. would that shake things up…
Participantthings are different now… the internet has become more than just porn and music. if anything, i would have expected a faster rate of cycling due to the much increased access to and availability of solid information.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 21, 2007 – 5:03pm.it’s not whether or not you use junkscience as your sole source, it’s the fact that you use it at all. it’s creator is politically funded. it’s not scientific. it’s garbage.
Unsupported statement. I can use it because it draws upon earlier work. You can’t condemn a publication because you don’t like the publisher. You have to condemn it because it is incorrect.. and have to prove it in the process.
the support was provided in context, specifically, my comments on his conclusions and the link to the wiki describing his political connections.
i can condemn the blog on the basis of its partiality *and* its accuracy. i again gave an example of his false logic:
see the problem? similarly, junkscience refers to the swed’s study on sun spot activities and then jumps to the conclusion that sun spots are responsible for all the recent warming. there’s no reason to believe that, there’s no evidence provided in the reference to support that claim
This is a better technique to invalidating a statement. Show that the derivation is not supported by the underlying research.. only one problem. He makes no such claim. He just states that it is significant and point that in 5 years the cloud effect was responsible for a 2% decrease….
are you suggesting that argument structure should be of the form of a single paragraph run on sentence?
regardless, he makes this claim:
“The one thing we are reasonably sure of is that twiddling about with emissions of carbon dioxide will have no discernable effect on global mean temperature. ”
based on his prior incorrect assumptions about solar forcing and water vapor.
ParticipantThe IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Contributors
are you trying to suggest that being funded by governments is the same as being funded by oil companies?
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 21, 2007 – 11:16am.
@drunkle
In addition, any scientist would know that doing all your references from one site, a blog no less (realclimate.org) would get you laughed out of the scientific community.and yet you point to junkscience? huh?
I don’t use him as sole source, and if you had paid attention I pointed out that he refers to other sources in support of his contention, while realclimate.org doesn’t!.
it’s not whether or not you use junkscience as your sole source, it’s the fact that you use it at all. it’s creator is politically funded. it’s not scientific. it’s garbage.
In fact, using your reference (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html), within the first paragraph, junkscience.com/Milloy has referenced at least 6 background articles (both pro and con to his position). This is how real science articles are written. Personally, I do not support all that Milloy states, but the method he uses is actually scientifically sound, while the method that realclimate.org uses is not scientifically sound.
if a = b and b = c, what does that tell you about d? absolutely nothing, the fact that he uses references is meaningless when he makes assertions and claims that are not founded by the references he makes. ie:
stephen hawking theorized about black holes (brief history of time, 1988), that they exist. the hubble telescope has taken pictures of anomolies that support the existence of black holes (http://www.spaceimages.com/blackhole.html). therefore, black holes must be doors to other dimensions.
see the problem? similarly, junkscience refers to the swed’s study on sun spot activities and then jumps to the conclusion that sun spots are responsible for all the recent warming. there’s no reason to believe that, there’s no evidence provided in the reference to support that claim.
Participant
Submitted by ucodegen on February 20, 2007 – 6:54pm.
Wow.. a lot of ‘stuff’ posted since I checked..Ok, real quickly. I have noticed how realclimate.org has been put up as an example of truth while junkscience.com has been put up as a site that misrepresents the truth. Big problem though. realclimate.org does not footnote or show references for the underpinnings of its statements. On the other hand, junkscience.com has a considerable number of references as its underlying work. As far as how scientific papers are really written, junkscience.com is doing it right and realclimate.org is doing it wrong. It has to do with strength of evidence.
which article on junkscience.com are you refering to?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
this is one i skimmed and found lacking in references. notably:
“How big a deal is this indirect cloud effect? Huge, actually. In just 5 years it was responsible for a 2% decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm-2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85% of the IPCC’s estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution. ”
vague comments like this are off putting. which 5 years? is it a pattern? does the pattern match the cycles of sun spot activity? does it correlate with the temperature data?
not to mention this:
“So, now we know that the more active sun warms the planet directly with increased incident radiation and indirectly both by reducing low cloud and likely by elevating the proportion of gaseous water — the most important greenhouse gas. ”
he omits the fact that water vapor is also a component of exhaust.
In addition, any scientist would know that doing all your references from one site, a blog no less (realclimate.org) would get you laughed out of the scientific community.
and yet you point to junkscience? huh?
Participant
Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 20, 2007 – 5:13pm.
Lovely strawman. Bleat on.
what? no more handwaving and empty rhetoric? too easy.
Participant
Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 20, 2007 – 4:15pm.
If it took an economist to “break” the hockey stick analysis, wouldn’t that be a case of extremely sloppy climate science? Seriously, this was my first observation upon hearing about the Mann hockey stick: that a layman exposed its flaw so easily. Even more disturbing is that the whole initial Kyoto campaign rode upon it and that IPCC (to relax my earlier statement) included it in its earlier reports.
you merely *want* to believe that.
it’s funny that that accountant proclaimed accountants to be better record keepers than the volunteer data collectors of the temps. as if the recent accounting scandals hadn’t occured, as if the volunteers are being paid in percentages of corporate financial “savings”.
Participant
Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 20, 2007 – 1:37pm.
I think people give humans too much credit for its ability to affect the climate.
…continuing character attacks upon me and calling me ignorant needs to come to a rest.
clearcutting, paving, eutrophication, acid rain, desertification, irrigation…
are you serious? if you dont want to be treated as an ignorant, don’t act it. what do they say?
it’s better to be quiet and be thought ignorant than to speak and be proven ignorant
something like that.
First, I am yet to see a completely definitive reason for ice ages: is it due to Milankovich cycles, or a combination of things? Second, whatever the cause, I’m extremely skeptical that man can do anything about it, unless he really wants to mess up the environment.
man most likely cannot stop natural changes, but he can cause his own changes. when a system is in equilibrium such as the time between ice ages or during an ice age or between meteor strikes or between volcanic eruptions, etc etc, man becomes the primary influence on the environment as he is the dominant creature.
he doesn’t even have to want to mess it up, by nature of his dominance, he will affect it.
the sunspot cycle has always occured to me as the most meaningful piece of evidence. Who knows, this could be the nail in the coffin?
you ask for objectivity and “neutrality” and yet you’ve already jumped to conclusions here yourself. *you* need to drop the bias.
and think about this. sun spot cycles are on periods of around 10-11 years and yet that has no correlation with the temperature variations over the same period. sun spots most likely do affect the environment, but the degree in which they do is not apparent.
but I do think it’s distracting resources from the ultimate resolution of the puzzle
no one’s stopping you.
think this issue of CO2-induced GW is to many just a proxy for the ongoing battle against burning fossil fuelswhat on going battle? if fossil fuels had no pollution involved, no foreign wars attached, no limits to supply, do you think fossil fuels would still be “battled”? of course not. fossil fuels have draw backs, part of which *is* contribution to global warming.. duh. it’s like you’re telling people not to blame terrorists for their terrorist actions.
I hope that this IPCC fiasco falls flat on its faceoh yeah, no bias here, move along.
look again and start reading the views from the other side.so far, it’s all bad. that steve m blog on “missing data” or whatnot was crap. he jumped to a conclusion without giving objective and unbiased analysis of the methods and methodology used.
My final question that I find worth asking, if at least rhetorical: if AGW is obviously true, then why isn’t the IPCC acting with the same routine scientific integrity expected of any science body? In science, results are supposed to speak for themselves.
prove that they aren’t.
ParticipantSubmitted by FutureSDguy on February 19, 2007 – 6:54pm.
No, it would be at a different pressure due to different densities, and as a consequence, a different temperature.
that should be a simple calculation given the known pressure of venus and the density of co2…
why sources like wikipedia and nasa state the greenhouse effect as the primary cause of the temp is beyond anyone’s guess (except the hyperintelligent agw naysayers?). nasa must have crappy maths.
“In general, I see how aghast some of you are that I dare challenge “scientific establishment.” ”
you’re not a hero for standing up to the “science facists”. beating down a bunch of nerds is easy; pelt them with slurpees as they ride their bikes to work.
“My point was that in the past 120 years, CO2 has risen monotonically, but temperature has not; most of the temperature rise occurred before the bulk of CO2 occurred. This greatly weakens AGW, and the best hand-wave that you can do about it is to say “well, it’s a delayed action.” This is not hard evidence. I find it funny how AGW supporters choose time frames that suit them. Give them 8000 years of cycical evidence (that what is happening today happened before), they reject it. Give them 30 years of cyclical evidence (it got cooler then), they reject it. But how about exactly since 1942, now they’re convinced that man is the culprit.”
how convenient; experimental (edit: empirical) science is simply handwaving while opinionated defense contractors with zero data are intellectual heros. is this Bizarro World?
February 19, 2007 at 9:05 PM in reply to: How will the IT community handle the coming housing crash/recession? #45799Participantread the want ads, they’ll tell you what you need to learn; .net, sql database design and web development are current key skills.
there are jobs out there and they all want the moon. but everyone likes free labor. learn some basics then start knocking on doors, begging.
organizational skills, methodical problem solving and analysis are critical. if that doesn’t describe you, you should consider the design and art aspects of IT.
January 31, 2007 at 9:43 PM in reply to: Federal Reserve Montary Policy in Light of An Asset Bubble #44570Participantjust one comment on his analysis of the japanese market…
it doesn’t add up. despite the japanese central bank’s “slow response”, he doesnt address 2 simple things. 1) the indebtedness or bankruptcy of those caught in the crash and 2) public insecurity. neither of these things can be addressed after the fact of the crash, regardless of the speed of reaction. the fact that bubbles and the subsequent crashes are allowed to occur at all reinforces public insecurity while bankruptcy limits the ability of “investors” to reenter the market.
oh, and japanese pride. they would have simply killed themselves in the “old” days (like what, 50 years ago?) if they became indebted/bankrupt.
-
AuthorPosts