@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Dandy ... Some examples from Ian Plimmer, and responses have just been posted here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/#more-930 ...

Thanks for the link, mate - interesting read!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

If you want to be taken serious here, your way of affronting other panellists certainly is counterproductive.

Sadly, no one could expect to have any pretentiousness to be taken seriously here given the various hypocrite/dishonest behaviours and endless use of fallacious practices exhibited post after post to argue, alarmist proponents pleasing themselves with an own one-sided illiteracy only demonstrative of a total lack of scientific culture. Pointing out numerous and repetitive alarmist failures is nevertheless a good exercise to deconstruct myth and underlying ideological strategy.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Some major crop yields collapse with higher temperatures

In which one of my scary modelling category falls this crappy one?

1 Global warming will be worse than previously thought
2 Ice melting/breaking will be worse than previously thought
3 Sea level rise will be worse than previously thought
4 Threats to coral/reef will be worse than previously thought
5 Droughts and water/food shortages will be worse than previously thought
6 Loss of biodiversity will be worse than previously thought
7 Cyclones/hurricanes will be worse than previously thought

Alarmist study of the day ranks 5th/7 with a low associated subjective scaring level. Not unprecedented. Moving on...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

The use of scientific gobbledegook to disguise the lack of substance in an argument is one of the instruments in the denialists rhetoric. We have seen several examples in these threads of using scientific jargon to bring about misdirection and reach irrelevant or unrelated conclusions.

Your inability to understand scientific wording, language and culture has unfortunately nothing to do with your wild speculation: hiding behind arm-waving, supporting one-sided preconceptions mixed together with repetitive false motive attributions, tangential and superficial argumentation and on top of all the recurrent use of truckload of fallacies allowed by layman language have merely put a stop to your more advanced pre-encephalic functioning somewhere in the past and can be seen as a more straightforward explanation (an achievement from you POV?). The cure for such dysfunction is not as simple as the distraction of reading a scientific paper: it requires a personal effort, an effort which at the end extols the difference between a layman and a scientist. Not to say you are alone or stupid. Slowly but surely the reward for conforming in self-pleasing as a layman makes you slip unconsciously in the consensus bandwagon hailed by the crowd of illiterate anonymous, from where difficulty to escape is even harder. The fault and the choice are yours, really.

Quote:

It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tost upon the sea: a pleasure to stand in the window of the castle and to see the battle and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth (a hill not to be commanded and where the air is always clear and serene), and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below.

- Francis Bacon

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Whew! You will need to buy some carbon credits to cover this eruption!
I'll print it out nicely and frame it .

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

You will need to buy some carbon credits

The eco-fascists have some sort of 1984 projects in mind (an individual carbon credit card to tax respiration was proposed recently in England). Meanwhile, and unfortunately for the poorer people, the local eco-fascists here have already overcome this problem by a generalized carbon tax which will be added to the current ~75% taxes on fossil energy and indirect taxes diluted in the declining 2nd European carbon market (the 1st one failed miserably).

Summarizing, we now are taxed for C, H, O, N, P and S (other?). I will have to have a look at the Mendeleev's table to check what will be the next probable taxed element. Thinking of it, any combination of C, H, O, N, P and S could be taxable... But not surprisingly, not 1 cent of the tax money found or will find its way to finance useful ecological projects: the problems must be kept alive for the scam to be preserved.

Quote:

I'll print it out nicely and frame it .

A perverted green thought comes to mind: doing so will increase your carbon footprint. Why not just bookmark the post for future reference then?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

An interesting paper in which the physical explanation of "Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are Not Collapsing" demolishes scares #2 and #3 (randomly numbered here): Quote:

Global warming alarmists have suggested that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica may collapse, causing disastrous sea level rise. This idea is based on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. In reality the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometres of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base, and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to 'collapse'.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Surely the question is not why you, a layman person, cut and pasted part of an article (with me providing the proper source), but why the GISS index maintainers, supposedly scientists, still not use complete and unbiased data as pre-1850 data and non-adjusted (satellite) surface data are available.

I see your problem. You are attempting to extend the question beyond the handling of the paper I cited. The answer you seek we cannot look to the paper I cited. As that paper was not constructed to answer your question. You'll have to look to other works in science. It's not something that can be applied to the paper I cited.

Quote:

Anyway as temperature projections by IPCC are output of tuned computer models (ie are obviously neither based on instruments nor on proxies), I don't see why these invented values would be scientifically more valid and would be given more weight than available real world data.

Perhaps a good question. Looking to the 1 paper for this answer is a misapplication as the paper I provided provides nothing about modeled temperatures.

Quote:

the GISS index is a cherry-picking construction of data supporting an alarmist position rather than a scientific measurement of climate

Seems to be somre more poor logic. The paper cited measured the period of measured temps. In turn it included 100% of the time period for the measurements of temps. Certainly 100% is not a cherry picked use.

Quote:

The circle is that justifying the practice of data cherry-picking

What is happening here is a construct of a strawman. You created your own question and misapplied the paper. Then because the paper didn't answer your question you claim the fault is the paper's cherry picking. Yet the paper was never built to answer your question. The problem isn't the paper as you conclude. The problem is your artifical construct and misapplication. This inturn is your creation and swatting down your own strawman.

Quote:

So determinism has to be a requirement in climate system for you.

If I may cite TMTisFree here -- it's not my view it's science's view.

Quote:

denying existence of chaotic dynamic in climate system is like

Good point. Though again strawman which no one did. The chaos exists daily in all our lifes (boiling water, running cars, etc.) yet to varying degrees they are predictable chaos. Something you disagree with.

Quote:

The paper is therefore a good start to understand relationship between complex/chaotic dynamics and climate system and its concomitant implication, the emergence of unpredictability from deterministic system.

Perhaps a good theory. Yet in reality we see many many predictions matching actuality. Of course they made these for the next 100 years so plenty of time to see how good their (as you'd call them) guesses are. The accuracy seems to be higher than what statistics would allow from the random guess you conceive these to be.

Quote:

the MSM news sellers

I can't speak to the MSM in your country. But the MSM in the US sells the debate. Just like they sell the debate on Intelligent Design. Just like they sell the debate on vaccinations. They skip the majority view of scientists in their field and sell the layman on the street view because it's more sensational. In the case of climate change the anti-GW scientists are likely less than 10% of the field. Yet they garner 60+% of the news. Manufactured sensationalism from the MSM.

Quote:

How are these values reliable?

I cited this answer for you 'with an associated probablity'. Take the chaotic system of flipping a coin. There's wind speed, coin speed, flipping count, and distance. More then 3 variables so chaotic by the definition you've given. When we flip a coin 100 times half the time it's heads. This is true within 'an associated probablity'. Though for any single flip we'll never tell the outcome. Such as climate, again as handled by the scientists, one single event, weather, is unpredictable. But the combined events trend to a predictable goal. We don't know what the temp, eg flip, will be in France next year but the net result in 100 years is an increase in temp, eg half heads.

Quote:

produced by CGMs in which human-released CO² is included. What is this is an assumption due to a lack of data to demonstrate otherwise, not an inference from analysis of existing data -- in short a statement of faith: a belief. Thus not reliable.

What would be even more unreliable is to not include CO2. It's a component of the atmosphere and it is increasing.

Quote:

Skipping the childish and illogical conclusion enabled by the bogus reasoning right before

Okay so Pascal's importance in the world of thought is childish. Let's do this more open. You claim that we in no way can conclude changing the atmosphere will change the climate. So by what thoughts do you justify your decision that changing the atmosphere is something we should do unrestrained?

Better storm predictability

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Aug-2009 at 01:20 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

I see your problem. You are attempting to extend the question beyond the handling of the paper I cited. The answer you seek we cannot look to the paper I cited. As that paper was not constructed to answer your question. You'll have to look to other works in science. It's not something that can be applied to the paper I cited.

You are evading here: provide the real source of your "paper" so your claims could be verified. Still, my question ("Why using only since 1850 when 2000 years are available with sufficient certainty?") asked *to you* remains precisely because your original quote suggests the question and your responses so far have had little relevance/no substance or have been refuted/circular -- and therefore are not convincing.

Quote:

Perhaps a good question. Looking to the 1 paper for this answer is a misapplication as the paper I provided provides nothing about modeled temperatures.

It is not a question but a comment in support to my genuine question to you (see above).

Quote:

The paper cited measured the period of measured temps. In turn it included 100% of the time period for the measurements of temps.

Already replied to: not considering use of available data without proper scientific justifications is BS as it promotes the art of cherry-picking (start/end points fallacy).

Quote:

Certainly 100% is not a cherry picked use.

Certainly using 100% of 7.5% of available data is cherry picking. My question is relevant.

Quote:

You created your own question and misapplied the paper...

Nice try but the question was originally and is still asked to you. Just because the article does not provide the answer is a fallacious way to elude to answer.

Quote:

If I may cite TMTisFree here -- it's not my view it's science's view.

I may add 'in the current interpreted state of Science' (other interpretation may differ)

Quote:

Good point. Though again strawman which no one did. The chaos exists daily in all our lifes (boiling water, running cars, etc.) yet to varying degrees they are predictable chaos. Something you disagree with.

[Fuller can skip the following §: too much big words for him] I do not disagree with your examples. They nevertheless all miss the point as weak analogies leading you to an ignoratio elenchi: your analogical argument begs the question because the quality of your analogy depends upon the controversial point at issue: the knowledge of the level of chaos (called chaoticity) and the level of predictability (stochasticity) in climate system. The strength of their respective properties (chaoticity and stochasticity) being comprehensively different, your simplistic examples, while per se correct, do not disprove the unpredictability in climate system.

Quote:

In the case of climate change the anti-GW scientists are likely less than 10% of the field. Yet they garner 60+% of the news.

Where are the sources of your %? Or are these number wishful guessing?

Quote:

I cited this answer for you 'with an associated probablity'.

What actually are the values of these numbers and what were they derived from? Has the reliability of these numbers been verified and how? Has the robustness of the procedures to obtain them been established and how? Are the procedures themselves adapted to the problem? Is(Are) the model(s) consistent both together and with the physical reality? Throwing numbers is rather easy but evaluating their goodness is not: this is the case for probabilistic models (as those used by IPCC) because the only mean to verify their output is to implement policies based on their assumptions and then evaluate the results in the distant future: doing that makes playing poker a better choice as everyone knows the evaluation is politically never done. Thus clearly this kind of verification is not acceptable from a scientific and/or societal POV. And leave the unpredictability problem unresolvable: fortunately other means exists.

Quote:

What would be even more unreliable is to not include CO2. It's a component of the atmosphere and it is increasing.

No one contests that irrelevant point. It sill remains that the CO² conjecture is just an assumption. Accepting it as an evidence because of the failure to demonstrate it or otherwise with appropriate scientific methodologies renders the whole business unreliable. Nothing new indeed but telling: Quote:

…there are, indeed, few things that are more frightening than the steadily increasing prestige of scientifically minded brain trusters in the councils of government during the last decades. The trouble is not that they are cold-blooded enough to “think the unthinkable,” but that they do not think. Instead of indulging in such an old-fashioned, uncomputerizable activity, they reckon with the consequences of certain hypothetically assumed constellations without, however, being able to test their hypotheses against actual occurrences. The logical flaw in these hypothetical constructions of future events is always the same: what first appears as a hypothesis—with or without its implied alternatives, according to the level of sophistication—turns immediately, usually after a few paragraphs, into a “fact,” which then gives birth to a whole string of similar non-facts, with the result that the purely speculative character of the whole enterprise is forgotten.

- Hannah Arendt (1970) On Violence. Quoted in Washburn and Thronton (1996) Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip-Mining of American Culture.

Quote:

Okay so Pascal's importance in the world of thought is childish.

Your conclusion is childish, not Pascal thoughts. The falsification thesis by Popper has been interpreted as "irrational" by Stearle: does that mean the thesis is not true? No. False? No as well. Does that mean it is not discussable? Again no.

Quote:

You claim that we in no way can conclude changing the atmosphere will change the climate.

A digression of you and not really my view: f.e. land usage change is a first order driver no matter the space and time scale considered. Your premises are then simply wrong (so are your conclusions). In addition your 'inaction' bequest shares all the flaws of the 'precautionary principle' philosophy.

Edit: added a quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 29-Aug-2009 at 01:53 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

provide the real source of your "paper" so your claims could be verified...Just because the article does not provide the answer is a fallacious way to elude to answer.

IMO you are handling this as a dishonest discussion. After you've tried to disprove the statements, failing greatly by using info not handled by the paper. You ask for the paper. Then later you again disregard using the paper. The paper isn't built to answer highest temps by using non-measured but projected temps as you're trying to do. It's that simple.

Quote:

Where are the sources of your %? Or are these number wishful guessing?

#s of scientists are based on polling the scientific papers and polling the scientists themselves. #s of USA MSM are less exact as they are the personal experience of me being a consumer of MSM.

Quote:

A digression of you and not really my view

Really then the problem here is your communication of your view. At one time I summarized your view as CO2 having no effect. You said that was wrong and it's a chaotic system which means unpredictable. I ran with that definition and it too is wrong. I think your view is simple...claim everyone else is wrong and prove nothing of your own.

Quote:

In addition your 'inaction' bequest shares all the flaws of the 'precautionary principle' philosophy

More misapplications. It's not inaction. It's building an understanding of our world (science) so we can choose the best actions. If CO2 can bring concerns then we should minimize our use and clean up when possible. I don't know if you camp or not. Our principle is simple -- take all your bring and clean up after the irresponsible. IMO you are the irresponsible.

@BrianK

Quote:

IMO you are handling this as a dishonest discussion...

I predict you will not provide the embarrassed answer to the relevant question suggested by your quote from the not sourced 'paper'...

Quote:

#s of scientists are based on polling the scientific papers and polling the scientists themselves. #s of USA MSM are less exact as they are the personal experience of me being a consumer of MSM.

So to translate, your MSM number is a wild and unsupported guess. Still, where are the sources of the polls?

Quote:

Really then the problem here is your communication of your view.

The problem of rephrasing or interpreting my view honestly and correctly is a failure of you only: if you really were having troubles understanding me, you would have made the request to clear the things up long before your recent sloppy conclusions on my views. Examples:
1/ "at one time I summarized your view as CO2 having no effect. You said that was wrong" I was correct to do so because I never said CO² has no effect. Rather I said current CO² influence, while positive, is insignificant.
2/ "You said that was wrong and it's a chaotic system which means unpredictable." I don't quite see how you are able to draw so fast a link between CO² effect and the predictability of the climate system. I did not recall doing that myself.
3/ "it's a chaotic system which means unpredictable. I ran with that definition and it too is wrong." because it misrepresents my view as well. As I explained at length before, the level of chaos in the whole climate system being unknown, so is the predictability.

Bottom line: 3 examples, 3 misrepresentation of my views.

Quote:

It's not inaction.

You word is from here. The context in which you used it suggests a strong parallel with the blinded and irrealistic back-to-the-caves 'precautionary principle' philosophy. So is it or not 'inaction'?

Quote:

If CO2 can bring concerns then we should minimize our use and clean up when possible. I don't know if you camp or not. Our principle is simple -- take all your bring and clean up after the irresponsible. IMO you are the irresponsible.

It is funny how you applied so fast the warning of Hannah Arendt: see how beginning with a conditional 'if' leads you to jump quickly to a (wrong) unconditional assertion: a limpid demonstration of her quote ...

Edit: typos and added some words

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 29-Aug-2009 at 05:35 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

As I explained at length before, the level of chaos in the whole climate system being unknown, so is the predictability.

So when we don't know how do we know our actions will be harmful or beneficial?

Quote:

So is it or not 'inaction'?

Nope it's action.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Aug-2009 at 06:01 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Aug-2009 at 06:00 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Aug-2009 at 05:57 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

It is funny how you applied so fast the warning of Hannah Arendt: see how beginning with a conditional 'if' leads you to jump quickly to a (wrong) unconditional assertion: a limpid demonstration of her quote

No clue who this is?? Certainly I could use Google to find what you are talking about but as it had no influence on my view there's really not much point.

Your view is that science cannot possibly know the outcome. There's just too much chaos in the sytsem. So, instead of actioning in a responsible fashion to minimize the impact on an unknown system you try and sell the philosophy of just do it and hope for the best. Afterall we'll not be able to assign responsibility so it's clearly best to act irresponsible. I agree my view is more caution where the chance of harm is minimized.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Aug-2009 at 06:09 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

So when we don't know how do we know our actions will be harmful or beneficial?

I guess the response is in your question. That said the paper I linked to proposes ways to think about...if you read it.

Quote:

Nope it's action.

One could wonder what you mean at the first place.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

No clue who this is??

No wonder why you misrepresent my view so easily: you don't read my text : Quote:

…there are, indeed, few things that are more frightening than the steadily increasing prestige of scientifically minded brain trusters in the councils of government during the last decades. The trouble is not that they are cold-blooded enough to “think the unthinkable,” but that they do not think. Instead of indulging in such an old-fashioned, uncomputerizable activity, they reckon with the consequences of certain hypothetically assumed constellations without, however, being able to test their hypotheses against actual occurrences. The logical flaw in these hypothetical constructions of future events is always the same: what first appears as a hypothesis—with or without its implied alternatives, according to the level of sophistication—turns immediately, usually after a few paragraphs, into a “fact,” which then gives birth to a whole string of similar non-facts, with the result that the purely speculative character of the whole enterprise is forgotten.

- Hannah Arendt (1970) On Violence. Quoted in Washburn and Thronton (1996) Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip-Mining of American Culture.

Quote:

it had no influence on my view there's really not much point.

Basic believer attitude: you honour your fellows.

Quote:

Your view is that science cannot possibly know the outcome.

Restricted to the current discussion, in short yes. More precisely my view is that doing long term climate predictions is more harmful than beneficial because pratically they are never met and I see no reason that to be different in the future. Consequently it is not reasonable to build policies based on such uncertainty.

Quote:

There's just too much chaos in the sytsem.

More precisely the level, while positive, is not known, thus enhancing the uncertainty and thus nullifying in practice the long term prediction skill of the models.

Quote:

So, instead of actioning in a responsible fashion to minimize the impact on an unknown system you try and sell the philosophy of just do it and hope for the best.

Who is smoking carpet here? The system is not *completely* unknown you know. Simply studying the past:
1/ shows that the climatic system is bounded ;
2/ shows that no tipping point was ever reached even with drastically different or identical conditions ;
In addidtion:
3/ I am for technology advancement. Meanwhile we have all the oil we need until the next best thing becomes technologically feasible and commercially viable ;
4/ acting responsibly should be decreasing poverty and curing diseases everywhere possible instead of spending billions on chimaerae;
3/ removed (I could use the alarmists' arguments against themselves but reasons above are just sufficient for now to avoid fruitless polemics).

Quote:

Afterall we'll not be able to assign responsibility so it's clearly best to act irresponsible.

The logic in this sentence escapes me. Or do you consider every progress as a perversion or every person as an hooligan?

Quote:

I agree my view is more caution where the chance of harm is minimized.

While I would tend to agree in a general context, the fallacy in your claim is as clear as pure water: the harm has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Perhaps using less fallacies in your writings could help the discussion...

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 30-Aug-2009 at 12:40 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Perhaps using less fallacies in your writings could help the discussion...

@BrianK

Rhetorical subterfuges only do demonstrate incapacity to elevate above dogma and partiality: I am not impress by your sneering confirmation.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @NoelFuller ... Summarizing, we now are taxed for C, H, O, N, P and S (other?). I will have to have a look at the Mendeleev's table to check what will be the next probable taxed element. Thinking of it, any combination of C, H, O, N, P and S could be taxable ...

NO joke: Scientists call for stricter controls on emissions of laughing gas

Nitrous oxide has now been recognised by scientists to be a massive green house gas and ozon layer killer.

The United States National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate for 2008

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am not impress by your sneering confirmation

So we're clear. I am in no way motivated by your feelings of being unimpressed.