Debates
16 Nov 07
20 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by agrysonOOPS! Did I see you throw my name in the mix once more? Things a bit slow and you want to light it up again.. eh. 😀
"Milloy acknowledged that his survey, which received responses from only 54 of the 345 American members of the several thousand-member IPCC, is "a little small for a reliable sample," but added, "I'm surprised ... I got that many responses from them."
While the survey's size was small, Milloy said, "I certainly think that it's large enough to indicate n editors is a climate change sceptic, though for very different reasons to you.
The point missed is this...What is normal? Where do we find the neutral point of earth climate? Is it when sea level and temps match 1850 AD, 1650 AD, 850 AD, 500 BC, 2500 BC?
Well my pick is as good as any and imho is better, so I pick 50 BC.
So..on that basis, get in touch with me for comment after: Sea level rises enough that you don't have to hike 2 miles inland to get to the spot where the Roman boats touched english shore around 50 BC and Greenland is good "green" agricultural land once more.
If the earth is still warming after that, we can have a serious talk.
20 Nov 07
8 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainfrom wiki: "The normal distribution, also called the Gaussian distribution, is an important family of continuous probability distributions, applicable in many fields."
...What is normal? Where do we find the neutral point of earth climate? Is it when sea level and temps match 1850 AD, 1650 AD, 850 AD, 500 BC, 2500 BC? ....
The quantity called "normal" does have meaningful math'l / statistical definition ...
what you do is look at all the data and take a kind of average ... there are a variety of options to choose for "normal", but the one you choose is not among them - however 50bc does have a name, it is called an extreme.
(Why do you believe 50BC levels were so high? Given the levels around that time are all much lower than your method ... is it easier to assume they has slaves drag their boats up out of the water? ... or even to assume that the land has risen locally.)
20 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainAh, here's your roman thing, and the greenland thing, well, greenland is actually a case of false marketing from viking times, as you well know, thought he roman warm period did make it less inhospitable, seemy FAQ link later one for that, while the romans did not touch land two miles in, they touched land between Walmer and Deal in Kent, dragging their boats up the beach in 55BC (no more than 120metres), since it was an invasionary force. Later, Claudius, in 43 AD, chose the more northerly Richborough harbour to shelter his boats.
OOPS! Did I see you throw my name in the mix once more? Things a bit slow and you want to light it up again.. eh. 😀
The point missed is this...What is normal? Where do we find the neutral point of earth climate? Is it when sea level and temps match 1850 AD, 1650 AD, 850 AD, 500 BC, 2500 BC?
Well my pick is as good as any and imho is better, so I p ral land once more.
If the earth is still warming after that, we can have a serious talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar's_invasions_of_Britain#Landing
http://www.favonius.com/romans/index.htm
Incidentally, your entire comparison between past markers of global environment and todays are flawed as can be seen in..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
See section 6.2, it deals extensively with your misleading suggestions, and also makes the distinction for you between a scalar (i.e. a single point) measurement, and the much more informative and indeed used paarameter of rate of change. Climate scientists, real ones, tend to use rate measurements since they carry more information about trends.
This little FAQ booklet actually deals extensively with many of your arguments, making them clear and even giving you little cartoons to help you get the bigger picture.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by flexmoreMuch easier than that, rate of change is taken, not point measurements, and he knows that. As for the romans, I can't find a single link that says what he's claiming about the roman landing. It's probably something that he got from one of his political sites.
from wiki: "The normal distribution, also called the Gaussian distribution, is an important family of continuous probability distributions, applicable in many fields."
The quantity called "normal" does have meaningful math'l / statistical definition ...
what you do is look at all the data and take a kind of average ... there are a variety of opti ...[text shortened]... their boats up out of the water? ... or even to assume that the land has risen locally.)
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonAnd here's the most relevant sections, just in case you're feeling lazy like you did all that time ago with my NS links...
Ah, here's your roman thing, and the greenland thing, well, greenland is actually a case of false marketing from viking times, as you well know, thought he roman warm period did make it less inhospitable, seemy FAQ link later one for that, while the romans did [b]not touch land two miles in, they touched land between Walmer and Deal in Kent, dragging the ...[text shortened]... nts, making them clear and even giving you little cartoons to help you get the bigger picture.[/b]
"Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth’s history.
Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. ... Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. ... it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse gas concentration or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value or their rate of change?"
I added the bold myself. But do have a read of the FAQ yourself, it'll answer many of the questions you've already asked.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by WajomaWhat, are you jealous? What do you want them to do, swim? As for the option of video-conferencing, one could say the same about trade-talks or political meetings. Presidential campaigns and congressional meetings. Such suggestions would be equally ridiculous. There are things that need to be done in person.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/10000_warming_prophets_jet_to_hot_resort/
"But the new green faith was always for the privileged to enjoy, and the masses to endure."
Sounds like Marxist propoganda to me, stop polticising the issues further than they already have been and look at the science for once.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonYou don't see the eye scorching hypocrisy?
What, are you jealous? What do you want them to do, swim? As for the option of video-conferencing, one could say the same about trade-talks or political meetings. Presidential campaigns and congressional meetings. Such suggestions would be equally ridiculous. There are things that need to be done in person.
"But the new green faith was always for the pri ...[text shortened]... p polticising the issues further than they already have been and look at the science for once.
Man, you must be wearing them shade 500+ sun glasses.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by WajomaWhere's the hypocracy? You're not being told not to fly planes, drive cars or use electricity. No one is telling you to throw yourself back into the stone age and abandon modern technology.
You don't see the eye scorching hypocrisy?
Man, you must be wearing them shade 500+ sun glasses.
All that is being said is that we need to take responsibility for wasteful and damaging practices when alternatives exist or where investment into such alternatives will lead to long-term gains. There is no alternative as of yet to getting scientists all into the same place to brainstorm.
Also, if a single policy they propose is taken on board, it will, in the long-term, easily make up for whatever short term carbon emissions the conference is costing.
So no, there's no hypocrisy provided they get their job done.
20 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonmust be shade 1000+
Where's the hypocracy? You're not being told [b]not to fly planes, drive cars or use electricity. No one is telling you to throw yourself back into the stone age and abandon modern technology.
All that is being said is that we need to take responsibility for wasteful and damaging practices when alternatives exist or where investment into such alternati ...[text shortened]... ns the conference is costing.
So no, there's no hypocrisy provided they get their job done.[/b]
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by WajomaOk, pull the wool off of my eyes, where is the hypocrisy?
must be shade 1000+
Are they telling you to give up air travel or just limit it if possible? Are they telling you not to drive cars or just suggesting a more economical model if possible? Are they telling you to stop using electricity or just try to limit electricity waste and encouraging alternative sources of generation.
There is no hypocricy because they are not telling you to give up airplanes or holidays. If they were, then I would see the hypocrisy.
But they're not.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI still don't see the hypocrisy of using technology. Besides, they're all paying the same emissions charges as everyone else. No one is telling anyone that they can't fly. Though you're absolutely right, if these were a bunch of hippie ecologists who eat organic wheatgrass, there might be a case, but they're not, they're scientists who can point out all the evidence you need. Just because they may have chosen to fly rather than swim to Bali doesn't undermine their evidence. So what's the point that you're trying to make Merk?
Wow, I'm persuaded. The science seemed to make it so clearcut, but if some people are hypocritical then we need to start disregarding evidence.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonYup, agreed, and I think if we're going to nitpick at people being hypocritical then we'll quickly find that everyone's guilty of some form of hypocracy in their lives on some level, rendering hypocracy more or less irrelevant to the argument. It's more of an attack on the person than on the argument that is being presented, kind of like going for the player rather than the ball.
I still don't see the hypocrisy of using technology. Besides, they're all paying the same emissions charges as everyone else. No one is telling anyone that they can't fly. Though you're absolutely right, if these were a bunch of hippie ecologists who eat organic wheatgrass, there might be a case, but they're not, they're scientists who can point out all the ...[text shortened]... doesn't undermine their evidence. So what's the point that you're trying to make Merk?
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyIn a way to divert attention from the patent fallacy of the Roman boat point the post before? I can see how that might be likely...
Yup, agreed, and I think if we're going to nitpick at people being hypocritical then we'll quickly find that everyone's guilty of some form of hypocracy in their lives on some level, rendering hypocracy more or less irrelevant to the argument. It's more of an attack on the person than on the argument that is being presented, kind of like going for the player rather than the ball.