pouët.net

last post@ gasman

yes you are! It is a rather sad display.

i know everyone likes livigng in ghettos and using their hardships in that ghetto to further themselves in life. but if the goverments want to clean that shit up. because people are to careless to do it. then i say let them. i am a smoker. but, i'm not going to go off and say it's good for me because i didn't fucking die from it yet. you shouldn't need any graphs to know some things should be fixed or have to be told you shouldn't do some things. they should come as common sense and if they don't maybe you should get your head out of a book once in a while and go take a walk around. life isn't bad. but there is alot to be disgusted with. this shit shouldn't even be a debate. it's not like they are going to make your asses do any of the the cleaning up. some of you people even have kids. even if you're right you're being pretty fucking careless as far as their wellbeing. i honestly hate kids. but, i am aware that i am not going to live forever. but, it's also pretty obvious that most of your kids will live longer than you will. so, if someone wants to clean up the planet. let them and if you're so paranoid that you think the goverment is going to try to kill everyone. then remain paranoid and when it happens. we everyone can come back and discuss how to kill all these motherfuckers killing all of us off. but, right now it's not happening. some of you are paranoid and like always i'll get over what i said tomorrow. because, noone finds me as person to get accurate information from and noone really takes this site as a serious place of political or medical information. i've been drinking i'm out and now back to not caring once again.

... Talking of common sense to a morron doesn't work. 17 pages of it.

Crapbob. I think your unicorns are running out of the pen again. You better go catch them. Otherwise how are you going to pick up the heavenly clothes and food?

Nothing wrong with appealing to authority, as long as it's a legitimate authority. (Whenever court cases bring in an expert witness, that's an appeal to authority; at some stage the jury has to take what the expert says on trust. They don't leap up and demand X years of academic training so that they can evaluate it for themselves. Of course, in a court case there will be an opposing expert witness whenever appropriate, and it's the jury's duty to listen to the arguments presented by both sides.)

You're disputing that the AGW supporter crowd is a legitimate authority. Fine.

I'm working from the default assumption that they are trustworthy, not because I've reviewed their work personally, but because their work is out in the open to be refuted by anyone else who has the time and inclination to do that. Yes, even on blogs if necessary. At no point have I been automatically dismissing evidence just because it isn't in a peer-reviewed paper or the author doesn't have a PhD. I might start dismissing individual sources if I can see that they repeatedly spout deceptive or false information, but for now I'm prepared to take WUWT seriously.

(I did question Lord Monckton's qualifications after he was claimed to be "on the forefront of climate research", and I used "it's just a blog" to justify why I hadn't seen any other source debunk the ice cores argument, but in both cases I took an open-minded look at what they had to say. OK, I could only stand 20 minutes of that Monckton lecture - I'm sure he's a fantastic sounding-board for your opinions, but what I saw was just too substanceless and militant to be any use in changing my mind, sorry.)

In short - perhaps I am placing mainstream science on a pedestal. But if you want to take shots at it, go ahead.

I'm not asking for a smoking gun that will bring down the scientific establishment in one easy-to-digest forum post. I'm just asking for something that will make enough of a dent to make me think "maybe the scientific consensus isn't as bulletproof as I thought - I should do some serious research into this". The ice core stuff didn't do that. Or rather, it did for a couple of hours, then I shot it down (to my own satisfaction) and went back to believing the scientific consensus with slightly more conviction than before. You weren't seriously expecting me to go "I shot that theory down, now I must go and find the evidence that supports the bogus thing I just shot down so that I can shoot that down too"?

What you seem to be telling me right now is "my evidence WILL make a dent, but you have to spend several weeks analysing it to see why." Frankly I'm not going to do that unless I'm given a compelling reason to.

To go off on a tangent for a moment, I feel that I should acknowledge Doom's point about cost/benefit analysis (i.e. even if climate change is as serious as the scientific establishment say, it doesn't necessarily make it the biggest problem we face or the most effective use of our resources/effort - or at any rate, the climate scientists are not the ones to make that call). I don't want to give the impression that I'm ignoring it - it's genuinely made me think about this subject from a new angle, and for once I don't have a wisecrack-y response to it. Yet :-)

say iblis... instead of pointlessly reiterating insults and denials, can you also voice your actual opinion? or maybe you just don't have one...

before i forget...

I am? good lord I didn't know that. thank you for pointing this out. I think you are giving me opinions. Appeal to authority is a fallacy because not only can authority be wrong. History is one long written testamony to the fact that it is, most of the time. Not because it is stupid, but because it is greedy. I do accept that the large majority of climate scientists are genuine authority on the subject. But I also know that no scientists are any better than the qulity of the data he is examining and in this lies the problem, from what I have gathered so far.



But they cannot get their stuff peer-reviewed and are frozen out of the primary hubs for this kind of science. There is a clear "do-not-want-to-know" going on, which is unscientific and again...my beef is not with the scientists but the politicians who have managed to blur the whole thing to the point where it is reasonable to demand a "recount".



yeah, Doom has ruled this thread for sure IMO.



Oh you mean that this;

"It can be cut down to;
is global warming a fact = yes it is!
Is it a fact that humans cause it/are the primary reason = no it is not!
Are we part responsible for an acceleration of a natural cycle?=probably.
Is it a fact that earth has gone through several cycles some which were much warmer than now without the aid of our industry = yes, that is a fact.
Are there usually global cooling after the warm periods = it seems like it
Should we clean up the environment and spend all the billions on becoming sustainable, instead of spending them on selling eachother air? = the sooner the better!

Have I come to these conclusions because I am a scientists? No, but because that is what the facts put on the table so far demonstrates if you take the time to follow the debate, read the articles and ignore all the political clowns -be they left or right wing- who want to use this for their own political ends (both fascist in nature AFAIAC)"

is not clear enough for you? You know what, you better stay with the carebears then. I think we have found the proper level for you. If you don't like insults, try not to be so insult worthy.

Gasman. Just to demonstrate the level of dishonesty in the debate; A large part of the genuine PhD scientists who are skeptics are geologists. This has been turned as if they hate nature because many of them work for oil companies. This is guilt by association and completely unfair. What kinds of scientists would oil companies rely on of not geologists? Would shell need very many astrophysicians or theoretical mathematician with focus on string theory (or whatever is the philosopher buzz atm)?

What they are saying is basically ;:"the evidence is literally set in stone, so we are skeptical of the computer models because our own eyes shows us differently."

eebliss: you're a moron.

And you are certainly a believer of the good old Abrahamic tradition of self loathing and hatred for humans. That and you are pretty unrealistic when it comes to solutions, but I think those that has participated in the thread has told you already.

I am not a liberal. I am of no political affiliation. I vote for the politicians whom I can identify with and thus trust would do 'as I would' regardless of party. If there are no such one at an election, I vote blanc to show my discontent. The right wing and the left wing are made entirely from the same fabric. There is NO difference between you. Only the free marked- liberals have the decency to make it obvious (alá: yes I love my V12 Ferrari, I earned it, so fuck you!) and not wrap themselves up 'humanitarian' issues that they at the core couldn't care less about. it is merely a vehicle to their kind of fascism.

A clever poster noticed that your suggestions sounded an awful lot like bonafidé fascism and wondered if you were going to be the dictator. You can howl and call me names all you like, it is water on a goose. If the jackboot fits, wear it thug!

"this is what i think is right, based on reading what i like to read, and everyone who says otherwise is an asshole" is not much of an argument at all, no :-)

Iblis: I've come across a few people doing research and failing to get their papers published before in other fields - often, like you say, because the people running the journals don't want to know and like to stick with their existing beliefs. The papers challenging these beliefs are simply rejected.

Having looked at the actual work though, the reason they're rejected is usually this: There's a big, glaring mistake in the work. Anybody with serious knowledge of the field can see it a mile away, and knows that the paper is worthless, but the author (and likely most laymen) can somehow never quite see it. I don't think it's intentional - they just believe they're right, and have made a breakthrough, and the people rejecting it have some ulterior motive. I've never seen a case where the paper actually has some validity and gets rejected - worst case it gets peer reviewed, criticised perhaps, and either improved or published as it is.

Psonice; This is all true from the best of my knowledge. But it is hard to ignore that in relation to the IPCC there seemed to be a circle of friends working for the main data centers CRU, GISS, NOAA etc. who held various positions as the advisers of the policy makers who are now under accusation of cherry picking and ignoring 'dissidents'.

I have used Anthony Watt's blog a but to keep track of all the articles that keeps posting in. And for the greatest of time, he did not think there was anything malicious about it, but that it was rooted in the very things you said. This seems to have changed slightly but still not to the point where he suspects malice, but rather the claptrap all of us fall into of believing so strongly in our position that we start to cherry pick without intentionally being dishonest.

The IPCC position also seems to slowly withdrawing from all out alarmism to a more subtle "better safe than sorry".

The core reason I am sceptical is that it all has been boiled down to a matter of Co2. This is a slogan. It the simple, straightforward explanation that you can chant over and over. But layman as I am, the climate system and environment just seem to include so many variables that to boil it down to a single culprit that we can all hate together, sounds like political work and not the work of scientists. If that makes sense.

There's a whole lot of other factors, yes, but co2 is probably the one that's a. likely to have a major effect and b. difficult to address. Other things like e.g. CFCs that caused the ozone hole were pretty easy to put right (and it was sorted out without this kind of fuss), but pretty much everything that burns produces co2, and we're very dependent on burning stuff. I think that's why there's so much focus on it.

Psonice. Probably, likely, these are not words that carry great certainty. From what I understand it's actual effect is not fully understood. Is this incorrect?

There are no shortage of good reasons to support a good scrub of our environment, all worthy in their own right.

So, how do they propose to solve this Co2 problem, have you seen? Copenhagen is packed with posters from Vestas (windmill company) that tells us to demand a price on Co2. Many of the large corporations, they love it (contrary to popular belief). Why would a company like Siemens who rely heavily on oil based products think it is awesome that there are plans to tax the living daylight out of it?

I don't know that answer to that one, but judging from the swindle already ongoing with the Co2 credit system, I can have my suspicions. After all, we both understand that at the end of the day, Siemens only have one place to send the bill to.

The cap and trade system is supposedly a brainchild of Enron CEO's and there has been massive lobbying for it's implementation. I don't understand how some people think that this system in any way pose a punishment, tax or whatever on the big bad energy companies. They don't seem to think so. They fully understand where to send the bill and how to speculate in interest rates at the same time. etc etc etc...

Will any of these very very expensive effords, and changing of enormous amounts of money and interest rates actually clean up our oceans (think giant plastic garbage patch here) or prevent the poles from melting away? Will it guarantee clean drinking water to the surface inhabitants?

And there is still the question of the scientists surrounding the IPCC. Those responsible for handling the majority of the data used. Again, this is from what I understand so far. This is what the protests regarding them is about. It is not like there isn't -quite literally- billions of good reasons to be slightly biased, pride being one, the rest being dollars.

And politicians do what they do best. Mouthpiece whatever the the banks and the market dictates. It is not like we don't all know that casually, so when they are all up in hype about Co2 and the companies are all up in hype about Co2 and the science has been settled regardless of numerous qualified people protesting. it is time to take a step back and try to figure out what exactly these muppets are up to. And i still suspect science has been taken hostage, not that they are malicious, just to restate that.

bla bla bla said the moron that couldn't help poop bullshits

try google, smartypants :)

Well, taking a step back... there are lots of scientists looking at this, not just a few. While there are sure to be 'bad apples' in there faking data and whatever, there's going to be enough honest ones that if there was any kind of 'scam' going on there would be a huge uproar.

What I suspect happens: there's tons of different sources of data. Most of it points at man made warming, a small bit points the other way for whatever reason. The scientists mostly specialise in a small area, and will draw conclusions from their own work. Hence you get a large number agreeing on climate change, and a smaller number saying it's not true at all. Well, seeing as they're going on evidence and not opinion, I'll go with the majority.

What to do about it then? Well, look at all the causes, and reduce it where you can, and look at ways to reverse it too. Reducing it is kind of hard, because so much depends on oil, gas and coal. We have replacements, but they're either not as efficient or they're expensive, most often because they're new technologies.

You can support the development of the new stuff in 2 ways: handing over money & researchers, or making it more profitable. If there's money in it, lots of people + companies will work at improving it, so they can get rich. If the oil + gas based competition are taxed heavily, they get more expensive and the green stuff is more profitable. It discourages people from wasting energy too if it's expensive, so it works from both ends.

So yeah, taxing carbon will actually help.

The carbon trading schemes are kind of a good idea, but I think they'll be a lot like communism - they'll fail in the implementation.

In theory they work, because the big energy companies here can't just stop burning oil - the lights would go off. With carbon credits, the idea is they burn the oil in one place and grow a forest somewhere else to offset the extra co2, which would be great if it actually happened. In practice I suspect it'll go badly wrong. Either the money will be sent to some 3rd world country and disappear while the oil burners are left holding a contract saying they've done their bit, or some rich company will buy up the land in the 3rd world country and grow the forest there while the local people starve because they lost their farms and jobs.