 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The last figure on the graph says 95 years before present. There is no 0. The point is to show extreme periods of warming in the past, generally coming out of periods of cooling.
There is no need for the last 100 years on the graph, because these measurements would be found from the nearest weather station and be far more accurate than ice cores. I would assume (without looking at Greenland weather station results) that line keeps going up for a while.
Much like tree rings and sediment, ice cores are a 'best available' form of measurement and can only be used from certain areas (permanent ice). You're grasping this strawman about the graph, but the graph doesn't say what you're trying to make out it does. If anyone else said that then that's on them, not the data.
There have been 9 warming periods over the last 10,000 years, most of them just as rapid as the current one and all of them are 100% natural events and 100% of scientists agree on that.
Anyway, I'm done here. My head is hurting from banging it on brick walls. It's like talking to a relgionist who keeps telling me their holy book is real because their holy book says so. |
|
|
|
 |
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Anyway, I'm done here. My head is hurting from banging it on brick walls. It's like talking to a relgionist who keeps telling me their holy book is real because their holy book says so. |
That's rich coming from someone who relies on discredited fringe sources and selective data to make their case...  |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | The last figure on the graph says 95 years before present. There is no 0. The point is to show extreme periods of warming in the past, generally coming out of periods of cooling.
There is no need for the last 100 years on the graph, because these measurements would be found from the nearest weather station and be far more accurate than ice cores. I would assume (without looking at Greenland weather station results) that line keeps going up for a while.
Much like tree rings and sediment, ice cores are a 'best available' form of measurement and can only be used from certain areas (permanent ice). You're grasping this strawman about the graph, but the graph doesn't say what you're trying to make out it does. If anyone else said that then that's on them, not the data.
There have been 9 warming periods over the last 10,000 years, most of them just as rapid as the current one and all of them are 100% natural events and 100% of scientists agree on that.
Anyway, I'm done here. My head is hurting from banging it on brick walls. It's like talking to a relgionist who keeps telling me their holy book is real because their holy book says so. |
That's one way to cope with feeling marginalised: Pretend your virtually non-existent knowledge of science makes your knowledge on this topic even more special!
Unfortunately, whatever games you're playing in your head are just a pain in the arse for the rest of us who have to waste time correcting your nonsense.
You're talking deceptive rubbish when you imply that past fluctuations are not substantially accounted for, and the present rise is accounted for by something other than human-induced global warming. The weight of evidence runs very strongly in the other direction, which is only damned reason anyone serious believes in human-induced global warming to begin with.
David, do you own research instead of insisting that non-expert, minority gut feelings ought to be allowed to waste everyone else's time. If you had done your own research, you would know just what variation is accounted for by what, and you would also know where the Rumsfeldian known unknowns are (for beginners: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm ). And if you trace the debate over time, the thing that will most hit you is that each and every new variable the deniers throw at the numbers is hit for six soon enough by new findings or better calculations.
And that's the problem they're exploiting to waste everyone's time: You can't strictly "prove" anything in science, so if people are motivated enough they can keep claiming some new variable that is not human-induced global warming is the cause, and start the conspiracy theory afresh until that ball is knocked out of the park.
At the very least, Wokko should be soiling himself over the prospect of a temperature spike coinciding with a population of 9-10B people, even if he holds onto the delusion that he and a handful of very LQ "scientists" have the knowledge to assess the right and wrong causes of historical temperature change.
The most extreme minority position anyone could justifiably hold is a risk management approach to the problem. But the chances that the present warming is not explained by human-induced greenhouse gases are getting slimmer by the year, which should make a pure risk management proponent increasingly nervous.
My guess is Wokko's just being a "Hitchens contrarian", which is attractive to certain personalities, but like Hitchens on Iraq he doesn't really don't know what the hell he's talking about, but he can still out-debate really, really uninformed people.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lovely globally warmed day today, lol
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
QED. Obviously a hoax.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not a surprise to me, but your article isn't going to go down well around here. First port of call will be discrediting the author and ignoring anything he said in the article. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
Not a surprise to me, but your article isn't going to go down well around here. First port of call will be discrediting the author and ignoring anything he said in the article. |
No need to discredit the author, Wokko - in this case, the work he relies upon is by - wait for it - a retired accountant.
But, hey, it's too easy to pot Booker, anyway. See, eg: "Christopher Booker is best known as a journalist for The Sunday Telegraph newspaper, but has also published a plethora of books critical of the EU, regulation, and scientific scares.
He has a history of causing controversy around prominent scientific issues, such as BSE about which he says there "is still no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans", and the theory of evolution, stating that Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions.
More recently, he has entered the world of climate change scepticism, and proudly announced that 2008 was the year that man-made global warming was disproved, calling the scientific consensus on climate change a politically engineered artefact. A vociferous critic of the governments Climate Change Act, he bemoans the cost of road tax on highly polluting vehicles and carbon emissions audits for the highest consuming users.
In 2009 he released a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster, the front of which carried a quote by atmospheric physicist John Haughton, which turned out to be totally made up.
A complaint to the Press Complaints Commission in 2009 following claims by Booker that sea levels around the island of Tuvalu had dropped, that sea level data used by the IPCC had been unfairly altered and that there were no sea level experts contributing to their Fourth Assessment Report was upheld.
His misrepresentation of climate science irked The Guardians George Monbiot and James Randerson; so much so that Monbiot was inspired to create a satirical competition for inaccurate climate change journalism: The Christopher Booker Prize.
His claims scrutinised: The Guardian's Philip Ball reviews his book, saying he's "talking bunk". George Monbiot has compiled a list of his "howlers", asking "How much longer can Christopher Booker go on misleading readers?"" http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame#booker |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
droversdog65
Joined: 27 Nov 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Oh dear I thought this might have been an interesting thread to look at but I see the troglodytes are infesting the joint as they are everywhere else. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A good link, thanks Wokko.
| Wokko wrote: |
But I find this issue to be one where very few are willing to change their mind. It looks to me a lot more like Catholics vs Protestants than anything approaching scientific discourse. |
A very accurate observation Wokko.
| Lennart Bengtsson wrote: | | : "I do not believe it makes sense for our generation to believe or pretend that we can solve the problems of the future." |
An excellent point Bengtsson  , but you also, are wasting your breath with the audience here 
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, once again this shows it's not Catholics vs. Protestants, it's geocentric universe versus heliocentric solar system.
The main thing I've got against you posting the stuff is that I have to waste time checking the details, and you have to wear other people's deceit. I for one haven't got time for this stuff, Wokko, but this error is a particularly egregious one.
That study is explicitly a meta-analysis of petroleum-industry geoscientists in an oil state of a natural resources country. It's a socio-organisational assessment of the framing of expertise in "contested" policy areas.
| The Sociology Paper Itself wrote: | To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.
...
To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy.
...
The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role.
The petroleum industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada (~CAD 35 billion in 2009) (CAPP, 2009) and it is projected that the petroleum industry will contribute CAD 1.7 trillion to Canadas GDP and create over 456,000 jobs over the next 25 years (Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2009). There are 540 multinational integrated, midsized, and junior oil and gas companies in Canada (nearly all headquartered in Calgary, Alberta) with operations worldwide. Further, Canadas oil reserves are considered to be a strategic resource (see Figure 1) with most reserves in Alberta and the oil sands. Given the relative political stability of Canada as a source of oil to the US, the Alberta oil sands are undergoing a CAD 250 billion expansion (AII, 2008).
[And the grand conclusion, I kid you not:]
Following Levy and Rothenbergs (2002) examination of the automotive industry, we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change. |
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
How could the authors of a study be any clearer? Did they have to paint their analysis population (i.e., petroleum industry geoscientists) on their bare arses and tweet the shot?
Almost without exception, when I bother to look at these claims this is what I find. In your case it's not intentional, but Forbes magazine is horrifically unethical for publishing this deceitfully-misleading piece: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Really, to mislead people in that way is beyond the pale of decency by a very long way, and you've accidentally become party to it. If you're going to be skeptical, please be universally so.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And for a bit of a light hearted look at the subject, some of the great global warming predictions all packed into a web site in one place.
Enjoy.
http://climatechangepredictions.org |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The climate deniers are correct.
I found it in the Book Of Revelations: 22:22
...And the Lion shall sleep with the lamb...
(OK for the Lion but the lamb is mighty nervous)
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
