TimG Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Still, at least in this thread, I do not recall Tim bringing forth the zombie arguments that arise here with striking regularity.If you look back on this thread you will see at least one post where I told the posters that they were dead wrong in their claim that CO2 is not a GHG. But waldo does not acknowledge my nuanced position on the science because I disagree with his policy prescriptions. That is what makes me a "denier" in his mind. I believe that people like waldo is why the "zombie" arguments persist. i.e. if reasonable people cannot raise reasonable objections to the claims without being labeled a denier then it becomes impossible to refute the unreasonable objections. Science should be about the science. Not the politics. If bad science is bad it should be condemned - and uncertain science should be acknowledged - even if doing so would be politically inconvenient. I understand the frustration, and those pushing for policy adoption and emissions cuts right now may be correct. The problem for me is that it is not something that falls within my fields of knowledge.The cost of building systems that deliver energy to people does fall somewhat in my field of knowledge and that I why I have no patience with people who claim that the emission problem could be solved by government fiat. The necessary technology does not exist and may never exist. Therefore the 'no regrets' policy option is the one that focuses on adaptation while encouraging the development of new energy sources without assuming that such development will succeed. Edited October 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Simply put. More available carbon = greater mass of combined life forms.The only variable of concern is that we are releasing carbon at a faster rate than the consumers can catch up with. carbon! What are you talking about carbon for? Oh... right... you've just been alerted to the carbon cycle and all of a sudden you're an expert! but hey now! Is this you saying there's an imbalance... that equilibrium has been lost? Well, we are making progress, hey? Read a bit more and come back and advise what's causing that imbalance/loss of equilibrium. Also take another crack at the Greenhouse Effect... you might like it! By the by, does this mean you have now dispatched your earlier, 'it's all caused by the Earth's inner core"? Oh my, are we on a roll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Feel like a big man when you insult others here buddy!How about engaging and discussing?Why the insults buddy! no - quit whining; you're not being insulted. You are being described in direct accordance with your posting content. If you're really hard-pressed to incorrectly claim you're being insulted... then I give as good as I get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 If you look back on this thread you will see at least one post where I told the posters that they were dead wrong in their claim that CO2 is not a GHG. But waldo does not acknowledge my nuanced position on the science because I disagree with his policy prescriptions. That is what makes me a "denier" in his mind. I believe that people like waldo is why the "zombie" arguments persist. i.e. if reasonable people cannot raise reasonable objections to the claims without being labeled a denier then it becomes impossible to refute the unreasonable objections. Science should be about the science. Not the politics. If bad science is bad it should be condemned - and uncertain science should be acknowledged - even if doing so would be politically inconvenient. nice try - your self-proclaimed "nuanced position" on the science is a joke. You're as disingenuous as your favoured and often parroted McIntyre & McKitrick... or even the infamous Watts, or the dozen or so other charlatans you regularly link to/quote from. You're a denier based on the science alone - your 'Adapt-R-Us' only nonsense doesn't factor in your denial labeling... it simply reflects upon it. Your so-called nuanced position is one that has you refusing to accept anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal causal link to GW/CC... of course, each and every time discussion builds to the point you're challenged to present your alternative... to substantiate your alternative, you typically disappear for a few days, or you just go mute exposing your fake skepticism. To you, it simply can't be CO2... not for any reason you have ever presented... because you have never presented a reason(s) why you don't accept CO2 as the principal causal link. To you, it can't be - cause... just cause! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Simply put.More available carbon = greater mass of combined life forms.The only variable of concern is that we are releasing carbon at a faster rate than the consumers can catch up with. WWWTT I think that we are talking about completely different things here. However, it is simply not the case that more available carbon = greater mass of combined life forms because I know of no case where carbon is the limiting nutrient. The growth of plankton is limited not by C or CO2, but by P, N and Fe among other things. As long as C is not the limiting nutrient it doesn't matter if CO2 is 280 ppm, 380 ppm, 1000 ppm or 100,000 ppm it will have no effect on the overall mass of plankton. This is why scientists have tried seeding areas of the ocean with Fe. Whether geo-engineering such changes would work (as on a large scale it would lead to depletion of P and N, and it sets off changes in the food chain) is debatable, but such actions are not a case of nature catching up with excess CO2. So it is not a case that we are releasing carbon at a faster rate than the consumers can catch up with, it is a case that no catch up is going to happen (at least naturally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) If you look back on this thread you will see at least one post where I told the posters that they were dead wrong in their claim that CO2 is not a GHG. Yes, I thought that was you, and mentioned it on a previous post. But waldo does not acknowledge my nuanced position on the science because I disagree with his policy prescriptions. That is what makes me a "denier" in his mind. I am not going to go back into the history, and I understand that waldo is making the claim that you disagree with much of the mainstream scientific consensus. Whether that is true, I have no idea. For myself, if someone disagrees not with the science, but instead with policy directions that may or may not mitigate some or all of the effects of climate change, then I do not consider them to be a denier, as I reserve such a term for the denial of science or known facts. I am not saying that is the only way for denier to be defined. I believe that people like waldo is why the "zombie" arguments persist. i.e. if reasonable people cannot raise reasonable objections to the claims without being labeled a denier then it becomes impossible to refute the unreasonable objections. That may be true. It is certainly widely debated as to the methods that do or do not work for convincing people to drop unsupported arguments. As I certainly can not claim to have a history of changing many minds any comment I could make about what works and what does not would be purely anecdotal. Science should be about the science. Not the politics. If bad science is bad it should be condemned - and uncertain science should be acknowledged - even if doing so would be politically inconvenient. I think we can all agree about this. The argument would be about what science is uncertain. The cost of building systems that deliver energy to people does fall somewhat in my field of knowledge and that I why I have no patience with people who claim that the emission problem could be solved by government fiat. The necessary technology does not exist and may never exist. Therefore the 'no regrets' policy option is the one that focuses on adaptation while encouraging the development of new energy sources without assuming that such development will succeed. This is where I acknowledge that I know absolutely nothing. I don't know if most others who are knowledgeable in the same field would agree or disagree with you on part of all that. That would be for the field in question (I assume with neighboring fields that overlap) to hash out. Edited October 1, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 But you are for a robust U.N. and their its associated programs that transfer funds from the productive world to Third World thugocratic leaders peoples. see COP 17 agreement of all participating nations: creation of a 'Standing Committee' for climate finance overview... comprised of twenty member nation countries, equally represented between developed and developing countries. You still haven't addressed the issue of the forced transfer of funds to countries, really the leaders of countries, who are forever "developing" but never seem to "develop." But you are for a robust U.N. and their its associated programs that transfer funds from the productive world to Third World thugocratic leaders peoples. note: I've taken the liberty to adjust your comment (re: strikethrough their)... I think I'd like to join the Moonbox grammar crew! I'll concede your first grammar correction. The second one contains a word I may have invented. Its use was deliberate. No matter how much aid these countries get, their people still live in misery while the "leaders" still enjoy fat Swiss bank accounts. Show me any of these leaders that are poor themselves (outside maybe South Sudan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Like I said, you threw down an amount while having a chuckle-fest over it - of course, after numerous requests you still refuse to cite your source... other than Wiki! C'mon, cite your source, oh expert one! Fellow posters, here is an excellent example of "misdirection". Waldo won't answer the question: How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far? Knowing that the answer does not reflect well on the world's commitments, he's decided his best defence is to angrily demand citations showing that results have been disappointing. To humour him, at least maybe I can offer this, which confirms almost exactly what I'd been saying several pages back: http://practicalaction.org/blog/climate_change/changing-the-green-climate-fund/ Waldo, if that citation isn't good enough for you, please provide your own showing otherwise, otherwise quit your crying. two years??? Clearly, your comprehension prowess has you struggling, once again... and clearly, your Wiki "expertise" has failed you, once again, as the fund didn't actually launch until mid-Dec, 2011 at COP 17-Durban. Pick your poison. Whether it be the fast track financing agreed upon at Copenhagen (back in 2009), or cumulative long-term financing, show us some numbers. As far as I can dig up, both are failing to meet targets, which bodes poorly for the initiative's future success. "so far only about $30 billion has been pledged and just $11 billion raised" Since you've apparently decided you're the solemn authority on the subject, surely you can dig up something that says otherwise right? Surely your only defence isn't that you don't like our Google searches...... Cancun??? Hey now, why didn't you reference back to Copenhagen, 2009? Didn't your Wiki "expertise" alert you to legal framework for the fund being established at Copenhagen? Here, let me guide you in your failed timeline for the fund: Copenhagen - legal framework agreed upon; Cancun - operating and financial mechanisms agreed upon; Durban - launch agreed upon. Doesn't this tell you something? If they take three years of stalling/bureaucracy to even get the official ball rolling, can you imagine how much more self-imposed red tape these master bureaucrats can pull together? c'mon, be proud of your Grammar Police role! Hey, when you, Moonbox, have no argument, when you, Moonbox, continually stumble, when you, Moonbox, repeatedly and glaringly have your comprehension and understanding failings pointed out to you... go with your perceived grammar policing strength! Lol. You're really sore about that aren't you? Did highlighting to everyone how incompetently your posts were written bruise your ego? For all my stumbling etc, you've tripped and stuttered and danced around the one question I've been asking you for the last 5+ pages. How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far? Choose whatever starting point you want. Use the fast-start funds, the long-term funds or whatever you want. I just want to know how much money has been collected since 2009. You can natter and bore us all you want but if you're going to refuse to answer then we can all assume you've nothing else to say on the subject. I'll be sure to cross-post this 6 months from now so everyone can see how badly you were out-debated...That's what you like to do right!? Edited October 2, 2012 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) This is where I acknowledge that I know absolutely nothing. I don't know if most others who are knowledgeable in the same field would agree or disagree with you on part of all that. That would be for the field in question (I assume with neighboring fields that overlap) to hash out.The real problem are the legions of activists that are looking to cripple industrial economies with anti-CO2 regulations while transferring vast sums of money to third world despots because they "believe" that something could change if only governments "did something". These activists have no interest in consulting the experts who actually keep the systems we have running (And therefore understand the economics of power production). They simply seek out those few experts that work for rent seeking renewable energy companies and wannabe carbon traders that tell them that anything is possible if the government pays enough. If someone actually tried to find out what the consensus of energy production experts, I believe you would find it is closer to my view. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 carbon! What are you talking about carbon for? Oh... right... you've just been alerted to the carbon cycle and all of a sudden you're an expert! but hey now! Is this you saying there's an imbalance... that equilibrium has been lost? Well, we are making progress, hey? Read a bit more and come back and advise what's causing that imbalance/loss of equilibrium. Also take another crack at the Greenhouse Effect... you might like it! By the by, does this mean you have now dispatched your earlier, 'it's all caused by the Earth's inner core"? Oh my, are we on a roll? So if I try to look past your insults,you are saying that you agree with me? Well its a good thing we can have a discussion here. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 no - quit whining Why do you think I am whining? Better question would be "why does the admin. let you continue to use this forum to insult the intelligence of others?" WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'll concede your first grammar correction. The second one contains a word I may have invented. Its use was deliberate. I wouldn't get into a debate over grammar with this guy. He only uses mistakes in grammar to vent his anger. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Fellow posters, here is an excellent example of "misdirection". Waldo won't answer the question: How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far? Something tells me that this waldo character has some anger issues. Time for the admin. to step up and clean up this site! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Something tells me that this waldo character has some anger issues. Time for the admin. to step up and clean up this site! He's the stand-up comedian on the site. He's actually very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I disagree, and by the way you are one of the few people in this thread "on the other side" who I don't feel deserves the label. At least I think it was you who several pages ago urged people to stop denying known science - like CO2 being a ghg, and the real debate was over what should be done, if anything, about it. I have no real problem with such a position, as I am only concerned with the science, and not policy decisions that may or may not be made based on the science. ... I agree here. The important thing to realize is that this forum is not at all suitable for discussing science, because most posters here have very limited or no scientific background. For example, you have people like wyly and waldo, who like to bring forth a bunch of links to various scientific studies on the subject. And a lot of these studies are interesting and valid. But wyly and waldo do not understand the science of the studies, they merely link to it, and quote it. It is like the difference between a physics librarian and a physicist. You can debate where to find a certain book with a physics librarian, but if you want to actually debate the meat and potatoes of quantum mechanics, you're out of luck. And then there are people like WWWTT, who brings up ideas like "conservation of matter and energy", as if this is a concept scientists forgot to apply to their analyses of climate change. And not out of any malice or bad intention, but simply because they don't know enough about the science, but (mis)apply what little they do know to the debate as if it was something new. The fact is, this is a great forum to discuss policy, but not so great a forum to discuss the details of the science. Really any debate on this forum regarding climate change, to be productive, should be framed as: "Let's assume that x is true, what, if anything, should we do about it, and why?" But the threads that try to discuss the actual science of it just go endlessly around in circles. For example, about 6 months or so ago, TimG and wyly/waldo (I don't know which one) had been arguing about the validity of some "proxy data" and how there had been some mistake regarding "inverse correlation" in when one author compiled data from various sources. TimG asked me to read the paper and weigh in. What was most interesting to me was that in months and multiple threads of discussion, the actual physical phenomenon were never once talked about directly. The data in question was sediments in some lake, and what mattered was the density of various types of materials in samples that had been looked at, and the correlation between these densities and global temperatures. And yet all the discussion was done using vague abstract terminology that totally removed itself from an actual understanding of what was going on. The first thing a scientist would do would be to read the paper and try to understand the physical phenomena in question. And then the discussion could proceed phrased in the simplest and most direct, most understandable terminology that was necessary to describe what was being talked about. But no one here bothered to try to do that, instead each side quoted blogs endlessly, blogs by people who did not seem to understand the actual science either. No, discussions of science here just go in circles, there's just not enough actual scientists here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 No, discussions of science here just go in circles, there's just not enough actual scientists here. ah yes, you've come down from your mount before, haven't you? Some of us here actually are university educated, with multiple degrees... whether or not they fit your definition of a working scientist. Clearly, this is not the Physics Forum... ya think you really needed to make that point? your described 'weighing in' reference is indicative of your own naivety, as reading the paper of that candidate doctorate student was most certainly not the definitive statement on the subject... no matter the failed attempts by TimG to leverage it as a target to negatively tarnish any/all climate scientists. That you would supposedly champion it over the greater application/process that presumed to speak to the signal within the related proxies is, in itself, indicative of the actual failings, yours in this case, that you presume to cast upon this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Something tells me that this waldo character has some anger issues.Time for the admin. to step up and clean up this site! again, you are not being insulted no matter how hard you feign indignity. I noted your propensity to turn to personalization, to attempt to marginalize... if you recall, I described it as a standard ploy by deniers, like you, who have nothing else to turn to. You certainly can't interpret the science - that's absolutely clear. You can also give up your now repeated statements on 'anger issues'... I certainly am not angry at you/anyone - I simply refuse to, 'suffer denier fools gladly'! Note: this is not an insult - check idioms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 You still haven't addressed the issue of the forced transfer of funds to countries, really the leaders of countries, who are forever "developing" but never seem to "develop." I addressed it - read next time. As I emphasized, iterative COP meetings have put in place a rigorous audit/overview mechanism intended to ally concerns over distribution of the funds monies. There will be intensive scrutiny of this fund... did you think otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 your described 'weighing in' reference is indicative of your own naivety, as reading the paper of that candidate doctorate student was most certainly not the definitive statement on the subject... no matter the failed attempts by TimG to leverage it as a target to negatively tarnish any/all climate scientists. That you would supposedly champion it over the greater application/process that presumed to speak to the signal within the related proxies is, in itself, indicative of the actual failings, yours in this case, that you presume to cast upon this board. Whether I was right or not in my evaluation of the paper was not even the point. Notice I specifically did not mention how I weighed in, because it was not relevant. It is possible I was mistaken, sure, though I don't think so. I don't particularly care to resurrect that debate, you and Tim certainly have already discussed it more than sufficiently. But the point is you and Tim argued about it for months, doing endless circles, and never once did any of you even post what the "signal" and the "proxies" were, or talk about the actual physical processes involved, or what kind of correlation one might expect based on the actual mechanics of the situation. One cannot debate science devoid of the actual science, and yet that is exactly what you guys were trying to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 The real problem are the legions of activists that are looking to cripple industrial economies with anti-CO2 regulations while transferring vast sums of money to third world despots because they "believe" that something could change if only governments "did something". These activists have no interest in consulting the experts who actually keep the systems we have running (And therefore understand the economics of power production). They simply seek out those few experts that work for rent seeking renewable energy companies and wannabe carbon traders that tell them that anything is possible if the government pays enough. If someone actually tried to find out what the consensus of energy production experts, I believe you would find it is closer to my view. ah yes, Wayward Son, there is the real TimG creeping back in... right there he hit upon a smattering of his collective: ideological bias, wealth distribution, rent seeking... all couched in a shill wrapper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) The fact is, this is a great forum to discuss policy, but not so great a forum to discuss the details of the science. Really any debate on this forum regarding climate change, to be productive, should be framed as: "Let's assume that x is true, what, if anything, should we do about it, and why?" But the threads that try to discuss the actual science of it just go endlessly around in circles. It goes positively ballistic when someone proposes that the first thing we should do is acknowledge the enormous fact that such a vast majority of scientists across a vast spectrum of sciences are loudly proclaiming that we need to do something immediately if not sooner. This is about the point when we find this forum is suddenly filled to the rafters with economic experts with settled science in hand that predicts the end of the world as we know it if we heed the scientists. Edited October 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Whether I was right or not in my evaluation of the paper was not even the point. Notice I specifically did not mention how I weighed in, because it was not relevant. you mean where you stated TimG asked you to read a paper and weigh in? It is possible I was mistaken, sure, though I don't think so. I don't particularly care to resurrect that debate, you and Tim certainly have already discussed it more than sufficiently. But the point is you and Tim argued about it for months, doing endless circles, and never once did any of you even post what the "signal" and the "proxies" were, or talk about the actual physical processes involved, or what kind of correlation one might expect based on the actual mechanics of the situation. One cannot debate science devoid of the actual science, and yet that is exactly what you guys were trying to do. no - you're wrong. All that detail was laboriously discussed... more pointedly, this summation of yours, once again, completely misses the mark. What would you call someone who presumes to offer summary comment on an overall situation/issue, without giving the alternate papers/process/procedures a like representation... because that's what you're doing... as you come down from your mount! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 It goes positively ballistic when someone proposes that the first thing we should do is acknowledge the enormous fact that such a vast majority of scientists across a vast spectrum of sciences are loudly proclaiming that we need to do something immediately if not sooner.This is about the point when we find this forum is suddenly filled to the rafters with economic experts with settled science in hand that predicts the end of the world as we know it if we heed the scientists. ever succinct! Ya, all these MLW econ experts suddenly appear offering 'alarming predictions/implications'... while equally casting science advocates as "alarmist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that scientists aren't alarmists. Economists on the other hand seem to make their money off being alarmists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 BTW isn't economics a socialist science? What's up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.