wyly Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 How about it's an irrelevant point to begin with? Because I could say the same thing about a bodybuilder or a football player taking steroids: no one can determine what percentage of athletic performance is attributable to natural abilities and training, and what percentage was due to the increased muscle-building capacity of taking artificial testosterones. there you go... using the moonbox approach ben johnson could reclaim his gold medal, there's no evidence which of his muscle cells were improved by steroids or by how much, no citation required...So, the same thing can be said about the weather (and should!) We do know that ever 1 degree celcius increase in global average temperature allows the atmosphere to hold an additional 7% more water vapour. Add that to the extra heat energy, and it's easy to see that raising the global average temperatures acts like injecting steroids into the bodies of elite athletes.exactly, you can't add energy without having an effect, it's impossible...and stats kept by insurance corporations reflect the increase in damage from catastrophic weather events (but the stats are all phoney according to tim because insurance corps are in on the AGW money grab conspiracy)...this is grade school stuff, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand what they claim is impossible...denierworld wants to dispute 97% of the world's climatologists expertise yet they can't even think through the simplest concepts...wwwtt denies GHG's, moonbox now claims energy increases can not be quantified(no citation required )... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 you display zero ability for critical thinking...you cannot add energy/warming without consequences... Isn't that what I just said to you? Yeah. It was. Nice kindergarten response. NO YOU! more energy=more warming=more extreme weather...it can do nothing else,there must be a reaction...you claiming otherwise and not providing a citation for such a ridiculous claim is hypocritical... Put reading comprehension on the list of your disabilities too, because that's not what I said at all. I said that nobody can accurately measure what the % of atmosphere related disasters can be blamed on CO2 emissions. I'm still waiting for someone to prove that they can. In any case, TimG gave us a nifty link early which summarized the findings of: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" from Chapter 4 of the IPCC's own report, which is linked on that site as well. You ignored that along with my link showing hurricanes in the USA have decreased in frequency and severity over the last 100 years (despite increased Co2), so clearly there's more to the picture than the simple scenario you desperately need to believe. This wasn't even what I was arguing though. I wasn't arguing that it wasn't happening, I was arguing that nobody is able to accurately measure how much we're responsible for it and how much is just natural weather trends. Once again, I'll invite you to show us otherwise or tuck your tail between your legs and take off. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 Systemic bias in one direction should be noticable. Yes every human being within the organization has some bias, but that does not mean that the sum of the bias is directional. It could for the most part just cancel out. Are there organziations that are biased? Sure. Does that mean that all organizations are? No. Without seeing evidence to support NSERC bias I have no reason to accept it. Doing so would simply be accepting your bias. I'm glad you resopnded because I read his reply today and completely forget what it was we were talking about. Quote
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Yes every human being within the organization has some bias, but that does not mean that the sum of the bias is directional.I disagree. Organizations are not random samples of humans. The are self-selected groups of people that collaborate to achieve the goals of the organization. This means that organizations will always have some bias that reflects the culture of the organization. To see how this organizational bias is inevitable start with the graduating class of high school students in a province. This class is a more or less a random sample. Within that sample there are a subset of students which are good in math/science. We could assume that this subgroup is also a random sample but not necessarily. The math/science students will choose majors in university - the choice of major where the first sorting occurs. People with certain personalities and political outlooks are attracted to different majors. e.g. you will find more free market oriented people choosing engineering and other fields where a career in the private sector is likely. you will find more pro-government people choosing science or the fields where a career in university or government is likely. The next sorting happens when these graduate choose their jobs. A person who dislikes government is not going to take a job with the government unless there is no other choice. A person who thinks corporations are evil will seek out NGOs or government work. We can then add the corporate culture into the mix. A company selling solar panels is not going to hire someone who thinks that solar power is a scam. And so on and so on. The bottom line is your assertion that organizational biases "cancel out" is simply not credible given what we know about humans and organizations. By claiming NSERC is unbiased you are simply stating that NSERC happens to be biased in a way you like. You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it a fact. Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 Isn't that what I just said to you? Yeah. It was. Nice kindergarten response. NO YOU! Put reading comprehension on the list of your disabilities too, because that's not what I said at all. I said that nobody can accurately measure what the % of atmosphere related disasters can be blamed on CO2 emissions. I'm still waiting for someone to prove that they can. In any case, TimG gave us a nifty link early which summarized the findings of: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" from Chapter 4 of the IPCC's own report, which is linked on that site as well. You ignored that along with my link showing hurricanes in the USA have decreased in frequency and severity over the last 100 years (despite increased Co2), so clearly there's more to the picture than the simple scenario you desperately need to believe. This wasn't even what I was arguing though. I wasn't arguing that it wasn't happening, I was arguing that nobody is able to accurately measure how much we're responsible for it and how much is just natural weather trends. Once again, I'll invite you to show us otherwise or tuck your tail between your legs and take off. so now you imply co2 isn't a ghg and even if it was the increased energy can't have an effect...what's more insurance company's can't possibly be tracking increased damages from those impossible events, it's all imaginary part of the greater global conspiracy, just tim to confirm...roger pielke jr? you mean the guy who in 2007 wanted hurricanes included as part of the climate change mitigation debate but by 2010 wanted nothing to do with the suggestion? that roger piekle? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 which is why your on the same side as the scientifically challenged www, cpc, tim...you display zero ability for critical thinking.ROTFL - it is AGW zealots like yourself that are completely lacking in critical thinking skills. If you had those skills you would understand that the system of government grants encourages scientists to exaggerate problems because that is the path to more grants. If you had critical thinking skills you would recognize that environmental NGOs have a financial incentive to exaggerate problems because that brings in more donation. Quote
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) so now you imply co2 isn't a ghg and even if it was the increased energy can't have an effect.Your lack of critical thinking skills is on display again.A hypothetical link between increased energy in storms and warming does not show that this hypothetical link will result in an measurable difference in the real world. The actual data has been analyzed over and over again and the results are the same: there is NO determinable trend in disaster losses associated with warming. That might change in the future but today all you have is a hypothesis. Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG Quote
Moonbox Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 so now you imply co2 isn't a ghg and even if it was the increased energy can't have an effect... LoL! Nice try! I didn't say/imply anything of the sort. Increased energy =/ automatically mean increased hurricanes, and it seems the IPCC agrees. Sorry! Chalk up another critical failure in reasoning for the waldo/wyly tag team! roger pielke jr? you mean the guy who in 2007 wanted hurricanes included as part of the climate change mitigation debate but by 2010 wanted nothing to do with the suggestion? that roger piekle? I couldn't care less about who he is. I'm more concerned with the IPCC's findings. I suppose they're not credible either when they don't agree with you? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 How about it's an irrelevant point to begin with? Because I could say the same thing about a bodybuilder or a football player taking steroids: no one can determine what percentage of athletic performance is attributable to natural abilities and training, and what percentage was due to the increased muscle-building capacity of taking artificial testosterones. So, the same thing can be said about the weather (and should!) We do know that ever 1 degree celcius increase in global average temperature allows the atmosphere to hold an additional 7% more water vapour. Add that to the extra heat energy, and it's easy to see that raising the global average temperatures acts like injecting steroids into the bodies of elite athletes. I'm not arguing the physics behind the phenomenon, although I think it's a far more complicated relationship than some simple minds like to believe and recent data hasn't really confirmed it. I'm arguing that any measurement of the monetary impact of disasters caused by the temperature increase can't be measured accurately. It seems that you, at least, acknowledge that. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Wayward Son Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 The bottom line is your assertion that organizational biases "cancel out" is simply not credible given what we know about humans and organizations. By claiming NSERC is unbiased you are simply stating that NSERC happens to be biased in a way you like. You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it a fact. Like I said, bring evidence. Your assertion is that NSERC must have bias. That is your set position. My assertion is that I have no reason to conclude that there is bias unless evidence is shown. That is my set position. My set position can be changed - all you need to provide evidence. Your set position would be difficult to change as it would require proving a negative. Quote
jbg Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 ...welcome to denierworld i Is that an amusement park? Does that qualify as serious argument? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Like I said, bring evidence. Your assertion is that NSERC must have bias. That is your set position.My position is bias is a purely subjective concept that it is impossible for any organization to be neutral because the concept of "neutral" does not exist. Even if I provided evidence that convinces you that NSERC is biased other people would look at that same evidence and conclude that it proves NSERC is not biased.If you want to claim that NSERC is not biased you must first provide some definition of bias that is not purely subjective. All you have said so far is "give me evidence that NSERC does not agree with me". I can't do that since I don't really know what you agree with and what you don't agree with. Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG Quote
Moonbox Posted October 3, 2012 Report Posted October 3, 2012 Is that an amusement park? Does that qualify as serious argument? In wyly/waldoworld it does! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 One and only shot for what? If we're tracking happiness and personal satisfaction, the industrial revolution marked a great leap backwards for the human race. Whatever kind of civilization is sustainable for the long term future, it's not one that requires hoovering out all of the natural resources in the ground. First, your claim here is entirely unsubstantiated. There are no quantitative metrics for worldwide "happiness" that extend to times prior to the industrial revolution. Your statement is simply opinion, nothing else. And, I hold the contrary opinion, that the human condition has significantly improved since the time of the industrial revolution for a significant majority of the world's population. As for one shot for what, that is an excellent question. What I want to see is a civilization that is flourishing and progressing, and will do so for as far into the future as possible, and that ensures the greatest possible chances for the long term survival of the human species and its descendants. And that means expanding out beyond this one vulnerable planet, which means large scale technology and industry and continued utilization of more and more resources to achieve that goal. Fortunately, we have barely begun to tap the resources available to us, we need only continue to develop our science and technology to be able to exploit new types of resources in new ways that we have not utilized in the past. Quote
wyly Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) In wyly/waldoworld it does! absolutely! the laughs the scientifically challenged supply waldo and myself with hours of amusement...where else can we see adults with less than grade school understanding of science challenge the findings of 97% of the world's expert climatologists...and when their feeble attempts fail to convince anyone they know more than the experts they fall back to your fail safe conspiracy theories "al gore and the socialists"....yes only in denierworld... Edited October 4, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 Does anyone else think wyly is starting to sound like a broken record? Denier-world, denier-world, denier-world...it's funny because it's pretty clear he doesn't even understand what other people are arguing about. It's just denier-world...denier-world... I'm waiting for him to come out and tell us his nephew is a top climate scientist at the IPCC now. I'm surprised that hasn't come out yet! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
GostHacked Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 I guess my proposal of REAL trees is not the way to go ....... http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies Scientists are looking at ways to modulate the global temperature by removing some of this greenhouse gas from the air. If it works, it would be one of the few ways of geoengineering the planet with multiple benefits, beyond simply cooling the atmosphere.Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide just like all other metabolic life forms. Meanwhile, photosynthetic organisms like plants and algae take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. This balance has kept the planet at a comfortably warm average temperature of 14C (57F), compared with a chilly -18C (0F) if there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "We don't need to expose the leaves to sunlight for photosynthesis like a real tree does," Lackner explains. "So our leaves can be much more closely spaced and overlapped – even configured in a honeycomb formation to make them more efficient."The leaves look like sheets of papery plastic and are coated in a resin that contains sodium carbonate, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it as a bicarbonate (baking soda) on the leaf. To remove the carbon dioxide, the leaves are rinsed in water vapour and can dry naturally in the wind, soaking up more carbon dioxide. Lackner calculates that his tree can remove one tonne of carbon dioxide a day. Ten million of these trees could remove 3.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to about 10% of our global annual carbon dioxide emissions. "Our total emissions could be removed with 100 million trees," he says, "whereas we would need 1,000 times that in real trees to have the same effect." Quote
wyly Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 I guess my proposal of REAL trees is not the way to go ....... http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies get the carbon producers to pay for the trees and it might work...what do you do with the billions of tons of baking soda? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 Does anyone else think wyly is starting to sound like a broken record? Denier-world, denier-world, denier-world...it's funny because it's pretty clear he doesn't even understand what other people are arguing about. It's just denier-world...denier-world... oh I understand completely... I see right through your tangents/deflections I'm just not letting you get away with it...denierworld methods 1-ignore(or don't comprehend grade school science) basic science while questioning/ridiculing the experts in their field of research competence... 2-intellectual arrogance-if I don't know it can't be true... 3-deflect with weird and silly tangents... 4-conspiracy theories(everyone involved in the research of climate change is a socialist in it only for the money) I'm waiting for him to come out and tell us his nephew is a top climate scientist at the IPCC now. I'm surprised that hasn't come out yet! I mine the knowledge of others(friends and family) who are experts in their fields of study it's called research you maybe unfamiliar with the concept, I don't claim to be an expert at anything but I have no hesitation consulting those who are experts in their disciplines ...this is why you make stupid comments, you have no informed sources you arrogantly believe you know everything... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) ignore(or don't comprehend grade school science) basic science while questioning/ridiculing the experts in their field of research competence.Exactly what you do with your nuclear power fear mongering.intellectual arrogance-if I don't know it can't be true.intellectual arrogance-green energy can work if only government spent enough money...conspiracy theories(everyone involved in the research of climate change is a socialist in it only for the money)This is rich. Alarmists are ALWAYS whinging about the big oil conspiracy. That is a real conspiracy theory. Pointing out that our science funding system creates incentives to exaggerate problems is not a conspiracy theory. It is stating the obvious.I don't claim to be an expert at anything but I have no hesitation consulting those who are experts in their disciplinesExcept when it comes to nuclear power or green energy. When it comes to those fields you ignore the experts because they don't tell you want you want to hear.Spare us your holier-than-thou crap. You are a pathetic hypocrite. Edited October 4, 2012 by TimG Quote
Moonbox Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 oh I understand completely... I see right through your tangents/deflections I'm just not letting you get away with it... You see through VERY little, and you've offered little more than childish 'denier-world' for most of the thread. I mine the knowledge of others(friends and family) who are experts in their fields of study it's called research you maybe unfamiliar with the concept, Yeah you mine these 'experts' and come up with some real 'gems'. From this we can either assume that these 'experts' aren't really experts at all, or you can't understand anything they're saying. Remember our medieval history talk? you have no informed sources you arrogantly believe you know everything... A few pages ago I believe you were offered several citations, from both the IPCC and the US Hurricane Centre, showing that atmosphere related disasters have NOT been on the rise, yet you still insisted that they were. Ever heard the term, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."? You may be able to mine your relatives and associates for information, or google search, but you've show an alarming inability to unravel what any of the information means for any practical considerations. You are, however, great entertainment. Call me arrogant if you want. I make no effort to disguise my contempt for your flailing, child-like arguments. Denier-world...denier-world...denier-world. Keep saying it. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Mighty AC Posted October 4, 2012 Report Posted October 4, 2012 When all costs are considered nuclear and fossil fuel derived power are not nearly as cheap as their advocates claim. Nuclear power costs rarely include all expenses like decommission, contamination, full insurance against an accident, final waste deposit or full construction costs. Fossil fuel sources never include the cost of air pollution. On a level playing field renewable sources are already cost competitive and will only continue to get cheaper. Nuclear Power Myths Germany's phaseout reveals the true costs of nuclear power Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
WIP Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 there you go... using the moonbox approach ben johnson could reclaim his gold medal, there's no evidence which of his muscle cells were improved by steroids or by how much, no citation required... exactly, you can't add energy without having an effect, it's impossible...and stats kept by insurance corporations reflect the increase in damage from catastrophic weather events (but the stats are all phoney according to tim because insurance corps are in on the AGW money grab conspiracy)... I recall several years back, reading that the world's largest insurance underwriter - Munich RE, was starting to factor in the increasing costs of storm damage in calculating the costs of insuring property; and in some cases, advising abandoning areas where the risks were getting too high. While the oil and coal companies were hiring PR firms to run disinformation campaigns trying to tell everyone to go back to sleep, Munich RE was calculating the rising damage costs, and attributing the rise....and more important - projecting increasing costs in the future, to the effects that a warming atmosphere is having on weather patterns. But, as far as I know, Munich RE has done nothing equivalent to alert the general public to the dangers. They, like the Kochs and other oil barons, are just in business to make money; and their primary concerns over climate change are business-related i.e. raising claims costs and making the calculations of future risk more difficult.....may they all burn in hell! this is grade school stuff, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand what they claim is impossible...denierworld wants to dispute 97% of the world's climatologists expertise yet they can't even think through the simplest concepts...wwwtt denies GHG's, moonbox now claims energy increases can not be quantified(no citation required )... Yes, in highly specialized fields that require years of training, we're usually stuck with using the consensus of expert opinion to find the truth. As much as I love reading about science and new discoveries, I don't have blanket trust in scientists or engineers either! Especially when it comes to new technologies, the creators and designers of the new invention are going to promote it to the hilt as the holy grail, and there is little in the way of skeptical challenges (even for new pharmaceutical drugs) when all sides of the debate and a sycophantic media are all on one side. It's usually a few years later that we find out that the new invention or product has negative health or environmental effects, which are usually dealt with by inventing counter-technologies to counter the bad effects of the original product. But, in the field of climate research, Tim G has made a claim that there is money to be made by climatologists like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones and others who receive less attention (primarily because they haven't been targeted by rightwing media and front groups) are in it for the money. As far as I am aware, a researcher at one of the major climate research units can earn a good salary befitting the credentials; but when it comes to money, there are bags of loot offered by the oil-funded groups for any scientist claiming to be a skeptic or a detractor from the general consensus for whatever reasons. I'd like to see a comparison between what Roy Spencer, John Christie and the Pielke's have earned over the years. And it's worth noting that they will elevate the credentials of their deniers -- I'm thinking in particular of this clown - Tim Ball, a retired meteorologist who is passed off on right wing talk radio shows as a climate expert. Spencer and Christie are for all intents and purposes working for the Koch Brothers, aside from what they make on the lecture circuit and writing books that are bought up by right wing think tanks, since their Earth System Science Center was built for them by grants from the Koch's and other financial interests with an interest in keeping the status quo. And it's not like Huntsville is a university campus starved for cash! This place has been one of the hotbeds for missile and weapons research, as the bulk of their funding comes from the defense dept. Naomi Oreskes noted that the first group of climate change denier experts came out of the missile defense industry....now there's a group of scientists I would expect to be biased by political ideology! But do the climate researchers trying to do honest research have the kind of deep pockets to draw upon as the expert deniers? I doubt it! There may be some money coming from Big Green environmental lobbies with interests in building windmills and solar panels, or taking financial positions whenever cap'n trade schemes get off the ground. But, 7 of the 10 most profitable corporations in the world are still the big oil companies. And they have decided that there is still more money to be made extracting the last bits of fossil fuels out of the ground than there is in any alternative energy sources. So, comparing the money and motivations from all sides, that 97% consensus on anthropogenic climate change is especially significant. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
TimG Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 But, in the field of climate research, Tim G has made a claim that there is money to be made by climatologists like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones and others who receive less attention (primarily because they haven't been targeted by rightwing media and front groups) are in it for the money.A complete misrepresentation of my views. I have stated quite clearly that the system have set up for funding science rewards those that "cry wolf" because the cries get media attention which often leads to more funding as politicians try to show the are "doing something" about the problem. Science which produces results that say there is no problem that needs solving gets no funding. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 ABSOLUTLEY!!!!!!!!!!! The "Environmet" is simply a money-making venture now adays. A complete misrepresentation of my views. I have stated quite clearly that the system have set up for funding science rewards those that "cry wolf" because the cries get media attention which often leads to more funding as politicians try to show the are "doing something" about the problem. Science which produces results that say there is no problem that needs solving gets no funding. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.