The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/21/2010 13:37:26 MDT Print View

Rog, I am a little less civil for two reasons: Continued major aftershocks have every one around here on edge, and the longer this thread goes on, the less likely I find myself to accept you ramblings.

Scientific method, you state, means your null hypothesis is THE null hypothesis for implicating human caused global warming or not. That is such utter balderdash that it makes me think you really are an amateur who has hung out too much on conspiracy websites (hey, if you choose to call the other side 'alarmists' then I choose to call you a 'conspiracist').

Here is my set of hypothesis (by no means complete), that I think better reflects the questions and also illustrates the difficulties of doing *good* science to a standard that is accepted by you peers, and well replicated to the point that it becomes the new working hypothesis for the majority of scientists in the field:

Null Hypothesis one: The temperature of the earth has not changed in the last ~200 years.

This must be rigorously tested, and replicated, using a variety of measures involved in regulating the temperature of the earth. If, and only if you discard this first hypothesis can you move on to other hypotheses. So maybe you (that's the collective *you* because without acceptable replication of results your own work may just be spurious) find that there is a trend towards warming (or cooling, rejecting the null hypothesis can go in either direction). In that case, you move on to a series of new null hypothesis.

Such as:

1)Fluctuations in the solar cycle are not responsible for this temperature change

2) Changes in plate tectonics and volcanics are not responsible for this change

3) Changes in ocean currents are not the cause

4) Changes in cloud cover are not to blame

5) Massive deforestation by humans is not to blame

6) Stocking of the deforested land with methane belching ruminants is not to blame

7) Human emissions of gases, both warming and cooling ones, are not to blame

And so on. Each of these hypothesis requires a different type of expertise to test, and replicate, and accept or reject the hypothesis. Even then, you will find contradictory findings that require more work to disentangle the causes. And I'll bet you'll find the answer to each of the hypothesis is to reject it. I have little doubt that all these factors, and more, are at the root cause of any changes seen in temperature. You can't just sweep everything handily into the two categories of Natural or Anthropogenic. There are many potential natural causes, and many potential anthropogenic causes. It's a huge task, and requires a huge budget and input from everyone who has expertise. You seem to trivialise it by implying it's a waste of time and money to even ask these questions, because you already know all the answers! Calling scientists back-slapping, self-serving idiots does not help your cause. It smacks of indignation, as if you wanted to be in 'the club' but weren't accepted, so now you spurn those who rejected you.

As I've said many times, I am not an alarmist nor a conspiracist. I am a true skeptic because I realise the big hurdles that need to be overcome before either point of view, or perhaps a middle point of view, emerges. Maybe both sides are right in some areas and wrong in others. This is usually the way in science. Being entrenched on one side or the other is not a the best place to be to make the necessary observations to understand climate change. Climate does change, all the time. Understanding why and what drives it is a noble and endless pursuit. It is not a fait accompli.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Simple wouldn't be how I would describe the issue. on 10/21/2010 16:51:29 MDT Print View

David says:
The real reason New Orleans flooded was because they had
the hubris to build below sea level, remove much of the
wetlands protecting the coast and relying on levees and the
oversight of those levees by others.

Every action effects other things. Do you really think
rising co2 levels will not cause some other issues? Changes
in flora and fauna? Changes in weather?

I do agree planning needs to have a broader focus, but
climate change needs to be taken into account as a possibility with dire consequences.


David, I agree New Orleans city planning left a lot to be desired. I don't think co2 levels are anything to be concerned about because the climate is full of negative feedbacks which counteract things which might take it out of balance.

The balance of gases in the atmosphere is largely controlled by bacteria and algaeforms which far outweigh us and the rest of the higher lifeforms on Earth by a big margin in terms of sheer tonnage. The Earth has gone through long periods of geological time when co2 levels were up to 20 times higher than today with no ill effects. On the contrary, they were times with richer plant life, which supported richer animal life.

The weather always changes, that's what keeps us on our toes. :-)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/21/2010 17:00:44 MDT Print View

Lynn, relax, the temperature of the planet isn't varying enough to get worked up about. The temperature of New Zealand has hardly changed in 150 years that it's been measured. NIWA are scaremongers who have now disowned their cooked up record since it got legally challenged.

The rest of the globe will just have to cope with the approx 0.7C it has risen in that time (if the record is correct... big if).

According to the Central England record, the temp went up over 3C in the 40 years from 1690. Nobody died because of it.

The climate experts are now agreeing that natural factors had more of an effect from 1970 than previously thought. This will lead to a new calculation of sensitivity which will make co2 a bit player in the climate story.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/21/2010 17:13:26 MDT Print View

"Lynn, relax,"

Not so easy when you are being bombarded by aftershocks. However, I am pretty relaxed about the weather, as I only really deal with the short term, which is great. Basically sunny and calm over most of NZ for the next 10 days. Very unusual to have that long of a high hang around. It's a long weekend coming up and I'm going to do my best to take advantage of the fine weather in the mountains. Should be relaxing to hopefully get away from the shaking, though we are anticipating a VERY big quake (8+) on our alpine fault in the forseeable future. I don't think I want to be in the mountains when that strikes, but you can't live in fear of the future. You CAN try and prepare. We will have lots of supplies stashed in our campervan at the trailhead in case of a natural disaster which may make roads home impassable for quite a while...at least water should not be a problem, as you are never far from fresh flowing rivers and creeks in this country.

Edited by retropump on 10/21/2010 17:14:02 MDT.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: 100 years ago on 10/21/2010 19:50:19 MDT Print View

Did you catch this?

http://www.examiner.com/travel-in-san-francisco/historic-film-market-street-1906-video

Filmed shortly before the big quake. Everybody wearing hats. People and car and horse wagons everywhere. Very different.

But no one had any idea that within days their lives would change.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 00:49:03 MDT Print View

Lynn, wise precautions. Volcanos and earthquakes are out of my experience. The biggest quake in Britain I've felt made some pots and jars rattle on the shelf. :-)

George, nice video. I wear a hat. Here's a pic of me and my nose in a hat on the summit of Bernia, at the end of the most challenging and exciting ridge climb I've ever done.

.Bernia1

And a couple from Earlier in the day:

.bernia2

.bernia3

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 01:59:21 MDT Print View

Craig...

Nuclear arms are bad. But perhaps they are a deterrent, with a catastrophic potential? Catastrophic deaths are due to people, not technology in the majority of cases.

World War 2 (1939-1945) = 40,000,000 to 72,000,000 deaths.
An Shi Rebellion (756-760) = 33,000,000 to 36,000,000 deaths.
Mongol Conquests (1207-1472) = 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 deaths.
Qing dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty (1616-1662) = 25,000,000 deaths.
Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) = 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 deaths.
World War 1 (high estimate includes Spanish flu (1914-1918) = 15,000,000 to 65,000,000 deaths.
Conquests of Timur (1369-1405) = 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 deaths.
Dungan revolt (1862-1877) = 8,000,000 to 12,000,000 deaths.
Russian Civil War (1917-1921) = 5,000,000 to 9,000,000 deaths.
Second Congo War (1998-2003) = 3,800,000 to 5,400,000 deaths.
Napolenoic Wars (1804-1815) = 3,500,000 to 6,500,000 deaths.
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) = 3,000,000 to 11,500,000 deaths.
Yellow Turban Rebellion (184-205) = 3,000,000 to 7,000,000 deaths.
Deluge (1655-1660) = 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 deaths.

etc, etc, etc. BTW, 6 of these wars were in China only, prior to industrialization with deaths estimated at 109 million to 130 million).

Approximately 40% of the traffic deaths include alcohol.

"The discovery of late Stone Age beer jugs has established the fact that intentionally fermented beverages existed at least as early as the Neolithic period (cir. 10,000 B.C.)." (quoted from Wikipedia).

The 1918 flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 50 million people, with an estimated 500 million infected. Technology can prevent this.

Even though people know that obesity can lead to diabetes, hearth disease, and a malady of diseases... people are too stupid to eat properly. Also, I have been eating at McDonald's since about 1958. I am not obese and pass my physicals easily. I do not eat there 3 times a day.

I grew up in an inner city, lived near the freeway, had asthma (genetic not sociological), and am in good health.

We are a society dependent upon drugs because no one is responsible for their action, or their own happiness. It is not a technology problem, but society who promises to make our life happy.

We can fix/reduce the incarceration of prisoners problem pretty quickly.

I agree that we have a toxic waste problem. But technology can fix a lot of this too. Those who create waste and pollute intentionally should be punished.

Edited by ngatel on 10/22/2010 02:22:24 MDT.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 02:18:22 MDT Print View

The climate experts are now agreeing that natural factors had more of an effect from 1970 than previously thought. This will lead to a new calculation of sensitivity which will make co2 a bit player in the climate story.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Climategate is just another tactic of a minority to force their political agenda on the rest of us. It is a convenient vehicle to induce fear on the masses. When the climate hoax is proved as such, they will find something else.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 03:17:08 MDT Print View

"Arapiles says:
As it happens I am a finance lawyer

Ahhh, you're a lawyer.

That explains a lot. Thanks."


It wasn't exactly a secret.

"Well you're the finance lawyer Arapiles, you should know how to game the system."

Rog, don't be rude: I know lawyers who destroyed their careers in order to do the right thing when the choice had to be made. Characterising lawyers as dishonest or scheming is just insulting. And weren't you the one decrying someone for their vile personal attacks?

Edited by Arapiles on 10/22/2010 03:22:15 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 04:16:15 MDT Print View

Arapiles says:
Rog, don't be rude:...Characterising lawyers as dishonest or scheming is just insulting....weren't you the one decrying someone for their vile personal attacks?


Yes. You. Stop being rude to me and I'll stop being rude to you.

It's easy, if you don't like having to take it back, then stop dishing it out. I give as good as I get.

I'll start the goodwill ball rolling by rephrasing
"you should know how to game the system"
to
"You should know how the system is gamed"

So how about answering this?

Lord Oxburgh's Inquiry into Phil Jones activities invited him to decide which of his papers would be scrutinised.
You're a lawyer Arapiles. If you were prosecuting counsel, would you be ok with it if the Judge allowed the defendant to decide which pieces of evidence were to be admitted? Do please give us a professional opinion.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/22/2010 04:24:33 MDT.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 05:21:55 MDT Print View

"Yes. You. Stop being rude to me and I'll stop being rude to you."

Pointing out inaccuracies in your claims isn't "being rude" - it's called debating.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 05:58:15 MDT Print View

You'll debate anything but the substantive issues it seems.

Hardly surprising, since the actions of Phil Jones, Lord Oxburgh, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, old uncle Tom Wrigley et al are utterly indefensible.

You avert your gaze, refuse to participate in discussion regarding these peoples actions, and pretend it's all a conspiracy theory in someone elses head.

What a joke.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/22/2010 08:58:59 MDT.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 09:03:13 MDT Print View

Those are good points Nick. The numbers you list are pretty insane. How many are a by-product of religious madness?

The point of my post is not to say we're better or worse off with/without technology. I'm simply saying that with technological civilization come entirely new problems that are unique to technology.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
religious madness on 10/22/2010 09:11:36 MDT Print View

Craig-

How much "religious madness" is caused by the power hungry?

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: religious madness on 10/22/2010 09:37:29 MDT Print View

Good point David.

One is often the tool off the other.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 10:16:34 MDT Print View

Craig,

Religious wars pale in comparison to men trying to rule others and gain power. But religion does post some pretty impressive death numbers:

Thirty Years' War = 3,000,000 to 11,500,000.
French Wars of Religion = 2,000,000 to 4,000,000.
2nd Sudanese Civil War = 1,000,000 to 2,000,000
The Crusades = 1,000,000 to 2,000,000.

Of course we cannot measure the death and suffering that has been a by product of Religion's war against man's mind. It has stunted or prevented science from solving mankind's problems for millennium.

However, religion is the forefather of philosophy.

Technology is the by-product of Men of the Mind.

A couple great books to read are:

The Discovery of Freedom, Man's Struggle Against Authority, by Rose Wilder Lane.

The God of the Machine, by Isabel Paterson.

Both books were published in 1943.

The best selling book published in 1943 was the Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. These 3 women were friends and often spent weeks together discussing their ideas. Those must have been some incredible sessions! They were also friends of Ludqig von Mises, the genius Austrian economist.

BTW, Rose Wilder Lane was the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and was the 'ghost writer' of The Little House on the Prairie.

The quest for rule by the power mongers is an anti-technology war to control man's mind. They need an illiterate and poor populace to control. They are the anti-industrial left. Their enemy is the men of the mind. Their mantra is religion in its various manifestations. Their enemies are the men of the mind, such as Rog. These power mongers fear

- Objective Reality
- Reason
- Self-interest of each individual
- Capitalism

Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 10:52:57 MDT Print View

The Who, December 3rd 1979 = 11

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 11:01:16 MDT Print View

"Religious wars pale in comparison to men trying to rule others and gain power."

Aren't they one and the same?

"The quest for rule by the power mongers is an anti-technology war to control man's mind. They need an illiterate and poor populace to control. They are the anti-industrial left. Their enemy is the men of the mind. Their mantra is religion in its various manifestations. Their enemies are the men of the mind, such as Rog."

To put it mildly, that's a pretty broad brush you're using there.
Very convenient how the argument is being framed that essentially anybody that happens to oppose a Randian-Objectivist-Laizze Faire-Capitist outlook also opposes "men of the mind"- hence rationality and reason, as well as technology.

If this is the is the starting point for how others' opinions are regarded, there is no point in discussion.

How dare I suggest a serious critique of capitalism and technological society! Enemy of reason!

I propose that NO system will ever have it right.
I propose all systems be scrutinized, torn apart, and examined rationally.
I find an honest critique of capitalism especially important because that is the primary system under which I live.

I daresay it's not a perfect system!

This makes me an enemy of "men of the mind"?

THAT is dangerous thinking.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/22/2010 11:21:34 MDT.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/22/2010 11:26:45 MDT Print View

If in the future, technological breakthroughs resulted in unlimited resources (good food, clean water, fuel, shelter, etc.) then what would happen to the power model? Would we move on to a higher level of human beings? There would be no reason to hoard or fight over anything. Heaven on earth so to speak.

If we don't kill each other before this happens then it will occur.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Son of Carbon Flame War on 10/22/2010 11:50:53 MDT Print View

"Here's a pic of me and my nose in a hat on the summit of Bernia"

Ah, now we have the REAL story! Your nose is the cause of global warming! Oh, wait, that'd be global cooling, since it blocks the sun.........