Socialists in a Panic

[big]

It's only wishful thinking that there is a panic over the email scandal. You want to nitpick more, find someone else to nitpick at, bug.

Intimation is everywhere here.

 

[Ron in Regina]

This Thread isn't about 'big'.....so please feel free to take the Thread
back to "(insert Thread subject here)" as indicated by the Thread
title. Thank You.

 

[TrapperSnapper]

Are not socialists always in a panic about something.

 

[JLM]

Are not socialists always in a panic about something.

I never really thought that panic was a trait particular to any political party, except possibly while campaigning for an election.

 

[Extrafire]

Extrafire- I like how you use the tactic of posting several times in a row to drown out opposition, why can't you just put all your "thoughts" in one post, your "style" gives the impression that you have the attention span of a squirrel

It isn't a tactic, and I welcome response to anything I post. It's just that I don't spend all that much time here. After a couple days away I just respond to all the answers that have accrued. Since the replies are to different comments by different posters, putting them all in one post would be cumbersome to say the least and would not allow me to address each concern individually.

 

[Extrafire]

So, is it only evidence if it's confirmed by observational data?

Even then it isn't evidence. If that's the case then it becomes tool that gave an accurate prediction, but not evidence in itself.

Not unusual at all. My hammers give the same output. The tool is the hammer, the strikes on the nail are not a tool. The finished product, made using the tool is something completely different. When used as an experiment, it's evidence....

A hammer is used to bash in the head of a victim. The tool then become evidence in the ensuing investigation. A totally different scenario, unrelated to what we're talking about, but that's how a tool can be evidence.

A computer is used to process data in order to reach a conclusion. The computer is a tool, not evidence. The program used by the computer is a tool, not evidence. The only way the program (or model) would be considered evidence is if its accuracy was being investigated, but that would be evidence for an entirely different purpose, not evidence for the original conclusion.

Not a generalized question, and very related. How would you perform experiments in climate science? Do you have access to a climate somewhere that we can experiment on, besides the human experiment on Earth?

Yes its very generalized. What are you wanting to discover? On what aspect of the climate?

 

[Liberalman]

Canada's Harper will say no to the plan in Copenhagen and tell the environmentalists to Pi$$ Off and get a real job.

This plan is wrong and this will be the reason it will fail

 

[Extrafire]

No, not maybe not. Anna said that increasing carbon dioxide will affect the oceans, and that study clearly indicates that it does.

Good point. I took it as meaning that all effect of CO2 on oceans is detrimental and that's what my "maybe not" referred to.

One study where the 7/18 organisms built more shell does not in any way equate to maybe not. The majority of the organisms studied did not increase shell growth. Tipping the balance in nature to favour some species over others isn't a good idea anyways. As if we haven't already done that...

Also, keep in mind that the animals in laboratory conditions are well fed, nutrients are all in excess, and there are no other environmental pressures except for the imposed conditions. That makes the portability of these results low, which is why the author cautions against drawing conclusions from his study. What his study shows, is that there is still considerable uncertainty at the organism level to the dissolved carbonic acid response in calcifying organisms.

Did Watts post this portion of the ScienceDaily article:

I bet he didn't. It's not very convenient when you're cherry-picking studies.

Yes indeed he did. You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[Extrafire]

Foolish talk. Nature does not have human characteristics.
The better idea would be to quit trying to dominate nature (or at least quit messing with it) until we know how without hurting ourselves.

Tell you what. Currently it's -15C outside. Why don't you walk outside in the alltogether and see how long you last. The fact is, our comfortable convenient lives, so well protected from the environment (and Mom Nature) are utterly dependant on fighting it. Nature gave us smallpox, influenza, malaria and cancer. Nature gives us blistering heat, bitter cold and everything in between. Nature gives us predators, parasites and e-coli. It's only by fighting what nature throws at us, protecting ourselves from her ravages with all the benefits of modern technology that we live so long and comfortable. We're so spoiled we forget what nature is really like. The typical environmentalist (who loves mother nature and the environment so much) lives in a large urban center, removed as far from and protected as much from nature and the environment as it's possible to get, surrounded by pleasures, luxuries and conveniences, all made possible by an abundant supply of cheap energy. But they've been fooled into thinking that nature is benevolent and kind, and we have to stop using all that energy and modern conveniences to "save the planet". Fools.

 

[Extrafire]

More rubbish. We have no idea what all is involved with climate or nature, so that obviously means we have no idea how we affect it.

Really???8O All those climate scientists who are warning of climate Armaggedon know absolutely nothing about climate? Wow! I'll bet you're really ticked off at those AGW alarmists!

 

[Extrafire]

You sure need a education on marine mammals. Polar bears main prey is seal. Seal can survive weeks at sea under the ice surfacing at blowholes periodically. If they use land they are never far from shore and there is no brush, forest, etc. around for big white things to sneak up on unsuspecting seal. A few hops to the water and seal is gone and polar bear is still yards away from shore.

Well I won't argue that, but I still see no reason to fear for polar bears. Here's a few facts:

They've had a population explosion over the last 50 years, some say they've quintupled in that time, so it hardly seems that warming is hurting them.

They've survived much warmer climate that the current one. The Medieval Climate Optimum, the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming were all warmer than now. Prior to that, almost all of the current interglacial was even warmer still. And the previous interglacial was considerably warmer than that. Yet the polar bears didn't die out, so they aren't going to die out from warming now.

 

[Extrafire]

It is our comfort that is hurting all our neighbors globally.

Our comfort isn't hurting them at all. And if we gave up that which provides our comfort (cheap abundant energy) we would lose our wealth, they would lose the spinoff from that wealth and we would no longer be able to give them aid. It is very much in their interest that we stay comfortable, and as a matter of fact what they want most is to be as comfortable as we are.

 

[AnnaG]

Tell you what. Currently it's -15C outside. Why don't you walk outside in the alltogether and see how long you last. The fact is, our comfortable convenient lives, so well protected from the environment (and Mom Nature) are utterly dependant on fighting it. Nature gave us smallpox, influenza, malaria and cancer. Nature gives us blistering heat, bitter cold and everything in between. Nature gives us predators, parasites and e-coli. It's only by fighting what nature throws at us, protecting ourselves from her ravages with all the benefits of modern technology that we live so long and comfortable. We're so spoiled we forget what nature is really like.

Speak for yourself. There are an awful lot of people that live WITH nature instead of IN SPITE of it like you seem to prefer.

The typical environmentalist (who loves mother nature and the environment so much) lives in a large urban center, removed as far from and protected as much from nature and the environment as it's possible to get, surrounded by pleasures, luxuries and conveniences, all made possible by an abundant supply of cheap energy.

Really? I have never seen any demographics on which environmentalists live where. Would you like to post the link to one, please?
Given all the things that can happen out in nature, it must be a shocker to you to find that people can live out there and get along well. My ancestors did it for thousands of years. People still do it. Have you ever heard of Dian Fossey or Jane Goodall? Tim Treadwell? Perhaps you would like reading a little bit. I think it'd open your mind a little.

Amazon.com: Living With Wolves (9781594850004): Jim Dutcher, Helen Cherullo, James Manfull: Books

Dian Fossey Biography - Pictures, History, and Research Methods of Dian Fossey - DFGFI

Jane Goodall Biography - life, family, childhood, children, parents, wife, school, mother, son, book, old, information, born, house, marriage, time, year

Grizzly Man [2005] [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: Timothy Treadwell, Werner Herzog: DVD

But they've been fooled into thinking that nature is benevolent and kind, and we have to stop using all that energy and modern conveniences to "save the planet". Fools.

I suppose there are some like that. And yes, they are fools.

 

[AnnaG]

Really???8O All those climate scientists who are warning of climate Armaggedon know absolutely nothing about climate? Wow! I'll bet you're really ticked off at those AGW alarmists!

I think he meant to tag the word "sometimes" on the end of his sentence. But I am sure you could figure that out, right?

 

[Extrafire]

I don't think she mentioned anything about a serious scientists. You did. Perhaps you should ask Michael Mann that question. Anna has her Bach in Anthropology. She is a serious scientist, has a stiff set of principles, and probably does not understand why any scientist would do such a thing except for money. I imagine there are a variety of reasons. Why do people commit murder? Profit, revenge, sometimes for fun, etc. I can't see scientists reasons being any different.

You've diverged from the question. You're correct as for reasons why a scientist might commit fraud, they're people like anyone else and would do so for the same reasons, but that's not the question I'm asking. I'll ask it again a little differently.

If a scientist wants to prove an hypothesis and he has all the data, the evidence necessary to do so, would he not use that evidence? Would any scientist in that position discard the evidence and resort to fraud instead?

It should be a rhetorical question, but apparently it isn't. The only reason a scientist would resort to fraud is that's the only way he/she can do it. (Plus she/he is dishonest.)

Suzuki wants to be PM or premiere? Why? He's famous, makes plaenty of dough, is pretty influental, etc.

Greenpeace has a political agenda. WWF has a political agenda. The IPCC has a political agenda. Doesn't mean they want to be PM. Why? Because he's ideologically opposed to the capitalist system and wants to change it.

That is an opinion on one side. Nothing's been proven one way or the other.

Oh yes it has. That's why the other side has to use fraud.

If you look back, she did not say beetle infestation was directly caused by warming. You leaped to the assumption that's what she said. I am pretty sure nature is a bit more complicated than what you can grasp. Something seemingly minor over at one end of an ecology can have an indirect effect on something at another part which has an indirect effect in yet another part. Besides that, something affecting one area may not show up immediately. The simple fact is that humans do things that nature can cope with, given time, but humans are impatient. If people introduce a rapid overabundance of CO2 into the atmosphere that when the same occurrence hasn't been there since before man, man is the variable and high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere with lots of humans around is unique and the effects are unknown.

Actually the effects are known, the main one being increased plant growth.

Funny that the Electrohauls at Brenda Mines used to operate year round, sometimes in temps below -40.

And where do they get their electricity? From a diesel engine, just like a Letourneau log loader or a deisel electric train engine. An electric motor runs fine in the cold, as long as it's getting its juice from somewhere. When that juice comes from a deisel or gas engine, how do you divorce yourself from dependancy on the oil companies? I think she was referring to converting to a full electric system, with rechargeable batteries. Those batteries lose most of their charge at -30 and then you have the additional task of defrosting the windshield and heating the passenger compartment. I wouldn't get across town.

 

[AnnaG]

Well I won't argue that, but I still see no reason to fear for polar bears. Here's a few facts:

They've had a population explosion over the last 50 years, some say they've quintupled in that time, so it hardly seems that warming is hurting them.

They've survived much warmer climate that the current one. The Medieval Climate Optimum, the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming were all warmer than now. Prior to that, almost all of the current interglacial was even warmer still. And the previous interglacial was considerably warmer than that. Yet the polar bears didn't die out, so they aren't going to die out from warming now.

That's an old story. This might help you catch up on what's going on with the bears lately.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Stress' is shrinking polar bears

Here's another bit of news.

NERI/AU - Polar bears have become smaller - new AU research in international media

Besides, this patch of warming is happening quicker than the others. That's a new variable. We don't know what will happen to specific species because of it. On the cold scale it appears that rapid cooling killed off an awful lot of critters back about 65 million years ago, or else it might have been the pollution that did.

http://www.dmu.dk/International/News/polar_bears.htm

 

[Extrafire]

Unless one plugs historical data into the model and comes up with a result that copies the original result.

No, that only makes it a tool that gives an accurate prediction (which, by the way, has been tried and never succeeded).

The evidence of the use of the tool would be the nailhead sitting flush with the board, right?:roll:
The direct evidence of the use of firearms was the dead wolves in Colorado. The indirect evidence of the use of firearms was that there were no young deciduous trees lasting to maturity. The middle factor was what we call caribou. They ate every new deciduous shoot in sight.

We weren't talking about evidence of use of he tool. Evidence of use of a climate model would be the prediction. But the model would still be a tool, nothing more.

 

[Extrafire]

Speak for yourself. There are an awful lot of people that live WITH nature instead of IN SPITE of it like you seem to prefer. Really? I have never seen any demographics on which environmentalists live where. Would you like to post the link to one, please?
Given all the things that can happen out in nature, it must be a shocker to you to find that people can live out there and get along well. My ancestors did it for thousands of years.

Oh indeed there are people who live WITH nature, but at the same time, they're fighting it. And the more successfully we fight it, the better we live. I go to the dentist to fight what nature is doing to my tooth. Much better than just living with it. Ancient people died from abcessed teeth. I insulate my home with fibreglass and heat it with a natural gas furnace that centrally heats the house with an electric fan. Much better than living with whatever nature throws at me. My ancestors managed for thousands of years as well, but not nearly as well or as comfortably as I do. My father lived to the ripe old age of 102. He couldn't have done that in those old days.

 

[Extrafire]

I think he meant to tag the word "sometimes" on the end of his sentence. But I am sure you could figure that out, right?

I don't think he intend that at all. He said something similar in a subsequent post.

 

[AnnaG]

You've diverged from the question. You're correct as for reasons why a scientist might commit fraud, they're people like anyone else and would do so for the same reasons, but that's not the question I'm asking. I'll ask it again a little differently.

If a scientist wants to prove an hypothesis and he has all the data, the evidence necessary to do so, would he not use that evidence? Would any scientist in that position discard the evidence and resort to fraud instead?

It should be a rhetorical question, but apparently it isn't. The only reason a scientist would resort to fraud is that's the only way he/she can do it. (Plus she/he is dishonest.)

If a scientist wants to disprove an hypothesis, why would he not resort to fraud. Some tried to disprove global warming. It didn't work because the facts came to light. The globe is warming. This bit about the emails does not change much except people's opinion. The facts will show what the facts will.

Greenpeace has a political agenda. WWF has a political agenda. The IPCC has a political agenda. Doesn't mean they want to be PM. Why? Because he's ideologically opposed to the capitalist system and wants to change it.

Really? Do you have anything besides your opinion that says he is opposed to capitalism? Or does he just want to change it to be more responsible ecologically?

Oh yes it has. That's why the other side has to use fraud.

That's one opinion. Is there anything that says both sides haven't used fraud? What would you say if the other side got caught? "They were justified." ?

Actually the effects are known, the main one being increased plant growth.

To a point, yes.

Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions, though this assumes no change in climate and no limitation on other nutrients.[32] Some people (for example David Bellamy) believe that as the concentration of CO2 rises in the atmosphere that it will lead to faster plant growth and therefore increase food production.[33] Such views are too simplistic; studies have shown that increased CO2 leads to fewer stomata developing on plants[34] which leads to reduced water usage.[35] Studies using FACE have shown that increases in CO2 lead to decreased concentration of micronutrients in crop plants.[36] This may have knock-on effects on other parts of ecosystems as herbivores will need to eat more food to gain the same amount of protein.[37]

- Wiki

I was actually looking at a specific study that shows this yesterday, but I can't find it so I stuck wiki's version in.

And where do they get their electricity? From a diesel engine, just like a Letourneau log loader or a deisel electric train engine. An electric motor runs fine in the cold, as long as it's getting its juice from somewhere. When that juice comes from a deisel or gas engine, how do you divorce yourself from dependancy on the oil companies? I think she was referring to converting to a full electric system, with rechargeable batteries. Those batteries lose most of their charge at -30 and then you have the additional task of defrosting the windshield and heating the passenger compartment. I wouldn't get across town.

Heating can come from fuel-fired heaters. They would use a lot less fuel than the entire vehicle would. Besides, one could always tote around a couple portable solar panels to assist. But I think you are more concerned with being right than accepting new ideas and looking ahead.

State-Of-The-Art Electric Vehicle Cold Weather Range