Our cooling world

[Cliffy]

Still doesn't make sense Cliffy. In the oil/gas game, if you aren't perpetually expanding production, you're dead; that's just the way it is. It is remarkable to believe that these groups would continually keep expanding when they could just stop expanding and then bring the tech into the mix... That said, this wonder-tech that's been under wraps for decades would have made the "owner" of the tech massively wealthy, especially if they could have cornered the market.

Sorry Cliffy, what you say is but a fantasy or rhetoric from a competing interest group/sector.

I don't suppose you ever watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
Henry Ford proved back in the forties that plastics made of hemp oil were far superior to plastics made from crude oil. What ever became of that?
It is not possible to educate a person who refuses to look at the evidence.

 

[Walter]

It is not possible to educate a person who refuses to look at the evidence.

Ain't it the truth; it's like watering stones, they won't grow.

 

[Cliffy]

Ain't it the truth; it's like watering stones, they won't grow. Help I'm a rock!

fify

 

[captain morgan]

Nope, not buying that tired line Captain.

You didn't read it, you don't read anything.

Avro, you keep offering the same basic argument such as:

"The paper (page 15) also says that 2010 will likely set a new record high global surface temperature."

Likely?!What the hell is that?

"The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible …"

Damned near every "study" is incontrovertible that (insert current year here) is the warmest. They are starting to contradict each other let alone the overall premise

This after you accuse me of lacking in objectivity.

You keep posting the same nonsense (see above and below)

Anyways, I"ve asked this before, could you provide the countless reems of fraud that have discredited 97% of scientists who say AGW is real.

97% of scientists, eh?

What does that mean Avro? Is that akin to the 2500 "scientists" that "signed" (and therefore supported) the original IPCC report?... You remember that don't you? 2500 people signed that they had received and read the doc, but the IPCC claimed that meant tacit support. When the numbers all washed-out, the 2500 supporters dwindled dramatically to pathetic lows.

As far as the frauds are concerned, I've identified what I believe to be the highest profile issues, but in the end, the IPCC and associated groups hung their fundamental position(s) on skewed, engineered and fraudulent data. Their entire basis and existence is founded on lies.

I don't suppose you ever watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
Henry Ford proved back in the forties that plastics made of hemp oil were far superior to plastics made from crude oil. What ever became of that?
It is not possible to educate a person who refuses to look at the evidence.

What can I say Cliffy, someone produced a piece and offered their opinion, doesn't mean it's factual. But on a practical note, where do you think all of the electricity will come from if all cars were converted? Would you support the development of hydro projects on every river in your province? Considering that BC can not rely on consistent wind/solar maybe augment that with nuclear?

 

[Tonington]

You identified the Himalayas, and the Amazon. The Amazon story was a fraud, but not in the sense that you understand it. The IPCC review of the literature is correct. Media outlets actually had to publish retractions because of their over-zealous reporters saying and claiming things that were clearly unsupportable. This followed from the stolen emails at CRU, where many in the denial community had shown that they had lost their objective minds.

And as to the Himalayas, that was a genuine mistake. Though it certainly wasn't a central claim as some in the media asserted. It's not in the Summary for Policy Makers, it's not even in the WG2 summary, it's buried inside WG2. It is wrong though, and others made the same mistake. In 1999, New Scientist reported the same thing.

One mistake, hardly a fraud makes. Nobody has even given any kind of information to nullify the probability that it is a mistake, rather than intentional fraud. India just like every other country had to sign off on the entire report. They didn't catch it either.

 

[Cliffy]

What can I say Cliffy, someone produced a piece and offered their opinion, doesn't mean it's factual. But on a practical note, where do you think all of the electricity will come from if all cars were converted? Would you support the development of hydro projects on every river in your province? Considering that BC can not rely on consistent wind/solar maybe augment that with nuclear?

How about tidal and geo-thermal? Lots of fjords and hot springs around this province. Did you see that article I posted about solar roads?

As for gas, their is no excuse for the fuel efficiency, or more correctly, the lack of it, that we have to put up with. Cars have thousands of dollars worth of crap gizmos added to reduce toxic emissions when all we need (as if they don't know how) an efficient carburetor or fuel injector. All those gizmos do is keep our vehicles guzzling gas instead. Don't tell me that Big Oil hasn't kept efficient technology away from the public in order to continue gouging us.

 

[captain morgan]

How about tidal and geo-thermal? Lots of fjords and hot springs around this province. Did you see that article I posted about solar roads?

Where's the money going to come from on this Cliffy?

As for gas, their is no excuse for the fuel efficiency, or more correctly, the lack of it, that we have to put up with. Cars have thousands of dollars worth of crap gizmos added to reduce toxic emissions when all we need (as if they don't know how) an efficient carburetor or fuel injector. All those gizmos do is keep our vehicles guzzling gas instead. Don't tell me that Big Oil hasn't kept efficient technology away from the public in order to continue gouging us.

I can agree on the add-ons, but really, stop with the conspiracy angle already, it's getting really tired.

You identified the Himalayas, and the Amazon. The Amazon story was a fraud, but not in the sense that you understand it. The IPCC review of the literature is correct. Media outlets actually had to publish retractions because of their over-zealous reporters saying and claiming things that were clearly unsupportable. This followed from the stolen emails at CRU, where many in the denial community had shown that they had lost their objective minds.

And as to the Himalayas, that was a genuine mistake. Though it certainly wasn't a central claim as some in the media asserted. It's not in the Summary for Policy Makers, it's not even in the WG2 summary, it's buried inside WG2. It is wrong though, and others made the same mistake. In 1999, New Scientist reported the same thing.

One mistake, hardly a fraud makes. Nobody has even given any kind of information to nullify the probability that it is a mistake, rather than intentional fraud. India just like every other country had to sign off on the entire report. They didn't catch it either.

IPCC claimed that all of their submissions were peer-reviewed and the aforementioned group speaks in certainties, not probabilities.. End.. Full stop..

 

[Tonington]

Full stop, you're full of $hit. Show me where they speak in certainties and not probabilities.

 

[captain morgan]

Full stop, you're full of $hit. Show me where they speak in certainties and not probabilities.

Go and read their press releases as they relate to carbon trading and penalizing industrialized nations to fund the greenie movement. None of those commandments are based on "well maybe, there is kind of a probability".

Really man, why do you think that there is such kick-back on this issue... And lastly, it is the IPCC that made the big deal about peer-review and introduced that into the mainstay vocabulary of joe-greenie. Hell, we haven't even waded into the realm of the IPCC/CRU's uber-objective practice of subjective chise of peers that are deemed qualified to be review agents (conveniently chosen to provide a pre-determined outcome).

 

[Tonington]

Go and read their press releases as they relate to carbon trading and penalizing industrialized nations to fund the greenie movement. None of those commandments are based on "well maybe, there is kind of a probability".

Are you still talking about the IPCC, or have you moved goal posts again?

Hell, we haven't even waded into the realm of the IPCC/CRU's uber-objective practice of subjective chise of peers that are deemed qualified to be review agents (conveniently chosen to provide a pre-determined outcome).

Ahh, something you can't possibly show.

Your bread and butter, unsupportable assertions.

 

[captain morgan]

Are you still talking about the IPCC, or have you moved goal posts again?

That's your pre-programmed response to everything that challenges your position.... It's getting really tired.

Ahh, something you can't possibly show.

Your bread and butter, unsupportable assertions.

I did with Avro recently.... Remember the 2500 scientists?

But of course, you'll want a peer-reviewed conclusion on it won't you, otherwise, it just never happened.. Just like the unfortunate incidents surrounding the claims of peer-review on the Himalayan glaciers and Amazon reference were just innocent mistakes.

Talk about moving the goal posts.

 

[Tonington]

That's your pre-programmed response to everything that challenges your position.... It's getting really tired.

I always ask you that question because you move goal posts so frequently. According to you the IPCC deals with certainty rather than uncertainty or probability. That is clearly false.

I did with Avro recently.... Remember the 2500 scientists?

Why would I remember something you did with Avro?

But of course, you'll want a peer-reviewed conclusion on it won't you, otherwise, it just never happened.. just like the unfortunate incidents surrounding the claims of peer-review on the Himalayan glaciers and Amazons reference were just innocent mistakes.

No, I just want to see where the foundation of your conspiracy theory comes from.

Still on about Amazon ehh? See that is what makes you a denier. You repeat clearly false talking points, even after the talking points are shown to be without merit. You're like a denier of any other fashion, AIDS, Holocaust, Moon landing. Deniers employ the same tactics. You're a true pedigree of denial.

 

[mentalfloss]

Still doesn't make sense Cliffy. In the oil/gas game, if you aren't perpetually expanding production, you're dead; that's just the way it is.

Well, that's the motto of all businesses in all industries. Profit becomes justification for moral ambiguity. It's kinda the downfall of society actually.

 

[captain morgan]

I always ask you that question because you move goal posts so frequently. According to you the IPCC deals with certainty rather than uncertainty or probability. That is clearly false.

The IPCC claims that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming... I don't recall them suggesting that it might be and therefore lets tax the sh*t out of people.

And of course, you parrot the same line.

Why would I remember something you did with Avro?

'Cause you can read, can't you?

No, I just want to see where the foundation of your conspiracy theory comes from.

IPCC releases and subsequent retractions

Still on about Amazon ehh? See that is what makes you a denier. You repeat clearly false talking points, even after the talking points are shown to be without merit.

Yep.. It goes to the heart of the frauds perpetuated by that group (and all of the other groups that pray at the AGW altar).

Out of curiosity, where was anything shown to be without merit?

You're like a denier of any other fashion, AIDS, Holocaust, Moon landing. Deniers employ the same tactics. You're a true pedigree of denial.

Ahhh... That goal post thing you like so much.. When in doubt and you're getting your ass handed to you, divert the attention by introducing unrelated components.

Pretty ineffective, but also highly ironic in that your unproven position on GW ranks right up there... maybe we can start adding that one into the mix to.

 

[CDNBear]

Full stop, you're full of $hit. Show me where they speak in certainties and not probabilities.

Ton, I'm still following this debate and this jumped out at me.

Again, I have no doubts that the world is ever evolving and changing. I won't even argue that man is going have an impact on this in someway.

But your post here, highlights my issues with the whole issue.

"Probabilities"...

I understand the meaning of that word, and I worry that we are being led to hang our collective hats on a probability. Whenever someone challenges that probability, they're a denier, and chastised for being so.

I was watching "Monsterquest" last night (My oldest enjoys it.), and I heard a scientist say, "You should never dismiss wild or crazy sounding claims, you never know where the next break through will come from. It's in that search for the unknown, that new discoveries are made." I'm paraphrasing. But I take that to mean, shutting down debate, shutting out wild theories, to be counterproductive. I agree.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, the truth doth lie. But so long as either side keeps trying to prove the other to be anything but, we are lost in a sea of cons and frauds.

I fully grasp that the "Deniers" are likely funded by interests most affected. But so are the "Purveyors" of the AGW theory, and is just that, a theory. No?

 

[Tonington]

The IPCC claims that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming... I don't recall them suggesting that it might be and therefore lets tax the sh*t out of people.

Of course you wouldn't recall, because you never read it.

They claim there is high confidence, and that's true, that human emissions have grown, and that the net effect of human activities on the climate is one of warming.

Deny that all you want, but it's true.

 

[captain morgan]

Ton, I'm still following this debate and this jumped out at me.

Again, I have no doubts that the world is ever evolving and changing. I won't even argue that man is going have an impact on this in someway.

But your post here, highlights my issues with the whole issue.

"Probabilities"...

I understand the meaning of that word, and I worry that we are being led to hang our collective hats on a probability. Whenever someone challenges that probability, they're a denier, and chastised for being so.

I was watching "Monsterquest" last night (My oldest enjoys it.), and I heard a scientist say, "You should never dismiss wild or crazy sounding claims, you never know where the next break through will come from. It's in that search for the unknown, that new discoveries are made." I'm paraphrasing. But I take that to mean, shutting down debate, shutting out wild theories, to be counterproductive. I agree.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, the truth doth lie. But so long as either side keeps trying to prove the other to be anything but, we are lost in a sea of cons and frauds.

I fully grasp that the "Deniers" are likely funded by interests most affected. But so are the "Purveyors" of the AGW theory, and is just that, a theory. No?

Kudos

Of course you wouldn't recall, because you never read it.

What a shock, another 2-step by the leaders in global fraud. I don't pay any attention to the IPCC anymore...

 

[CDNBear]

Of course you wouldn't recall, because you never read it.

They claim there is high confidence, and that's true, that human emissions have grown, and that the net effect of human activities on the climate is one of warming.

Deny that all you want, but it's true.

You do realize that the first line in that link contains the words "Solar radiation" right?

Why is this not spoken of at great lengths in all the AGW controversy?

 

[Tonington]

I understand the meaning of that word, and I worry that we are being led to hang our collective hats on a probability. Whenever someone challenges that probability, they're a denier, and chastised for being so.

I call CM a denier because he's not a true skeptic. When he is given evidence, he doesn't modify his questioning. He still repeats the same talking points. A skeptic does not do such a thing.

Probability is how scientific findings work. If I measure my fish, and the average growth rate is 0.92% of body weight per day, and another tank treated differently is 0.89% of body weight per day, is there actually a difference? If I run the same experiment again, will the results be the same? That is why we need statistics. The variability intrinsic in the treatment groups informs us as to whether the differences between groups are meaningful or not, and it's based on probability.

The bell shaped curve, is called the normal distribution in science. The probability of an event at the top of the bell, is much higher than one out on the extreme ends of the tails. Results out on the tails indicate there is a significant difference. Scientists learn about the world be studying why that finding is out on the far end of the curve.

That is where climate change is. The rate of warming is significant, the rate of ocean acidification is significant, the rate of shrinking ice is significant, the rate of stratospheric cooling is significant, the rate of water vapour increase is significant, and the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is significant.

It's not resting on one probability. Like I have said many times, these things have been investigated multiple times, and the results are robust (the results are confirmed by multiple studies using different methods to investigate the same phenomenon).

It's many probabilities. And when you add that all up, it's increasingly unlikely that all of these probabilities could be consistent, and also wrong.

I fully grasp that the "Deniers" are likely funded by interests most affected. But so are the "Purveyors" of the AGW theory, and is just that, a theory. No?

Just a theory is like saying the law of thermodynamics is just a law. A theory and a law are both accepted as facts by science. They aren't the same things. A law is a concise relationship that is universal and can be expressed with a mathematical relation. A theory is not necessarily universal (evolution on another planet might not be driven by the same genetics for instance) and is not a concise mathematical relationship. You can't plug numbers into an equation to get evolution. A theory is a group of well tested hypotheses that describes a larger sort of phenomenon.

Both are supported by repeated findings that confirm the hypotheses.

 

[captain morgan]

Well, that's the motto of all businesses in all industries. Profit becomes justification for moral ambiguity. It's kinda the downfall of society actually.

You're welcome to live in a society that is founded on the antithesis of that "motto"... Russia gave it a shot for a long time, their leadership were targeting proletariat utopia as their goal.

didn't work-out so well for them, did it?