Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Black Diamond: SET of 8 "C4" Cams and 8 matching wire gates. Sizes .3 .4 .5 .75 1 2 3 & 4 and 8 anodised "neutrino" - wire gate karabiners. NB Comes with a FREE carry bag.  $775.00
20% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 18 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!
TonyB
16-Jun-2009
11:35:44 AM
On 15/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>On 15/06/2009 TonyB wrote:

You have got to be kidding ! "How to talk to a sceptic" from "science blogs" is not science. Even the IPCC describes the Little Ice Age and The Medieval Warm Period ... not to mention volumes of history. I similarly don't regard the Daily Telegraph, Playboy or such as science either.

There is no question that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and theoretically causes a tiny amount of warming. CO2's "greenhouse" warming is tiny compared to that of water vapour and insignificant compared to other causes of climate changes.

Funny how Mr Blog doesn't address the key issue:

"There is no evidence that MAN'S CO2 is causing warming".

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
11:44:47 AM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>"There is no evidence that MAN'S CO2 is causing warming".

Apart from basic fundamentals.

I no longer care what you think on this Tony; according to the poll over on the thread no one else is either. Wheel your soap box out every few days and keep trotting out that old chestnut and ignoring the actual science. I note too that you've conveniently ignored all the other gasses that are contributing to the Greenhouse effect. Like that 'natural' gas SF6.

Try filling your house with a beaut c--ktail of these gases (nitrous, R-series refrigerants, HFCs CFCs) and let us know how that goes. A man of such grass-roots science as yourself should get some cracking results. Might even be a paper in it for you? Give Senator Fielding a call, let him know your results, and the 2 of you can overthrow this awesome conspiracy. I wish you all the best!
TonyB
16-Jun-2009
11:48:31 AM
Those who get their science from the newspapers should read Andrew Bolt's articles on climate such as this:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

For a good summary, read this:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

A simple overview with pictures:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

For somthing more technical ... a great many excellent articles updated daily:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I have dozens of technical papers for anyone who is serious about understanding more than the nonsense presented in alarmist blogs, newpapers and Hollywood movies.

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
11:58:47 AM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Those who get their science from the newspapers should read Andrew Bolt's
>articles on climate such as this:
>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

WWeeeeeeeeeeee!

More good stuff Tony. Andrew Bolt is a known moderate on this, and frankly every, topic, and I'm sure every thinkng person holds his opinion in high regard.

Where do NASA and the IPCC fall into your spectrum of "alarmist blogs, newpapers and Hollywood movies."
TonyB
16-Jun-2009
12:39:09 PM
On 16/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>Those who get their science from the newspapers should read Andrew Bolt's
>>articles on climate such as this:

I mentioned Mr Bolt because you seem to prefer to get your climate science from newspapers and blogs rather than scientific articles.

I also checked the credentials of Wendy's and your climate blog "expert" on scienceblogs and gristmill :
"Coby is a software developer specializing in Artificial Intelligence applications ... He is currently working on a fine art abstract photography project called "Painting with Water".

What a joke !!! ... and no, I didn't make this up :-))) He seems to have an artificial intelligence alright and his painted nonsense blog certainly doesn't hold water !!


evanbb
16-Jun-2009
12:41:25 PM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 16/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>>Those who get their science from the newspapers should read Andrew Bolt's
>>>articles on climate such as this:
>
>I mentioned Mr Bolt because you seem to prefer to get your climate science
>from newspapers and blogs rather than scientific articles.

Just to be sure then Tony, here's a rebuttal from Dr Andrew Glikson
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/29/climate-myths-andrew-bolts-claims-scientifically-tested/

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
12:44:25 PM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:

>I mentioned Mr Bolt because you seem to prefer to get your climate science
>from newspapers and blogs rather than scientific articles.

And no, I don't prefer to get my science from newspapers. I prefer to get mine from the IPCC, who seem to be climate scientists mostly.

Possibly more useful than the Heartland Institute, who think among other things, that tobacco smoking is genuinely good for you.

foreverabumbly
16-Jun-2009
1:00:11 PM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:

>I also checked the credentials of Wendy's and your climate blog "expert"
>on scienceblogs and gristmill :
>"Coby is a software developer specializing in Artificial Intelligence
>applications ... He is currently working on a fine art abstract photography
>project called "Painting with Water".
>

That is funny.

Kinda like the owner of a Micro Multimedia company being an expert on CC. unlikely I agree...;)

But at least you have a PhD in chemical engineering. Dont Chemical Engineers make fuel and stuff? Doesnt Fuel and stuff make an abundance of Co2?

Hmmm. I can see why you dont think CC is a problem.


(Disclaimer. This is a satyrical post pointing out the funnyness in a multimedia company owner discrediting another mutimedia person on the shared topic of CC. A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black imo. And not a malicious attack on Tony, whom I have never met.)

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
1:10:23 PM
On 16/06/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:
>>"Coby is a software developer specializing in Artificial Intelligence
>>applications ... He is currently working on a fine art abstract photography
>>project called "Painting with Water".
>Kinda like the owner of a Micro Multimedia company being an expert on
>CC. unlikely I agree...;)

Good point. Tones, why not tell us about your background in climate science, since you place such credence in the author's credentials? What makes you a better expert than the IPCC?
Wendy
16-Jun-2009
1:52:10 PM
On 16/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 15/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>>On 15/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>
>You have got to be kidding ! "How to talk to a sceptic" from "science
>blogs" is not science. Even the IPCC describes the Little Ice Age and
>The Medieval Warm Period ... not to mention volumes of history. I similarly
>don't regard the Daily Telegraph, Playboy or such as science either.

I notice you still don't have any response to his arguments, which incidently, are referenced to "real science", but you may like to look at these guys if you want to make sure his not a random loony

http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/

>
>There is no question that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and theoretically
>causes a tiny amount of warming. CO2's "greenhouse" warming is tiny compared
>to that of water vapour and insignificant compared to other causes of climate
>changes.
>
>Funny how Mr Blog doesn't address the key issue:
>
>"There is no evidence that MAN'S CO2 is causing warming".

Whilst you're failing to address any of the objections to your arguments, it's kind of silly to be complaining about someone else failing to address something, but surely by demonstrating that (a) co2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming and (b) human's are releasing lots of it at a great rate = man's co2 is causing warming.

I notice you refer to such respected papers as the herald scum, a largely unreferenced piece that refers to people such as iam plimer who's poor science has been demonstrated elsewhere (try http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/ for starters)

And that piece from david evans is rebutted in the notes that follow it.

no time to look at the others, but still waiting for your response to the objections to your arguments. As they come from an IT person and have no basis in what you call science, it should be an easy job for you. Jump to the task then
R James
16-Jun-2009
4:06:43 PM
>
>And no, I don't prefer to get my science from newspapers. I prefer to
>get mine from the IPCC, who seem to be climate scientists mostly.

You seem to rely very strongly on the IPCC. I expect you know that the IPCC doesn't actually carry out any research itself. It collects selected research, writes its own summaries, and it's politicians come up with the final say. You would also know that many scientists previously involved with the IPCC, now distance themselves from it because they disagree with the conclusions reached, and its refusal to acknowledge research that doesn't fit its agenda. Most people are now aware that, while they claim figures like 2,000 scientists have reviewed their reports, in reality, "reviewed" doesn't mean "agreed with". In fact, many have disagreed, but are still listed as "reviewed". Others have only reviewed very small parts of it, before the summary was written. In the end, it's a politically driven organisation that seems to select data to fit its pre-decided conclusions. It certainly doesn't live up o its claim "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Its inclusion of the Mann Hockey stick data in an earlier report shows that it is not a reliable source. (This was all peer reviewed etc and scientifically wrong).

If you want to believe in anthropogenic warming, I encourage you to look beyond the IPCC as backup. In fact, go to it's sources, as well as the ones it ignores, and form your own conclusions.

evanbb
16-Jun-2009
4:14:40 PM
On 16/06/2009 R James wrote:
>If you want to believe in anthropogenic warming, I encourage you to look
>beyond the IPCC as backup. In fact, go to it's sources, as well as the
>ones it ignores, and form your own conclusions.

What good would that do? I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist.

This whole argument centres around the premise that the IPCC wants to find out that the globe is warming. This is ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense, and I don't give it a second thought.

And you can play the 'check your source' game until the cows come home. Fact is, you're no closer to 'your truth' than I am to mine. At some stage we're both going to have to believe what we're being told by someone who's decision/knowledge/impartiality is very difficult to judge. I've chosen to believe those that advocate risk mitigation to an enormous number of people. The sceptics position chooses to believe those that protect their personal status quo and shield them from financial responsibility.

billk
16-Jun-2009
4:51:45 PM
Evan

For your willingness to keep arguing with people who use Andrew Bolt as their authority, you deserve to be mentioned in dispatches.

JimboV10
16-Jun-2009
4:56:16 PM
Geez.. And apparently MY shitfights are bad HAHAHA
rod
16-Jun-2009
5:43:24 PM
On 16/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Fact is, you're no closer to 'your truth' than I am to mine. At some stage
>we're both going to have to believe what we're being told by someone who's
>decision/knowledge/impartiality is very difficult to judge. I've chosen
>to believe those that advocate risk mitigation to an enormous number of
>people.

Agree, it seems a sensible course and frankly I don't think the cost is as high as lobbyists keep banging on about...particularly compared to the wars that politicians have offered up this decade.

>The sceptics position chooses to believe those that protect their
>personal status quo and shield them from financial responsibility.

Disagree, some people just like to argue.

Thread readers can do themselves a favour and bypass the entrenched position rants by simply reading the wikipedia page on "greenhouse gas".
R James
16-Jun-2009
11:07:55 PM

>
>What good would that do? I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist.
>
As an engineer, you're certainly qualified to evaluate the available data to answer a few basic questions. My background as engineer and research scientist encourages me to evaluate the science as best I can. If I see that the popular theory isn't supported by real data, I have no choice but to question its validity :

1. Is global temperature is doing anything unusual (plenty of data available as far back as 450,0000 years) based on previous cycles?

2. Do the predictions of climate models match real data?

3. Is there any data to support the hypothesis that positive feedback dominates negative feedback.

When I come up with "no" to there type of questions, I cannot ignore what my experience and training tells me. Personal status quo is irrelevant. It all comes down to good or bad science.

How many people believe for example that the Murray Darling basis is drying up because of low rainfall caused by global warming? Yet, when I look at the rain charts from the Bureau of Meteorology for the past 100 years, I see there's no significant change in rain cycles. I've found too many false reports to believe anything until I at least do some degree of research myself. I've detected errors in satellite data for Arctic ice, which has now been corrected. Only this year, erroneous data was made public for at least 5 months due to a satellite sensor fault. (I have copies of the data before and after correction, yet you won't read about this in the media - happy to send it to you).
NASA/GISS published temperature data last year for October, which was actually a repeat of September data. It wasn't until skeptics picked up the error that they were even aware of it.

Mann's hockey stick was taken as gospel, and the world was going to be changed because of it. We now know it was wrong, yet they still want to change the world.

Does this give you an idea of why I'm not prepared to just believe bodies like IPCC, and why I urge others to check for themselves?

evanbb
17-Jun-2009
8:22:25 AM
On 16/06/2009 R James wrote:
>
>>
>>What good would that do? I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist.
>>
>As an engineer, you're certainly qualified to evaluate the available data
>to answer a few basic questions. My background as engineer and research
>scientist encourages me to evaluate the science as best I can. If I see
>that the popular theory isn't supported by real data, I have no choice
>but to question its validity :

Ho hum.


For the 200th time (not actual data, just an estimate). Science is not based on empty rhetoric. You can sit there and ask all these post modern questions of me and others, but this is not science, and in no way cheapens the IPCC findings. Write a paper, do some actual science (rather than thought experiments), send it to some peers, let them review your work. It's pretty simple really.

If you think that these stupid questions are a decent rebuttal to the science produced by the IPCC, I am very glad you are not my doctor.

evanbb
17-Jun-2009
8:53:44 AM
Also note in the ABC today that the White House have released a paper on the impacts in the US:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2600335.htm

Maybe RJames and Tony should call them and tell them they're mistaken?



Also heard today a fairly reasonable cause of the 'Global Cooling' since 1998. Apparently aerosol/particulate emissions from India and China have been rising fast enough to mask the heat capturing effects of increased GHGases. This raises the problem that if they ever clean up their pollution (the Asian Brown Cloud) things could change pretty quickly. Some good rain might do some damage as well.

allroundgoodguy
17-Jun-2009
9:25:14 AM
On 16/06/2009 R James wrote:

>How many people believe for example that the Murray Darling basis is drying
>up because of low rainfall caused by global warming? Yet, when I look at
>the rain charts from the Bureau of Meteorology for the past 100 years,
>I see there's no significant change in rain cycles.


Or is it that we are over using what we have? More people demanding a better standard of living which requires more resources from a finite supply. Be it Water from the Murray for irrigation or brown coal & oil for electricity & transport. We need to use all available resources efficiently, and that will costs more. When the likes of China & India are using resources at the same rate we are, and we have done nothing to change, things will not magically improve. We better have a plan B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
R James
17-Jun-2009
9:48:51 AM

>>How many people believe for example that the Murray Darling basis is
>drying
>>up because of low rainfall caused by global warming? Yet, when I look
>at
>>the rain charts from the Bureau of Meteorology for the past 100 years,
>>I see there's no significant change in rain cycles.
>
>
>Or is it that we are over using what we have? More people demanding a
>better standard of living which requires more resources from a finite supply.
>Be it Water from the Murray for irrigation or brown coal & oil for electricity
>& transport.

That's exactly right. This is the real problem we face. An increasing population with a higher standard of living using more resources. This is the real problem of the immediate future - not climate change. How much money has, and will be spent on climate change based on unsubstantiated theory? How much money has been spent on our greatest known threat - population increase?

 Page 18 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints