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 29 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!

tnd
14-Jul-2009
9:14:25 AM
The high priest of global warming, St Al himself, is in Australia and his acolytes are bowing down before him. TonyB and co., give it away. You can't argue with religious fervour.
R James
14-Jul-2009
9:15:22 AM
On 14/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 13/07/2009 billk wrote:
>>Steven Fielding is going to present Al Gore with a graph showing global
>>average temperatures for the last 15 years.
>>
Actually, Fielding has narrowed it down to three basic questions that he'd like answered. I've seen the responses from Penny Wong on these, and they just dance around the questions, and really just say "the IPCC said so". I can see the Fielding, like myself, won't be happy until these basic questions are properly addressed. Asking the same questions of Al Gore would no doubt invite a political type speech that basically ignores the questions.

The four scientists advising Fielding (Carter, Evans, Franks and Kininmonth) have recommended "a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate". With such strong feelings on both sides, and Australia's economy about to be significantly changed, it sounds like a good idea to me.

evanbb
14-Jul-2009
10:39:17 AM
On 14/07/2009 tnd wrote:
>The high priest of global warming, St Al himself, is in Australia and his
>acolytes are bowing down before him. TonyB and co., give it away. You can't
>argue with religious fervour.

Terrific contribution, thanks Niall for wading in.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
14-Jul-2009
10:40:11 AM
>argue with religious fervour.


billk
14-Jul-2009
11:23:02 AM
On 13/07/2009 BigMike wrote:
>On 13/07/2009 billk wrote:
>
>>
>>Seriously, does anyone else worry about so much power being in the hands
>>of a not so very bright happy clapper, who had a primary vote of around
>>2%?
>
>Yeah especially since Gore got about 51% of the primary vote in the US
>...

Labour thought they had made a political masterstroke by doing a preference deal with Family First. It was supposed to ensure that Labour got the final senate position instead of the Greens. Instead we have Senator Fielding, whose record speaks for itself.
R James
14-Jul-2009
12:45:06 PM
I tend to agree. The science is ignored and the religous fervour is off and running. However, the signs are certainly there that people are now asking serious questions before they hand over their wallets.

evanbb
14-Jul-2009
1:34:49 PM
On 14/07/2009 R James wrote:
>I tend to agree. The science is ignored and the religous fervour is off
>and running. However, the signs are certainly there that people are now
>asking serious questions before they hand over their wallets.

Who are the people that are running with religious fervour RJ? This sort of innuendo will not be tolerated. I want specific examples of people who are ignoring facts and believing texts written 2000 years ago.

Also, from a previous post, would you mind defining for me what a global temperature increase of 0.6 degrees over the last 100 years means?
R James
14-Jul-2009
4:02:03 PM
Where did I mention texts written 2000 years ago? You get some strange interpretations. Religion - "a point or matter of conscience when zealously or obsessively observed."

Haven't you seen the interviews of people at global warming rallies. Their comments often indicate that they haven't a clue, whether they support it or not. I saw some good ones yesterday from somewhere in the USA. I'll see if I can find the link. They were obviously just there because it was a fun thing to belong to.

I can assume you're familiar with the global temperature of GISS, Hadcrut, RSS. UAH etc. In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology uses Hadcrut data (Hadley Centre). I plot their data, but it's available on their web site. The Aus Bureau of Meteorology publishes a plot of this, though it's a few months out of date (I contact them occasionaly to prompt them to update it - did it again a few days ago). Anyway, you can check for yourself on http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_t®ion=global&season=0112 You can take it as between 0.6 and 0.8 degC increase over the past 160 years, depending on how you interpret it. Try explaining the rise 1910 - 1940. I'm sure everyone taking an interest here has studied this data, and the few thousand years earlier.

Satellite data for the past 30 years (UAH) shows about 0.2 degC increase for the past 30 years - not much considering all the excitement it's causing!!!

billk
14-Jul-2009
4:18:36 PM
On 14/07/2009 R James wrote:
>Where did I mention texts written 2000 years ago? You get some strange
>interpretations. Religion - "a point or matter of conscience when zealously
>or obsessively observed."
>

That is religiosity not religion.

>They were obviously just there because it was
>a fun thing to belong to.
>

Obviously? You can tell that much from a sound bite?

Name any cause and there will be supporters whose enthusiasm outstrips their knowledge.

Supporting any cause is usally a whole lot less fun than going down the pub or going climbing, regardless of which side you are on.

BTW: If you look at the range of expertise, then you will find that the so- called "alarmist" side contains a lot more experts than the denialist side.


R James
14-Jul-2009
4:41:57 PM
>
>That is religiosity not religion.
>
Not according to my dictionary
>>They were obviously just there because it was
>>a fun thing to belong to.
>>
>
>Obviously? You can tell that much from a sound bite?

In this case, yes. They couldn't answer the simplest questions about the details of the cause
>

>BTW: If you look at the range of expertise, then you will find that the
>so- called "alarmist" side contains a lot more experts than the denialist
>side.
>
Interesting - I'm told by those who are active at an international level that it's about a 50/50 split. Of course, no-one really knows, but there's certainly a trend away from the IPCC, even by its own previous supporters.
hero
14-Jul-2009
4:56:41 PM
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Sw8EAAAAQAAJ&dq=George+Perkins+Marsh&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=xStcStuhNsmAkQXL74DhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

anthonyk
14-Jul-2009
5:37:13 PM
*yawn*

lets go back to the basics, there's some important points here ppl need to recognise.

science is an interaction between observations and models / theories. if you've got a model, you make observations to support or challenge it, and you come up with new models that fit the observations better, and so on. if there are a number of competing models, each gets criticised and the one that explains the data the best, taking into account criticisms, gets the most credibility.

CC supporters have a model. it takes into account a lot of things including solar energy, clouds & albedos, and atmospheric gases and says that current observed temperatures are a result of increase in CO2 etc released by people. some people challenge the model in various ways, but there are counter arguments for these challenges, and overall the model has a degree of credibility.

one thing people need to realise, is there is no real counter model. none.

thats why denialists are not treated seriously. if there was an alternative model that could be held up for criticism, and people could see which model fits the data the best, then there would be a valid debate. the closest we've seen is the cosmic ray / cloud decrease model, but it falls down because there's no trend in cosmic rays. you need a consistent model that explains current observations and makes predictions about the future, which can then be held up for criticism, but there isn't one.

until denialists put a credible model on the table, which explains observations and holds up to criticism, you can't expect to be taken seriously. otherwise you're just throwing stones.

SwineOfTheTimes
14-Jul-2009
5:54:10 PM
If tomorrow some new bit of scientific information were discovered which proved that the human contribution to climate change is negligible, what position would Gore and like-minded moralists (zealots) take? If their moral views are founded on science, they would withdraw all previous claims and policy recommendations and find other things to do. But if their moral views transcended science, they would alter their policy views not a whit -- except that they would now wage war on science.

Gore makes claims about hurricanes and global climate change that are scientifically false. Then Gore's true view about science can be discerned by his conduct after being confronted by this falsehood. If he fails to withdraw the false claim, then we may infer that his embrace of science is merely instrumental: science has value to him only insofar as it advances his moral vision, and it may be freely discarded when it does not.
R James
14-Jul-2009
6:11:09 PM

>until denialists put a credible model on the table, which explains observations
>and holds up to criticism, you can't expect to be taken seriously. otherwise
>you're just throwing stones.
>
What a strange piece of logic. You think a model is valid until someone comes up with a better one. No go. A model stands on its own merits. If it fits existing data, and accurately predicts future data, it has some validity. If not, it's not acceptable, even if there are no alternatives.

anthonyk
14-Jul-2009
8:01:19 PM
On 14/07/2009 R James wrote:
>>until denialists put a credible model on the table, which explains observations
>>and holds up to criticism, you can't expect to be taken seriously. otherwise
>>you're just throwing stones.
>What a strange piece of logic. You think a model is valid until someone
>comes up with a better one. No go. A model stands on its own merits. If
>it fits existing data, and accurately predicts future data, it has some
>validity. If not, it's not acceptable, even if there are no alternatives.

lol.. thats some kind of postmodernist smokescreen is it. you missed the bit where there is a lot of data supporting anthropogenic climate change. its not perfect, but it doesn't have to be, and its the best model to fit the data. go and make a better one.

evanbb
14-Jul-2009
8:56:44 PM
On 14/07/2009 R James wrote:
>What a strange piece of logic. You think a model is valid until someone
>comes up with a better one. No go. A model stands on its own merits. If
>it fits existing data, and accurately predicts future data, it has some
>validity. If not, it's not acceptable, even if there are no alternatives.

I disagree 100% RJ. That does not follow the scientific principle at all. Read up on the null hypothesis and re write this post please.

evanbb
14-Jul-2009
8:58:21 PM
On 14/07/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>If tomorrow some new bit of scientific information were discovered which
>proved that the human contribution to climate change is negligible, what
>position would Gore and like-minded moralists (zealots) take? If their
>moral views are founded on science, they would withdraw all previous claims
>and policy recommendations and find other things to do. But if their moral
>views transcended science, they would alter their policy views not a whit
>-- except that they would now wage war on science.
>
>Gore makes claims about hurricanes and global climate change that are
>scientifically false. Then Gore's true view about science can be discerned
>by his conduct after being confronted by this falsehood. If he fails to
>withdraw the false claim, then we may infer that his embrace of science
>is merely instrumental: science has value to him only insofar as it advances
>his moral vision, and it may be freely discarded when it does not.

That's pretty tenuous logic. What are these 'false claims'? Can you be sure he hasn't withdrawn them too?
R James
14-Jul-2009
10:52:32 PM
I've been using the null hypothesis in statistical analysis for over 40 years. I don't think I need to study it. If you want to you can apply it in the study of models. Basically, the population of data generated by the IPCC models in the past few years doesn't match real temperature populations. Therefore the null hypothesis isn't satisfied. Then you might like to consider whether the hypothesis has been confounded. If it has, it hasn't contributed to the validity of the model. It simply shows that the model didn't include all the contributing effects.

But back to basics, unless a mathematical model can predict real data, it isn't valid.

anthonyk
14-Jul-2009
11:09:28 PM
On 14/07/2009 R James wrote:
>I've been using the null hypothesis in statistical analysis for over 40
>years. I don't think I need to study it. If you want to you can apply it
>in the study of models. Basically, the population of data generated by
>the IPCC models in the past few years doesn't match real temperature populations.
>Therefore the null hypothesis isn't satisfied. Then you might like to consider
>whether the hypothesis has been confounded. If it has, it hasn't contributed
>to the validity of the model. It simply shows that the model didn't include
>all the contributing effects.
>
>But back to basics, unless a mathematical model can predict real data,
>it isn't valid.

i'm sure you're right that there's very little detailed prediction coming from the IPCC models. but the part that I think is important is that there is a significant temperature trend over the past 100 years, and I haven't seen anything convincing to explain it except ACC.

the general effect of greenhouse gases is without question, the increase in atmospheric gases since the industrial revolution is well known, and its clear that this would play some role. the size of this role is of course debateable, but the presence of this effect is very clear. given that changes in solar output, variations in orbit and other effects (cosmic rays etc) don't seem able to explain the changes, its the best explanation on the table.

if someone could show that the observations could be explained in a different way, i would genuinely be interested, but nothing i've seen so far seems to hold up to any scrutiny.

evanbb
15-Jul-2009
7:58:52 AM
Oh and back to the religion point briefly. Religion is based on belief, and has no real basis in the scientific argument. Our own (quite poor really) scientific argument shows that the answer is not obvious nor easily grasped. So, belief comes into it. But, I don't 'believe' in the science; it's the response that involves belief.

I believe that if there's a risk to the population, and we can take steps that COULD fix it, we might as well do that.

Sceptics, are in my opinion, searching for validation of their own belief. That is, that a risk to their personal wealth and the economy is worth more than the lives of others. You can frame it any way you like, but if you genuinely gave a crap about anyone else except yourself, you would find a way to understand.

I would say Ian Plimer is the classic example. On the board of 4 resource companies, and with a background in geology, he has taken the sceptic's science cause to Australia. He and 3 others have gone to extroardinary lengths to muddy the waters in the debate in Australia, without providing any actual science; you know, measurement, papers and hypothesis. Plimer's book is a story book; no more. Full of anecdotes and no science. He is likely to make a massive financial hit when we start curbing emissions, so he protests vehemently to anyone who will listen. The fact that the media present all views as equal doesn't help the cause.

And RJ's suggestion that "the split is about 50/50" is pretty odd. In Australia, it's more like 4 vs 1000. Of the people who's opinion's count that is. Science is not democratic, not all votes are equal.


 Page 29 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