Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!


evanbb

27-May-2009
12:47:19 PM

On 27/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>I hope you can write this up on your time sheets as 'education of the general
>public' Evan!

Timesheet? Are you joking?

The Role of Government is a pretty big topic here-abouts. I consider education to be a large part of it. I'll try and think of some other ways to justify my rank bludging and get back to you.

Wendy

27-May-2009
1:27:50 PM

On 27/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>
>Evan,
>A few comments on your link to your NS article. (If you read my earlier
>post, I pointed out how Al Gore's ice cores do NOT give causual evidence).
>It states:
>"after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in
>the atmosphere rise together ".
>That is, ice core data shows that CO2 increase FOLLOW temperature increases.
>That is, CO2 is NOT a cause !

Well, I'm glad to see you can follow links. I am however a little unsure of your ability to read. Yup, the article says that co2 inc had an 800 year lag. Funnily enough, because it is infact this fact that the article is about and it procedes to explain why there is a reciprocal relationship going on. It agrees with you that the earth cycles caused the initial warming, and that this warming cause the initial increase in co2. It then goes on to explain that the cycles are not enough to explain the degree of warming that happened, nor the length of time it went for. It was the co2 stimulated by the inital warming that caused the warming to continue for 4200 years more.

>
>The major long term changes in climate are the result of the following:
>21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the
>Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
>41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt
>)
>100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit
>( cycle of eccentricity )

Just wondering if you would use models to prove that?

I'm still waiting for the explaination of those hottest years on record in a period of cooling.

>
>


ajfclark

27-May-2009
2:02:42 PM

On 27/05/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>Hmm. If the fight is over, does that mean it is time to go climbing?

Or kiss and make up? ;-)

heh³


evanbb

27-May-2009
2:12:11 PM

On 27/05/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>On 27/05/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>>Hmm. If the fight is over, does that mean it is time to go climbing?
>
I'd love to go back to talking abouot climbing again. I'm faintly embarrassed by how long this has gone on for. I hope someone has learnt something from this. I've read lots of stuff I should have read years ago, so that's a good start.

>Or kiss and make up? ;-)

I'm game if you are Tones.


Organ Pipe

27-May-2009
2:14:36 PM

On 27/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>I hope someone has learnt something from this.

Sure have.


GravityHound

27-May-2009
2:17:50 PM

I would like to make a few points Tony.

On 27/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>Evan,
>A few comments on your link to your NS article. (If you read my earlier
>post, I pointed out how Al Gore's ice cores do NOT give causual evidence).
>It states:
>"after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in
>the atmosphere rise together ".
>That is, ice core data shows that CO2 increase FOLLOW temperature increases.
>That is, CO2 is NOT a cause !

Point 1 -You don't bother reading anything and if you do you ignore it or just plain don't understand it.

>Models are not proof. Is is easy to make a model give any result you
>want.

Point 2 - This comment demonstrates that you have no understanding of the concept of models whatsoever. No going to bother pointing out the flaws in this comment (see point 1).

>CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. By far the major greenhouse gas is water
>vapour. CO2 increases should cause a very small increase in global temperatures
>due to greenhouse effect. In theory a doubling of CO2 concentrations should
>give about a 1 degree temperature increase, ignoring the earth's self regulation
>mechanisms. This also assume that increase in CO2 are due to man.

Point 3 - Yaawwwnnnnn. Whatever. Post more photos of submarines, at least they were interesting from a historical point of view and I think Chockstone could really benefit from more photos of submarines.

>
>You may enjoy Prof Bob Carter's excellent series of videos on climate:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

Point 4 - having the prefix of Dr, Associate Professor or Professor does not give a person instant credibility. Remember, the Raelian woman who claimed she cloned a human had a PhD. Now she definitely was a few sheep short in the top paddock.

Overall Tony, you remind me of hardcore christians I have spoken to that plain refuse to even consider the notion that their God may not exist. They have nothing they can say to any hypothetical position on the non-existence of their God because their blind faith doesn't let them even consider it. To them it just could not be true! He does exist!

This is contrary to what you have implied in your previous posts. You see, our conclusions are derived from rational thinking based on scientific enquiry. We can provide direct evidence of what we believe is happening, why it is happening and even what will happen in the future. You choose to disregard this evidence for whatever reason (pls refer to points 1 and 2) and have blind faith in the fact that thousands of the best minds in the world (other than yours, of course!) are wrong. Yet someone who works for _________ (pls fill in the blank. Are you playing us like fools and actually work for NASA?) can prove them wrong with your Excel macro, picture of a submarine and a BBC documentary that had holes punched through it like a wet paper bag (there is a bunch of info on this in its wikipedia page but again I refer you to points 1 and 2).

Good luck on your anti-global warming crusade. If you keep your faith, maintain your beliefs through these tortuous times of doubt, you will prevail and reign in the heretics and false-believers....and more and more photos like this will abound the internet


Organ Pipe

27-May-2009
3:34:07 PM

On 27/05/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>Yet someone who works for _________ (pls fill in the blank.

Google his name + his email address domain.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/sick-sigma

I'll quote from the above link (one of the Google results):

"Dr. Burns has a bachelor of engineering and a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. He has 30 years of experience and his company, MicroMultimedia Pty. Ltd., is responsible for the development of the e-learning quality product Q-Skills and its support tools."

It's reasonable to assume I've got the right guy as his article (link) talks about how we've all been brainwashed by the global warming myth.

On 27/05/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>Point 4 - having the prefix of Dr, Associate Professor or Professor does not give a >person instant credibility. Remember, the Raelian woman who claimed she cloned a >human had a PhD. Now she definitely was a few sheep short in the top paddock.

hahaha very true.

spicelab

27-May-2009
3:41:04 PM

Just bringing the debate back to the topic after being hijacked by the postmodern sophistry of anthropogenic climate change scepticism.

As someone who assesses coal mining proposals for a living, I find the idea that a project could be refused on 'visual impact' grounds hilarious.

Visual Impacts are considered a second or third order issue after greenhouse, biodiversity/ecological, air quality, noise, water, road traffic and about 10 other things.

Anyone who is precious enough to piss and moan about the visual impacts of wind turbines need to get some serious perspective.


GravityHound

27-May-2009
5:55:44 PM

On 27/05/2009 Organ Pipe wrote:
>
>"Dr. Burns has a bachelor of engineering and a doctorate in chemical engineering
>from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. He has 30
>years of experience and his company, MicroMultimedia Pty. Ltd., is responsible
>for the development of the e-learning quality product Q-Skills and its
>support tools."
>

We've been duped. A business man with a PhD (The estimation of transport properties of dilute binary gas mixtures) arguing against climate change. This was never about science, it was ideological all along........


Cranky

27-May-2009
8:13:57 PM

Wow.... For a while there everyone on this thread seemed to be cranky


muki

27-May-2009
8:35:32 PM

Yeah... quite a heated debate!

devlin66

27-May-2009
9:20:01 PM

I was warming to it though.


Sabu

27-May-2009
9:38:33 PM

i like how it ended with a submarine...!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

27-May-2009
10:45:15 PM

On 27/05/2009 Cranky wrote:
>Wow.... For a while there everyone on this thread seemed to be cranky

You are taking crankyness too personally!
;-)


harold

28-May-2009
1:17:09 AM

Gravity Hound, why have you been duped? Someone with a PhD in chemistry can’t have a scientific view on anthropogenic global warming different than your own? I mean CO2 is a chemical right? Sure yours might be the majority view but since when was science a popularity contest? Fact is there are plenty of scientists of all disciplines who are skeptical of AGW, yet Gravity and Evan seem completely convinced that they are all either certifiably insane or have some bizarre ulterior motive. So far for the crime of not believing Gravity and Evan have labeled Skeptics like Tony as equally evil as a holocaust denier or child molester, and as crazy as a UFO believing Raelian human cloner. I just find that a bit weird and intolerant.
By the way, as interesting as your arguments and links have been I’m still not convinced. You will just have to wait until it gets a bit hotter before you can say I told you so.:)


evanbb

28-May-2009
7:55:46 AM

On 28/05/2009 harold wrote:
>Sure yours might be the majority view but since when was science a popularity contest? Fact is
>there are plenty of scientists of all disciplines who are skeptical of
>AGW

I think you've missed the point a bit, and the part about holocaust deniers was much more subtly worded than you have taken it.

The main point is that you can't have an opinion on this, not one that's valid. It's like having an opinion on the shape of the Earth, It's been proven a trillion times.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

28-May-2009
8:15:04 AM

On 28/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>The main point is that you can't have an opinion on this, not one that's
>valid. It's like having an opinion on the shape of the Earth, It's been
>proven a trillion times.

Yeah. ... ~> Most boulderers already know it is flat !
Heh ⁷

tastybigmac

28-May-2009
8:34:12 AM

yes, unlike most peoples perceived shape, the world is in no way a sphere. it is a lumpy squished blob.

lacto

28-May-2009
8:59:48 AM

meanwhile life goes on another sunny winters day

yesterday my pv system produced 21 kwh worth $4.55
my evacuated tubes saved power = $1.05
My water precooler tower power = $1.44
saving a grand total of $7.04

actual paid consumption was $14.62 so total "cost of $21.64 or a saving of 32 % and the equivalent of 55 kg of carbon .The cooling tower system and evacuated tubes are easily ecomonic and the pv is returning at least a healthy margin over the longer term interest rate .


tnd

28-May-2009
9:12:24 AM

I'm sympathetic to TonyB's point of view. But I hope he's wrong and that Australia heats up. The sooner Sydney has weather like Darwin the better. I hate the cold and I hate winter! ;-)

There are 818 messages in this topic.