Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 10 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!

GravityHound
28-May-2009
9:41:36 AM
On 28/05/2009 harold wrote:
>Gravity Hound, why have you been duped? Someone with a PhD in chemistry
>canít have a scientific view on anthropogenic global warming different
>than your own?

They certainly can, but someone who gets a PhD in chem engineering has to have the ability to understand the science behind AGW. Looking at his thesis title I would even expect that he did some modelling in there so I really doubt he doesn't understand the science. As a result I reckon he was arguing from an ideological point of view.

Pls show me where the science is in the Tony's posts. Certainly not his macro or the submarine pic. or that BBC doco! He continually asks for proof but doesnt offer any (or much) science to counter what we are claiming. Just ideology.

> Sure yours might be the
>majority view but since when was science a popularity contest?

Depends on how desperate a scientist is to get a job.....

>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.

Not at all, but most counter science can be discredited on some level. I have no doubt that the science which is deemed credible is assimilated into the CC knowledge base and improves our underatnding of the issue.

>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.

If you read the order of the posts, I did not know that Tony had a PhD when I mentioned the Raelian woman. I did not imply that Tony was a crazy UFO people made us all believer.

>By the way, as interesting as your arguments and links have been Iím still
>not convinced. You will just have to wait until it gets a bit hotter before
>you can say I told you so.:)
>

Even if and when temperatures rise, people will still be able to say "It wasn't the CO2. The IPCC was wrong all along. I dont belive the data that shows CO2 has caused this". Because it will be an ideological argument. Should we have stopped pumping out CO2 or not? Was what happened to the economy worth it? Should we lynch all the scientists that led us down this path?

As the science on this issue evolves, if it finds out CO2 played no role in climate change I am confient that I will have the humility to admit my beliefs were wrong. But will be grateful we stopped the pollution.
TonyB
28-May-2009
10:03:08 AM
On 27/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>It's a personal thing,

Evan,

I assume from your comments that you believe that ice core data proves that man's CO2 is causing global warming. This belief was popularised by Al Gore in his Hollywood disaster movie. It is a belief held by many.

Most alarmist scientists are well aware that ice core data shows that temperatures rose before CO2 levels. A analogy that has been used to the heating of a bottle of soda ... temperature rises, CO2 escapes. In this case it is the oceans emitting CO2. The oceans hold 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere and they emit and absorb 20 times as much as man, at different times of the year, from different regions.

Al Gore's fallacious ice core "proof" is not used by IPCC.

There is not a scrap of evidence to indicate that man's CO2 is causing dangerous warming. Here's some basics for you:

CO2 levels have been 20 time higher than currently (Paleozoic era)

Global temperatures have been higher (Medieval Warm Period - 800 yrs ago)

The earth has a stable climate system (the climate has existed for 4B years), despite the above. It does not an unstable one as assumed by IPCC models (assumptions of positive feedbacks).

The earth has been warming for 180 yrs since the Little Ice Age. There has been no "abnormal" warming in recent years. The rate of warming for the past 30 years is the same as that between 1910 and 1940.

IPCC models have failed to forecast the gloabl cooling over the past 11 years.

Hadley/IPCC's listing of temperatures to an accuracy of 1/1000th of the recording accuracy can only be described as laughable, as is the concept of an "average" daily and "average" global temperature.

The number of weather stations has changed dramatically... we are not measuring the same thing now as we were 30 or 150 years ago:
http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/stations_v_temp.gif

More than 70% of weather stations have errors >2 degrees http://www.surfacestations.org/

Antarctic ice has been growing at almost twice the rate that Arctic ice has decreased over the past 30 years.

... that should do for now.

Billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove man's CO2 is causing warming. There is a great deal of money to be made out of this nonsense, from futures trading to reseach dollars, to new taxes. What is clear is that the average wage and salary earner (most of you here) will pay dearly ... at least $1000 per annum, if the IPCC's recommendations are followed.

I have seen that for most people, this is no longer a scientific discussion. It is about beliefs ... beliefs created by the press and Hollywood. It is no different to voting in a government because of a belief that the GST is good for us. It is almost impossible to change such beliefs and bring people back to reality.

I feel no animosity to the believers in GW as I feel no animosity to my various friends who follow religions based on supreme beings.

evanbb
28-May-2009
10:44:01 AM
On 28/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>I assume from your comments that you believe that ice core data proves
>that man's CO2 is causing global warming. This belief was popularised
>by Al Gore in his Hollywood disaster movie. It is a belief held by many.

Sigh again.

This 'belief', is, as mentioned a few times now, held by 'many', if you include the UN, EU, The US Govt etc in 'many'. 'Many' people also 'believe' that the sun rises in the East, and that the Earth orbits the sun.

Buggered if I know where you got the idea that I considered it as proof. I didn't include it in my Proof post, that you requested, and haven't made any attempt at refuting. Did you even read it? Maybe you should spend some time trying to counter my arguments with some scientific papers that disprove some of my points? At the moment, all you seem interested in is building Straw Men to attack and try to support your claim.

>Most alarmist scientists are well aware that ice core data shows that
>temperatures rose before CO2 levels. A analogy that has been used to the
>heating of a bottle of soda ... temperature rises, CO2 escapes. In this
>case it is the oceans emitting CO2. The oceans hold 50 times as much CO2
>as the atmosphere and they emit and absorb 20 times as much as man, at
>different times of the year, from different regions.

Remember I posted a paper on this? You haven't read it have you? Your previous work history seems to suggest you have a science background, and yet you can't grasp Rates of Change.


Now, this next section is starting to look good. Some arguments! Needs some science to support the statements, and better linking between the points. You're approaching a theory here, which warms my heart.

>There is not a scrap of evidence to indicate that man's CO2 is causing
>dangerous warming. Here's some basics for you:
>
>CO2 levels have been 20 time higher than currently (Paleozoic era)

Good! See if you can find a paper to support this. But what does that mean? I don't dispute that CO2 has been higher in the past. Has the rate of change ever been faster? What happened when the CO2 levels were high in the past?

>Global temperatures have been higher (Medieval Warm Period - 800 yrs ago)

More science! This is promising Tony. How do you knopw though that the temperature was higher in the past? What evidence are you using? Not one of those nasty models, or ice core sample I hope. We both know they're both inadmissable.

>The earth has a stable climate system (the climate has existed for 4B
>years), despite the above. It does not an unstable one as assumed by IPCC
>models (assumptions of positive feedbacks).

The Earth has a stable climate? What does that statement mean? I need you to define 'stable' in this context, and climate for that matter. You stated earlier that it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, but it was somehow the same climate? How does that work? Are you saying the climate has been exactly the same for 4 billion years? Even when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, the climate was the same as it is now? That seems a little far fetched, even to me, who 'believes' in this Kooky GWH.
>
>The earth has been warming for 180 yrs since the Little Ice Age. There
>has been no "abnormal" warming in recent years. The rate of warming for
>the past 30 years is the same as that between 1910 and 1940.

This looks like another fact, and should be supported with evidence. Lets see the evidence, and you're fast approaching a proof.

>IPCC models have failed to forecast the gloabl cooling over the past 11
>years.

Ahh, this is hilarious. Have you got a model that predicted this? What is driving this 'cooling', even though you said 4 lines ago that the earth has been warming at the same rate for the last 30 years. That's a pretty slippery concept.

>Hadley/IPCC's listing of temperatures to an accuracy of 1/1000th of the
>recording accuracy can only be described as laughable, as is the concept
>of an "average" daily and "average" global temperature.

What is the 'recording' accuracy? Did you know there are digital means of recording temperature that are pretty accurate. There's a few good points here for you to support with evidence, and I'd love to see it. Start with a paper on recording accuracy of measuring equipment, maybe start with the Australian Institute of Measurement? Indeed, the concept of average global temperature is pretty laughable, but I'm not sure if it's relevant. Where is this measurement being used, and why is it not useful?

-----broken post------

evanbb
28-May-2009
10:44:10 AM
>The number of weather stations has changed dramatically... we are not
>measuring the same thing now as we were 30 or 150 years ago:
>http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/stations_v_temp.gif

Problem, linky no worky. I'll see if I can dig something up for you. I've got that excitement from a close scientific breakthrough here Tony, and I don't want to let it slide. Hmm, can't find anything, but let me know when you fill this gap. Shouldn't more weather stations make it more accurate, rather than less accurate?

>More than 70% of weather stations have errors >2 degrees http://www.surfacestations.org/

That's a good point. No mention of methods on that webpage. Also, it only refers to the US. Global Warming seems to be happening outside of the US as well. Find me a reference that shows the accuracy of the weather stations world wide, and the accuracy of the weather stations used in the IPCC report, and you've got yourself a salient point.

>Antarctic ice has been growing at almost twice the rate that Arctic ice
>has decreased over the past 30 years.

Now, this is a very big claim, and should easily be proven with some peer reviewed science. Go forth and Search Tony! If you can prove that, patch the holes I've identified in your post, link these disparate claims and find more pictures of submarines, then I think you're there. You will have successfully debunked the Global Warming hypothesis, from the comfort of your own home. Or your work if you work for the Govt.

>... that should do for now.
Not quite, more work to do. If I was marking this as a university assignment I'd give it a D. No references, no linking statements.

>Billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove man's CO2 is causing
>warming. There is a great deal of money to be made out of this nonsense,
>from futures trading to reseach dollars, to new taxes. What is clear is
>that the average wage and salary earner (most of you here) will pay dearly
>... at least $1000 per annum, if the IPCC's recommendations are followed.

This is the real thrust for you isn't it Tony? $$$$, and a possible impact on your business. On the flipside, there is a lot of money to be lost by people that dig holes and burn stuff, and I bet they're spending money hand over fist to try and muddy the waters. $1000 per annum doesn't sound too bad actually. That's less than I pay for health cover. But what if I never get sick! What a waste!

>I have seen that for most people, this is no longer a scientific discussion.

Your good self included Tony?

>It is about beliefs ... beliefs created by the press and Hollywood.

Yeah, I draw heavily from Hollywood for my proof. What's that movie where New York freezes because of Global Warming? That was scary. There's another one where aliens invade and Will Smith blows them up with a nuke. That was awesome! If Global Warming comes, I hope Will Smith can nuke it.

>is no different to voting in a government because of a belief that the
>GST is good for us. It is almost impossible to change such beliefs and
>bring people back to reality.

Change my beliefs with science then Tony. Good, peer reviewed science. That's all I ask for. I've provided you with reams of the stuff, yet I haven't seen a single paper from you. Try it, read some things, find some salient facts, and tell me. I've given you some hints as to how to proceed, have a crack, put a theory out there that can be disproven, as all good science should contain.
>
>I feel no animosity to the believers in GW as I feel no animosity to my
>various friends who follow religions based on supreme beings.

I do, but I'm an intolerant bugger.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
28-May-2009
11:26:09 AM
... and nothing if not persistent?
Heh 7
BA
28-May-2009
11:28:44 AM
From an article on Evolution that appeared in New Scientist (19 April 2008).
However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether you can make predictions that turn out to be right. Meteorologists don't reject chaos theory because it tells them them that it is impossible to predict the weather 100 percent accurately - on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory.

Richard
28-May-2009
1:07:14 PM
On 28/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 28/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>>The earth has a stable climate system (the climate has existed for 4B
>>years), despite the above. It does not an unstable one as assumed by
>IPCC models (assumptions of positive feedbacks).
>
>The Earth has a stable climate? What does that statement mean? I need
>you to define 'stable' in this context, and climate for that matter. You
>stated earlier that it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, but it was
>somehow the same climate? How does that work? Are you saying the climate
>has been exactly the same for 4 billion years? Even when there was no oxygen
>in the atmosphere, the climate was the same as it is now? That seems a
>little far fetched, even to me, who 'believes' in this Kooky GWH.

The original post implies the definitin of "stable" climate is mearly the existance of a "climate" (i.e in any form). (Where as the definiation of stable should imply not changing within nominated bounds.)

My view on climate change is mearly this: we'll be a lot better of if we assume we are changing the climate, and reduce our impact, than vice-a-verse. I don't like pollution, smog, wasting anything (such as power) irregradless of weather its changing the climate or not. Being able to redude your impact on the planet I see as a sign of an intelligent life form - I'd like to think that's us. I am prepared to pay for this, to the ability that I can. One of my pet hates is the construction of 'modern" houses that have less environmental features than old houses - i.e no roof eves. So you save a few $ in construction, but get no shade on the walls in summer .. not very smart, IMHO.
devlin66
28-May-2009
1:51:20 PM
+1

I don't care wether we are changing the climate or not. I am despite Evans presented evidence still sitting on the fence. What I do care about is as Richard states. We should be changing our ways regardless for the want of a better less polluted world than what we live in. Yes it will cost us some money but the money it will cost down the track with be infintely more than if we act now. Unfortunately the complacent populous won't act until they a legislated too or hit in the hip pocket. Also unfortunately there are people trying to make a ridiculous amount of money out of it rather than doing it for a modest profit and a better environment.

I too can't believe we are building brick veneer houses with no eaves. But it means a bigger house on a smaller block so more blocks can be developed so the council can collect more rates. That's how I see it anyway. I have no scientific evidence to back it up, sorry. :-P

D.Lodge
28-May-2009
1:55:58 PM
If you want some evidence that the world is heating up just look at the worlds Glaciers they are dissapearing at an alarming rate. North face of the Eiger no snow now over summer and large chuncks of other mountains falling off due to lack of ice to hold them together. There it is over now.:p
P.S I like wind turbines they look Cool

Eduardo Slabofvic
28-May-2009
2:57:44 PM
Change is the only constant

IdratherbeclimbingM9
28-May-2009
5:06:31 PM
On 28/05/2009 devlin66 wrote:
>+1

+ 1 more, because it sums it up in simple terms ie do it anyway because it is right to do so!


>That's how I see it anyway. I have
>no scientific evidence to back it up, sorry. :-P

What!
Take him out and flay him alive with a keyboard!

evanbb
28-May-2009
6:16:27 PM
On 28/05/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 28/05/2009 devlin66 wrote:
>>+1
>
>+ 1 more, because it sums it up in simple terms ie do it anyway because
>it is right to do so!
>
>
>>That's how I see it anyway. I have
>>no scientific evidence to back it up, sorry. :-P
>

>What!
>Take him out and flay him alive with a keyboard!
>☺

Flay him with the Garnaut report. It's a big boring document BTW. Tried to get something out of it today. Lots of economic speak.


In my defence though, I did post a long message about the moral imperative. Water of a duck's back it seems.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
29-May-2009
9:28:04 AM
Noticed that. It wasn't water off the duck. I agree with it. In many respects this aspect was the easiest to understand in the pseudodebate thus far.
TonyB
29-May-2009
9:44:11 AM
Lets have a quiz.

Which graph is :

A ) Last 30 years global temperatures showing dramatic warming.
B ) 30 years of global temperatures long before increases in man's CO2

??????????????


Organ Pipe
29-May-2009
9:49:17 AM
or

C ) Unsubstantiated, unreferenced squiggles?

evanbb
29-May-2009
9:51:53 AM
On 29/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Lets have a quiz.
>
>Which graph is :
>
>A ) Last 30 years global temperatures showing dramatic warming.
>B ) 30 years of global temperatures long before increases in man's CO2
>
I'm taking a different C as well

C) a pretty serious blow to Tony's credibility?

Go back to my last long post, I've given you some clues as to how you should prove your theory. Have a crack at it. It'll do you more good than graphs with out labelled axes and photos of submarines.


I'm pretty close to playing the Bunny with a pancake on it's head card if this goes on much longer.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
29-May-2009
10:00:41 AM
On 29/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>I'm pretty close to playing the Bunny with a pancake on it's head card
>if this goes on much longer.

You are not hopping around the subject that TonyB has raised again are you?


Hehsnickerheh.

Sabu
29-May-2009
10:05:44 AM
On 29/05/2009 Organ Pipe wrote:
>or
>
>C ) Unsubstantiated, unreferenced squiggles?
>
Yep!

evanbb
29-May-2009
10:19:58 AM
On 29/05/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>
>
>Hehsnickerheh.

Seen where this came from? I near piszed myself when I read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oolong_the_rabbit

IdratherbeclimbingM9
29-May-2009
10:32:56 AM
>Seen where this came from? I near piszed myself when I
... ~> found it!!
H3

>
There exist websites that collect and popularize Internet memes as well as sites devoted to the spread of specific Internet memes.


This/Your thread is in the theme?

Heh, heh, heh.

 Page 10 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