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 14 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!
R James
9-Jun-2009
2:29:11 PM
On 9/06/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>No. Am wondering whether you got the information from the report yourself
>and interprested it yourself or whether you ripped it all from a website
>that typed out what was written in the report.....
>
>
>From SMH today
>
>SCIENTISTS have criticised the Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, for
>promoting "misinformation" that the sun could be to blame for recent global
>warming.
>>
>The conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate
>change had been accepted by more than 70 of the world's science academies.
"
>
It seems a bit too convenient to make this statement, and ignore 31,000 scientists who have signed a document opposing acceptance of the anthropogenic hypothesis.

There's a lot of mixed research conclusions on the influence of solar activity, and looking at periods such as Maunder and Dalton, and the corresponding temperature dip, it's had not to recognise the correlation. If Fielding has picked up something new on this at the conference, I'd like to hear it.

I expect he's also stuck on the same main problems I have. There's no real data to back up the hypothesis of increased carbon dioxide causing significant warming (if anyone has any, I'd like to see it.) The other big issue is that this whole global warming thing is based on computer models that assume positive feedback. To date, these models have totally failed to match real data - specifically, they failed to predict the cooling over the past 10 years (or 12 years depending on which data set is used.) In scientific circles, a model isn't considered valid until it's predicted actual data. Yet, we're about to change the world based on these failed models. This might be clever politics, but it's not good science.

evanbb
9-Jun-2009
2:52:09 PM
On 9/06/2009 R James wrote:
>It seems a bit too convenient to make this statement, and ignore 31,000
>scientists who have signed a document opposing acceptance of the anthropogenic
>hypothesis.

I can't be bothered refuting the 31000 Veterenarians again, and will just copy and past from Crikey today:

Enough reputable scientists -- let's conservatively say a number better than 20 per cent of all reputable scientists in the world -- have voted in favour of the existence of human-induced climate change. Even if the other 80 per cent believed the climate was not changing, or that the change was not the result of human activity (and in reality their number is closer to 8 per cent, not 80), there is more than enough scientific consensus to make this debate about one factor and one factor only: mitigation against risk.

The world is way beyond debating the science of climate change as a prerequisite for political action. Enough scientific expertise has validated the case to make it -- like the possibility of cyclones, earthquakes and other events of nature -- strictly about the size of the insurance premium.

evanbb
9-Jun-2009
3:03:05 PM
And some more from Crikey today:




Well the Heartland Institue is certainly doing its job. The right-wing American thinktank explicitly aims to influence politicians and, while they normally aim at state legislators in the US, doubtless theyíd be chuffed that such an influential Australian political figure as Steve Fielding has been giving their climate change scepticism a detailed hearing.

Heartland has extensive links with the tobacco industry and has previously received extensive financial support from Exxon Mobil. The Instituteís sloppy, biased approach to climate change is best summed up by an incident in 2007 when Heartland published on its website "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares".

Dozens of the scientists named on the Heartland list subsequently demanded the removal of their names, saying they had not been contacted by the Institute and had views diametrically opposed to those presented by Heartland.

Heartland refused to remove any names and declared "they have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed," although it did amend the title of the page to ď500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares".
---------------------------------------------------

This is the 'petition' that a lot of sceptics fall back on. Further, if any scientist thinks that signing a piece of paper, without doing any experiment or data gathering is enough to disprove the work of the IPCC and NASA, they should have their degrees torn up.
R James
9-Jun-2009
3:10:15 PM
Evenbb - there's the differences between us.

1. We have a different view of what is required for consensus.

2. I (and many others) don't accept that science is about consensus. It's either proven, or still a theory, and should be treated as nothing more.

3. I look at the data and make up my own mind. You believe someone's story based on them telling you it's supported by "consensus".
Wendy
9-Jun-2009
3:20:49 PM
On 9/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Anyone who is interested in the history of how $50 billion has already
>been spent trying to find evidence of man caused global warming, might
>find this summary of interest. Of course $50B is a drop in the bucket
>compared to how much the pollies want to tax you on the basis of this rubbish.
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

Did you read through the comments at the end? That is, the ones before yours? Evan has a few friends in there debunking the article and everything starts to read very similarly ....

What I see happening (in all arenas where i see these issues discussed) is evidence for AGW has been put forth, someone has come along with some evidence against it, someone then comes along and explains why this evidence does not counter the original argument, is not relevant, is incorrect etc etc but the original objectors never seem to come back and counter these counterings, just more repitition and a bit of emotional blurting.

eg, the last 10 years of "cooling" - where's the counter to the explaination that the overall trend is still up, that 1998 was the hottest year on record, therefore yes, the others are less hot, but still hotter than every other preceding year bar 1997? Or the famous 800 year lapse - pls tell me what the problem is with the refute of this that I can't be bothered repeating see several pages ago?

On the topic of govt spending - the govt spends vast sums on things that I don't approve of. I don't agree with a lot of how they are going about addressing climate change, but still there are plenty of other things they spend $ on they I'll complain about first.


Eduardo Slabofvic
9-Jun-2009
3:29:28 PM
On 5/06/2009 richardo wrote:
> For example, I was born in 1980 and ever since then my height has increased --am I the cause of global warming?

You might be on to something there richardo, but how do you explain the effects of your other dimentions continually expanding.

Does the ever increasing girth of your waistline explain the recent swing to the right in European elections?

On trend analysis.

I am driving my car. I have been driving in a straight line for quite some time. Therefore I conclude that I should continue to drive in a straight line.

I then smash into big tree and die.

Alternative thinking.

I am driving my car. Where do I want to go and what's the best way of getting there? I want to go to the shop and not smash into anything on the way.

Vision of preferred future, strategy on how to get there.

ajfclark
9-Jun-2009
3:30:55 PM
On 9/06/2009 R James wrote:
>2. I (and many others) don't accept that science is about consensus. It's either proven, or still a theory, and should be treated as nothing more.

That's not always a sensible option. For example, I have a theory that if I cut off your leg you'll die. To prove this I need to cut off your leg. I don't think you want this theory proven.

Similarly, with CC, if we wait until it's proven that we're having an irreversible impact on the climate, we're all f---ed.

Sometimes we have to make decisions based on incomplete data.
Wendy
9-Jun-2009
3:42:40 PM
I thought the scientific method was all about failing to disprove a theory anyway

foreverabumbly
9-Jun-2009
4:02:25 PM
R James, Do you actually climb?

not an antagonistic question, just wondering.

your profile has you as a 60 yr old beginner sport climber, If its true then all kudo's to you. If not then what are you doing on a rock climbing forum?

I, and most others on this forum are not going to treat you with any real credibility unless we believe you are being honest

SwineOfTheTimes
9-Jun-2009
4:23:43 PM
On 9/06/2009 Wendy wrote:

>eg, the last 10 years of "cooling" - where's the counter to the explaination
>that the overall trend is still up, that 1998 was the hottest year on record,
>therefore yes, the others are less hot, but still hotter than every other
>preceding year bar 1997?

I had heard that nine of the ten warmest years recorded in the US lower 48 states since 1880 have occurred since 1995, with the hottest being 1998. Well, that also has been shown to be wrong. Less than a decade ago, the US government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre did so correcting the record to show that 1934 was in fact the hottest year, with 1998 second and 1921 third. Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s and only 3 in the past decade. Eight of the 15 hottest years in the past century occurred before carbon dioxide began its recent rise.

Global warming is a major industry today. Between 1992 and 2008 the US Government spent $30 billion on climate change research and now contributes $6 billion a year. This finances jobs, grants, conferences, international travel and academic journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people in comfortable employment, but also fills them with self-righteousness and moral superiority regardless of the fact that real science did not support it.


Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favours central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someoneís property than to subordinate oneís private property rights to environmental concerns?

By focusing our priorities on future generations, we focus less on improving the lives of people who are alive today. These future generations bear no closer relationship to us than those now living in developing countries whose lives we disdain to save. Why are we not feeding people in the world who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost one billion people who donít have clean water? The greatest source of environmental degradation is poverty. Why arenít we helping eliminate poverty? One answer is that perhaps it is a lot easier worrying about future generations than trying to fix present day problems.




evanbb
9-Jun-2009
4:51:04 PM
On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>By focusing our priorities on future generations, we focus less on improving
>the lives of people who are alive today. These future generations bear
>no closer relationship to us than those now living in developing countries
>whose lives we disdain to save. Why are we not feeding people in the world
>who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost one billion
>people who donít have clean water? The greatest source of environmental
>degradation is poverty. Why arenít we helping eliminate poverty? One
>answer is that perhaps it is a lot easier worrying about future generations
>than trying to fix present day problems.


What an incredibly transparent troll. Laughable. I actually did laugh.
>
>
>
Wendy
9-Jun-2009
5:00:28 PM
On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>On 9/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>
>>eg, the last 10 years of "cooling" - where's the counter to the explaination
>>that the overall trend is still up, that 1998 was the hottest year on
>record,
>>therefore yes, the others are less hot, but still hotter than every
>other
>>preceding year bar 1997?
>
>I had heard that nine of the ten warmest years recorded in the US lower
>48 states since 1880 have occurred since 1995, with the hottest being 1998.
> Well, that also has been shown to be wrong. Less than a decade ago, the
>US government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought
>to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, until Canadian researcher
>Steve McIntyre did so correcting the record to show that 1934 was in fact
>the hottest year, with 1998 second and 1921 third. Four of the 10 hottest
>years were in the 1930s and only 3 in the past decade. Eight of the 15
>hottest years in the past century occurred before carbon dioxide began
>its recent rise.

have a look at the response to this here

>Global warming is a major industry today. Between 1992 and 2008 the US
>Government spent $30 billion on climate change research and now contributes
>$6 billion a year. This finances jobs, grants, conferences, international
>travel and academic journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people
>in comfortable employment, but also fills them with self-righteousness
>and moral superiority regardless of the fact that real science did not
>support it.
>
>

Doesn't seem like that much really. Kevin just spent $42 billion in one stimulus package. Exxon mobil made $40 billion net profit in 2007 and 45.5 in 2008 and they're just one company with a vested interest in disproving AGW.

>Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support;
>this is about eco-activists and politicians who found a scientific issue
>they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is
>a great way to advance a political agenda that favours central planning
>and an intrusive government. What better way to control someoneís property
>than to subordinate oneís private property rights to environmental concerns?

I'd hardly say we are moving to big govt as a response to climate change. I'd say goverments everywhere are looking at market solutions (emissions trading is a market based solution) and being one of those leftist hippies that favours govt and regulation over the market, I'd say it'd be far more effective to just put our foot down about it instead of pussy footing with bloody markets.

>
>By focusing our priorities on future generations, we focus less on improving
>the lives of people who are alive today. These future generations bear
>no closer relationship to us than those now living in developing countries
>whose lives we disdain to save. Why are we not feeding people in the world
>who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost one billion
>people who donít have clean water? The greatest source of environmental
>degradation is poverty. Why arenít we helping eliminate poverty? One
>answer is that perhaps it is a lot easier worrying about future generations
>than trying to fix present day problems.


Yep, there are lots of problems in the world. Addressing climate change at least addresses many of them at once, such as reducing pollution, providing sustainable resources to developing countries, which are also locally owned and controlled, reducing the fights over non renewable resources which are devestating many countries and kicking people of land they live off. People are being effected by cc now with extreme weather events and conditions dependant diseases. And who said it had to be one of the other? Are we incapable of helping people now and addressing the future?
>
>
>
>
Wendy
9-Jun-2009
5:03:11 PM
On 9/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>>By focusing our priorities on future generations, we focus less on improving
>>the lives of people who are alive today. These future generations bear
>>no closer relationship to us than those now living in developing countries
>>whose lives we disdain to save. Why are we not feeding people in the
>world
>>who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost one billion
>>people who donít have clean water? The greatest source of environmental
>>degradation is poverty. Why arenít we helping eliminate poverty? One
>>answer is that perhaps it is a lot easier worrying about future generations
>>than trying to fix present day problems.
>
>
>What an incredibly transparent troll. Laughable. I actually did laugh.
>>
>>
>
So many out there opinions around here that I can't tell the difference ...
Wendy
9-Jun-2009
5:08:18 PM
On the topic of "has it been cooling?", these guys reckon that 2005 was equal to 1998 and more concerning as it was a weak el nino year.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
9-Jun-2009
5:10:17 PM
On 9/06/2009 SwineOfTheTimes wrote:
>>By focusing our priorities on future generations, we focus less on improving
>>the lives of people who are alive today. These future generations bear
>>no closer relationship to us than those now living in developing countries
>>whose lives we disdain to save. Why are we not feeding people in the
>world
>>who are hungry? Why are we not giving clean water to the almost one billion
>>people who donít have clean water? The greatest source of environmental
>>degradation is poverty. Why arenít we helping eliminate poverty? One
>>answer is that perhaps it is a lot easier worrying about future generations
>>than trying to fix present day problems.
>
On 9/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>What an incredibly transparent troll. Laughable. I actually did laugh.
>>
On 9/06/2009 Wendy wrote;
>So many out there opinions around here that I can't tell the difference ...



I think SOTT has a point and is not trolling.

"You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you."
- excerpt from "Above Life's Turmoil"

Anything is possible to an open mind?


SwineOfTheTimes
9-Jun-2009
5:16:19 PM
So if I don't agree with the zealots from the Cult of Climate Change, my opinion is "laughable" and "out there"?
I agree with TonyB, you people are yet to put over any hard evidence.

evanbb
9-Jun-2009
8:44:43 PM
On 9/06/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>I think SOTT has a point and is not trolling.
>
>"You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you will be tomorrow
>where your thoughts take you."
>- excerpt from "Above Life's Turmoil"
>
>Anything is possible to an open mind?


Yes, sorry, I copied the wrong passage then. I meant to refer to this one:

"Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favours central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someoneís property than to subordinate oneís private property rights to environmental concerns?"

Which I found totally outrageous and completely beside any sort of reasonable point. The AGW hypothesis is not a grab for political power, it is cold hard science as mentioned before. It only became political once we finally started to talk about the solutions. I don't want political power, I've got no desire for central planning or intrusive government, I just want less CO2 emitted by generating electricity. That's it. And this leaves aside the ridiculous notion that having resources in the hands of big companies is better than a Govt owning them.

The last paragraph, that I actually copied, was much more reasonable and raises some genuinely useful points. I agree that focussing on future problems ignores some current ones. But I disagree that this should be separated from solving Climate CHange. There's some pretty good evidence mounting that people in poorer countries will bare the brunt of CC more than anyone else. By not doing something about it, we're disadvantaging people we don't even know. It's not a fair fight at all. As has been mentioned earlier, doing something about climate change can solve a few problems at once. I suspect that the people of the middle east, right now, would in many cases be better off if we didn't need their oil so badly. There's lots of other examples, that have been discussed by others. The point is that the elegant engineering solution to this problem could be used to solve many others. Putting a price on carbon for example, will most likely lead to hundred of acres of rainforest in SE asia being protected by developed countries. This will be a solid wealth transfer and allow poor people to stay where they are and have a value for their land.

So, sorry for the dismissive post. It was a dodgy editting job.

Eduardo Slabofvic
9-Jun-2009
10:53:31 PM
In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical
behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data
contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another hypothesis.
Statistical hypothesis testing is used to make a decision about whether the data contradicts the null
hypothesis: this is called significance testing. A null hypothesis is never proven by such methods, as the
absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish it. In other words, one may either
reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it. Failing to reject it gives no strong reason to
change decisions predicated on its truth, but it also allows for the possibility of obtaining further data and
then re-examining the same hypothesis.

SwineOfTheTimes
9-Jun-2009
11:33:17 PM
On 9/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>
>have a look at the response to this year-on-record.htm">here
>
I stated it was US data and then you post a link trying to debunk it because it's US data. Please read a little more carefully next time.
But if you think, that due to the fact that the evidence is not sound because it's geospecific, we could also ignore the recent decrease in Arctic ice (it's only covers 10% anyway) and focus on the overall global glacial trend. Some have shrunk, some have expanded and some have stayed the same. Overall the volume is the same as before this scare campaign started
>
>Doesn't seem like that much really. Kevin just spent $42 billion in one
>stimulus package. Exxon mobil made $40 billion net profit in 2007 and
>45.5 in 2008 and they're just one company with a vested interest in disproving
>AGW.
>
You really think $30 billion is not much money?

>I'd hardly say we are moving to big govt as a response to climate change.

And neither did I. I said it was "a great way to advance a political agenda".

> being one of those leftist hippies
>that favours govt and regulation over the market, I'd say it'd be far more
>effective to just put our foot down about it instead of pussy footing with
>bloody markets.
>
Sorry, but I did have a bit of a giggle over this one. A hippy advocating National Socialism. That was tried towards the middle of last century, and we all know where that got us.
>
>Yep, there are lots of problems in the world. Addressing climate change
>at least addresses many of them at once,

Reality is it will be detrimental to the developing world (Evanbb agrees with this).

> People are being effected by cc now with extreme weather events

Rubbish, 1 example please.

>and conditions dependant diseases.

If you are referring to mosquito born disease, you'll find that has to do with increased population density and habitat creation due to deforestation.

>And who said it had to be one of the other?

I prefer to deal with reality before abstract.

>Are we incapable of helping people now and addressing the future?
>>

It seams so.
rod
10-Jun-2009
2:14:57 AM
On 28/05/2009 D.Lodge wrote:
>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

I don't see glacial changes as concrete evidence of GW, simply anecdotal points of changes in our lifetimes. Read "The White Spider": in the short timeframe between the '30's and the '50's significant change was witnessed in the disappearance of icefields. Written records from Roman times show even thinner glacial cover in the European Alps than now.

Actual GW yet or not, its the prospect of what will come that I find concerning. Paying some insurance in the form of changed lifestyle, reduced global population and moving to low or zero carbon energy systems in order to mitigate the potential effects over the next several 100 years seems pretty sensible to me.

 Page 14 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