Author |
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular! |
|
|
24-Jun-2009 9:45:38 AM
|
On 22/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
> I hope the bitterness doesn't stop you from climbing.
Why are you bitter ? ... and why would your bitterness stop me climbing ... and what on earth does the GW nonsense have to do with climbing anyway ? I'm afraid I have great trouble understanding how alarmists think.
It is surprising how many alarmists appear on this forum. I would have thought that supposedly fearless climbers wouldn't be so easily panicked by claims of the sky falling in. Here's a lovely lesson about atmospheric dynamics and speculative meteorology:
http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/
You might also enjoy this depiction of where we are headed:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/710/
(...be patient while it loads)
You haven't answered my question based on my graph which shows how temperature rates of rise DECREASED as fossil fuel usage increased:
Anyone who claims that man's fossil fuel burning is causing "alarming" and "recent" global warming, please state exactly when the "alarming" "recent" warming became apparent. Was it:
a) 7 years ago
b) 11 years ago
c) 30 years ago
d) 60 years ago
e) from when Adam was a boy
?
Now that should be easier to answer than trying to find the non existent evidence for man's CO2 causing alarming warming, shouldn't it ?
|
24-Jun-2009 10:02:08 AM
|
Do you have a repeat button that someone's constantly pressing there Tony?
Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob .... did you look at those links wherre Bob is loosely classed from disillusioned geologist who's funding was cut and has too much time on his hands to crack pot who compares himself to Gallileo? There's also some concrete objections to his theories, info on his connection to oil money and lack of qualifications to be talking about climate anyway.
No one's answering your quiz, because like the last one, it's purposefully picked to suit your cause and doesn't show the broader picture.
I did enjoy the end of the world animation though!
|
24-Jun-2009 10:04:02 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>...degree avg temperature earth, hardly minor.
>
>Read my post. The greenhouse effect play a minor role in temperature
>CHANGES.
maybe normally, which is why anthropogenic emissions have a significant effect in changing climate.
but saying it plays a minor role in temperature changes is complete BS, have a read about the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the greatest mass extinction in earths history, which was largely driven by a runaway greenhouse effect.
>>are you going to enlighten us with what the other forcings are thats
>causing
>>the current warming if its not our CO2 then?
>
>Have you watched Bob Carter's videos ... these videos demonstrate how
>global temperatures have been rising and falling for billions of years
>... all without any help from man !
I know plenty about what has caused previous natural climate changes, but
none of them explain current variations. and thats exactly what we're asking,
if you think the earths tilt is to blame, show that there is CURRENT variation
in the earths tilt that is enough to explain current variations in temperature.
same for orbit, cosmic rays etc etc. spouting names of other ppl who COULD have
murdered the victim gets nowhere in proving that they DID, you need evidence.
and thats where skeptics fall on their face. we have a plausible model that human emissions cause current observed temperature changes. what skeptics need to show is an alternative model that explains what we're seeing, in detail, and show that it is MORE plausible than existing models.
|
24-Jun-2009 10:14:49 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Have you watched Bob Carter's videos ... these videos demonstrate how
>global temperatures have been rising and falling for billions of years
>... all without any help from man ! There's volumes of literature on what
>causes these temperature changes ... changes in the earth's tilt, orbit,
>solar cosmic rays etc etc etc ...
Tony, Tony, Tony, no one disputes that temperatures have changed in the past. Bob Carter is clearly a talented video artist too, and his contribution to the scientific debate through the medium of YouTube can not be easily discarded.
You've made your points, generally the same ones, quite a few times now, and with bigger and bigger graphs and some photos of submarines. We've all listened patiently as you've listened to us. Isn't it clear now that no one, on either side, is changing their mind? Why not give it a rest for a while? Maybe try another climbing forum to Fight The Good Fight, against what is obviously a massive global conspiracy. Maybe try Qrank? 8a.nu?
I can't help but think that the sceptical arguments have some parallels with the Area51 theories coming from the states. All sorts of people believe there is a cover up, and the more it's debated against, the more they believe they're right. Phrases like 'that's exactly what they want you to think' have a lot of parallels with 'of course scientists are just following the orthodoxy or their funding would be cut' and 'politicians will always do what is popular'. It becomes impossible to disprove the conspiracy theory, despite there being very little evidence that it actually exists. Doesn't mean there is no conspiracy, but it's also not a great theory if it can't be disproved.
If you're rusted on to this conspiracy theory Tony, you're in for a hard fight. The Governments of the world are acting, spending your money, and as far as I can see there's bugger all you can do about it. So I wish you strength in your struggle, but I also wish we could stop discussing it here. Everyone is going a bit mad with it, myself included, and we really should concentrate on climbing. It is a climbing forum after all.
|
24-Jun-2009 10:16:38 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>You haven't answered my question based on my graph which shows how temperature
>rates of rise DECREASED as fossil fuel usage increased:
you must have cotton wool in your ears
>Anyone who claims that man's fossil fuel burning is causing "alarming"
>and "recent" global warming, please state exactly when the "alarming" "recent"
>warming became apparent. Was it:
fine, lets say the last century. the period 1900-now shows significant temperature changes that can be explained by emissions, and can't be explained by solar changes, procession, orbit, volcanism etc etc.
|
24-Jun-2009 10:19:37 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 24/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>Have you watched Bob Carter's videos ... these videos demonstrate how
>>global temperatures have been rising and falling for billions of years
>>... all without any help from man ! There's volumes of literature on
>what
>>causes these temperature changes ... changes in the earth's tilt, orbit,
>>solar cosmic rays etc etc etc ...
>
>Tony, Tony, Tony, no one disputes that temperatures have changed in the
>past. Bob Carter is clearly a talented video artist too, and his contribution
>to the scientific debate through the medium of YouTube can not be easily
>discarded.
>
>You've made your points, generally the same ones, quite a few times now,
>and with bigger and bigger graphs and some photos of submarines. We've
>all listened patiently as you've listened to us. Isn't it clear now that
>no one, on either side, is changing their mind? Why not give it a rest
>for a while? Maybe try another climbing forum to Fight The Good Fight,
>against what is obviously a massive global conspiracy. Maybe try Qrank?
>8a.nu?
>
>I can't help but think that the sceptical arguments have some parallels
>with the Area51 theories coming from the states. All sorts of people believe
>there is a cover up, and the more it's debated against, the more they believe
>they're right. Phrases like 'that's exactly what they want you to think'
>have a lot of parallels with 'of course scientists are just following the
>orthodoxy or their funding would be cut' and 'politicians will always do
>what is popular'. It becomes impossible to disprove the conspiracy theory,
>despite there being very little evidence that it actually exists. Doesn't
>mean there is no conspiracy, but it's also not a great theory if it can't
>be disproved.
>
>If you're rusted on to this conspiracy theory Tony, you're in for a hard
>fight. The Governments of the world are acting, spending your money, and
>as far as I can see there's bugger all you can do about it. So I wish you
>strength in your struggle, but I also wish we could stop discussing it
>here. Everyone is going a bit mad with it, myself included, and we really
>should concentrate on climbing. It is a climbing forum after all.
maybe we should just settle this the old fashioned way - Pines showdown style ... one side gets a guitar and a few tabs of acid the others get lump hammers ... alternately we could start debating the evil of dogs again - do dogs increase or decrease global warming, do they even exist?
|
24-Jun-2009 10:25:12 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 psd wrote:
>maybe we should just settle this the old fashioned way - Pines showdown
>style ... one side gets a guitar and a few tabs of acid the others get
>lump hammers ... alternately we could start debating the evil of dogs again
>- do dogs increase or decrease global warming, do they even exist?
Please, can I be on the acid and guitar team?
|
24-Jun-2009 10:25:33 AM
|
This thread is the phoenix of Chockstone.
|
24-Jun-2009 10:34:43 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Please, can I be on the acid and guitar team?
Yes but only if you can hijack this thread into another helmet debate in 3 posts or less - if you fail we all get to hear Tones and RJ cranking out some bob dylan while off their faces ...
|
24-Jun-2009 11:11:24 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 Wendy wrote:
>This thread is the phoenix of Chockstone.
i just thought we were trying to get the thread count up ;)
|
24-Jun-2009 11:19:33 AM
|
>Yes but only if you can hijack this thread into another helmet debate in 3 posts or less
I suppose we could try and debate some mitigation options instead - like, lets assume that the recent
episode of fish and frogs raining down in japan has something to do with changes in climate - maybe
warmer climates mean more energy in the system which leads to more water spouts forming, therefore
more fish and frogs in the clouds. Seems pretty sensible to me. Given that we can't stop that
happening in the near future, even if the climate change is anthroprogenically forced, the only sensible
option to mitigate this hazard and avoid being clocked with some pre-sushi at terminal velocity is to
constantly walk around with some sort of head protecting device - such as a climbing helmet.
Even if the sky doesn't fall on your head you'll also have the side benefit of stimulating the economy
by getting everyone to wear a climbing helmet, and also generally reduce head injuries from road
accidents, or people wandering around while tripping on acid and accidentally sticking their head in a
blender. Given all the positives, i can't see why it hasn't already been made mandatory!
|
24-Jun-2009 11:28:15 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 wombly wrote:
>Even if the sky doesn't fall on your head you'll also have the side benefit
>of stimulating the economy
>by getting everyone to wear a climbing helmet, and also generally reduce
>head injuries from road
>accidents, or people wandering around while tripping on acid and accidentally
>sticking their head in a
>blender. Given all the positives, i can't see why it hasn't already been
>made mandatory!
Fukk that, I'm not wearing a helmet! Everyone knows the dangers of wearing a helmet. Why not just take responsibility for your own safety in the first place? The more of these 'safety blankets' that people rely on, the more they compromise their own ability to recognise and mitigate risk.
|
24-Jun-2009 11:46:14 AM
|
Congratulations team - please present yourself to the marshalls in Pines Square Garden to receive your guitar and pill of choice.
(p.s. I recommend an ecrin roc style helmet, everyone knows these new fangled foam jobbies are useless for multiple impacts (hammer blows or sushi))
|
25-Jun-2009 9:10:55 AM
|
On 24/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>You've made your points, generally the same ones
Let me try to understand the mind of the alarmist. From what I can gather from the posts here, this is the alarmist view. Please correct me where you think it necessary:
THE ALARMIST VIEW OF GLOBAL WARMING
1. 600,000 yrs of ice cores show show that CO2 increases of 100ppm or so, cause global temperatures to increase by about 10 degrees every 120,000 yrs or so. This was proven in Al Gore's movie.
2. There is no explanation given for these CO2 increases but we assume its caused by visits by aliens every 120,000 years ??
3. There have been no temperatures higher than today in this period.
4. The global temperature has been more or less constant for the past 10,000 years and not higher than today.
5. Man's massively increased fossil fuel burning from 1945 caused CO2 levels to increase by 80ppm, which caused global temperatures to skyrocket by 0.4 degrees, to the current unprecedented levels.
6. The proof of the connection between man's CO2 and temperatures is computer models which also predicted the past 11 years of no temperature increase.
7. Global temperature changes are not caused by the same natural forces that have been in play for the past 4 billion years.
Is that about it ????
As I said, please correct any points where I have misunderstood you.
|
25-Jun-2009 9:43:24 AM
|
On 25/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 24/06/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>You've made your points, generally the same ones
>
>Let me try to understand the mind of the alarmist. From what I can gather
>from the posts here, this is the alarmist view. Please correct me where
>you think it necessary:
>
>THE ALARMIST VIEW OF GLOBAL WARMING
>
I'm not even reading it. My view is that the world is acting to fix a perceived threat. I don't give a rat's ahse about the science anymore.
|
25-Jun-2009 10:33:29 AM
|
Re your graph Tony. Its all alarming but then I'm an alarmist. What about ~1.2 degree C T rise over ~40yrs in northern hemisphere (well 23.6N-90N). Oh but thats from James Hansen and he is only in it for the $$$.
And yes Aliens thats it.
FFS I dont think anyone here is attributing climate change soley to humans. There is a multitude of other forcings involved for sure, but us "alarmists" reckon CO2 is playing a big role at the moment.
Like you said to my post Tony, you dont have the time to respond to everything, well I dont either.
Anyway I'm going climbing this weekend and we are going to car pool with some friends so we can save some CO2.
|
25-Jun-2009 11:03:12 AM
|
On 25/06/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Let me try to understand the mind of the alarmist.
Problem is Tony for the last couple of weeks you have done nothing of the sort, you have not tried to understand the mind of the alarmist, perhaps if you had you might have been able to construct at least one argument with some merit.
Still I'm off to talk to some of those large highly sceptical business that have managed to move past the science and are looking to addresss the political realities, you know mining firms and the like.
TTFN
LD
|
25-Jun-2009 11:04:56 AM
|
On 25/06/2009 jono_1 wrote:
>There is a multitude of other forcings involved for sure, but us "alarmists" reckon CO2 is playing a big role at the moment.
I'm not even sure of that. I just think if we can do it cleaner, why don't we? It seems stupid to me to use something that's unrenewable if there is a viable alternative that's renewable.
I find the same thing with water policy. People complain about restrictions but I think they are set in a very strange way. Why wait till we have less than 50% (or whatever it is) to start asking people to use it sensibly? Why not measure the in flow and out flow and when one is substantially greater than the other make changes to the usage policy?
|
25-Jun-2009 11:33:13 AM
|
On 25/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>I'm not even sure of that. I just think if we can do it cleaner, why
>don't we? It seems stupid to me to use something that's unrenewable if
>there is a viable alternative that's renewable.
>
>I find the same thing with water policy. People complain about restrictions
>but I think they are set in a very strange way. Why wait till we have
>less than 50% (or whatever it is) to start asking people to use it sensibly?
> Why not measure the in flow and out flow and when one is substantially
>greater than the other make changes to the usage policy?
Totally agree. Seems to me the only people with reason to be opposed to efficient resource management are those who make a direct profit from selling the resource in the first place. Even if the globe isn't warming, I would be pushing to stop burning oil. The more heavily reliant we are on scarce resources, the worse the pain WHEN they do run out. I doubt the sun and win are about to run out any time soon.
|
25-Jun-2009 11:51:46 AM
|
Especially when Australia has know oil reserve of about 8 years.
Though if coal-to-gas (and diesel) becomes commercial we will have heaps of diesel !!!!
|