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 26 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!

evanbb
1-Jul-2009
10:58:52 AM
On 1/07/2009 JimboV10 wrote:
>And now for our next debate!!!
>
>Evolution or God's creation??

God evolved through natural selection.

evanbb
1-Jul-2009
11:30:10 AM
Good one. That last message was the 500th! Pretty happy it was me.
Wendy
1-Jul-2009
11:35:06 AM
Considering your degree of input, your chances were pretty good!
prb
1-Jul-2009
11:50:18 AM
The two debates have this in common:

If you believe in God or human-induced global warming and you are wrong, no great consequence.

If you do not believe in God or human-induced global warming and you are wrong, you can look forward to
hell.

evanbb
1-Jul-2009
11:57:16 AM
On 1/07/2009 prb wrote:
>The two debates have this in common:

Very elegant prb. A modern Pascal's Wager.
BA
1-Jul-2009
5:17:26 PM
On 30/06/2009 R James wrote:

>You better check Arctic ice again. It's been at normal area for the past
>8 months.

I knew they might be wrong. 8 months versus 8 years versus 80 years carries a lot of conviction. I blame the computer modeling myself. I now accept that they only work to prove your point, not mine. Please accept my apologies.

evanbb
2-Jul-2009
8:57:17 AM
While I'm not arguing the science any more, I am going to continue posting articles here that some might be interested in. Firstly, a very well reasoned argument on how and why to reduce carbon emissions:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9115

Tony, if you're looking for something to emphatically disagree with, give this a read.


evanbb
2-Jul-2009
9:09:05 AM
The other thing I've seen today is a well argued, albeit depressing article on why Australia should continue exporting coal. I can't find it online, but it was written by Robert Merkel in the most recent Quarterly Essay.
(The current essay is written by the lovely Annabel Crabb on the life and times of Malcolm Turnbull, which is very interesting for political nerds who have been following the Grech email thingy. This argument is included in the correspondence regarding the previous essay, which was on coal exports, written by Guy Pearse.)

So, the argument goes like this. Even though Australia exports 30% of the worlds coal, this is more a result of our infrastructure investment and favourable economic climate than the fact we've got a butt load of it; our reserves represent a very small proportion of total reserves. Most of the collieries are run by big, multi-national companies, and they operate here because it is currently the cheapest way forward. If we banned coal mining and export, they'll just ship their machinery to another country and continue pumping it out. China still have 400 (or what ever it actualy is) coal plants, and they're not going to be decommissioned in a hurry. The depressing reality is that we might as well continue making a profit from it because if we don't someone else will. It means that, really to stop coal exports, we need to shift away from a paradigm where money is important. Sounds Utopian and extroardinarily unlikely to me.

This makes the push for Clean Coal (Smart coal or Green coal) a bit more urgent. Again, sad thing is, it's not going to get there fast enough to make a difference. A lot of people don't realise, but the Green paper (Garnaut's CPRS paper) actually outlines how we'll reduce our emissions, and susprisingly, we won't. We'll just offset them by protecting SE Asian rainforest. Which I see as a cop out, but at least the Orangutan hasa better chance of surviving, obtusely because Australia has so much coal.

oweng
2-Jul-2009
9:50:46 AM
The letter evanbb refers to:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Correspondence:+Robert+Merkel.-a0202074390

evanbb
3-Jul-2009
1:54:57 PM
Here's a good article on how to tie solving GHG problems in with other enviro problems
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/semi-encouraging_climate-chang.php

Also contains a new update of the famous McKinsey graph, which is quite interesting. Note how far up the scale CCS projects are...


Note further this analysis:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/

Which suggests that achieving 450ppm could be cost neutral.
TonyB
4-Jul-2009
1:06:37 PM

>Tony, if you're looking for something to emphatically disagree with, give
>this a read.

Evan, I do volumes of reading. Did you read the EPA suppressed report I gave you ?

I'm still waiting for an answer to the most basic question ... if alarmists claim there is "alarming" warming, where is it ? The last 7, 11, 30 or 60 years ?

You might also like to ponder this "alarming" report ... on the noaa website of all places (the typos are in the original):

THE CHANGING ARCTIC.
By GEORGE NICOLAS IFW.

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Sitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radicaf change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un- heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.





Guess when this was published ?

Answer: 1922 !!!

... and all without any significant fossil fuel burning. Of course the Arctic cooled dramatically from 1935 to 1970, despite increasing CO2. Arctic temperatures are still lower than those of the 30's.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/Text/mwr-050-11-0589b.TXT




TonyB
4-Jul-2009
1:32:06 PM

>Tony, if you're looking for something to emphatically disagree with, give
>this a read.

I did read your ridulously lightweight article ... it suggests that man caused global warming can't be proven ... funny about that ... "we know that we simply do not have the ability to predict conclusively what is going to happen to the earth’s climate in a 60-year period".

It also suggests "Parsimony demands that we embrace the theory that provides us with the simplest explanation that fits in with our observations." ... errr, yes ... the obvious reason climate changes is the same reason that has caused it to change for the past 4 billion years.

Have a browse through the daily articles in http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for some serious science from various authors, rather than newspapers and "pop" science.

You might also watch this video which explains how solar cosmic rays effect climate ... the most likely explanation for recent climate fluctuations including the global cooling over the past 11 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

Hard to believe that big yellow ball in the sky is responsible for climate change isn't it ?



evanbb
6-Jul-2009
9:44:00 AM
On 4/07/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Have a browse through the daily articles in http://wattsupwiththat.com/
> for some serious science from various authors, rather than newspapers
>and "pop" science.

This is Gold Tony. You suggest leaving aside 'pop science' such as the IPCC report or NASA reports, and instead refer me to a webpage, that uses a witty spelling of 'what' in it's url and title. Are you practising your irony?
R James
6-Jul-2009
10:47:20 AM
TonyB - the link you gave for Svensmark's work on showing a correlation between cloud cover and solar effected cosmic radiation was an excellent presentation. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0 . Of course, we know that cloud cover has a big influence on temperature (try standing outside in the sun on a cold day, and feel the difference when a cloud passes over). However, I don't believe everything I see on U tube, so I looked further.

It seems that attempts have been made to discredit the report. Lots of people broke out their computers and played with computer models to show that it couldn't be so. Others preferred reality. The Danish National Space Centre set up a cloud chamber to test the theory, and showed that "more ionization implies more particle nucleation". http://theresilientearth.com/files/pdfs/the_resilient_earth-chapter_11.pdf page 130.

This was so successful that the European Organisation of Nuclear Research in Geneva, backed by 18 research institutes and 9 countries, is setting up a more comprehensive experiment using a cloud chamber. Unfortunately, it won't be operational until 2011.

This is what we want - real science, not computer models. A summary of this can be seen in http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/attempt-discredit-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model.

Any climate model that doesn't take this effect into account (IPCC models) cannot be taken seriously. Even those that do, can't be taken too seriously at this stage, as the even the IPCC in its 2007 report admits a low scientific understanding of clouds.
TonyB
6-Jul-2009
12:13:04 PM
Alarmist climber: There's a new crag that's so dangerous, it's going to kill us all !!!!!!!!!!

Realist climber: Where is it ?

Alarmist: I've no idea.

Realist: Is it roughly 7, 11, 30 or 60 minutes away ?

Alarmist: I've no idea.

Realist: What's the evidence that it's so dangerous ?

Alarmist: There is no evidence.

Realist: How high is the crag ?

Alarmist: 0.6 metres

Realist: This is a scam.

Alarmist: The politicians know better than we do and they would never lie to us. We've asked the government to tax us, so they can fix it, although we have no idea how the money will be spent. They will also put a cap on how many times we can climb. Can I belay you ?

Realist: No, don't bother. I think I saw some men in white coats looking for you.

ni
6-Jul-2009
12:13:45 PM
A short history of skeptics of science:

c.200BC Greek scientists determine that the world is round and measure its diameter with some accuracy. Large numbers of flat earthers dispute this for another 1500 years (or more)

1850s Darwin & the origin of species-you know the story. Skeptics still common

1950s Most scientists in the field believe that enough strong evidence has been accumulated to link smoking and lung cancer. Skeptics don't understand epidemiological evidence and dispute this. It is another three decades before the number of skeptics has declined sufficiently that Governments feel able to take substantial action without losing too many votes.

1970s Unanimous opinion of Australian specialists in the field believe that blue asbestos cannot be mined and used safely and should be banned. Skeptical bureaucrats believe alternatives are too expensive. Skeptical lawyers say asbestos is safe; companies are just using it in a dangerous way. No action until 1986.

1970s Scientific bodies representing many thousands of specialists in the field lobby to have "deep sleep" treatment banned. Skeptical journalists label it a turf war. bureaucrats are clueless. Skeptical lawyers use threats of litigation against the scientists to allow the practice to continue. Not until 1989 or thereabouts is a royal commission established.

c1990 Scientists alarmed at extent of obesity related arterial disease in Sydney 10 year olds and predict large rise in metabolic diseases. 2009- predictions come true- lots of teenages now on drug treatment for previously rare (in kids) type 2 diabetes. Pro-fat skeptics are still around in large numbers.

I have many other examples

Conclusions
1. While there will always be gray areas and hard to define boundaries, when a majority of scientists in the field believe there is strong evidence to support a proposition, they are nearly always right.
2. It always takes a couple of decades before the general public come around to the scientists way of thinking


anthonyk
6-Jul-2009
12:18:16 PM
there's some relevant parts to that topic, but the problem is the conclusions are far too exaggerated. for a start you need to have a trend in cosmic rays before you can say that its responsible for the trend in temperatures..



sorry its far too small a loophole to drive a bus that big through it (ie explaining climate change) .

here's some more detailed responses:
taking cosmic rays for a spin
cosmoclimatology- tired old arguments in new clothes
recent warming but no trend in cosmic rays

anthonyk
6-Jul-2009
12:44:40 PM
On 6/07/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Realist: Is it roughly 7, 11, 30 or 60 minutes away ?
>
>Alarmist: I've no idea.

you really do live in your own world don't you.. thats at least the third time you've tried to harp on about the "when did it start" argument like you're gloating about something people are refusing to answer. I answered you myself, and since then you've brought it up twice again, acting like we're too afraid to respond.

have fun guys, I think you've gotten enough attention out of this thread
R James
6-Jul-2009
12:55:11 PM
On 6/07/2009 anthonyk wrote:
>there's some relevant parts to that topic, but the problem is the conclusions
>are far too exaggerated. for a start you need to have a trend in cosmic
>rays before you can say that its responsible for the trend in temperatures..

It's early days yet, and the complexities of solar changes are not yet understood. To me, solar variation has more to support it as an influence on climate, than the CO2 hypothesis.

evanbb
6-Jul-2009
1:11:14 PM
On 6/07/2009 anthonyk wrote:
>have fun guys, I think you've gotten enough attention out of this thread
>

I'm out too.

The longer Tony rambles on now the better in my opinion. Tones, you've done your cause a lot of damage in this debate, with incoherent rantings, returning to the same tired old chestnuts and bluntly refusing to read or take in any other arguments. As I said before, others are acting. You can deny as long as you want. The longer you carry on, the further you drift to the fringe.

 Page 26 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