Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Old 31st Oct 2006, 16:43
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Wedge

Natural input to the atmosphere of 'greenhouse gas' 97%
Man made input of same........................................ 3%
UK fraction of that 3%...........................................wee.

As there's FA we can do about the first, major, number all we can do is ineffectually tinker with the minor one. To what effect? Answer NONE.

"Rapid" temp rise?? What, 0.4-0.8K per 100 odd years? I'd hate to see what you call slow if this is rapid Since 1998 seems to getting colder anyway.

What about my comment about US trying to tell NATURE that 'hey we like it THIS warm'?

What about previous Ice ages and Really hot periods? For example it's known that the Romans had vineyards in the UK when they were here?

You want to panic? Fill yer boots.

Some poor folk aren't happy unless they have something to worry about.

I prefer to worry about stuff I can influence.

The whole GW thing smells of MASS HYSTERIA!
brain fade is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 16:51
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lv426
Posts: 82
Dr Dave,

Have you read my posts?

The statisticians I named used white noise as data and followed Mann et al's methodology. They ended up with a hockey stick graph just like Mann et al's paper. You now expect us to believe that a couple of Mann's cronies (Kaos is rarely wrong in these regards) have validated Mann's paper?

Maybe I should believe you because the almightily gifted Wedgey sides with you?

I'm incredulous.

Even the graph you posted is obviously junk, it dosn't take a professor or whatever to know that the accuracy of that graph is debatable. The precision however is clearly awful, I know an 11 year old who would be happy to tell you so.

You smugly posted that the warm period probably didn't happen. It turns out the data you were relying on was based on one sodding tree. Of course now that dosn't matter because it was only based on the last 600 years... Why mention it in the first place then? You're going to have to be damned sure of your facts around here or else you'll look like an idiot.

Please read back through the thread. You will see that we have discussed the Mann et al paper ad nauseam. However, the work has recently been reappraised independently and scientifically, using a state of the art statistical analysis by Wahl and Ahmann (2006). I issued the challenge to Kapt. Kaos, twice (he hasn't taken it up yet), so now I'll issue it to you. If Mann et al is invalid, please tell us where Wahl and Ahmann are wrong.
No. 'Tis not my place to do so. The criticisms levelled by Wegman are damning, and these are based upon the analyses carried out by expert statistians. A scientific report whose methodology is not reproducable is junk. Mann's is reproducable, it gives the same result no matter what the input. This signals deliberate fraud. The validation signals deliberate fraud.

You havn't convinced me as to Bellamy. I think most people would happily consider him to be credible, with his figures and his opinions.

You are clearly an expert on climate modelling as you are happy to trash them in a line.
I'm more than happy to trash junk science in a line.

When did I say anything about careless insects?
Something about determining global temperatures by tree rings (we now know you were talking about a single, stunted pine tree) and the type of insects found in mud samples. Hence your precise measurements were based upon careless insects (giving you the benefit of the doubt by using the plural). Your claim that the warm period may not have happened was apparently due to the Mann report which cited a single tree.

Perhaps you could critique it for us and let us all know why it is wrong.
Feel free to post your own work on mudslides, or email it to me. I'll be happy to critique that.

If you don't think I can then try me.

So why has not one scientist been able to debunk the theory that we're responsible? Anyone? Anyone at all? It's the one question the deniers haven't yet been able to answer.
Wedgey I think you know my opinion of your abilities however please don't post asking us to prove a negative again... It gets rather repetitive for people who contribute to the thread...

Last edited by Spinflight; 31st Oct 2006 at 17:10.
Spinflight is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 17:21
  #203 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
I think you know my opinion of your abilities however please don't post asking us to prove a negative again... It gets rather repetitive for people who contribute to the thread...

No, I don't know your opinion on my abilities. I'd love to hear it. FYI, the I read about the Oreskes study on wikipedia, which I usually find to be a useful source of information. So it's been criticised by one scientist for being bad research, and we're supposed to accept that as proof that GW isn't down to human activity? What 'logic'.

Do you really think that I am going to accept your illogical nonsense about 'proving negatives'.

So let's get this straight: You're saying that it's not possible to debunk the 'myth' of anthropogenic climate change because to do so would require 'proving a negative' which is not possible. Nonsense. It requires someone to show that the scientific consensus on climate change is flawed, by proving with scientific data that the unprecedented and rapid changes in the climate are natural. Many have tried (clever scientists, these people, embarking on an exercise which they must know requires them to prove the impossible ) , and no one has been able to.

That's quite convenient isn't it? Mind you, it would need to be; your argument starts with the premise that you reject all of the scientific data on the subject, and relies instead on that which says that the whole scientific community have got it wrong, but that you're not going to give us any evidence as to why. Not convincing, to say the least.

Your tone is begining to sound rather patronising and frustrated. I wonder why

Edit: I've just read your profile - I had no idea it was you posting under this new pseudonym! Now it all becomes clear to me Nice to see you

Last edited by Wedge; 31st Oct 2006 at 17:33.
Wedge is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 17:39
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lv426
Posts: 82
Do you really think that I am going to accept your illogical nonsense about 'proving negatives'.
Not my logic dude, its logical fact. Pretty simple logic too to be honest...

and relies instead on that which says that the whole scientific community have got it wrong,
You mean like these people?

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

The Oregon Petition is not the only such petition signed by scientists, either. Over 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners
2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists (so far) have signed a petition saying that global warming hysteria is pseudoscientific baloney. They've been joined by an additional 5,017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists, and over 10,000 other scientists, attached to major universities and research organizations around the world. Yet if you went by what "environmental" activist groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or the so-called "Environmental News Network" tell you, you'd think this petition, and others like it, never existed.
Spinflight is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 20:28
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Mr Tyce has a way with words Daily Telegraph letters.

forget is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 21:40
  #206 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Dr Dave View Post
Kapt Kaos, thanks for the context, now lets move to the science. Please tell me why the actual scientific analysis presented in the Wahl and Ahmann paper is wrong. This analysis post-dates the NAS report, and specifically attempts to validate the period prior to 1600, thus addressing the problem wthat you highlight above. If you are still claiming that the hockey stick is broken, please explain to us why the Wahl and Ahmann analysis is scientifically invalid.
Wahl and Ammann were strawmen for Mann. Their study could potentially save the hockeystick. However, the R2 verification coefficients for the early stages of the MBH paper are extremely low, just like McKitrick and McIntyre argued. A typical interpretation of a low squared statistic combined with a higher RE statistic is that they deal with overfitting, the “model” for calculating the past temperature depends on too many variables. At any rate the predictions canīt be trusted.

AW donīt dispute MM but they criticize them for showing a temperature peak in the 15th century. (MM got the 15th-century temperature peak only after they corrected the data and used MBH methodology. (which they regard as faulty). In other words, AW should not pin the 15th cy peak on MM but on Mann).

The judgement of NAS that thereīs less confidence in Mannīs reconstruction in temperature before 1600 is in fact a polite way to say that itīs wrong and is deadly for Mannīs hockeystick.

And finally, does this phrasology sound familiar?



Itīs from this alarming article in Newsweek 1975.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 21:58
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lv426
Posts: 82
Scare stories...

How many can you remember?

There was the hole in the ozone layer, which crops up every now and again having grown, contracted, disapeared or released a new single.

Acid rain, devastating forests across Europe and America unless we do something about it now (1985?). I can't remember anyone doing jack about it, though the idea of taxing the power companies was mooted I think. I love the idea of taxing companies for the damage they do to trees. If you were a tree what would you think if some fcuker tried to give you a bit of paper to buy babybio with?

Oil running out in 10 years (been going since the 50's so I believe). This was cast iron fact at school, to query it was akin to trying to pork the headmistress. She was a munter, so it just wasn't done.

Impending ice age, all of the scientists unanimously agreed (all the scientists being paid to reasearch it) that we might as well take skiing lessons. I wonder where they all went? Did they save time by emigrating to Antactica, getting a head start on everyone else? Maybe they don't know! Maybe they should meet the global warming lot, have a few beers, chill out and shut the fcuk up.

I seem to recall the desert (well the Sahara anyway) was supposed to be creeping up on our shores by now, should at least be halfway through France.... Can anyone confirm?

Whats happened to all the paid lackeys of corporations who were covering up the above? They're cleverer than we thought, evidently. I mean to cover up an iceage for 20 years is some PR department. I'd hire them.

There was Aids of course. Lucky we have more important things to worry about.....
Spinflight is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:08
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
You forget the Jupiter Effect twas going to turn our planet inside out thirty years ago,hmmm, unless it did and we just haven't noticed yet.
tony draper is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:10
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Kaos et al.

I wish the boffins would 'fess up what most folk know to be true.

They don't know!

Also if the Earths natural trend to heat (or cool), and it's always gently doing one or the other, don't suit us- are we going to try and force the Earth to stay at the temp that DOES suit us?

Talk about farting against thunder!

Adapt- It'll be fun!
brain fade is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:32
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 201
[The thing that irritates me most is that if there is a real problem that is an imminent threat, taxes will make bugger all difference. It is unlikely that people sit in traffic jams every morning for fun. They do it because public transport is not always available, and when it is, it is sometimes unreliable, rarely cheaper than a car, and a lot more effort that a car. If there was a more attractive alternative, there would be fewer cars.
Hardly the point. Of course the car is easier and cheaper. The problem is the sh*t they pump out with no charge to the user. This is why there is a requirement for taxation.

Another thing that annoys me is people whining about what world we'll be leaving for our children, blah blah blah. Nobody seems to realise that my generation is the first generation to have all this crap dumped on them. We're the ones with the apparent huge moral obligation to live restrained an miserable lives for the sake of stasis. If it really is a critical issue, we'll be the first ones to suffer because for the last 25 years of moaning about GW, no one cared.
So let's continue that trend shall we and really screw things up. This is just the way it is going to go, so get over it and make changes.
Dr Eckener is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:42
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,009
Arrow

I agree with Brain Fade all the way! - This global climate change malarkey, is just an excuse to think-up some new ways of taxing us and will not effect the "Global Temperature" in any way.

You used to hear about "they'll try and tax us on the air we breathe next. - Well probably not far from the truth! - Please vote out this so-called government at the next election - at least I never voted for them in the first place..
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:55
  #212 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,728
The air raid shelter drills in the 50's
tinpis is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:57
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 56
Mad cow disease, Bird flu ... ?

Where? When? What were they talking about.

They've just disappeared.
Willows is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:12
  #214 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Y2K. SARS. Greenhouse Warming . WMD.

...and going back a few years, Witches, The Devil, Werewolves, etc.

Plus ce change?

Funny how they all keep people minds off the real issues. Not that there's a conspiracy or anything.
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:16
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
We have become or rather we have been turned into a race of sensation voyeurs,the media have to keep us supplied with one sensational revelation after another,fireman rescues cat up a tree or man bites dog no longer cuts it,mere accident no longer interest, it has to be a disaster, even a juicy murderer no longer satisfies, they have to be at least serial killers to make it past page 4 now or get a news spot before the further adventures of the Beckhams.
tony draper is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:31
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lv426
Posts: 82
Looks as though the warmhands document wasn't the first....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html

I've had a letter from Sir David Wallace, CBE, FRS. In his capacity as treasurer and vice-president of the Royal Society, he writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support."
So either the Royal Society is attempting to stifle scientific debate, who says turkeys don't vote for christmas, or some druidic type purporting to be from the RS is.

Laughably the 'evidence' given in the letter which was sent to the media is the same as we have debunked on this thread.... Wedgey's 928 papers etc...

Fraud upon fraud upon fraud..... At what point does mass fraud become a conspiracy?
Spinflight is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:38
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lv426
Posts: 82
Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute began predicting in 1973 that population would soon outstrip food production, and he still does so every time there is a temporary increase in wheat prices. In 1994, after 21 years of being wrong, he said: "After 40 years of record food production gains, output per person has reversed with unanticipated abruptness." Two bumper harvests followed and the price of wheat fell to record lows.
Pretty impressive stuff. You have to wonder though how much money he has made over the years. Maybe he's brighter than I am.
Spinflight is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 00:01
  #218 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,728
Predictions of fuel shortages ,the most popular best selling car in the USA?
A 5.7 litre V8.

Wonder what would happen over there if they was about to run out of small arms ammunition?
tinpis is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 00:09
  #219 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 9,574
There was a tidal wave that was supposed to have drowned ADL some years back...not a bad idea, but it never happened.

Beta was to be the format of the future!
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 00:10
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Dr Eckener

You said "The problem is the sh*t they pump out with no charge to the user"

Are you aware that TAX is 87% of the price of car fuel in the UK?

Keep in touch with yourself.
brain fade is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright Đ 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.