Im not getting involved. This isnt even about for or against GW, its about biased literature and biased review of said literature. While this goes on publicly, the rest of the academic world goes on publishing real research.
Originally Posted by Sang
Danno (the BJJ brownbelt, not sure how often he still posts on Bullshido) used to debate this with me on sociocide in massive length. We never really agreed, and I made fun of him a lot, but he made much more effort to read all my arguments and concede minor points where it was clear, and he's done a lot more research. His arguments weren't strawmen or anything like that.
Originally Posted by Sang
He agrees that it comes down to testable hypotheses, so we've stopped arguing about it now and just have a long-running bet about global average temperatures.
I am pretty sure that Johnny only started this thread as a trolljob though.
Last edited by Cullion; 6/18/2011 9:06am at .
!!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!
!! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!
Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey
I <3 Sirc.
Very interesting piece on More or Less recently about more sloppy deliberately misleading climate change research which was then picked up and re-used unquestioningly by other pro-climate change bodies.
UNEP the UN Environment programme commissioned some research into the effects on climate change on refugees. This was produced by a well respected scientist Norman Myers professor at both Oxford and Duke Universities. This research concluded that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
Slight problem, its 2011 and there aren't anywhere near that many climate migrants not even half, not even a quarter.
This was picked up by a blog and subsequently the BBC's statistics investigation programme More or Less. Note the BBC is renowned for being aggressively pro climate change and constantly pushing a green agenda.
The UNEP published a map showing where thse 50 million refugees would come from this went largely unremarked upon except for being used as the basis for climate migrant predictions by IPCC and the Stern report, so you know, not very important.
Recently a blogger was writing a piece on climate induced migration and went to check the map. It was then noticed that all the places the map cited as being the source of climate refugees where actually places where population was increasing not decreasing.
The blogger published this finding and the result was...
The UN pulled the map and replaced it with this:
Seriously, I'm not shitting you, lol. That was on the UN environment programme website.
Remember this totally flawed prediction was funded by the UN environment programme.
Also it created a proflieration of other alarmist stories, it formed the basis for the Stern report's 200 million climate refugees by 2050 claim, for example.
For full details on all the fail and half-arsed cover up:
BBC More or Less programme
Funny that most of the "Global warming" alarmists have taken their marching orders to talk about "Climate Change" instead without even questioning where GW went to.
Yeah, Danno/Cullion was always a great read on Sociocide and, when crossthread poking, Danno always took the AGW pokes in good stride.
I was a pretty firm believer and over the course of several debates have come to be pretty skeptical on the whole agw issue.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of the time lag between co2 and temperature in the historic records.
Much of the research at CERN seems to have been dismissed, which paints a clear "astro-physical" reasoning behind current and historic climate patterns imo.
blur you must be trollin blur blur blur blur blur, yes we must all be trolling because your views are so wonderful and total and backed with rigorous wikilogic no one could possibly doubt them.
You want some sort of testable on a macrosystemtic problem, but any secondary point of evidence is impeached because it's doesn't "falsify" AGW itself? Basically (to pull out one of your many balogna detection buzzwords...do you talk like this in real life?) you're pulling a "no real hypothesis" experiment here - it's not the "falsifiable" you don't get, it's the meaningfully indicative hypothesis. It goes like this - "what would be happening to the system if this observable warming was being caused by emissions and not, say, solar variation?" "Well, you'd see an increase in temperature without an increase in net emission into the troposphere that would indicate the atmosphere was retaining heat" "Ok, well we have that, that's a strong sign of global warming," "Yes, but it doesn't actually falsify global warming" "Dude, what?" "See it doesn't falsify AGW itself" "But...it's this huge piece of evidence for it, and there's this other one and this other one as well, they're all consistent with AGW" "Yes but they don't falsify it" "Well what protocol does?" "well I guess I'll believe it when it happens"
You're basically saying climate change is unfalsifiable despite all this measurement of the climate system that backs it up.
IE, "You've developed a wonderful model of apples falling Mr. Newton, but it doesn't falsify gravity, just apples falling"
It IS possible to derive things from a plurality of measurement. Hence, you know, the accepted existence of many, many phenomena and bodies that man has never set foot on or observed with the naked eye.
It's interesting because the article series I posted deals with the difference between lay science and wiki experts vs real science. I posted it because yes, yes, this is an actual concern I have about this posterbase. About you in specific, cullion, as well, since you seem to think wordpress is a peer reviewed format.
Are you fucking serious? The only way in which cullion is "making sense" is he's name checking more "logical fallacies" than anyone else.
Originally Posted by Sang
Cullion attacks these threads, like they offend his religion, and I think it's counter productive.
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 6/18/2011 12:40pm at .
Here's an interesting piece on the difference in time scale between modern CO2 level changes and the PETM
It's definitely a strong indicator of some CC and/or some GW - and that they're happening faster than they did in the PETM or the little ice age... should there be an "A" in front of them? and how does that answer change our responses?
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 6/18/2011 12:44pm at .
Jasper Kirkby on cosmic rays and climate change:
The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming - and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO