Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
That's your double standards at play.
zygalski said:
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
That's your double standards at play.
br d said:
zygalski said:
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
That's your double standards at play.
durbster said:
don4l said:
You seem to be saying that we should believe the experts. There doesn't appear to be anything else in your posst.
Why do you think that the Royal Society adopted the phrase "Nullius in verba" back in the 1650s?
Were they wrong?
Or... are you wrong?
Ugh, not this again.Why do you think that the Royal Society adopted the phrase "Nullius in verba" back in the 1650s?
Were they wrong?
Or... are you wrong?
That quote basically means "don't believe anything from an authority unless they can prove it scientifically".
Even if you never studied Latin, it should be obvious what "nullius in verba" means.
It is both succinct and clear.
They chose it as a motto for very good reasons. They realised that every scientist in history had been wrong about everything. They were bright enough to understand that they were unlikely to be the first generation who were right about everything.
Kepler accurately described the motion of the planets. After 100 years no one had found any fault with his theories, so they called them Kepler's Laws.
Then along came Newton, who noticed that Kepler hadn't noticed that the mass of the Sun seemed to play an important role in the motion of the planets. In fact, the mass of the planets themselves were also involved(along with the mass of the asteroids, comets and anything else in the vicinity).
Newton's theories went unchallenged for more than 100 years, so they became known as "Laws".
Then along came an unqualified scientist who proposed a revelotionary new theory that involved bendy time. Of course, lots of people mocked him. After all, he wasn't a qualified physicist. He was just a patent clerk.
12 years after Einstein published his theories, a total eclipse occurred. Many scientsts gathered to prove that Einstein was wrong. They knew that the starlight would not get bent by the gravitational effects of the Sun. As it turned out, the starlight did get bent.
This did not mean that Einstein was right. It just meant that he wasn't wrong.
How long do you think it will take to prove that Einstein, like Newton and Kepler and yourself, is just wrong?
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
So, durbster, take all your science related posts to the science thread and you will solve your own problem.That's your double standards at play.
Edited by durbster on Sunday 4th September 12:45
Read what I wrote again.
I have repeatedly, presumably on those pages you have not managed to read, suggested that keeping the science and politics as separate discussions would be better and clearer for everyone. It seems that many disagree.
I note that, despite the constant stream of science references from yourself and others in this thread, the Science thread has, until today, been dormant for some months.
It's there, has a lot of content, so why don't you use it?
I'm sure you would get just as much attention over there as you do here. Possibly more if that's what you seek.
Meanwhile, unlike other places, you are welcome to post things with a political slant here and then maybe we can go round in circles arguing politics as politics rather then science as politics.
Remember, I have no control over this thread. Along with everyone else I can express opinions and certainly opinions about which content is likely to be the most beneficial to the headline subject. Others may agree or disagree.
One way or another you end yup with two platforms rather than one - double the exposure!
I think you will find that long term regular readers and posters - any over about 4 months - will recall a number of times that have suggested this separation of content and will sometimes nod towards the recommendation in their posts.
It seem you and one or two others want to deal with things differently - to the extent you have bypassed the "Science" thread since at least March of this year.
Why?
Why post here demanding answers on a science subject (mainly by whining if nobody replies to something that has already been discussed to an irrecoverable point of polarisation of opinions) and then whinge when it is pointed out to you that there is another thread for such matters to be discussed?
Is it simply to sucker people into providing answers you disagree with so you can then post criticisms about double standards?
To everyone:
Maybe we could try an experiment of self regulation and work out an agreed process by which posts that are clearly primarily "science" oriented are transferred to the Science thread for any further discussion.
I suppose this is something we should consider from time to time.
It seems to me one of those times is now.
zygalski said:
br d said:
zygalski said:
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
That's your double standards at play.
From knowyourmeme:site said:
Citizen Kane Clap
In 2005, a poster on the Straight Dope forums[3] noted that the slow clap first appeared on film in the 1941 film Citizen Kane. During the film, Orson Welles’ character Charles Kane is attempting to start a round of applause for his wife after a poorly received opera performance, but he is the only person clapping (shown below). Though Kane’s intention was to cheer on his wife, it came off as a person fiercely applauding a dreadful display. The GIF has since become one of the most well-known clapping GIFs online and has been used since as early as December 2007.
So yes, there's some misuse going on In 2005, a poster on the Straight Dope forums[3] noted that the slow clap first appeared on film in the 1941 film Citizen Kane. During the film, Orson Welles’ character Charles Kane is attempting to start a round of applause for his wife after a poorly received opera performance, but he is the only person clapping (shown below). Though Kane’s intention was to cheer on his wife, it came off as a person fiercely applauding a dreadful display. The GIF has since become one of the most well-known clapping GIFs online and has been used since as early as December 2007.
durbster said:
The double standards are very obvious. Arguments are repeated on both sides in here, yet you only call one side for it. Science is posted by both sides, yet you only call one side for it. There is nobody more relentlessly repetitive than TB, yet you don't call him on it.
That's your double standards at play.
But TB has been officially sanctioned by PH to post science on climate change threads. That's your double standards at play.
Edited by durbster on Sunday 4th September 12:45
zygalski said:
I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads...
You'll get a more rounded view than from any believer blog.However I have to disagree with the above sentiment due to the evidence available in terms of your post content (insults, strawmen and rhetorical devices).
Randy Winkman said:
But TB has been officially sanctioned by PH to post science on climate change threads.
Have I? That's cool. Thanks for the notification. Even so, I'll respond in the best way as I see fit at each point; if for example we see more political activism from supposedly scientific organisations and there's data available to show how the activism is distorting reality, that's fair game.I appreciate that your good self and the faithful side have nothing to offer in return, apart from playing the man not the ball, but that's useful in itself as it demonstrates the emptiness of a position that's not based on empirical data, but politics. The raison d'etre of this thread, in fact.
LongQ said:
I think you will find that long term regular readers and posters - any over about 4 months - will recall a number of times that have suggested this separation of content and will sometimes nod towards the recommendation in their posts.
Quite so but as indicated in a recent post, when political activism distorts reality, posting reality in response to political activism seems justified. As OP you have from time to time noted in your own posts that it isn't always clear-cut where material should be posted, and I suspect that a relaxed approach is the most reasonable. There are various mechanisms by which the faith side try to close down debate, as happens in e.g. CIF and RC, and this is one of them. A reasonable proportion of the papers linked to on PH climate threads, including this thread when for example it exposes political activism within the pseudoscience/junkscience of pro-AGW organisations, won't be found in other locations including IPCC reports as the IPCC isn't about presenting a balanced review, it's about advocacy, and their faithful disciples will follow suit at any opportunity and oppose open discussion including relevant information that represents heresy against their doctrine.
There will be (is) a follow-up action focusing on individuals, playing the man not the ball, partly as another attempt to stifle debate, and partly because they have nothing else to offer. This also mirrors the wider position where heretics opposing the new religion are attacked on a personal level.
For what it’s worth.
What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.
What is the fundamental point we (all) are discussing ? Answer. The temperature of the planet. All agree? So, ignoring the erroneous word average for convenience, I think all would accept that as earths climate is a chaotic system, being influenced by an almost infinite number of factors, the temp will NEVER remain constant. Following on from that statement, the inevitable question. Is it better for it to go up, or down ? Until we get that sorted, everything else is irrelevant. And to show what a nice fair chap I am, I invite Mr Durbster to provide the answer. And why as well.
dickymint said:
Buy Damart and candles.
Politics...by way of illustration, in terms of the point I made earlier about the overlap which arises in this thread between politics and science, try a Google search for NASA Earth's Energy Budget with no quotes and don't select an image search as the interesting thing is what's shown in the 'Images for NASA Earth's Energy Budget' strip.
These two images appear, one of them multiple times (the new one) and one only once (the old one). In fact there are various versions of the 'new' budget. Take these - below - as illustrations, which can be found from the above search on both NASA webpages and on other sites discussing the images.
NASA OLD ENERGY BUDGET
NASA NEW BUDGET
The old energy budget depicts 41% of the energy leaving the planet's surface as radiation, whereas the new energy budget has 79% of the energy as radiation. That change involves a factor of almost two, or if you prefer, an error of almost 100% in one of the depictions.
Was this change the result of some new observational science in such basic concepts...or was it to secure agreement with the Kiehl-Trenberth model (IPCC) which uses 79%...it's make-your-mind-up-time.
By which I also mean, is it science or politics.
In fact both are baloney but that may be for another thread depending on who's calling the shots
however as any independent observer will note, a change of ~100% hardly reflects secure 'science'.Somebody with time on their hands might want to do a bit of looking into some sound science around the proportion of energy likely to be lost via radiation from a white-hot bar of metal (say 1500 deg C) on the ground under air, compared to the ground itself some way away from the bar and therefore not heated by it (say 15 deg C).
The apparent precision to .1 is interesting as are the last two sentences in the box at top right of the "new" graphically enhanced version.
However I'm struggling to make sense of the direct comparisons of apparent incoming and outgoing energy between the two of them. It does not help that one is in % and the other in Wm² and at first glance the values of the various components annotated do not appear to be directly comparable.
Why is the "greenhouse gases" back radiation almost the same value as the total incoming solar radiation?
The credits go to Loeb et al, 2009 and Trenberth et al, 2009 but the artistic work presumably is down to someone else.
It's one of those diagrams that seems to be intended to be clever and look nice in a way that means it will not be questioned by the average viewer.
As such it does indeed seem to have at least one foot in the political camp. For now I will assume that the other is in the science camp but I'm not really certain of that. It could have been presented much more clearly given the graphics capability employed. Not too difficult to include percentages and IN/OUT colour coding for example.
However I'm struggling to make sense of the direct comparisons of apparent incoming and outgoing energy between the two of them. It does not help that one is in % and the other in Wm² and at first glance the values of the various components annotated do not appear to be directly comparable.
Why is the "greenhouse gases" back radiation almost the same value as the total incoming solar radiation?
The credits go to Loeb et al, 2009 and Trenberth et al, 2009 but the artistic work presumably is down to someone else.
It's one of those diagrams that seems to be intended to be clever and look nice in a way that means it will not be questioned by the average viewer.
As such it does indeed seem to have at least one foot in the political camp. For now I will assume that the other is in the science camp but I'm not really certain of that. It could have been presented much more clearly given the graphics capability employed. Not too difficult to include percentages and IN/OUT colour coding for example.
......... bad news climate change is due to wipe out 30% of their Bamboo :booooo: 
mybrainhurts said:
zygalski said:
I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads, same as I look to mumsnet for advice about men's rights.
Ho Ho HoYou ought to do stand up. You're wasted here.
mybrainhurts said:
zygalski said:
I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads, same as I look to mumsnet for advice about men's rights.
Ho Ho HoYou ought to do stand up. You're wasted here.
powerstroke said:
mybrainhurts said:
zygalski said:
I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads, same as I look to mumsnet for advice about men's rights.
Ho Ho HoYou ought to do stand up. You're wasted here.
You're with the 3%....
zygalski said:
powerstroke said:
mybrainhurts said:
zygalski said:
I get all my best climate change info from Pistonheads, same as I look to mumsnet for advice about men's rights.
Ho Ho HoYou ought to do stand up. You're wasted here.
You're with the 3%....
Reality said:
The Doran survey result was from 10,256 issued questionnaires with only 3,146 responses, with those responses were then whittled down to 75 out of 77 'expert active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give the fake 97% consensus figure, when in fact it's between 2% and 3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. That's 0.3%.
Non-existent Manmade Warming: Cook-ing the books matters. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. That's 0.3%.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff