Rise of the Sea, All a big scam
Discussion
ludo said:
Gargamel said:
Not sure if this has already been brought to the attention of the global warmers yet ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
Good article by Christopher Booker. The key part of which is that nothing much is going to happen to sea levels ....
Scare Mongering again by those that are still disappointed that communism failed
I haven't followed up the links to verify any of this (so caveat lector), but Wikipedia says the following about Christopher Bookerhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...
Good article by Christopher Booker. The key part of which is that nothing much is going to happen to sea levels ....
Scare Mongering again by those that are still disappointed that communism failed
Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 31st March 09:59
Wikipedia said:
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]
Which suggests a somewhat non-standard approach to scientific journalism!
Gargamel said:
I love the fact that people on here express scepticism about qualifications, claims and proofs - and then cite wikipedia as their "source"
I don't think you should comment on anyones scepticism given that you fell for Booker's article hook, line and sinker! 
Here is a challenge for you, can you provide any evidence that anything I have quoted from Wikipedia (which unlike Booker provides links allowing you to establish its veracity) is incorrect?
ETA: you obviously didn't notice that I wrote "caveat lector" (reader beware) demonstrating that I wasn't taking Wikipedia at face value anyway.
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 18:58
I think focussing on the science of global warming is missing the point. For 99, perhaps even 100% of people the science of it is unknowable. There are too many variables and too many assumptions to draw any definite conclusions. Just think of it, 300 years of measuring the climate and ?40 years of measuring human CO2 emmissions, set against billions of years of constantly changing temperatures, sudden and dramatic releases of CO2 and other gases, and a stratosphere we don't really even know all that much about. We can guess we can run minature simulations and computer models based on huge assumptions, but we cannot possibly know.
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
The fact is people want to believe in it, like they wanted to believe in communism and God before. There is no more point in reasoning with a committed MMGW disciple than there is in reasoning with a baptist preacher or a Bolshevik, because how ever many times you rationally show them that their beliefs do not stand up to reason, it is not their reasoning you are arguing against. It is an instinctive, fearful, herd mentality that can not accept individual self determination.
Communism collapsed only when it had ruined the lives of millions and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, and even then it still has it's supporters. Ditto religion which took centuries to shake off in Europe and still drives people to the most irrational extremes.
MMGW will do exactly the same because until people learn to love the idea that they are the master of their own destiny they will always need some such self denying belief to martyr themselves to. More proof of this is the near universal way in which believers see the answer to the problem in government action. Aside from a direct military attack, no crisis in our history has been best dealt with by expanding the size and scope of government, and if you believe in the individual as generally the best level at which people operate, then MMGW would be no different.
Sea levels rise, so house prices for seaside property goes down, people move away from affected areas, prices will rise in inland areas and the problem will be an inconvenience rather than a crisis. Ditto changing weather, more tropical storms and even the gulf stream changing course to Birmingham would be much easier to deal with as a free, market based society than as a third world planned economy. That's why an earth quake in California kills maybe 20-30 people and a similar one in China kills 2,000 or 3,000.
The argument that we can prevent all this by global government action is really moot because when you look at what that means - giving up personal transport, de-industrialising our economies, abandoning refrigiration and so on, the costs outweigh the benefits on any measure that a rational person would consider.
It isn't averting a crisis that they want though, it is the government action and the sacrifice. It's the collective action and the sense of belonging they get from being relieved of important decisions.
Argue about enzymes, equilibria and statistical correlations all you like but until you convince them to accept the idea that they as individuals are better placed to run their own lives as individuals than they are as part of a collective then you might as well be speaking a different language.
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
The fact is people want to believe in it, like they wanted to believe in communism and God before. There is no more point in reasoning with a committed MMGW disciple than there is in reasoning with a baptist preacher or a Bolshevik, because how ever many times you rationally show them that their beliefs do not stand up to reason, it is not their reasoning you are arguing against. It is an instinctive, fearful, herd mentality that can not accept individual self determination.
Communism collapsed only when it had ruined the lives of millions and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, and even then it still has it's supporters. Ditto religion which took centuries to shake off in Europe and still drives people to the most irrational extremes.
MMGW will do exactly the same because until people learn to love the idea that they are the master of their own destiny they will always need some such self denying belief to martyr themselves to. More proof of this is the near universal way in which believers see the answer to the problem in government action. Aside from a direct military attack, no crisis in our history has been best dealt with by expanding the size and scope of government, and if you believe in the individual as generally the best level at which people operate, then MMGW would be no different.
Sea levels rise, so house prices for seaside property goes down, people move away from affected areas, prices will rise in inland areas and the problem will be an inconvenience rather than a crisis. Ditto changing weather, more tropical storms and even the gulf stream changing course to Birmingham would be much easier to deal with as a free, market based society than as a third world planned economy. That's why an earth quake in California kills maybe 20-30 people and a similar one in China kills 2,000 or 3,000.
The argument that we can prevent all this by global government action is really moot because when you look at what that means - giving up personal transport, de-industrialising our economies, abandoning refrigiration and so on, the costs outweigh the benefits on any measure that a rational person would consider.
It isn't averting a crisis that they want though, it is the government action and the sacrifice. It's the collective action and the sense of belonging they get from being relieved of important decisions.
Argue about enzymes, equilibria and statistical correlations all you like but until you convince them to accept the idea that they as individuals are better placed to run their own lives as individuals than they are as part of a collective then you might as well be speaking a different language.
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in).ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in).s2art said:
ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in).
Absolutely, for example you saw through this one straight away. Not too many posting here to agree that the article was nonsense though, which suggests a certain irrational commitment.On the flip side, what AJS wrote about the AGW camp is only true to the same extent that it is for the "sceptics".
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:18
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in). Absolutely, saw through this one straight away. Not too many posting here to agree that the article was nonsense though, which suggests a certain irrational commitment.On the flip side, what AJS wrote about the AGW camp is only true to the same extent that it is for the "sceptics".
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in). Absolutely, saw through this one straight away. Not too many posting here to agree that the article was nonsense though, which suggests a certain irrational commitment.On the flip side, what AJS wrote about the AGW camp is only true to the same extent that it is for the "sceptics".
The reason I say "sceptics" is because it is pretty clear that many of the most vocal are not in the least sceptical.
ETA: Here is a test, are any sceptics in the P&P willing to reply to this thread to explicitly agree that the article is nonsense?
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:26
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in). Absolutely, saw through this one straight away. Not too many posting here to agree that the article was nonsense though, which suggests a certain irrational commitment.On the flip side, what AJS wrote about the AGW camp is only true to the same extent that it is for the "sceptics".
The reason I say "sceptics" is because it is pretty clear that many of the most vocal are not in the least sceptical.
ETA: Here is a test, are any sceptics in the P&P willing to reply to this thread to explicitly agree that the article is nonsense?
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:26
s2art said:
ludo said:
ETA: Here is a test, are any sceptics in the P&P willing to reply to this thread to explicitly agree that the article is nonsense?
I doubt it. There may well be faults in the article, it may be completely wrong, but it would take too much time to investigate the area to categorically state it is complete nonsense.Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:26
ETA: See this article by Cabanes et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294...
you can easily see from the abstract that satelite data has shown rising sea levels prior to 2003
Cabanes et al said:
Sea Level Rise During Past 40 Years Determined from Satellite and in Situ Observations
Cecile Cabanes, Anny Cazenave, Christian Le Provost
The 3.2 ± 0.2 millimeter per year global mean sea level rise observed by the Topex/Poseidon satellite over 1993-98 is fully explained by thermal expansion of the oceans. For the period 1955-96, sea level rise derived from tide gauge data agrees well with thermal expansion computed at the same locations. However, we find that subsampling the thermosteric sea level at usual tide gauge positions leads to a thermosteric sea level rise twice as large as the "true" global mean. As a possible consequence, the 20th century sea level rise estimated from TIDE GUAGE records may have been overestimated.
So how did the IPCC fiddle the satelite data in 2003 as claimed, if the satelite data already showed rising sea levels in an article published in 2001? Do the IPCC have a time machine that we don't know about?Cecile Cabanes, Anny Cazenave, Christian Le Provost
The 3.2 ± 0.2 millimeter per year global mean sea level rise observed by the Topex/Poseidon satellite over 1993-98 is fully explained by thermal expansion of the oceans. For the period 1955-96, sea level rise derived from tide gauge data agrees well with thermal expansion computed at the same locations. However, we find that subsampling the thermosteric sea level at usual tide gauge positions leads to a thermosteric sea level rise twice as large as the "true" global mean. As a possible consequence, the 20th century sea level rise estimated from TIDE GUAGE records may have been overestimated.
Note also the article says that the tide guage record may OVERESTIMATE the rise, so much for one tide guage in Hong Kong or wherever it was!
I rather doubt there will be any replies, which rather proves my point!
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:41
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
AJS- said:
What is much more alarming is the belief in it. How many people there are who are completely sure MMGW is real, yet know as little or less than I do about the chemistry behind it, let alone the process of formulating and testing a sound hypothesis and the practicalities of turning the results into action.
I think this thread demonstrates the same is unequivocally true of the "sceptics". Many people are convinced MMGW isn't real, yet know virtually nothing about it, and are all too eager to latch onto nonsense such as this article by Booker. Climatologists on the other hand do know how to form testable hypotheses, funny that that the sceptics are keen to follow a "maverick" like this one (even though his falsehoods are easily detectable) and ignore the mainstream opinion (which is generally where the detailed testing is done, but it often rather unexiting so it doesn't reach the media). One would hope the politicians should be capable of acting correctly on their advice (if they can't it is our fault for voting them in). Absolutely, saw through this one straight away. Not too many posting here to agree that the article was nonsense though, which suggests a certain irrational commitment.On the flip side, what AJS wrote about the AGW camp is only true to the same extent that it is for the "sceptics".
The reason I say "sceptics" is because it is pretty clear that many of the most vocal are not in the least sceptical.
ETA: Here is a test, are any sceptics in the P&P willing to reply to this thread to explicitly agree that the article is nonsense?
Edited by ludo on Tuesday 31st March 19:26
'However, the altimetric rate could still be influenced by decadal variations of sea level unrelated to long-term climate change, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and thus a longer time series is needed to rule this out'
s2art said:
'However, the altimetric rate could still be influenced by decadal variations of sea level unrelated to long-term climate change, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and thus a longer time series is needed to rule this out'
The tide guage records go back more than far enough for those not to be a concern and they show a consistent rise. You are falling into the "sceptic" camp now, the prof made an accusation of scientific dishonesty against the IPPC that is based on an assertion that is easily shown to be a falsehood and yet you can't bring yourself to say that this one article is bogus?ludo said:
s2art said:
'However, the altimetric rate could still be influenced by decadal variations of sea level unrelated to long-term climate change, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and thus a longer time series is needed to rule this out'
The tide guage records go back more than far enough for those not to be a concern and they show a consistent rise. You are falling into the "sceptic" camp now, the prof made an accusation of scientific dishonesty against the IPPC that is based on an assertion that is easily shown to be a falsehood and yet you can't bring yourself to say that this one article is bogus?'For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed.'
I think the point about being a sceptic is that I don't really feel I have to prove or disprove anything. It's a fairly wild hypothesis and even if it is true I don't believe the actions proposed by most believers are in any way proportionate to even their wildest predictions about what will happen.
In the same way, I don't go around arguing with Christians or members of the Socialist Workers party (unless I feel like getting into a long conversation with said nutter) because however long we rattle on about the scientific, theological or economic merits of our different ideas we're starting from some fundamentally different assumptions.
Obviously I believe mine are right, and that they fundamentally are simply about individuals having the autonomy to deal with the world as they find it rather than attempt to shape the world they find through grand scale communal action through government.
In the same way, I don't go around arguing with Christians or members of the Socialist Workers party (unless I feel like getting into a long conversation with said nutter) because however long we rattle on about the scientific, theological or economic merits of our different ideas we're starting from some fundamentally different assumptions.
Obviously I believe mine are right, and that they fundamentally are simply about individuals having the autonomy to deal with the world as they find it rather than attempt to shape the world they find through grand scale communal action through government.
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
'However, the altimetric rate could still be influenced by decadal variations of sea level unrelated to long-term climate change, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and thus a longer time series is needed to rule this out'
The tide guage records go back more than far enough for those not to be a concern and they show a consistent rise. You are falling into the "sceptic" camp now, the prof made an accusation of scientific dishonesty against the IPPC that is based on an assertion that is easily shown to be a falsehood and yet you can't bring yourself to say that this one article is bogus?'For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed.'
Whether the rise is due to AGW or unrelated long-term trends is irrellevant to the question of whether this particular article is solid reliable expert opinion or complete b
ks. The prof makes a claim of scientific dishonesty on the part of the IPCC which is easily shown to be a falsehood. Why is that not enough for you to say this one article is bogus?johnfelstead said:
ludo said:
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
Whats wrong with that? I can do the dowsing thing with two metal sticks, no idea how or why, but it works for me. 
ludo said:
s2art said:
ludo said:
s2art said:
'However, the altimetric rate could still be influenced by decadal variations of sea level unrelated to long-term climate change, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and thus a longer time series is needed to rule this out'
The tide guage records go back more than far enough for those not to be a concern and they show a consistent rise. You are falling into the "sceptic" camp now, the prof made an accusation of scientific dishonesty against the IPPC that is based on an assertion that is easily shown to be a falsehood and yet you can't bring yourself to say that this one article is bogus?'For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed.'
Whether the rise is due to AGW or unrelated long-term trends is irrellevant to the question of whether this particular article is solid reliable expert opinion or complete b
ks. The prof makes a claim of scientific dishonesty on the part of the IPCC which is easily shown to be a falsehood. Why is that not enough for you to say this one article is bogus?AJS- said:
I think the point about being a sceptic is that I don't really feel I have to prove or disprove anything.
That makes you an apathetic, not a sceptic as far as I can see. A true sceptic would simply remain open minded about something for which they had insufficient evidence.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff