The Climate Change Hoax

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by gonzo, Nov 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Landlubber
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 125, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1802
    Location: Brisbane

    Landlubber Senior Member

    and the Copenhagen talks were reportedly desperately trying to get a "result" so that the polies would not be completely embarrassed.......the whole circus is now being shown for exactly what it is....a political affair.
     
  2. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    A new, all-powerful one-world government led by the IPCC? Sure, why not? I have no doubt that rulers and politicians all over the world are just dying to surrender their power to a bunch of climatologists.....who will in turn hand over the reins of power to a bunch of guilt-ridden leftists and socialists.

    You, my friend, are a prime example of the sheer paranoia that motivates too many of the people in your crowd. Nobody got a meaningful agreement about a single blessed thing at Copenhagen, but those are the people you claim are going to rule the world?:p
     
  3. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Listen to the wind, eddy.....hear it whistling? It's playing your tune....
     
  4. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Why would I care if u care if I care if u care if I care or not?
     
  5. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Troy,

    That's not really what I was looking for. You see, YOU can judge the evidence for YOURSELF; it's really not that complex; you don't NEED to depend on the experts to tell you if they've got it right or wrong. You can decide for yourself, after you've looked at enough evidence in detail. Science has gone astray before, and when the whole 'community' is in the midst of one of these moments in time, it isn't self-correcting; it has always required an 'outside force' for correction.

    What I was looking for in answer to my question is WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE would persuade you that the AGW narrative is wrong.

    Jimbo
     
  6. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Jimbo, I'm not a climatologist. Not even an enthusiastic amateur one. And unlike you, I don't think there's one magic silver bullet out there that can shoot down an entire scientific discipline. There would have to be a pretty overwhelming flood of interconnected data, interpretations and conclusions.

    I hate to keep using the analogy between Young Earth creationism and this subject, but unfortunately it seems to be an apt one yet again: you might as well ask me what piece of empirical evidence I would accept as proof that evolution never happened, the fossils are all faked, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

    My opinions and beliefs simply don't turn on a dime like that....
     
  7. Elmo
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 32
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 170
    Location: Beach

    Elmo Junior Member

    Oh , but please do troy !
    It does highlight one or two sad facts about humanity.
     
  8. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    On account of the fact that the AGW narrative is so much more finite than the theory of evolution, I'd call this a 'cop out'.

    All the AGW folk are saying is that:

    1. Human industry is causing CO2 levels to rise, and
    2. CO2 concentration can drive global temperature

    Having postulated mechanisms for the above, we can validate or falsify the mechanisms by making predictions based on these and test/compare the predictions to the observational data. Said predictions may be about events yet to unfold, or events that have already occurred, for which we have a data set. If the assertions are true, then the observational data will agree with the above, and, predictions based on this understanding will come true. If the observational data do not agree with the predictions based on these assertions, then that invalidates the assertions.

    In the sciences, there must be a way to test an assertion, or else it is simply dogma.

    So what outcomes would YOU be looking for to either validate or falsify the most basic of assertions of the AGW narrative?

    Jimbo
     
  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    How about something that disproves those two assertions? You know....like something that demonstrates convincingly and reliably that CO2 levels follow temperature trends, instead of creating them?

    It hasn't been done, no matter what you try to tell me. And you certainly aren't going to do it with Becks' garbage. Here's part of a review I kind of liked:

    Beck’s approach is very simple: He decided from the beginning that Keeling and Callendar obviously are ideological fanatics and that finally all chemical measurements in the 19th and early 20th century actually were fine. Great news of course!

    So what does the new CO2 “reconstruction” look like? For example, within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about 470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about 300ppm.


    I don't see how any temperature blip you can show me would cause that sort of swings. But I'm forgetting my own signature line again, aren't I?
     
  10. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Troy,

    Perhaps I was wrong when I suggested that the science behind the assertions of the AGW narrative are not beyond your understanding. In this I stand corrected:rolleyes:

    The proved CO2 residence time shows that CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere at a rate of about 150Gt annually, so the 'impossible' thing of a widely fluctuating CO2 level is actually unremarkable and ordinary.

    You have yet to provide some substantial proof, other than that offered by the AGW alarmists using the circular logic of computer models as previously described, that the atmospheric CO2 residence time is long. All the residence time studies ever done show that it is short.

    If you continue to suggest that the residence time is an unimportant bit of arcana, then I'll suggest that it is YOU who is the idiot, unable to comprehend even the most basic principles of the science behind this debate, and have no right to espouse an opinion which you pretend is based on the technical merits of the narrative to which you give credulity.

    Therefore, "I put my trust in my chosen leaders and believe whatever they tell me is true" should be your only response. It's the only response that your willful ignorance can support.

    Jimbo
     
  11. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I don't remember any scientists trying to lead me anywhere, Jimbo. If you think climatologists are the leaders and hold the reins of power in this world, there are probably professionals who specialize in that sort of paranoid delusion; try the Yellow Pages.

    Let's see.....I'm looking at a scientific issue. I can believe the vast majority of legitimate mainstream scientists who work in that particular field. Or I can believe a bunch of internet wingnuts, who claim the whole field of climatology is a nefarious plot by nerdy science geeks to take over the world--either for themselves, for a bunch of guilt-stricken socialists, or on behalf of some mysterious group of shadowy puppetmasters.

    Who to believe....who to believe....what to do....what to do.....hmmmm. Think I'll go with the legitimate mainstream scientists this time.

    Sorry, Jimbo. You lose.
     
  12. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Boston, please try to pay attention. I said that the conspiracy only has to go back to the mid 90s, not that climate science only goes back to the mid 90s. You alleged that for the skeptics to be right, there would have to be a conspiracy going back centuries. This is a ridiculous claim that suggests you have no idea even what position you are arguing against. Can you give me one established scientific fact that was known before 1990, is still considered true today, and that skeptics have to deny in order to be consistent? I didn't think so.

    This is just as ridiculous. Off the top of my head, 10 things with a larger consensus: electrical equations, optical theory, statics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, gas laws, laws of thermodynamics, laws of magnetism, law of gravity, structure of crystals. And that's just from physics. I could easily come up a similar number in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, meteorology, botany, zoology and several other areas. And dozens in the various fields of mathematics. And I'm not even an expert in any of those fields.

    Ah. I see. It's not a great conspiracy of scientists, it's a great conspiracy of those evil energy companies. Right.

    You are very likely right about the timing. But your speculation about who leaked it and why is nothing but speculation based on your own conspiracy theories. My guess is that it was an inside job by someone whose conscience was bothering him.

    You don't know anything at all about this issue, do you? You are just throwing random crap against the wall, hoping some of it sticks. Within a couple of days of the leak, the university had verified that the emails are real.

    Oh, excuse me. I didn't realize you were a ten-year old or I would have been more condescending.

    I have this theory that we tend to see in others what we know is in ourselves. If you are always jumping to the conclusion that the other guy is venal then it is probably because you are assuming that everyone else is just like you.
     
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    As usual, you fail to comprehend. It's not the scientists to whom I refer, but the political leaders. You have proven your lack of understanding of even the AGW position, let alone the skeptical position, so mounting a defense of either one, except to say "Well so many scientists just can't be wrong", is out of your league. Since the science is beyond you (by your own choice), then just stick to the socio-politcal aspects, the stuff you seem to gravitate toward anyway.

    Like analyzing why some people are skeptics, and how this is someone's obsession, and who gave money to whom, and how AGW skeptics are just like creationists, or 'flat earthers' or agnotologists, or whatever....

    ANYTHING except to address the scientific merit of the skeptical assertions,by any means other than 'tar and feathering' of opponents. This is what you are capable of; I get it.

    It's OK; we've been here before.:cool:

    Jimbo
     
  14. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Jimbo, you aren't a scientist; you aren't even an informed scientific amateur. You're an obsessed internet crank who regurgitates everything he can find to support his predetermined position, and that makes it pretty much impossible to have a "scientific" debate with you, even if I had a degree in the subject myself--which I don't. Even if I were as obsessed as you are--which I'm not.

    Your modus operandi is one of the oldest ones in the book: 'if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with ********.' You repeatedly make claims of "fact" that are nothing of the sort. You drag up hysterical claims about this graph or that lab being the entire foundation of the theory. You open wide and swallow when someone pumps out something that backs you up (like Beck), and you refuse to accept anything as legitimate which doesn't.

    As I said: scratch a climate change skeptic, find a PCT (paranoid conspiracy theorist). Behind all your pseudo-scientific bluster is a simpleminded belief that eeee-ville people are conspiring to take over the world, using global warming as an excuse. That's pathetic.

    You're right up there with the nutballs and John Birchers I grew up with, who used to scream and carry on about flouridation being a communist plot to poison free, God-fearing Americans. You know...the ones who said President Eisenhower was "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."

    Carry on all you want, Jimbo, about how stupid I am, how ignorant I am, what an idiot I am.....wait a minute. You know, you might have a point there. Come to think of it, I'm stupid enough to keep trying to answer the crap you spew out, aren't I? I guess maybe if I were as bright as I think I am, I wouldn't waste my time.
     

  15. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    It's not eeee-ville people, Troy. But it is more dangerous than evil...
    Aliens Cause Global Warming
    When I read this, I took notes and planned on highlighting various points to better relate them here. Then I realized that this was not a scientist or blogger that needed editing (Oh, That Michael Crichton)! So, here it is: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.