Voyage to Atlantis

EXCELLENT!

 

Troy, before you start whining about my manners please go back to my first post in this thread, read it, then read Whitepointer reply and the belittling of my member name because 'shock and horror' I had the Kiwi cheek to post my opinion that didn't agree with his.

What you guys forget is a forum is intended for expression of an maritime idea, concept, advice, awareness, technical info or belief that may not align with yours but its just as valid. I don't care if another's ideas differ or belittle others view on issues but I do care about being able to express mine on an open forum.

 

You must have missed the post where Whitepointer23 addressed Titirangi as ****, starting the whole thing. Or are you just selective in whose insults you pay heed to?

 

OK, granted I should have gone back and reread whitepointer23's post; I had forgotten that he started the name-abbreviating. I apologise for getting in the middle of that one.

But he didn't try to shut you up. He asked a fair question, basically inviting you to express your beliefs instead: do you honestly believe we can pump so much rubbish into the atmosphere without having an effect? And your response was that because he has no Phd in climatology, his views are 'just regurgitated views picked up from TV and other news sources,' and therefore to be ignored.

Basically claiming he has no right to even have opinions is an odd way to defend your right to express yours... you could have just answered his question instead.

 

Nobody wants his member name belittled.

 

Unfortunately, some names are easier targets than others. Which isn't an excuse, I know.

 

When I abbreviate Troy omitting the 2000 I hope it isn't seen as disrespectful.
I'm just lazy. AND ONE of you is sufficient!

 

It's no problem, unless and until the other 1999 find out you're doing it....

 

Referring to pumping rubbish into the skies (atmosphere) from the info I have been able to source the human condition on it's best day couldn't equal in a year what the earths volcanos have pumped out in a day. While I admit that we're not helping matters I do think we are in a cycle of natural events.

Forty years ago science said our climate was heading for another ice age, the same science model is used today combined with much more sophisticated computer modelling.

 

We live in the age of the "Horribles".
All of my life, I have been hearing some disaster or another, is about to wipe us out.

When I was a kid, my pals and I, loved going to horror films. And riding thrill rides at the travelling carnivals.

As an adult, I realized, there is money to be made in scaring people.
People, or quite a few if not all, LIKE a good scare.
IF, they can do it comfortably at home, or easily return to comfort of home when they've had enough.

So how do you know what's REAL?

God is in the details.
Examine the advertising and follow the money.

How much money is in that industry? Total industry. Never mind if some individual isn't getting much of it. They might be a poor businessman.

If they use big promotions like scary looking charts, to portray fractions of a degree temperature rise, it's hype.
Because simply writing or reading the fraction would leave you unimpressed.

It's an attempt to manipulate you, by playing on your emotions.
All con games play on your emotions.

So, I learned long ago, if they are trying to sell me using con game tactics? It's a con.
To be certain, look at the figures.
If they aren't impressive without the promotional material, then don't be impressed.

It's called good judgment.
Just one of the decision algorithms used in good judgment.
Learned from experience.

 

If the Atlantians had had VHF radios, their signals would still be travelling through the Universe. We have no proof that they did not.

 

relax mate. i will address you as titirangi if thats what you prefer. i do believe i am entitled to an opinion as troy stated. i don't know if there are any phd,s are on the forum but not many i suspect. it doesn't mean we can't debate stuff. i assume you are a climatologist because your opinion is valid and mine isn't. apologys for any offence taken.

 

No. Forty years ago, a few scientists suggested we might be headed for another ice age - and the media picked up on the suggestion and ran with it, because sensationalization sold newspapers and magazines back then, too.

The hypothesis was largely abandoned when it turned out not to be supported by data and research, and trying to compare it to today's broad and almost unprecedented scientific consensus on climate change just doesn't work. Which doesn't stop people from bringing it up ad nauseum anyway....

 

http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.mx/2011/07/midnight-train-to-middle-ages.html

However, as a genuine atmospheric scientist, I feel an obligation to speak out when I read something that is terribly wrong (and, especially, if it comes from an authoritative source).

One of those were called to my attention in yesterday's New York Times. In a piece called, "On Experts and Global Warming," by philosopher (not scientist) Gary Gutting. Below is his area of expertise from his online resume:

[insert picture below]

The single best course I took in my education at the University of Oklahoma was called "history of science" and it explained, in detail, the "scientific method." Briefly, in order to be "science," an idea must follow the following process,


A person has a new idea about how something works and does some preliminary investigation. It seems to hold up and seems worth pursuing. This is called a hypothesis.
The person (it doesn't matter if the person is a scientist, what matters is the process in this case) does some experimentation and the hypothesis holds up.
The person publishes the hypothesis so it can be reviewed by all interested parties. Other parties must be able replicate the experimental results.
If the hypothesis passes muster (i.e., the results are accurate and reproducible) then it becomes a scientific theory.
A theory is considered to be "science" until someone can show it does not work in the real world. For example, primitive telescopes seemed to show the sun rotated around the earth. When new data showed otherwise, the theory of an earth-centric universe was discarded.
Note there is no place in the scientific method for "consensus." Science is what can be demonstrated in the real world, nothing more and nothing less. Opinions matter in many areas of human endeavor, but they are not "science."



So, one would think a philosopher of science would be passionate on the subject of demanding reproducible evidence and adherence to the scientific method. Unfortunately, Dr. Gutting's piece is the exact opposite, the following are quotations:

To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the authority of experts. First of all, such appeals require a decision about who the experts on a given topic are. Until there is agreement about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions. Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points relevant to our discussion...


Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we nonexperts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim...


There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet...

He uses the term "consensus" seven more times in the article but the above is enough to give you the idea. To Dr. Gutting, the mere fact that a "consensus" exists is conclusive! This isn't science, it is anti-science.

There was a consensus in science (and religion) that the earth was the center of the universe when Galileo argued the sun was the center of the solar system.

Much more recently, the consensus in medicine (for 100 years) was that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. In 1982, two Australian researchers hypothesized that a bacterium caused ulcers, but their work was poorly received by the "consensus" in medicine. So, one of the scientists, Barry Marshall, ingested bacteria harvested from a patient. Five days later, he developed an ulcer. The experiment was published in an Australian medical journal.

Finally, in 1997, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control started an education program that ulcers could be cured by antibiotics. In 2005, Marshall and his colleague, Robin Warren, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

You'll note on this blog that I frequently cite data that anyone can confirm (examples here, here, here and here just to name a few) for themselves. That is scientific.

I compare the measurements of atmospheric temperatures (for example) against the forecasts issued by the "experts" of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, the "consensus"). Comparing the hypothesis to measurements is science. [If you are new to the blog, the IPCC's forecasts, when compared to measurements, are doing poorly.] I certainly invite people to check my work against the data and point out any errors I have made. That, too, is scientific.

But, Dr. Gutting's faith in global warming consensus isn't science, it is anti-science. If others board the "train" mentioned in Dr. Gutting's article, it will take them right back to the Middle Ages.

--- end original post ---


Judy Curry has a tremendous posting which incorporates a paper by Dr. Jean Goodwin on the subject of "manufacturing" consensus which is what the IPCC has done. I urge you to read it.

After reading these, any fair-minded person will realize the IPCC's "consensus" is phony science. I have two comments:


It is time to go back to square one. Disband the IPCC. Create a new group equally comprised of leading scientists in the field regardless of their political views and their views, to date, regarding global warming.
Reduce the inordinate amount of money going to 'global warming' and start solving some of the very solvable environmental problems we face.
Thanks, Judy for a great post.

 

'Money' and 'power' being interchangeable, the first things I think of is life/judgement after death religions and 9/11 as the two most successful cons using fear and emotion as the main tactics.