yeah, the "I'm rubber you're glue" defense isn't very credible. Try harder please.
Regardless, I offered you very clearly an opportunity to be frank, honest, and direct about the issue. You have offered me double talk and political talking points.
If you want to play politics then you're going to get a political response.
Answer now.
Do you want a scientific discussion with frankness and disclosure or do you want political power plays and backstabbing?
Choose. Anything other then an answer of one or the other will be taken as a default declaration that you want to keep playing political games. Understand that.
Wrong. The burden is yours to prove your case. I am not claiming to predict future climate. That is your claim. And that claim requires you to provide a validated climate model that can make such predictions with some level of accuracy.
Absent that, you have no grounds to make predictions at all.
I didn't say that. No where in my post did I say you should be quiet. I said the manner in which you speak should be different if you want to be effective.
Currently all you're doing is annoying people and bleeding away what remains of your political power.
When you let failed politicians like Al Gore and John Kerry advise you... you're already doomed.
Consult superior political advice and they'll confirm you're doing it all wrong.
Talk to politicians with track records of winning. Burning bridges when you need the cooperation of everyone is moronic. That is, it is the opinion that morons have. If you're not a moron... stop doing moronic things. Seems pretty fucking clear.
As to not believing there are good alternatives, this is false. You find certain alternatives politically convienent. You must admit that the left has desired control over industry for generations. Long before the environmental movement they wanted that.
So here comes along the AGW issue and it basically gives you justification to do all the things you've wanted to do for generations.
So of course you don't think there are better options. Sure. Everyone believes that. Even... no one. It fools none but the fools. Even most people on your own side know it is a crock. I have a lot of left bent friends. And they all know it.
So let us not talk as children with stupid little lies meant to confuse the foolish.
Here it is on the line:
You see political advantage in your strategy. Very well. We have a counter and we are winning. If you want to play political games then political games are what you will get.
You show no mercy or quarter to us? Very well. Then we shall show no mercy or quarter to your stance. We will continue to eat the heart out of everything you put forward. We will undermine every action. We will cripple every policy so that at best it LOOKS like you accomplished something so your politicians can save face. But what it actually accomplishes? *laughs* Nothing.
Look at what China recently gave you. They signed all your agreements. Promised to do everything. The only thing they asked in turn was to be the sole official arbiter of whether or not they were in compliance or not. Which means they only have to do what they want to do. They agreed to nothing.
And that is precisely the sort of progress you're going to make from here on out. Empty meaningless gestures that make your politicians not look like failures and keep dupes like you sending them campaign money.
Is THIS the game you want to play? Because when you make statements like the one above, it reads as "I think I can win the political game, watch me keep spinning talking points."
Fine. You think you're smarter, more determined, better connected, and more canny? Game on.
If you ever change your mind and would rather have a civilized meeting of minds where we honestly try to resolve mutual problems then we wait for you to come to your senses. Until then... you are losing and you will continue to lose. You've never been very good at grasping human nature. Never understood the flow of the market or the needs of a society. And that failing leads to the collapse of everything you build.
I'm afraid you are on the position of proving your theory. Those poking holes in your theory are not required to provide a counter theory any more then a person accused of murder is required to do anything more then poke holes in the case of the persecution.
You are the prosecution. Your case is assumed false unless proven true. Not the other way around. The defense is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is YOURS.
Accept it or concede.
Keep in mind, that in any other field of science you would have provided proof already. Because every other field of science actually has proof for their claims. It is only in climate science where they seem to think they don't need proof.
Provide it now or you will have validated my position by default.
Your king is in check and you're not far from checkmate. I have no mercy on this issue. Defend yourself or get rhetorically gutted.
Also amazing is that they never attack planned obsolescence. This is the industrial model that causes all human industry to consume perhaps twice what it would otherwise to no additional purpose.
Changing that would have no quality of life consequence, cost consumers no more then what they currently pay over their lives, and could radically reduce global pollution levels. Yet we don't do it.
I didn't claim they were identical. I claimed that what differences were left were due to the distance from the star.
How could Venus be the same temperature as the earth when it so so much closer to the sun? Obviously it can't. But look at how close they are at that pressure despite being closer to the star.
What is more, if you look at the temperature of Venus by altitude, you'll find that if you go up in Vensus' atmosphere by about a mile... call it the difference between Los Angeles and Denver... temperatures become tolerable for humans.
Now... my argument was the the differences in temperature were less due to any chemical differences in the atmosphere but rather the density and proximity to the star. That was my point.
That you apparently didn't grasp that speaks very poorly for your ability to have a discussion of this nature. Try harder or I'm going to ignore you for being too stupid to waste my time.
I don't need to supply you with a model to point out that you don't have one.
I am not the one claiming to be able to predict future climate conditions. That is you. I am not the one claiming that a given chemical in the atmosphere is good or bad. That is you.
You are the one that needs to prove things. Until I make such claims I don't have to prove anything.
If you are unaware of this then you don't understand basic scientific protocol or western rhetorical tradition. At which point your credibility in any discussion of this kind is laughable.
So... do not make the mistake of thinking I need to prove things when it is you making the claims. Make that mistake again and you're disqualified from the discussion due to absurd levels of ignorance.
Is this really the best you've got? You clearly don't know how science works. It is not the responsibility of the criticizer to prove anything merely to question your proof.
Think of it like a legal trial. You are in the position of the prosecution. The defense, which is my position, does not need to prove anything. All I need to do is refute your argument and I win by default.
Now, as you were apparently ignorant of basic scientific protocol and western rhetorical philosophy in general, I am apparently talking to an ignorant person. Given that you are also arrogant, I am also talking to an asshole.
When you're this ignorant, you should ask more questions and make fewer statements. Just fyi.
Actually, throughout europe public opinion polls cite the public as not taking it especially seriously. The primary difference is that in many western countries the governments are not especially democratic as anyone familiar with the EU will inform you.
As to the wider world, the world is not Europe contrary to what Europeans always seem to think for some reason. This is the 21st century and they still laughably refer to whatever their handful of countries think as "world opinion".
Are you claiming the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, South Koreans, Saudis, Jordanians, Russians, South Africans, Brazilians etc are on board? Because they're obviously not.
That is the world, my little cream filled donut. Not Europe alone.
To the contrary of your position, A portion of Europe which is increasingly embattled is the biggest hold out FOR AGW. The votes against dwarf your coalition by the billions.
The time is well past to stop being so arrogant and dismissive. IF you want consensus you're going to have to have the discussion that you've put off for all these years. A round table of equals... one where your vote will just be one of many.
That or continuing irrelevance. Choose either... I care not which. The actual world will discuss amongst itself regardless of whether you show up or not.
That's fine. I'm just saying for the purposes of stopping police brutality or police making up what people said or did... a cheap shoulder camera with microphone would be effective.
If you want additional features on top of that, then that is fine. However, I don't want to hear "they're too expensive so we can't put cameras on their shoulders"... just use cheaper cameras if that comes up. Use the best cameras you can afford and that make sense for the application. If your budget can't handle expensive ones, then use cheap ones.
All I care about with the cameras is changing police culture such that they respect citizens and do not use excessive force. If they know they are being recorded all the time while on duty then they should behave themselves.
If we've learned anything, people are depressingly loyal to political an ideological causes even when they fail horribly.
Look at all the people that want the Soviet Union to come back despite it mass killing generations of their people for no reason and keeping their society pathetically retrograde and poor.
And yet, in "modern" Russia, they fantasize about a return of the great and powerful Soviet Union. Its power was mostly in its ability to make their lives miserable and steal any hope of a better life from them. But a great many want it back.
Given that, why would you be surprised that many in the US would not be as stubbornly stupid?
Your citation didn't answer my core question. He cited a NYTs article that did not provide a model. I am aware of the doctor's work. He has not made a model. He instead created a controversial data table and I don't think he has yet to release the raw data despite promising to do so repeatedly. So I'm a little confused as to why you find that conclusive.
I think a lot of you just read headlines and don't actually read the articles or fact check claims in those articles. You are very easy to manipulate if you do that.
I could make an article that says "unicorns are real!" and apparently some of you would believe it because it is in the paper after all.
You can't say why something is happening without a model. And you can't predict the future without a model.
If I stripped you of both you ability to say why and to say what will be... would you be happy with that situation?
Because if not having a model doesn't bother you, then that is all you have.
You can't tell me CO2 is doing anything special without a model. As many say the system is complex. You don't know if the effect is relevant on a planetary scale or if it is mitigated by something without a model.
And as to predictions, if you don't have a model that can project into the future then your future projections are literally supposition.
No one questions that, but whether the chemical composition of that atmosphere is relevant is questionable.
Compare the temperature of earth with that of Venus at equal air pressures.
Venus is all green house gases... and yet the difference in temperature isn't that much more. Considering that venus is closer to the sun whether or not venus is so hot because of green house gases or simply because it has so much more atmospheric mass period is questionable.
Actually, that is more questionable then you might realize.
Compare the temperature of Venus with the temperature of the earth at equal air pressures. That is, look at the temp in venus at 1 atmosphere and the temp on the earth at one atmosphere. What you'll find is that the temps are comparable at equal pressures. Venus is still hotter but it is also a good deal closer to the sun. The point is that nearly all the temperature difference goes away when you compensate for pressure.
Keep in mind that venus is pretty much all green house gas.
The whole green house gas idea comes from some small scale experiments and some comparisons to the Venusian atmosphere. The problem is that the comparisons to Venus do not validate the theory. To the contrary, they undermine it. Which means your small scale experiments might not scale to a planetary atmosphere.
And that means the entire concept of green house gases might not be valid on a planetary scale.
What appears to be relevant is the density of the atmosphere and the proximity to the star. The chemical composition of the atmosphere itself might not matter so long as it is gaseous.
For further comparison, look at Jupiter and Mars. Once you compensate for pressure differences most of the temperature differences between the planets goes away and what you're left with is a very predictable and orderly difference which is what you would expect from being closer or farther from the Sun.
Here we see if you can address new data or if you're going to just reject it and go back into parrot mode. No offense. That is what most of your peers have done.
Slashdot Mirror
You're quoting wikipedia. I just read the entire wikipedia article and I don't see anywhere in there a predictive model that has been validated.
Do you have one or do you not?
No I'm not.
I'm asking for one climate model that was tested under falsifiable conditions and passed.
Further strawmans will be taken as deceit on your part.
yeah, the "I'm rubber you're glue" defense isn't very credible. Try harder please.
Regardless, I offered you very clearly an opportunity to be frank, honest, and direct about the issue. You have offered me double talk and political talking points.
If you want to play politics then you're going to get a political response.
Answer now.
Do you want a scientific discussion with frankness and disclosure or do you want political power plays and backstabbing?
Choose. Anything other then an answer of one or the other will be taken as a default declaration that you want to keep playing political games. Understand that.
Choose.
And that proves that a marginal increase in CO2 changes anything where?
Provide a model please. Or admit you don't have one. Then I do the icky shuffle.
I want to do the icky shuffle. Help me do that. Admit you don't have it.
Observing the planet warmed is not the same thing as saying WHY it warmed.
If you are retreating from saying why then you surrender any claim to CO2 being involved.
To attach CO2 to warming you would need a validated model that showed that causal link.
Please provide this model now or admit that you cannot link CO2 to any warming scientifically.
http://www.nizkor.org/features...
Wrong. The burden is yours to prove your case. I am not claiming to predict future climate. That is your claim. And that claim requires you to provide a validated climate model that can make such predictions with some level of accuracy.
Absent that, you have no grounds to make predictions at all.
Provide one now.
I didn't say that. No where in my post did I say you should be quiet. I said the manner in which you speak should be different if you want to be effective.
Currently all you're doing is annoying people and bleeding away what remains of your political power.
When you let failed politicians like Al Gore and John Kerry advise you... you're already doomed.
Consult superior political advice and they'll confirm you're doing it all wrong.
Talk to politicians with track records of winning. Burning bridges when you need the cooperation of everyone is moronic. That is, it is the opinion that morons have. If you're not a moron... stop doing moronic things. Seems pretty fucking clear.
You mad, bro? :-D
I looked at your post to find a coherent or rational argument and found only childish sputtering.
Would you like to make an attempt at an intelligent thought or are you really this stupid?
As to not believing there are good alternatives, this is false. You find certain alternatives politically convienent. You must admit that the left has desired control over industry for generations. Long before the environmental movement they wanted that.
So here comes along the AGW issue and it basically gives you justification to do all the things you've wanted to do for generations.
So of course you don't think there are better options. Sure. Everyone believes that. Even... no one. It fools none but the fools. Even most people on your own side know it is a crock. I have a lot of left bent friends. And they all know it.
So let us not talk as children with stupid little lies meant to confuse the foolish.
Here it is on the line:
You see political advantage in your strategy. Very well. We have a counter and we are winning. If you want to play political games then political games are what you will get.
You show no mercy or quarter to us? Very well. Then we shall show no mercy or quarter to your stance. We will continue to eat the heart out of everything you put forward. We will undermine every action. We will cripple every policy so that at best it LOOKS like you accomplished something so your politicians can save face. But what it actually accomplishes? *laughs* Nothing.
Look at what China recently gave you. They signed all your agreements. Promised to do everything. The only thing they asked in turn was to be the sole official arbiter of whether or not they were in compliance or not. Which means they only have to do what they want to do. They agreed to nothing.
And that is precisely the sort of progress you're going to make from here on out. Empty meaningless gestures that make your politicians not look like failures and keep dupes like you sending them campaign money.
Is THIS the game you want to play? Because when you make statements like the one above, it reads as "I think I can win the political game, watch me keep spinning talking points."
Fine. You think you're smarter, more determined, better connected, and more canny? Game on.
If you ever change your mind and would rather have a civilized meeting of minds where we honestly try to resolve mutual problems then we wait for you to come to your senses. Until then... you are losing and you will continue to lose. You've never been very good at grasping human nature. Never understood the flow of the market or the needs of a society. And that failing leads to the collapse of everything you build.
Doubt me? History shall judge us both.
You would need a validated model to prove that. Show me your model.
Or your claim is withdrawn for lack of evidence.
I'm afraid you are on the position of proving your theory. Those poking holes in your theory are not required to provide a counter theory any more then a person accused of murder is required to do anything more then poke holes in the case of the persecution.
You are the prosecution. Your case is assumed false unless proven true. Not the other way around. The defense is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is YOURS.
Accept it or concede.
Keep in mind, that in any other field of science you would have provided proof already. Because every other field of science actually has proof for their claims. It is only in climate science where they seem to think they don't need proof.
Provide it now or you will have validated my position by default.
Your king is in check and you're not far from checkmate. I have no mercy on this issue. Defend yourself or get rhetorically gutted.
Also amazing is that they never attack planned obsolescence. This is the industrial model that causes all human industry to consume perhaps twice what it would otherwise to no additional purpose.
Changing that would have no quality of life consequence, cost consumers no more then what they currently pay over their lives, and could radically reduce global pollution levels. Yet we don't do it.
Why? No power or money payout to the elites.
I didn't claim they were identical. I claimed that what differences were left were due to the distance from the star.
How could Venus be the same temperature as the earth when it so so much closer to the sun? Obviously it can't. But look at how close they are at that pressure despite being closer to the star.
What is more, if you look at the temperature of Venus by altitude, you'll find that if you go up in Vensus' atmosphere by about a mile... call it the difference between Los Angeles and Denver... temperatures become tolerable for humans.
Now... my argument was the the differences in temperature were less due to any chemical differences in the atmosphere but rather the density and proximity to the star. That was my point.
That you apparently didn't grasp that speaks very poorly for your ability to have a discussion of this nature. Try harder or I'm going to ignore you for being too stupid to waste my time.
I don't need to supply you with a model to point out that you don't have one.
I am not the one claiming to be able to predict future climate conditions. That is you. I am not the one claiming that a given chemical in the atmosphere is good or bad. That is you.
You are the one that needs to prove things. Until I make such claims I don't have to prove anything.
If you are unaware of this then you don't understand basic scientific protocol or western rhetorical tradition. At which point your credibility in any discussion of this kind is laughable.
So... do not make the mistake of thinking I need to prove things when it is you making the claims. Make that mistake again and you're disqualified from the discussion due to absurd levels of ignorance.
*laughs*
Is this really the best you've got? You clearly don't know how science works. It is not the responsibility of the criticizer to prove anything merely to question your proof.
Think of it like a legal trial. You are in the position of the prosecution. The defense, which is my position, does not need to prove anything. All I need to do is refute your argument and I win by default.
Now, as you were apparently ignorant of basic scientific protocol and western rhetorical philosophy in general, I am apparently talking to an ignorant person. Given that you are also arrogant, I am also talking to an asshole.
When you're this ignorant, you should ask more questions and make fewer statements. Just fyi.
We are done. Good day.
Actually, throughout europe public opinion polls cite the public as not taking it especially seriously. The primary difference is that in many western countries the governments are not especially democratic as anyone familiar with the EU will inform you.
As to the wider world, the world is not Europe contrary to what Europeans always seem to think for some reason. This is the 21st century and they still laughably refer to whatever their handful of countries think as "world opinion".
Are you claiming the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, South Koreans, Saudis, Jordanians, Russians, South Africans, Brazilians etc are on board? Because they're obviously not.
That is the world, my little cream filled donut. Not Europe alone.
To the contrary of your position, A portion of Europe which is increasingly embattled is the biggest hold out FOR AGW. The votes against dwarf your coalition by the billions.
The time is well past to stop being so arrogant and dismissive. IF you want consensus you're going to have to have the discussion that you've put off for all these years. A round table of equals... one where your vote will just be one of many.
That or continuing irrelevance. Choose either... I care not which. The actual world will discuss amongst itself regardless of whether you show up or not.
That's fine. I'm just saying for the purposes of stopping police brutality or police making up what people said or did... a cheap shoulder camera with microphone would be effective.
If you want additional features on top of that, then that is fine. However, I don't want to hear "they're too expensive so we can't put cameras on their shoulders"... just use cheaper cameras if that comes up. Use the best cameras you can afford and that make sense for the application. If your budget can't handle expensive ones, then use cheap ones.
All I care about with the cameras is changing police culture such that they respect citizens and do not use excessive force. If they know they are being recorded all the time while on duty then they should behave themselves.
You have a small scale lab experiment. You apparently believe that all small scale lab experiments scale accurately to any scale.
This is ignorant. You should really know better.
If we've learned anything, people are depressingly loyal to political an ideological causes even when they fail horribly.
Look at all the people that want the Soviet Union to come back despite it mass killing generations of their people for no reason and keeping their society pathetically retrograde and poor.
And yet, in "modern" Russia, they fantasize about a return of the great and powerful Soviet Union. Its power was mostly in its ability to make their lives miserable and steal any hope of a better life from them. But a great many want it back.
Given that, why would you be surprised that many in the US would not be as stubbornly stupid?
Your citation didn't answer my core question. He cited a NYTs article that did not provide a model. I am aware of the doctor's work. He has not made a model. He instead created a controversial data table and I don't think he has yet to release the raw data despite promising to do so repeatedly. So I'm a little confused as to why you find that conclusive.
I think a lot of you just read headlines and don't actually read the articles or fact check claims in those articles. You are very easy to manipulate if you do that.
I could make an article that says "unicorns are real!" and apparently some of you would believe it because it is in the paper after all.
It is a model of a small scale lab experiment. Are you suggesting that all lab experiments scale to astronomical levels?
Obviously they do not not. You need a planetary model or you do not have one.
You can't say why something is happening without a model. And you can't predict the future without a model.
If I stripped you of both you ability to say why and to say what will be... would you be happy with that situation?
Because if not having a model doesn't bother you, then that is all you have.
You can't tell me CO2 is doing anything special without a model. As many say the system is complex. You don't know if the effect is relevant on a planetary scale or if it is mitigated by something without a model.
And as to predictions, if you don't have a model that can project into the future then your future projections are literally supposition.
You need a model to call your position science.
*tips hat*
No one questions that, but whether the chemical composition of that atmosphere is relevant is questionable.
Compare the temperature of earth with that of Venus at equal air pressures.
Venus is all green house gases... and yet the difference in temperature isn't that much more. Considering that venus is closer to the sun whether or not venus is so hot because of green house gases or simply because it has so much more atmospheric mass period is questionable.
Actually, that is more questionable then you might realize.
Compare the temperature of Venus with the temperature of the earth at equal air pressures. That is, look at the temp in venus at 1 atmosphere and the temp on the earth at one atmosphere. What you'll find is that the temps are comparable at equal pressures. Venus is still hotter but it is also a good deal closer to the sun. The point is that nearly all the temperature difference goes away when you compensate for pressure.
Keep in mind that venus is pretty much all green house gas.
The whole green house gas idea comes from some small scale experiments and some comparisons to the Venusian atmosphere. The problem is that the comparisons to Venus do not validate the theory. To the contrary, they undermine it. Which means your small scale experiments might not scale to a planetary atmosphere.
And that means the entire concept of green house gases might not be valid on a planetary scale.
What appears to be relevant is the density of the atmosphere and the proximity to the star. The chemical composition of the atmosphere itself might not matter so long as it is gaseous.
For further comparison, look at Jupiter and Mars. Once you compensate for pressure differences most of the temperature differences between the planets goes away and what you're left with is a very predictable and orderly difference which is what you would expect from being closer or farther from the Sun.
Here we see if you can address new data or if you're going to just reject it and go back into parrot mode. No offense. That is what most of your peers have done.