"and the evidence that CO2 is a cause and not a symptom is not as clear as the "highly likely" confidence interval implies."
RF=5.35*ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 deg C.
The 1.4 degC due to the increase in CO2 concntrations is more than "highly likey", it's virtually certain and is as robust as any of Newton's laws. Arguing that CO2 is not a forcing is voodoo science that throws out a large chunk of modern physics including quantum mechanics.
You can argue that negative feedback will counter that 1.4degC increase but first you have to demonstrate where that negative feedback will come from. Positive feedbacks such as melting ice (aldebo), melting permafrost (increased CO2) and rising water vapour (GHG) have all been observed both in the modern world and the geological record.
My charity work here is done, I suggest you look up the basics of climate science on wikipedia before agruing that Lomborg is one of the good guy's.
"My "blathering on" was to make it clear that no one person can have the expertise to review the entire field"
The same is true of any field, no?
"And you didn't provide context."
The quote is another way of wording the old cannard that climate scientists claim the "science is settled", is that clear enough for you?
"Highly likely" - has a technical definition in the IPCC reprots it's a specific confidence level.
Lomborg advocates "doing nothing" listen to his TED talk. Anyone with half a brain knows that spraying massive quantities of S02 into the stratosphere is a cure that's worse than the disease, he is just being his ingenious self when he bounces between ludicrous and suicdal options.
Just the fact that Lomborg strongly associates himself with the American Enterprise Institute, The Hearland institute, CEI and similar climate/tabacoo anti-scientists should be enough to tell any genuine skeptic all they need to know.
You obviously have the attention span of a blowfly of crack. Look back up the thread and you will find I am already having a little party with 21 million other Aussies.
According to some of the posts here, the average premium for a US family is US$14,000/yr, here in Oz it's AU$1,500/yr for two working parents on average wages, half that for a single income family. In other words your little party is costing you almost 10X as much per head as mine.
As for "wanting to steal", I earn well above average wages and since I'm single my contribution pays for 5-6 other Aussies to have statistically superiour health care compared to a US citizen. But I don't mind paying more than my fair share since I have not always been so well off, it's a simple case of swings and roundabouts, that's the whole fucking point of ANY insurance scheme.
The worst part of your post is not the childish insults, it's that you genuinely don't realise how breathtakingly stupid you sound to someone who lives under a sane health system. - Let me spell it out for you. - Your are saying you want to pay at least $10K more than you need to so as to ensure your fellow countrymen get none of the $1-$2K you should be paying. That my ignorant friend only proves that a fool and his money are indeed easily parted.
All his 50 odd papers are on climate science, M.Mann who founded RC has an even more impresive publication record. You can blather on about what you think is the definition of a climate scientist but Mann and Schmidt are both internationally recognised climate scientists regardless of what you think.
Lomborg's list is a tad less impressive, it consists of a sole publication in a sociology journal. I have no objection to him speculating about "what to do", I have a problem with him distortingscience to fit his predefined answer of "do nothing".
While on the subject of "what to do", please point to any RC article that ADVOCATES any particular political solution for reducing emmissions. I've been reading the site for several years and have yet to see one.
I'll go one further than $50, I will bet my left testicle it never happens.
"the Opposition will vote no simply because Labor is voting yes"
Yep and when the Liberals were last in power Labor voted no to madatory filtering.
"most of the independents are offside now as well"
That was the whole point, Mr 2% lost interest pretty fast when his own anti-abortion sponsers *somehow* made it onto the proposed list. This shit has been going on for at least a decade, the two major parties take turns at being good/bad cop in order to screw over the nutjob independents who keep poping up in the senate.
As I have been doing for the last 2-3yrs with these stories I will again issue a challenge to anyone who thinks this crap has a real chance of becoming law. Point out a single quote where Conroy has said he is in favour of mandatory filtering. I've yet to see one. I've seen plenety of quotes where he says he is in favour of trials/inquiries, and sure he put up the legislation but it's his turn to be the bad cop and like any Aussie with half a brain he knows full well it will fail to pass the senate.
In primary school I was taught to write with a fountain pen (circa 1967), ballpoints were not allowed. My father was an engineer so he had an early 1970's HP calculator, at the time it was worth a months wages so kids were not wandering around with them. As calculators got cheaper they were banned at my HS (circa 1975), slide-rules and log tables were taught in maths classes.
As layed out in my post "I'm alright Jack", frankly I don't give a flying fuck if ideologues like you refuse to listen and demand your god given right to pay twice the price for half the service.
Have you never heard of inline testing? The section of code in question has the comment "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" in capital letters above it and was NOT used in producing the hockey stick.
You call yourself a skeptic yet you apparently believe conspiratorial scientists go around submitting clearly labeled misdeeds to the journal of Nature. To a real skeptic such utter nonesense is "proof positive" you have watched one too many Batman movies.
What's sad is that useful idiots like you keep dancing around my simple request for evidence. I know the red-herring you are refering to. I can only assume you don't want to post it because it has been debunked to death.
Actually I meant to say Lomborg paints himself as galileo of course like anyone trained in the art of propoganda (he is a qualified political scientist), he is not so stupid as to directly draw that comparison himself.
Conspiracy! - No, just a small group of well organised, well funded lobbyists who have managed to get a large number of usefull idiots to follow them. The same organizations did exactly the same thing with "tabacoo science" and used exactly the same methods of obfuscation and propoganda. They are not interested in science they are interested in delaying regulation for as long as possible. I expect to be watching "coal trials" sometime this decade that will mirror the "tabacoo trails" of a couple of decades ago.
Not sure who the "he" is that you are refering to, neither have done any climate science but Lomborg claims he has and that his rants should be included in the IPCC reports.
Lomborg paints himself a persecuted DaVinci, a lone voice of scientific genius against the harsh dogma of the establishment. Basically Friel has published a detailed book review debunking that picture, the journal of nature also reviews books and like Friel they do not claim them to be anything more than researched opinion.
"It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics."
Creationists, pro-tabacoo and anti-AGW groups fund and work for the same think tanks that produce the red-herring theories. It may be obvious propoganda but their marketing efforts are nothing short of outstanding. I started debunking denialist on slashdot almost a decade ago, back then almost every one of my posts was modded down, nowadays I get much better treatment from the mods.
It's not the hard core nutjobs that need to be convinced, an impossible task. It's the moderate but disinterested observer who has been befudled by clever marketing. As with educating people about tabacoo and evolution, it's a slow process but a necassary one.
I agree that both authors have not subjected their work to scientific scrutiny. The difference is that Lomborg is passing fiction off as science, Friel is pointing that out. If Lomborg subjected his work to peer-review then you might have a point, you might also have a point if you can you tell me which scientific journal would be interested in publishing a paper about the faults in a work of fiction?
If lomborg had any faith in the veracity of his "science" he would publish it in peer-reviewed journals. As it stands his solitary journal publication was in a sociology journal.
Considering the mountain of propoganda surrounding the issue of AGW (on both sides) any sane spectator will quite rightly continue to ignore his rants until he has the balls to submit them to formal scientific scrutiny.
This is not to say that your link is not informative in the current context and IMHO should be modded as such, just that it's contents are not worth the electrons they are written with.
Slashdot Mirror
"and the evidence that CO2 is a cause and not a symptom is not as clear as the "highly likely" confidence interval implies."
RF=5.35*ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 deg C.
The 1.4 degC due to the increase in CO2 concntrations is more than "highly likey", it's virtually certain and is as robust as any of Newton's laws. Arguing that CO2 is not a forcing is voodoo science that throws out a large chunk of modern physics including quantum mechanics.
You can argue that negative feedback will counter that 1.4degC increase but first you have to demonstrate where that negative feedback will come from. Positive feedbacks such as melting ice (aldebo), melting permafrost (increased CO2) and rising water vapour (GHG) have all been observed both in the modern world and the geological record.
My charity work here is done, I suggest you look up the basics of climate science on wikipedia before agruing that Lomborg is one of the good guy's.
Beer atoms
"Hey jackass, how many people do we have trying to identify new elements anywhere else besides Earth?"
Helium was first discovred in the Sun, donkey breath.
"My "blathering on" was to make it clear that no one person can have the expertise to review the entire field"
The same is true of any field, no?
"And you didn't provide context."
The quote is another way of wording the old cannard that climate scientists claim the "science is settled", is that clear enough for you?
"Highly likely" - has a technical definition in the IPCC reprots it's a specific confidence level.
Lomborg advocates "doing nothing" listen to his TED talk. Anyone with half a brain knows that spraying massive quantities of S02 into the stratosphere is a cure that's worse than the disease, he is just being his ingenious self when he bounces between ludicrous and suicdal options.
Just the fact that Lomborg strongly associates himself with the American Enterprise Institute, The Hearland institute, CEI and similar climate/tabacoo anti-scientists should be enough to tell any genuine skeptic all they need to know.
You obviously have the attention span of a blowfly of crack. Look back up the thread and you will find I am already having a little party with 21 million other Aussies.
According to some of the posts here, the average premium for a US family is US$14,000/yr, here in Oz it's AU$1,500/yr for two working parents on average wages, half that for a single income family. In other words your little party is costing you almost 10X as much per head as mine.
As for "wanting to steal", I earn well above average wages and since I'm single my contribution pays for 5-6 other Aussies to have statistically superiour health care compared to a US citizen. But I don't mind paying more than my fair share since I have not always been so well off, it's a simple case of swings and roundabouts, that's the whole fucking point of ANY insurance scheme.
The worst part of your post is not the childish insults, it's that you genuinely don't realise how breathtakingly stupid you sound to someone who lives under a sane health system. - Let me spell it out for you. - Your are saying you want to pay at least $10K more than you need to so as to ensure your fellow countrymen get none of the $1-$2K you should be paying. That my ignorant friend only proves that a fool and his money are indeed easily parted.
"First of all, linking to realclimate.org without providing context is wasting everyone's time."
What the fuck are you talking about? The quote provides the context, the title of the RC article demonstrates it's a strawman.
You like impressive lists? - Here's one...
Gavin Schmidt's publications. ( includes 5 Nature, 2 Science, 7 Geophys. Res. Lett).
All his 50 odd papers are on climate science, M.Mann who founded RC has an even more impresive publication record. You can blather on about what you think is the definition of a climate scientist but Mann and Schmidt are both internationally recognised climate scientists regardless of what you think.
Lomborg's list is a tad less impressive, it consists of a sole publication in a sociology journal. I have no objection to him speculating about "what to do", I have a problem with him distorting science to fit his predefined answer of "do nothing".
While on the subject of "what to do", please point to any RC article that ADVOCATES any particular political solution for reducing emmissions. I've been reading the site for several years and have yet to see one.
I'll go one further than $50, I will bet my left testicle it never happens.
"the Opposition will vote no simply because Labor is voting yes"
Yep and when the Liberals were last in power Labor voted no to madatory filtering.
"most of the independents are offside now as well"
That was the whole point, Mr 2% lost interest pretty fast when his own anti-abortion sponsers *somehow* made it onto the proposed list. This shit has been going on for at least a decade, the two major parties take turns at being good/bad cop in order to screw over the nutjob independents who keep poping up in the senate.
As I have been doing for the last 2-3yrs with these stories I will again issue a challenge to anyone who thinks this crap has a real chance of becoming law. Point out a single quote where Conroy has said he is in favour of mandatory filtering. I've yet to see one. I've seen plenety of quotes where he says he is in favour of trials/inquiries, and sure he put up the legislation but it's his turn to be the bad cop and like any Aussie with half a brain he knows full well it will fail to pass the senate.
In primary school I was taught to write with a fountain pen (circa 1967), ballpoints were not allowed. My father was an engineer so he had an early 1970's HP calculator, at the time it was worth a months wages so kids were not wandering around with them. As calculators got cheaper they were banned at my HS (circa 1975), slide-rules and log tables were taught in maths classes.
As layed out in my post "I'm alright Jack", frankly I don't give a flying fuck if ideologues like you refuse to listen and demand your god given right to pay twice the price for half the service.
Yeah, I can read wikipedia too.
Have you never heard of inline testing? The section of code in question has the comment "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" in capital letters above it and was NOT used in producing the hockey stick.
You call yourself a skeptic yet you apparently believe conspiratorial scientists go around submitting clearly labeled misdeeds to the journal of Nature. To a real skeptic such utter nonesense is "proof positive" you have watched one too many Batman movies.
Again, source code is a tool, it is not science!
What's sad is that useful idiots like you keep dancing around my simple request for evidence. I know the red-herring you are refering to. I can only assume you don't want to post it because it has been debunked to death.
Actually I meant to say Lomborg paints himself as galileo of course like anyone trained in the art of propoganda (he is a qualified political scientist), he is not so stupid as to directly draw that comparison himself.
"The global warming group is the ones saying that we should not question and waste time debating whether global warming was true or not"
Strawman.
Unfortunately you are wrong. I honestly wish you were correct but wishfull thinking and ad-homs will get you nowhere.
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) = 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 deg C. For the observed change in CO2 concentrations.
Exactly, when people call AGW a hoax what they are really saying is that a large chunk of fundemental physics is a hoax.
Conspiracy! - No, just a small group of well organised, well funded lobbyists who have managed to get a large number of usefull idiots to follow them. The same organizations did exactly the same thing with "tabacoo science" and used exactly the same methods of obfuscation and propoganda. They are not interested in science they are interested in delaying regulation for as long as possible. I expect to be watching "coal trials" sometime this decade that will mirror the "tabacoo trails" of a couple of decades ago.
Not sure who the "he" is that you are refering to, neither have done any climate science but Lomborg claims he has and that his rants should be included in the IPCC reports.
Lomborg paints himself a persecuted DaVinci, a lone voice of scientific genius against the harsh dogma of the establishment. Basically Friel has published a detailed book review debunking that picture, the journal of nature also reviews books and like Friel they do not claim them to be anything more than researched opinion.
Greenland? -. Is there no limit to people rumaging through the dustbin of science?
You should listen more carefully to Carlin - "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
"It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics."
Creationists, pro-tabacoo and anti-AGW groups fund and work for the same think tanks that produce the red-herring theories. It may be obvious propoganda but their marketing efforts are nothing short of outstanding. I started debunking denialist on slashdot almost a decade ago, back then almost every one of my posts was modded down, nowadays I get much better treatment from the mods.
It's not the hard core nutjobs that need to be convinced, an impossible task. It's the moderate but disinterested observer who has been befudled by clever marketing. As with educating people about tabacoo and evolution, it's a slow process but a necassary one.
I agree that both authors have not subjected their work to scientific scrutiny. The difference is that Lomborg is passing fiction off as science, Friel is pointing that out. If Lomborg subjected his work to peer-review then you might have a point, you might also have a point if you can you tell me which scientific journal would be interested in publishing a paper about the faults in a work of fiction?
"One of the things that REALLY bugs me about climate research is seeing LEGITIMATE scientists use the word "SKEPTIC" as a SMEAR.
Absence of evidence is an ironic title for this bald assertion, no?
Sigh...I asked for the alleged "hard proof" and all I get is more hearsay and inuendo. Source code has as much to do with science as Newton's quill.
I feel ripped off, where's the bad analogy?
"However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming"
RF = 5.35 * ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.
If lomborg had any faith in the veracity of his "science" he would publish it in peer-reviewed journals. As it stands his solitary journal publication was in a sociology journal.
Considering the mountain of propoganda surrounding the issue of AGW (on both sides) any sane spectator will quite rightly continue to ignore his rants until he has the balls to submit them to formal scientific scrutiny.
This is not to say that your link is not informative in the current context and IMHO should be modded as such, just that it's contents are not worth the electrons they are written with.