For a start the trend did not fall, the end point did. (hint: a trend is not a straight line between two endpoints selected to confuse the unwary). The rest of that link is chock full of similar distortions designed to send the message that AGW is a GoodThing(TM) because plants will grow and make for a "lush planet" when in reality the likely outcome is goats and saltbush. Temprature predictions from models have followed the extrapolation of the 1983(?) "hockey stick" and have succesfully predicted the temprature trend for the last twenty odd years.
Predictictive capacity of FEA based climate models: For a "good" example of prediction look up the term "polar amplification", for a "bad" example look up "missing methane". The FEA model itself is used in everything from selecting the right cast for an engine block to planning the convoluted trajectories of spaceships. FEA like any other model is far from perfect and thus the need for retro-rockets on even the most accurate of spaceships and the equally important need for better resolution in climate models.
"But then, I'm only an engineer; we're more concerned with what we see than what we want to prove."
Some of what I "see" beyond the twisted math and dodgy graphs: The artic ice cap has lost 60% of it's volume in the last 50yrs, glaciers (that provide water for over a billion people) are shrinking at an increasing rapid rate, spring is two weeks early in the northern hemisphere, my part of the world is suffering extended drought and permenant water rationing due to changing storm tracks, entire fisheries have been collapsing since the 80's, the temprature trend keeps going up and psuedo-skeptsicim is everywhere I look.
"What link? The IPCC. IPCC.ch, You mean you have been arguing in favor of them all this time and never been to their site? click on the about tab and read."
No sorry, you can't wiggle out of it that easy, you complained about me not re-reading the misinformation in your links and made the following claim...
"The IPCC and real climate isn't interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios. The IPCC clearly states their intent and purpose is to find this stuff when they were established in 87 (or so) If you doubt this, look at their damn website, It isn't some secrete or anything. At least it wasn't 3 weeks ago."
I ask for a quote and a link and after a bit of procrastination you produce the obvious, I have cut and paste the full text at the bottom of this post because I'm still looking to find where it says it's "not interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios". To all but an illiterate ludite, the text "clearly states" they intend to use scientific rigour investigating the risk of a theorised threat coming to fruition, as can be seen from studying their reports they have done an excellent job of living up to that intended rigour for the past 20yrs. Over that 20yrs they have found the answers to the basic questions and are now in the process of quantifying the risk and examining ways to mitigate it.
"BTW, how are you goign to find the time necessary to reply to all of non believers?"
I'm not an "all or nothing" kinda guy, I may even get bored of you but I wouldn't bet on it.
"Once again some story comes along saying some insane notion like the sun might be behind the warming or some of it. You have you work cut out for you. Doo you think anyone peer reviewed the sun?"
Yes I do think the IPCC's assertions about the sun have been peer reviewed. Once again I will tell you that established science says the sun is only resposnsible for a small amount of the observed warming even when you take into account the wide margin of error. Once again I agree the sun is responsible for "some of it". Once again the IPCC agrees the sun is responsible for "some of it". Once again I refer you to your own IPCC link to find the attribution graph displayed as figure spm-2 of the 2007 SPM.
The once again game is boring, let's move on.... Riddle me this batman: If sunspots are a significant cause of warming in the earth's climate, why don't global tempratures fluxuate in harmony with the well known 11yr sunspot cycle? If not sunspots but the cosmic rays they produce that are responsible for the temprature trend then why has no discernable trend in cosmic rays been found despite several decades of carefull observations and research?
Text from the link, my emphasis: Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
General information about the IPCC, its membership, procedures and ongoing activities is provided in the official languages of the UN in the following fact sheets:
"Let me rephrase something. I haven't found on peer reviewed article on the topic that is any more convincing then the other ideas being presented."
I neither like nor dislike you personally but I belive the world would be a better place if more people understood the philosophy and methodology of science and how "established science" is fundementaly more reliable than opinions and ideas. Even though I have been hurling abuse in your general direction lately I want you to know I don't have any sort of vendetta against you. What I am trying to convey comes from my scientific qualifications and the general cynacisim of a middle-age geek, as I have suggested before these ideas are encapsulated with much more elequoence in Sagan's book, "Demon haunted world".
Peer-review: Something that is "peer-reviewed" and published by a recognised jounal has been "tested", opinions and ideas are just that and are often written to support one side of an argument. Peer-reviewed does not mean "it can't be wrong or questioned", it simply means that similarly qualified and published scientists could not convincingly shoot down the articles assertion(s) at the time of publication.
Scientifically rigourous reports such as those from the IPCC do not use any published paper that is less that a year or two old. The reason is because the next step up the ladder of scientific credibility is positive citations and independent peer-reviewed replication, the opposite of that results in a downgrading of credibility. Both the up and down processes take time, for instance: the basic physical theory that asserts CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas" has withstood over a century of such scrutiny.
Perhaps (as you say somewhere else) I did at one time post an RC story about a five year old paper (hockey stick maybe?), but as I have explained above age is not in itself a good thing, but it is a basic requirement of "established science".
Peer-review is a measure of scientific credibility, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method, ideas and opinions are the raw materials. Skepticisim and the scientific method are skills you learn and must continually refine, put another way science is formalised common-sense. From my point of view everyone should be taught these basic skills alongside the grab bag of random factoids that so often masqurades as a high school science class.
Hi sumdumbass, I was wondering when the grand-poobah of the anti-science fundie's would turn up. As I have said recently, you're a master of irony and you haven't disappointed me with your post. And as another poster has already pointed out Chirac is a right wing politician. At least you haven't told any fibs this time, in fact your foot shooting post is quite humourous.
As for the creepy 1984 factor: Did you ever stop to think that the "global economy" is already subject to "global governance" or are you suffering from the delusion that international trade is based on trust alone?
Back to France: It's also interesting to note that ~70% of France's electricity comes from reactors, so it's kinda obvious they will be "winners" in the "inevetible 2012 treaty to curb emmissions"(Paraphrasing the Australian PM who is the last ally in the US administration's so far successfull attempts to kill any talk of negotiated reductions).
By a twist of fate France has low emmissions through a highly subsidized and often critisized industry. Some people would argue that the reactors are a "worse danger", but the scientific evidence and the track record of the reactors says otherwise. However if France sees it's reactors as a viable solution for more than the next few decades I think they will be in for a surprise.
You can rant and rave about "environmentalists" all you like (my disdain for political stereotypes is expressed in my sig), the fact is that nobody with any noticable political clout wants to "tear down civilization" (although some regularly blow various parts of it up). Both the US and Australia are large geographically diverse countries that could (according to DOE and CSIRO) switch to generating ALL their electricity from wind-power and existing hydro.
Nobody is suggesting that we do it all today, but over the next 40yrs, (the lifetime of a coal powered plant), barring any technolgical or economic "breakthroughs" it makes eminent sense from all sorts of angles to direct our energy infrastructure toward a large number windmills dotting farmland and ridges across both continents. Windmills are even compatible with national parks, with access tracks doubling as firebreaks but that would mean killing a "sacred cow", I myself would balk at putting one atop Ayers Rock.
A couple of questions for you to mull over:
Why do you have an irrational fear of a likely boost in economic activity that has more than one socially positive direction and little if any foreseable negative directions?
Coal is responsible for the majority of the worlds atmospheric pollution and as we all know the projected growth figures in places such as China and India are staggering. But regardless of whether you see yourself as a comrade or a consumer, none of us are buying coal for it's own sake, we are buying useable energy as electricity and/or heat. Why is the coal industry such a sacred cow in the "free market" of energy supply? Aren't "sacred cow industries" the preserve of "socialists" and "bleeding hearts"? As a trivial example of what I mean, a national standard for "net metering" is a fairly simple regulatory step that could be sensibly enacted relatively quickly, if not for said "sacred cow".
Oh please, Lindzen is a well known shill, he holds his position because of his ability to attract industry funding, he has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper in the last 20yrs. He is however a regular contributor to the opinion pages of the WSJ even though what he says is contantly contradicted by the news section of the same paper.
I have no problem with you expressing your myopic political fantasy, but I do object to your pseudo-skepticisim, misinformation and attempts to pass off the pontifications of politcal hacks as credible science.
"By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true?"
The fact that I never claimed I could is probably as meaningless to you as any other fact that does not fit your dogma. I'm not saying that logic has anything to do with your rant, but it would seem a tad nonsensical to ask someone to point to a doomsday prediction that has already come to pass.
I belive the GP was looking for a scientific rebuttal, a poltical rant is not a substitute for science. Sticking your fingers in your ears whilst cutting and pasting anti-science drivel will only result in your fingertips meeting in the middle.
"My rebuttal: When we stop questioning science, stop questioning what we know about the world, science ceases to exist."
That's not a rebuttal it's mom and apple pie, anybody who knows the first thing about the scientific method and the role of skepticisim within that method will agree. There is only one way to rebutt established science, publish a better answer, rehashing the basic philosophy of science is not a "better answer".
The real issue here is what advise should we act apon while waiting for the ultimate "truth" that science itself says does not exist? Should we use science to provide an "educated guess" on which to base our actions, throw darts at random courses of action and hope for the best, reinstate the dark ages by doing nothing at all?
The ancient Greek model of the heavens was clearly "incorrect" but it did not stop them from producing accurate astronomical calenders for over 1500yrs. Simarly climate models may be "incorrect" but they have demonstrated they can predict the climate.
"By the way, I'm a proud Libertarian"
Good for you, personally I don't like to label myself, refer to my sig for more info.
Yep, that's what TFA article says (near the end off course). The big problem for the humans_are_innocent_cosmic_rays_did_it crowd is that, regardless of what sunspots are doing, there has been no discernable trend in the amount of cosmic rays over the last two decades.
First you complain I don't look at your links, then you can't come up with one that supports your claim.
"I don't link to peer reviewed articles in the first place."
As I said you don't understand skepticisim and science, you can't point to any peer-reviewed science to support your claims because it does not exist. Most if not all of the peer-reviewed papers and the data they rely apon is available to the public if you are willing to get off you soapbox and look at it.
Passing off your misinformation as science is lying, you know it is, I know it is, so why not just fess-up or shutup?
"People have raised valid questions and you answer is to submit it for peer review."
Yes, unlike you I am not an expert on everything in the Universe.
"First, anything coming from the IPCC is going to show humans have some involvement. That is why they were created. With the specific purpose of finding that man has screwed up the world."
"Once we were warriors" is an excellent example of realistic domestic violence. Like the beach landing in Private Ryan, it's hard to watch without flinching.
So by definition your view is subjective, science (as you constantly point out) is objective.
"But it doesn't seem that anything I link to or post will matter to you."
Ok how about a link to one of your more ludicrous claims, such as:
"The IPCC and real climate isn't interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios. The IPCC clearly states their intent and purpose is to find this stuff when they were established in 87 (or so) If you doubt this, look at their damn website, It isn't some secrete or anything. At least it wasn't 3 weeks ago.".
Other than that if you can't be bothered linking to peer-revied sources on matters of science, I can be bothered to do any research for you. We have already been down that path and it failed miserably because of your incesant contradictions and insults. Your arrogance toward the scientific method is simply mind boggling, trully worthy of the worst of the talking heads on FOX. You have a right to your anti-science propoganda and I have a right (if not a duty) to object.
"You are convinced that the good book you keep in the dresser draw is right and nobody can make you think otherwise."
You are a master of irony when attacking effergies of yourself, but adding more straw to an already burning strawman won't help you.:)
Seems everything is about "appearance" to you, maybe that is why you constantly link to politcal sites that do not have any credible scientific support, perhaps they give your foregone conclusions that self-satisfying "air of authority".
There you go that's a strawman, they are created so as to be picked apart, in this example it's quite a difficult task.
"But as you said "peer reviewed" There are places on those sites to discuss the stuff they write."
Bzzzzt, I said peer-reviewed, look it up if you don't understand the term.
I have already looked at "both sides", so has the scientific community and we have ALL found your arguments wanting. As you have demonstrated on countless occasions over the last couple of years you are not interested in science so I don't see any reason why I should rebutt the same tierd old arguments ad-nauseum.
"You came in search of my post, I didn't goto you."
Yep I came looking for you because you are the best example of an anti-science fundemantalists that can be found in any climate related article on slashdot. You might as well get used to me if you want to keep deliberately posting misinformation whilst pretending you have an enquiring mind and have "researched" the subject.
The fact is, you don't understand the concept of skepticisim and you don't know how to handle it when someone uses your own rhetoric against you. If you want to discuss any of the grey areas that do exists in our understanding of climate I am "all ears" but until you do it's much more fun to point out your lies and watch you go apeshit when you can't defend the indefensible.
When the people in your links start producing peer-reviewed papers you might have a point. But they don't and they can't because they are politcal hacks that belive that science has nothing to do with winning a debate. You pontificate to others about the role of skeptcisim in science yet you offer up industry propoganda that has been debunked by scientific skepticisim time and time again. Why don't you talk about "holes" in that really do exist such as: the "missing methane" in the models predictions, or the models resolution, or our poor understanding of how ice sheets collapse? Skepticisim is more than just shouting bullshit, skepticisim means questioning your own ideas first and then letting others have a go, precisely what has been done on a global scale by the IPCC for the best part of two decades.
You and your whacko links offer nothing but bald assertions and lies. You don't seem to have the intellect to learn how skeptcisim works, so you look for "prophets" that don't need to bother with the scientific method, save to pick out some star trek language to confuse people such as yourself.
Maybe you are genuinely stupid enough to still be the victim of somebody else's lies after a couple of years of trolling on slashdot, but I doubt it. I think your problem is deeper - when you attack scientists as "religious" in your anti-science rants, you are really attacking your own behaviour that you have projected onto them. Why you behave that way in the first place - "god only knows".
Now you have me confused with someone else, I have never quoted "the good book" to you, nor have I disclosed anything about my faith or lack of it in our "discussion". I have no idea what article you are talking about, I am simply picking out your lies when I come across them.
"But imagine if some government in the 19th century had laid out a "100 year technological plan".
Opening up the west with the "iron horse" would probably fit that category, sure trucks, planes and spaceships came along but the US still has plenty of trains.
With all due respect you are thinking small. There are plenty of instances where infrastructure and buildings are planned on century time scales, the dykes of Holland, the lochs in the Suez cannal, the renovations of countless monuments and historical buildings such as the leaning tower, then there's dams, sea walls, sewers, levies, mines, bridges, (responsible) forest management, ect.
It's true you can't plan for everything or even a significant portion of everything, but you can set a "direction". Sadly many people don't want to fart unless every contingency has been thought through and don't seem to recognise that plans contantly change.
To put it another way. Do you play chess by pre-planning the entire game, do you just react to your opponents last move, or do you have several plans and contingencies all playing their part in an overall strategy of defense and attack? Does your plan change if you are blocked and see a new opportunity, if so does your long term goal change?
Yep, it me again here to point out some of the lies you have been pushing on slashdot for the past couple of years...
Lie #1 - "Realclimate is untrustworthy".
Reality: RC is run by climatologists, many have contributed or peer-reviewed the IPCC reports, the founder is M.Mann (the hockey stick guy).
Lie #2 - "NASA doubts the findings of the IPCC".
Reality: James Hansen, is a world renowned climatologist and also the guy in charge of putting up the "unreliable sattelites", he has warned we may only have 10yrs to turn things around.
Lie #3 - "The sun did it".
Reality: Ah, one of your favorites, I will repeat the reference: Figure SPM-2, 2007 IPCC SPM.
Lie #4 - "30% adjustment to climate models".
Reality: I am glad to see you are still inventing some of your own fantasy, I suppose you threw this in to cast doubt on the models. You are simply demonstrating to the world that you are incapable of comprehending Finite Element Analysis.
Lie #5 - "The problem is the demonetization of anyone who disagrees."
No, "the problem" is people like yourself, you try to paint yourself as a critical thinker and a skeptic. You are neither, you lie and look for the answer that you want. You pay lip service to science and skepticisim and go to extrodinary lengths to twist the real world to fit your dogma, you then promptly project this behaviour onto others. In short you are an anti-science fanatic and a habitual liar.
Slashdot Mirror
For a start the trend did not fall, the end point did. (hint: a trend is not a straight line between two endpoints selected to confuse the unwary). The rest of that link is chock full of similar distortions designed to send the message that AGW is a GoodThing(TM) because plants will grow and make for a "lush planet" when in reality the likely outcome is goats and saltbush. Temprature predictions from models have followed the extrapolation of the 1983(?) "hockey stick" and have succesfully predicted the temprature trend for the last twenty odd years.
Predictictive capacity of FEA based climate models: For a "good" example of prediction look up the term "polar amplification", for a "bad" example look up "missing methane". The FEA model itself is used in everything from selecting the right cast for an engine block to planning the convoluted trajectories of spaceships. FEA like any other model is far from perfect and thus the need for retro-rockets on even the most accurate of spaceships and the equally important need for better resolution in climate models.
"But then, I'm only an engineer; we're more concerned with what we see than what we want to prove."
Some of what I "see" beyond the twisted math and dodgy graphs: The artic ice cap has lost 60% of it's volume in the last 50yrs, glaciers (that provide water for over a billion people) are shrinking at an increasing rapid rate, spring is two weeks early in the northern hemisphere, my part of the world is suffering extended drought and permenant water rationing due to changing storm tracks, entire fisheries have been collapsing since the 80's, the temprature trend keeps going up and psuedo-skeptsicim is everywhere I look.
"What link? The IPCC. IPCC.ch, You mean you have been arguing in favor of them all this time and never been to their site? click on the about tab and read."
No sorry, you can't wiggle out of it that easy, you complained about me not re-reading the misinformation in your links and made the following claim...
"The IPCC and real climate isn't interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios. The IPCC clearly states their intent and purpose is to find this stuff when they were established in 87 (or so) If you doubt this, look at their damn website, It isn't some secrete or anything. At least it wasn't 3 weeks ago."
I ask for a quote and a link and after a bit of procrastination you produce the obvious, I have cut and paste the full text at the bottom of this post because I'm still looking to find where it says it's "not interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios". To all but an illiterate ludite, the text "clearly states" they intend to use scientific rigour investigating the risk of a theorised threat coming to fruition, as can be seen from studying their reports they have done an excellent job of living up to that intended rigour for the past 20yrs. Over that 20yrs they have found the answers to the basic questions and are now in the process of quantifying the risk and examining ways to mitigate it.
"BTW, how are you goign to find the time necessary to reply to all of non believers?"
I'm not an "all or nothing" kinda guy, I may even get bored of you but I wouldn't bet on it.
"Once again some story comes along saying some insane notion like the sun might be behind the warming or some of it. You have you work cut out for you. Doo you think anyone peer reviewed the sun?"
Yes I do think the IPCC's assertions about the sun have been peer reviewed. Once again I will tell you that established science says the sun is only resposnsible for a small amount of the observed warming even when you take into account the wide margin of error. Once again I agree the sun is responsible for "some of it". Once again the IPCC agrees the sun is responsible for "some of it". Once again I refer you to your own IPCC link to find the attribution graph displayed as figure spm-2 of the 2007 SPM.
The once again game is boring, let's move on.... Riddle me this batman: If sunspots are a significant cause of warming in the earth's climate, why don't global tempratures fluxuate in harmony with the well known 11yr sunspot cycle? If not sunspots but the cosmic rays they produce that are responsible for the temprature trend then why has no discernable trend in cosmic rays been found despite several decades of carefull observations and research?
Text from the link, my emphasis: Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
General information about the IPCC, its membership, procedures and ongoing activities is provided in the official languages of the UN in the following fact sheets:
"Let me rephrase something. I haven't found on peer reviewed article on the topic that is any more convincing then the other ideas being presented."
I neither like nor dislike you personally but I belive the world would be a better place if more people understood the philosophy and methodology of science and how "established science" is fundementaly more reliable than opinions and ideas. Even though I have been hurling abuse in your general direction lately I want you to know I don't have any sort of vendetta against you. What I am trying to convey comes from my scientific qualifications and the general cynacisim of a middle-age geek, as I have suggested before these ideas are encapsulated with much more elequoence in Sagan's book, "Demon haunted world".
Peer-review: Something that is "peer-reviewed" and published by a recognised jounal has been "tested", opinions and ideas are just that and are often written to support one side of an argument. Peer-reviewed does not mean "it can't be wrong or questioned", it simply means that similarly qualified and published scientists could not convincingly shoot down the articles assertion(s) at the time of publication.
Scientifically rigourous reports such as those from the IPCC do not use any published paper that is less that a year or two old. The reason is because the next step up the ladder of scientific credibility is positive citations and independent peer-reviewed replication, the opposite of that results in a downgrading of credibility. Both the up and down processes take time, for instance: the basic physical theory that asserts CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas" has withstood over a century of such scrutiny.
Perhaps (as you say somewhere else) I did at one time post an RC story about a five year old paper (hockey stick maybe?), but as I have explained above age is not in itself a good thing, but it is a basic requirement of "established science".
Peer-review is a measure of scientific credibility, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method, ideas and opinions are the raw materials. Skepticisim and the scientific method are skills you learn and must continually refine, put another way science is formalised common-sense. From my point of view everyone should be taught these basic skills alongside the grab bag of random factoids that so often masqurades as a high school science class.
"And I think you better go take a look at their site."
Still having trouble finding the link, huh?
Hi sumdumbass, I was wondering when the grand-poobah of the anti-science fundie's would turn up. As I have said recently, you're a master of irony and you haven't disappointed me with your post. And as another poster has already pointed out Chirac is a right wing politician. At least you haven't told any fibs this time, in fact your foot shooting post is quite humourous.
As for the creepy 1984 factor: Did you ever stop to think that the "global economy" is already subject to "global governance" or are you suffering from the delusion that international trade is based on trust alone?
Back to France: It's also interesting to note that ~70% of France's electricity comes from reactors, so it's kinda obvious they will be "winners" in the "inevetible 2012 treaty to curb emmissions"(Paraphrasing the Australian PM who is the last ally in the US administration's so far successfull attempts to kill any talk of negotiated reductions).
By a twist of fate France has low emmissions through a highly subsidized and often critisized industry. Some people would argue that the reactors are a "worse danger", but the scientific evidence and the track record of the reactors says otherwise. However if France sees it's reactors as a viable solution for more than the next few decades I think they will be in for a surprise.
You can rant and rave about "environmentalists" all you like (my disdain for political stereotypes is expressed in my sig), the fact is that nobody with any noticable political clout wants to "tear down civilization" (although some regularly blow various parts of it up). Both the US and Australia are large geographically diverse countries that could (according to DOE and CSIRO) switch to generating ALL their electricity from wind-power and existing hydro.
Nobody is suggesting that we do it all today, but over the next 40yrs, (the lifetime of a coal powered plant), barring any technolgical or economic "breakthroughs" it makes eminent sense from all sorts of angles to direct our energy infrastructure toward a large number windmills dotting farmland and ridges across both continents. Windmills are even compatible with national parks, with access tracks doubling as firebreaks but that would mean killing a "sacred cow", I myself would balk at putting one atop Ayers Rock.
A couple of questions for you to mull over:
Why do you have an irrational fear of a likely boost in economic activity that has more than one socially positive direction and little if any foreseable negative directions?
Coal is responsible for the majority of the worlds atmospheric pollution and as we all know the projected growth figures in places such as China and India are staggering. But regardless of whether you see yourself as a comrade or a consumer, none of us are buying coal for it's own sake, we are buying useable energy as electricity and/or heat. Why is the coal industry such a sacred cow in the "free market" of energy supply? Aren't "sacred cow industries" the preserve of "socialists" and "bleeding hearts"? As a trivial example of what I mean, a national standard for "net metering" is a fairly simple regulatory step that could be sensibly enacted relatively quickly, if not for said "sacred cow".
Oh please, Lindzen is a well known shill, he holds his position because of his ability to attract industry funding, he has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper in the last 20yrs. He is however a regular contributor to the opinion pages of the WSJ even though what he says is contantly contradicted by the news section of the same paper.
I have no problem with you expressing your myopic political fantasy, but I do object to your pseudo-skepticisim, misinformation and attempts to pass off the pontifications of politcal hacks as credible science.
"By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true?"
The fact that I never claimed I could is probably as meaningless to you as any other fact that does not fit your dogma. I'm not saying that logic has anything to do with your rant, but it would seem a tad nonsensical to ask someone to point to a doomsday prediction that has already come to pass.
I belive the GP was looking for a scientific rebuttal, a poltical rant is not a substitute for science. Sticking your fingers in your ears whilst cutting and pasting anti-science drivel will only result in your fingertips meeting in the middle.
"My rebuttal: When we stop questioning science, stop questioning what we know about the world, science ceases to exist."
That's not a rebuttal it's mom and apple pie, anybody who knows the first thing about the scientific method and the role of skepticisim within that method will agree. There is only one way to rebutt established science, publish a better answer, rehashing the basic philosophy of science is not a "better answer".
The real issue here is what advise should we act apon while waiting for the ultimate "truth" that science itself says does not exist? Should we use science to provide an "educated guess" on which to base our actions, throw darts at random courses of action and hope for the best, reinstate the dark ages by doing nothing at all?
The ancient Greek model of the heavens was clearly "incorrect" but it did not stop them from producing accurate astronomical calenders for over 1500yrs. Simarly climate models may be "incorrect" but they have demonstrated they can predict the climate.
"By the way, I'm a proud Libertarian"
Good for you, personally I don't like to label myself, refer to my sig for more info.
Yep, that's what TFA article says (near the end off course). The big problem for the humans_are_innocent_cosmic_rays_did_it crowd is that, regardless of what sunspots are doing, there has been no discernable trend in the amount of cosmic rays over the last two decades.
First you complain I don't look at your links, then you can't come up with one that supports your claim.
"I don't link to peer reviewed articles in the first place."
As I said you don't understand skepticisim and science, you can't point to any peer-reviewed science to support your claims because it does not exist. Most if not all of the peer-reviewed papers and the data they rely apon is available to the public if you are willing to get off you soapbox and look at it.
Passing off your misinformation as science is lying, you know it is, I know it is, so why not just fess-up or shutup?
"People have raised valid questions and you answer is to submit it for peer review."
Yes, unlike you I am not an expert on everything in the Universe.
"First, anything coming from the IPCC is going to show humans have some involvement. That is why they were created. With the specific purpose of finding that man has screwed up the world."
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
"Once we were warriors" is an excellent example of realistic domestic violence. Like the beach landing in Private Ryan, it's hard to watch without flinching.
"LOL OF course it is about appearances."
:)
So by definition your view is subjective, science (as you constantly point out) is objective.
"But it doesn't seem that anything I link to or post will matter to you."
Ok how about a link to one of your more ludicrous claims, such as:
"The IPCC and real climate isn't interested in anything other then Human caused scenarios. The IPCC clearly states their intent and purpose is to find this stuff when they were established in 87 (or so) If you doubt this, look at their damn website, It isn't some secrete or anything. At least it wasn't 3 weeks ago.".
Other than that if you can't be bothered linking to peer-revied sources on matters of science, I can be bothered to do any research for you. We have already been down that path and it failed miserably because of your incesant contradictions and insults. Your arrogance toward the scientific method is simply mind boggling, trully worthy of the worst of the talking heads on FOX. You have a right to your anti-science propoganda and I have a right (if not a duty) to object.
"You are convinced that the good book you keep in the dresser draw is right and nobody can make you think otherwise."
You are a master of irony when attacking effergies of yourself, but adding more straw to an already burning strawman won't help you.
Seems everything is about "appearance" to you, maybe that is why you constantly link to politcal sites that do not have any credible scientific support, perhaps they give your foregone conclusions that self-satisfying "air of authority".
There you go that's a strawman, they are created so as to be picked apart, in this example it's quite a difficult task.
"But as you said "peer reviewed" There are places on those sites to discuss the stuff they write."
Bzzzzt, I said peer-reviewed, look it up if you don't understand the term.
I have already looked at "both sides", so has the scientific community and we have ALL found your arguments wanting. As you have demonstrated on countless occasions over the last couple of years you are not interested in science so I don't see any reason why I should rebutt the same tierd old arguments ad-nauseum.
"You came in search of my post, I didn't goto you."
Yep I came looking for you because you are the best example of an anti-science fundemantalists that can be found in any climate related article on slashdot. You might as well get used to me if you want to keep deliberately posting misinformation whilst pretending you have an enquiring mind and have "researched" the subject.
The fact is, you don't understand the concept of skepticisim and you don't know how to handle it when someone uses your own rhetoric against you. If you want to discuss any of the grey areas that do exists in our understanding of climate I am "all ears" but until you do it's much more fun to point out your lies and watch you go apeshit when you can't defend the indefensible.
When the people in your links start producing peer-reviewed papers you might have a point. But they don't and they can't because they are politcal hacks that belive that science has nothing to do with winning a debate. You pontificate to others about the role of skeptcisim in science yet you offer up industry propoganda that has been debunked by scientific skepticisim time and time again. Why don't you talk about "holes" in that really do exist such as: the "missing methane" in the models predictions, or the models resolution, or our poor understanding of how ice sheets collapse? Skepticisim is more than just shouting bullshit, skepticisim means questioning your own ideas first and then letting others have a go, precisely what has been done on a global scale by the IPCC for the best part of two decades.
You and your whacko links offer nothing but bald assertions and lies. You don't seem to have the intellect to learn how skeptcisim works, so you look for "prophets" that don't need to bother with the scientific method, save to pick out some star trek language to confuse people such as yourself.
Maybe you are genuinely stupid enough to still be the victim of somebody else's lies after a couple of years of trolling on slashdot, but I doubt it. I think your problem is deeper - when you attack scientists as "religious" in your anti-science rants, you are really attacking your own behaviour that you have projected onto them. Why you behave that way in the first place - "god only knows".
Mighty big strawman you have there, did daddy beat you with a bible when you were little?
"This makes be an evil liar who is stupid now."
Yes, like I said, your a wanker and habitual liar who deliberately takes things out of context as I have done here. Define "evil"?
BTW: Interested readers can check your "facts" for themselves and I encourage them to do so.
Now you have me confused with someone else, I have never quoted "the good book" to you, nor have I disclosed anything about my faith or lack of it in our "discussion". I have no idea what article you are talking about, I am simply picking out your lies when I come across them.
"But imagine if some government in the 19th century had laid out a "100 year technological plan".
Opening up the west with the "iron horse" would probably fit that category, sure trucks, planes and spaceships came along but the US still has plenty of trains.
With all due respect you are thinking small. There are plenty of instances where infrastructure and buildings are planned on century time scales, the dykes of Holland, the lochs in the Suez cannal, the renovations of countless monuments and historical buildings such as the leaning tower, then there's dams, sea walls, sewers, levies, mines, bridges, (responsible) forest management, ect.
It's true you can't plan for everything or even a significant portion of everything, but you can set a "direction". Sadly many people don't want to fart unless every contingency has been thought through and don't seem to recognise that plans contantly change.
To put it another way. Do you play chess by pre-planning the entire game, do you just react to your opponents last move, or do you have several plans and contingencies all playing their part in an overall strategy of defense and attack? Does your plan change if you are blocked and see a new opportunity, if so does your long term goal change?
C'mon, even Newton used an apple. :)
Yep, it me again here to point out some of the lies you have been pushing on slashdot for the past couple of years...
Lie #1 - "Realclimate is untrustworthy".
Reality: RC is run by climatologists, many have contributed or peer-reviewed the IPCC reports, the founder is M.Mann (the hockey stick guy).
Lie #2 - "NASA doubts the findings of the IPCC".
Reality: James Hansen, is a world renowned climatologist and also the guy in charge of putting up the "unreliable sattelites", he has warned we may only have 10yrs to turn things around.
Lie #3 - "The sun did it".
Reality: Ah, one of your favorites, I will repeat the reference: Figure SPM-2, 2007 IPCC SPM.
Lie #4 - "30% adjustment to climate models".
Reality: I am glad to see you are still inventing some of your own fantasy, I suppose you threw this in to cast doubt on the models. You are simply demonstrating to the world that you are incapable of comprehending Finite Element Analysis.
Lie #5 - "The problem is the demonetization of anyone who disagrees."
No, "the problem" is people like yourself, you try to paint yourself as a critical thinker and a skeptic. You are neither, you lie and look for the answer that you want. You pay lip service to science and skepticisim and go to extrodinary lengths to twist the real world to fit your dogma, you then promptly project this behaviour onto others. In short you are an anti-science fanatic and a habitual liar.
I have tried talking common sense and science with you on many occasions, experience tells me your a wanker and your post confims you still are.
We have all been reading your lies for years, do everyone a favour and get a frontal lobe installed.
Probably burst into flames after a week.