If we lose the Earth than Mars will not sustain the human race. It is too small, and too cold, and most crucially, it's gravity is such that we coudl nnver return to earth even when it recovers, if it is struck by something nasty (which is relatively unlikely). And there is no step beyond Mars, there is no where else - otherwise the advocates of this grand plan would have told us where that is. So our choices are, to invest massively in sustaining a Mars Colony and if the earth is destroyed first (statistically unlikely) then the mars colony can eke a few more years, sad and frustrated underground in an airless and dead planet, unable to return to earth, a pitiful starved remnant with no hope or future.
Or we can recognise that all species have a shelf life, and embrace our destiny. If the chips fall against us, we should go out in style, not cower away from it.
It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible.
Actually, in those circumstances, the Earth is still by far the most liveable place in the solar system, even in the days immediately following the strike. So the best strategy, in the event of an impending strike, is to stay here.
New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.
Paid for by what? Are the architects of this plan hoping that the general population will feel some responsibility to keep them alive, at our own cost, once the advertising money dries up? Let me tell you:
1. This is not a universally interesting product, and even those who are interested aren't really interested in the minutae and routine drudgery of life in a spaceship or hollowed out hole in the ground on Mars. People lose interest quickly.
2.We move quickly to justify inhumane choices: if they send the bill to us, it won't be long before nasty choices will be contemplated, along with: (a) Televised, personal appeals from colonists to send supplies so that they can live (b) Open efforts to shut down communication so they die out of the public eye. (c) A general, if unspoken, feeling that they should not be resupplied.
This plan will set back efforts to colonise Mars by a hundred years.
Yes - well for definitions of EVERYTHING which includes virtually nothing at all. For the common definition of everything (that is, every use case we can think of) machines are better:
1. Machines are better at loitering in orbit and performing occasional or frequent routine tasks, as evidenced by the number of satellites that do that
2. Machines are better at going to other planets or satellites, observing and sampling them, as evidenced by the fact that they regularly do that, and humans don't.
3. Machines are better at going great distances to see what's there. As evidence by the fact that at this point in time, a machine is leaving the solar system, and humans are dicking around in LEO.
The fact of the matter is, machines are our genius. Machines are what set us apart. An ape or raven might grasp a rock and use it to break open a shell. We can make microprocessors and draglines, air conditioners, blast furnaces, LASERS, a dizzying, seemingly never ending array of machines to do what our physical bodies, dextrous though they be, cannot. A leopard can run faster than the swiftest human - but a machine that we build can carry a baby to speeds undreamt of by the leopard. A gorilla is stronger than the strongest man - but a simple machine allows a child to lift a weight that would defeat the gorilla. There is NO need for us to be ashamed of the fact that machines act on our behalf in space or on other planetary bodies. If we ever go to another planet, we will get there thanks to the machines that busily protect us, enclosing, warming and feeding us. And by the time we do that, the machines we build will be capable of yet greater feats, unburdened by the need to nurture us.
This is not something we should be afraid of. Sure, the future didn't turn out the way that Star Trek imagined it in the 60's. But so what? Who's to say that this is not better?
The problem is, the examples you quote are not examples of being risk averse, but poor risk management:
1. Not actually calculating the risk objectively - people who are afraid of terrorism and climate denialists fall into this category, as does being afraid of flying but not driving.
2. Poor projection of the risk versus reward. You can take greater risks if the reward is greater.
The second is where the 'canned ape' strategy of space exploration falls down. The proposed mission for instance, has 2 potential outcomes:
1. The risk is realised, and the mission fails, the crew dies. Result: we've gained nothing and lost our investment.
2. The risk is not realised, the crew dies on the surface of Europa. Result: exactly the same: we've gained nothing, and lost our investment.
From a risk-reward perspective, this proposal makes no sense, because success is exactly like failure.
I have not arrived at any conclusion of that sort. I was simply saying that the [secondary feedback] predictions of climate scientists are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.
So in fact, climate change is real and happening at a rate that compels us to act to prevent further harm if we can.
No, it means that the predictions "are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible".
Yet, on current evidence, you cannot actually describe any part of the science that is "based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.". You said that this statement applied to calculations of secondary feedback, but you (apparently) cannot tell us which, if any, secondary feedback suffers from being "based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.", what those assumptions/unknowns are, and why these calculations would not be testable or reproducible.
Do you have information at all?
(a) Why have they consistently been accurate?
That's a misrepresentation of the results.
In what way?
(b) Which feedback mechanism, precisely, is doubt? Clathrates? Water vapor? Oceanic CO2 concentration?
I didn't say they were "in doubt" (as in people are suggesting that they are wrong), I said they "are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible".
An assertion which is itself, not testable or reproducible. Apparently.
(c) Why is there a recorded history of scientists applying science to the calculation of feedback rates? When did this stop?
Merely "applying science" doesn't make something true reliable. You can "apply science" to make predictions from little data, and you will reach a valid conclusion, but not necessarily a sound one.
SO the calculation of feedback rates are based on science? Good enough for me.
My point is that precisely - were we to ignore the net positive feedback, we would be left with dangerous levels of warming from GHG forcing alone.
No, I'm merely saying I believe it to have gotten warmer so far and that it will be getting warmer. It's not been shown to be "dangerous", and many of the so-called dangerous consequences aren't very dangerous in the first place.
So climate feedbacks (in your mind) are an unknown? How then did you arrive at such a precise of climate feedbacks such that you can confidently assert that feedbacks are (a) a net negative and (b) sustainable in the longer term?
I have not arrived at any conclusion of that sort. I was simply saying that the [secondary feedback] predictions of climate scientists are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.
So in fact, climate change is real and happening at a rate that compels us to act to prevent further harm if we can. At least we understand each other now.
Also if, as you say, secondary feedback predictions and observations of climate science don't follow the standard scientific method for making predictions:
(a) Why have they consistently been accurate?
(b) Which feedback mechanism, precisely, is doubt? Clathrates? Water vapor? Oceanic CO2 concentration?
(c) Why is there a recorded history of scientists applying science to the calculation of feedback rates? When did this stop? 1902? 1952? 1980? Or alternatively, has this history been somehow faked - and if so, who is responsible for maintaining this interdecadal/intercentury long fraud?
Indeed. And the denialist prediction of no net warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions implies a precise measure of feedback
Lucky then that I'm not a denialist. I think there will be (and has been) warming due to anthropogenic emissions. What's your point again?
My point is that precisely - were we to ignore the net positive feedback, we would be left with dangerous levels of warming from GHG forcing alone.
So climate feedbacks (in your mind) are an unknown? How then did you arrive at such a precise of climate feedbacks such that you can confidently assert that feedbacks are (a) a net negative and (b) sustainable in the longer term?
Please be specific and show working.
Tyndall and Arrhenius just measured the basic greenhouse effect. That is only the trigger for global warming and by itself doesn't allow long term predictions; long term predictions involve feedback.
Indeed. And the denialist prediction of no net warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions implies a precise measure of feedback - wherein feedback entirely cancels the underlying warming trend and does so in a sustained way. Given the confidence of this prediction and the fact that you/they are publicly advocating it, it's safe to assume that either (a) you/they are in fact, talking out of your arse or (b) You/they have a solid theory, with an evidentiary basis for this theory, and you/they are on the brink of sharing it with us. Which is it?
Has Anthony Watts created any new technologies? Roger Pielke? Andrew Bolt? Monkton?
How is that relevant?
You accused climate scientists of "not creating any new technologies" (inaccurately). The equivalent to the climatologist on the other side is Watts, Pielke, Bolt and Monkton. These are the people we are being urged to trust in lieu of the scientific method.
Climate scientist say "don't use fossil fuel combustion because it's dangerous".
Once again, old technologies are replaced by new technologies all the time. What's the problem?
How independent are these observations, and what kind of observational parameters have changed from 150 years ago to today that might have some interesting consequences to what was measured, how that data was recorded, and the integrity of the data set?
Well, it's safe to assume that any persons who are skeptical of the theory of AGW have in fact, completed these observations themselves. After all, they a relatively simple observations, any moron could perform them, and no-one could make a valid claim to skepticism without a solid, observational basis for doing so. Otherwise, those people are either hypocrites, liars, or superbly gullible (and not skeptical at all). Assuming the best of these people then, it's safe to surmise that the observational basis for AGW has been tested, many thousands of times, by people who are indeed independent of the scientific establishment.
It isn't quite so independent as you would suggest, as many of these observations you are talking about have been collected by just a handful of repositories, and furthermore the data has been manipulated in many cases.... sometimes legitimately but sometimes not as well. Some through human error, but there definitely have been some observational changes as well that sometimes aren't correlated into the data. Even the instruments being used today are different than was being used 150 years ago, and certainly the accuracy of the equipment being used 150 years ago doesn't match that which is being used today.
Nonsense. If what you say is true, then the whole body of thought that is climate skepticism is a lie. Are climate skeptics liars?
None of this really requires a vast conspiracy (the ultimate of a strawman argument anyway), but it is something that is usually glossed over and ignored unless it furthers your particular viewpoint.
Well, yes it does, because it is trivial to prove that CO2 is (or is not) a greenhouse gas. Yet, repeated observations of the results of this experiment result in the conclusion that it IS a greenhouse gas. Denialists continue to say that it is not. How can this assertion match reality? The logical conclusion is that time travelling wizards from the Department Of Protecting The Lie of Climate Change whizz back and forth through time, invisibly jiggering with the experimental results. For denialism to be true, magical time travel is a baseline requirement.
still don't know how measurements of climate change can be done in fractions of a degree with the base measurements are done with margins of error sometimes as much as 5-10 degrees. Accumulations of rounding errors alone would seem to indicate that reports should have much larger margins of error on computed values. That is but one of many problems with current observations in climatology.
You don't understand the science? May you should get a grasp on the basics of the science before presuming to criticise/debunk it then.
Bullshit. I *AM* in a position to decide whether I ignore you.
Aren't you already supposed to be ignoring me? to quote you:
[you] From here out, consider yourself ignored.
[me] Your choice.
So you said you were going to ignore me, but then you didn't. Seems to me like you're a liar.
You've got this forum in which to express you view and try and convince us to your, frankly, bizzarre conspiracy ridden ravings on the origins of climate change theory. Do you think that lying will convince us?
In the sixties and seventies, the climate hucksters were selling us on a man-made ice age.
And now they are telling us that anthropogenic climate change is all a big conspiracy.
In the eighties, they told us California would be underwater by 2000. It's still there.
And now they are telling us that anthropogenic climate change is all a big conspiracy.
Maybe alot of people twist and exaggerate the evidence for their own reasons when $ billions are on the line. A $100k grant ? Just in the Obama years alone, he's handed billions of your money to oil companies and coal producers in the form of various subsidies.
Odd then, that you cannot paste an actual quote or article from the UK Bureau of Meteorology, whom you would have us believe is the source of the comments at hand.
Retracted articles aren't usually left up on the website.
Aren't they? Who authors "the rules" for publications like the Daily Mail, which are renowned for their inaccuracy, even to the point fo priding themselves on it?
Can you cite these rules for us?
Also, given your claim that there hasn't been any warming, can you explain the recent warming trend? What is causing that warming? Cite the publication in which your theory was published, and detail specifically the underlying change in forcings, and your methods of measuring those forcings, so that we might perform those observations for ourselves.
"Propose something that is demonstrably false, someone will helpfully correct you. Propose it again, perhaps no-one will bother. Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll."
Hardly. Your response is pretty laughable.
I asked an honest, stand-alone question. Period. I specifically stated that if you insist on dragging other shit into the conversation, you will be ignored.
You aren't in a position to be dictating the conditions of the conversation to others. You are, after all, trying to convince the scientific community and the public at large of a vast conspiracy stretching back 150 years and that independent observations of climate are being systematically altered by processes you can't describe for reasons you can't explain. You face something of an uphill battle, and if you had thought about this at all you would realise that a certain amount of cynicism about the likelihood of your theory is to be expected.
In other words, you should keep a civil tongue in your head.
Except that the Daily Mail had to retract that article, and you know that already. So you deliberately posted a lie.
What does it say about the strength of your theory and the strength of your organisations position that you need to promulgate lies to stay in the game?
Propose something that is demonstrably false, someone will helpfully correct you. Propose it again, perhaps no-one will bother.
Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll.
The Earth's climate has always been changing and will be changing while the planet is alive. It is uncertain whether humans have measurable influence on those changes at all;
Scientists say that the hypothesis that humans have a measurable influence on the climate is proven with P > 0.95.
What is uncertain about it?
the fact that people with clear financial interests claim so does not make it certainty.
So we only believe scientists who work for free? Better rip out all the wires in your house then. Better set your car aflame, since it is entirely a product of scientists who were remunerated for their work. But don't use petrol or any substance cracked from crude oil. Wood only.
And I hope you don't get sick, since modern medicine is entirely a product of science - from scientists who expected, and were, paid for their efforts.
ven if we suppose there is a measurable influence it is still uncertain whether the human influence is setting the current trends -- there have been warm ages in the past, too. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period.
But you know about the Medieval Warm Period because remunerated scientists told you about it. They looked at it, and similar events, and said: "This demonstrates that the climate exhibits sensitivity only possible with positive feedbacks" and you say that positive feedbacks are not possible. On the internet. The internet brought to you by the people you are urging us not to trust.
You basic argument is that climate change is not possible because the climate changes. You highlight instances in the past where the climate has changed over a short period due to small inputs, as proof that the climate could not possibly change over a short period due to small inputs.
Do you see where this has gone wrong for you? Can you provide us with any reason to accept your premise that we should abandon the basis of modernity ?
(A) It is falsifiable. All you need to do is to prove that the Moon's climate is the same as the Earths. If it is, then the notion that an atmosphere leads to a more regulated and somewhat warmer environment of the surface of a planet is bunk.
I guess you've never been to sniper school then.Is this you?
Have you been to sniper school, and now you are waiting for the day when you can just open fire? Waiting for it? Maybe, you walk through the mall, picking out the people that you plan to shoot as you walk along - maybe shoot that fatty, that guy, that guy? Do you occasionally wake in the morning, and lazily play through the scene in your head, and when you come to full awareness, realise you had been masturbating?
Situational awareness is great, but it can't possibly be 100% successful. At the extreme lets assume we train everyone in the country to exercise prudent situational awareness - all you've done is give the criminal element incentive to not clearly broadcast their intent while simultaneously curtailing the actions of honest citizens out of fear. A net loss in my book.
And yet the obvious issue escaped you. Which is that random schmoes carrying guns encourages criminals to carry guns.
And if you live in a country where the criminal element actually walk around broadcasting their intent you've got problems that carrying a gun won't solve. Get out.
Slashdot Mirror
If we lose the Earth than Mars will not sustain the human race. It is too small, and too cold, and most crucially, it's gravity is such that we coudl nnver return to earth even when it recovers, if it is struck by something nasty (which is relatively unlikely). And there is no step beyond Mars, there is no where else - otherwise the advocates of this grand plan would have told us where that is. So our choices are, to invest massively in sustaining a Mars Colony and if the earth is destroyed first (statistically unlikely) then the mars colony can eke a few more years, sad and frustrated underground in an airless and dead planet, unable to return to earth, a pitiful starved remnant with no hope or future.
Or we can recognise that all species have a shelf life, and embrace our destiny. If the chips fall against us, we should go out in style, not cower away from it.
It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible.
Actually, in those circumstances, the Earth is still by far the most liveable place in the solar system, even in the days immediately following the strike. So the best strategy, in the event of an impending strike, is to stay here.
Can you be specific about what happens to the people who remain on earth?
With no way to send additional supplies
New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.
Paid for by what? Are the architects of this plan hoping that the general population will feel some responsibility to keep them alive, at our own cost, once the advertising money dries up? Let me tell you:
1. This is not a universally interesting product, and even those who are interested aren't really interested in the minutae and routine drudgery of life in a spaceship or hollowed out hole in the ground on Mars. People lose interest quickly.
2.We move quickly to justify inhumane choices: if they send the bill to us, it won't be long before nasty choices will be contemplated, along with: (a) Televised, personal appeals from colonists to send supplies so that they can live (b) Open efforts to shut down communication so they die out of the public eye. (c) A general, if unspoken, feeling that they should not be resupplied.
This plan will set back efforts to colonise Mars by a hundred years.
Umm, I'm pretty sure we know how. The physics is well understood. There has just been no reason to do it yet.
And there is no reason to do it now.
1. Machines are better at loitering in orbit and performing occasional or frequent routine tasks, as evidenced by the number of satellites that do that
2. Machines are better at going to other planets or satellites, observing and sampling them, as evidenced by the fact that they regularly do that, and humans don't.
3. Machines are better at going great distances to see what's there. As evidence by the fact that at this point in time, a machine is leaving the solar system, and humans are dicking around in LEO.
The fact of the matter is, machines are our genius. Machines are what set us apart. An ape or raven might grasp a rock and use it to break open a shell. We can make microprocessors and draglines, air conditioners, blast furnaces, LASERS, a dizzying, seemingly never ending array of machines to do what our physical bodies, dextrous though they be, cannot. A leopard can run faster than the swiftest human - but a machine that we build can carry a baby to speeds undreamt of by the leopard. A gorilla is stronger than the strongest man - but a simple machine allows a child to lift a weight that would defeat the gorilla. There is NO need for us to be ashamed of the fact that machines act on our behalf in space or on other planetary bodies. If we ever go to another planet, we will get there thanks to the machines that busily protect us, enclosing, warming and feeding us. And by the time we do that, the machines we build will be capable of yet greater feats, unburdened by the need to nurture us.
This is not something we should be afraid of. Sure, the future didn't turn out the way that Star Trek imagined it in the 60's. But so what? Who's to say that this is not better?
1. Not actually calculating the risk objectively - people who are afraid of terrorism and climate denialists fall into this category, as does being afraid of flying but not driving.
2. Poor projection of the risk versus reward. You can take greater risks if the reward is greater.
The second is where the 'canned ape' strategy of space exploration falls down. The proposed mission for instance, has 2 potential outcomes:
1. The risk is realised, and the mission fails, the crew dies. Result: we've gained nothing and lost our investment.
2. The risk is not realised, the crew dies on the surface of Europa. Result: exactly the same: we've gained nothing, and lost our investment.
From a risk-reward perspective, this proposal makes no sense, because success is exactly like failure.
No, it means that the predictions "are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible".
Yet, on current evidence, you cannot actually describe any part of the science that is "based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.". You said that this statement applied to calculations of secondary feedback, but you (apparently) cannot tell us which, if any, secondary feedback suffers from being "based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.", what those assumptions/unknowns are, and why these calculations would not be testable or reproducible.
Do you have information at all?
That's a misrepresentation of the results.
In what way?
I didn't say they were "in doubt" (as in people are suggesting that they are wrong), I said they "are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible".
An assertion which is itself, not testable or reproducible. Apparently.
Merely "applying science" doesn't make something true reliable. You can "apply science" to make predictions from little data, and you will reach a valid conclusion, but not necessarily a sound one.
SO the calculation of feedback rates are based on science? Good enough for me.
My point is that precisely - were we to ignore the net positive feedback, we would be left with dangerous levels of warming from GHG forcing alone.
No, I'm merely saying I believe it to have gotten warmer so far and that it will be getting warmer. It's not been shown to be "dangerous", and many of the so-called dangerous consequences aren't very dangerous in the first place.
I'm not asking you. I'm telling you.
So climate feedbacks (in your mind) are an unknown? How then did you arrive at such a precise of climate feedbacks such that you can confidently assert that feedbacks are (a) a net negative and (b) sustainable in the longer term?
I have not arrived at any conclusion of that sort. I was simply saying that the [secondary feedback] predictions of climate scientists are based on many assumptions and unknowns, and are not testable or reproducible.
So in fact, climate change is real and happening at a rate that compels us to act to prevent further harm if we can. At least we understand each other now.
Also if, as you say, secondary feedback predictions and observations of climate science don't follow the standard scientific method for making predictions:
(a) Why have they consistently been accurate?
(b) Which feedback mechanism, precisely, is doubt? Clathrates? Water vapor? Oceanic CO2 concentration?
(c) Why is there a recorded history of scientists applying science to the calculation of feedback rates? When did this stop? 1902? 1952? 1980? Or alternatively, has this history been somehow faked - and if so, who is responsible for maintaining this interdecadal/intercentury long fraud?
Indeed. And the denialist prediction of no net warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions implies a precise measure of feedback
Lucky then that I'm not a denialist. I think there will be (and has been) warming due to anthropogenic emissions. What's your point again?
My point is that precisely - were we to ignore the net positive feedback, we would be left with dangerous levels of warming from GHG forcing alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback [wikipedia.org]
So climate feedbacks (in your mind) are an unknown? How then did you arrive at such a precise of climate feedbacks such that you can confidently assert that feedbacks are (a) a net negative and (b) sustainable in the longer term?
Please be specific and show working.
Tyndall and Arrhenius just measured the basic greenhouse effect. That is only the trigger for global warming and by itself doesn't allow long term predictions; long term predictions involve feedback.
Indeed. And the denialist prediction of no net warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions implies a precise measure of feedback - wherein feedback entirely cancels the underlying warming trend and does so in a sustained way. Given the confidence of this prediction and the fact that you/they are publicly advocating it, it's safe to assume that either (a) you/they are in fact, talking out of your arse or (b) You/they have a solid theory, with an evidentiary basis for this theory, and you/they are on the brink of sharing it with us. Which is it?
Has Anthony Watts created any new technologies? Roger Pielke? Andrew Bolt? Monkton?
How is that relevant?
You accused climate scientists of "not creating any new technologies" (inaccurately). The equivalent to the climatologist on the other side is Watts, Pielke, Bolt and Monkton. These are the people we are being urged to trust in lieu of the scientific method.
Climate scientist say "don't use fossil fuel combustion because it's dangerous".
Once again, old technologies are replaced by new technologies all the time. What's the problem?
How independent are these observations, and what kind of observational parameters have changed from 150 years ago to today that might have some interesting consequences to what was measured, how that data was recorded, and the integrity of the data set?
Well, it's safe to assume that any persons who are skeptical of the theory of AGW have in fact, completed these observations themselves. After all, they a relatively simple observations, any moron could perform them, and no-one could make a valid claim to skepticism without a solid, observational basis for doing so. Otherwise, those people are either hypocrites, liars, or superbly gullible (and not skeptical at all). Assuming the best of these people then, it's safe to surmise that the observational basis for AGW has been tested, many thousands of times, by people who are indeed independent of the scientific establishment.
It isn't quite so independent as you would suggest, as many of these observations you are talking about have been collected by just a handful of repositories, and furthermore the data has been manipulated in many cases.... sometimes legitimately but sometimes not as well. Some through human error, but there definitely have been some observational changes as well that sometimes aren't correlated into the data. Even the instruments being used today are different than was being used 150 years ago, and certainly the accuracy of the equipment being used 150 years ago doesn't match that which is being used today.
Nonsense. If what you say is true, then the whole body of thought that is climate skepticism is a lie. Are climate skeptics liars?
None of this really requires a vast conspiracy (the ultimate of a strawman argument anyway), but it is something that is usually glossed over and ignored unless it furthers your particular viewpoint.
Well, yes it does, because it is trivial to prove that CO2 is (or is not) a greenhouse gas. Yet, repeated observations of the results of this experiment result in the conclusion that it IS a greenhouse gas. Denialists continue to say that it is not. How can this assertion match reality? The logical conclusion is that time travelling wizards from the Department Of Protecting The Lie of Climate Change whizz back and forth through time, invisibly jiggering with the experimental results. For denialism to be true, magical time travel is a baseline requirement.
still don't know how measurements of climate change can be done in fractions of a degree with the base measurements are done with margins of error sometimes as much as 5-10 degrees. Accumulations of rounding errors alone would seem to indicate that reports should have much larger margins of error on computed values. That is but one of many problems with current observations in climatology.
You don't understand the science? May you should get a grasp on the basics of the science before presuming to criticise/debunk it then.
Bullshit. I *AM* in a position to decide whether I ignore you.
Aren't you already supposed to be ignoring me? to quote you:
[you] From here out, consider yourself ignored.
[me] Your choice.
So you said you were going to ignore me, but then you didn't. Seems to me like you're a liar.
You've got this forum in which to express you view and try and convince us to your, frankly, bizzarre conspiracy ridden ravings on the origins of climate change theory. Do you think that lying will convince us?
In the sixties and seventies, the climate hucksters were selling us on a man-made ice age.
And now they are telling us that anthropogenic climate change is all a big conspiracy.
In the eighties, they told us California would be underwater by 2000. It's still there.
And now they are telling us that anthropogenic climate change is all a big conspiracy.
Maybe alot of people twist and exaggerate the evidence for their own reasons when $ billions are on the line. A $100k grant ? Just in the Obama years alone, he's handed billions of your money to oil companies and coal producers in the form of various subsidies.
Fixt it for you.
the models continue to diverge from reality
Which model in particular are you referring to here?
Retracted articles aren't usually left up on the website.
Aren't they? Who authors "the rules" for publications like the Daily Mail, which are renowned for their inaccuracy, even to the point fo priding themselves on it? Can you cite these rules for us?
Also, given your claim that there hasn't been any warming, can you explain the recent warming trend? What is causing that warming? Cite the publication in which your theory was published, and detail specifically the underlying change in forcings, and your methods of measuring those forcings, so that we might perform those observations for ourselves.
Look forward to seeing your material.
"Propose something that is demonstrably false, someone will helpfully correct you. Propose it again, perhaps no-one will bother. Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll."
Hardly. Your response is pretty laughable.
I asked an honest, stand-alone question. Period. I specifically stated that if you insist on dragging other shit into the conversation, you will be ignored.
You aren't in a position to be dictating the conditions of the conversation to others. You are, after all, trying to convince the scientific community and the public at large of a vast conspiracy stretching back 150 years and that independent observations of climate are being systematically altered by processes you can't describe for reasons you can't explain. You face something of an uphill battle, and if you had thought about this at all you would realise that a certain amount of cynicism about the likelihood of your theory is to be expected.
In other words, you should keep a civil tongue in your head.
From here out, consider yourself ignored.
Your choice.
What does it say about the strength of your theory and the strength of your organisations position that you need to promulgate lies to stay in the game?
Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll.
Simple as that.
Who said climate was limited to atmosphere?
Is that important?
If you think it is : explain why is that important.
climate scientists:
- make extrapolations involving tons of assumptions and unknowns
Really? Please detail these assumptions and unknowns.
- their experiments and data collections cannot be reproduced
Specifics please.
Whose experiments and data collections cannot be reproduced cannot be reproduced - Tyndall's? Arrhenius's?
- haven't created any new technologies
Has Anthony Watts created any new technologies? Roger Pielke? Andrew Bolt? Monkton?
- try to stop people from using other people's technologies
Old technology gets replaced with new technology all the time. Why is this suddenly a problem?
The Earth's climate has always been changing and will be changing while the planet is alive. It is uncertain whether humans have measurable influence on those changes at all;
Scientists say that the hypothesis that humans have a measurable influence on the climate is proven with P > 0.95.
What is uncertain about it?
the fact that people with clear financial interests claim so does not make it certainty.
So we only believe scientists who work for free? Better rip out all the wires in your house then. Better set your car aflame, since it is entirely a product of scientists who were remunerated for their work. But don't use petrol or any substance cracked from crude oil. Wood only.
And I hope you don't get sick, since modern medicine is entirely a product of science - from scientists who expected, and were, paid for their efforts.
ven if we suppose there is a measurable influence it is still uncertain whether the human influence is setting the current trends -- there have been warm ages in the past, too. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period.
But you know about the Medieval Warm Period because remunerated scientists told you about it. They looked at it, and similar events, and said: "This demonstrates that the climate exhibits sensitivity only possible with positive feedbacks" and you say that positive feedbacks are not possible. On the internet. The internet brought to you by the people you are urging us not to trust.
You basic argument is that climate change is not possible because the climate changes. You highlight instances in the past where the climate has changed over a short period due to small inputs, as proof that the climate could not possibly change over a short period due to small inputs.
Do you see where this has gone wrong for you? Can you provide us with any reason to accept your premise that we should abandon the basis of modernity ?
Anything at all?
(B) Plenty of science is "not falsifiable".
Do you have a spare tire in your car ?
I ride a motorbike. On the bike I carry a spare tube and co2 canisters, plus emergency path kit. I use one of these on average, once every 6 months.
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house ?
No.
Me personally, I have never had to use nore seen a fire extinguisher used.
I've used one on several occasions. Never one filled with petrol though, which would be the equivalent of carrying a gun to prevent crime.
Killing another person isn't a success scenario.
I guess you've never been to sniper school then.Is this you?
Have you been to sniper school, and now you are waiting for the day when you can just open fire? Waiting for it? Maybe, you walk through the mall, picking out the people that you plan to shoot as you walk along - maybe shoot that fatty, that guy, that guy? Do you occasionally wake in the morning, and lazily play through the scene in your head, and when you come to full awareness, realise you had been masturbating?
Does this describe you?
Situational awareness is great, but it can't possibly be 100% successful. At the extreme lets assume we train everyone in the country to exercise prudent situational awareness - all you've done is give the criminal element incentive to not clearly broadcast their intent while simultaneously curtailing the actions of honest citizens out of fear. A net loss in my book.
And yet the obvious issue escaped you. Which is that random schmoes carrying guns encourages criminals to carry guns.
And if you live in a country where the criminal element actually walk around broadcasting their intent you've got problems that carrying a gun won't solve. Get out.