[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by convert

Yawn, yet another left/green wing propaganda site.

Yet again the RSS Global temperature anomoly drops in October, in fact it more than halfs...

Global warming is no longer an issue, Global cooling will be though.

Nothing to do with man made CO2 though; so they'll have to find another way to tax and control us.... Bio diversity anyone...

I thought you had no faith in satellite temperatures? It would help if you made your mind up, otherwise the impression people will have is that you just pick up the latest article from the thoroughly discredited Watts website to troll the thread with nonsense.

For context on global temperature....

20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end. The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion! (Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/1...ge/#more-22712

[spinac]

Originally Posted by convert

Time for a musical interlude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9...layer_embedded

From Minnesotans FOR Global Warming. Membership $25. BECAUSE IT'S STUPID TO POLITICIZE THE WEATHER!

By becoming a member of Minnesotans For Global Warming, you not only get a shirt a DVD a Bumper Sticker and a Certificate, you get the satisfaction that you are helping a good cause.

Now for a limited time you or someone you love can join for only $25. In these tough economic times we must all do are part and pull together as Minnesotans and warm the planet this Christmas Season.

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...christmas.html

Is somebody somewhere cashing in on general ignorance of scientific matters (the stupidity of the masses?) or have I missed a serious point somewhere?

[spinac]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

The level of wilful ignorance on issues like climate change is rather sad.

This article and Video of Rachel Maddow explains one of the causes. The funding and influence of Right Wing echo chambers, the creation of 'truths' with no basis in fact that influence and motivate the right wing in america. The propaganda machine that is destroying American democracy.

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/05/...-echo-chamber/

It's more comment and opinion, but definitely worth a listen (and a short read).

"Ronald Reagan said you were entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. In 2010 America, those who claim to honor him have decided that, no, you are entitled to your very own fabricated reality."

It's not just sad. It's quite scary.

[convert]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I thought you had no faith in satellite temperatures? It would help if you made your mind up, otherwise the impression people will have is that you just pick up the latest article from the thoroughly discredited Watts website to troll the thread with nonsense.

For context on global temperature....



http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/1...ge/#more-22712

The only thing I have faith in is God. Satellite temperatures I'll take with a pinch of salt, how about you? You've argued in their favour, what say you about the current trend?

As for your warmist website's chery picked data, when do they consider the record to begin?

Do they include the MWP?

[convert]

Another excellent article from the award winning journalist, James Delingpole.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...he-full-story/

Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story

Originally Posted by JD

When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by convert

Another excellent article from the award winning journalist, James Delingpole.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...he-full-story/

Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story

Who gave him his award?

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/...eological-war/

Ohh yes it is the International Policy Network, a ‘free market think tank’ run by former Big Tobacco lobbyists and funded by EXXONMobil.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/26/whos-paying/

As for censorship, what was Delingpole's role in censoring Tom Chiver's article on DelingPole's mate, Monckton being exposed as a snake oil salesman?

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/...orious-defeat/

Delingpoles views on censorship are just hot air from someone involved in a propoganda war with no regard for truth or honesty.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by convert

The only thing I have faith in is God. Satellite temperatures I'll take with a pinch of salt, how about you? You've argued in their favour, what say you about the current trend?

As for your warmist website's chery picked data, when do they consider the record to begin?

Do they include the MWP?

So you admit to having no faith in the post you made being accurate. Like Delingpole you are not interested in evidence or truth just propoganda

Current trend? the fact 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years, the fact the last 2 years temperatures have for the longest period on record been above average.... That trend?

The MWP was cooler than today and even if it wasn't it wouldn't follow from that that temperature increase today is to do with CO2 emissions.

Indeed as the first comment here points out the denier argument simply doesn't work because it takes the same form as this obviously false argument:

'The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe's population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made'

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medi...termediate.htm

[BritPat]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

So you admit to having no faith in the post you made being accurate. Like Delingpole you are not interested in evidence or truth just propoganda

Current trend? the fact 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years, the fact the last 2 years temperatures have for the longest period on record been above average.... That trend?

A 20 year run the Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old?

How much of the 4,500,000,000 is on the record? Statistically none of it !!!

Proxies (discussed much earlier in this thread UEA fakery etc) were established to infer an earlier 'record' when the Proxies failed to stand up to calibration using current directly observed data the proxy was deemed to be valid for the period before direct measurements were available but Invalid now that they are.

Very objective science (NOT) !

Then again you are a Philospher of Science rather than a Scientist aren't you?

Richard Feynman Theoretical Physicist "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

Still exhibiting blind obedience to the Status Quo I see, Oscar would be so disappointed.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by BritPat

A 20 year run the Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old?

How much of the 4,500,000,000 is on the record? Statistically none of it !!!

Proxies (discussed much earlier in this thread UEA fakery etc) were established to infer an earlier 'record' when the Proxies failed to stand up to calibration using current directly observed data the proxy was deemed to be valid for the period before direct measurements were available but Invalid now that they are.

Very objective science (NOT) !

Then again you are a Philospher of Science rather than a Scientist aren't you?

Richard Feynman Theoretical Physicist "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

Still exhibiting blind obedience to the Status Quo I see, Oscar would be so disappointed.

What relevance has past temperature changes got to the issue of recent warming and its causes? The fact of past natural temperature changes doesn't mean current changes aren't caused by human activity. The argument you are making is rather like saying that discarding a lit match on tinder dry shrub won't cause a fire because fires have been caused by natural causes in the past.

I guess you mean the Tree ring proxies, what of all the other proxies that show the same historic results ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hock...ree-rings.html

Yes, Tree rings stop working as a proxy after 1960. We know that because of comparisons with data from other proxies and from direct tempearture readings.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree...ce-problem.htm

The argument that current global warming is caused by human activity does not depend on any one proxy, it depends on an assessment of all the evidence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Richard Feynman in his own words promoted a Philosophy of ignorance. It is a shame the humility he expounds here with respect to knowledge is not reflected in your quotation.
http://www.collectedthoughts.com/quote.aspx?id=11372

You operate as a denier, picking up on insignificant details and making a meal of them whilst ignoring the huge body of evidence in favour of a consensus view.

[BritPat]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

...Richard Feynman in his own words promoted a Philosophy of ignorance. It is a shame the humility he expounds here with respect to knowledge is not reflected in your quotation.
http://www.collectedthoughts.com/quote.aspx?id=11372...

You should re-read your own citation

A Satisfactory Philosophy of Ignorance
When the scientist tells you he does not know the answer, he is an ignorant man. When he tells you he has a hunch about how it is going to work, he is uncertain about it. 1.)When he is pretty sure of how it is going to work, and he tells you, "This is the way it is going to work, I'll bet," he still is in some doubt. And it is of paramount importance, in order to make progress, that we 2.)recognize this ignorance and this doubt. Because we have the doubt, we then propose looking in new directions for new ideas. The rate of the development of science is not the rate at which you make observations alone but, much more important, the rate at which you create new things to test.
3.)If we were not able or did not desire to look in any new direction, if we did not have a doubt or recognize ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. 4.)So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but5.) none is absolutely certain. Scientists are used to this. We know that it is consistent to be able to live and not know. Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.
6.)This freedom of doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations."
- Richard Feynman

1.) You seem to have very little doubt despite having only the ability to ride on the coat tails of others.

2.) See 1

3.) Whatever subject is discussed you throw away your 'Oscar Wilde Disobedience' signature and bend cravenly before the Ancien Regime, Appeals to Authority and the latest 'Safe Accepted Ideas' with Rebels like you who needs robots

4.) Varying degrees of certainty (although for you invariable absolute certainty)

5.) See 4

6.) Your answer to this one is DENIER (as if it were some sort of sinister profession).

Read your own citations more carefully in future 2/10

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by BritPat

You should re-read your own citation



1.) You seem to have very little doubt despite having only the ability to ride on the coat tails of others.

2.) See 1

3.) Whatever subject is discussed you throw away your 'Oscar Wilde Disobedience' signature and bend cravenly before the Ancien Regime, Appeals to Authority and the latest 'Safe Accepted Ideas' with Rebels like you who needs robots

4.) Varying degrees of certainty (although for you invariable absolute certainty)

5.) See 4

6.) Your answer to this one is DENIER (as if it were some sort of sinister profession).

Read your own citations more carefully in future 2/10

1&2) Whoosh as my point sails over your head.

3) Gullibility is not feature to be commended.

4) Making stuff up doesn't make your arguments any less ridiculous.

5) see 4

6) It is a sinister profession. The implication of denial when applied to global warming or of the holocaust is of a conspiracy amongst academics beyond any reason and without anything like sufficient evidence. Implying such conspiracies is of its nature sinister, because it undermines truth and subverts decision making.

[BritPat]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

1)What relevance has past temperature changes got to the issue of recent warming and its causes?

2)The fact of past natural temperature changes doesn't mean current changes aren't caused by human activity.

3)The argument you are making is rather like saying that discarding a lit match on tinder dry shrub won't cause a fire because fires have been caused by natural causes in the past.

1) Given that the Global Warming Lobby has spent so much time and money on research trying (including faking proxy correlations with real observed data) to demonstrate that current rates of warming are 'unprecedented' I assume the 'Lobby' sees relevance.

2) It doesn't mean that they are either. (Are you really a Philosophy Major)

3) You are the one asserting the existence of the match and the tinder dry shrub and then attributing a non sequitur to me.

You seem to have a penchant for the non-sequitur. Are you really a Philosophy Major ?

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by BritPat

1) Given that the Global Warming Lobby has spent so much time and money on research trying (including faking proxy correlations with real observed data) to demonstrate that current rates of warming are 'unprecedented' I assume the 'Lobby' sees relevance.

2) It doesn't mean that they are either. (Are you really a Philosophy Major)

3) You are the one asserting the existence of the match and the tinder dry shrub and then attributing a non sequitur to me.

You seem to have a penchant for the non-sequitur. Are you really a Philosophy Major ?

1) False, for reasons already clearly explained in post 2069. Also you have introduced 'unprecedented' when I have never claimed that, in fact my claims have quite clearly been the opposite.

2) I never said they did. Are you literate?

3) Whether the match exists or not was not relevant to my point about the fallacy of an argument that looks at historic climate changes and says because those changes are natural climate change now must also be. Whether through intent or ignorance, it is you that is guilty of the non-sequitur.

[retep]

November 20, 2009: The Day "Global Warming" Ended

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/...ing-ended.html

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by retep

November 20, 2009: The Day "Global Warming" Ended

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/...ing-ended.html

What makes you think the words of a lobbiest for the Oil industry worth sharing with us?

http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-apol...up-pr-industry

[retep]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

What makes you think the words of a lobbiest for the Oil industry worth sharing with us?

http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-apol...up-pr-industry

Just chucking another log on the fire in case you're cold.

[BritPat]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

What makes you think the words of a lobbiest for the Oil industry worth sharing with us?

http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-apol...up-pr-industry

Should the UK de-industrialise or should we insist that India and Africa condemn their own populations ?

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by BritPat

Should the UK de-industrialise or should we insist that India and Africa condemn their own populations ?

The UK, like the rest of the world needs to develop their industries.

It is not an either or situation.

[BritPat]

Originally Posted by retep

Just chucking another log on the fire in case you're cold.

I'm freezing lend me a tree

[convert]

Looks like the Canadians have got the right idea.

Originally Posted by Canadian Prime minister

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended Tory senators who voted down a climate change bill ahead of an upcoming United Nations meeting on the issue in Mexico.

Harper, in responding to a query from NDP Leader Jack Layton in question period Wednesday in Ottawa, said Conservatives have been consistent and clear in their opposition to Bill C-311, which the prime minister called "a completely irresponsible bill."...

..."It sets irresponsible targets, doesn't lay out any measure of achieving them other than ... by shutting down sections of the Canadian economy and throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work," Harper said. "Of course, we will never support such legislation."

Source http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...mate-bill.html