Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 13    Average: 3.6/5]
161 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3993
Rating: 3.6
Category: Science
Date: 02/15/14 01:04 PM

161 Responses to Climate [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 11:30 am
    Link: Climate - sensible article on climate change.
  2. Profile photo of ArgusTuft
    ArgusTuft Male 50-59
    1190 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm
    Good post Madduck, but... look out. Here they come. Wait for it...
  3. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4756 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 1:37 pm
    Oh, madduck, this is going to be fun!
  4. Profile photo of piratefish
    piratefish Male 40-49
    675 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    I absolutely, unequivocally, 100% believe that even if we threw everything we had at global climate change (including going beyond the measures of the Kyoto Accord), at best, we could hope to slow things down by a decade or two -- at most.

    It`s been pretty well documented that the Earth has been going through cycles of ice ages for millions of years, with short breaks in between each ice age. The last gap, the one we`re in now, has actually lasted much longer than average; we`re actually long overdue for another extreme cold period.

    We haven`t even been keeping accurate, global weather data long enough to even begin to start making accurate, long-term climatic projections with any real authority. Our reliable, global data system is only a few decades old, and global climate patterns are measured in the thousands of years, if not tens of thousands. Most credible statisticians I know do not extrapolate from samples so ridiculously small.
  5. Profile photo of piratefish
    piratefish Male 40-49
    675 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    I agree that climate change is happening. I also think we contribute to it. But based on what I know about climate, our contribution is negligible, and our best efforts will not be able to do anything to stop the millions of years old climatic cycles from repeating themselves. We`ll have better luck stopping earthquakes and volcanoes (or at least the same luck). We truly need to get over ourselves; we`re just not that significant.
  6. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4756 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    @piratefish,
    I think you make good sense. Man`s contribution to current warming, and I believe we do contribute, probably *is* negligible. But even negligible contributions, especially over long periods and even more especially when one year`s contribution is added to the last year`s, add up. We may not be able to change the effect but we certainly can`t if we don`t even try. We`re certainly not going to try if we can`t agree that we should. And we won`t agree that we should as long as those who have the most to lose continue to buy national policy with millions and millions of dollars.
  7. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 2:32 pm
    @ Piratefish: We truly need to get over ourselves; we`re just not that significant.
    I hear this misguided argument all the time. Pirate, from the dawn of time, living organisms have changed Earth`s climate. At the start, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Once microscopic marine plants evolved, they added the oxygen, which had a profound effect on the troposphere. Later, land plants then reduced levels of CO2 to such a degree that it eventually triggered an ice age.

    In the case of man, we have released 100 million years worth of biological carbon that had been sequestered underground back into the atmosphere in the span of just 100 years. Compare 100 million years to a century--the latter timeframe is, of course, the geological blink of an eye.

    To opine that "Man is too insignificant to change the climate" is to ignore the Earth`s climate history and to ignore the scale of our recent activity relative to fossil fuels.
  8. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2314 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 2:50 pm
    There is no way to spend our way to a better planet. Period.
  9. Profile photo of danagamer
    danagamer Male 30-39
    701 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    Climate change is a hoax created by the OSama administrasion to take away jobs from hard working Americans.
  10. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 3:26 pm
    More of this sh|t. ugh.
  11. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4756 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 3:32 pm
    @danagamer,
    Climate change precedes the Obama administration. It used to be called Global Warming but too many people couldn`t understand that overall warming of the globe causes changes in the climate that may cause some places to be much colder while others are warmer. "Climate Change" is just a more recent moniker. And don`t just blindly buy the proclamations put out by the politicians who were bought by the power industry. If we ever do change the way industry runs, it`ll probably take an awful lot of manpower put out by the working men that you think will be unemployed.
  12. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    @ 10101: "There is no way to spend our way to a better planet. Period."

    Anyone living near an EPA Superfund site that`s been cleaned up might disagree with you.

    Listing of EPA Superfund Sites
  13. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    The climate is ALWAYS changing.

    No f.ucks given
  14. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    Extreme weather events in the UK and overseas are part of a growing pattern
    When an article starts out with a lie in the first sentence (and that lie is based on a report that is 8 years old), the rest can be ignored.

    2013 ranked as one of the least extreme on record.

    Yes, the climate changes. No one argues that.

    But saying you can change that if you just tax a little more is right up there with rainmakers and snake-oil salesmen. ("I`d like to buy some snake oil." "Of course, sir. What kind of snake do you have and how bad does it squeek?")
  15. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm

  16. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    piratefish is spot on.

    The article actually says this,

    "Fortunately poorer countries, such as China, are showing leadership and beginning to demonstrate to the world how to invest in low-carbon growth."

    Yes, the article actually says that. You can`t make this stuff up. Well, I guess the Guardian can.

    The Guardian is basically the Fox News of the UK, you shouldn`t cite it.
  17. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm

  18. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 4:40 pm
    @ Elkingo: Lemme get this straight. You, who`ve claimed on here to be trained in the sciences, dismiss global warming as a "hoax" not because you`ve read published papers or books by climatologists--but because CFL lightbulbs and the Toyota Prius are expensive?
  19. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:00 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale - Those are some very simple examples to show how this whole environmental science stuff is nothing other than nonsensical. Every scientist, company, government, etc that is involved with anything labeled "green" stands to make a killing in products and funding nearly 200 to 300% more than standard rates, costs, practice, etc.


    Environmental science -> gets government and green tech funding.

    Environmental products -> cost anywhere from 200 to 300% more than normal.

    Government involvement -> gains control over people, and increase in tax revenue.


    I do have a scientific mind, but utilizing it to evaluate any "research" in the field is entirely unnecessary due to observable facts of finance.
  20. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    Who could have anything to gain by Global Warming Hoax?

    First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    Solyndra ($535 million)
    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    Abound Solar ($400 million)
    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    Beacon Power ($43 million)
    Evergreen Solar ($25 million)

    What do these have in common? These are just a FEW of the `green` companies that the Obama Administration gave taxpayer money to (with the amount) and have either gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. (and no, this is far from a complete list)
  21. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    Most people don`t deny that weather patterns are changing to some degree or another. It`s the naivety and audacity that we can control or change it, that annoys me. Acting as though we can control the fate of the planet`s natural cycles, is a total money-making ploy. The foolishness of most to not recognize all of the companies "cashing in" on the global warming, is what`s most alarming.
  22. Profile photo of ArgusTuft
    ArgusTuft Male 50-59
    1190 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:28 pm
    @elkingo. Stop using little powerpoint slides made by trolls on 4chan to prove a false point. Those lightbulbs cost way more to make because of what they put into them. Which, by the way, makes them last 100 times longer than normal. The car arguement? Fully imported versus local. Hybrid motor versus standard petrol / diesel.
    Mate, your credibility went down the toilet with that lot.
    If you`re going to troll, at least do it without looking too neanderthal.
    Oh, and while we`re there, research something. Unprecedented smog in china`s cities. Millions over millions of cars, trucks, diesel trains, ships, and everything else including factories and aircraft throwing man made exhaust into the atmosphere. Gee, derp, that`s not a new thing! Been happening for centuries!
    Observational science requires you to leave your mother`s basement and stop taking 12 year olds trolling as proof.
    And I thought it took a reasonable IQ to use a keyboard. Damn!
  23. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm
    Xprez is also spot on.
  24. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:42 pm
    our contributions per year are "fairly negligible". here`s the best analogy I can come up with.

    Imagine you have a faucet filling in 1 gallon and a drain that can handle 1 gallon exiting. The Tub will never fill.

    This represents the current Co2 absorption rates we see on earth. In the Summer CO2 goes into all the plants blooming and in the winter all the CO2 is released. The Earth Balances itself out on it`s own. it takes in what it gives out.

    However let`s add 3% more water to the bathtub analogy. now it`s 1.03 gallons in and 1 gallon out. The tub is eventually going to overflow. We are the unbalance. There`s no accounting for our CO2 emissions.
  25. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    @ Elkingo: I do have a scientific mind, but utilizing it to evaluate any "research" in the field is entirely unnecessary due to observable facts of finance.
    Interesting. I would think that with a scientific mind, you`d avoid the claim that evaluating the evidence is "entirely unnecessary." Rather, I`d think that you`d appreciate that evaluating the evidence is the *only* way to form a valid and informed opinion.

    If you have an interest, below are two books I can recommend, either of which would give you a good introduction to the science.

    (Cont`d)
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:45 pm
    (Cont`d)

    (1) Eggleton, T. (2012). "A Short Introduction to Climate Change." Amazon listing.

    (2) Mann, M. (2012). "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines." Amazon listing.

    Hope that helps. Let me know if you decide to give either or both books a read. Thanks.
  27. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm
    Listen I`m pretty liberal. We can`t advance if people say "well all the money is going to be squandered" we have to have some sort of faith that funding will go to the right researchers. I`m not sure why we are so against it when we waste money building tanks our military doesn`t even want. Money shouldn`t be the reason we do nothing.

    ronically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they`re in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.
  28. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:54 pm
    Over the long haul Piratefish there will be nothing we can do. The sun will continue to get brighter and warmer over time so we are going to warm. However we CAN affectour planet in a meaningful way. The last thing we want to do is trigger an extinction event caused by the Earth Warming too fast for species to adapt.

    Remember due to the 3% extra unaccounted for CO2 we are emitting per year that`s being absorbed by the oceans causing them to become more acidic. Now the PH levels changed slightly but changing the chemical composotion fast may kill the lowest on the food chain which would affect humanity significantly.

    This also leads me to really want us to spend more money on space exploration because we are going to trash this planet and I hope we find a way to survive outside of Earth before it`s too late.
  29. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:57 pm



    If people want to not believe the experts in their field and the 12000+ peer reviewed documents that support AGW. I do not know what to say.. I really don`t.

    AGW is turning into the Evolution argument. Soon people will have to accept AGW as fact because that`s what it is. It`s FACT.
  30. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:57 pm
    @elkingo: You know that the $4.30 lightbulb will last vastly longer and use less power, and is therefore going to save you money, right?
  31. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 5:59 pm
    One more point.

    I agree the United States can`t do this alone. Nothing will change if we don`t have global cooperation.
  32. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale - I actually did read this book: Plan B

    It is mostly hyperbole, and propaganda. I have a hard time reading research after that on the environment, because it is very biased. My scientific mind simply doesn`t want to refute all the bias every time I read it. Lol
  33. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:03 pm
    @ArgusTuft - Lol.. those slides were not made by some random guy on 4-chan. They were made by me, and they are not "false points"; they are logical talking points.

    The cost of any green product compared to something not green is wayyy higher.

    As for the light bulbs.. the green ones work out to about the same price due to the durability of them not being 4-7 years, and rather it being 1-2 years. The energy they "save" is offset by the cost of them, and what more they are polluting the hell out of the environment with mercury.

  34. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm
    @Elk

    How does your scientific mind side with the 0.2% of climate scientist that do not agree that AGW is happening?
  35. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2068 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:09 pm
    Man-made global warming is a hoax. Nothing more, nothing less.
  36. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    ArgusTuft-makes them last 100 times longer than normal.
    Don`t forget the toxic metals, especially copper, lead, mercury and zinc, with smaller amounts of arsenic and antimony that come free with the new `green` bulbs.

    ArgusTuft- Fully imported versus local
    No, comparing four of the same class of car: 4-door, lower-end sedans. Definitely not worth $30K.

    ArgusTuft-And I thought it took a reasonable IQ to use a keyboard. Damn!
    You`re living proof that`s not a requirement.
  37. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    http://tinyurl.com/ptr3q9l

    Elk this is a link to all of the climate scientist peer reviewed reports. How in the world anyone can simply throw out 12,000 peer reviewed publications is beyond me?
  38. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    @FoolsPrussia - I do use the 3-4 dollar light bulb, because they last longer. They don`t save me any money. I figured out the electric cost by switching to them, and it is a negligible amount.. its like 30-40 dollars per year. However, I have to spend around $30 more per year on light bulbs.. I replace around 3-4 per season.
  39. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:14 pm
    @normalfreak2 - who paid for those.. hmm.. lets investigate. Give me a few min.
  40. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:15 pm



    This illustrates my Bathtub analogy below in my previous comment
  41. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    @Elk

    Now, you wish to present as counter evidence that less than 0.2% of people in the US with a scientific qualification of any sort disagree. In essence your argument boils down to the claim that:

    Less than 0.2% of people with a scientific qualification have expressed an opinion contrary to the consensus on climate change;

    Therefore,

    It is false that 97% of the scientists best qualified to assess the subject accept the consensus.

    Your argument needs only to be stated for it to be seen that it is false.
  42. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:22 pm
    97% is a bullsh|t statistic.. that was proved in the last "green" debate on here. It is closer to what.. 47%?
  43. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    1,2009,CLIMATIC EFFECTS ON THE PHENOLOGY OF GEOPHYTES

    Funded in part by special interest groups interested only in green type of technology.

    They are connected to this group: here

    In fact, they state: "The PhD school was open to PhD students and researchers interested in green networking."

    So, they only accept green scientists.. Biased research, funded by people who want to prove global climate change is caused by man.

    1 down..

  44. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    normalfreak2- 97%
    Has been proven to be:



    See, of the 12,000+ peer reviewed documents you reference, 2/3rds take no position on cause of global warming.
  45. Profile photo of liabach
    liabach Male 40-49
    3242 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    I just hope the seas become pink with hydrogen sulfides again like during the Silurian period. That would be pretty.
  46. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:32 pm
    @ MeGrendel: Clearly you`ve never read the study. While it`s certainly true that about two-thirds of the rated papers (7,930/12,465) didn`t take a position on AGW, there`s a simple reason for that: Scientists tend to address topics that are being debated, not topics on which there is already a consensus.

    Of the papers that took a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed AGW (3,896/4,014).

    Here is the study if you`d like to read it.
  47. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    Article 2 on the list "Effects of diurnal warming on soil respiration are not equal to
    the summed effects of day and night warming in a temperate steppe" was published by scientists from State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change. Sounds like a biased research facility... hmm

    It also looked at data from 2006–2008 ... 3 years.. and they can make inferences about global climate change over time?

    Also, they found that carbon in the environment was causing farm land to warm over time... but, the kicker is it isn`t enough data to make any conclusions, but it is used to support the theory that global climate change is man made. Ha.. that is laughable.

    Ugh.. this is annoying.

  48. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 6:52 pm
    Squrlz4Sale-Of the papers that took a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed AGW (3,896/4,014).
    But that`s not the stat Global Alarmist make. They say `97% of 12,000 papers...yadda yadda yadda`

    YOUR version basically says `We asked 1,000 studies that agree with us, and an overwhelming number of them agreed with us.`

    liabach-I just hope the seas become pink with hydrogen sulfides
    I`ve seen things you people wouldn`t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
  49. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    @ MeGrendel: I`ve seen people on both sides of the issue mess up the results of that study horribly, which is why I provided the numbers (and a link) in this thread.

    What do you mean "YOUR" (i.e., "my") version? There`s one version of the study, which I encourage you to read so that you can discuss it more intelligently.

    I have no idea how you can claim the authors "asked 1,000 studies that agree with us, and an overwhelming number of them agreed with us." Frankly, what you`re stating is nonsense.
  50. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    None of this matters. We are all going to die.

    Go ahead, say something about the "future of the planet, for our children" or some nonsense... F.uck them, they`re going to die too.

    Fossil fuel is finite. We are going to burn up ALL OF IT! EVERY. LAST. DROP. That`s when sh!+ will get really crazy, when it runs out. Here`s hoping humanity completely annihilates itself!

    Climate change... it`s so inconsequential.
  51. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    n 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

    “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

    Like all organisations, the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant att
  52. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:10 pm
    (cont) attacks on the organisation and its director, but the criticisms are valid none the less.

    However, claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/39dcmsv
  53. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:13 pm
    @ Elkingo: I just read your summary of the second article, then read the article itself. Bottom line: You aren`t understanding the study, which is not surprising since you`re trying to review the published work of degreed climatologists when you haven`t, by your own admission, even read an introductory guide to global warming science (which Brown`s "Plan B" is not).

    Feel free to prove me wrong by stating in your own words the following: What was the very important point, from a climate modelling perspective, that Xia et al. were addressing? They don`t state it explicitly, but if you`re understanding the science, it`s obvious. And since you were able to write off the study as having little or no worth, you should be able to state the key point of the study in no time at all.

    Of course, if you swing and miss, I`ll be happy to provide the answer.
  54. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:14 pm
    I stand corrected on the 97% of the 12,000 peer reviewed articles. I was misinformed on that. 2/3 did take no stance.
  55. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
    While we`re all waiting for Elkingo to explain the crux of the scientific article he dismissed in his earlier post, I suggest listening to this.
  56. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:31 pm
    Squrlz4Sale-I have no idea how you can claim the authors
    I didn`t claim that, I claimed it was LIKE that. It`s called `cherry picking` and `misrepresentation`.

    mykunter-Climate change... it`s so inconsequential.
    I dissagree. It can be very consequential.

    My problem is people who claim it`s humanity`s fault, and everything can be hunky doree if we just throw more money at it. (as if you could, somehow, control the Earth`s Climate.)

    Squrlz4Sale-You aren`t understanding the study
    Translation: How DARE you question us `enlightened`, we`re smarter and care more (just ask us).

    Disagreeing with a study doesn`t not mean it`s beyond the comprehension of us Pee-ons.
  57. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    Pt 1/4

    What is most amazing to me about the intensity of the world-wide AGW "debate" is that it is taking place virtually exclusively among a population that knows essentially nothing of the arcane but vital details of climate science. I include the "deniers" and the "supporters".

    The deniers use completely absurd reasoning (e.g. "green" companies stand to profit, therefore global warming is a conspiracy. Really?) or data and "studies" provided by whom? A microscopic group of other scientists (perish the thought) who assert the opposite of the "Main Stream" scientists. I`m sorry, but that`s just universally idiotic. You can find a treasue trove of similar insight on any forum.
  58. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    Pt 2/4

    The supporters that rely upon their own analyses of publicly available data and "observation" don`t know any more than the deniers who wave their own sets of data and so-called analysis. It`s pure arrogance and self-aggrandizement/delusion to approach the AGW issue in either way. It`s cliche, but the same applies to Quantum Mechanics or the biophysics of transport protiens. You know nothing of real substance about ANY scientific discipline unless of course, you have a PhD and years of experience in the field. And even then, you rely on the training and experience of many fellow scientists.

    No, the reason you ACCEPT AGW (not "believe" or "disbeieve", which is also idiotic) is because you trust the expertise of thousands of scientists, past and present, who have refined an amazing method over hundreds of years, for discerning the nature of the universe and how it works.
  59. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Pt 3/4

    And please, for the love of god and the sake of your own self respect, don`t bring up phrases like "Well, scientists have been totally wrong many times and had to rewrite the book!" without researching what science actually means, when the modern scientific method came into exsistence, and how modern science is a process of becoming less wrong over time. And no, it was not science that said the earth was the center of the universe (a typical example) ,but dogma and ignorance. And Copernicus nor anyone before the 17th century (maybe even the 19th) would be considered a scientist by modern measure. And yes, a scientific consensus, while it may be incomplete (like the standard model of particle physics - Oh Noes!), is an extremely powerful statement of the likelyhood of a thing being correct, to the degree that it can be verified by either direct experiment or observation. It`s not equivalent to the opinion of a bunch of yahoos, well educated or not, sitting a
  60. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Pt 4/4

    Get over yourselves, world. Unless you`re a CLIMATE scientist, you ACCEPT AGW based on the above, and take the actions required to ameliorate the problem. Period. True humility comes when you can announce proudly that you don`t really know poo about a subject in enough detail to reach a conclusion, and let the people who do know, do their jobs. (includes myself, and all of you on this forum, and all but a miniscule fraction of the entire human race).

    That is all. Rant terminated. I feel better now, which is all that really counts, and anyone who disagrees with me can suck it and throw tcp/ip packets at me until the cows come to roost.
  61. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    @ MalcomR: Thanks for the rant, but I happen to think that citizens debating topics that have to do with public policy is a good thing. You know, the whole public discourse and marketplace of ideas thing.
  62. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:47 pm
    Squrlz,

    Of course. But this particular topic in my opinion has passed well beyond the debate/discussion/idea marketplace long ago. But it`s still fun to debate, right? Like I said, I post stuff to make myself feel better when I get too frustrated and too low on my meds. If it`s good to read, great, If not, meh.
  63. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:49 pm
    Besides, I use another forum for the vast majority of my internet therapy. Have fun!
  64. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:53 pm
    @ MeGrendel: I have no interest in taking this in a personal direction, as you seem inclined to do. As far as The Consensus Project goes, I`d prefer to discuss the actual study with you, which is hard to do since you haven`t read it.

    Your "translation" of my simple statement "You aren`t understanding the study" is plainly an attempt to put words in my mouth. I have not called anyone a peon, nor am I claiming to be smarter than anyone. I am, however, well read enough in climate science to recognize when someone who`s trying to mock a study isn`t understanding it. As I`ve told Elkingo, he can quickly illustrate that he understood the study by stating in his own words the key point underlying it.

    I think that`s pefectly fair, don`t you? I don`t think anyone here wants to be making fun of science they don`t understand, do they?
  65. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    Just one other thought. Don`t you think that the level of AGW denialism displayed in general indicates just how poorly the average citizen understands the scientific process and science in general?

    Ok then.
  66. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 7:57 pm
    @ MalcomR: No worries. I certainly understand where you`re coming from. I often wonder myself why we expend so much energy on here debating topics such as global warming when I`ve yet to see a single mind changed.

    That said, as you point out, civil debate can be entertaining and a worthwhile intellectual exercise.
  67. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:02 pm
    Malcolm essentially think that nobody can talk about anything.

    I am proclaiming here, right now, that I am the only one here who can talk about Economics and Public Policy. I HAVE TEH ADVANCERED DEGREEEES. I actually have them from the Ivy League, too.

    But I don`t actually think that. That`s really stupid and unscientific, really. I also know better than lots of people here that "experts" are usually wrong. Go read Freakonomics, it`s basic reading.

    You see, Malcolm is kind of an intellectual authoritarian. I dealt with his kind in my time. He doesn`t even think that Physicists should be able to talk about this, or Environmental Economists. Or any number of fields. No, only this field of "Climate Science" which is practically more of a soft science than a hard science at its current stage of development. Really, I have a hard time calling raw climate science a hard science.
  68. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    @ MalcomR: Don`t you think that the level of AGW denialism displayed in general indicates just how poorly the average citizen understands the scientific process and science in general?
    Yes, that`s certainly a component of much of it.

    Another component is the virtual industry that`s been created in churning out denialist charts and articles, much of it written to deliberately mislead readers. People in general are more apt to be exposed to that junk than the peer-reviewed scientific studies, so it`s an uphill battle.

    Glad to see you commenting here on IAB, by the way. Don`t stop! :-)
  69. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:19 pm
    Hi Andrew155!

    I think you`ve got me all wrong here. You can talk about anything you want, for as long as you want. It`s still a free internet (but for how long?!?). But I happen to believe that in matters of scientific fact, as established by overwhelming evidence, and of such great impact, there is a point beyond which debate and delay is counterproductive and in this case, world altering (literally). I don`t really care about what goes on in forums, but my elected representatives have remained ignorant, willfully or deliberately, in the face of overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. That pisses me off. So I send them nasty-grams all the time, and post the occasional rant on a forum.

    Debate away!
  70. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:24 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale: That study was reviewed by Richard S.J. Tol of the Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit.
    He found that only 24 people from the biased website skeptical science took the survey. Of those, 12 quickly dropped out, so that the survey essentially relied on just 12 people. Oh so shockingly, (sarcasm) the paper did not have any test for rater bias nor any data for how long they reviewed the papers. Plus they were trained on how to rate during the first part of the survey, rather than prior to the survey.

    There were no codes of practice, he found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Some papers were rated twice because Cook disagreed with the rater. The study undersampled papers in meteorology, geosciences, physical geography, and oceanography.
  71. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:24 pm
    Yet even without them, Tol found over 20,772 papers, 54% more than the study and by simply dropping the word "Global" as a search word he found 53,359 papers. And on top of all of it, there is a lot of data involved with the study that is missing, Cook has been unable to produce it.


    LINK
  72. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    @MalcomR: I`m going to bed yet there is a great deal of evidence both ways. I don`t doubt that global warming is happening but I believe it to be natural and the evidence supports this. The earth has been much hotter and heated quicker almost 13 times in the holocene alone and if you look at earth`s average temperature of 25 degrees celsius you`ll notice we are still at a chilly 14.6 degrees celsius. Yet I`ll take these issues on with you tomorrow. Good night IAB.
  73. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    Andrew155-No, only this field of "Climate Science"
    Nope, he`s even more restictive than that.

    That should read `Only those in the field of `Climate Science` AND agree with AGW` are qualified to debate it. (what do you call a debate where all sides agree? A sham.)
  74. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    @ Elkingo:

    ~Alex Trebek walks on stage~

    "Well, Elkingo, it`s been a solid hour and a half since we put to you our Final Jeopardy question. What have you got for us? Remember to phrase your reponse as a question."




  75. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:51 pm
    Hi there richanddead!

    Over the years I`ve read several peer-reviewed papers on the science behind climate change and why it is now virtually certain that it is due to the human production of excess CO2 which acts, in conjunction with water vapor and other gasses (if I recall correctly) as a "catalyst", greatly enhancing the heat trapped by the atmosphere. I`ve also read many smaller articles and opinion pieces that insist that this is wrong.

    I`m not a climate scientist Jim, I`m a doctor, err I mean engineer (which I am). I see peer-reviewed journal articles on one side, by the bushel, and no reputably peer-reviewed papers on the other side. I can see the "conspiracy of exclusion" theorists foaming as I type. I have a BS degree level understanding of math and statistics, physics, and the other engineering related sciences, coupled with over 30 years of working with other engineers and scientists in industry.

    So the point of my epic ra
  76. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    (cont.)

    rant was that while I can certainly look at charts and graphs and data tables and make sense of them for the most part, they are just either raw data, or processed data with decades of field research behind them. An my claim at this point is that unless you are a climate scientist, or working in a related field, then no, you really can`t have anything meaningful to say about the issue from a factual, scientific standpoint. Public policy, the economic impacts of different approaches, etc, are clearly fully open for debate and discussion, obviously.
  77. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:03 pm
    @ Elkingo:

    Alex Trebek (looking a little uncomfortable): "Uhhh, any response, Elkingo? Are you there?"


  78. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:10 pm
    Just a general comment since I can`t sleep anyway due to switching from an SSRI drug to a dopamine agonist drug (for anxiety and depression, not entertainment! :)

    In the stages of coming to a scientific conclusion, debate and argument are an essential part of the process. The debate will surround the experimental techniques, the observational accuracies, and all of that wonderful stuff. But once the scientists say to each other "Yep, I can see no reason to suspect the setup or the observations" the debate at that level is done. You now move on to formulating a Theory that is the explanation for the observations that you agree on. That point is reached via the peer-review process which is, in the end, the only reason the scientific method can work. Without it, you are back to making conclusions based on who can shout louder or punch harder.

  79. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:11 pm
    What is making up data to fit the political bell curve, Alex?

    AT: "Correct"

    I`ll finish out the topic of popular myths and bs for 1000, Alex.
  80. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    MalcomR buzzes in:

    "What is `Men are better drivers than Women?`"
  81. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm
    @ MeGrendel and MalcomR:

    Alex Trebek (to MalcomR): "No!"

    Alex Trebek (to Megrendel): "Since your partner Elkingo seems to have dropped out of the game, perhaps you, MeGrendel, would like to play.... Now, in all fairness, it should be pointed out to our audience that it wasn`t MeGrendel who described the study as `laughable.` But we`re hoping MeGrendel would like to play just the same. So, how about it, MeGrendel? Remember to phrase your response in the form of a question."




  82. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    Hi MeGrendel (leave my mead hall alone!)

    I would be excited to see several peer-reviewed and well vetted papers from Nature or any other top scientific publication that clearly show data that indicates the proposed cause of global warming.

    Remember, it`s your claim that AGW is a fantasy, and the one making the claim has to back it up with compelling evidence.

    Or something like that :)
  83. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:19 pm
    @ MeGrendel:

    Alex Trebek: "Incorrect, MeGrendel. That`s going to cost you. Let`s see what you wagered."

    ~deciphers MeGrendel`s scrawled handwriting~

    `My credibility.` Oooooh, that`s too bad."

    ~Cue Jeopardy theme~

    "Well, that`s all the time we have for tonight. Thank you all for playing--and thank *you* for watching. Until next time!"

  84. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    @ MeGrendel and MalcomR: Oh, I amuse myself on here sometimes.

    Seriously, MeGrendel, I`m just kidding around. You haven`t lost credibility and I`m just playing.

    That said, now I`m torn. Should I provide the answer (in the form of a question, of course) or not? I don`t want to deny Elkingo the opportunity to answer it, assuming he wants to (a big assumption, admittedly).
  85. Profile photo of MalcomR
    MalcomR Male 50-59
    79 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:35 pm
    Squrlz:

    Oh, I spent at least three years on one particular science and physics forum, some time back (I`m a science geek), 14,000+ posts, and thought I was going to have a stroke or a self-inflicted gunshot wound from frustration. Then I learned to have fun. If it`s not at least minimally entertaining (I also certainly learned plenty from the other members, some of whom were actual scientists), then it`s not for me. Hence my sometimes flippant or irreverent style of posting and my meager attempts to keep things light with some humor.
  86. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:42 pm
    @ MalcomR: Humor is key and appreciated. This is first and foremost an entertainment website, so a little humor in the midst of a debate is welcome.

    Civility is also essential. People certainly can be rude if they want, but abuse (vicious, personal attacks) is off-limits and will get a person banned from the site.
  87. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:44 pm
    @ MeGrendel: Are you there? I`m about to call it a night. If you or anyone`s truly interested, I`d be happy to describe the key point of Xia et al. If no one`s interested, I`ll save it for another time when Elkingo`s on.
  88. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:51 pm
    Squrlz4Sale- I`m just kidding around.
    Don`t worry. I realize that. I like the Jeopardy format. (Always like it when all three panalist miss the final jeopardy, but I get it.)
  89. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    @ MeGrendel: Cool. Sounds like you`re better at Jeopardy than I am.

    Anyway, shall I explain the crux of Xia et al.? I don`t want to be a bore. Not everyone`s as interested in the science as I am. And I also don`t want to deprive Elkingo a crack at it if he`d want it.
  90. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 10:22 pm
    @ MalcomR: I just read your "general comment" of 9:10 PM IAB Time. (I missed it before because of other exchanges that were going on in the thread.) That was a really good post. Kudos.
  91. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 10:23 pm
    @ Anyone Still Reading: So I figure I should provide the answer to the Xia et al. question, seeing as I`m the one who asked it.

    Phrased as a question, the correct response would be:

    What is: "Climate models may be underestimating the production of CO2 by soil respiration since most of them calculate soil respiration using diurnal temperature (an average of temperature over 24 hrs), which doesn`t account for the fact that greenhouse warming is most pronounced at night and most of the CO2 produced by soil respiration is occurring at night"?

    There`s a fair amount of science packed into that one sentence above. If anyone wants to ask me further questions, please do: I`ll do my best to answer in a helpful, friendly way. Just ask.

    Squrlz, signing out. :-)
  92. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 11:04 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale - I noticed that you casually left out that it was a study over three years time, and it was on farmland. As in.. you know.. dirt that is completely exposed to radiation.

    Not saying the study didn`t find anything.. just that how many naturally occurring deposits of soil are there in China with no grass or vegetation on it? Basically.. they may have found significant results (albeit only 3 years, so you can`t make any long term inferences on climate), the effect size is basically non-existent because the amount of farmland isn`t significant.

  93. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    February 15, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    Sorry.. I had family up, and couldn`t chat.. unfortunately now it is 2 am, and I must retire for the night.

    feel free to look me up on facebook, or try and guess my windstream email address to continue a discussion though. =)
  94. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 16, 2014 at 12:44 am
    aaaaaaaaaaand I went out, got hopelessly stoned and missed the fun. Buggrit. okay- Thank You Squrlz and others for arguing so eloquently etc....
  95. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 16, 2014 at 5:13 am
    I feel like these are the types of discussions people were having over evolution 30 years ago.
  96. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 16, 2014 at 5:17 am
    Richanddead how do you account for the "unaccounted" CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere?
  97. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 16, 2014 at 5:27 am
    ALso I love that people find errors here and there. Science at work!

    However! Even moving the pendulum of a few reports doesn`t change the whole consensus. I do agree with MalcomR it`s pretty much time to give up arguing against it unless of course something new comes along and drastically changes our understanding of climate science.

    Some of the climate scientists reports that I`ve read. In particular, the late Professor Stephen Schneider said it best; I`m paraphrasing, He deals in probabilities. Based on the evidence provided thus far and the current trends based on the studies of ice cores and his 40+ years in the field, that there is a more than 10% chance of a few catastrophic scenarios playing out if AGW continues. he also says there is much more higher chances for other scenarios too but to him the RISK assessment it`s way too high for his comfort.

    I simply side and trust the scientific methods integrity and the experts in their respected fi
  98. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 16, 2014 at 5:36 am
    Obviously Science isn`t about a "GOTCHA Moment" It really tells us simply that a theory based on the evidence supported to this point is way more likely to be close to right than wrong. It`s not easy to get scientific consensus. You have to trust the integrity of the scientific method. Which I do.

    I don`t proclaim to know any particular solution to AGW but let`s at least agree that it is happening and, agree or disagree, the consensus says we are the primary cause.
  99. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 5:53 am
    normalfreak2: not only 30 years ago, at least one superpower still insists otherwise. It`s also the same country why we have to keep arguing instead actually doing anything cause they know that once they agree, they have to do something. That eats PROFITS.

    Simple, keep filibustering, nothing gets done, rich get their money and no matter how bad under this circumstances weather goes, they have enough resources to survive for centuries. It is really this simple. You wanna support them, deny global warming. The sick thing here is that more poor you seem to be, the more you are playing in to their pockets.
  100. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 5:54 am
    Ok kiddies, after dealing with 1000+ drivers who can`t drive I`m glad to be back and sink my teeth in to this.
  101. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:01 am
    @Squrlz4Sale: "What is: "Climate models may be underestimating the production of CO2 by soil respiration since most of them calculate soil respiration using diurnal temperature (an average of temperature over 24 hrs), which doesn`t account for the fact that greenhouse warming is most pronounced at night and most of the CO2 produced by soil respiration is occurring at night"?"




    What is " The observations indicate that influences of day and night warming on an ecosystems carbon flux are not equivalent in there system and that the effects of diurnal warming can not be predicted by the summed effects of day and night warming."

    You were incorrect because it does not say that "Climate models may be underestimating the production of CO2 by soil respiration"
  102. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:16 am
    In fact, as the paper claims "this does not necessarily mean a positive feedback to climate change in this ecosystem. In fact, we have found that carbon sequestration in this system is enhanced by photosynthetic overcompensation under night warming...Therefore,irrespective of enhancement in soil respiration under night warming, a negative feedback to climate change will occur because of the greater stimulation of ecosystem carbon assimilation"

    As was shown in Wan et al.
  103. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:34 am
    @MalcomR: "I see peer-reviewed journal articles on one side, by the bushel, and no reputably peer-reviewed papers on the other side."

    First off I thank you for your politeness, it is a sign of maturity, kudos.
    Regarding you no seeing "no reputably peer-reviewed papers on the other side" allow me to introduce you to some.

    Link

    Although this is not all of them, one of my favorites is this one.


    LINK

    which shows that Earth`s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2 impoverished. In the last 600 million years of Earth`s history only the
  104. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:38 am
    ... the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

    Plus when you look at temperature in relation to the carbon levels we find that the temperature does not follow Co2.


  105. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:48 am
    @normalfreak2: "Richanddead how do you account for the "unaccounted" CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere?"

    Accounting for the unaccounted eh? Are you referring to @Squrlz4Sale study? If so I would encourage you to read my reply to him, Squrls came to the wrong conclusion of what the paper was saying.

    If not, could you be more specific to what you`re referring to.
  106. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 8:05 am
    ugh.. "reasonable" is quite the relative term is it not? You libs aren`t going to be happy until I am sitting a pile of my own filth in the back of my crappy cave, Am I right? :)
  107. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 9:06 am
    @papajons

    Don`t be ridiculous, Liberals love technology. If you think anyone is saying we should go back to pre industrial ages then you should reread our discussion here.

    It`s ridiculous to ascertain that the AGW crowd wants us to go back to living in caves. Why do people like you have to take everything to the extreme?
  108. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 10:34 am
    @ Richanddead: Sorry, Richanddead, but you`re mistaken. Good try though.

    Xia et al. is a great test for how well someone understands climate science because the key point underlying the study isn`t stated explicitly and takes some background knowledge of the topic to understand.

    As far as their statement that this analysis of soil respiration isn`t a suggestion of a positive feedback, of course it isn`t. We already know, empirically, how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere from the Keeling Curve. And from isotopes, how much of that is anthropogenic and how much of it is part of the natural carbon cycle. What Xia et al. are suggesting is that climate models may be able to be further refined, and the study`s granularity is a pretty good indication of how evolved the science has become.

    `A` for effort on your part. You never fail to regurgitate the most convincingly misguided information on the internet.
  109. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 10:56 am
    @Squrlz4Sale: "Xia et al. is a great test for how well someone understands climate science because the key point underlying the study isn`t stated explicitly and takes some background knowledge of the topic to understand."

    Sorry to disagree with you yet again but he comes to the conclusion that the current models are not precise and that there was less carbon output because of photosynthetic overcompensation, resulting in a negative feedback. Your so called "background knowledge" can take that anyway you want. I personally believe what the man specifically states in writing about what he is doing and the results in his paper. I`m sorry, but any opinions after that are just that, opinions.

  110. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 11:05 am
    "As far as their statement that this analysis of soil respiration isn`t a suggestion of a positive feedback, of course it isn`t. "

    Yet this is what you implied when you said "Climate models may be underestimating the production of CO2 by soil respiration."




    "What Xia et al. are suggesting is that climate models may be able to be further refined"

    I`ll agree with that.



    "`A` for effort on your part. You never fail to regurgitate the most convincingly misguided information on the internet."

    Lol, I simply copied and pasted what was written in black and white in the study, not what I said. And cited his partners study that comes to the same conclusion.
    If you`re talking about the Berner study, it has been peer-review, confirmed, published in the American Journal of Science, and cited in multiple other peer-reviewed studies, which I can link if you wish.
  111. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 11:12 am
    @ Richanddead: Rather than explain why you aren`t understanding the key point behind Xia et al., I have a simple, honest question for you:

    Have you ever read an introductory book on climate science?
  112. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 11:28 am
    Perhaps it is you who is regurgitating "the convincingly misguided information on the internet."

    Reading the actual studies is important and going only to admittedly biased sites like skeptical science is never a good idea. Once in a while is fine but remember little squirrel, biased science is always bad science. :)

    "Have you ever read an introductory book on climate science?"

    Yes, but honestly it was quite inadequate by both our standards. It was a couple of textbooks for the "Environmental Science" major that I was apart of in Loch Raven Academy which is a middle school in Maryland. I`m not saying they were great, because they weren`t they were outdated, nor did I acquired my knowledge or point of view from them. Yet I also don`t believe that impairs me from reading what a person wrote in their own study. Neither of us are an authority on the subject, yet you know I feel about Appeals to authority.
  113. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 11:44 am
    There were also some books that I skimmed on how weather affects fauna at Cromwell Valley Park when I worked as a naturalist there.

    Yet looking at them, I think I would like "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World`s Top Climate Scientists" and "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don`t Want You to Know." Oh yes, and definitely picking up "Climate Change, Climate Science and Economics." Thx squrlz been looking for a new book.

    Now I have a simple, honest question for you:

    Have you ever read an introductory book on geology or paleontology?
  114. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 11:46 am
    @ Richanddead: I`ll take that as a "No." I was referring to books you might have read as an adult, as opposed to something you might have read in Seventh Grade.

    The problem here, Richanddead, is that although you are smart--I`d never say otherwise--you don`t have the background knowledge to evaluate much of the science. You aren`t reading books by actual scientists, you`re spending your time on highly partisan, right-wing websites run by ideologues.

    You mention "Skeptical Science." It`s a great website, and I do visit it. But for every hour I spend online on websites or blogs, I probably spend five hours reading actual books.

    If you`d like to develop a basic understanding of climate science, I`d recommend Tony Eggleton`s introduction.

    Eggleton, T. (2012). "A Short Introduction to Climate Change." Amazon link.
  115. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm
    @ Richanddead: "Have you ever read an introductory book on geology or paleontology?"

    Funny you should ask. One of my better reads in 2012 was Tattersall`s primer below.

    Tattersall, I. (2010). "Paleontology: A Brief History of Life." Amazon link.

    It was an awesome overview, and I recommend it. Now, admittedly, that`s just one book. But then I don`t spend a lot of time online attacking the work of mainstream paleontologists as you do with the work of climatologists. If I did, I`d be reading a boatload to make sure my crusade wasn`t misguided.
  116. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 12:33 pm
    "you don`t have the background knowledge to evaluate much of the science. You aren`t reading books by actual scientists, you`re spending your time on highly partisan, right-wing websites run by ideologues."

    Hold up there, I look at all types of websites, I like to fully understand what I`m writing about before I say something, first off.

    Secondly, I have read several books on Volcanology, Geology, and Paleontology that look at millions of years of climate and show much greater temperature variations.

    Despite this, I only comment on what I`ve learned from multible sources, whether I learned it from the web, C-span, scientific studies, or books. But I will not accept books simply because they have one type of view. I look at them all. I`ve already downloaded "A Short Introduction to Climate Change" the book you suggested on my kindle. But if you have a problem with something I`ve written, please cite your hypothesis and data.
  117. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm
    Again, you know my feelings on appeals to authorities, and no offence but I don`t consider either of us authorities either. But if you have facts and data that you learned from your book, I look forward to it.

    I will be back shortly, I need to walk my dog. But I look forward to what you write.
  118. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm
    @ Richanddead: Hey, if you`ve downloaded Eggleton, I`m encouraged. I just hope you`re able to read it without the words "LYING SCIENTIST CORRUPTED BY RESEARCH GRANTS" running through your head.

    Shall we return to Xia et al.?
  119. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 2:29 pm
    And I`m back...


    " I just hope you`re able to read it without the words "LYING SCIENTIST CORRUPTED BY RESEARCH GRANTS" running through your head."

    I promise you I won`t, but I will review all of his claims thoroughly and specifically any data he uses.


    "Shall we return to Xia et al.?"

    Yes, I want to hear this. I want to know how I`m incorrect despite pulling the words directly out of his study.
  120. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    @ Richanddead: I do hope you`re able to read Eggleton without prejudice. I once tried discussing Mann`s "Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" with a skeptic and it proved a waste of time. He eventually admitted he hadn`t read it but "skimmed a couple chapters then threw it aside because it was propaganda."

    By all means, check Eggleton`s data and references. You may be pleased to learn that he`s not a climatologist, but a retired geologist who decided to look into AGW himself and find out if there was any merit to it or if it was a hoax. So it should be right up your alley.

    Regarding Xia et al., yes, you quote from the authors` conclusion. But understanding the significance of what they`re saying depends on something any climatologist knows, but (for that reason) they don`t state explicitly. Not understanding this, a layperson misses the study`s main point.

    Still there? Like Pandora, I don`t like playing to an empty room. :-)
  121. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    "Mann`s "Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars"

    You already know my position on that and why.

    "By all means, check Eggleton`s data and references."
    I already checked on Eggleton and his funding from CRC for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration. But I will wait for his data.


    "Still there? Like Pandora, I don`t like playing to an empty room"

    Oh yes, and I am helping cook dinner but I am here on my phone.
  122. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm
    @ Richanddead: "Oh yes, and I already checked on Eggleton and his funding from CRC for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration."

    Oh, you busy little beaver, you!

    In keeping with the fun of the other night, I`ll put the question to you in Jeopardy format. Since the question is Climate Science 101, you should be able to answer this off the top of your head.

    Alex Trebek: "But remember, Diedrich, to put your response in the form of a question!"




  123. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm
    Alex Trebek: "And while we`re waiting for Diedrich to come up with his response--*cough*google*cough*--we`ll just listen to this."
  124. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    What is: Alarmists say everything from shrinking thermosphereand cooling stratosphere to coral samples, neither I agree with.
  125. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    @ Richanddead:

    Alex Trebek: "Well, Diedrich, it`s been 10 minutes since we put our Final Jeopardy question to you. What have you got?"


  126. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    Again I`m on my pooty phone.



    ps. why is your name red?
  127. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    and cooking
  128. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    you have 4 minutes before i serve dinner, then we`ll have to wait. plz hurry
  129. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:46 pm
    @ RichandDead:

    "No, Diedrich, I`m afraid that`s incorrect. The correct answer was:

    What is a greater amount of nighttime warming than daytime warming?

    To explain, I`ll pass the baton to Squrlz in the next post. Thanks for playing!"

  130. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    @ Richanddead: I have to get dinner here also--so I`ll see you in an hour or so if you`d like to continue.
  131. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm
    yep
  132. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    @ Richanddead: Give a shout when you`re ready to continue. I`m reading and don`t want to give up the time unless you`re online.
  133. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm
    Sorry, I`m off to bed, I have work in 2 hours. I`ll read what you write tomorrow and continue at that time, yet with regards to what you said:

    "What is a greater amount of nighttime warming than daytime warming?"

    I have to disagree with you again, this is not the signature to greenhouse gasses. Research has shown that an increase in cloudiness has warmed nights more than days. During the day, clouds both warm and cool, as they act like a blanket to reflect heat back to the surface (warming), but they also reflect sunlight back to space (cooling). At night, they only warm temperatures, acting like an insulating blanket. Thus, nights warm more than the days, and this is exactly what climate models predict.



  134. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 6:52 pm
    Here is a link, it`s Peer reviewed and entered into the Journal Of Climate and I think you`ll find even climate scientists who believe in AGW also agree with this study:

    LINK

    There supposed to be more snow tonight, that will slow me down. Yet I should be back by 10 am if you want to continue then. Or if you have a more preferable time such as later in the day thats fine just let me know. Or just touch and go thats fine. I`ll still read it, I still want to hear what you have to say.
  135. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 17, 2014 at 7:18 pm
    @ Anyone Reading This Thread: Is it just me, or is this a "You`ve *got* to be kidding me!" moment?

    I don`t mean to be rude, but when you give a person an answer to a basic--and I mean *basic* question--regarding climate science, and in their improbable attempt to refute it they indicate they don`t understand how greenhouse gases work--

    I mean, where does it end?

    No worries. After I get more reading done, before I turn in I`ll explain to Diedrich how the greenhouse effect works and explain why nights on Earth don`t become fiercely cold like they do on the Moon.

    Even though I half-expect Diedrich will respond with, "I hate to disagree with you, but I found a study indicating the Moon has more of an atmosphere than Earth," followed by a link to an article that, in fact, discusses something else. *sigh*
  136. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
    "I don`t mean to be rude"

    I don`t see why you need to be, I haven`t been rude to you. We are just discussing what we`ve learned, people can easily have a discussion without resorting to being rude.

    "but when you give a person an answer to a basic--and I mean *basic* question--regarding climate science, and in their improbable attempt to refute it they indicate they don`t understand how greenhouse gases work-- I mean, where does it end?"

    It ends when you finally explain this "background knowledge" you claim to have, and how it refutes what I`ve cited from the literal text of the study.

    "before I turn in I`ll explain to Diedrich how the greenhouse effect works"

    Are you still up? I already know the greenhouse effect, how it traps heat, and how it has pulled us out of a couple of "snowball earths." I even know that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, this has nothing to do with my conten
  137. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 8:11 am
    "Even though I half-expect Diedrich will respond with, "I hate to disagree with you, "

    Well, this is a discussion, you already knew my position, and I`ve already stated that I don`t consider you or I authorities. Did you think I wasn`t going to research what you said or would have the same opinions as you? Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.


    "followed by a link to an article that, in fact, discusses something else."

    You asserted that "This is a signature of green housewarming vs. warming by increased solar activity... greater amount of nighttime warming than daytime warming."

    Well if you read the study, it goes over that an increase in cloudiness has warmed nights more than days by trapping solar radiation.
    The paper states that atmospheric water vapor combined with solar radiation has the main effect on nighttime temperature.
  138. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 9:00 am
    This is in direct contention with what you said because firstly, the solar activity has an impact on the warming by increasing the solar radiation and therefore is not excluded. I`m sure you would agree that in winter when solar radiation is low, the nights will not become balmy due to simply gasses. The gasses must trap the heat from the solar radiation and radiation increases and decreases depending on location, time, and solar activity.

    Secondly, its the effects of the water cycle like soil moisture, precipitation, and clouds that determine nighttime warming and cooling, not all greenhouse gasses. Can all greenhouse gases increase nighttime warming, I suppose they can in a general sense (not talking things like type, altitude, or location into account), but they also increase daytime warming. Nighttime warming in particular is not the signature of greenhouse gasses in general but only one, and it`s not even always in the form of greenhouse gas, it`s water.
  139. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 9:00 am
    I merely have a problem with your premise, thats all, if you wish to just skip it and just continue to state your whole hypothesis, I won`t press the issue. I don`t plan on convincing you of anything, we both seem too grounded in our positions for that to take place in one conversation or about one particular disagreement. As I said before "I`ll still read it, I still want to hear what you have to say." Lets not get bogged down in rudeness or personal attacks, there is a million other places for that.

    Now after you`re done, we can continue our discussion or if you wish you can simply leave, thats fine either way. But I want to know what this "background knowledge" is, even if I don`t agree with it. I also want to know how you feel this knowledge makes me incorrect about Xia et al. despite pulling the words directly out of his study.
  140. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    @ Richandead: I wouldn`t say my post last night was *rude*, although it verges on it. A better adjective might be *exasperated*.

    Let`s review and see why I might be exasperated, shall we?

    1. You seem to have taken up a pastime of attacking the work of mainstream climatologists, usually by cutting and pasting the charts and sentences (sometimes verbatim in a way that would get you in trouble in any graduate program) of various denialist websites, chief among them Steve McIntyre`s "Climate Audit." McIntyre in neither a scientist nor an academic (although he`d like you to think he is).

    2. I asked you if you had read a single introductory work on climate science. You have not. Most people, if they had developed a hobby of attacking the work of professional scientists on a topic about which they haven`t read a single book, might experience a moment of humility at this point. Yet it doesn`t seem to give you a moment`s pause.

    (Cont`d)
  141. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    (Cont`d)

    3. Regarding Xia et al., to appreciate the significance of their research you have to understand, as all climate scientists do, that global warming created by increased CO2 causes more warming at night than the daytime. The authors never go into the subject explicitly because this is such a basic concept of AGW theory it would be stating the obvious. In your description of this paper, it was clear to me that you weren`t understanding this basic point underlying the study, so I put the question to you, Jeopardy-style: This is the signature of greenhouse warming vs. warming caused by increased solar activity. The Jeopardy-style answer, of course, What is increased warming at nighttime relative to daytime?

    (Cont`d)
  142. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    (Cont`d)

    Another acceptable answer would have been, What is heating of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere? But in the context of Xia et al., anyone familiar with the basics of climate science would know I was referring to the difference in daytime and nighttime temperatures since Xia et al. *based their study around* this trait of greenhouse warming.

    4. Having provided you with the correct answer, I was--silly me--hoping it might have opened your eyes a bit and made you realize that perhaps you don`t know as much as you think you do from spending time on denialist websites. But no: Instead, you are actually unwilling to concede this basic signature of greenhouse warming and provide an argument that I can only describe as *muddled*.

    (Cont`d)
  143. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    (Cont`d)

    The study you reference, while, yes, it has to do with clouds and temperatures, in no way even attempts to refute the fact that greenhouse warming is more pronounced at nighttime than daytime.

    So, taking #1 through #4 together, yes, I`m exasperated.

    All this brings to mind another discussion I had with another IAB denialist, whose name I won`t mention because he isn`t here to defend himself. This individual believed that "most of the carbon in a barrel of oil is refined out of it." (That`s a direct quote, by the way.) In the course of trying to enlighten him as to what a hydrocarbon was, I actually stepped him through the math using the molecular weights and byproducts to demonstrate that, in fact, most of the carbon in a barrel of oil is *not* refined out of it and most of it winds up in the atmosphere. It had no effect on his thinking whatsoever.

    (Cont`d)
  144. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    (Cont`d)

    He also insisted that volcanoes dwarf man`s production of CO2, when--as anyone who bothers to visit the website of the U.S. Geological Survey can learn--exactly the opposite is true. To this day, he refuses to concede either point and I simply don`t enter into AGW discussions with him.

    Nowadays, most of my online discussions regarding AGW take place on a website dedicated to the science and frequented by practicing climatologists. Discussions there tend to be a lot more productive. IAB is, first and foremost, an entertainment website and while I enjoy dipping into the occasional serious subject, I prefer to discuss serious subjects with people who`ve invested the time and energy in learning the basics of the material and aren`t cribbing from blogs they`ve read.

    (Cont`d)
  145. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    (Cont`d)

    I do hope you read Eggleton and get something out of it. It would be a great start for you, particularly since you`ve already got some background in geology. That said, I`m not optimistic. Sadly, most deniers who believe that mainstream climatologists are dishonest or incompetent never come around.

    Well, I`ve gone on waaaaay too long here.

    Take care, keep submitting great content, and I`ll see you `round the site.
  146. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 4:04 pm
    It was a fun read Squirlz
  147. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 6:52 pm
    @ Richanddead: Diedrich, why don`t you take your dog for a walk and give the internet a rest? If I offended you, I apologize. You`re free to hold any views you want on climate change and peace be with you.

    For my part, I`ve already stated that I find extended AGW debates on IAB unproductive. This is primarily an entertainment website that people visit to have fun. Chill, dude.

  148. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 18, 2014 at 7:36 pm
    @ Richanddead: Your posts are disappearing because, for some reason, you seem to think that spamming IAB with post after contentious post arguing with a moderator is a good idea, even after the moderator told you to chill out.

    This comes not 10 days after you were warned about posting schematic plans for building a gun.

    I would encourage you to give IAB a rest tonight. You are a hair`s breadth away from being banned.
  149. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5879 posts
    February 19, 2014 at 7:35 am
    Squrlz4Sale-This comes not 10 days after you were warned about posting schematic plans for building a gun.

    Why does that warrant a warning? It`s not like a gun is a magical device that difficult to figure out or even build. You can find all kinds of schematics all over the webs. It`s not exaclty highly classified material.
  150. Profile photo of LadyMorgue
    LadyMorgue Female 30-39
    1516 posts
    February 19, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    I agree with MeGrendel on that.
  151. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:27 am
    Squrlz4Sale:

    Oh little Squirrel don`t you know that censorship is the height of vanity. You only admitted that you were unable to disprove what I was saying, it`s quite sad really. To go on a multi-post rant, with numerous straw man fallacies and other faulty logic, only to end up claiming that I was "spamming" the site with my views is self evident of such a fact. You even deleted comments from your supporters to hide what you did, meaning you knew why it was both hypocritical and wrong.

    I listened carefully to everything you wrote but it seems that you were unable to hear any view other than your own. There is no rule against posting comments or the diagram you mentioned, especially if they are civil.

    You always seem to conclude in the same way, childishness. Whether it be strings of ad-hominem attacks, straw-man fallacies, or just blatant censorship, it is beneath you and I urge you to change this within yourself.
  152. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:29 am
    Here is all my deleted posts:

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:13:05 PM
    @Squrlz4Sale: oh my the "knowledge comes forth. Lets take it frame by frame shall we.

    "I wouldn`t say my post last night was *rude*, although it verges on it."

    Actually you did say your you were rude infact thats how you begin your statement "I don`t mean to be rude, but..." You were the one who began the topic of your rudeness, I merely stated that we should have a discussion of the data and facts without rudeness.

    Anyways lets take your opinions by the numbers shall we.

    1) "You seem to have taken up a pastime of attacking the work of mainstream climatologists"

    Maybe thats all you know of me but you`ll find I chime in on multiple different types of posts. I do post on climate as well because it is a topic I enjoy and know something about. If this exasperates you then that seems to be your problem right there.
  153. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:30 am
    At some point you`re going to have to learn to deal with opinions that disagree with you, but I guarantee you it will only make your position stronger.

    "usually by cutting and pasting the charts and sentences (sometimes verbatim in a way that would get you in trouble in any graduate program) of various denialist websites,chief among them Steve McIntyre`s "Climate Audit."

    Lol, yes, I remember you said something like this before except you believed at that time it must have been C4 if I remember correctly. Honestly, I think this is because I`ve noted in multiple posts that you draw almost exclusively from SkepticalScience.com, which as we all know is a admittedly biased source.

    Never the less I`ll humor you. If you look at what I`ve posted on this post none of it came from climate audit at all, not one. Sorry but I get my information from a multitude of sources. Lets review them again shall we Squrlz.
  154. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:36 am
    This LINK came from Richard Tols Blog. This was not climate audit sorry.

    The next link for @MalcomR came from Popular Technology not climate audit sorry. I just wanted to expose @MalcomR to some peer-reviewed papers since he claimed he had never seen one. But again not climate audit.

    The R.A. Berner study I found before I had even found IAB although again this did not come from Climate audit. Again not from climate audit. It actually first came from checking the sources of the graph I posted from here. And yes, again it is not climate audit.
  155. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:39 am
    The Xia et al. I researched because you had asked and I was able to link Wan et al. because I actually read Xia et al., it cites it several times actually, but no, yet once again, this is not from climate audit.

    Lastly, I got this study from here. As you can see its definitely not climate audit and as you can see Phil Duffy, Climate Central`s chief scientist, also thinks warming is linked to clouds and not greenhouse gasses in general.

    But what`s that 0 links out of 6 came from climate audit. Honestly, I don`t know how you come to these conclusions. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I only go to one site.
  156. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:41 am
    "McIntyre in neither a scientist nor an academic"

    I know you have a personal hatred for McIntyre because he refuted Manns Hockey Stick and showed flaws in his statistics. I`m sorry Squrlz but he is a mathematician which made him perfectly qualified to review Manns statistics. To which his assessments were backed up by Esper and his discovery of the outlier Yamal data. A simple discriminant function analysis would have easily pointed this out but Mann did not do it for whatever reason, that was not McIntyre fault.

    Although, personally, I do feel your being quite hypocritical since it is you who has posted several links to Skeptical science pages written by Rob Honeycutt who has no scientific or mathematical background at all. He is plastic bag maker and former bike messenger.
  157. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 9, 2014 at 10:42 am
    I usually don`t bring it up because again you know my feelings on appeals to authority but since you constantly attack McIntyre. I felt I should just let you know how authorities you`ve mentioned in the past stack up, since I just usually let it slide.

    " Diedrich, why don`t you take your dog for a walk and give the internet a rest? "

    Oh no that`s ok, I got like 30 more minutes then I`ll turn it over to you, but first I`d like to address your accusations.

    "For my part, I`ve simply stated that I find extended AGW debates on IAB unproductive. This is primarily an entertainment website that people visit to have fun. Chill, dude."

    I disagree, I have had wonderfully in-depth conversations on here, and yes I have seen consensus where previously disagreement had first occurred. But don`t worry man, I don`t know if you got the wrong impression about what I said about rudeness, but I`m as cool as a cucumber, no worries.
  158. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    " I asked you if you had read a single introductory work on climate science. You have not. Most people, if they had developed a hobby of attacking the work of professional scientists on a topic about which they haven`t read a single book, might experience a moment of humility at this point. Yet it doesn`t seem to give you a moment`s pause. "

    I answered honestly, I focus my debates on the data at hand not simply relying on one source of data. I`ve listen to climate scientists debate on C-span, I use multiple sources on the web, I have read books on volcanology (my personal hobby), geology, and Paleontology. But mostly, I read the actual studies and form my own opinions instead of basing my opinion on other peoples think and I always cite links. Plus as you know if a person can point out where I`m wrong and I agree, I will openly and freely admit it and wish the person kudos.
  159. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    And finally...

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:24:41 PM

    Why are all my posts disappearing? I have them all saved, I am just wondering, this is the first I`ve seen of it.
  160. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    I can and will say my part, and I will always be respectful of your views, but you can not simply delete mine. Remember this little squirrel...

    "Censorship is saying: `I`m the one who says the last sentence. Whatever you say, the conclusion is mine.` But the internet is like a tree that is growing. The people will always have the last word, even if someone has a very weak, quiet voice."

    -Ai Weiwei
  161. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    May 17, 2015 at 12:27 am
    (cont.)

    It is one of the dirty little practices used by doctors who aren`t very good and don`t know what they are doing. It isn`t for the inmates benefit in anyway. A lot of crappy doctors go to work for the prison contractors because they can do those sorts of things and still draw a paycheck.

    The administrators are sort of aware of such practices but it is impossible to prove and by law they have to keep a certain amount of doctors on hand, and most Doctors don`t want to apply to a position where the patients are willing to attack them, so they have deal with the doctors they have.

    The bad Doctor can always claim the proper tools weren`t sterilized, say they felt ill, or any number of other excuses. Often the schedulers will try to direct only inmates that the Doctor has the ability to work on without getting sued. Its not something talked about, but it`s something that is sort of known by the Doctors who work there.

Leave a Reply