Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by burlesontiger, Oct 9, 2009.

Page 17 of 17
  1. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    but the IPCC says hurricanes will intensify!

    but true enough, it isnt proven. but among the hurricane research community, there is consensus, which i know you love. and that consensus is exactly opposite what you are saying. hurricanes will not increase in frequency, they will lessen! you are exactly and horribly wrong.


    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes

    "Consensus statements by the workshop participants"

    "recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate "

    why havent those scientists red red's opinion? he says warm water means more hurricanes!


    "worked" in what sense? reducing carbon emissions? even if i concede that the cap an d trade does do that, and it very well might just send emissions to countries that dont mind and in fact increase emissions overall, i dont concede that there is enough evidence that carbon is bad. i also dont concede that we will not prosper as a species in a warmer climate, or that we should even want to stop warming, if it intends to start up again and keep happening. but you know everyting, right? you have all the answers! you know that carbon is the problem and we can stop it. no matter the other consequences, you have an impossibly complex system figured out!
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #161
  2. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    well, just for chits and giggles i'll throw in something i stumbled across. I have to confess i don't really understand the material fully so Red if you could expain what it means, i would appreciate it.

    Did Mann in fact use all four of these things upside down?

    the link:


    IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down? Watts Up With That?
     
    flabengal, Oct 20, 2009
    #162
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Because red was citing Emmanuel! And the hurricane guys are already familiar with him.

    The fact that warm oceans cause cyclonic activity is not disputed. The dispute is whether AGW contributes to ocean warming. :lol:

    It worked to reduce sulphur emissions without requiring industries to meet a hard deadline to make changes. It allowed new industries with efficient plants to help pay for them by selling sulphur credits to industries with older plants not meeting standards. This allows the older plants time enough to modernize at a pace that they can afford. Net result? The country has reduced acid rain and has modernized industry with more efficient plants without forcing them to make changes at an arbitrary date.

    Why? You ask a lot of questions, answer one for once.

    Too bad. New Orleans, Manhattan, and London underwater makes sea level rise a concern to thinking people.

    Absolutely. Why don't you?
     
    red55, Oct 20, 2009
    #163
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    well, technically the current understanding is that a warmer earth would mean less frequent, but slightly more powerful 'canes. but lets not go placing bets just yet.

    hey that is wonderful. what is the advantage of reducing carbon emissions?

    i am glad you noticed. i think we humans need to ask more and pretend we understand everything less. particularly when manipulating public policy that might have disastrous economic implications. and i dont think we can underestimate how much economic development is the most important thing the world needs right now.

    yunno, i honestly just think these folks in the risky places should just shut the hell up and move somewhere safer if they cant deal with the risk. the new orleans problem could self correct and has to some extent in that people simply moved away. i live a few blocks from the east river (which is not a river, but a tidal strait), if it rises and i have to move, so be it. but lets wait until the threat of that is real and then decide if we can or should try to stop it.

    i just dont. climate is one of many systems that has so many factors involved that i think it is foolish to assume you the causes and effects sorted.
     
    martin, Oct 20, 2009
    #164
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas emission that we have the most control over.

    That is an evasion of the question. You said that there is not enough evidence to concede that carbon is bad. I asked you why? Its a simple question and It has nothing to do with policy or the economy.

    The threat is real enough. You want to wait until the battle is lost before attempting to address it?

    I'm sorry it's over your head. It should make you more careful about what you advocate.
     
    red55, Oct 21, 2009
    #165
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    First of all, I'm not about to try to defend or challenge each and every blog you can dig up that addresses climate change. If you won't accept the published and peer-reviewed conclusions of the IPCC and the huge list of National Science Societies and Foundations that support it, indeed not even recognize that concensus exists, then why should I accept a single dissenting blogger?

    Secondly, I'm not about to have a discussion with an article. If you want to use an article to argue a point yourself, feel free. Just don't cite one and demand that I address it.

    Without going into the dissenting blogospheres and trying to sort out the nuances, two things seem apparent at a glance.

    1. Like the "hockey-stick" argument before it, these people are arguing about the shape of the handle. It does not invalidate the sharp rise of the blade indicating the immense 20th century increase.

    2. It doesn't matter if you invert a graph curve, as long as you invert the scale that accompanies it, and this has been done as far as I can see. In this fashion, no data is changed. There is no rule that says that positive must be up and negative must be down or left or right. There is one that says that this must be clearly labeled . . . and it is.

    Amusingly, The IPCC graph that is depicted at the top as being "upside down" shows just how closely Mann's curves correspond with those of other researchers. That graph is part of a humorous internet article and was not used in MacIntires blog criticism--which is not a peer-reviewed paper, by the way.

    As Revkin reminds us: "What is novel about all of this is how the blog discussions have sidestepped the traditional process of peer review and publication, then review and publication of critiques, and counter-critiques, by which science normally does that herky-jerky thing called knowledge building."
     
    red55, Oct 21, 2009
    #166
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    and why would we want to reduce it again? when there were far greater concentrations than there are now, was the earth unlivable? how do you know it wasnt better and more fertile?

    you are asking me why there isnt enough evidence? i am speaking to the lack of evidence! there is nothing to explain, thats what i am saying! you are the one pushing for change, you are the one who needs to demonstrate that carbon is worse than the negative economic effects brought upon by restricting it.

    this is how you justify perverting science for political purposes. with scare tactics.

    it is over all our heads. one thing that humans tend to do is pretend to understand things they dont.

    which scientists gets more funding and a louder voice? the guy who is honest and claims the answers are unclear, or the one who calls for drastic action? publication bias and funding bias are creating this whole scam.
     
    martin, Oct 21, 2009
    #167
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    All answered before on many other threads. We've derailed this thread enough already and I tire of beating old dead horses with you. Have you no new delusions that I can lampoon?
     
    red55, Oct 21, 2009
    #168
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    let me check inside my brain for a sec...nope, i dont see any more lampoonable delusions in here.

    continue ruining science by teaching scientists that with the proper conclusions they can manipulate politicians.
     
    martin, Oct 21, 2009
    #169
Page 17 of 17

Share This Page