Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

AG Warming: Evidence left out!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AG Warming: Evidence left out!

    I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article surprised me. Even shocking.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  • #2
    Ouch...

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #3
      It's a PRATT.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        It's a PRATT.
        It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
          It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.
          The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.
          Last edited by Truthseeker; 07-27-2014, 03:43 PM.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.
            Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

            Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

            And you're posting this in Civics.

            You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.

            As ever, Jesse

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

              Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

              And you're posting this in Civics.

              You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.
              Why should any of us care about where your refutation is posted, since you can ad hom, post weakly related links, and brag about the inevitable victory of the invisible pink scientific consensuses here or there? Nat Sci is unofficially creation vs. evolution only, there's like only one or two actual global warming threads there, and the most interesting one by Glenn Morton has been lost to the ages. Fight here or fight elsewhere and link there, or shut up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Show us how you came to decide that the author of the paper that contained the estimate of an 80-year lag is a kook. Of course it couldn't simply be because you simply disagreed with the paper's conclusion
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article surprised me. Even shocking.
                  Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
                  “Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
                  http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
                  “Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
                  http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
                  Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
                  https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
                    “Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
                    http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
                    “Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
                    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
                    Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
                    https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/
                    That made me read this (by Rawls): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/2...-unscientific/
                    Now, the paper by Rawls that made me create this thread was published in 2012. Since then, he has not retracted the paper. Indeed he continues to make serious charges against the AGW crowd.
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Maranatha, Yesterday, 10:58 PM
                    5 responses
                    50 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post casaba
                    by casaba
                     
                    Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:56 PM
                    3 responses
                    31 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Ronson
                    by Ronson
                     
                    Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:32 AM
                    13 responses
                    80 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seanD
                    by seanD
                     
                    Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:11 AM
                    1 response
                    32 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:28 AM
                    1 response
                    33 views
                    1 like
                    Last Post Ronson
                    by Ronson
                     
                    Working...
                    X